Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.hp.521 E Hyman Ave.0063.2011.aslu.INCOMPLETESAI COMMUNITY r� DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ASPEN CASE NUMBER 0063 2011.ASLU PROJECT ADDRESS 521 E HYMAN AVE PARCEL ID 2737 18 2 54 001 PLANNER AMY SIMON/JEN PHELAN CASE DESCRIPTION AN APPEAL REPRESENTATIVE GARFIELD & HETCH DATE OF FINAL 09.21.2011 ACTION CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY 0 0 27 37 - File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help J ix Ii/ ��, • ,�� � •� ']_j` lumpl •�� d t/: PRouting Status Fees Fee Summary Man l fictions Attachments Rout ng History YaUtion ArchjEng Custom Fields Sub Permits Parcels o Permit type aslu Aspen Land Use Perri t 063.2011.ASLU N — Address 521 E HYMAN AVE pptJS o City Q ASPEN State Zp 81611 x Permit Information Master permit Routing queue aslu07 Appy 705,710— z Project z a Status pendng Approved m Dew pilon y NOTICE OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 26.316.030 & 26.415.120 OF THE Issued ASPEN LAND USE CODE ASPEN CORE VENTURES, LLC ClosOFM Submitted IGARFIELD & HECHT 9251936 W Running Days 70 Eges 9,2912012 Submilted via ONner Last name ASPEN CORE VENTURES, L First name C,O ANDREW HECHT 601 EAST HYMAN AVE Phone Address ASPEN CO 81611 Applicant © Owner is apphcard? Contractor is applioanl? Last name iASPEN CORE VENTURES, _ First name CIO ANDREiJ HE.m- 601 EAST HYMAN AVE Phone I(J Cust # 29136 Address ASPEN CO 81611 Lender Last name First name Phone (� Address Aspen&& (servefJ angelas _ G 1 of 1 -�3y--cR�) 9 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Chris Bendon November 14, 2011 Page 2 of 6 0 As part of the request, the Applicant shall provide the City a letter indicating its understanding of the 90 -day negotiation period under Section 26.415.025.0.1. The letter will also indicate the Applicant's understanding that the ninety day negotiation period may be extended an additional thirty days upon a resolution adopted by City Council, or longer, if mutually acceptable to both City Council and the Applicant. Pursuant to Section 26.316.030.B of the Aspen Land Use Code, all proceedings in furtherance of the previous actions by the HPC approving the demolition of the Little Annie's Building and denying demolition of the Benton Building and denials shall be stayed. As a result, the Applicant and the City stipulate and agree that City Council shall not conduct any further review of the Pending Application during the ninety day negotiation period. In particular, no public hearings shall be held in connection with Applicant's pending appeal of the adverse decisions by the HPC on Wednesday, September 21, 2011, approving demolition of the Little Annie's building and denying demolition approval for the Benton Building during the 90 -day negotiation period and any extension thereof. Similarly, no further public hearings shall be held on the City Councils' "call up" of the HPC's decision approving demolition of the Little Annie's Building during the 90 -day negotiation period and any extension thereof. Therefore, the continued public hearing scheduled for Monday, November 28, 2011, shall be tabled. The Applicant and the City of Aspen stipulate and agree that the four - to -one vote on Wednesday, November 2, 2011, by City Council finding that the HPC did not exceed its jurisdiction by requiring the Little Annie and Benton Buildings to submit to demolition approval review under Section 26.415.080 was not a final decision of the City Council pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(b) because City Council has not yet adopted a resolution upholding the denial of the demolition of the Benton Building. The Applicant and the City also stipulate and agree to waive any requirement under Section 26.316.030.0 of the Aspen Land Use Code that City Council hear the pending appeal and "call up" within 30 days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal by the Applicant and the "call-up" by City Council. Both parties stipulate and agree that further consideration of the 758178v1 & Printed on recycled paper 0 • GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Chris Bendon November 14, 2011 Page 3 of 6 pending appeal and "call up" is not practical within 30 days of the filing of the pending appeal and "call-up" because of the commencement of the 90 -day negotiation period. Within the 90 -day negotiation period, the following shall occur. The Community Development Director shall continue to meet with the Applicant to discuss the City's historic preservation program and benefits that the Subject Properties may be eligible to receive if designated as Historic Landmarks. The Community Development Director shall then confer with the HPC at a public meeting regarding the Applicant's request for Historic Landmark designation and the nature of the Subject Properties. The Applicant shall be provided notice of this meeting. Pursuant to Section 26.316.030.B, no further action shall be taken at this public meeting by the HPC in furtherance of the demolition approval of the Little Annie Building that is the subject of the pending "call-up," the denial of the demolition of the Benton Building that is the subject of the pending appeal or review of the Pending Application that currently provides for the demolition of the Subject Properties. The HPC shall then provide City Council with an assessment of the Subject Properties' conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.0.1 of the Aspen Land Use Code. If any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 of the Aspen Land Use Code are requested by the Applicant, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation and any different development that is concurrently proposed as part of the negotiation meet the policy objectives for the historic preservation program as stated at Section 26.415.010 of the Aspen Land Use Code. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the Subject Properties are a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 201h century historic resources. The Community Development Director shall then confer with City Council regarding the concurrently proposed land use development, the nature of the Subject Property, and the staff and HPC's assessment of its 7581.7Svl ® Printed on recycled paper Li GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Chris Bendon November 14, 201.1 Page 4 of 6 E historic significance. The Applicant shall be provided notice of this meeting. Pursuant to Section 26.316.030.B, no further action shall be taken at this meeting by the HPC in furtherance of the demolition approval of the Little Annie Building that is the subject of the pending "call-up," the denial of the demolition of the Benton Building that is the subject of the pending appeal or review of the Pending Application that currently provides for the demolition of the Subject Properties. Because of the stayed appeal and "call-ups" regarding the approval of the demolition of the Little Annie's Building and the denial of the demolition of the Benton Building appeal, all communications between the Applicant and City Council regarding the Subject Properties shall occur at public hearings. Therefore, City Council shall direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the Applicant to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the Subject Properties. As part of any mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Aspen Land Use Code and may award any approval that is normally assigned to another Board or commission, including variations. City Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the Subject Properties are identified as a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20tH century history and shall also seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process. The monetary value of benefits being requested shall be defined, to the extent possible. City Council shall seek compatibility of any different development proposal with the neighborhood surrounding the Subject Properties. If benefits are awarded as part of the negotiations, City Council shall require that the Subject Properties be designated as a Historic Landmarks, pursuant to the standards and limitations of Section 26.415.030, titled "Designation of Historic Properties." 758178v1 ® Printed on recycled paper 0 0 GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C. Chris Bendon November 14, 2011 Page 5 of 6 As part of any mutually acceptable agreement, City Council may choose to require the Pending Application that currently contemplates the demolition of the Subject Properties to be withdrawn. The Applicant and the City stipulate and agree all actions taken to commence negotiations under Section 26.415.025.0 of the Aspen Land Use Code, including the request to include the Subject Properties on the Aspen Modern Map and the request for Historic Designation; and any negotiations or meeting occurring during the 90 -day negotiation period or any extension thereof shall not be part of the record established by the HPC from which the pending "call-up" of the approval of the demolition of the Little Annie's Building and the pending appeal of the denial of the demolition of the Benton Building were taken. If the parties fail to reach a mutually acceptable agreement during the 90 -day negotiation period and any further extensions thereof, the request for Historic Landmark Designation shall automatically extinguish and the Applicant may proceed with its Pending Application seeking issuance of a development order upon compliance with all provisions of the Aspen Land Use Code. The City Council or the Applicant may choose to terminate negotiations at any time. If negotiations are terminated, a public hearing on the pending appeal and "call-up" shall be scheduled within 30 days of the termination of negotiations. Both the City and the Applicant reserve all claims and defenses relating to the pending appeal and "call-up." In particular, the Applicant reserves all rights to seek reversal of the denial of demolition approval for the Benton Building and the City reserves all rights to seek reversal of the HPC decision approving demolition of the Little Annie's Building. If the negotiations terminate and the Applicant proceeds with further review of the Pending Application, the version of the City of Aspen Land Use Code and Aspen Area Community Plan in effect at the time of the filing of the Pending Application on August 5, 2011, shall apply. No amendments or modifications to the Aspen Land Use Code or the Aspen Area Community 758178v1 ® Printed on recycled paper 0 0 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Claris Bendon November 14, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Plan adopted subsequent to August 5, 2011, shall apply to the Applicant's Pending Application. ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO AS TO PROPOSED PROCEDURE AND STIPT TT ,ATTONS, 9#0 Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 7ss»svt Andrew V. Hecht, Garfield & Hecht Attorneys for Applicant APPROVED AS TO FORM Jon orcester, City Attorney ® Printed on recycled paper Special Meeting Aspen City Council November 2, 2011 Mayor Ireland called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM with Councilmembers Frisch, Skadron, Johnson and Torre present. Mayor Ireland noted there are two issues on the agenda, appeal of passage of HPC resolutions regarding Little Annie's and the Benton building and whether HPC had jurisdiction. Mayor Ireland suggested the jurisdiction issue be deal with first. Council agreed. Chris Bendon, community development department, said this meeting is to review two decisions by the HPC - one a decision to not allow demolition of the Benton building and second - a decision to allow demolition of the Little Annie's building. Bendon noted both buildings are located in the commercial core historic district and neither building is individually designated as a historic landmark. The applicant is appealing HPC's decision to not allow demolition of the Benton building. Council requested review "call up" of HPC's decision to allow Little Annie's building to be demolished. Council's discussion is whether HPC had jurisdiction, abused its discretion or denied due process. Bendon pointed out this is not a public hearing but is Council examination of the record of the HPC meeting and the work the HPC did. It is not an opportunity for new testimony or new documents. Bendon said allowing new testimony or new information is not fair to the applicant or to the HPC and staff has not forwarded additional correspondence to Council on this issue. Bendon told Council the applicant argues the HPC does not have jurisdiction over non- landmarked building in the commercial core historic district. Bendon noted the issue of jurisdiction be completed first because it applies to both buildings. After that, staff suggests a discussion on the action not to allow demolition of the Benton building and whether HPC abused its discretion or denied the applicant due process. The last issue will be Council's call up of the decision regarding Little Annie's. Councilman Johnson stated the building in which he does business may be owned by a partner of this proposal; however, Councilman Johnson said he can be impartial in this discussion. City Attorney John Worcester said he is satisfied Councilman Johnson has brought up a potential problem and the applicants are waiving any objection. Mayor Ireland asked who owns Aspen Core Ventures LLC. Stan Clauson, representing the applicants, told Council Nikos Hecht is a principle but he does not know the rest of the ownership structure. Mayor Ireland said it is a problem not knowing the owners and Council cannot determine conflict of interest if they don't know who owns the property. Clauson stated the applicants agree public comment is not appropriate in this type of hearing. Clauson said the applicant's premise is that neither building is on the list of designated historic properties and because of that HPC did not have jurisdiction over a demolition review. Clauson concurred that both properties are within the commercial core historic district and that HPC does have purview over development review. Clauson said HPC jurisdiction over demolition is limited to structures listed on the inventory. Clauson showed Council the pre -application conference summary which states the properties are not designated as historic but are located in the commercial core historic district. This statement is repeated in the code sections. Clauson told Council at the pre -application conference, staff asked the applicant to consider saving the Benton building and indicated the city did not have the authority to require it. Special Meeting Aspen City Council November 2 2011 Clauson presented exhibit 3, which has a heading of "commercial core historic district" with lists of specific properties and the ordinance that established those properties historic; this property is not on that list. Clauson said the heading is simply a heading, nothing more. Clauson noted nothing in the Aspen inventory that suggests a property not on the Main street historic district is de facto a designated property and only those properties added by ordinance to the Main street historic district are landmarked historic properties. Clauson showed exhibit 4, the staff memorandum of September 20th which states neither of these buildings is designated landmarks. Exhibit 5 reiterates that these buildings are not designated. Clauson noted nowhere in staff memorandum suggests that any and every structure within the Main street historic district is a designated structure and is subject to demolition review. Exhibit 10 is a chapter of the old code to show the definitions in 26.415 which contains a distinction between a designated property and a historic district and this has been the case throughout iterations of the land use code. Clauson said this goes back to 1988 when there were revisions to the land use code establishing a list of designated properties and a historic overlay district which is an area designated by city Council and historic landmark which is a structure designated by Council. Clauson said neither of these structures are on any list as a designated landmark. Clauson presented Ordinance #49, Series of 1974, which established lots and blocks that constitute the historic district and there are no provisions within that district that there are any restrictions against demolition and in 1974 this structure was eight years old and the notion that this was de facto made historic by establishment of a district in 1974 does not make sense. Clauson presented a distinct development approval, which was part of the code in effect until 2002 and staff contends because one is in the district they are defacto a landmark and subject for demolition review. Clauson showed language in the code stating that inclusion of the structure within an H historic overlay district shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of historic designation. Clauson reiterated being in a district does not make one a historic structure or on the list. Clauson showed another part of the old code discussing how development is handled, which was changed in 2002, and that no demolition of any structure included in the inventory of historic sites and structures shall be permitted unless approved by HPC, which clearly links approval for demolition and being on the list. Clauson stated neither property has ever been on that list. Clauson noted an older code, exhibit 24, in Ordinance #9, 1991, provides a list of exemptions for demolition of a structure within H, historic district and the first exemption is that the structure is not identified on the inventory of historic structures. Clauson told Council this was eliminated in 2002 and the code changed to eliminate the exemption and states only if it is on the list is it subject to review. Clauson showed a document on the state of Aspen Area 2008 relating to historic preservation with a sentence stating the city has 280 properties designated historic with a chart showing when properties were designated historic. The designations were all by ordinance and there is no ordinance that has designated either of these properties historic. Clauson said this property has not availed itself of any of the benefits of Aspen modern. Clauson presented the current code that historic properties are divided into two categories, Aspen Victorian and Aspen Modern, properties associated with Aspen's 20`h century history. This property is not on either list. Special Meeting Aspen City Council November 2, 2011 Clauson said in fairness some properties in the historic district are on the Aspen Modern list, like Mason & Morse. Clauson stated if being in the historic district means a property is protected, it would not need to be listed on the Aspen Modern list and being on this list confers significant benefits on properties, including a 90 day negotiations period. The Benton building and Little Annie's are not listed on Aspen Modern; they have no benefits under that ordinance. Clauson said because of the CC historic district, there is jurisdiction with respect to the redevelopment of the property and redevelopment should be consistent and compatible and supportive from historic resources in the district. Clauson stated the applicant does not believe the HPC does not have jurisdiction over demolition review. Amy Guthrie, community development department, noted the memorandum identified 5 examples of non -individually landmarked buildings where HPC exercised jurisdiction over demolition. Ms. Guthrie noted that the historic preservation program was established in 1972; Council created a Historic Preservation Commission, gave them standards and guidelines and explained how properties and districts would be designated historic. The commercial core historic district was created in 1974. There was a letter sent to property owners in the proposed district explaining the public hearings and that in a historic district all land, vacant or otherwise, come under the supervision of the HPC and no permits for demolition of any structure within the district will be allowed without review. There is proof letters were sent to twoof the owners of these properties that they would be included in a historic district. A notice of designation was recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk showing this property was in a historic district. Ms. Guthrie noted the current code in 26.415.030(a) describes the establishment of the historic district which formally recognizes properties including districts have special significance. Ms. Guthrie noted the inventory includes districts. Ms. Guthrie showed a map depicting properties within HPC purview, showing the commercial core district is included. Section 26.415.080 of the current code says, "demolition of designated historic properties" no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC, which is the jurisdiction for historic review. Another section of the current code, 26.415.060 Effect of designation, also notes that being located in a historic district requires review. Ms. Guthrie told Council in the pre -application process, staff identified that demolition review would be necessary. The applicant referred to a public handout which also identifies the historic district is on the inventory and under HPC purview. Councilman Johnson asked how the work on Ordinance 48 and Aspen modern, which is voluntary, apply to this situation. Ms. Guthrie 'said. there has not been a proposal to include this in Aspen Modern; that would be the applicant's decision to participate in Aspen Modern. HPC merely discussed the demolition proposal and found it did not meet the standards. Councilman Johnson said the point of Aspen Modern was not to force people into involuntary designation and what makes this different. Ms. Guthrie said this property is located in a historic district and did not mandate this be brought into Aspen modern but that demolition criterion was not met. Bendon said Ordinance #48 was not to extend the historic designation to properties unless that was the property owner's desire. Councilman Frisch asked if one buys a building in the historic district, they should assume it has to go through HPC. Ms. Guthrie said yes. The process for land marking individual sites Special Meeting Aspen City Council November 2.2011 happened before the inventory was created. Councilman Johnson said if someone received a c/o today for a building in the district and wanted to tear it down tomorrow, would it be under HPC's review. Ms. Guthrie said if a site is in a historic district, it would have to be reviewed by HPC before a demolition permit would be issued. HPC has to make a determination based on criteria; they have jurisdiction over a new building by virtue of being in the district. Part of the criteria is whether a building makes a contribution to the overall historic district. Mayor Ireland said one argument is when the city adopted the list of buildings, the adoption of that list freed up building in the historic district unless they were specifically on that list. Clauson noted the code currently states only those buildings currently designated historic are subject to demolition review. Mayor Ireland said the argument is the effect of adopting Ordinance 48 is to change the existing historic districts. Clauson said Ordinance #48 reinforces his notion by identifying on a list those significant post WWII buildings; prior to Ordinance #48, the code states demolition review is subject to buildings on the inventory or on the list. Clauson said the basic issue is that this is not a historic structure and is not subject to HPC review before demolition. Mayor Ireland moved to go into executive session at 5:05 PM pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions; seconded by Councilman Torre. Dave Lenyo, Garfield & Hecht, asked who will be representing the city in the executive session. Worcester said he and Jim True, special counsel, will be representing the Council. Bendon reiterated the question, does HPC have jurisdiction over buildings in the historic district that are not individually designated and staffs opinion is that HPC does have jurisdiction. Clauson said they agree HPC has jurisdiction over development in this historic district; they do not agree HPC has jurisdiction within the district regarding demolition. Ms. Guthrie said the purpose of the district is to maintain the overall character; when the district was created there was notice and the city has proof.of that notice; the current code is clear that it includes both individual properties and historic districts. Councilmembers Johnson, Torre, Mayor Ireland in favor; Councilmembers Skadron and Frisch opposed. Motion carried. In the executive session are all Council, Kathryn Koch, John Worcester, Jim True, Chris Bendon and Amy Guthrie. Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive session at 5:35 PM; seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Ireland said taking public comments would be detrimental to the city's position should there be a lawsuit. Mayor Ireland moved to uphold the jurisdiction of the HPC on the ground that the district itself is listed on the historic list of Aspen inventory of historic structures, properties and district and therefore, the actions in 2002 and later did not disinclude or change the status of properties within historic districts; seconded by Councilman Skadron. 4 S eciaeetin Aspen City Council November 2 2011 Councilman Frisch said he would like to add clarity so this is not an issue again in the future. Mayor Ireland said to find that there was not jurisdiction would be to say 2002 had the effect of de -designating the historic district, which was not the intent or the language. Councilman Skadron agreed with staff that the purpose of the district was to maintain overall character. Councilman Skadron said clear notice of the effect of the historic designation was given and that 415.080 is the current law and that HPC has authority to review demolition. Councilman Johnson said he feels that 415.080 states properties designated on the inventory, which are specific lists of properties. Councilman Johnson said he does not see the list includes these properties. Councilman Johnson noted 415.030 mentions that the district are part of the historic area, however, the location of properties listed on the inventory is included. Clauson reiterated the reference to the inventory is very clear with respect to demolition. Clauson said it does not make any sense if everything in the historic district comes under the full purview of the HPC for purposes of demolition and to specifically name Aspen Modern properties within the district since everything within the district should come under that designation. Clauson asked if any of the 5 properties specified has having review had been denied demolition. Clauson said this property is not on the list although it is clearly Aspen Modern; it did not qualify for the list nor did it receive any benefits. All in favor with the exception of Councilman Johnson, motion carried. Clauson said the Benton building has been heavily altered over the years. Clauson noted the HPC has agreed with those alterations as they felt the building lacked historical significance. This building was not recommended for the Aspen Modern list, which also indicates the lack of importance of the building. Ms. Guthrie noted there is discussion in the HPC minutes of the significance of the building and how it did not meet the criteria for demolition. The staff memo discusses the history of the building; contains photographs and building documents records to support the findings of the HPC. Clauson reiterated changes were allowed to the building. Mayor Ireland asked if there is weight given to historic characters owning or using the building. Ms. Guthrie said that is a designation criteria. Mayor Ireland moved to uphold the HPC's decision on the Benton property; seconded by Councilman Tone. Councilman Frisch said he feels there are other ways to honor Tom Benton than by historic designation. Councilman Frisch noted this building has not'made any historic lists and it seems the community has decided the building is not worthy of historic designation. Ms. Guthrie noted staff did the research and created the list for Ordinance #48, Aspen Modern. Bendon said this list was not generated by the HPC and when HPC saw this project for demolition review, the HPC was asked to apply the criteria from the land use code for demolition of a non -historic building in a historic district; HPC found that criteria could not be met and did not approve demolition. Bendon noted this is a procedural question and staff is trying to provide advice on whether HPC had jurisdiction, whether they used their discretion within reason or did they abuse their discretion, did they provide due process. Bendon told Council staff feels those three standards were met not whether the decision was a good one or not. Special Meetine Aspen City Council November 2. 2011 Councilman Johnson said the Aspen Modern program has a way for the community to come together and determine what is appropriate to preserve. Councilman Johnson noted the community has paid tribute to Tom Benton by preserving the Crandall building. It is a struggle to preserve a heavily altered building. Councilman Johnson said he does not feel due process was followed, this property was never designated as an historic structure. Mayor Ireland said the due process issue is whether the applicants received a fair hearing and were allowed to present what they wanted to present. Councilman Skadron said the Benton architecture is rooted in this place and is not imported from somewhere else and imposed on the landscape; this is defined in the geometric shapes that mimic the natural surroundings. Councilman Skadron said he feels this building is important in defining Aspen's character, which relates to community values and to Aspen's past. Councilman Skadron said he will uphold the HPC decision on this property. Councilman Torre said he does not find abuse of discretion or Iack of due process and will also uphold HPC's decision. All in favor, motion carried. Bendon reminded Council this is not an appeal but is a call up of HPC's decision and the issues would be jurisdiction, due process, and abuse of discretion. Amy Guthrie, community development department, said there are some actions HPC makes where they are the final authority and staff has to notify Council of a decision so that Council can "call up" that decision. In September, HPC passed a resolution approving the demolition of the Little Annie building. Council was informed and at the next meeting Council voted in favor of calling up this action. Ms. Guthrie said Council's role is to evaluate HPC's decision making and whether they acted with jurisdiction and in due process. Ms. Guthrie said the demolition criteria talks about the structure and whether its demolition would affect the historic district. HPC does not have purview over local businesses. HPC discussed that the building of Little Annie's does not contribute to the historic district, the faux Western fagade is not consistent with Aspen's downtown. Staff recommends Council uphold HPC's action. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, agrees with staff that HPC acted properly. During the discussion at HPC they separated the feeling of the business from the criteria as to whether demolition was appropriate. Mayor Ireland noted the city does not have a code that protects businesses that the community wants; the code protects structures. Councilman Torre said under abuse of discretion, the HPC did not adequately follow the guidelines to approve demolition, the staff memo notes that all of following criteria must be met; the first being the structure does not contribute to the historic district. Councilman Torre said the character in Aspen relies on the variation in the streetscape. Criteria b states the loss of the building would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district and the loss of the building would adversely affect the integrity of the district. Councilman Torre said he understands that Council cannot preserve uses; however, the variation and uniqueness and the economic success of Aspen does rely on maintaining character on this street. Replacement of this building will adversely affect the downtown. Councilman Torre said in the business Aspen is in, people are attracted to Aspen because of character and charm and this building is part of that character and charm. Councilman Torre said buildings like this strengthen the viability and future of Aspen. 6 Special Meeting Aspen City Council November 2 2011 Councilman Skadron agreed a competitive advantage strengthens Aspen's viability and this grows out of intimacy in Aspen which is a function of scale and mass which is a function of preservation. Councilman Skadron said this building is part of the historic downtown district and demolishing would alter the character of this block and of the district. Councilman Skadron said there is a stewardship opportunity and the real value of this building is defined by the citizens of Aspen and that is "our place" and signifies Aspen's own special culture. Councilman Skadron agreed with the criteria mentioned by Councilman Torre and he does not find significant evidence that the criteria were met. Councilman Johnson said HPC voted 5 to 1 and took into account the guidelines and the criteria. Councilman Johnson stated he does not feel that because Little Annie's was not listed that HPC exceeded their jurisdiction; however, abuse of discretion and denial of due process did not occur. Councilman Frisch said he is sympathetic to the fact that all new buildings could affect the economic well being of Aspen. Councilman Frisch said visitors want to walk around and see different architecture whether they want to go into businesses or not. Maximizing the build out would result in an Aspen no one wants. Councilman Frisch asked why issues like this, historic preservation and loss of buildings the community wants, keep occurring. Councilman Torre noted the city is not getting a lot of voluntary preservation from Ordinance 48. Councilman Torre said criteria (a) and (b) are in order to protect the character and the viability of what Aspen has been. Councilman Torre said some new modern contemporary buildings do not protect the character of Aspen. Councilman Frisch said the community needs to be more effective in identifying what they are trying to protect and he would like to work on protecting what the character of Aspen is. Mayor Ireland reiterated Council cannot preserve uses. Mayor Ireland said the HPC minutes of September 24, 2011, focus on the Tom Benton building and did not focus on the demolition criteria for the demolition of Little Annie's. Mayor Ireland said without evidence of HPC discussing those criteria, he cannot vote to uphold their decision. Councilman Frisch agreed he did not find that HPC talked about this in the macro level and protecting the historic district and the town as a whole, not just this building. Clauson said the applicants believe the criteria was considered and suggested a full record be transcribed so that Council can review it themselves. Worcester noted one issue before Council is abuse of discretion and one facet of that is that the record is devoid of evidence that the decision appeared arbitrary and capricious. If Council feels they do not have the entire record, they may continue this and have a verbatim to see if HPC fully considered all the criteria. Mayor Ireland agreed the minutes do not indicate that needs of the historic area were discussed. Mayor Ireland moved to continue this to November 28; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Frisch said brought up a recent executive session to discuss Marks v. Koch, the sunshine law state no action may be taken in executive sessions. Councilman Frisch moved to direct the city attorney to proceed as discussed in executive session in the Marks v Koch appeal; seconded by Mayor Ireland. 7 Special Meeting Aspen City Council November 2, 2011 City Attorney Worcester said no action was taken in the executive session although he did receive direction. Mayor Ireland asked if this would set the precedent every time there is an executive session, Council has to come into public proceeding and make a motion. Worcester said Council would be putting on the record that Council is giving the city attorney direction to proceed. Councilman Frisch said there is a way to inch toward transparency while protecting the ability to discuss private matters with the attorney. Councilman Johnson noted this is a special meeting to discuss one agenda item and this issue was not advertised. Councilman Skadron said a formal action is defined as a motion, resolution or ordinance; none of which happened at that executive session. What ever happened at that executive session was attorney- client privilege. Mayor Ireland moved to table this issue; seconded by Councilman Torre. Councilmembers Torre, Johnson and Mayor Ireland in favor; Councilmembers Frisch and Skadron opposed. Motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved to adjourn at 7:40 PM; seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried. Kat n S. Koch, City Clerk 8 0 THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2011 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. Appeal of passage of Resolution #9 and Resolution #10, Series of 2011 by the Historic Preservation Commission. II. Council Call-up of passage of Resolution #9, Series of 2011, by the Historic Preservation Commission 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council COPY: John Worcester, City Attorney THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director�/j/j FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer "� RE: Appeal of passage of Resolution 99 and Resolution 410, Series of 2011 by the Historic Preservation Commission DATE: November 2, 2011 APPELLANT: Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, represented by Garfield and Hecht, P.C. SUMMARY: "�9t �• , ,. The Appellant is appealing 7Tr*�f the recent approval of _ } Resolution #9 and„r, + Resolution #10, Series of 2011 by the Historic Preservation Commission. These resolutions granted approval for the demolition'. of an existing building at 517 '' .r' a-' E. Hyman Avenue, aka Little Annie's Eatery, and denied approval for the demolition of an existing buildingFigure 1: Vicinity Map of Aspen Core proposal located at 521 E. Hyman Avenue, aka Benton Condominiums. The appeal raises a number of issues that are identified herein, followed by Staff's response. The Appellant requests that Council nullify and invalidate both resolutions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council uphold both of the resolutions adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission. 1 0 0 SUMMARY: Presently, the Appellant is in the land use review and entitlement process requesting approval to remove all existing improvements on Lots E and F, Block 95 and to construct a new mixed use building on the subject parcels as well as three vacant lots immediately to the east. On September 21st, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) passed Resolution #9, Series of 2011 and Resolution #10, Series of 2011, which granted approval to demolish the structure that houses Little Annie's Eatery, and denied approval to demolish the structure that was originally the design studio of artist Tom Benton. The Appellant is appealing passage of both resolutions by HPC. Section 26.316.030, Appeals Procedures, of the Aspen Land Use Code sets forth the applicable standard of review that Council should follow in these matters and the actions available to Council following the hearing on the appeal. Additional language specifically regarding appeals of decisions of the HPC is found at Section 26.415.120 and is addressed below. BACKGROUND: The basis of the appeal states that HPC had no jurisdiction to pass either resolution and that HPC acted improperly in denying the demolition application for 521 E. Hyman Avenue. The Appellant requests that Council nullify and invalidate both resolutions. STANDARD OF REVIEW: Section 26.316.030(E), Standard of review, reads as follows: Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision- making body authorized to hear the appeal [City Council] shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken [public hearing record of the HPC]. A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The Land Use Code does not define the terms: "a denial of due process", "exceeded its jurisdiction," or "abused its discretion." Court cases, however, have helped define these terms as follows and may be used by Council in its deliberation of the appeal: A denial of due process may be found if some procedural irregularity is determined to have occurred that affected a significant right of the appellant, or the administrative body otherwise acted in violation of the appellant's constitutional or statutory rights. Ad Hoc Executive Committee of Medical Staff of Memorial Hospital v Runyan, 716 P. 2d 465 (Colo. 1986.) A decision may be considered to be in excess of jurisdiction if the decision being appealed "is grounded in a misconstruction or misapplication of the law," City of Colorado Springs v Givan, 897 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1995); or, the decision being appealed was not within the authority of the administrative body to make. City of Colorado Springs v SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P. 3d 1244 (Colo. 2000). 2 A decision may be considered to be an abuse of discretion if the "decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority." Ross v Fire and Police Pension Ass'n., 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986); Marker v Colorado Springs, 336 P.2d 305 (Colo. 1959). The "Statement of Issues Presented for Review" appears on Page 30 of the Appellant's Opening Brief as follows: 1. DID THE HPC EXCEED ITS JURISDICTION AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY REQUIRING THE APPELLANT TO SUBMIT ITS REDEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR NON -HISTORIC STRUCTURES TO DEMOLITION REVIEW UNDER SECTION 26.415.080? Staff Comment: The Municipal Code states: 26.415.060. Effect of designation. A. Approvals required. Any development involving properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual building or located in an historic district, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. and 26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property. No building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. A. Exempt development. 1. Selected activities are exempted from the development review procedures including interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work. 2. If there is any question if a work activity qualifies as exempt, the Community Development Director shall make the determination as to its eligibility. and 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. Finally, the Code defines historic preservation terms including: Certificate of demolition approval. An official form issued by the City authorizing the issuance of a demolition permit for a designated historic property or for a building or structure located in a designated historic district. Designated property. A property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Historic District. A collection, concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings, structures, sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Staff concludes that the land use application for Aspen Core is subject to HPC demolition review and is not exempt from HPC review. There are many examples of HPC exercising its jurisdiction to review applications for Demolition of structures that were not individually landmarked, but located in one of Aspen's historic districts, the most recent of which include: 435 W. Main (Aspen Jewish Community Center) 2005 434 E. Cooper (Bidwell) 2006 308 E. Hopkins (La Cocina), 2006 508 E. Cooper Avenue (Cooper Street Pier), 2006 420/422 E. Hopkins (Fire Station), 2007 In all cases, HPC exercised its jurisdiction and authority to find that the structures in question did, or did not, meet the criteria for demolition. 2. DID THE HPC EXCEED ITS JURISDICTION AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY PREVENTING THE APPELLANT FROM DEMOLISHING A NON -HISTORIC STRUCTURE THAT IS NOT DESIGNATED ON "THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES" UNDER 26.415.080? 3. DID THE HPC DEPRIVE THE APPELLANT OF DUE PROCESS BY APPLYING THE DEMOLITION REVIEW STANDARDS UNDER SECTION 26.415.080, EVEN THOUGH THE STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PREOPERTIES WERE NEVER DESIGNATED ON "THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES" AFTER PROPER NOTICE, HEARING AND RECORDING? 4 Staff Comment: Ord. 5, Series of 1972 created the process for designation of individual sites and historic districts and established required review processes that would affect these properties. Landmarking of individual sites began immediately. Two years later, Council adopted Ordinance #49, Series of 1974, creating the first district, the Commercial Core Historic District. The criteria for designation of the district were based on historical importance, architectural importance and geographic importance. City files indicate multiple meetings and public hearings preceding the designation. (See Exhibits A and B.) There is evidence in the file of public notice and an explanation of the effect of a historic district being sent to property owners, including owners of the properties which are the subject of this appeal. (See Exhibit C.) A Notice of Historic Designation was recorded in 1975 and appears in the exceptions noted in the Appellant's Title Commitment for the subject property (See Exhibit D.) The notice states in part: "As a consequence of designation, no building permit may issue for the (1) exterior remodeling, reconstruction of, or any addition to an exterior architectural feature of a structure within the district, (2) the demolition or moving of any structure within the district, or (3) the construction or erection of any new structure or addition to any structure within the district, until the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed the permit application and approved the same." In subsequent years, the City continued to identify individually significant properties both within and outside of the districts (the Main Street Historic District was added in 1976), many of which were landmarked both to recognize their significance and to allow for the award of preservation benefits. Official City Zoning maps of record since the mid 70s have depicted the historic districts and the individually designated properties. The term "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" began to be used to describe the resources subject to protection in the 1980s. On August 5, 2011, the Appellant submitted a land use application for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The application was submitted in conformance with the review processes identified by Community Development staff at a pre -application meeting held in July. The Municipal Code in place at the time of the Aspen Core land use application clearly indicates that a property located in a historic district is part of the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as follows: 26.415.030. Designation of historic properties. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation provides a means • of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect. A. Establishment of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures. The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures has been established by City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and objects located in Aspen that have special significance to the United States, Colorado or Aspen history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. The location of properties listed on the inventory shall be indicated on maps on file in the Community Development Department. [Emphasis added.] The official zone district maps, available in the public offices of the City and on the City's website at www.aspenpitkin.com, in place at the time of the Aspen Core application for review clearly identify the historic districts as part of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. See Exhibit E. Information posted on the City website, www.aspenpitkin.com, and available through the City Planning Office through the date of application, identifies the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structure and lists the two historic districts and their date of ordinance adoption. See Exhibit F. The Appellant, including predecessors -in -interest, were provided notice of the adoption of Ordinance #49, Series of 1974, which created the historic district, were provided notice of the meaning and effect of such designation, were informed by their title company of the designation, and were provided with reasonable access to public information about the district and its meaning and effect. 4. DID THE HPC EXCEED ITS JURISDICTION AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY ADMINISTRATIVELY REQUIRING THE NON - HISTORIC, POST -WORLD WAR II STRUCTURES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO SUBMIT TO DEMOLITION REVIEW UNDER SECTION 26.415.080, WHEN ITS LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE SUCH RESTRICTIONS WERE PREVIOUSLY DEFEATED AFTER PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COMMENT? Staff Comment: As noted above, the Subject Properties are designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The staff memorandum prepared for the September 21" HPC hearing identified and addressed the relevant review criteria, as did the members of the Historic Preservation Commission. Contrary to information submitted by the Appellant in its Opening Brief, the Historic Preservation Commission did not prepare or participate in the surveys of 201h century potential historic resources that have taken place over the last decade, including the work that led to the identification of properties on Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. The September 21s' public hearing on the Aspen Core application was HPC's first evaluation of the Subject Properties. Ce, ASPEN OFFICE Victorian Square 601 Bast Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (970) 925.1936 Facsimile (970) 925-3008 BY HAND DELIVERY �J GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW David L. LenyoAspen Office Since 1975 e-mail: chagen@gar£ieldheeht.com www. garfieldhecht. corn November 14, 2011 Chris Bendon, Community Development Director City of Aspen (the "City") 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Core Ventures LLC Dear John: RECriv,aDIVUV 4 2011 Cp* k F ASPEN '�lopw ' Pursuant to your request, we are writing to provide the City official confirmation of how Aspen Core Ventures LLC (the "Applicant") intends to proceed under Section 26.415.025.0 of the Aspen Land Use Code, subject only to (1) the City's agreement to certain proposed stipulations set forth below and (2) the City's acknowledgment that it is also prepared to proceed under Section 26.415.25.0 according to the procedures outlined in this letter. First, the Applicant intends to apply to the Community Development Director to add the Little Annie's Building and the Benton Building (the "Subject Properties") to the Aspen Modern Map by submitting a written request pursuant to Section 26.415.025.C. The Applicant then intends to request voluntary Historic Landmark designation in the event that the City and the Applicant can reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the Subject Properties as historic landmarks and the approval by the City of land -use entitlements different than those requested in the Conceptual Design Application dated August 5, 2001 (the "Pending Application"), which currently contemplates the demolition of the Subject Properties. Aspen - Avon - Basalt - Glenwood Springs - Rifle 0 Printed on recycled paper In reviewing the proposed Demolition of 521 E. Hyman and 517 E. Hyman, HPC members specifically cited the applicable criteria and made findings. 5. DID THE HPC EXCEED ITS JURISDICTION AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY PREVENTING THE APPELLANT FROM DEMOLISHING THE BENTON BUILDING THEREBY PREVENTING COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW OF PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BUILDINGS UNDER SECTION 26.415.070? Staff Comment: The Appellant was not asked to obtain demolition approval prior to submittal for Commercial Design Review of the proposed new structure. The pre -application conference identified a three step process. (See Exhibit G.) The first step, which the Appellant initiated, is concurrent review of Conceptual development and Demolition. The HPC addressed the Demolition criteria first because their findings would be fundamental to the options for redevelopment of the site. HPC continued the public hearing related to Conceptual development review, which the code requires be suspended until conclusion of this appeal. ACTIONS BY COUNCIL FOLLOWING APPEAL HEARING: Section 26.316.030(F) reads as follows: Action by the decision-making body hearingtppeal. The decision-making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision shall be approved by resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. Section 26.415.120(D) reads as follows: The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to: 1. Reversing the decision. 2. Altering the conditions of approval. 3. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. Please note that the appeal before City Council is a public meeting and not a public hearing. City Council's decision is required to be made "on the record;" meaning that no new evidence or testimony may be considered that is not in the record before you. 7 RESOLUTIONS: Attached are draft Resolutions relating to each Subject Property. Council is provided with a resolution for 517 E. Hyman finding that the Historic Preservation Commission acted correctly and affirms their findings allowing demolition of the property known as Little Annie's Eatery. Also attached is a resolution finding that the Historic Preservation acted without authority and nullifying their findings allowing the demolition of the property known as Little Annie's Eatery. With regard to 521 E. Hyman, aka Benton Condominiums, staff has provided a resolution finding that the Historic Preservation Commission acted correctly and affirms their findings denying demolition of the property. Also attached is a resolution finding that the Historic Preservation acted without authority and nullifying their findings denying the demolition of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the Historic Preservation Commission's decisions were approved appropriately and that the HPC did not deny Appellant its due process of law, abuse its authority, or exceed its jurisdiction. Staff recommends City Council uphold the HPC's resolutions by affirming the passage of Resolution #9 and Resolution #10, Series of 2011. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive) "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2011, affirming HPC Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, approving the demolition of 517 E. Hyman, aka Little Annie's Eatery." "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2011, affirming HPC Resolution No. 10, Series of 2011, denying the demolition of 521 E. Hyman, aka Benton Condominiums." ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #_, Series of 2011 affirming Little Annie's demolition approval Resolution #_, Series of 2011 nullifying Little Annie's demolition approval Resolution #_, Series of 2011 affirming Benton Studio demolition denial Resolution #_, Series of 2011 nullifying Benton Studio demolition denial Exhibit A Dec. 23, 1974 Planning Office documentation of actions taken prior to Commercial Core Historic District designation Exhibit B Dec. 23, 1974 City Council minutes Exhibit C Letter sent to property owners informing them of historic district hearings, including certificate of mailing to then owners of Lots G, H, and I, Block 95 (Dingilian and Dikram) and Lot F, Block 95 (Thomas Benton) Exhibit D Recorded Public Notice of historic district creation 8 0 Exhibit E Current Official Map of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and Historic Districts Exhibit F Public handout, dated April 2011, indicating Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures Exhibit G Pre -application conference summary Exhibit H Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed to Appellant, dated October 12, 2011 Exhibit I Affidavit of Public Notice for November 2, 2011 Council Appeal Hearing Exhibit J Municipal Code chapter regarding Appeals Exhibit K Appeal (Please see the application for memos, minutes, and resolutions that are related to the appeal) 6 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 517 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, AKA LITTLE ANNIE'S EATERY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT E, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, granting approval for the demolition of the structure located at 517 East Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.316 — Appeals, any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within fourteen days of the date of decision or determination being appealed. Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, owner of the subject property, timely filed an appeal following the Historic Preservation Commission's determination; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the resolution of the Historic Preservation Commission or modify or reverse the resolution upon finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Garfield and Hecht, P.C., representing the appellants, as well as written and oral argument from the Community Development Director and has found that the Historic Preservation Commission provided due process and neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. Page 1 of 2 • ATTEST: 11 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 9 • RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NULLIFYING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 517 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, AKA LITTLE ANNIE'S EATERY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT E, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, granting approval for the demolition of the structure located at 517 East Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.316 — Appeals, any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within fourteen days of the date of decision or determination being appealed. Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, owner of the subject property, timely filed an appeal following the Historic Preservation Commission's determination; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the resolution of the Historic Preservation Commission or modify or reverse the resolution upon finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Garfield and Hecht, P.C., representing the appellants, as well as written and oral argument from the Community Development Director and has found that the Historic Preservation Commission did not provide due process and exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council nullfies the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. Page 1 of 2 • ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DENYING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 521 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNITS 1, 2 AND THE COMMON AREA OF THE BENTON BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS (AKA LOT F, BLOCK 95), CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 10, Series of 2011, denying approval for the demolition of the structure located at 521 East Hyman Avenue, legally described as Units 1, 2 and the Common Area of the Benton Building Condominiums (aka Lot F, Block 95), City And Townsite Of Aspen, Colorado. The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.316 — Appeals, any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within fourteen days of the date of decision or determination being appealed. Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, owner of the subject property, timely filed an appeal following the Historic Preservation Commission's determination; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the resolution of the Historic Preservation Commission or modify or reverse the resolution upon finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Garfield and Hecht, P.C., representing the appellants, as well as written and oral argument from the Community Development Director and has found that the Historic Preservation Commission provided due process and neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 10, Series of 2011. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. Page 1 of 2 • ATTEST: • Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 0 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NULLIFYING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DENYING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 521 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNITS 1, 2 AND THE COMMON AREA OF THE BENTON BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS (AKA LOT F, BLOCK 95), CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 10, Series of 2011, denying approval for the demolition of the structure located at 521 East Hyman Avenue, legally described as Units 1, 2 and the Common Area of the Benton Building Condominiums (aka Lot F, Block 95), City And Townsite Of Aspen, Colorado. The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.316 — Appeals, any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within fourteen days of the date of decision or determination being appealed. Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, owner of the subject property, timely filed an appeal following the Historic Preservation Commission's determination; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the resolution of the Historic Preservation Commission or modify or reverse the resolution upon finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Garfield and Hecht, P.C., representing the appellants, as well as written and oral argument from the Community Development Director and has found that the Historic Preservation Commission did not provide due process and exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council nullifies the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 10, Series of 2011. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. Page 1 of 2 ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 �(tot PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 23, 1974 MAJOR SUPPORTING FILE DOCUMENTS FOR THE COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT 1. Goal established to preserve Aspen's Historic Heritage - Goals Task Force, September 2, 1971. 2. Ordinance 5,.Series 1972 - Amendment incorporating the Historic Section to the code and establishing the HPC. 3. Actions to Designate Individual Structures. Wheeler Opera House by Ordinance adopted on March 12, 1972 Court House by Ordinance adopted on September 10, 1973 City Hall by Ordinance adopted on May 21, 1974. Crystal Palace by Ordinance adopted on August 10, 1973. 4. Wheeler Restoration Funds $60,000 - '73, '74 and $15,000 - 175. 5. Requests for Historic Designation Woods Building Cowenhoven Building Aspen Arcades 6. Incorporation of the proposed Historic District as an integral element of the Urban Design Plan - Spring, 1974. 7. Actions to Designate the Historic Overlay District., P & Z recommendation to HPC to evaluate the Commercial Core for Historic Designation - August 10, 1973. HPC recommendation to establish the Commercial Core as a Historic District - October 13, 1973. Inventory of all historic structures in the Commercial Core - completed in Spring, 1974. Planning Studies and Maps presenting analysis of and a pre- liminary plan for the Commercial Core Historic District - Spring and Summer 1974. Notice of joint public hearing with P & Z and HPC - published Times June 6, 1974. Technical Assistance and information and recorded transcript of comments. John Frisbee, Regional Director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation - June 24, 1974. James Hartman, Colorado Historical Society - June 17, 1974. Public Hearing with P & Z and HPC and the transcript of the hearing June 25, 1974. Development and refinement of building review guidelines. HPC and P & Z findings and reports to Council from the public hearing. Study Sessions with P & Z, City Council and -architects. HPC adoption of guidelines for review - August 23, 1974. Notice of public hearing - October 24, 1974. Public hearing and transcript of the hearing - November 11, 1974. Notice of public hearing published in Times - November 28, 1974. Pending amendments to Section 24:9 of the code. These major file documents along with additional public and private efforts fulfill the necessary ingredients for an effective historic preservation program. 1. Private citizen interest and involvement. 2: Responsive local government. 3. Effective legal and regulatory controls. 4. Adequate base of data and information. 5. Manner in which the historic information and regulatory powers are combined with other elements of the city's planning process.. 6. Money. -2- Designation of Aspen's Commercial Core as a Historic District represents a major new step towards historic preservation, a step that is broader and more comprehensive than any past efforts. The designa- tion first gives recognition to the Commercial Core as an area where much of the city's early heritage is represented by designating the remaining 39 historic structures of the mining era. Second, it estab- lishes the review of new construction, exterior remodeling and demoli- tion of structures in the Commercial Core to insure that the integrity of the area is maintained and promoted. In conclusion the Planning -Office recommends adoption of the Commercial Core Historic District from the standpoint that: Historic Districts have been established and proven to maximize restoration and preservation efforts. Aspen's Historic_ District will help to guide.future de- velopment of the Commercial Core as a unique location with high visual and aesthetic standards. The district will increase the Commercial Core's appeal to both residents and tourists thereby lending support to the economic strength and success of the area and the City in general. -3- Ord. #49 H District ORDINANCE #49 SER3ES OF 1974, CREATION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I�HISTORIC DISTRICT Secon res ng an p c Baring. Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. John Stanford - "The proposal up here tonight is on the proposed designation of the commercial core, H - Historic district, which is located, the boundaries of which are Hunter street on the east, Monarch street on the west, Durant street on the south, and the alley behind the Jerome on the north. I would like to submit a list of major supporting file documents for the designation of the commercial core Historic district and enter this list in the records of tonight's hearing. This document also traces Aspen's public involvement to develop and protect the values to be derived from historic preservation. The list reads as follows: 1. The goal was established to preserve Aspen's Historic heritage by the Goals Task Force, September 1971. 2. Ordinance 5, Series of 1972, amendemnt incorporating the historic section to the code incorporating provisions for a historic district, and establishing the Historic Preserva- tion Committee. 3. Actions to designate individual structures within the proposed district are as follows: The Wheeler Opera Souse by Ordinance adopted on March 12, 1972 Crystal Palace, adopted on August 10, 1973 Courthouse, by ordinance, on September 10, 1973 City Hall adopted by ordinance on May 21, 1974. 4. There are additional requests for historic designation of historic buildings in the core, and these are The Woods building, same thing as Aspen Drug Cowenhoven Building, which is Ute City Banque The Aspen Arcades 5. In 1973 and 1974 over $60,000 was spent on the restoration of the Wheeler Opera House with $15,000 more scheduled for 1975. 6. The proposed historic district is also incorporated as an integral element of the Urban Design Plan developed the spring of 1974. 7. Specific actions to designate the historic overlay district are: P & Z recommendation to HPC to evaluate the Commercial core for historic designation on August 10, 1973 The HPC recommendation to initiate procedures to establish the commercial core as a historic district on October 13, 1973. An inventory of all historic structures in the commercial core completed in the spring of 1974. Planning studies and maps presenting analysis of and a preliminary plan for the commercial core historic district which was done in spring and summer of this year Public notice of the joint public hearing with P & Z and HPC - published in the Times June 6, 1974. TechnicTssistance and information and a recorded transcript of comments from Mr. John Frisbee, Regional Director of the Nation Trust for Historic preservation, June 24, 1974 and Mr. James Hartman of the Colorado Historical Society, June 17, 1974. Joint public hearing with P & Z and HPC and the transcript of the hearing which was held on June 25th of this year. The development of building review guidelines HPC and P & Z findings and reports to Council from the public hearing Study sessions on building reveiw guildelines with P & Z, City Council and local architects. HPC adoption of guidelines for review, August 23, 1974 Public notice of the public hearing, October 24, 1974 The public hearing and transcript of that hearing, November 11, 1974 Notice of the public hearing published in the Times November 28, 1974 Pending amendments to Section 24.9 of the code w ich is in process right now These major file documents, which I have listed along with public and private efforts fulfill the various necessary ingredients for an effective public historic preserva- tion program. . The designation of Aspen's commercial core as an historic district represents a major, new step towards historic preservation. The step that is broader and more comprehensive than any past efforts. The designation first designates the remaining 39 historic structures in the proposed district, and second it establishes the review of new con- struction, exterior remodeling, and demolition of historic structures in the commercial core to insure that the integrity of the area is maintained and promoted. In conclusion, the planning office recommends establishment of the commercial historic district from the standpoint that historic districts have been established and proved to maximize restoration and preservation efforts. Aspen's historic district will help to guide future development of the commercial core as a unique location in the city with high visual and aesthetic standards. And finally the district will promote the commercial core's appeal to both residents and tourists alike thereby lending support to the economic strength, prestige and success of the area and City in general." i Sandra Stuller - "Let me just admit some additional documents on the record. I'd like to submit the report of the HPC to the Council on the Commercial district, list of the owner of the property within the proposed district, copies of all the letters sent to the same, certificates of mailing of the letter to all the owners, all indicating compliance with the notice requirements of 24-9.1(e). That's it" I Mayor Standley - "Anybody else that wishes to address the public hearing." I Rus Pielstick - "First of all a letter from Ted Mularz, he's sorry he couldn't be here. I think that I speak for most of the architects in Aspen. We have met with the Historic Preservation Commission and presented our views on exactly what we felt the value of historic preservation was. We have no argument with the idea that old buildings, which havel'walue to the community, should be preserved and preserved by legislation. However, it seems to us that to put in the hands of the Historic Preservation Committee the evaluation of contemporary buildings within Aspen is a misinterpretation of the value of history. It seems that to put constraints on design can only be conceived in the past, you can only look at the past and establish those constraints. And in no way can you perceive that which the future has to offer by looking at the past. It seems that you have a choice between optimism and pessimism. The optimistic view, of course, if the view that there's a possibility in the future that is greater than the possibility of the past. The pessimistic view is that the past, indeed, has all the charm. It seems to me that that's a lie. Aspen is not Savannah, Georgia; Aspen is not Williamsburg, Virginia; Aspen is a community that has had a vitality over a period of years, has had new and creative structures within its commercial core and yet it has in its history an effort to obtain the best that modern time had to offer. When we got ready to put up the first tent, we didn't put up a tent like the miner's used. We went to one of the best architects we could find and had Eero Saarinen design our first tent. When we got ready to remodel the first tent, we didn't go back to the 18701x, we went to Herbert Bayer and had him remodel the tent. ' It seems to me that the opportunities that would be provided for the future, which could be cancelled out by this kind of legislation are innumerable. And it seems to me that it's shortsighted of us to think that the preservation of the past is the best that we can expect of the future. It seems to me that when you're talking about things like mood and emotional content of the community and so forth that we can expect a lot more of 1 the future than we can expect of the past. And to use the past as the guidelines in my opinion is rather stupid. It seems to me that it would be stupid to use the guidelines I for a Model T to design missiles for the moon. It seems that 1970 should not and indeed in reality cannot be the guidelines for establishing a standard of 1870. It seems to me that this kind of legislation is detrimental to the community, and that does not speak against the value of history. I think anyone who has been through the rigors of architectural training has a great respect for history. And we would be very supportive of any legislation which would be protective of the history which is available in our community. But to overlay upon our community the restrictions of history seems short- sighted. That's all I have to say." Councilman Behrendt - "Rus, wouldn't your very worries be taken care of if you and a number of others would apply and be chose to serve on that board, because I don't think at any point are we requiring anyone to put up a Victorian cathedral or something like that." iRus Pielstick - "I find a danger in that, Mike. In fact, perhaps the danger was exemplified right here in that Jim Breasted, who is a good designer, worked through a )plan which other professionals in the field couldn't accept. And it seems to me that you have to allow the professionals who are involved, the people who are developing a project to put the initiative and their own inspiration into a project in order to make iit good. I think it's that inspiration that puts the art in architecture. it's some- thing that you can't evaluate in terms of the past." I Councilman Breasted - "I think you're reading a lot more into the ordinance than is there. I Rus Pielstick - "I think that's possibly true, but I think to have" I Councilman Breasted - "No one is telling you you have to make a Victorian building." I Rus Pielstick - "But they do tell you you have to use vertical windows. They do tell you that you have to have certain types of relationships in the overhang to the window align- ment, those kind of things are rather restrictive. It seems to me that if you would just take as an example one block, let's take Cooper street where the Wiener Stube is. First of all if the Wiener Stube came into this Commission, you would never approve that building, it's garbage. And yet it's one of the best spaces in town." Councilman Breasted - "It has to do with ownership rather than architecture." Rus Pielstick - "You would never, at this point, approve the Shaft, and yet when you watch people congregate on Cooper street, where do they congregate? The Shaft. That's where people are. " Mayor Standley - "Well, so what?" Rus Pielstick - "Obviously, they are responding to it. I don't think that any of us ihere, and myself included, and other professionals on the Board included, I don't think we have the perception to see, I really don't." Ramona Markalunas - "I'm compelled to remind you Rus, that today is tomorrow's history. That everything historical is not based in the 1870's or the 1880'x. I just cannot see this viewpoint that' when it's historical, it has to be in th4wI88019. I think we are making history in Aspen every day of the week, That just because it's an historic district does not mean that it's an 1880's architecture." Rus Pielstick - "I don't think you can take people who have the orientation of looking at history and have, let's just take some examples of recent buildings. The Conoco station couldn't be built. The A.I.A. says that's a pretty good building. I don't know whether it is or not. History is going to tell us whether it's a good building. It's a pretty exceptional gas station, anyway. That building couldn't be built." Bill Dunaway - "Why do you say that?" Rue Pielstick - "Because it wouldn't conform. The windows are not vertical." Mayor Standley - "This isn't.a discussion. It's a public hearing to make comment and I don't want it to generate into a dialogue." Bill Dunaway - "My name is Bill Dunaway. I'm the owner of two buildings in the proposed district and I think that what Mr. Pielstick just said here is rot. I think, if you don't have some guidelines to go on, and I think the historic guidelines are the best. Every building that's built has been designed by an architect. You go to Vail and you see every one of those buildings has been designed by an architect without any guidelines based on history. And what do you have? I mean if you like what they're doing in Vail, then you don't want the H district here. But I'm for it as a property owner and as somebody interested in the community. I think we do need historic guidelines, and I think that's the most important thing that Aspen has is to rely on its tradition and its history and not to permit the architects to create something entirely new." Bob Sproull - "'Twas the night before the night before Christmas.: -It's too bad .that this important issue is brought before the people when most are just out of time at this time of year. It was thoroughly discussed during the P & Z open hearing this past summer, and I must say with some vigor, a lot more than is here tonight. Your records, which it has not been mentioned, should indicate that P & Z recommended disapproval of this ordinance." Bill Dunaway - "That's wrong." Bob Sproull - "Well maybe I'm wrong but that was certainly the mood of the meeting. I am Bob Sproull, I own and operate Jake's restaurant, and I personally own the building in whic it is located. I believe this ordinance is well-intentioned and I agree with much of its p.prpose, but I am bothered by it. My building was built in 1888 and I hope it stands, as is, in 2088. Just as important, 'I hope this town remains relatively the same in 2088. Most ski resorts are set up by the big mother corporation with an investment of 20, 30, 50 million dollars. They own everything, and lease out to various individuals, restaurants, shops, gas stations, etc. They make sure that all they lease, or even sell, is done to "right people" who will perform in an accepted, controlled manner. Thus the big corpora- tion investment will not be undermined. Consequently, you end up with plastic, instant nostalgia, cute, contrived situations, i.e., Vail, Sun valley, and I'm sorry to say even Snowmass, if you will. Aspen is unique because to date we are not controlled by the big mother, Curt Baar, Andre, Bert Bidwell, Don Fleisher, to name only a few, all look at things differently, do it their way, and may the town interesting. I am becoming concerned that Aspen is becoming a cute, a botique, it seems that lately the few people, again well intentioned, are deciding what looks nice for everybody. Now a few people will decide on private property what colors look nice, what something looks like is nice, but who decides or knows if they are nice? Seven or ten people deciding what looks nice by its very nature can very easily make everything look like a pat job. It seems to me that what was unique to Aspen, again to date we are not controlled by the big mother, is becoming usurped. All the ingredients are being set up here in this ordinance for a cute, contrived perfect Carmel -of -the -Rockies. Who knows who is going to be on the historical committee ten years from now. The people who designed the malls ate no longer even in town. This ordinance in my thinking has nothing to do with growth or non -growth. The City is pretty well zoned against skyscrapers in the Washington monument. Here's what I came to say. I believe it's more important that this town not become a cute fake ,than some guy paint his building mint green. Incidentally, the majority of the people who own this property did not want this ordinance, and that should be a very strong fact. That's how I feel about it." Mayor Standley - "I have got a letter from Ted Mularz. 'As a person who has done a great deal in the interest of preserving the architectural character of Aspen during my 16 years as a resident and an architect, I submit this letter in opposition to the ordinance creati an historic district within the commercial core in it's present form. Unfortunately the public hearing is scheduled during a week when many residents are busy because of the holiday season, and I, as one, apologize for not being able to attend personally, I have, however expressed my criticism and objections as well as given positive input to the historic committee at two different meetings prior to this meeting obviously to no avail. Other Aspen architects and I would be happy to review them again with Council at another time convenient for all of us. Sincerely, Ted Mularz.' Are there any other comments?" City Manager Mahoney There is a memo here from the building department. I would like to h ave that entered into the record." Cl'i'Y OF ASPEN �ClY1Y� N Q aspen ,colorado, ami box v 1 May 28, 1974 Don Fleisher & James Cox Box 2630 Aspen, Colorado 81611 �..� Res Lot(s) e. 6' of G; H; Y Block 89 � �. ,~ City of Aspen Dear Sirs The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee was established in 1972 to identify and preserve historic sites and structures in the City of Aspen. Encouraged by the federal government's actions to preserve the nation's heritage and recent Colorado legislation authorizing historic designation by municipalities, the Committee has initiated proceedings pursuant to Section 24-•9.1 of our code to designate the central core of the city an historic district. The area is bounded by Durant Street to the south, Monarch to the west, Hunter to the east and the alley north of Main Street. The proposed district contains structures. already carrying historic designation, many proposed for such designation, and the area as•a whole incor- porates a high concentration of structures and sites representing the commercial,, social and political history of the City of Aspen prior to 1893. .Our ordinance requires that our Committee contact all owners of property within an area proposed for designation to state the reasons for and effects of such designation, and to attempt to obtain consent by the owners. Incorporated in this correspondence is a map showing the area proposed for designation, a letter from the city attorney outlining the effects of designation, and a gonsent form which we submit for your signature. We would appreciate a return within a week, if possible. A joint public hearing of the Committee and the Planning and Zoning Covanission will be held in the City May 28, 1974 Page 2 Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, on Tuesday, June 25, 1974, at 5 P.M., to consider the rezoning of the area as an H, Historic Overlay District, and your comments at that time are invited. if you have any questions, please contact ,john Stanford, City Planning Office, at 925-2020, Ext. 58. Thank you for your consideration, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee EFFECTS OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has requested that I summarize the legal effects and consequences to landowners upon creation of the proposed historic district in the central core. Let me first note that the procedures have only been initiated, and there must yet be (1) preliminary approval of the designation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, (2) a joint hearing by the Historic Preservation Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission, scheduled for June 25, 1974, (3) adoption of the district by the City Council, and (4) recordation of the adopting ordinance . In establishing a historic district, as opposed to designating specific structures, all land (vacant or otherwise) and existing and proposed structures within the district area come under the close super- vision of the Preservation Committee._ Let me describe the effects as follows: Required Review No building permit may issue for 1. the exterior remodeling or reconstruction of any structure within the district; 2. the demolition or moving of any structure within *the district; or 3. the construction or erection of any new structure or addition to any structure within the district; unless the building inspector determines that no change to the exterior appearance of the structure or combination of structures will occur, or until the Preservation Committee has reviewed the permit application and approved the same. Review Procedures The review procedures are rather complex so I will merely summarize. They require an applicant to submit preliminary scale drawings and outline specifications to the building inspector who will determine if exterior changes will result. If so, the material is forwarded to the Preservation Committee who will hold at least one public hearing and then either: 1. approve or approve the proposal subject to modifications and so advise the building inspector, or 2. disapprove and so notify the building inspector who must then deny the permit. Criteria for Approval The Preservation Committee will judge any proposed remodeling for the preservation of historical, archi- tectural and characteristic qualities, and any new structure for complementary design with the existing structures within the district. In case of an applica- tion to raze, demolish or move a structure, judgment shall be made on the basis of the structure's historical and architectural importance, its importance as a part of the area within which it is located, and the actual physical condition of the structure. ,Dangerous Conditions; Exceptions; Appeal The Committee may grant exceptions from the effects of designation, and Committee approval is not necessary when the owner is repairing or demolishing a structure on order of a city or other governmental officer when needed to remedy a dangerous condition. As is apparent, historic designation does have significant impact on landowners within a district. If you have any questions, please call me at 925-2020, Ext. 53, and I will be happy to help. Thank you. Very truly yours, Sandra M.'Stuller City Attorney SMS•sd i � • LETTER OF REPLY TO: The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee RE: Designation of the Aspen Central Core as an Historic District I, the undersigned, acknowledge receipt of notice of the joint public hearing for the district designation to be held June 25, 1974, and further acknowledge, that I have been advised of the reasons for and effects of the designation of the central area of the city as an H, Historic Overlay District. I wish to consent to such designation affecting that property owned by me within said proposed district and by my signature hereto do so consent. Date (signature) � v - . 1 ,-r . ... li'T 1 MAIN ST. IRE I fl I I I 1 HALL' HOPKINS AVEC 1 �• LLL_1_1_L� LL 1 I ' o� 1 QHUMAN AVE. W �1 J COOPER W AVE. G [FT ,TL]] Llli 1 DURANT AVE• LEGEN EXISTING DESIGNATED SMUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTURES FOR DESIGNATION 1. AWn Times 2. Hotel Jerome 3'Three Residential Strurturei 4. Ellis of Aspen 5. Epieure 6, Saint Mary's Pansb Home 7. Sdint Mary't Cllarch 8. Two Rawluncrs and Ln Coc mil Rnstmuant 9. Isis T Imtre 10, 71rrro Residential Structures *Designation pending n tion by City COUn11I \ i 11. Photographic Studio 12. Aspen Lumber and Supply and Sabbetini's 13. Brand Buikling 14. Two Rrssidentinl Structures 15. Mother I-nde 16, Danny's, Aspen Drug and Jakc's Abbey 17. Elks' Building 18. Liquor Stole 18. Pwouturl and the Aspen Bluck 20. Cowel.1"won Bulkhn-1 21, Reif Onton 22. Eagles 1144041111023. Intlopler1tI1111Ce Bllddift'l 24. BQWnlan Blork RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -300 (Plus postage) SENT To POSTMARK -.-J2149ilian & Dikran OR DATE U STREET AND W6". -.--.22 5 P.O, STATE AND Zip CODE . .. . ...... T- E R N D SIRE E 6 3 T 0 STATE ( u TU6N E i E T RECEIPT With delivery to Addres vil S 55 2. Shows to wham, 5ea 0`11Y .. . ....... 650- LSERVICES RM, date."d where 091lVered 350 • _(�)!L �v __T ! delivery ET 70 -ADDRESSEE ONLY ...... with LIVERY S Ecl extra fee required)........ PS Form Ap 1971 3800 NO INSU RANCE COVERAGE PROVIOEO— (See other NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL side) GPO : 1972 0 - 460-74S il RECEIPT FOR CE TIFI�—[) 'E�, I MAIL -300. SENT To (Plus Postage) .......i. .l .......CD STREET AND No, O CD P,O,, STATE AND Zip------- - - - C DE i. iWCII��C�AJAWA RETURN RECEIPT 1. hews to ... - - ----- With delivery defiv W 150 addressee 0,,,,Oly SERVICEs 2. Sh"StOW110M 'If • date 650 b -E, Of DELIVER T- With dell ' to "d Where dell verei"'., 35 very o addresses only 0 SPECIAL ONLY DEL I VVIR '1 . PSForm............. Al,,. 7Q' 3000 71 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— NOT 'OR INTERNATIONAL MAILat or side) " 4rpo 0 460-743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -300 (Plus postage) SENT To POSTMARK -.-J2149ilian & Dikran OR DATE U STREET AND W6". -.--.22 5 P.O, STATE AND Zip CODE . .. . ...... T- E R N D SIRE E 6 3 T 0 STATE ( u TU6N E i E T RECEIPT With delivery to Addres vil S 55 2. Shows to wham, 5ea 0`11Y .. . ....... 650- LSERVICES RM, date."d where 091lVered 350 • _(�)!L �v __T ! delivery ET 70 -ADDRESSEE ONLY ...... with LIVERY S Ecl extra fee required)........ PS Form Ap 1971 3800 NO INSU RANCE COVERAGE PROVIOEO— (See other NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL side) GPO : 1972 0 - 460-74S il Recorded At 2:35. PM Jala 13, 197 Reception No 172512ne BOOK* PAGE NOTICE OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the following area located in Pitkin County, Colorado, constituting the commercial core of the City of Aspen, has been desigpated an H, Historic Overlay District, to wit: Blocks 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, and the south half of Blocks 79, 86, 92, of the original townsite of the City of Aspen, and south half of'Block 19 of the East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen. Such designation was made under the authority of Section 24-9.1 of the Aspen Municipal Code by Ordinance 49, Series of 1974, effective January 8, 1975. As a consequence of designation, no building permit may issue for the (1) exterior remodeling, reconstruction of, or any addition to an exterior architectural feature of a structure within the district, (2) the demolition or moving of any structure within the district, or (3) the construction or erection of any new structure or addition to any structure within the district, until the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed the permit applic- ation and approved the same. The Preservation Committee will judge any proposed remodeling for the preservation of historical, architectural and characteristic qualities, and any new structure for complimentary design with the existing structures within the district. In case of an application to raze, demolish or move a structure, judgment shall be made on the basis of the structure's historical and architectural importance, its importance as a part of the area within which it is located, and 4 W. n. • •: it ..�iA' 'ly k� �+� ��r the actual physical condition -of the structure. All as set fdrth �n said Section'24-9,1, and reference is made to Section 24-9.1 for amore specific and detailed analysis of �. the;procedures and guidelines for the Committee's review. THIS NOTICE is given this seventh day of January, , 1975, pursuant to the requirements of Section 24-9.1 (e) 5b of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. •'rr r —2— Kat#kyn Hauter City Clerk C b o d O E i •� � �OQ ¢c3�� �� 3- ri�•QU � � Q • 13 9 j �V, t„ pp r��r G� i 6�pV aOD ' ---- �� ctipnno❑ D .ca v9•�[� a �y o. Sy p b T gj ro — ` pR ✓lr CD b 9 w �ii •'� o -3c",<,' tiµ 9d"a� °o°• �Qg q i�Q�J i>`• i '" o -0 p� Qa g n, r b 9 w �ii •'� tiµ `=�d g n, r y 3 nt�O�� CITY OF ASPEN "THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES" Updated April 2011 (THIS LIST IS PROVIDED AS GENERAL INFORMATION. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT STREET ADDRESS NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED, CALL AMY GUTHRIE AT 429-2758 OR SARA ADAMS AT 429-2778 TO CONFIRM THE STATUS OF ANY PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY WHEN IN DOUBT.) 0 • (Note: The ordinance that designated the property historic is provided after some addresses.) COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT (Established via Ordinance #49, Series of 1974) 420 E. Cooper (Red Onion) (National Register) - Ord. 9-1982 501 E. Cooper (Independence Building) - Ord 9-1982 529-531 E. Cooper - Ord 61-1992 104 S. Galena - Ord 16-1985 130 S. Galena (Armory City Hall) (National Register) - Ord 38-1974 203 S. Galena (Hyman -Brand Building) (National Register) - Ord 57-1981 209 S. Galena- Ord. 34- 1995 210 S. Galena (Webber Block) (National Register) - Ord 49-1989 303 S. Galena (Aspen Block) - Ord 57-1981 312 S. Galena - Ord 57-1981 302 E. Hopkins - Ord 16-1985 309 E. Hopkins/200 S. Monarch - Ord 36-1990 316 E. Hopkins -Ord 1-1992 406 E. Hopkins -Ord. 58- 1995 530 E. Hopkins — Ord. 34- 1995 532 E. Hopkins — Ord. 34- 1995 534 E. Hopkins — Ord. 34- 1995 405-407 Hunter (National Register) — Ord. 61 - 1992 300 E. Hyman (and Owl Cigar sign)- Ord 57-1981 314 E. Hyman — Ord. 34- 1995 328 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House) (National Register) - Ord 10-1973 413 E. Hyman (Riede's City Bakery) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 419 E. Hyman- Ord 17-2001 432 E. Hyman — Ord. 34- 1995 428 E. Hyman - Ord 9-1982 501 E. Hyman (Ute City Building)- Ord 57-1981 304-308 S. Galena (Arcades)- Ord 22-2001 303 E. Main — (National Register) Ord 15-1994 309 E. Main - Ord 56-1989 310 E. Main - Ord 5-1987 315 E. Main - Ord 56-1989 330 E. Main — (National Register) Ord 9-1982 506 E. Main - (National Regiser) Ord 25-1973 533 E. Main (St. Mary's Church) - Ord 77-1981 100 S. Mill - Ord 5-1987 101 S. Mill - Ord 5-1987 204 S. Mill (Collins Block) (National Register) - Ord 9-1982 208 S. Mill - Ord 57-1981 9 • MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT (Established via Ordinance #60, Series of 1976) 128 E. Main - Ord 4-1985 201 E. Main- Ord 50-1986 202 E. Main - Ord 16-1985 208 E. Main - Ord 16-1985 216 E. Main - Ord 16-1985 220 and 230 E. Main (Cortina Lodge) — Ord 25 - 2010 221 E. Main — Ord 16- 1985 & Ord. 4- 1995 227 E. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 125 W. Main - Ord 16-1985 132 W. Main - Ord 33-1994 & Ord 56-1976 135 W. Main - Ord 16-1985 205 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 211 W. Main - Ord 16-1985 300 W. Main - Ord 21-1988 320 W. Main (Smith-Elisha House) (National Register) - Ord 56-1988 328 W. Main - Ord 57-1981 332 W. Main - Ord 4-1982 333 W. Main - Ord 5-1987 400 W. Main - Ord 16-1985 430 W. Main - Ord 49-1989 435 W. Main (in district)- Ord 36- 2006 500 W. Main - Ord 57-1981 501 W. Main 518 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 604 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 611 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 612 W. Main - Ord 16-1985 616 W. Main- Ord 10-1996 627 W. Main - Ord 57-1979 633 W. Main - Ord 57-1979 & Ord 4 - 1995 701 W. Main and a new lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot split — Ord. 34- 1995 706 W. Main - Ord 56-1989 709 W. Main - Ord 59-1994 & Ord. 34- 1995 734 W. Main (Sorenson's) - Ord 5-1987 101 S. Monarch — Ord 4 - 1995 200 S Monarch — Ord 36- 1990 Paepcke Park Gazebo - Ord 57-1981 DESIGNATED LANDMARKS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS Aspen Brewery Ruins — Ord 4- 1995 Aspen Grove Cemetery — Ord 4- 1995 Boat Tow and Lift 1 (National Register) - Tower, Skier Chalet - Ord 57-1981 710 S. Aspen - 720 Bay Street — Ord 34 -1992 100 E. Bleeker - Ord 62-1989 110 E. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 126 E. Bleeker - Ord 5-1985 134 E. Bleeker - Ord 25-1992 200 E. Bleeker (Community Church) (National Register) - Ord 39-1974 209 E. Sleeker — Ord 4 - 1995 214 E. Bleeker - Ord 7-1982, plus vacant lot created through Historic Landmark Lot Split 227 E. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 232 E. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 121 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 129 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 131 W. Bleeker - Ord 77-1981 205 W. Bleeker — Ord 4 - 1995 213 W. Bleeker- Ord 10-2000 214 W. Bleeker - Ord 11-1991 215 W. Bleeker - Ord 5-1987 217 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 233 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 331 W. Bleeker- new house on lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 333 W. Bleeker (D.E. Frantz House) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) (National Register) - Ord 7-1982, Ord 41- 1993 500 W. Bleeker - Ord 5-1987 513 W. Bleeker — Ord 77 - 1981 605 W. Bleeker/aka 121 N. Fifth Street — Ord 77 - 1981 609 W. Bleeker- new house on a lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 620 W. Bleeker (Wheeler -Stallard House) (National Register) - Ord 18- 1973 631 W. Bleeker- new house on lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 635 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 735 W. Bleeker, Ord 43-1998 118 E. Cooper - Ord 4-1982 124 E. Cooper — Ord 34 - 1992 135 E. Cooper (Dixon -Markle House) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 820 E. Cooper- Ord 51, 1995 824 E. Cooper — Ord 34 - 1992 918 E. Cooper- Ord 7, 1996 935 E. Cooper — Ord 34 - 1992 939 E. Cooper, units A-E - Ord 2-1995 1000 E. Cooper — Ord 34 - 1992 1006 E. Cooper- Ord 30-2000 1020 E. Cooper — Ord 34 - 1992 827 Dean — Ord 17 - 2007 1004 E. Durant #1 - Ord 32-1989 505 N. Eighth - Ord 4-1982 121 N. Fifth/aka 605 W. Bleeker - Ord 77-1981 609 W. Bleeker- new house on lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 421 N. Fifth — Ord 4- 1995 505 N. 5th- Ord 77-1981 & Ord 5-2001, newer house on a Historic Landmark Lot Split 308 N. First — Ord 33 - 1999 414 N. First - Ord 57-1981 311 S. First — Ord 34 - 1992 317/319 N. Fourth, units A and B - Ord 77-1981 120 W. Francis Ord 41 - 1995 123 W. Francis - Ord 41-1995/ Ord 34 - 1992 129 W. Francis- new house on lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 126 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 135 W. Francis Ord 77 - 1981 201 W. Francis (Bowles -Cooley House) (National Register) - Ord 7-1982 202 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 234 W. Francis (Davis Waite House) (National Register) - Ord 7-1982 420 W. Francis - Ord 5-1987 432 W. Francis (Hallet House) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 500 W. Francis - Ord 4-1982 522 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 523 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 529 W. Francis, new lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 533 W. Francis 600/612 W. Francis- Ord 20- 2008 700 W. Francis - Ord 10-1992 712 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 716 W. Francis - Ord 11-1992 860 Gibson - Ord 4 -1995 980 Gibson — Ord 34 - 1992 990 Gibson — Ord 34 - 1992 311 Gillespie/710 N. Third - Ord 7-1982 314 Gillespie - Ord 4 - 1995 330 Gillespie — Ord 4 - 1995 405 Gillespie/707 N. Third — Ord 34 - 1992 507 Gillespie- new lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 515 Gillespie- Ord 20-2001 Glory Hole Park — Ord 34 - 1992 101 E. Hallam- Ord 16-2001/ Ord 34 - 1992 105 E. Hallam — Ord. 4 - 1995 123 E. Hallam - Ord 4-1985 127 E. Hallam - Ord 78-1989 5 • 131 E. Hallam - Ord 77-1981 216 E. Hallam, plus lot to the rear containing the barn- Ord 34- 1992 223 E. Hallam — Ord. 4 - 1995 232 E. Hallam - Ord 4-1982 100 W. Hallam - Ord 4-1982 215 W. Hallam - Ord 62-1987 229 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 233 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 304 W. Hallam — Ord 36 - 2002 320 W. Hallam - Ord 4-1982 323 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 334 W. Hallam - Ord 21-1988 403 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 417/421 W. Hallam (421 W. Hallam — Ord 34 — 1992) 504 W. Hallam — Ord 4 - 1995 525 W. Hallam - Ord 46-1995 530 W. Hallam - Ord 7-1982 533 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 610 W. Hallam- Ord 58-1994 620 W. Hallam - Ord 11-1991 716 W. Hallam (condo unit 1)— Ord 34 - 1992 834 W. Hallam- Ord 56-1993 918 W. Hallam- new house on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 920 W. Hallam- Ord 23- 1998 922 W. Hallam- new house on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 113 E. Hopkins - Ord 77-1981 208 E. Hopkins - Ord 7-1982 214 E. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 623 E. Hopkins/625 E. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 635 E. Hopkins — Ord 34 — 1992 (aka 205 S. Spring Street) 811 E. Hopkins, plus new house on same parcel — Ord 34 - 1992 819 E. Hopkins, plus new house on same parcel — Ord 34 - 1992 1008 E. Hopkins- Ord 18- 1997 134 W. Hopkins - Ord 21-1988 1341/2W. Hopkins — Ord 21 - 1988 135 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 200 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 205 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 212 W. Hopkins - Ord 26-1988 222 W. Hopkins - Ord 77-1981 325 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 500 W. Hopkins (portion of the Boomerang Lodge)- Ord 21 of 2007 134 E. Hyman — Ord 44 - 2006 201 E. Hyman - Ord 7-1982 630 E. Hyman — Ord 26- 2009 920 E. Hyman- Ord 1- 1999 935 E. Hyman - Ord 30-1996, Lot 1 990 E. Hyman — Ord 4 - 1995 214 W. Hyman — Ord 34 - 1992 216 W. Hyman — Ord 34 - 1992 312 W. Hyman — Ord 45 - 2006 107-119 Juan — Ord 4 - 1995 920 King- new house on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split 930 King- Ord.20-1998 935 King — Ord 4 - 1995 206 Lake (Newberry House) (National Register) - Ord 57-1981 210 Lake - Ord 28-1980 212 Lake - Ord 17-1980 220 Lake - Ord 10-1981 240 Lake- Ord 15-1998 320 Lake - Ord 77-1981 330 Lake- Ord 4 - 2000 540 E. Main 835 W. Main- Ord 50-1993 Marolt Barns Site and Lixiviation Plant Ruins (National Register) - Ord 45-1988 Maroon Creek Bridge (National Register) — Ord 4 - 1994 920 Matchless (unit 1) — Ord 34 - 1992 930 Matchless (unit 2) — Ord 34 - 1992 950 Matchless- Ord 28- 1998 The Meadows (Restaurant, Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, racetrack, Bayer gardens) Ord 5-1996 327 Midland/328 Park — Ord 15 - 2001 590 N. Mill (Holy Cross Building) - Ord 51-1981 202 N. Monarch — Ord 34 - 1992 212 N. Monarch - Ord 57-1981 218 N. Monarch - Ord 77-1981 114 Neale/17 Queen- Ord 17-1990 311 North - Ord 79-1992 401 North Ord 4 - 1995 500 North - Ord 77-1981 Opal Marolt House (40176 Highway 82) — Ord 45 - 1988 308 Park- Ord 4 - 1995 310 Park, new lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split 328 Park/327 Midland- Ord 15-2001 333 Park - Ord 4 - 1995 401 Park - Ord 4 - 1995 1080 Power Plant (City Shop) - Ord 21-1992 101 Puppy Smith — Ord 4 - 1995 17 Queen Street — Ord 17 — 1990 and Ord 1 — 1997 541/541 '/z Race Street/Alley - Red Butte Cemetery — Ord 5 - 1996 1295 Riverside Drive, plus new lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split — Ord 3 -2004 9 w 423 N. Second - Ord 77-1981 426 N. Second/229 W. Smuggler — Ord 40 - 1999 525 N. Second (Shilling -Lamb House) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 Sheeley Bridge (National Register) — Ord 34 - 1992 117 N. Sixth- Ord 48- 1998 106 N. Seventh Street- new house on Landmark property 28 Smuggler Grove Road- Ord. 25 - 2008 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. 2"d- Ord 40-1999 400 W. Smuggler - Ord 77-1981 406 W. Smuggler - Ord 49-1989 434 W. Smuggler — Ord 58 - 1992 513 W. Smuggler - new house on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split, Ord 77-1981 523 W. Smuggler — Ord 77 - 1981 609 W. Smuggler — Ord 34 - 1992 610 W. Smuggler/505 N. 5th- Ord 77-1981 & Ord 5-2001 629 W. Smuggler — Ord 4 - 1995 715 W. Smuggler - Ord 77-1981 205 S. Spring Street - Ord 34 — 1992 (aka 635 E. Hopkins) 470 N. Spring — Ord 34 - 1992 514 N. Third - Ord 32-1989 610 N. Third - Ord 4-1982 620 N. Third — Ord 34 - 1992 640 N. Third- Ord 18-2001, Historic Landmark Lot Split Ord. 47 of 2005, created new lot (335 Lake Avenue?) 701 N. Third — Ord 34 - 1992 710 N. Third - Ord 7-1982 205 S. Third (Matthew Callahan Log Cabin) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 Triangle Park - Ord. 4-1982 Ute Cemetery — (National Register) Ord 15- 1973 1500 Ute Avenue — Ord 34 - 1992 520 Walnut - Ord 48-1994 557 Walnut — Ord 4 - 1995 1102 Waters Avenue — Ord 23 - 2010 2 William's Way- Ord 18-1999 CITY MASPEN 0 PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 429-2765 PROJECT: Hunter/Hyman REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson and Associates, 925-2323 DATE: 7.20.11 DESCRIPTION: The prospective applicant is interested in redeveloping the vacant parcel at the comer of Hunter and Hyman and the two adjacent commercial buildings to the west. The properties are not designated as historic structure, but are located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The new building(s) would contain commercial, free-market residential, and affordable residential uses, with underground parking access from the alleyway. The applicant is not expecting to request zoning variances. The project will require conceptual commercial design review prior to an application for growth management. Staff suggests the following sequence of reviews: HPC - Conceptual commercial design review; Conceptual major development; demolition within the CC historic district P&Z - Growth management review for new commercial, free-market residential, and affordable residential; recommendation to City Council for subdivision Council - Subdivision review HPC - Final commercial design review; Final major development Certain submission dates for growth management applications apply.` The project will be reviewed under the Land Use Code in effect upon submission of the first application within this sequence as long as the project remains active. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review (Conceptual and Final to be reviewed by the HPC) 26.415.070.D Certificate of appropriateness for major development. (Conceptual and Final by HPC) 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. (The properties are not designated, but are within the CC Historic District) 26.470 Growth Management Quota System 26.470.070.4 Affordable Housing 26.470.080.1 Expansion or new commercial development 26.470.080.2 New free-market residential units within a mixed-use project 26.470.110 Growth Management Review Procedures 26.480 Subdivision (for merging lots and the development of multiple dwelling units) 26.515 Parking 26.610 Impact Fees 26.620 School Lands Dedication f 26.710.140 Commercial Core Zone District Review by: Staff for complete application Referral agencies for technical considerations Public Hearing: Yes - HPC, P&Z, and City Council. Staff will publish notice in the newspaper; applicant is responsible for posting and mailing notice. Planning Fees: Referral Fees: $2,940 (for 12 hours of staff time, additional hours are billed hourly at $245.00/hour) $820; Housing and Engineering at $410.00. (flat fees due with GMQS aplication) Total Deposit: $2,940 for each of three submission phases. (HPC; PZ/CC; HPC) An additional $820 is due with the PZ/CC application. Note - the fees due will be according to the applicable fee policy at submission of each phase and may differ from those cited here. To apply, submit the following information ❑ Proof of ownership with payment. ❑ Signed fee agreement. ❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. ❑ Total deposit for review of the application. ❑ 15 Copies of the complete application packet and maps for HPC submission 25 Copies of the complete application packet and maps for P&Z + Council submission ❑ An 81/2" by 11" vicinity reap locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ❑ Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, .of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement as discussed previously will be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document. Please submit a letter confirming there are no easements that are being built upon). ❑ A written description of the proposal and an explanation 4n written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing ❑ 3-D digital model of the project, sketch -up preferred. ❑ Copies of prior approvals ❑ Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD) -preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. October 12, 2011 Mr. David L. Lenyo Garfield and Hecht, P.C. 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 THE CITY OF ASPEN RE: APPEAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Dear David, As required per Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.316.030 D., Appeal Procedures, Notice Requirements, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 2, 2011, to begin at 4:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the Aspen Core Ventures, LLC appeal of an action taken by the Historic Preservation Commission. The attached notice will be published in the Aspen Times on October 16, 2011. For further information, please feel free to contact me at 970.429.2758 or by email at amy.g_uthrie@ci.aspen.co.us. A memo will be provided to you prior to the hearing. Sincerely, Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Jr21 , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Vtd N o V 2. 2011 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. :r County of Pitkin ) I, 740nrel F�� l (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that T have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community \ Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) • 0 Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this !_7 day of 10 b2l 20 (L, by .P PUBLIC NOTICE RE: APPE OF A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE A PEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISS N NOTICE HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 2, 2011, to begin at 4:00 p m. before the AsFen Council, City Council Chambers, City Hell, 130 S Galena St., Aspen, to consider an appeal of an action tak- en by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission through the passage of a resolution with regard to demolition of structures located within the Com- mercial Core Historic District. The structures af- fected are 521 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot F, Block 95 and 517 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen. The appeal is submitted by Garfield and Hecht, P.C., on behalf of Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, clo Garfield and Hecht, 601 E. no Hyman Avenue, Aspen CO 81611. For further in- formEltion, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of As- pen Community Development Department, 130 S. j, Galena St., Aspen, CO 970.429.2758, or by email at amv auMrle®ci aspen co.u. ./Michael C. Ireland. Mavor Aspen Cary Council Published In the Aspen Times Weekly on October 16, 2011 [7117640] WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Notary Public ,;�yPU6 / -ORY J. w : C ARSKE ".- ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: cur x-ur SIE PUBLICATION ' * PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) Y Gi^ expires 0510812012 * LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL \ * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 1 0 Chapter 26.316 APPEALS Sec. 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement Sec. 26.316.020 Authority Sec. 26.316.030 Appeal procedures Sec. 26.316.010. Appeals, purpose statement. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, Growth Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to hear and decide certain appeals and to set forth the procedures for said appeals. (Ord. No. 17-2002, §2 [part]) Sec. 26.316.020. Authority. A. Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. The denial of a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314 by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. B. City Council. The City Council shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. An interpretation to the text of this Title or the boundaries of the zone district map by the Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 26.306. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 2. Any action by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development application for development in an "H," Historic Overlay District pursuant to Chapter 26.415. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 3. The scoring determination of the Community Development Director pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 4. The allocation of growth management allotments by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 5. Any other appeal for which specific authority is not granted to another board or commission as established by this Title. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. C. Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide an appeal from an adverse determination by the Community Development Director on an application for exemption pursuant to the Growth Management Quota System in accordance with Subsection 26.470.060.D. of this Title. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 300, Page 35 0 0 D. Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall have the authority to hear an appeal from any decision or determination made by an administrative official unless otherwise specifically stated in this Title. (Ord. No. 17-2002, §2 [part]; Ord. No. 27-2002, §23; Ord. No. 12, 2007, § 18) Sec. 26.316.030. Appeal procedures. A. Initiation. Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination. B. Effect of filing an appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the Community Development Director certifies in writing to the chairperson of the decision-making body authorized to hear the appeal that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The chairperson of the decision-making body with authority to hear the appeal may review such certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. C. Timing of appeal. The decision-making body authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. D. Notice requirements. Notice of the appeal shall be provided by mailing to the appellant and by publication to all other affected parties. (See Subsection 26.304.060[EI). E. Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this Title, the decision-making body authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall be not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. F. Action by the decision-making body hearing the appeal. The decision-making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm or modify the decision or determination appealed from and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision-making body may also elect to remand an appeal to the body that originally heard the matter for further proceedings consistent with that body's jurisdiction and directions given, if any, by the body hearing the appeal. The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. (Ord. No. 55-2000, §§4, 5; Ord. No. 27-2002, §24; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §19) City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 300, Page 36 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council COPY: John Worcester, City Attorney 0 THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development DirectorQ�m FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Council Call-up of passage of Resolution #9, Series of 2011, by the Historic Preservation Commission DATE: November 2, 2011 SUMMARY: Whenever the Historic Preservation Commission approves or disapproves Major Development, Demolition or Relocation of designated property, City Council must be promptly notified and given the opportunity to Call-up the HPCs determination. On September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution #9, Series of 2011, approving the demolition of the structure located at 517 E. Hyman Avenue, commonly known as Little Annie's Eatery, by a vote of five in favor and one opposed. On September 22, 2011, Historic Preservation Staff sent notice of the decision to City Council, and at the September 26, 2011 regular Council meeting, three members; Ireland, Torre and Skadron, requested that a Call-up review be scheduled. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council uphold Resolution #9, Series of 2011, as adopted by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. Subject Property in 1967, before establishment of Little Annie's Eatery Subject Property today 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW: Section 26.415.120 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Appeals, notice to Council and call-up, sets forth the applicable standards of review that Council should follow and the actions available to Council. 26.415.120.D. City Council action on appeal or call-up. The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to: 1. Reversing the decision. 2. Altering the conditions of approval. 3. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. The Land Use Code does not define the terms: "a denial of due process", "exceeded its jurisdiction," or "abused its discretion." Court cases, however, have helped define these terms as follows and may be used by Council in its deliberation: A denial of due process may be found if some procedural irregularity is determined to have occurred. Ad Hoc Executive Committee of Medical Staff of Memorial Hospital v Runyan, 716 P. 2d 465 (Colo. 1986.) A decision may be considered to be an abuse of discretion if the "decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority." Ross v Fire and Police Pension Ass'n., 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986); Marker v Colorado Springs, 336 P.2d 305 (Colo. 1959). A decision may be considered to be in excess of jurisdiction if the decision "is grounded in a misconstruction or misapplication of the law," City of Colorado Springs v Givan, 897 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1995); or, the decision was not within the authority of the administrative body to make. City of Colorado Springs v SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P. 3d 1244 (Colo. 2000). STAFF COMMENT: Staff believes that proper procedures were followed to ensure due process at the HPC public hearing. The HPC was within their jurisdiction. With regard to abuse of discretion, both Staff and HPC applied the criteria for demolition to 517 E. Hyman Avenue and found that approval was appropriate. The criteria cited in the memo, HPC's deliberation, and the approved resolution are: 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. 26.415.080.A.4 The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be 2 i 0 approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. The Staff memo stated: "The facade has changed over time with the addition of a faux false front facade reminiscent of 19`s century frontier architecture. This replicated style does not architecturally or aesthetically contribute to the historic integrity of the district. Historic Preservation in Aspen does not address or protect important local serving businesses like Little Annie's Eatery." HPC member Jamie Brewster stated: "The Little Annie's building does bring vitality to the area, but our criteria is to judge the building, not the business." HPC member Sarah Broughton stated: "If we could retain Little Annie's as a restaurant for the rest of our lives that would be a different story. That restaurant could close tomorrow and would be an empty storefront that to me does not contribute to the history of our downtown from an architectural context viewpoint." HPC member Jason Lasser stated: "It is a struggle because I dislike losing the use and demolishing the building but it doesn't meet the criteria and it is a fairly modern building." Voices of dissent included HPC member Ann Mullins, who stated: "(she) isn't convinced and there may be documentation that demonstrates that it has some significance. The front was put on in 1971. It is in the historic district and I don't feel any of the criteria in the second portion is met because it does contribute to the historic district." The value of the small scale of the structure within the urban fabric was also mentioned in the hearing. 0 • Little Annie's is not the first business to occupy this building. Even if HPC were to find that the demolition criteria were not met, the beloved restaurant operation could be removed. This is a similar discussion to what took place when the previous operator of The Red Onion departed. Luckily, that restaurant was revived. Some local businesses, such as The Steak Pit, have moved in town and carried on their tradition for additional years. The historic preservation regulations cannot ensure this, and in staff's opinion they are not an appropriate tool for the issue. RESOLUTIONS: Attached are two Resolutions. One finds that the Historic Preservation Commission acted correctly and affirms their findings. The second finds that the Historic Preservation Commission exceeded their jurisdiction, abused their authority, or failed to provide due process and reverses their action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the Historic Preservation Commission's resolution was rendered appropriately and that the HPC did not abuse its authority or exceed its jurisdiction. Staff recommends City Council uphold the HPC's resolution by adopting the proposed resolution affirming the passage of Resolution #9, Series of 2011. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive) "I move to approve Resolution #, Series of 2011, affirming the approval of Resolution #9, Series of 2011 by the Historic Preservation Commission." ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #_, Series of 2011 Resolution #_, Series of 2011 Exhibit A- Staff memo to HPC dated September 21, 2011 Exhibit B- Historic Preservation Commission meeting minutes, dated September 21, 2011 Exhibit C- Resolution #9, Series of 2011 adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission 4 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 517 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, AKA LITTLE ANNIE'S EATERY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT E, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, granting approval for the demolition of the structure located at 517 East Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.415.120 — Appeals, Notice to City council and Gall- up, the City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently no associated permits can be issued during the thirty (30) day call-up period; and WHEREAS, the City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to reversing the decision, altering the conditions of approval or remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the record of proceedings and found that the Historic Preservation Commission provided due process and neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 0 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL TO REVERSE A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 517 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, AKA LITTLE ANNIE'S EATERY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT E, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, granting approval for the demolition of the structure located at 517 East Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.415.120 — Appeals, Notice to City council and Call-up, the City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently no associated permits can be issued during the thirty (30) day call-up period; and WHEREAS, the City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to reversing the decision, altering the conditions of approval or remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the record of proceedings and found that the Historic Preservation Commission did not provide due process and either exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council reverses the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Page 1 of 1 0 * r,�L � � , � '-7� MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 517 and 521 East Hyman Street and the Parking lot at the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets (Block 95, Lots G, H, and I) - Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Public Hearing DATE: September 21, 2011 SUMMARY: HPC has purview over the design of this project due to its location in the Commercial Core Historic District. The applicant requests Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Major Development Conceptual Review, and Demolition. The applicant requests approval for a height increase from 38 feet to 40 feet, which is reviewed through Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review. The project comprises three separate lots, 517 and 521 E. Hyman Street and the parking lot on the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets. Two buildings are located on the subject properties: the building that houses Little Annie's Eatery at 517 E. Hyman and located at 521 E. Hyman Street is Tom Benton's original design studio. Neither of these building are designated historic landmarks but they are both located within the boundaries of the Commercial Core Historic District. The three properties are proposed to be merged through subdivision review. The newly created lot is proposed to be 15,000 square feet in size: 3,000 (517 E. Hyman) + 3,000 (521 E. Hyman) + 9,000 (parking lot). The applicant proposes to construct a mixed use building on the site including the following: subgrade parking garage and storage, commercial on the first floor, commercial and affordable housing on the second floor, free market residential and affordable housing on the third floor, and a rooftop deck on the free market residential portion of the building. Currently 7,500 square feet of floor area exist on the three properties. The applicant proposes about 32,640 square feet of floor area that is roughly broken down into the following percentages: 56% commercial, 24% free market residential and 20% affordable housing. The maximum height is proposed to be 40 feet with the elevator shafts extending to 50 feet. The proposal meets the dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core Zone District, with the exception of the requested height increase from 38 feet to 40 feet through Commercial Design Review. Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for redesign. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 1 of 14 0 nulk4"r runty 0 The applicant requests approval to demolish the Benton studio building and the adjacent building that houses Little Annie's Eatery. These properties are located in the Commercial Core Historic Districts and as such require HPC's approval for demolition. The image below, courtesy of the Aspen Historical Society Ann Hodges Collection, shows both buildings on December 28, 1967. Photograph 1: Benton Studio with second floor addition, 1967. The criteria for granting demolition approval are below: §26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. §26.415.080.A.4 The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 2 of 14 b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Findings: Benton studio building (521 E. Hyman) The photographs ( # 2 and #3 below) depict before and after the fagade changes. Following is an excerpt about Tom Benton and his relationship with Aspen from the context paper titled Aspen's Twentieth Century Architecture: Modernism 1945 – 1975: Photographs 2, 3: Benton Studio, before and after remodel Almost twenty years after Bayer and Benedict, Tom Benton (1930-2007) arrived in 1963, as the ski town's growth and popularity were shifting into high gear. Serving in the Navy during the Korean War, Benton used the G.1. Bill to study architecture at the University of Southern California (B. Arch, 1960) and worked in southern California for a time. Though trained as an architect, he really wanted to be a "working artist. " ski trip to Aspen convinced him that it was where he should be. Bringing a sensibility that fit well with Aspen's growing image as a counter -culture mecca, Benton designed his studio and gallery— "unique, a clean and sharp blend of wood and cinder block" (heavily altered today) —at 421 E. Hyman Avenue. He collaborated with Hunter Thompson and others to create "images that helped to define Aspen's tempestuous political and social upheavals" in the late 1960s. More interested in graphic art than in architecture, he still designed the occasional building, including a residence for actress Jill St. John. His funky, organic, California esthetic was in sync with Aspen's Wrightian tradition. His designs, such as the Patio Building (1969), a flat -roofed commercial building at 630 E. Hyman (1969), exhibit a similar interest in natural materials, simple geometric shapes, deep overhangs, horizontal emphasis, and orienting the building to frame views toward the mountains. Tom Benton designed the building located at 521 E. Hyman in 1964 as his design studio and residence. Additions in 1966 and 1970 added the second and third floors, both designed by Benton. Starting around 1979, the first floor was converted to a restaurant/bar use. In 2004, the exterior of the building was significantly changed to the present condition. Stucco, copper details, and new windows erased Benton's aesthetic and use of natural materials and textures on the lower front facade. The original form of the east, west and north facades of the building are intact. The Benton studio was not included as part of Ordinance Number 48 (Series of 2007) or included as part of AspenModern due to the extent of the alterations. It is possible to restore the building to its original appearance using historic photographs since the form is intact; however the restoration of the building is not proposed by the applicant and it is not required. HPC is asked to grant demolition of this structure because it is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. Staff is struggling with whether the building meets the demolition criteria due to the exterior alterations considering the historic evidence that is available to restore the fagade and the importance of Tom Benton to Aspen history. Little Annie's Eater (517 E. H Little Annie's Eatery is one of the few local watering holes left in Aspen. The restaurant/bar is well loved; but this is not a criterion for inclusion in the voluntary AspenModern program. As evidenced from the 1967 photograph above, the fagade has changed over time with the addition of a faux false front facade reminiscent of 19`h century frontier architecture. This replicated style does not architecturally or aesthetically contribute to the historic integrity of the district. Historic Preservation in Aspen does not address or protect important local serving businesses like Little Annie's Eatery. Instead the voluntary Aspen program focuses on tangible aspects of our local history like buildings, landscapes and cemeteries that reflect Aspen's architectural, cultural and aesthetic past — either the 19`h century, ski renaissance or Aspen Idea. As such, in Staff's opinion the physical aspects of 517 E. Hyman meet the criteria for demolition. Photograph 4: Recent photograph of Little Annie's HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 4 of 14 0 • CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW/ MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL Sec. 26.412.050. Review criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. The Commercial Core Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines policy is the following: "improvements in the Commercial Core Historic District should maintain the integrity of historic resources in the area. At the same time, compatible and creative design solutions should be encouraged. " Important defining characteristics of the historic district are the street grid; a hard street edge that is defined by buildings built to lot lines; variations in height between 1, 2 and sometimes 3 stories; and lot widths of 30 feet, 60 feet and sometimes 90 feet with a depth of 100 feet. Prominent storefronts on the ground level with a tall plate height and subordinate upper stories are traditional buildings in Aspen's downtown. Building Placement and Public Amenity: The proposed building generally continues the hard street wall that is typical of the historic downtown. The project is required to provide public amenity space equal to 10% of the lot area, or 1,500 square feet. A 32 feet wide and 37 feet deep space (1,184 square feet) is proposed along Hyman Street in front of the proposed one story section of the building. The applicant requests approval from HPC to pay cash in lieu for the remaining HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 5 of 14 • 316 square feet that is not provided onsite. The public amenity space is north facing and is located across the street from an existing underutilized public amenity space. The applicant expressed a desire to have the public amenity space function as outdoor dining for a restaurant; however there is no guarantee that this space will be used for outdoor dining. Most downtown lots are smaller in size than the proposed 15,000 square foot lot, which means that the required public amenity is typically smaller and varied throughout the block face, rather than one large public amenity. The 1904 map below shows typical lots sizes and open space. The left hand side of the map shows dense commercial buildings, some of which are as small as 15 feet in width. The density and open space loosens up toward the right hand side of the map, as development was located further away from the downtown core. The arrow indicates the location of the subject lots. The image to the right shows the current build out of the subject lots. Image 1: 1904 Sanborne Map compared to 2010 Map of building footprints 9n r .C.Jdi'6YI.t7{ `�r -� t 1 t yy k _-_i.1.rc._-....... ».._. E"JOPLR_ ...___ The guidelines for street facing amenity space state "a street facing amenity space, usually located towards the middle of a block, may be considered. However, within the heart of the district, where the greatest concentration of historic storefronts align, creating new gaps in the street wall is discouraged. Providing space on sites that are located in the outer edges of the district, especially along the southern edge is more appropriate. " The location of the subject properties is on the eastern edge of the historic district so there is some flexibility regarding the design of the public amenity space. The Design Objectives for Public Amenity are below. Design Objectives: • Create an active and interesting street vitality through the promotion of public gathering space. • Maintain a well-defined street edge and street corner to ensure that such public space creates an accent within the street fagade. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 6 of 14 • Create an additional commercial frontage and/or space to the side or rear of the site or building. • Create a well defined, localized public space at the street edge, e.g. where additional space for street dining may be beneficial. • Design a space that maximizes access to sunlight throughout the year. Staff Response: Staff finds that the location and size of the proposed amenity space could be closer aligned with the Design Guidelines and Objectives. Staff is concerned that the atypical size of the proposed 15,000 square foot lot is driving an oversized public amenity space to meet the requirement for the entire lot that is north facing and sandwiched between 3 story buildings on either side. Staff recommends that the applicant break up the public amenity space by reducing the depth of or eliminating the proposed amenity space on Hyman and pursuing a possible amenity space on the Hunter fagade that is east facing and has the opportunity to contribute to the vitality of the block and break up the proposed 3 story, 100 feet long facade. Building Form and Orientation The proposed flat roofs and rectangular building modules, and the proposed building orientation meet the Design Objectives and Guidelines for development in the Commercial Core, specifically 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, and 6.24. See Exhibit A for a complete list of the Guidelines. Building Mass & Scale The Design Objectives and Guidelines state: "The character of the Commercial Core derives in part from the range and variety of building heights. These vary from one to three stories. Building height with traditional lot width creates a constantly changing cornice profile along a block face. This is the basis of the human scale, architectural character and visual vitality of the city center. New development in this area should continue this variation. " As mentioned previously, the applicant proposes a 15,000 square foot lot with one large building that is broken up into different modules through height and setback variations. A 15,000 square foot lot is much larger than the typical sized lot in the Commercial Core as illustrated on the 1904 map above. Lot sizes at most were 9,000 square feet (90 feet x 100 feet) with a minimum of 3,000 square feet (30 feet x 100 feet) Typically, downtown buildings are deeper than they are wide - the iconic downtown historic structures (Elks, Wheeler Opera House, Aspen Block, Independence Square) have a building footprint of about 60 feet x 100 feet, the Hotel Jerome is the exception with a 115 feet x 100 feet footprint. Within the Historic District, the only other single developments occupying more than half of a block face are Mill Street Plaza (on Hopkins and Mill Streets) and the Ajax Mountain Building (on Durant Street). Staff Response: Staff is concerned about the mass and scale of the proposed building on such a large lot. Changes in materials and building height attempt to break up the size of the building, however these elements do not have a strong relationship to traditional HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 7 of 14 patterns of the historic district. Overall Staff is concerned that the proposed breaks in architecture (for example the intersection of the three story brick building with the tall double story entryway on Hyman Street, see image below) meant to reduce the size of the building and to relate to surrounding historic intervals of 30 feet and 60 feet building widths, is unsuccessful as proposed. Staff recommends that the applicant redesign the proposed modules to clearly reflect historic building widths. Imaee 2: 3-D renderine of nronosal The applicant proposes a horizontal stone band above the first story commercial windows along Hunter Street that wraps around the corner for a portion of the Hyman Street fayade where it terminates into a two story tall entry. This type of banding detail is encouraged in Guideline 6.25, however the thickness of the proposed stone band and the overall flatness and simplicity of the first story misses the intent of the guideline. The photograph below of Cooper Street shows the importance of a continuous horizontal band to define the first story commercial space. 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. • Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials or a molding at this level are examples. The floor to ceiling heights do not successfully relate to the surrounding historic architecture. The height of the upper floor of the proposed 3 story corner piece is 12 feet floor to ceiling; however the proposed 2 ft. parapet wall makes the upper floor read as 14 feet. Typically, the focus of 19`h century architecture was on the first floor where the commercial spaces were located. Offices and living spaces were on upper floors with a shorter plate height and simpler architecture. The photograph of the La Fave Block on the next page shows the elegance and attention to detail of the prominent first story. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 8 of 14 0 0 Photograph 5: Cooper Street, courtesy of the Aspen Historical Society i 71 l . 1 } � eg '� The photographs intend to show historic references upon which the Guidelines and Objectives are based. Replicating historic buildings is not suggested; however referencing specific character defining aspects of historic architecture, a prominent HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 9 of 14 detailed first floor with subordinate upper floors for example, helps new architecture meet into the historic district. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the architecture to better reflect these Design Objectives and Guidelines. Height Variations for Larger Sites The Design Objectives and Guidelines state: "Buildings within the commercial center and historic core of Aspen represent the traditional lot widths of the city (30 ft.), either in building width or the horizontal and vertical design articulation of the street favade. New development occupying a site of more than one traditional lot width should be designed to integrate with the scale created by narrower existing buildings. The architectural rhythm of earlier street facades should also be reflected in new development to retain and enhance the human scale and character of the center of the city. " The height requirement in the Commercial Core is 38 feet with the ability to request a height increase to 42 feet through Commercial Design Review. The applicant proposes 3 stories, or 40 feet, at the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets for the entire length (100 feet) of the Hunter Street fagade, and for a portion of the Hyman Street fagade. A rooftop deck for the free market residential units is located atop the 40 feet section of the building. Elevators and associated access to the roof reach 50 feet in height - all of these elements meet Land Use Code height requirements. Moving from east to west along the Hyman Street fagade, about 50 feet from the corner, the 3`d story is set back to provide a break in height and to create a roof top terrace for a third floor free market residential unit. In the center of the proposed Hyman Street fagade, the applicant proposes a one story, 32 feet module setback from the street about 37 feet The rooftop of the one story element is not accessible. Continuing to the west, the building steps up to 3 stories or 38 feet, with the third story slightly set back from the street. Refer to Image 2 on the previous page for illustration of heights. Relevant Design Guidelines are below: 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. • A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: o In order to achieve at least a two foot variation in height with an adjacent building. o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 10 of 14 o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day lighting. 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: • Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building fagade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the fagade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the faVade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • The faced height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum and preferable every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. • No more than two consecutive 30 ft. fagade modules may be three stories tall, within an individual building. • A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is setback a minimum of 40 ft. from the street fagade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: • Variation in height of building modules across the site. • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights. • Variation in building fagade heights or cornice line. Staff Response: Staff is concerned about the proposed 40 feet height of the 3 story element that, essentially, comprises 9,000 square feet of the lot. Staff finds that Design Guideline 6.27 is not met for granting a height increase from the required 38 ft. Staff finds that the continuous height of the fagade along Hunter Street needs to be varied to meet the Guidelines 6.29 and 6.30. Staff is concerned that the amount of 3 story construction proposed for the site is out of character with the historic district, which is more varied with 2 story and some 3 story buildings comprising a block face, especially toward the perimeter of the historic district. Placing a 1 story building in the middle of the proposed development may exacerbate the heights of the proposed 3 story buildings. The Design Objectives and Guidelines state that "Designing a building in the historic district demands a sensitivity in deign analysis and approach which is exacting and which will vary with each situation. The intent is that a new building or addition to an existing building should be designed to respect the height and scale of historic buildings within the commercial core. " HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 11 of 14 Staff is supportive of a 3 story element at the corner of the property to anchor the intersection and preserve the street wall. Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the height of the building to meet the 38 feet requirement and restudy the Hunter Street fagade to provide height variation and meet the Guidelines listed above. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Sec. 26.412.060. Commercial design standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at -grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Response: As mentioned previously, staff recommends that the applicant restudy the public amenity space to meet the Design Guidelines listed above and Standard A.3. Staff is concerned about the size and placement (north facing and across the street from existing public amenity) of the proposed space. Staff is unsupportive of the request for a reduction in the public amenity requirement considering that this property is a complete HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 12 of 14 0 scrape and replace. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall Staff Response: The applicant demonstrates that these standards are met. Staff is unclear as to the location of the trash area for the affordable housing tenants. A service court is provided off of the alley that is accessible near the commercial spaces and the free market residential lobby. The basement garage plan illustrated only mechanical, parking and storage areas. Staff recommends that the applicant provide more information as to how the minimum standards of 20 feet x 10 feet x 10 feet for trash/utility/recycle is met onsite. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the public hearing for a restudy. Staff suggests that HPC discuss and provide feedback to the applicant regarding the following points: 1. Demolition of 521 and 517 E. Hyman Streets. HPC is asked to decide Demolition Review of these building prior to discussing the proposed new building. 2. Size and location of public amenity space. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 13 of 14 0 3. Mass and Scale: proposed building modules, horizontal banding above the first floor. 4. Floor to ceiling heights. 5. Height Increase from 38 ft. to 40 feet. 6. Height Variations. 7. 3 stories at the corner of Hunter and Hyman. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Design Objectives and Guidelines Exhibit B: Application HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 14 of 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21.2011 Mitch Haas said if we did go with mixed use and stuck with the CI zone there would be zero setback requirements on the front, side or rear and a whole lot more floor area and height. This is being as sensitive as we can get and we are hearing that there could be more sensitivity done. Greg has demonstrated a better track record than anybody in trying to respond to the issues made by this commission. Jay said we are 85% close to mass and scale and there are a few things that can occur for final. One idea would be a full streetscape and full Iandscape plan. We know you want to be a duplex. 517 E. Hyman Ave. (aka Little Annie's Eatery), 521 E. Hyman Ave. (aka The Benton Bldg.) and the parking lot on the corner of Hunter and Hyman — Conceptual Development, Conceptual commercial, Design Standard Review, Demolition, Public Hearing Nora seated Jay recused himself Sarah seated Exhibit I — Public Notice Sara Adams, The project is the redevelopment of the projects at 517 E. Hyman, 521 E. Hyman and the parking lot at the corner of Hyman and Hunter Street. A site visit occurred today and Jason, Jamie, Brian and Ann were present. John Toya, architect Stan Clausen, Stan Clausen architects represented the applicant Sara said HPC is asked to review major development conceptual, commercial design review and demolition of properties located within the commercial core district. The proposal is to demolish the two existing buildings onsite; one is the old Tom Benton design studio and the other houses Little Annie's restaurant. The proposal includes a sub -grade garage and storage area; commercial, free market residential and affordable housing. It also includes merging the three lots into a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. Right now there is a 9,000 sq. ft. lot which is the parking lot, 3,000 sq. ft, which is Little Annie's and a 3,000 sq. ft. lot. which is the Benton building. The proposal meets all the requirements of the commercial core zone ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 district. There is a request to increase the height of a portion of the building from 38 to 40 feet which is under HPC purview. There are clearly two separate reviews: Demolition review and the presentation. Demolition review is based on the merits of the existing buildings not what is proposed to possibly replace them. Disclosure: Sarah Broughton said her office has done work with the applicant in the past but currently they are not under any contract. Sara said the criteria for granting demolition are A and B and whether the structure is sound or not. Criteria C talks about practically be relocated and criteria D talks about documentation that exists that supports historic significance to the district. The second set of criteria deals with whether or not the structure contributes to the historic district in this case. Sara said 521 E. Hyman is the Benton building. Tom Benton was a trained architect and he is recognized as important to Aspen's post war history. Two photos are provided to show what the building looked like and what it looks like now. The building has been heavily altered. This happened in 2004 and the lower portion of the front fagade was bumped out and the fenestration was changed and the material palate was changed; however, when you walk around the building and look at the building the form is still intact and the three dimensional geometric shapes that Tom Benton is expressing in the building are still intact. The siding and facades aren't changed very much. Staff is struggling with the recommendation about demolition of this building. As the building sits today it is heavily altered and we cannot require the applicant to restore it to its original appearance. I'll leave HPC with this question: Does the building as it appears today contribute to the integrity of the historic district and does it contribute to the integrity of the historic preservation program? 517 E. Hyman — Little Annie's building. The photograph is from 1967. Sara pointed out that a false front was added. There is no doubt that the restaurant is well loved by the community but the demolition criteria don't address the restaurant use of the building. The historic preservation program and the demolition criteria reflect whether or not there are historic architectural or aesthetic aspects of the building that in this case contribute to the historic district. In staff's opinion this replicated architectural style 2 Ask ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 false front building does not meet the criteria to not permit demolition so we are in favor of demolition of the Little Annie's building based on the criteria in the packet. We ask the same question of HPC, does this building that houses Little Annie's contribute to the integrity of the district and the integrity of the preservation program according to the criteria of the packet. Jim True, Special Counsel said the attorney's office suggest that HPC consider the demolition issue not in context as to what will replace it but in context to what is there now under the two review sections 26.415.080.A.4 I suggest you take public comment now and completely address the demolition issue before the conceptual design review because they are two separate items in the review. Sarah said she would like to move forward with the hearing and deal with demolition and then conceptual. Demolition: Stan Clausen, Stan Clausen and associates John Toya, architect Stan said we have separated per the advice of Jim True the presentation into two parts. The Benton building and Little Annie's are structures that are not included in the Aspen Inventory of historic place. When you look at the list of properties that constitute the commercial core historic district you do not find either of those properties listed. For that reason actually we believe that makes it a clear statement that the historic preservation commission over the years has chosen not to include this as an appropriate historic property for land marking. That in itself says everything about the demolition issue that is to say it is not an historic property and it is not a contributing property to the historic district or it would have been on that list and it would have been placed on that list by previous historic preservation commissions. That list includes not only those properties that were part of the original ordinance of 1974 but a number of properties were added in subsequent years as historic preservation committees considered other properties and determined that they were appropriate to put on that inventory. By virtue of it being in the historic district we do not believe it creates a situation that it is under demolition review as an historic landmark structure as per the land use code. Tom Benton did a number of renovations to the building and adding a second floor and modifying the fayade as he felt appropriate. In 2004 the prior owner of the bldg. changed the front fagade with the permission of the 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21.2011 HPC from a store front that was a bar that had a large deck out front and the owner could not find a subsequent restaurant that wanted to be in that location so he put a store front fagade on the front and considerably altered the fagade in an attempt to make it a viable economic building. It also has an inefficient layout internally and on the second floor doesn't provide ADA access to the upper floor. It has been consistently unoccupied. The Little Annie's was also remodeled on the front fagade. It was originally developed as a store front as far back as the parapet wall and it was then altered to include the front section. It may have had an outdoor deck at one point that was closed in. It has no historic features to make it a landmark structure which is why it is not on the inventory. Both of these buildings are proposed for demolition and replacement and while it is part of our presentation to follow what it does do are permit the installation of a continuous sub -grade level which would be difficult to do if these buildings were retained. The sub -grade level will provide for parking which is part of the land use code for a new project. Noted in "Aspen Modern" that there were considerable changes to the Benton building and while this particular report does not make a specific recommendation for any property it does note those properties that have been altered and lost their historic significance. If demolition criteria were to apply the key demolition criteria would be that the structure cannot practically be moved to an appropriate place in Aspen and that is fairly clear for a cinder block building of its size and type. I'm speaking of the Benton building and it would also be true of the Little Annie's building. There is no documentation that supports that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. I am sure there are people that want to speak of the cultural significance. Tom Benton did poster making of his anti -war during the Vietnam War all of which make for an interesting story. That story is not encompassed within the Benton building. The building as it stands right now does not reflect that story in any meaningful way. The structure itself does not fit with Victorian architecture. With respect to Little Annie's we will stick with the staff recommendation. Chairperson Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Georgia Hanson: I am a 40 year resident and I feel very strongly that Tom has earned the right to be acknowledged and I understand the entire building can't be completely returned to where it was. I am surprised that it didn't show up on a list before all the alternations happened. His architectural 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 circles that are echoed across the street are important and to the story and the modern movement. I would like to see the developer and this committee come up with a way to signify the importance and his talent as an architect. Junee Kirk said she has lived her 43 years. I served on the historic task force commission and we need to look at these buildings as not whether they have historic significance because they were altered but who built them, who lived there and how they contributed.to our culture and our history which Tom Benton definitely has. With his poster business he encapsulated the 70's with the people he know and people who governed. If it is a significant person that dwelled in that place, designed the place, it is historic even though it has been altered. I'm sure there is a way to have the fayade or parts of it preserved to honor some of our history that is so important to the community. The same with Little Annie's. If you tear the buildings down there goes the character of the neighborhood. People should come along as developers and try to give back to the community in some way. I ask you to work with the developers so that they can preserve a portion of this. Bill Wiener, retired architect The Tom Benton building is an architectural form and the core is still there, the roof and the circle. We are here to discuss concepts with the building. I am asking that you don't vote on demolition until you hear the entire story. I am asking that the center part of the roof be retained and the first floor kept open. Jim said Bill Wiener handed out a book as an Exhibit II. Joe Edwards submitted a photograph. Tom built this building 48 years ago during a time of great conflicts in the issue of land use and whether we are going to turn into something like Vail looks like in the spread of condominiums. Tom was a big mover in that decision to try and stop what happens if you just let the free market developers have their way. Many decisions were made in this building. The building should look like Tom had it in the photograph. It is stupid not to utilize this building as historic. This building and Tom's history are historical on modern Aspen. Modern Aspen is what it is because of what occurred in this building. It is an abomination to demolish this building. Sara also said there was a letter from Bill Wiener that was included in the book. Exhibit III, letters from Matthew Moran and Associates; Kelsey ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21.2011 Moore; Calie Edward; Meg Braested; Ruth Hosteller; Lonnie White; Linda Edwards and Patrick Siegel. Most are against demolition of either Little Annie's or the Benton building. Sarah said Exhibit IV — map from Bill Wiener and Exhibit V is the photograph from Joe Edwards. Chairperson Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Stan Clausen said no one is questioning Tom Benton's importance. In this particular building it is not a building that embodies Mr. Benton. I can think of many places in Aspen's history that were important. Nothing ensures that Little Annie's will remain a restaurant as things change. It is important not to confuse the memories that we have. This corridor has the potential to add vibrancy down Hyman Ave. and to Spring Street. Jason said as an architect and an artist Tom Benton is the kind of person that I moved to Aspen to be. I moved here because I don't want to see McDonald signs and parking lots etc. Tom Benton had the courage to question systems and our authority and our landscape. This town looks different than any other place. We are losing buildings that represent people. I know his son Brian Benton. He had an open door policy and people could just walk into his building. The inventory list is just a list. This is a case by case commission and a case by case town. 26.415.080.A.4 Demolition of designated historic properties. a. The property has been determined to be an imminent hazard. The structure is not structurally sound. c. The structure cannot practically be moved. d. No documentation exists to support that the property has architectural or cultural significance. There is cultural significance and the one story element is significant. We have heard that if this gets torn down it will not be inconsequential. It would be a significant blow to our culture. The party walls are there and they could be exposed. This building would provide scale on the street if it is kept. On 517 E. Hyman the fagade is not original and it would be a stretch to keep it. Brian said upon moving to Aspen I was exposed to Tom's poster work. I have deep admiration and respect to what he did. His brilliance was highlighted by his art work. Little Annie's doesn't contribute to the historic integrity of the town as it is not an historic fagade, it is something that retrofitted. There is not a lot of "teeth" to say that building should be 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21.2011 preserved. The Benton building does contribute to the character of the town mostly because of its funkiness and it is those collection of elements that make Aspen great. This particular building has been altered significantly and to me it has become a detriment to the streetscape. As a landscape architect that is something that I am constantly looking at. It is my obligation as a member of this board to see to it that there is vitality in the Aspen core and I do not think this building is providing that anymore. I wish this building was intact the way Benton intended it to be. I would be open to maintaining the facade but they aren't usually successful like the Mother Lode. Ann thanked the public for their comments. The Benton building should not be demolished and it'should be restudied and somehow incorporated in the plan that the developer comes up with. We have seen great restoration projects, the Berg cottage and the patio building etc. All are assets to the downtown.. We continue to lose the 70's buildings and the size and scale of them and the funkiest of the architecture. I'm not convinced that you couldn't work the interior to make the building work. Little Annie's is one of the busiest restaurants in town and it would be a shame to see that go away and have an empty storefront in its place. Jamie said this is difficult because it is hard to distinguish between a building and a business. With the Little Annie's building it does bring vitality to that area but our criteria is to judge the building not the business. The one thing the two buildings have going for them is the size and scale of the buildings which is reduced from everything else around them. I'm concerned what that street fagade would look like if it was all built out and there was no smaller scale buildings to show the change over time. I would like to see the Benton building studied as to how we can preserve it and if there is a way to preserve it. I haven't made a decision on either building. Nora thanked the public for their comments and compassion. If we look back we can take a number of buildings and say why didn't we designate that. I'm trying to be cautious about this and this block is the end of the book mark. You have the Wheeler Opera House, Aspen Block, Eagles, Ute City Banque and Benton. I would encourage you to find a way to voluntarily designate it and make it part of something fabulous. You can do an iconic project in keeping what is important to the history of the town culturally as well as architecturally. I have a hard time saying there is nothing there to keep. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21.2011 Sarah said while I love the scale and this is my community also there needs to be space for the next Thomas Benton. It is too bad this building couldn't be incorporated. I personally feel that the building in its current state 521E. Hyman structurally cannot be moved given its structure type, 26.415.080.A.4 c. On 517 E. Hyman criteria d. If we could retain Little Annie's as a restaurant for the rest of our lives that would be a different story. That restaurant could close tomorrow and would be an empty store front. That to me does not contribute to the history of our down from an architectural context viewpoint. Not meaning any disrespect to our town and citizens and the friends of Thomas Benton I am in support of demolition and it meets the criteria. Stan Clausen requested that the motion be set up in two resolutions for the two properties. Jim said the properties are designated as part of the historic district and they are historic sites. HPC has the purview to consider this and it is appropriate to do two different resolutions. Stan said should there be a vote for against demolition this meeting would effectively be over because the design was predicated on demolition. MOTION: Brian moved to approve resolution #9 for the demolition of 517 E. Hyman Ave, Little Annie's, second by Sarah. Sarah amended the motion to allow for demolition under code section 26.415.080.A.4.d. and in addition a,b,c criteria are met. Brian accepted the amendment. Jason said we will hear more about Little Annie's than the Benton building from community back lash. It is a struggle because I dislike losing the use and demolishing the building but it doesn't meet the criteria and it is a fairly modern building. Ann said she isn't convinced and there may be documentation that demonstrates that it has some significance. The front was put on in 1971. It is in the historic district and I don't feel any of the criteria in the second portion is met because it does contribute to the historic district. Vote: Nora, yes; Sarah, yes; Brian, yes; Jason, yes; Jamie, yes; Ann, no. Motion carried 5-1. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 MOTION: Jason moved to deny 521 E. Hyman the demolition request by the applicant for this particular property setting forth that the criteria has not been met 26.415.080.A.4 a,b,c,d and a.b.c. motion second by Ann. Motion carried 4-2. Vote: Jason, yes; Brian, no; Sarah no; Ann, yes, Jamie, yes, Nora, yes. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue Conceptual Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Standards, Public Hearing to Oct 26`h second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 320 Lake Avenue Work Session Sarah recused herself on 320 Lake Ave. Jim True, Special Counsel — We are going into a work session so the meeting will not be recorded. It is a work session and there is nothing binding on the commission or any individual commissioner. This is done to provide information to the applicant to assist them. There is nothing upon which the applicant can rely of the commission as a whole or individually. Motion: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30_ Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 517 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT E, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # 9, SERIES OF 2011 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-24-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., submitted an application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conceptual Major Development Review and Demolition for the properties located at 517 East Hyman Avenue (Lot E, Block 95), 521 East Hyman Avenue (Units l and 2 of the Benton Building Condominium, aka Lot F, Block 95) and Lots G, H and 1, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 517 East Hyman Avenue is located within the designated boundaries of the Commercial Core Historic District as described in City Council Ordinance number 49, Series of 1974; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and RECEPTION#: 582981, 09/23/2011 at 12:07:40 PM, 517 East Hyman Avenue- Demolition 1 OF 2, R 616.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2011 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Page 1 of 2 b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 21, 2011 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and recommendation, and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and approved demolition by a vote of five to one ( 5 — 1). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Demolition approval for the property located at 517 East Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado based on the finding that Land Use Code demolition criteria set forth in Section 26.415.080.A.4.d and 26.415.080.A.4, and second part subparagraphs a — c are met. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 21" day of September, 2011. Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Kathy %rickland, Chief Deputy Clerk S rah Broughton, Chair 517 East Hyman Avenue- Demolition HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2011 Page 2 of 2 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: r''• Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: In�t�t N o V 2 W 1E.• , 2011 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, 4-y� e'L-A (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. s Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this% 7 day of , 20 ff, by NOTICE 1#HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 2ty, 2011, to begin at 4:00 p m. before the Aspen9 i S Galena City Council Chambers, City Halll of an action tak- St., Aspen, to consider an apps an by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission through the passage of a resolution with regard to demolition of structures located within the Com- mercial Core Historic District. The structures af- fected are 521 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot F, Block 95 and 517 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen. The appeal is submitted by Garfield and Hecht, P.C., on behalf of Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, c/o Garfield and Hecht, 801 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen CO 81611. For further s - formation, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of As- pen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., As en, CO 970.429.2758, or by email at amv cuthrie�ci aspen co.Fs. i Ireland Mavor Aspen City Council O tober WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My com,41 Sion expiles: Notary • ORY J. :.�ARSKE Published in the Aspen rimes Weekly on c "y }�,`' �.,, a . • .- 18 2x11 171176401 I ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: �� ' %,:urY UF' 1 HE PUBLICATION My (;s . Expires 0510912012 * PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) * LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 � JECEIVED OCT 14 2011 CIN OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Appellant: Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, V. Appellees: The Historic Preservation Commission and Historic Preservation Commissioners Sarah Broughton, Jason Lasser, Brian McNellis, Jamie Brewster McCleod, Ann Mullins, Nora Berko, and Willis Pember, in their official capacities only David L. Lenyo, A.R. #14178 Avery Simpson, A.R. #42732 Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: (970) 925-1936 Facsimile: (970) 925-3008 E-mail: chagen@garfieldhecht.com E-mail: asimpson@garfieldhecht.com Attorneys for Appellant APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Tableof Contents................................................................................................. ii Tableof Authorities............................................................................................ iv I. Summary of the Case............................................................................ 1 A. Adverse Decisions Appealed....................................................... 1 B. Course of Proceedings................................................................. 1 II. Statement of the Facts.......................................................................... 7 A. The Subject Properties................................................................ 7 B. Overview of Historic Preservation Code Provisions and Ordinances........................................................................................ 9 1. The HPC Regulations Recognize the Distinction Between (a) a Structure That is Listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and (b) a Structure Located in an "H" Historic- Overlay District........................................................... 9 2. The Structures Located On the Subject Properties Are Located Within the Commercial Core Historic District But Have Never Been Designated as Historic Landmark Structures Listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures"................................................................................. 10 3. The Subject Properties Have Never Been Designated as Historic Landmark Structures Under the Mandatory Due Process Requirements for Listing a Property on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures".................................13 ii 0 0 a. The Subject Properties Have Never Been Designated as Historic Landmark Structures Under the Current Mandatory Due Process Procedures for Designating a Historic Property............................................................. 13 b. The Subject Properties Were Never Designated As Historic Landmark Structures Under the Mandatory Due Process Designation Procedures Contained in Prior Versions of the HPC Regulations Contained in the Aspen Land Use Code ........................15 4. The Aspen Land Use Code Repeatedly Distinguishes Between (a) "Designated Historic Properties" and (b) Non -Historic Buildings Located in a "Historic Overlay District.".................................18 5. The 2002 Amendments to Demolition Review Exempting Non -Historic Buildings in Historic - Overlay Districts....................................................................... 21 6. The HPC's Failed Attempt to Legislatively Adopt Demolition Review and Approval Requirements for Post -World War II Buildings That Are Not Designated Historic Landmark Structures or Sites ............... 27 III. Statement of the Issues Presented for Review ................................ 30 IV. Argument............................................................................................ 31 A. Standards of Review.................................................................. 31 1. The HPC Exceeded Its Jurisdiction And Abused Its Discretion By (1) Requiring Non -Historic Properties That Are Not Listed On "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" To Submit To Demolition Review iii Under 26.415.080.OA And (2) Preventing The Demolition Of The Benton Building ........................................ 32 2. The HPC Denied the Appellant Due Process By Imposing Demolition Review On Non -Historic Properties That Were Never Properly Designated On "The Aspen Inventory Of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" Following Predesignation Notice Hearings and Recording ................................................ 34 3. The HPC Exceeded Its Jurisdiction And Abused Its Discretion By Administratively Imposing Demolition Review On The Non -Historic Structures On The Subject Properties After Its Prior Attempts To Legislatively Impose Involuntary Demolition Review On Post -World War II Buildings Was Defeated ............................................... 35 4. The HPC Denied The Appellant Due Process By Refusing To Review The Appellant's Application For Development Of Replacement Buildings Under Section 26.415.070......................................................... 36 V. Conclusion............................................................................................36 Certificate of Service.......................................................................................... 38 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Board of Pub. Works of City of Denver v. Denver Telephone & Telegraph Co., 66 P. 676 (Colo.App. 1901).......................................................... 2 Canyon Area Residents for the Environment v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Jefferson County, 172 P.3d 905 (Colo. App. 2006) ........................ 32 iv 0 0 City of Colo. Springs v. SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244 (Colo. 2000)........................................................................................... 34,35 Hart v. Bayliss Investment and Trading Company, 346 P.2d 1101 (Ariz. 1959)......................................................................................................... 33 McArthur v. Zabka, 494 P.2d 89 (Colo. 1972) .............................................. 34,35 Native Am. Rights Fund, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 97 P.3d 283 Colo. App. 2004)...................................................................................................... 31,35 Safeway, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 186 P.3d 103 (Colo. App. 2008)........................................................................................................... 32 Town of Canton v. Bruno, 282 N.E.2d 87 (Mass. 1973) ................................... 33 Western Paving Constr. Co. v. Bd. of County Comm rs of Boulder County, 506 P.2d 1230 (Colo. 1973)................................................................... 33 Widder v. Durango Sch. Dist. No:- 9-R,- 85 P.3d 518 (Colo. 2004) ..:...........::.... 31 Rules C.R. C.P. 106............................................................................................................ 31 C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4).................................................................................................. 31 Other Authorities ASPEN LAND USE CODE (TITLE 26)................................................................... passim W 0 9 I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE A. ADVERSE DECISIONS APPEALED The Appellant appeals the adverse decisions by the Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") and its individual members on Wednesday, September 21, 2011, purporting to approve or prevent demolition of non -historic structures located at 521 East Hyman Avenue, Block 95, Lot F (the "Benton Building"), and 517 East Hyman Avenue, Block 95, Lot E (the "Little Annie's Building"). (The Benton Building and Little Annie's Building shall be collectively referred to as the "Subject Properties.") Specifically, the -A ellant: -seeks reversal of 1 -the adverse decision b the; Appellee -.s PP O y-- requiring the Appellant to seek demolition review and approval for the Subject Properties under Section 26.415.080 of the Aspen Land Use Code and (2) the adverse decision by the Appellees denying demolition approval for the Benton Building. Appellant preserved its right to appeal the adverse decisions to City Council by timely filing its Notice of Appeal with the Community Development Director pursuant to Sections 26.316.030 and 26.415.120 on Wednesday, October 5, 2011. B. COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS The required pre -application conference was held on July 20, 2011. 1 745360-6 0 0 Pre -Application Conference Summary attached as Exhibit 1. At the pre - application conference and in the pre -application conference summary, City of Aspen Community Development staff ("City Staff') suggested the following sequence of reviews: (1) HPC—conceptual commercial design review; (2) conceptual major development; and (3) demolition within the Commercial Core Historic District, along with other reviews by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council not involving historic district concerns. City Staff identified demolition review under Section 26.415.080 as a relevant Land Use Code section even though City Staff admitted that the "properties are not designated but are within the CC historic district." (emphasis added). Under such a sequence, the HPC would first review the application to determine whether the proposed mass, scale and design of the replacement buildings were "compatible with the historic character of the district." Once the mass, scale and design of the proposed buildings were approved, the Appellant would be entitled to a "Certificate of Demolition Approval'' allowing the demolition of the non -landmark structures contained in the historic overlay district. 1 Because there are no criteria for demolition approval of non -historic structures once commercial design review is approved, the issuance of the certificate of demolition approval would be a purely ministerial act because the Community Development Department has no discretion to deny the certificate. See Board of Pub. Works of City of Denver v. Denver Telephone & Telegraph Co., 66 P. 676 (Colo.App. 1901). 2 In its Conceptual Design Review Application filed on August 5, 2011, the Appellant complied with City Staff's requirement that it address the requirements of Chapter 26.415.080 titled "Demolition of Designated Historic Properties" even though the City Staff admitted that the "properties are not designated." In its introduction, the Appellant preserved its jurisdictional objections stating Mhe existing structures are not designated as historic structures. However, because the structures are located in the Commercial Core Historic District, the Community Development Director has requested response to appropriate sections of this Chapter. (emphasis added). See Exhibit 2. ..-. Under the subheading ° titled "Procedures for Considering Request for Demolition of Designated Properties," the Appellant again reiterated that "this property is not a designated historic property." Id. In response to City Staff's request that the Appellant provide evidence that the building structure or object had no historic or architectural value or importance, the Applicant stated, [T]he basis for this request is [Section] 2.b. above, and supporting documentation is provided as attachment 9 that the two existing structures are not listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." The application provides the inventory as updated in April 2011. Id. (emphasis added). 3 Attachment 9 is the published "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" produced by the HPC, which clearly does not include either of the Subject Properties on the published list. See Exhibit 3. On September 20, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the application at its regular meeting and provided referral comments to the HPC by a vote of 4 to 0. In the City Staff memo dated September 20, 2011, addressed to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding its duty to provide referral comments to HPC, HPC staff stated again that " jnleither of these buildings] are designated landmarks." See Exhibit 4. The City Staff recommended in this memo "that P&Z provide feedback to the HPC on the following points: (1) Size and location of the public amenity space. Is a reduction in public amenity space appropriate?; (2) Mass and scale; (3) Height increase from 38 ft. to 40 ft." Id. The memo did not address anything regarding demolition of the Benton Building or the Little Annie's Building. A September 21, 2011, memo to the HPC reiterated that "[n]either of these building[s] are designated landmarks." See Exhibit 5. The September 21, 2011, memo to HPC further stated with regard to demolition review that 4 [n]either property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark sites and structures; however, these properties are located in the Commercial Core Historic Districts and as such require HPC's approval for demolition. Id. This memo to HPC recommended, among other things, that "HPC discuss and provide feedback to the applicant regarding... (1) Demolition of 521 and 517 E. Hyman Streets [sic] ..." Id. The September 21, 2011, City Staff memo, however, did not cite any provisions from the Aspen Land Use Code supporting its assertion that non -historic structures located in a historic overlay district are subject to HPC demolition review. On Wednesday, September 21, 2011, the HPC required the Subject Properties to submit to demolition review under Section 26.415.080. Notwithstanding the Community Development Director's and City Staff's prior suggestions regarding the sequencing of review both verbally at the pre - application conference and in writing in the pre -application conference summary (see Ex. 1), the City Attorney's office suggested for the first time on the day of the HPC hearing that HPC consider the demolition "not in context as to what will replace it but in context to what is there now under the two review sections 26.415.080.A.4." See Exhibit 6. The City Attorney also suggested that "[HPC] take public comment now and completely address the demolition issue before the conceptual design review..." Id. By doing so, the 5 0 City Attorney's office changed the sequence of review suggested by the Community Development Director and City Staff that the HPC first consider commercial design of the replacement buildings before addressing demolition of the non -historic structures. The draft minutes reflect the following response and objection by the Appellant to the demolition review imposed by the City Attorney and HPC. Stan said we have separated per the advice of Jim True the presentation into two parts. The Benton building and Little Annie's are structures that are not included in the Aspen Inventory of historic place. [sic] When you look at the list of properties that constitute the commercial core historic district you do not find either of those properties listed. For that , . reason actually we believe that makes it a clear - - statement that the historic preservation commission over the years has chosen not to include this as an appropriate historic property for landmarking. That in itself says everything about the demolition issue that is to say it is not an historic property and it is not an historic property and it is not a contributing property to the historic district or it would have been on that list and it would have been placed on that list by previous historic preservation commissions. That list includes not only those properties that were part of the original ordinance of 1974 but a number of properties were added in subsequent years as historic preservation committees considered other properties and determined that they were appropriate to put on that inventory.. By virtue- of it being in the historic district we do not believe it creates a situation that it is under demolition review as an historic landmark structure as per the land use code. Id. 2 0 0 Nevertheless, HPC (1) voted 5 to 1 to approve demolition of the Little Annie's Building and (2) voted 4 to 2 to prevent the demolition of the Benton Building. The commercial design review of the proposed replacement buildings was continued until October 24, 2011. The Appellant advised HPC that "should there be a vote against demolition, this meeting would effectively be over because the design was predicated on demolition." Id. As a result, the Appellant was denied its right to seek commercial design review of the proposed replacement buildings. On Monday, September 26, 2011, the City Council voted 4 to 1 to "call up" the decision of the HPC allowing the demolition of the Little Annie's Building, pursuant to Section 26.415.080(A). The Appellant filed its Notice of Appeal with the Community Development Director pursuant to Sections 26.316.030 and 24.415.120 on Wednesday, October 5, 2011. II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS A. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES On November 9, 2010, Appellant purchased five adjacent lots within Aspen's Commercial Core ("CC") Historic District for a purchase price of $17.75 million. A private, dirt parking lot exists on three of the. lots.;The Benton Building, which was initially designed and constructed in 1964, is located on one of the five lots. See Ex. 5. Since 1964, the Benton Building has 7 undergone additional construction in 1966, 1970, 1979 and 2004. Id. According to Pitkin County assessor's records, the Benton Building was effectively built in 1987. See Exhibit 7. The Benton Building has been recently used for various temporary commercial uses but has been largely unoccupied in recent years. See Ex. 2. A 2004 renovation of the ground floor of the building to create a storefront in place of the former tavern use was unsuccessful in attracting tenants to the building. The building has a quirky and inefficient layout, which has hampered its commercial viability. Id. The Little Annie's Building, located on one of the other lots, contains a restaurant and bar in a one-story building. See Ex. 5. Like the Benton Building, Little Annie's has undergone additional construction since it was originally built in 1960. See Ex. 5. According to the Pitkin County assessor's records, the Little Annie's Building was actually built in 1960 but is listed as effectively built in 1985. See Exhibit 8. The HPC admits that Neither [of the Subject Properties] is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Mites and [S]tructures. (emphasis added) See Exs. 4 & 5. The HPC also admits that the Benton Building was also "not included as part of Ordinance Number 48 -(Series of 2007) or included as part of AspenModern due to the extent of the alterations." See Ex. 5. n B. OVERVIEW OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE PROVISIONS AND ORDINANCES 1. The HPC Regulations Recognize the Distinction Between (a) a Structure That is Listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and (b) a Structure Located in an "H" Historic Overlay District. The HPC regulations regarding proposed development or demolition of structures (1) listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" or (2) located in an "H" Historic Overlay District" are contained in Chapter 26.415 of the Aspen Land Use Code. As reflected in a prior version of the title of Chapter 26.415, the drafters of the HPC regulations have clearly distinguished between (1) development or demolition involving structures listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and (2) development or demolition of non -historic structures located in an "'H' Historic Overlay District" in prior and current versions of the HPC regulations contained in the Aspen Land Use Code.2 See Exhibit 9. A historic -overlay district "H" is an area or site designated and regulated for its historic architectural importance under section 26.415 of the Aspen Land Use Code. See Exhibit 10, definition of "historic district" in the Aspen. Land Use. Code at Section 26.415.020. The Commercial Core historic 'Although the title of Chapter 26.415 has been amended, the current version of the Aspen Land Use Code still references the former title of Chapter 26.415 showing the distinction between these types of structures. See Section 26.412.040. 0 district was designated as an "H" historic -overlay district by Ordinance 49 (Series of 1974). See Exhibit 11. As a result, the Aspen Commercial Core historic district was placed on the Aspen zoning map as an "H" historic - overlay district. See Exhibit 12. In 1974, however, "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" had not yet been established. Therefore, Ordinance 49 (Series of 1974) did not list the Aspen Commercial Core Historic District, or structures located within the Aspen Commercial Core Historic District, on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites or Structures." The City of Aspen and the HPC unequivocally admit that neither of the structures on the Subject Properties has ever subsequently been listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" pursuant to the mandatory designation procedures that require pre -designation notice, multiple public hearings and proper recording of any ordinance designating a structure subject to demolition review or approval under Section 24.415.080. 2. The Structures Located on the Subiect Properties Are Located Within the Commercial Core Historic District But Have Never Been Designated as Historic Landmark Structures Listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures". "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" is an official publication produced by the City of Aspen, based upon expert 10 recommendations by consultants, and reviewed by the City Council and the HPC. This document lists by street address the designated historic landmark structures and sites located in different areas within the City of Aspen. See Ex. 3. "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" identifies the specific ordinance by which each property was designated as a landmark structure or site for inclusion on the list after the required pre- designation notice, multiple public hearings and recording of the designation ordinance burdening the particular property. "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" map graphically identifies the foot prints of each structure and site designated as historic following notice, hearings and recording. See Exhibit 13. The structures located on the Subject Properties are not listed or depicted on either "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites or Structures" official HPC list or map. The published "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures" has three separate captions in bold type that identify three different areas within the City of Aspen where designated historic sites and structures are located. The three areas identified in the captions are (1) the "Commercial Core Historic District"; (2) the "Main Street Historic District"; and (3) "Designated Landmarks Located Outside of the Historic Districts." See Ex. 3. "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" 11 then lists under each caption specific structures and sites designated as historic landmarks by ordinance on a property -by -property basis within each of the three areas. There are 38 separate structures and sites listed under the heading "Commercial Core Historic District" as historic landmarks. See Ex. 3. Although the Little Annie's Building and the Benton Building are located within the "Commercial Core Historic District," neither property is listed as a designated historic landmark structure under the caption for the "Commercial Core Historic District" area. See Ex. 3, listing nearby historic landmark structures located on East Hyman Avenue. Similarly, 37 specific landmark structures or sites are listed as historic within the "Main Street Historic District." See Ex. 3. Finally, there are 213 listed historic landmarks within the "Designated Landmarks Located Outside of the Historic Districts" (total designated historic landmark structures or sites in all three areas: 288 . In each case, a notice or copy of the ordinance designating the property has been recorded in the Pitkin County Records providing notice to buyers that the structures on the designated properties are subject to demolition review. See, e.g., .Exhibit 14. 12 • • 3. The Subiect Properties Have Never Been Designated as Historic Landmark Structures Under the Mandatory Due Process Procedures for Listing a Property on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." a. The Subiect Properties Have Never Been Designated as Historic Landmark Structures Under the Current Mandatory Due Process Procedures for Designating a Historic Property. Under the current historic preservation regulations, there is a "systematic public process" for designating buildings, districts, sites, structures or objects on the "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." See Section 26.415.030.3 Under section 26.415.030(0)(2), "only the property owner(s) may file an application for designation of an AspenModern building, district, site, structure or object" on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.114 Once the application is determined to be complete, a report is prepared by city staff for transmittal to the HPC with a recommendation to approve or disapprove the inclusion of the property or district on the "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark 3 Depending upon its age, an application may be made for designation of a property to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of either Aspen Victorian (see section 26.415.030(B)) or as an example of AspenModern (see section 26.415.030(C)). 4 In this case, the structures located on the Subject Properties could not be subTect to designation as an example of Aspen Victorian because they were not built in the 19 century. See section 26.415.030(B)(1)(a). Therefore, the only category for potential designation the structures located on the Subject Properties could possibly be subject to would be as examples of Aspen Modern. In that case, only a property owner may voluntarily file an application for designation as set forth in section 26.415.030(C)(2). It is also important to note that neither the Benton Building nor the Little Annie's Building were listed as an AspenModern property pursuant to Ordinance 28 (Series of 2010). 13 • Sites and Structures." See Section 26.415.030(D)(1). A date for a public hearing on a complete application is then scheduled before the HPC. See Section 26.415.030(D)(2). Posting and mailing notice to the property owner and neighboring properties is mandatory. Id. At the first hearing, the HPC is required to evaluate the application to determine if the property or district meets the criteria for designation on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." See Section 26.415.030(D)(3). The HPC then recommends approval, disapproval or continuance of the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny the proposed historic designation. Id. Upon receipt of the decision report and recommendations of the HPC, the City Council is required to schedule a second public hearing on the application in accordance with the notice requirements for adopting an ordinance. See Section 26.415.030(D)(4). At the two public hearings, the property owners, parties of interest and citizens have an opportunity to provide information about the property's or district's eligibility for designation. See Section 26.415.030(D)(3)&(4). The City Council then approves, disapproves or continues the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. See Section 26.415.030(D)(4). In this case, there were never any applications, notices, 14 0 • public hearings or decisions to approve the inclusion of the Little Annie's Building or the Benton Building on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures."5 As a result, they are not included as historic landmark structures in "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." b. The Subiect Properties Were Never Designated as Historic Landmark Structures Under the Mandatory Due Process Designation Procedures Contained in Prior Versions of the HPC Regulations Contained in the Aspen Land Use Code. In 1974, "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" had not yet been established. Therefore, there was no procedure at that time for designating a historic landmark site or structure. -Instead, historic preservation designation was limited to the establishment of "historic overlay districts" under Section 24-9.1, which provided Purpose. It is the intent of this article to establish procedures to provide for the preservation and continued existence of historic structures, combination of structures, sites and areas within the 5 As discussed above, the Commercial Core Historic District was designated as a historic district by Ordinance 49 (Series 1974). As a result, the Aspen Commercial Core District was placed on the Aspen zoning map as an "H" Historic Overlay District, but was never designated by ordinance as a landmark site listed as part of "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" subject to demolition review under -Section 26.415.080. In fact, "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" had not yet been established in 1974. Therefore, the designation of the Commercial Core Historic District as a historic district did not place structures within the historic district on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." 15 city and for the construction, reconstruction and remodeling of structures and combinations of structures within legally designated "H," Historic Overlay Districts...." (emphasis added) (Ordinance No. 11 (Series of 1975) (Section 1).) See Exhibit 15. Section 24-9.4 set forth the "Procedure for Designation of H, Historic Overlay Districts." Id. Unless the owner consented to historic designation, the approval process required public hearings under Section 24-9.4 before (a) the Planning & Zoning Commission and the HPC and (b) City Council. If approved, Section 24-9.8 required recording of an ordinance or notice designating the structure or combination of structures as an `H' overlay historic district. Id. Ordinance 49 (Series of 1974) designated. By 1989, the HPC regulations contained in the Aspen Land Use Code recognized two types of designated historic properties: (1) "H" historic overlay districts meaning "a site or area designated by the City Council as an `H' historic district under the provisions of Art. 7, Div. 7," or (2) a "historic landmark" meaning "a structure designated by the City Council as a historic landmark under the provisions of Art. 7, Div. 7, either within or outside of an `H' Historic Overlay District." See Exhibit 16. Only "structures" (as opposed to "sites" or "historic. districts") were subject.. to demolition review under Section 7-602 of the 1989 version of the HPC regulations. See Exhibit 17. 16 0 0 Section 7-709 of the 1989 version of the Aspen Land Use Code established an "Inventory of Historic Structures." See Exhibit 18. Structures contained on the "Inventory of Historic Structures" were eligible for designation as "Historic Landmarks." Id. A proposed designation as a "historic landmark" required public hearings before the HPC, the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council, together with recording requirements of the ordinance creating the historic landmark designation. The structures located on the Subject Properties were never designated as "historic landmark" structures under the previous HPC regulations contained in the Aspen Land Use Code. The 1999 version of the HPC regulations contained in the Aspen Land Use Code established an "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures in the City of Aspen." See Exhibit 19. Structures or sites contained in "The Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures in the City of Aspen" could also be designated as either (1) an "H historic overlay district" or (2) a historic landmark. Any proposed designation of a structure as an "H" historic overlay district or as a historic landmark required review and approval by the Community . Development Director, the HPC, the P&Z Commission - at a k public hearing, and the City Council at a public hearing. See Exhibit 20. A certified copy of the ordinance creating an "H" historic overlay district or a 17 0 historic landmark was required to be recorded in the real estate records. See Ex. 20, Section 26.420.040. None of the structures located on the Subject Properties was ever designated as a "historic landmark" under Section 26.420.020. Only "structures" (as opposed to "sites" or "historic districts") were subject to demolition review under Section 26.415.010(E) of the 1999 version of the HPC regulations. See Exhibit 21. 4. The Aspen Land Use Code Repeatedly Distinguishes Between (a) "Designated Historic Properties" and (b) Non -Historic Buildings Located in a "Historic Overlay District." Different types of reviews and approvals are required for (1) structures located on "designated historic properties" versus (a) structures located within "historic overlay districts." For example, Section 26.412.030 sets forth the respective commercial -design review authority of the P&Z Commission and the HPC. The P&Z Commission has commercial -design review authority for all development in the City of Aspen with the exception of development that is located within the Commercial Core Historic District, the Main Street Historic District or on a property that is listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. When development or a portion thereof is located or proposed to be located within the Commercial Core historic district, .the Main Street historic or on a property that is or is under consideration, by application of the applicant, to be listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, the commercial design review shall 18 0 • be subject to review by the HPC. See Section 26.412.030. Section 26.415.070 titled "Development Involving Designated Historic Property" also recognizes the distinction between (1) structures involving designated historic properties or (2) structures involving a designated historic district and requires commercial review for both types of buildings stating no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the development director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for exempt activities, minor work and minor or major development. (emphasis added). Section 26.415.070(D)(1)(a) also specifies that the commercial design review process applies to "the construction of a new structure within a historic district." Finally, Section 26.415.060 refers to the design guidelines adopted by the HPC for commercial design review under Section 26.415.070. Again, Section 26.415.060 clarifies that the commercial design standards apply to both designated historic properties and construction within a historic district, stating: these guidelines are intended to offer assistance to property owners undertaking construction, rehabilitation, alteration, changes in exterior appearance, or any other involvement involving designated historic properties or districts (emphasis added). 19 0 0 The "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines" for the Commercial Core Historic District clarify that it "presents guidelines for new construction and alterations to existing non -historic structures in the Commercial Core Historic District." (emphasis added) See Exhibit 22. Unlike Section 26.415.070 which requires development approval for both (1) development of designated properties on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures"; and (2) development contained - within "historic overlay districts," demolition review under Section 26.415.080 is specifically limited only to those individual structures or sites designated on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." See Exhibit 23. Unlike Section 26.415.070, Section 26.415.080 does not ever refer to "historic districts" or "historic overlay districts." Therefore, it clearly does not apply to non -historic structures contained within historic overlay districts. The HPC and the City of Aspen have unequivocally admitted that the structures contained on the Subject Properties are not designated on "The Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." See Exs. 4 & 5. 5. The 2002 Amendments to Demolition Review Exempting Non - Historic Building in Historic Overlay Districts. A review of the legislative history regarding the requirement for demolition review demonstrates that, in 2002, the City of Aspen specifically exempted non -historic structures contained within historic overlay districts from the requirement of demolition review and approval under 26.415.080. A comparison table summarizing which types of historic properties were subject to demolition review is shown on Table A. I W111 1 1-13 am COMPARISON TABLE REGARDING DEMOLITION REVIEW Comparison of Code Language 1972--- Version • 1989 Version 1999 Version .. , 2002- -- Present Version Types of "H" historic (1) "H" (1) Structures Properties Designated Historic overlay historic in "H" historic listed on Properties districts overlay overlay "The Aspen districts and districts and Inventory of (2) historic (2) structures Historic landmarks and sites Landmark listed on "The Sites and Aspen Structures" Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" Types of Structures (1) (1) structures Properties Designated Historic located in Structures located in "H" listed on Properties Subject "H" historic located in historic "The Aspen to Demolition overlay "H" historic overlay Invento of 21 Comparison of 1972 1989 1999 Version 2002 - Code Language Version Version Present Version Review and districts overlay districts and Historic Approval districts and (2) structures Landmark (2) historic listed on "The Sites and landmarks Aspen Structures" Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" Requirement for Yes Yes Yes, unless No Demolition Review exempted for the Subject Properties? Reason Subject Structures Structures Structures N/A Properties located on located on located on Required to Submit Subject Subject Subject to Demolition Properties Properties Properties' - Review located in located in located in "H" "H" historic "H" historic historic overlay overlay overlay district district districts Reason Subject N/A N/A N/A Structures Properties not located on Required to Submit Subject to Demolition properties Review are not listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" 22 0 0 The predecessor to Section 26.415.080, Section 24-9.10(a)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code in effect as of January 1972, required HPC review for "demolition or moving of any improvement which constitutes all or part of a structure or combination of structures within an H, Historic Overlay District."6 See Ex. 15. By 1989, the HPC regulations recognized both (1) structures listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and (2) structures in "H" historic overlay districts. As a result, the 1989 version of the HPC demolition review under Aspen Land Use Code expressly applied to both (1) "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" in the City of Aspen and (2) any structures within an "'H' Historic Overlay District." In particular, Sec. 7-602 titled "Demolition, Partial Demolition or Relocation" provided A) General. Provided no demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Sec. 7-709, or any structure within an `H' Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-602(B). (emphasis added) See Ex. 17. 'As a result, any owners of the Benton Building prior to the 2002 amendments were subject to demolition review by the HPC. The Appellant, however, purchased the non -historic buildings in 2010 in reliance on the then -existing Code, which did not require HPC review or approval of the demolition of the non -historic structures. 23 However, the provisions governing demolition review applying to structures located in historic overlay district were amended in 1991 to allow non -historic structures to seek an exemption from demolition review and provided: Exemption. The demolition, partial demolition or relocation of a structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District may be exempt from meeting the applicable standards in Section 7-602(B), (C), or (D) if the HPC finds that the following conditions have been met: a. The structure is not identified on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. b. The structure is considered to be non- contributing to the historic district. C. The structure does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district, and that its demolition, partial demolition, or relocation does not impact the character of the historic district. d. The demolition, partial demolition, or relocation is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel. e. The redevelopment or new development is reviewed by the HPC. See Exhibit 24. Section 26.415.010(E) of the 1999 version of the Aspen Land Use Code titled "Demolition, Partial Demolition, Off-site Relocation, On-site Relocation, or Temporary Relocation" also applied to both (1) "structures included in "The 24 0 0 Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" of the City of Aspen; and (2) buildings within an "H" Historic Overlay District providing: (E) Demolition, Partial Demolition, Off-site Relocation, On-site Relocation or Temporary Relocation. (1) General. No demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation, on-site relocation or temporary relocation of any structure included in the Inventoryoof Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 26.48.090,7 or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District, shall be permitted unless the demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation, on-site relocation, or temporary relocation -is approved by the Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with the standards set forth in this Chapter. (emphasis added) See Ex. 21. In 2002; the demolition review -regulations were specifically amended to - remove structures within an "H" Historic Overlay District from demolition review. Section 26.415.080 titled "Demolition of Designated Historic Properties" does not apply to structures contained in the "H" Historic Overlay Districts providing: [i]t is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on `The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures' will be allowed unless approved by HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. See Ex. 23. 7 The proper cite is Section 26.420.080(B) of the 1999 Code. 25 The rationale for requiring properties within a designated historic district to receive commercial design review but not require demolition review is clear: Commercial design review is intended to promote "creative, contemporary design" of replacement buildings that "respects the historic context" and the "historic character of the district." See Ex. 22. Commercial design review is not intended to grant HPC the extraordinary authority to completely prevent the demolition of a non -historic structure that has never been designated on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." Because non -historic structures are no longer subject to demolition review under any circumstances because of the 2002 amendments, the exemption procedure available to allow non -historic structures in a historic overlay district to seek an exemption from demolition review was also eliminated from the Aspen Land Use Code. Having specifically eliminated both (a) "structures in `H' Historic Overlay Districts" from demolition review under Section 26.415.080 and (b) the procedure for seeking an exemption from demolition review for non -historic structures in historic districts, HPC does not have the discretion or jurisdiction to administratively require the demolition review of the Subject Properties under that section when it has unequivocally admitted that "Neither of the Subject Properties is listed on 26 0 0 "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." See Exs. 4&5. 6. The HPC's Failed Attempt to Legislatively Adopt Demolition Review and Approval Requirements for Post -World War II Buildings That Are Not Designated Historic Landmark Structures or Sites. In 2007, the HPC and certain members of Aspen City Council attempted to legislatively amend the Aspen Land Use Code to require demolition review and approval for non -landmark, post -World War II structures that were designated on a proposed "List of Aspen Historic Resources" prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Initially, the Aspen City Council adopted a so-called "emergency" moratorium Ordinance No. 30 - (Series of 2007) preventing the demolition of any structures in the City of Aspen that was 30 or more years old until the HPC determined which structures would be involuntarily designated on the list and subject to demolition review and approval. See Exhibit 25. After significant citizen outcry regarding the detrimental impact of the "emergency" moratorium on property values, City Council held numerous public hearings to determine whether it should legislatively adopt a voluntary or involuntary designation program to apply to post -World War II, non -historic landmark structures that were not designated on "The Aspen 27 Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." Ordinance No. 48 (Series of 2007) was subsequently adopted where the HPC prepared a "Historic Resource List" of all structures that it thought had potential historic value, focusing its preservation efforts on these listed properties. See Exhibit 26. The "Historic Resource List" was based on Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 48 (Series of 2007). See Exhibit 27. Identification of properties on the potential "Historic Resource List" required an application, notice and public hearings before the HPC and City Council. Neither Little Annie's nor the Benton Building was designated on Exhibit A to Ordinance 48 (Series of 2007) or the "Historic Resource List." To the contrary, the HPC specifically found that neither the Little Annie's Building nor the Benton Building met the criteria for designation on Exhibit A to Ordinance 48, which was the basis for the "Historic Resource List." Eventually, City Council passed Ordinance No. 28 (Series of 2010), which adopted an entirely voluntary "AspenModern" program for designating post -World War II properties. See Exhibit 28. As set forth above, only property owners may voluntary apply for designation of a property to the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" as an example of an AspenModern property. See section 26.415.030(0)(2). The Community 28 9 0 Development Director, the HPC, or the City Council do not have jurisdiction or authority to file an application for designation of a property as an example of AspenModern to the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." Properties on the "AspenModern" map (which was based on Exhibit A to Ordinance 48 (Series of 2007) and the "Historic Resources List") are allowed to demolish the existing structures without HPC review or approval after the lapsing of a 90 -day negotiation period to explore potential incentives to the owners if they voluntarily preserved the property designated on the "AspenModern" map. Neither the 1960 -era Little Annie's Building nor the Benton Building is included on the "AspenModern" map. See Exs. 27 & 28. Even though the Historic Preservation Committee failed in its attempts to pass an involuntary designation and preservation program for post -World War II properties that would require mandatory HPC demolition review and approval, the HPC now claims that it can nevertheless require demolition review and approval for the Subject Properties that are not on (1) "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures," (2) the prior "List of Historic Resources" for post -World War. II. properties, or (3) the current "AspenModern" map applying to post -World War II properties. 29 III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Did the HPC exceed its jurisdiction and abuse its discretion by requiring the Appellant to submit its redevelopment application for non - historic structures to demolition review under Section 26.415.080? 2. Did the HPC exceed its jurisdiction and abuse its discretion by preventing the Appellant from demolishing a non -historic structure that is not designated on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" under 26.415.080? 3. Did the HPC deprive the Appellant of due process by applying the demolition review standards under Section 26.415.080, even though the structures located on the Subject Properties were never designated on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" after proper notice, hearing and recording? 4. Did the HPC exceed its jurisdiction and abuse its discretion by administratively requiring the non -historic, post -World War II structures on the Subject Properties to submit to demolition review under Section 26.415.080, when its legislative attempts to impose such restrictions were previously defeated after public hearings and comment? 5. Did the HPC exceed its jurisdiction and abuse its discretion by preventing the Appellant from demolishing the Benton Building thereby 30 preventing commercial design review of proposed replacement buildings under Section 26.415.070? IV. ARGUMENT A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW The Aspen Municipal Code provides that, [t]he City Council shall consider an application on the record established before the HPC [and] [s]hall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. Section 26.415.120(D). The Land Use Code's language regarding City Council review "on the record" of an HPC decision is similar to the standard of review under C.R.C.P. 106. See Native Am. Rights Fund, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 97 P.3d 283, 287 (Colo. App. 2004) (Review of a quasi-judicial decision under C.R.C.P. 106 is a "review of the record to determine whether the governmental tribunal has abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction.") "Review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) is appropriate where the governmental body has exercised judicial or quasi-judicial functions." Id. (citing Widder v. Durango Sch. Dist. No. 9-R, 85 P.3d 518 (Colo. 2004)). HPC exercised quasi- judicial authority in its September 21, 2011, meeting regarding the Subject Properties. 31 Although an abuse of discretion standard is normally a deferential one, HPC's decisions in this instance are not entitled to deference because it misapplied and misconstrued the clear language of the Aspen Land Use Code in issuing it decisions regarding demolition review and approval of the Subject Properties. See Safeway, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 186 P.3d 103, 105 (Colo. App. 2008) (agency's interpretation of its own rules is only entitled to deference if its interpretation is "consistent with generally applied rules of statutory construction."); Canyon Area Residents for the Environment v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Jefferson County, 172 P.3d 905, 910 (Colo. App. 2006) ("[Mhen an agency interpretation [of its own statute] is not uniform or consistent, we do not extend deference and look to other statutory construction aids."). Because the HPC did not apply the Land Use Code consistently, City Council should employ statutory construction aids, including the legislative history, in order to make a determination as to the meaning and application of the Aspen Land Use Code as it relates to the Subject Properties. Id. 1. The HPC Exceeded Its Jurisdiction And Abused Its Discretion By (1) Requiring Non -Historic Properties That Are Not Listed On "The Aspen Inventory Of Historic Landmark Sites And Structures" To Submit To Demolition Review Under 26.415.080 And (2) Preventing The Demolition Of The Benton Building. 32 The current Aspen Municipal Code requires that any restriction or burden on property be adopted legislatively through ordinance after proper notice and public hearings. See section 26.208.020 ("In accordance with City Charter, any action by the City Council that places any burden upon or limits the use of private property shall be by ordinance..."). "When the matter permitted is by right," the City may not unilaterally apply different criteria unless it amends the particular legislation. Western Paving Constr. Co. v. Bd. of County Comm rs of Boulder County, 506 P.2d 1230, 1232 (Colo. 1973) (holding that "the Board abandoned the proper issues and struck the application on considerations totally outside the scope of proper inquiry."). Any action taken by the HPC beyond the authority conferred to HPC by statute or ordinance is invalid. Town of Canton v. Bruno, 282 N.E.2d 87, 90, 91 (Mass. 1973) (citing numerous jurisdictions for rule that action taken beyond the authority conferred or not in compliance with the terms and conditions governing its exercise would be invalid). "Where a board fails to comply with its own statutory conditions, its actions are utterly void and of no effect." Hart v. Bayliss Inv. and Trading Co., 346 P.2d 1101, 1105 (Ariz. 1959). (Ordinance was void where board ignored procedural requirements of applicable zoning act.) 33 Colorado courts must "interpret the ordinance of local governments, including zoning ordinances, as they would any other form of legislation." City of Colo. Springs v. SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244, 1248 (Colo. 2000). As a result, zoning ordinances are subject to the general canons of statutory interpretation. Id. Section 26.415.080 of the Aspen Land Use Code clearly and unambiguously applies only to structures listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." It is undisputed, and the HPC has repeatedly admitted, that the structures on the Subject Property are not contained on that list. Therefore, the HPC has no statutory authority to impose demolition review on the Subject Properties. HPC exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by requiring the Appellant to submit the Subject Properties to demolition review under Section 26.415.080. 2. The HPC Denied The Appellant Due Process By Imposing Demolition Review On Non -Historic Properties That Were Never Properly Designated On "The Aspen Inventory Of Historic Landmark Sites And Structures" Following Predesignation Notice Hearings And Recording. The City of Aspen must follow its own outlined procedures for adding a property to the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." See McArthur v. Zabka, 494 P.2d 89, 90 (Colo. 1972) (A court "must look to 34 the charter and ordinances of the City to determine the proper procedures to be followed in amending a zoning map..."). "[W]hen passing an ordinance to designate an area as an historic district, the City is bound by its own procedures and standards contained in its municipal code." Native Am. Rights Fund, 97 P.3d at 288 (citing SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d at 1247 (legislative authority to adopt and implement zoning policies, in turn, is governed and limited by city's owner charter and ordinances); McArthur, 494 P.2d at 93 ("The public, or at least those whose interests are affected by a zoning amendment, have the right the rely upon the Council following its own ordained procedures.")). The Subject Properties were never designated on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" following mandatory predesignation notice, public hearings and recording in the real estate records. As a result, HPC denied the Appellant's due process rights to predesignation notice, public hearings and recording. 3. The HPC Exceeded Its Jurisdiction And Abused Its Discretion By Administratively Imposing Demolition Review On The Non - Historic Structures On The Subject Properties After Its Prior Attempts To Legislatively Impose Involuntary Demolition Review On Post -World War II Buildings Was Defeated. The HPC previously failed in its attempts to introduce and adopt legislation imposing involuntarily demolition review on post -World War II 35 structures. The HPC cannot circumvent that legislative defeat by administratively imposing the same demolition -review requirements on the Subject Properties. HPC's attempt to administratively impose demolition review despite prior legislative defeat constitutes a deprivation of Appellant's due -process rights. 4. The HPC Denied The Appellant Due Process By Refusing To Review The Appellant's Application For Development Of Replacement Buildings Under Section 26.415.070. The Appellant, like other property owners of post -World War II properties in a historic district, has a right to seek HPC commercial -design review to determine whether the proposed replacement buildings are compatible with the character of the historic district. HPC's purported prevention of demolition of the Benton building denies the Appellant its due - process right to seek commercial -design review under Section 25.415.070 of the Aspen Land Use Code. V. CONCLUSION The HPC exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by requiring the non -historic structures that are not listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures". Ao submit to demolition review under Section 26.415.080. The HPC also exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by preventing demolition of the Benton 36 Building. The HPC denied the Appellant due process by imposing demolition review on the non -historic structures without complying with the predesignation notice, public hearing and recording requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code. The HPC also denied the Appellant due process by imposing demolition review requirements on the post -World War II buildings when prior proposed legislation imposing such demolition -review requirements had been defeated after public hearings and objections. Finally, the HPC deprived the Appellant due process by preventing it from seeking commercial -design review of the proposed replacement buildings to determine whether they were compatible with the character of the historic district. Dated: October 14, 2011. GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. David L. Lenyo, A.R. #14178 Avery A. Simpson, A.R. #42732 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 37 f I hereby certify that on October 14, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF was served on the following via HAND DELIVERY: John P. Worcester, Esquire James R. True, Esquire 130 South Galena Street, 2nd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Chris Bendon Community Development Deptarment City of Aspen 130 South Galena, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Avery Simpson 38 ASPEN OFFICE Victorian Square 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (970) 925-1936 Facsimile (970) 925-3008 GARFIELD & HEC T, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT AW BY HAND DELIVERY Chris Bendon, Director City of Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Street, 3`d Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 John Worcester, Esq. Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Street, 2nd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 James True, Esq. Aspen City Assistant Attorney 130 South Galena Street, 2nd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com October 5, 2011 Re: Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Sections Land Use Code Dear Chris, John and Jim: David L. Lenyo chagen(a,garfieldhecht.com 316.030 & 26.415.120 of the Aspen Enclosed please find the Notice of Appeal a d Executive Summary of Appeal of applicant Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, pursuant to Sections 26.316.030 & 26.415.120 of the Aspen Land Use Code, appealing the adverse decisions by the Historic Preservation Commission and its individual members, purporting to approve or disallow demolition of non -historical buildings located at 521 and 517 E. Hyman Ave. enclosures Sincerely David L. Aspen • Avon • Basalt • Glenwood Springs • Rifle (B Printed on recycled paper 0 0 Appellant: Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, V. Appellees: The Historic Preservation Commission and Historic Preservation Commissioners Sarah Broughton, Jason Lasser, Brian McNellis, Jamie McBrewster McCleod, Ann Mullins, Nora Berko, and Willis Pember, in their official capacities only David L. Lenyo, A.R. #14178 Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: (970) 925-1936 Facsimile: (970) 925-3008 e-mail: chagen@garfieldhecht.com Attorney or Appellant NOTICE OF APPEAL The Appellant, Aspen Core Ventures, LLC (the "Appellant"), hereby files its Notice of Appeal to the Aspen City Council pursuant to Sections 26.316.030 & 26.415.120 of the Aspen Land Use Code of the adverse decisions by the Appellees on Wednesday, September 21, 2011, purporting to approve or disallow demolition of non -historical properties located at 521 East Hyman Avenue, Block 95, Lot F (the "Benton Building"), and 517 East Hyman Avenue, Block 95, Lot E (the "Little Annie's Building") (the Benton and Little Annie's Buildings shall be collectively referred to as the "Subject Properties"). Specifically, the Appellant seeks reversal of (1) the adverse decision by the Appellees to require the Subject Properties to seek demolition review and approval under Section 26.415.080 of the Aspen Land Use Code and (2) the adverse decision by the Appellees denying demolition approval for the Benton Building. The following is an advisory list of issues that will be raised on appeal.l 1 All issues to be raised on appeal will be addressed in the Appellant's Opening and Reply Briefs. 745091-1 Aspen Core Ventures, LLC v. The Historic Preservation Commission, et ad. Notice of Appeal Page 2 of 4 1. The Subject Properties are not designated in the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and, therefore, are not subject to demolition review under Section 26.415.080 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Therefore, the Appellant does not require Historic Preservation Committee approval to demolish the Subject Properties. The Historic Preservation Commission and its individual members exceeded and abused their discretion and their jurisdiction by requiring Historic Preservation Committee approval for demolition of non -historic properties not designated in "the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." 2. The Appellant was denied its due -process rights because, among other things, the City never properly designated the Subject Properties as properties to be included as the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" under Section 26.415.030 because (1) no application for designation was filed, (2) the Historic Preservation Committee never evaluated an application to determine if the Subject Properties met the criteria for designation, (3) City Council never scheduled a public hearing on any application in accordance with the notice requirements for adopting an ordinance and (4) the City Clerk never recorded with the real estate records of the Clerk & Recorder of Pitkin County a certified copy of the ordinance, designating the Subject Properties, including legal descriptions of the Subject Properties. 3. Moreover, the Applicant has a protected property interest allowing it to seek commercial -design review for the proposed replacement buildings at the Subject Properties. There is no condition precedent to seeking commercial -design review for a replacement building that requires demolition review and approval of non -historic buildings. By imposing such a condition precedent prior to allowing the Applicant to exercise its right to seek comm ercial-design review of the replacement buildings, the Historic Preservation Commission has deprived the Applicant of valuable property rights without due process of law. Date: October 5, 2011. 745091-1 Aspen Core Ventures, LLC v. The Historic Preservation Commission, et al. Notice of Appeal Page 3 of 4 Respectfully submitted, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. David L. Lenyo, A.R 4178 Attorney for Appellant 745091-1 0 Aspen Core Ventures, LLC v. The Historic Preservation Commission, et 4P Notice of Appeal Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of NOTICE OF APPEAL was hand delivered on October 5, 2011, to the following. John Worcester, Esquire James True, Esquire Chris Bendon, Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 n Avery Simpson 745091-1 n Appellant: Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, V. Appellees: The Historic Preservation Commission and Historic Preservation Commissioners Sarah Broughton, Jason Lasser, Brian McNellis, Jamie McBrewster McCleod, Ann Mullins, Nora Berko, and Willis Pember, in their official capacities only David L. Lenyo, A.R. #14178 Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: (970) 925-1936 Facsimile: (970) 925-3008 e-mail: chagen@garfieldhecht.com Attornev for Appellant EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF APPEAL Appellant, Aspen Core Ventures, LLC ("Appellant"), submits its executive summary of the appeal of the adverse decisions by the Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday, September 21, 2011.1 The Historic Preservation Commission Does Not Have Jurisdiction or Discretion to Impose Demolition Restrictions on Non -Historic, Post -World War II Buildings. The post -World War II buildings located at 517 and 521 East Hyman Avenue ("Little Annie's" and the "Benton Building" respectively) (collectively 1 Appellant intends to file its full Opening Brief on Thursday, October 6, 2011, containing pertinent case law and pertinent statutory cites. Appellant reserves the right to supplement its Opening Brief upon receipt of information requested from the City of Aspen under the Colorado Open Records Act (C.R.S. §§ 24-72-201, et seq.), including minutes of the September 21, 2011, Historic Preservation Commission meeting and any audio recordings and the parties' designation of the record. 754073-1 Aspen Core Ventures, LLC. v. ThOistoric Preservation Commission, et al. Executive Summary of Appeal Page 2 of 7 the "Subject Properties"), are not designated on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." The Historic Preservation Commission does not have jurisdiction or discretion to review, to approve, or to prevent the demolition of non -historic, post -World War II properties that are not designated on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" under Section 26.415.080 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Section 26.415.080 of the Aspen Land Use Code clearly and unambiguously provides that only designated historic properties contained in the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" are required to seek demolition review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission under Section 26.415.080. The Appellant, as an owner of non -historic buildings located in historic - overlay districts, has protected property rights allowing it to seek commercial -design review of the proposed replacement buildings. There is no condition precedent that requires the owner of a non -historic building in an historic -overlay district to first obtain demolition approval in order to seek commercial -design approval of the replacement buildings. The purpose of commercial -design review is to assure that the proposed design of new constructions and alterations to existing non -historic structures in the Commercial Core maintain the integrity of surrounding historic resources in the area. Commercial -design review does not address whether a non -historic building should be preserved. The Historic Preservation Commission Failed to Comply With the Due - Process Designation Requirements for Historic Properties That are Subject to Demolition Review Under Section 26.415.030. In order to be included on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures," the City of Aspen must comply with the due -process requirements for designation of historic properties on the official list under Section 26.415.030 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The "systematic public process" to determine which properties shall be designated on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" requires (1) the filing of an application for designation of a structure on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures," (2) a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission, (3) a public hearing before City Council in accordance with the notice requirements for adopting an ordinance and (4) the recording by the City Clerk in the real estate records for Pitkin County of 745073-1 Aspen Core Ventures, LLC. v. ThhOistoric Preservation Commission, et al. Executive Summary of Appeal Page 3 of 7 a certified copy of the ordinance designating an historic property, including a legal description of the property. It is undisputed that the notice, hearing and recording requirements were never followed to designate the Subject Properties as historic properties included on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." The applicant's due -process rights have been violated by the failure of the Historic Preservation Committee and the City of Aspen to comply with the designation requirements under Section 26.415.030 for properties that are subject to demolition review under Section 26.415.080. The Historic Preservation Commission Does Not Have the Jurisdiction or Discretion to Impose Demolition Review and Approval Requirements in Order to Circumvent the 2002 Amendments to the Historic Preservation Commission Regulations that Exempted Non -Historic Buildings in Historic - Overlay Districts from Demolition Review. Prior to amendments made to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission regulations in 2002 by the Aspen City Council, non -historic properties were subject to demolition review if they were located in historic overlay districts. Pursuant to amendments adopted in 1991, the City of Aspen adopted a provision that allowed non -historic properties in historic - overlay districts to seek an exemption from demolition review. In 2002, however, the Aspen City Council specifically amended Section 26.415.080 to no longer require non -historic properties located within historic -overlay districts to seek Historic Preservation Commission demolition review and approval. Because non -historic properties located in historic -overlay districts were no longer required to seek demolition approval, the provision setting forth a procedure for seeking an exemption for non -historic properties on a case-by-case basis was also deleted. The Appellants relied on the 2002 amendments exempting non -historic properties in historic overlay districts from demolition review in purchasing the Subject Properties and proceeding with a consolidated redevelopment plan for the Subject Properties and the adjacent parking lot. Having legislatively amended the Historic Preservation Commission regulations to specifically exempt non -historic properties in historic overlay districts from demolition review and approval, the Historic Preservation Commission cannot now administratively impose demolition review on 745073-1 Aspen Core Ventures, LLC. v. Th�istoric Preservation Commission, et al. Executive Summary of Appeal Page 4 of 7 property owners who purchased their property in reliance on the Code provisions that expressly provide that such non -historic properties in historic overlay districts are not subject to demolition review and approval. The Historic Preservation Commission Does Not Have the Authority and Discretion to Administratively Impose Demolition Restrictions on Non - Historic Post -World War II Properties When Its Legislative Attempts to Impose Such Restrictions Were Previously Defeated After Public Hearings and Comments. In 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission and certain members of Aspen City Council attempted to amend the Aspen Land Use Code to require demolition review and approval for post -World War II properties that were designated on a proposed "List of Aspen Historic Resources." Initially, the Aspen City Council adopted a so-called "emergency" moratorium Ordinance No. 30 (Series of 2007) preventing the demolition of any property in the City of Aspen that was 30 or more years old until the Historic Preservation Commission determined which properties would be involuntarily designated on the list and subject to demolition review and approval. After significant citizen outcry regarding the detrimental impact on the "emergency" moratorium on property values, City Council held numerous public hearings to determine whether it should legislatively adopt a voluntary or involuntary designation program to apply to post -World War II non -historic properties that were not designated on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." Ordinance No. 48 (Series of 2007) was subsequently adopted where the Historic Preservation Commission prepared a "Historic Resource List" of all properties that it thought had potential historical value, focusing its preservation efforts on these listed properties. The "Historic Resource List" was based on Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 48 (Series of 2007). Identification of properties on the potential "Historic Resource List" required an application, notice and public hearings before the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council. Neither Little Annie's nor the Benton Building was designated on Exhibit A to Ordinance 48 (Series of 2007) or the "Historic Resource List." To the contrary, the Historic Preservation Commission specifically found that neither the Little Annie's building nor the Benton Building met the criteria for designation on Exhibit A to Ordinance 48, which was the basis for the "Historic Resource List." 745073-1 Aspen Core Ventures, LLC. v. Astoric Preservation Commission, et al. Executive Summary of Appeal Page 5 of 7 Eventually, City Council passed Ordinance No. 28 (Series of 2010), which adopted an entirely voluntary "AspenModern" program for designating post -World War II properties. Properties on the "AspenModern" list (which was based on Exhibit A to Ordinance 48 (Series of 2007) and the "Historic Resources List") are allowed to demolish the existing structures without Historic Preservation Commission review or approval after a 90 -day negotiation period to explore potential incentives to the owners if they voluntarily preserved the property designated on the "AspenModern" list. Neither the 1960 -era Little Annie's building nor the Benton Building is included on the "AspenModern" list. Even though the Historic Preservation Committee failed in its attempts to pass involuntary designation and preservation programs for post -World War II properties that would require mandatory Historic Preservation Commission demolition review and approval, Historic Preservation Commission now claims that it can nevertheless require demolition review and approval for the non -historic Subject Properties that are not on (1) the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites or Structures," (2) the prior "List of Historic Resources" for post -World War II properties, or (3) the - - current "Aspen Modern List" applying to post -World War II properties. In doing so, the Historic Preservation Commission exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in requiring the Appellant to seek Historic Preservation Commission review and approval for non -designated, non -historic properties that are not on any of the historic lists maintained by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. Appellant's Rights Are Impaired or Denied by the Historic Preservation Commission's Preventing Demolition of Non -Historic, Post -World War II Subject Properties. If City Council affirms the Historic Preservation Commission's decision that non -historic properties not designated on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" are subject to demolition review to prohibit demolition, substantial rights of owners of non -historic, post -World War II properties will be impaired or denied including (1) an owner's right to substantive and procedural due process due to the failure of the Historic Preservation Commission and the City to comply with the requirements for designation of historical properties under Section 26.415.030, (2) an owner's 745073-1 Aspen Core Ventures, LLC. v. Th*istoric Preservation Commission, et al. Executive Summary of Appeal Page 6 of 7 right to equal protection due to the Historic Preservation Commission's disparate treatment against certain owners of non -historic, post -World War II properties compared to other owners of non -historic properties not designated on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures," (3) an owner's due -process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to the deprivation of the property rights without due process of law, and (4) an owner's right to just compensation for a regulatory taking of property measured by (a) diminution in value of the non -historic, post -World War II properties due to the prevention of demolition as permitted under the Aspen Land Use Code and (b) damage to the remainder as part of any consolidated redevelopment plan involving multiple lots. DATED: October 5, 2011. 745073-1 Respectfully submitted, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. David L. Lenyo, Arant 14178 Attorney for Appe Aspen Core Ventures, LLC. v. ThOistoric Preservation Commission, et al. Executive Summary of Appeal Page 7 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF APPEAL was hand -delivered October 5, 2011, to the following: John Worcester, Esquire James True, Esquire Chris Bendon, Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Avery Simpson 745073-1 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION 'ROJECT: Name: :Ar t -L( -- - - — -- Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: e Address: 'L uc Phone #: f cn \ .(0_7?VC7 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Special Review ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Conditional Use 5_J ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes condominiumization) ❑ Lot Split ❑ Lot Line Adjustment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc. PROPOSAL: (description of etc. ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Other: p P'e`( l tiave you attacnea the touowmg. rLiz Join:: a, 7TH ] Pre -Application Conference Summary ] Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ] Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ] Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards ] 3-1) Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre -application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT k2rcement for Payment of City of Aspen DeN elopment Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ! rt` L s1f-ure i , C L i'_. (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLL S: APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for i�f p« I (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to .the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: By:-.6a(-A. y: iia r h C. -� C � _ Chris Bendon - - 1 Community Development Director Date: Billing Address and Telephone Num er: to �� 2 a ,r s ,f \i 1 T Rwr&J at .- R s'pion No. . e. ,;, 0329490 01/11/91 15:48 Rec $10.00 Bk 637 PG 718 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerks Doc $.00 DEED (1F TRUST Tins VOWN'I CRI:, M*k- thi, IOth J.,) ,•f January . Iv 91 , h•tNren T&F Restaurant Corporation NbN+,c a.kbra,+, P.O. Box 4069, Aspen, CO 81612 Ar•inaflrr wforvd m a, granev. and IN NNW Tm,tr of to 'l'oums .f Pitkin scar of l'obva.k,, h•r.•inaT�rr rrf•u.J la a. l\iA!w Tnnsr, MINr_Ci):1111, TII.AX W111FIMAS• T6Fa Restaurant Corporation has turuhJ a prami,aary rove w noes, Ixreinaftrr rekrt d t, in the >inguAr. JatJ JanUal'y a+� •' �', 1990 . f x the ' prinaiNl sunk of $92,380.27 IkJlar+, ptnaMc to sM or,kn,! N M�ilaJ .try 1kvlfai d/b/a Bquities Diversified Bglrities P.O. Box 350, Aspen, CO 81612i mice to J.,r her wf. Nita inter+t tow tura (ones rAc .l»e tll,•4t4 i at to talc &d eleven p erecal per annum. pu)uble , Q� (1118) January 22, 1991 or 'ding to the terns set forth in the Janua_f 1991 Plnmissory Note! the milmint of $92,380.27 payable to:Paul it. llattwl d/b/a Equities Diversified Tglities .\NIl\\'111iR1i,\S, T!n` grantM is,k>ilw, a+(. Yuring pn nxm.•f Iha•loin: iful orad inttr�l of>aiJ Ivutni,Nvp neve in NAo.a• hanla,\�cr dtc � W mstr M any of them tray t . NOW, TnliRlilt)RG, Thr gums. in ptqVN• of rrasiJ, des Arg9 grant bargain, sell and eaowy unto ilk sail nuMfc Ttustc in iru,t fotser, the fedh aing A•scrihsl pnwit), situate in it.. county of Pitkin . start of cobra&+. to N it: Lot F Block 95 City arse Tmoiship of. Pte, n County of Pitkin State of Colorado also krmsnn by street and nunitrr as 517 1 nSt Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 TOIIA\•F.AND TO HOLD it.•sante•,t+g therNithallandsingulartheIrisikgcsandMviscnamYsthemunlohfungini�tInTrustnornbeless,that in cast of akfauh in sA pW Mucus f mid kora" anyof shem,arany fart tlxnvf,ar in IApa) nem of to intrrc>t tAmrl, asrreling tolhetenManl effKlof sail roveaVan yohlrm,axinthe•N;mrnl, an)pviI :on' amrs,princifa11(mere>I.don)•.arinra&takGuhshalitrrase-inMineattofs•iolatiasn M Moa A a+f any of to sena, n+nJrthws. amcnanls M agmnuanr Arvin av7uimJ, h1a`lrrrficiar) Arcumkror elle• legal hokkr of to indbrstnest aerated Arcby nosy &Mary a sudation Pf any of "Ell Arrin,�rulair7eJ and tl.�e tw aJserlise+.aiJ ryayen)• fM uk anJdtmanJ wcA u1e,1An, uponfitin mxsYU(SIAhCllctiananJ4ktnandfx71ieNIIAIflenlAllwTN>t\`.NIMI>AiIIul�wrt\Yif,l\,f>{INAmvi.Yaftk:sionanJJtmanJhrsalecoast an 'oft sannttoMm\rdJintAnrrdv1,'k oflAe�rum)'inNAicAsaiJrcale>latefa>itmtaJ.it>hall-1.1trlawfu whellblicTruslM to sell oral dispesr of to same• len nuax or in xparatt ryeceis. a, to said ILMk Tru>tY ma) think ANl std all IA right, title seed intercss of tM gronlar, his Airs or assigns tharcin, at public aucYim at the South (kelt &av of to Cavett Ilewsc, in the C.wnty of Pitkin State of Coloud,, M on mid prcnisas, M any fait there,,( as mr he specified in the mria of mil>ale, far ilk, high,•st andAst pii.Y she sante will Ming in casae four Naks public mvice Awing Mn pasiousty giwn of IA tine amt place of such sale, by aJseitisensent. Nally, in some rtnvspuprrofgeneralrirealm:otaltnatUmr{{rw7Mish.Jinaide,wrxyof Pitkin .aw,p)'ofNMchmvwYshalltemaikJ Nithin sen J s frame the dale of the• fist pub tharvf t0 to guntM at the address Arvin gisen and t, such frrk n or prxws appearing to hast as•quirId a subsequent reed interest in said real estate at to address gisvn in to recorded in,teuncm: Nherc ont)' to c only atsl slate is Sit, Is as the address then such notice shall bc mailed Iotacswnlywar. and to male anJ gist t, the purclmwi M p rchasersof such pvafeny as such sale, aartificate or artificales in writing -scribing such pr,p�ray punh".anJ the sum M sums paid tArefml r. atb, tine Nn thefurcha,eror ppvutrchasers forolher prrsonemillN tAcrctolshall A rmitl.J to a,daW M Arts theiefr. unless to sane shall A reden eJ as is pMnWJ by lam; and sail public Trustee shall. up o" tknA (arced M ea unJ by Ipe,ss hotting to saN anlfw aiS &YCCrtlila alff otpurchaae•. N Asaid n dem and is made. tr upat Jornaml by the person tnffaJ to asked to and AV to palmy purchased. at the tine such elenunf is made, IA tire far n%krnptkv has ing; espircd. nuke and execute to such prison M ferwns a ANJ,r &kNs WIN said (•nyen), purchased. Nhich said dmf or &,.Js shall A in the ordinary fmll of a arnsy7mY. and shall be signed, x na7N I1 cJ anJ aklistrJ b • the aatd bbl"Tru,ice and shall coney and quitclaim h»uch p erxrn M (vrsos enlisted to such &YJ, sA saht {veleta pwrciu.V as afaremid and all to right, title. interst, Ive cfit anl,Vwq of redemption of sA granter, his Ain and assigns therein, and shall I'MZ-1."turns(ex Nhi.h IhcmiJftofrny Nas kdJ orad sAallrckrtosA pp�s rao(salr therein c�rxaimJ. orad tolA saleMsaksnadeb)'sirtue them+(; and in cast of an aasignnrnt of such certificate or swititicates of purchsae. or in carr of to rode-ini m of such prryrtty. b?• a subsequent encumbrancer. such assignnwnt M Weniptkm shall also bc F&MA to in such d"d M ds•J,[ but IA orrice of u!t need nM lr Mi alt n sUrh dmf M dads and the Nblir Trust Y shall. awe ofthe prakr.Js M aaih of>uch salt, after first M ing and rcuining all fats, charges and eostwf making said safe, pri to the Aneftci.uy herrun kr w to -gal holakr of said nae the principal and interest Jur ort via rave are'arding to 6e tenor and effanherwlf, and all raw rtcy's aJ,ancaJ D)• such Aneficiat' or legal IN of sail mea• ger insuumY.lases and aase>snrnis, with inta•rvst thenen m 1$ f1\�r and fir annum, rvrakring to aNtrptus. if am, unto to gunta. his k •al reeve+rnutists M assign; Nhich sate or salts ant saiddYJ ar dads sit rasa- shall h a f��rpewal lar. loth in las orad c"i again >I IA grantor, his ars and a„i}nuc. and aft MAr prtkrn claiming to said pw,frn)t Many pare tArcof, b •, fn+m, shnugh M unJtrtA grantw. ar any of them. TAA+lace M bte•Gk rs &d said mor a roves m,\ pwrcAasr said pra•prn) ur an)' pan thtrvf; amt is sAa�l mr Ir obligate)' uprl IA farchavr M fwrcAaacrs at an)' such salt to>aY to to appli:&tion ohA farchaaa• nl,rwy. I(a rclta,t del R reyuinJ. it is agmJ sAal to gramor. his Rain or usages, wily para• to esfrn•r them•(. sof in Iknser. inwit "Cit 3M.- No. nd' No. til:\. Res•. 2.84.1x.1.17 O: 1III 'ST t Nbtk it—trtt NLA Me en 4k Uh— O P,aar.ra 1•,H„hia,. Ila) N)ree $1 . IX--, nl gra\7! - -, 87.11 ?08.7 — a s! Ott y,! -1 Z-7 --140.� -- 24- nn�,, \ N329490 01/11/91 15t49 Rec $10-00 R)< 637 PG 719 t Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc s-.Lwo :\,J the gamer, fr him.elf a -J W, ficin.lerr•;ul r.•prw.auta:houv a, •!:n, so, o+.wh .!rl ag rv, w and w ill, [fes IVhiw Yru•Lv. IA,i at IN liuw of N cn•svling of a!J akli\ety ul dtav pn••ent%Iw i, wCll vtir V od IN >aia b -O sd kn,num, in la ,scop[¢, a:J ha, food rill.[, full ower and Lw ful auttwit) to lint. Nr fain. vII and %woo) th,• —n: it, de nunM•r and Lvci a, af.vc`aiJ, h: toM fully m!,I aMotu!wly ,wi\ tug and ra•lea.mf• all ri fAu and (Tondo.. t'vi ha\C In w h, JIJ Parol•. [;twnvnh. and 1,4i,gy J IS% %,Ii l\cmlvi•n, o fthe U c%cutiv i.+n. i" &I ana M %inue ofant., a•t of tM (;"neral. K-N,,)ofthe Slat• th(1•to and wa,an\eavnlvrn u!rfr.u,dh}%inw "rim a,t ul the('IcitJ\la1d,(bngft%♦, Mw\t\I,ting pl \\AKA114\' h,•rvf[wr lv rued in h•Lnrn thetao and that iiw �%nw art fro• and ai,vr of all li:n. ana ,•rrvn!N,nct, uhah'\a, taepl ally and all taxes due for 1990 and ilk- ahue NrgAnol mirvny in the quiet and fv.teablt Pv,v %oionaf [N Ivt•lic T U t,,. hi,?pcw—gf And 3"igna, again%,[[ anJgCQ' fv(.A n or ferw,n, lou full}' claiming w to Claim the "Prole of any fun thcrad. [M granhv ♦hall and will HSrnnt and Rva+tt Ik&nJ. ['mil { nwm in full of the inJebl Jw,s, the gt+n[,r shall limrl% N% all uses and rv„nvnt% le' KJ an ilk' inTwrt%Z any 3M1 all anov,nt des% a��rrnl of prirwilul and tolled av nlwr sums m an} vnir cmun!Warwe*- if3a%: anJ will is\P all illymo%cownt% that nub' h m.mid lands inwrd again,t any eawilly I'm. including eseraq tewtj^% in a awipam tv coniNsi s nwting the rrr wavih mluirenwnh of des hnefh iuj• iwrol in an 3normt Mt Ie%s than the then total itiMtedww 1'arh 1r,&y shall einuin a h+„ fuvblt clau♦e naming [N Iwwticiaq as govt ag and shall (ether prw idk that tlw inwran t m� na N carhefJ iron Ics, [hart sun J.ns x riacn My i v t,IheIvwticijI% Al tlw option ohle [weft ur}', tNarigina! foJKy w (\+licies of inwnnrw shall h JrliswnJ to tlw tw(wti:say as (unlet vvumy for the in,1wN,•.Ina•:♦. Should t1w gumov fail ht insure and d%liwt the fodwitswrepay usesar aue„nwrlli ,,ill, saawfall due.ottofuy any am unh Pvyaht•uponintoecM•wnNawca. ifany, the Nrwticury may MAC any such N) renis Of frtvura• any such inwmrw. and all ironies v. PtiJ w iih int •ted thcm,n at lh,• rate of 'I f` t annum dull N aJJ.J to and t'e'e"ne a fun of the iMhfir 0Iw,%sOCvred Ay+his MPJ of Tru%I and nub N-fvid o ul of i1w fvryvny if rry rvid b? tfw rumor. In addition, and 31 in option, tN Nreticiuy may Jovlara• dein,IeMNw>, savurd tmeln and thio IXW of Tau♦t to N in akfauh for (,,lure to Mvute ImurArw kir 'lute any of the fu) nwm%toluirZi by this fvragtaph. If allaran�'fullofthepPnnyvrq•Van intcmuNrtinissat""um♦(,•oral bytAtlintswithouhw,r?i,,rivurinrnsvnsent,csduding(a)tlw creation oto 1!gn w erwumN,My suhrdinae to this IfoJ of imJ.Ibl to ttvtion of a puhha.e nrvoy satiny' mtcrr%t far Irw,tlr9J appliances, (cl a transfer by deice, altAynI w by ayyntin of Pau upn tN akath of a pim tenant w W I Ile (rant of am' A,♦hood inkrcat sQ three )tars w kss rrr `''• A,nuin-.1-o ng an ofvian to PurCh,at,Nwfteiaiy nsay, athwtitiuy'ssytin, Avlan all theswn, ssvunJ Ay•this l�tJ of TNNMNimnioJialwl)'Jut and �•�.: Noble. Ikwficiuy shall hose wain) swhayvinta a�wlcuteit friav tot}" vltor tran,kr.Nwliciapand tle fvrxntaeA+nsde pro,fvny [s to le so�Jwtramfertdrcs,•ha•rcenvmin writing that lha`rndit of swhPetxn is wiri,faatry to Ine-iap•and MottN inwrcst Puyabltlnt soon scwunJ by tAit naJ of Trust char[ Iw a[ such raw a, Nwficiar}' ,h,ll tooled. A\B 171:U' 1\ CAS}: (1F AX\' n}:F'Al'I1', \1lvreby the ri�M of fnvlawn• ,dein IwreuMkr, rte NNic Tmoce sr the holier of sail none or certificate of purchase, shall M srry tv nn e entitled to Ilk- fio swsstm, u„• and tnj w twat of tfw (town)' of a,,,aij. and to the rcnls, fsstws and fvs+Rts tlwm f from the a,vming of such right and Judfti,, ilk- fvn,krvy ,d for vlo,um IV and and rte fwrioJ of hAmfvin, if any there N: and such • Ponseuion shall at wry N Mi%w ed to IA I\,blic TcZee w the ho ldef of vaiJ rove w wnin.•ate of Putcha•c On ra rues, and on refusal, the dcliwry of such fo sstuion nuy N enfrnJ by the Mblic Trost t tv Ile hotel rof mid Mtt,r aerlilKato•%,f r urchase by any' a},phywiaecf%.1 suit w frswvsding, and the 1\tblic TruJ �•, w the holot,•r arc sr cenificatc of fvirAa,r, av any tleraJ. [hail N emitlaJ to a Rsvt rswr for siid rvorwnw. and of rtr ..•nn .........•. — „...,-sa,. ,n.o•„wncy one framor wol tlw in,•nvos sur oW iJ pn+n{�ny and w ithout regard to de\aluetNIC"Or swhR�yi\rt may'NapodintJ Ay anyayuttofa�ml tmjurialKti,vl uforles Nnea{+plica[idn and \\i[Avl Mriy—ttriay Ming A,•rcbt mess he)' wai\aJ ie . Nard all rents, issues and d the k, , iM\nv and tawnw Ilvrefrvn shall N applied by soh R �ei\wr to the (uynwnl of Ov irrlehtJwss IwrcM' sceunJ, aN�rdinf la the lou and the wJcn and Jiwtim of to cion. A\Ilo That inca,eofdefautlinanyof”IJNynwntsofPriwipalwimcrol.,domingloth,•mentor and effvtofmidMmil snyrota`afarwrad,oran)' of then,, or any Putt thaavf wof a biwa,•hw ,iodationof an -of tl-oo,,•nants sr agreynwmslercin, by the gtant+r, his fwrsonal mmscauti\wiw assigns. IN-" and in [list cane Ills whole ofuiJ lviwiful suns hereb) s cki J, and to ink -NA dw-rant, III, tines ofIbe We. may at wry, at the oftirl ofthe kgal huddler i etvf, N—w c Joe and NyWe. and Iles raid pryvny, N soddintle nt,nwr and w ith the �"nw eff vt as if said initbt Jwu had matured, and that if fa,rcelosurt N made b�- Ile P ablic Trusty, an anonoy's foe of ilk. >unt of dollars far senices in the supenWon of hsiJ Wrvlosurc ptotlJin !•s 111311 N,[Pound by des PoNic Tru.tov a:3 Pun ofthe coos of low1osurc, and if f,ravlosurc N ma,k Mnvtfh tlw a�r,ns a ravxmblc auwmy's fy ,halt N tasty by rlw aeon as a fort adfllw %v,I of ,wA fm losurc fnwaJings. f The singular numlvr shall iwluak the plural, tie Plural the singular, and IN, u,e of any $mle•r %hall Iv applicable to ail gtaJcrs. F%s UAJ this d.n-of 19 January 91' iSYMI -- Stilt of Colorado Countyof PITKIN The frtgoing in,wmMl was acim ledgal Nkrt rot this I N Imo_ d,y N January ::'1 „�ti ,,•'• by' Judith A. Topol, President of T&E RestaurantCorporation. p"..•...... ,•off'•. ' J+ Uimess mw AanJ and stat. � ; ll d �I. f %, •j o� eve n•w•c } . hfy avnmtisai,n cspirc> "�' /� fi/Ji � � . •�'��. ON 0 Is ° kt o o U o W t'- tuo..i .O a E s p $ 6 E ti fid!/; 'ii. •i. ' '. ., •':� ,+ ., t : ,\ r .,U,., _._..ws.>tUOtht0..re�1L��t�a.►t11..wv. 1. �.RnVpvF+n No. _ "329809 01/25/91 15r 5b Rec $5, 00 8ti� 1 t.1��ffY111 ��Y Phi u b39 PQ 540 `' �j•J+ ----- ottat _ Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $90.00 t i N n ,. n t 71 DhhD IS"F.D,\IaJethis 25th dayof January ,I9 91, Iren T and E Restaurant Corporation, Inc, corpexalion duly organireJ and e\istin$ under and by cirlue of the laws Mthe Slate f Colorado , gramor, and 517 East Hyman Ltd., A Colorado limited partnership ,those legal address is 517 East Nyman, Aspen, CO 81611 of the 'County of Pitkin , State of Colorado, grantee: 11'ITNFSSgy�ETOoH, That the grantor, ror and in nlnsidtration of the sum of the rcceilpt Olkl sumcicn0c� or which is hereby ackrkmldged, has granted, hvgairled, sold and eonsxytd, and b these DOLLARS. ,0 v1 ram, bar ain, sell, cva,ry and confirm, unto the range, his heirs and assigns lorder, all the real •rt; totethelr does B R R N I. Pnnrments, if any; siluat,, lying and Ming in the R M �) R State of Colorado, described as follows: County of Pitkin 1J1 Lot E, Block.95 City and Tpwnsite of Aspen A County of Pitkin- State itkinState of Colorado n�t 9r � N also known by strut and number as: 517 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 TOGETHER with all and singular the hcraditamenis and alpuntenarees thereto belonging, or in anywise app,rlaining, and the M%Vnion and re-sions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estatt, right, title, interest, claim and demand uhatsoetcr of the grantor, either in law• or equity, of, in and to the "t bargained premises, with the heredilaments and appurtenances. TO HAVF AND TO HOLD UM said premises abo,r bargained and described with the appuricnances, unto aha granter, his heirs and assigns foresee And the grantor. (or itseif, and its sacctssors, dos cgrnani, grant, bargain and agree to and with the grants, his heirs and assigns, that at the tins, of the cnscaling and dclitrq• of,Ileac presents, it is well $tired of the premises abo,r conn y,d, has good, sure. Perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law; in kc simple, and has good right, full Po„rc and authority to grant, bargain, sell and eon,ry she sane In manner and form as alomMid, and that the sane arc fnr and clear (tuns all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whalc%vr kind or nature soe,rr, etsrpt The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND MREVER DL•FL.ND tb, a1w,r•tasgainN premises in the quiet and peaceable Possession of she grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons laa fully chiming the tt bol, or any Part $hereof The singular number shall Include she plural, ale plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall M applkable to all genders. 1N WITNESS 11'HERF:OF, The grantor has caused its cxwlxvate name so be hereunto sutucrihd by its President, and its croq,evate seal to be hereunto affixed, aticshd by its aboc written. etSrctap; she day and year fiat Attest: Cr0 i� P0* STATE OF COLORADO ~ v a t . '� $:. �J County of Prlrle/ 1d The foregoing instrument war aek"miedged before me in the State of e o!-O�,ef}Q9 County of PITiC/,s/ this 457h d of TYsVA, y I9g1 b>' .TUOfT}f A. ToP,a� � and as President of .Tv mt. - ie R Jr (' fi as Seen+« s xX eerd*11 of-pom on 1 It- 6-93 corporation. ,UITsffr Q4 0,14 a;'•� Av V 0,14 t r^ �U� E.• 1(Ii sten , /'/S `Y--�—�—__ L2IDn•txrnr . (oar«—CEIy and." To.4011,1ter.544, q\R0.l\T I'DCFAlrwpon(loa)&wIG�J14M.l�iir,$ItISw.NyA.e.•I�ln.�d,(p(f211— i,oanr$$rxo 7.11i RECEIVED • OCT 142011 CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 429-2765 DATE: 7.20.11 PROJECT: Hunter/Hyman REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson and Associates, 925-2323 DESCRIPTION: The prospective applicant is interested in redeveloping the vacant parcel at the corner of Hunter and Hyman and the two adjacent commercial buildings to the west. The properties are not designated as historic structure, but are located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The new building(s) would contain commercial, free-market residential, and affordable residential uses, with underground parking access from the alleyway. The applicant is not expecting to request zoning variances. The project will require conceptual commercial design review prior to an application for growth management. Staff suggests the following sequence of reviews: HPC — Conceptual commercial design review; Conceptual major development; demolition within the CC historic district P&Z — Growth management review for new commercial, free-market residential, and affordable residential; recommendation to City Council for subdivision Council — Subdivision review HPC — Final commercial design review; Final major development Certain submission dates for growth management applications apply. The project will be reviewed under the Land Use Code in effect upon submission of the first application within this sequence as long as the project remains active. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review (Conceptual and Final to be reviewed by the HPC) 26.415.070.D Certificate of appropriateness for major development. (Conceptual and Final by HPC) 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. (The properties are not designated, but are within the CC Historic District) 26.470 Growth Management Quota System 26.470.070.4 Affordable Housing 26.470.080.1 Expansion or new commercial development 26.470.080.2 New free-market residential units within a mixed-use project 26.470.110 Growth Management Review Procedures 26.480 Subdivision (for merging lots and the development of multiple dwelling units) 26.515 Parking 26.610 Impact Fees 26.620 School Lands Dedication 26.710.140 Commercial Core Zone District Review by: Staff for complete application Referral agencies for technical considerations Public Hearing: Yes — HPC, P&Z, and City Council. Staff will publish notice in the newspaper; applicant is responsible for posting and mailing notice. Planning Fees: $2,940 (for 12 hours of staff time, additional hours are billed hourly at $245.00/hour) Referral Fees: $820; Housing and Engineering at $410.00. (flat fees due with GMQS aplication) Total Deposit: $2,940 for each of three submission phases. (HPC; PZ/CC; HPC) An additional $820 is due with the PZ/CC application. Note — the fees due will be according to the applicable fee policy at submission of each phase and may differ from those cited here. EXHIBIT To apply, submit the following information ❑ Proof of ownership with payment. ❑ Signed fee agreement. ❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. ❑ Total deposit for review of the application. ❑ 15 Copies of the complete application packet and maps for HPC submission 25 Copies of the complete application packet and maps for P&Z + Council submission ❑ An 8112" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ❑ Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement as discussed previously will be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document. Please submit a letter confirming there are no easements that are being built upon). ❑ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing ❑ 3-D digital model of the project, sketch -up preferred. ❑ Copies of prior approvals ❑ Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD) -preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. • 0 Chapter 26.412 COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Sec. 26.412.010 Purpose Sec. 26.412.015 Adoption of commercial design guidelines Sec. 26.412.020 Applicability Sec. 26.412.030 Review authority Sec. 26.412.040 Review procedure Sec. 26.412.050 Review criteria Sec. 26.412.060 Commercial design standards Sec. 26.412.070 Suggested design elements Sec. 26.412.080 Amendment of commercial design review approval 26.412.010. Purpose. The purpose of commercial design review is to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character and to ensure that the City's commercial areas and streetscapes are public places conducive to walking. The review standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that certain building elements contribute to the streetscape. The character of the City's commercial district is largely established by the variety of uses and the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By requiring certain building elements to be incorporated in the design of new and remodeled buildings, storefronts are more appealing and can contribute to a well-designed, exciting commercial district. Accommodation of the automobile within commercial districts is important to the consistency and quality of pedestrian streetscapes. The standards prescribe certain methods of accommodating on-site parking to achieve environments conducive to walking. Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment is important to protecting the uniqueness of the City. To achieve compatibility, certain standards require building elements to be influenced by adjoining development, views, pedestrian malls or sun angles. Finally, along with creating architecturally interesting and lively primary streets, the pedestrian nature of downtown can be further enhanced by making alleys an attractive place to walk. Store entrances and display windows along alleyways are encouraged to augment, while not detracting from, the pedestrian interest of primary streets. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1) Sec. 26.412.015. Adoption of commercial design guidelines. Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the Charter of the City, there is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth those standards contained in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, as amended by ordinance from time to time by the City Council. At least one (1) copy of the EXHIBIT b a City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 17 �!► RECFIVED OCT 14 2011 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT! "Aspen Core," a proposed mixed use commercial and residential development featuring commercial and office space, six (6) affordable housing units, and three (3) free-market residential units. Aspen Core Ventures, LLC 5 August 2011 Location: �- • Hyman Ave. and Hunter St.—Block 95, Lot G, H, and I (PID: 2737-182-24-004) • 521 E. Hyman Ave. - Block 95, Lot F (PID: 2737-182-54-001 and 2737-182-54-002) • 517 E. Hyman Ave. - Block 95, Lot E (PID: 2737-182-24-002) N1 MAN $1 RRI VIEW An application for conceptual commercial design review, conceptual major development, and demolition within the Commercial Core (CC) historic district. Represented By: J Y STAN GLAUSON ASSO CIA1 ES ii�iD ti ,1 Landscape architecture. plan ning.re5ort design ks' en, Caldrado. StGii t 97a/gzS 2qa3 "zo-iGzB4s2 North Mlit Street 100.4scaplanning,com wWw.scapianning.co.,n EXHIBIT STAN CLAUSON ASSQCIATES(Nc `-l.ands-ca p.e architecture-.plama Ing.reso.rt' design '^ Oz North Mi'St.m.1 Aspen,. Colora0a 8ibu t.97g/,Q 4323 f.974/9zP-i62$ in f6Qscaplantling.cnrd V, twtv.scapfanhtn'g.com ` 5 August 2011: Chris Bendort,.AICO, Director City of Aspen Co.mMunity beve'lopMent Department 130.S: GalenaStreet, 31d Floor Aspect, CO 81.611 Re: Cohceofual Design Revle*Application /Aspen Core Ventures LLC. Dear Chris! On behalf of our ciietifs., Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, we are'submitting. herewith the regVred fifteen.(15) copies of the Conceptual Design ReVIOW Appllcation and associated reviews for "Aspen Core, a mixed use development located in the Commercial Core -(CC) zone diA icf of the City of Aspen. This.application.is tendered in response to your'Pre-application Cohference Summary dated 20 July 201 I.- Per your request, we are dividing the application process into three sections i. HPC -Conceptual Commercial Design Review; Conceptual Major Development; Demolition within the CC Historic District 2. P -&Z Growth Management Review for new commercial; free-market residential, and affordable residential; Subdivision recommendation to City Council; City Council Subdivision Review 3, HPC Final Commercial Design Review; Final Major Development: This applicatibh is for conceptual design review for a mixed use development on three. parcels extending west from the comer of.Hunter and Hyman Streets in the Commerciol Core (CC) zone djsfrict'of the City Qf Aspen, Colorado.. This project will revitalize an under-utilized area of the.Carnmercial Core,.currehfly containing a private parking facility and a building that has had great difficulty in finding tenants. The parking lot itself has often been the poster site for needed redevelopment in the commercial core. HunterSfreet, Which terminates at the Aspen Mountqin Gondola, h -as long lacked anrcontinuity of shopping and pedestrlan . cictivity that its strategic location Would logically support. Hyman Avenue, with its.future potential as -leading to the relocated Aspect Art.Museum, also lacks continuity. of pedestrian interest... The project promises enhanced vitality for these two importdnt corridors, while. infroducing potential new shopping, dining, and living opportunities into -the heart of Aspen. Although We. Will be: submitting:separdto:sets of application documents for -each of these,. secfions, we regard this to be one continuous application. process, initiated with this .apprcgtipn,-apd we are submifting a fee deposit for the full process: We look forward to "working. With Community beVelopment staff and.1.0 presentirig the applicafion to Jhe Historic° Preservdtion Commission. Please call rrie With any questions. Veryr TrulrseknAIM tyS an" la ASLA. STAN.'CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC:. PROJECT OVERVIEW This application is submitted for conceptual design review for a mixed use development on three parcels extending west from the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district of the City of Aspen, Colorado. This project will revitalize an under- utilized area of the Commercial Core, currently containing a private parking facility and a building that has had great difficulty in finding tenants. The parking lot itself has often been the poster site for needed redevelopment in the commercial core. Hunter Street, which terminates in the Aspen Mountain Gondola, has long lacked any continuity of shopping and pedestrian activity that its strategic location would logically support. Hyman Avenue, with its future potential as leading to the relocated Aspen Art Museum, also lacks continuity of pedestrian interest. The project promises enhanced vitality for these two important corridors, while introducing potential new shopping, dining, and living opportunities into the heart of Aspen. All requirements for affordable housing are proposed to be mitigated on site, as are parking requirements for the commercial facilities. Sidewalks and public infrastructure will be improved with a consistent all6e of street trees, pedestrian amenities, and an open space area. The elimination of the existing curb cut for the private parking facility will decrease congestion, and all services and loading will be provided from the existing alley. The subject parcels are non-contributing properties located in the Aspen Core Historic Overlay District. The proposed use of the property is a mixed-use development, featuring first and second story commercial and affordable housing, and free-market residential and affordable housing on the third story. The proposed structure will have one sub -grade level for parking, utilities, and storage, with a parking ramp accessed from the alley. The development is organized into three modules: • a three-story module on the corner of Hyman Avenue and Hunter Street containing. commercial and free-market residential; • a single story commercial element, contemplated for restaurant use, fronted by a landscaped open space; and • a three-story module containing commercial and affordable housing. EXISTING CONDITIONS The three subject parcels consist of a 9,000 sq. ft. vacant parcel located at the corner of the Hunter Street and Hyman Avenue currently used as a parking lot, a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel containing the a three-story building known as the "Benton Building," and a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel containing the single -story building which houses Little Annie's Eating House. The Benton Building contains 5,045 sq. ft. of existing net leasable space and the Little Annie's building consists of 2,460 sq. ft. of existing net leasable. Neither the Benton Building nor the Little Annie's building is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The Benton Building has been recently used for various temporary commercial uses, but has been largely been unoccupied in recent years. A 2004 renovation to the ground floor of the building to create a storefront in place of the former tavern use was unsuccessful in attracting tenants. The building has a quirky and inefficient layout which has hampered its commercial viability. The Little Annie's building contains a restaurant and bar in a one-story building. The next adjacent properties, not a part of this application, contain a contemporary addition to the historic Ute City Bank building and the historic structure Ute City Bank building occupying the corner of Hyman Avenue and Galena Street. Aspen Core Aspen Core Ventures, LLC Page 1 Commercial Design Review Application 5 August 2017 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The applicant proposes to develop all three parcels in a unified project spanning a single 15,000 sq. ft. parcel. A single plan for the newly created parcel will lend itself to sustainable design and construction techniques, minimize construction activity in the neighborhood, and ensure that the project will appropriately respond to existing site conditions. The project is proposed to contain approximately 13,352 sq. ft. of net leasable floor area on the first and second story of the development. The applicant proposes 4,443 sq. ft. of net livable affordable housing floor area on the second and third story of the development, providing more than]00% of the required affordable housing onsite. Finally, the applicant proposes three (3) free market units ranging from 1,900 to 2,500 sq. ft. on the third floor, resulting in approximately 6,462 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. TDRs will be purchased, as required, in order to achieve the 2,500 sq. ft. unit size. A sub -grade parking garage will provide 13 spaces of onsite parking. - The onsite parking will provide what is required by the land use code for commercial parking. Total gross floor area of the building will be 31,739 sq. ft. The proposed development has been thoughtfully designed to incorporate a varied, human scale facade. The design alternates between three-story and one-story elements, thus breaking up the perceived mass of the building and reflecting existing conditions in the commercial core. Among the unique elements of the building will be an open two-story commercial space and display window, which will become a defining element of the building. The architecture will respond to and enhance the existing architecture and streetscape conditions found on the adjacent properties. The maximum height of the building is proposed to be 40 feet at the corner element, with the module adjacent to the Ute City Bank building non -historic addition will be three-story having a maximum height of 38 feet. A one-story. commercial space, considerably setback from the street fronted by d public amenity space, will serve as a connector element between the two end modules and have a height of approximately 14 feet. Setbacks and terraces on the third story of the three-story elements will lessen the perception of height and mass, and create a comfortable pedestrian experience. Public amenity space is proposed through the provision of a 1,100 sq. ft. courtyard. The courtyard will be designed and landscaped to be an attractive and inviting public amenity space for pedestrians passing on the street, as well as a useful outdoor space for the commercial tenants. It will help to create a strong retail environment and provide a possible opportunity for outdoor dining for a restaurant tenant. Aspen Core Aspen Core Ventures, LLC Page 2 Commercial Design Review Application 5 August 2011 0 Chapter 26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties 0 It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. The existing structures are not designated as historic structures. However, because the structures are located in the Commercial Core Historic District, the Community Development Director has requested responses to appropriate sections of this Chapter. This section of our application constitutes a formal application for a demolition of the two buildings currently located on the subject properties, specifically: • 521 East Hyman Avenue, also known as the "Benton Building" • 515 East Hyman Avenue, currently housing "Little Annie's Eating House" A Historic Preservation Application cover. sheet for demolition is provided as Attachment 9. Other materials relating to -demolition, but not related to historic preservation issues, will be provided following land use approvals. A. Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties. 1. An application for a demolition permit for designated properties will be filed with or referred to the Community Development Director by the Chief Building Official. The applicant will be provided a written response within fourteen (14) days of the request for a demolition permit describing the submittal materials needed for consideration. This property is not a designated historic property. 2. An application for demolition approval shall include: a. The general application information requested in Section 26.304.030 and written documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an imminent hazard or b. Narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance. The basis for this request is 2.b. above, and supporting documentation is provided as Attachment 9 that the two existing structures are not listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." The application provides the Inventory as updated in April 2011. 3. When complete application materials are on file, a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice for the hearing will include publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.# Paragraphs a, b, and c. The staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a staff report that analyzes the request relative to the criteria for approval. The required public hearing is to be incorporated into the HPC hearing for Conceptual commercial design review, and appropriate notification has been provided to include this demolition request in accordance with the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Aspen Core Aspen Core Ventures, LLC Page 10 Commercial Design Review Application 5 August 2011 0 i 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Neither of the structures, the Little Annie's building, located at 517 E. Hyman, and the Benton Building, located at 521 E. Hyman, are listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" as updated April, 2011. The Benton Building does receive a brief mention in Aspen's Twentieth -Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975 by Margaret Supplee Smith, dated September 2010. However, Ms. Supplee Smith characterizes the Benton Building in her paper as "heavily altered." No reference has been found of the structure housing Little Annie's in the various historical resources reviewed. Excerpts of Ms. Supplee Smith's paper have been included with the application under Attachment 9 along with the complete "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." Because these buildings have not merited being listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and the scant mention the buildings receive in context papers concerning Aspen's modern architecture, it is clear evidence that neither the Little Annie's building nor the Benton Building have historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural significance with regards to the Commercial Core District and the City of Aspen. The demolition of these properties will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the district and will not detract from of the nearest designated historic property, which is the Ute City Bank Building. Aspen Core Aspen Core Ventures, LLC Page 11 Commercial Design Review Application 5 August 2011 RECEIVED OCT 14 2011 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ASPEN \lam\li\1� "THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES" Updated April 2011 (THIS LIST IS PROVIDED AS GENERAL INFORMATION. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT STREET ADDRESS NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED, CALL AMY GUTHRIE AT 429-2758 OR SARA ADAMS AT 429-2778 TO CONFIRM THE STATUS OF ANY PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY WHEN IN DOUBT.) EXHIBIT 0 (Note: The ordinance that designated the property historic is provided after some addresses.) COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT (Established via Ordinance #49, Series of 1974) 420 E. Cooper (Red Onion) (National Register) - Ord. 9-1982 501 E. Cooper (Independence Building) - Ord 9-1982 529-531 E. Cooper - Ord 61-1992 104 S. Galena - Ord 16-1985 130 S. Galena (Armory City Hall) (National Register) - Ord 38-1974 203 S. Galena (Hyman -Brand Building) (National Register) - Ord 57-1981 209 S. Galena- Ord. 34- 1995 210 S. Galena (Webber Block) (National Register) - Ord 49-1989 303 S. Galena (Aspen Block) - Ord 57-1981 312 S. Galena - Ord 57-1981 302 E. Hopkins - Ord 16-1985 309 E. Hopkins/200 S. Monarch - Ord 36-1990 316 E. Hopkins - Ord 1-1992 406 E. Hopkins - Ord. 58- 1995 530 E. Hopkins — Ord. 34- 1995 532 E. Hopkins — Ord. 34- 1995 534 E. Hopkins — Ord. 34- 1995 405-407 Hunter (National Register) — Ord. 61 - 1992 300 E. Hyman (and Owl Cigar sign)- Ord 57-1981 314 E. Hyman — Ord. 34- 1995 328 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House) (National Register) - Ord 10-1973 413 E. Hyman (Riede's City Bakery) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 419 E. Hyman- Ord 17-2001 432 E. Hyman — Ord. 34- 1995 428 E. Hyman - Ord 9-1982 501 E. Hyman (Ute City Building)- Ord 57-1981 304-308 S. Galena (Arcades)- Ord 22-2001 303 E. Main — (National Register) Ord 15-1994 309 E. Main - Ord 56-1989 310 E. Main - Ord 5-1987 315 E. Main - Ord 56-1989 330 E. Main — (National Register) Ord 9-1982 506 E. Main - (National Regiser) Ord 25-1973 533 E. Main (St. Mary's Church) - Ord 77-1981 100 S. Mill - Ord 5-1987 101 S. Mill - Ord 5-1987 204 S. Mill (Collins Block) (National Register) - Ord 9-1982 208 S. Mill - Ord 57-1981 0 0 MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT (Established via Ordinance #60, Series of 1976) 128 E. Main - Ord 4-1985 201 E. Main- Ord 50-1986 202 E. Main - Ord 16-1985 208 E. Main - Ord 16-1985 216 E. Main - Ord 16-1985 220 and 230 E. Main (Cortina Lodge) — Ord 25 - 2010 221 E. Main — Ord 16- 1985 & Ord. 4- 1995 227 E. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 125 W. Main - Ord 16-1985 132 W. Main - Ord 33-1994 & Ord 56-1976 135 W. Main - Ord 16-1985 205 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 211 W. Main - Ord 16-1985 300 W. Main - Ord 21-1988 320 W. Main (Smith-Elisha House) (National Register) - Ord 56-1988 328 W. Main - Ord 57-1981 332 W. Main - Ord 4-1982 333 W. Main - Ord 5-1987 400 W. Main - Ord 16-1985 430 W. Main - Ord 49-1989 435 W. Main (in district)- Ord 36- 2006 500 W. Main - Ord 57-1981 501 W. Main 518 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 604 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 611 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 612 W. Main - Ord 16-1985 616 W. Main- Ord 10-1996 627 W. Main - Ord 57-1979 633 W. Main - Ord 57-1979 & Ord 4 -1995 701 W. Main and a new lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot split — Ord. 34- 1995 706 W. Main - Ord 56-1989 709 W. Main - Ord 59-1994 & Ord. 34- 1995 734 W. Main (Sorenson's) - Ord 5-1987 101 S. Monarch — Ord 4 - 1995 200 S Monarch — Ord 36- 1990 Paepcke Park Gazebo - Ord 57-1981 DESIGNATED LANDMARKS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS Aspen Brewery Ruins — Ord 4- 1995 Aspen Grove Cemetery — Ord 4- 1995 Boat Tow and Lift 1 (National Register) - Tower, Skier Chalet - Ord 57-1981 710 S. Aspen - 720 Bay Street — Ord 34 -1992 100 E. Bleeker - Ord 62-1989 110 E. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 126 E. Bleeker - Ord 5-1985 134 E. Bleeker - Ord 25-1992 200 E. Bleeker (Community Church) (National Register) - Ord 39-1974 209 E. Bleeker — Ord 4 - 1995 214 E. Bleeker - Ord 7-1982, plus vacant lot created through Historic Landmark Lot Split 227 E. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 232 E. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 121 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 129 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 -1992 131 W. Bleeker - Ord 77-1981 205 W. Bleeker — Ord 4 - 1995 213 W. Bleeker- Ord 10-2000 214 W. Bleeker - Ord 11-1991 215 W. Bleeker - Ord 5-1987 217 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 233 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 331 W. Bleeker- new house on lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 333 W. Bleeker (D.E. Frantz House) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) (National Register) - Ord 7-1982, Ord 41- 1993 500 W. Bleeker - Ord 5-1987 513 W. Bleeker — Ord 77 -1981 605 W. Bleeker/aka 121 N. Fifth Street — Ord 77 - 1981 609 W. Bleeker- new house on a lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 620 W. Bleeker (Wheeler -Stallard House) (National Register) - Ord 18-1973 631 W. Bleeker- new house on lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 635 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 735 W. Bleeker, Ord 43-1998 118 E. Cooper - Ord 4-1982 124 E. Cooper — Ord 34 -1992 135 E. Cooper (Dixon -Markle House) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 820 E. Cooper- Ord 51, 1995 824 E. Cooper — Ord 34 - 1992 918 E. Cooper- Ord 7, 1996 935 E. Cooper — Ord 34 -1992 939 E. Cooper, units A-E - Ord 2-1995 1000 E. Cooper — Ord 34 -1992 4 0 0 1006 E. Cooper- Ord 30-2000 1020 E. Cooper — Ord 34 -1992 827 Dean — Ord 17 - 2007 1004 E. Durant #1 - Ord 32-1989 505 N. Eighth - Ord 4-1982 121 N. Fifth/aka 605 W. Bleeker - Ord 77-1981 609 W. Bleeker- new house on lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 421 N. Fifth — Ord 4- 1995 505 N. 5th- Ord 77-1981 & Ord 5-2001, newer house on a Historic Landmark Lot Split 308 N. First — Ord 33 - 1999 414 N. First - Ord 57-1981 311 S. First — Ord 34 - 1992 317/319 N. Fourth, units A and B - Ord 77-1981 120 W. Francis Ord 41 - 1995 123 W. Francis - Ord 41-1995/ Ord 34 -1992 129 W. Francis- new house on lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 126 W. Francis — Ord 34 -1992 135 W. Francis Ord 77 - 1981 201 W. Francis (Bowles -Cooley House) (National Register) - Ord 7-1982 202 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 234 W. Francis (Davis Waite House) (National Register) - Ord 7-1982 420 W. Francis - Ord 5-1987 432 W. Francis (Hallet House) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 500 W. Francis - Ord 4-1982 522 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 523 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 529 W. Francis, new lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 533 W. Francis 600/612 W. Francis- Ord 20- 2008 700 W. Francis - Ord 10-1992 712 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 716 W. Francis - Ord 11-1992 860 Gibson - Ord 4 -1995 980 Gibson — Ord 34 - 1992 990 Gibson — Ord 34 - 1992 311 Gillespie/710 N. Third - Ord 7-1982 314 Gillespie - Ord 4 - 1995 330 Gillespie — Ord 4 - 1995 405 Gillespie/707 N. Third — Ord 34 - 1992 507 Gillespie- new lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 515 Gillespie- Ord 20-2001 Glory Hole Park — Ord 34 -1992 101 E. Hallam- Ord 16-2001/ Ord 34 -1992 105 E. Hallam — Ord. 4 - 1995 123 E. Hallam - Ord 4-1985 127 E. Hallam - Ord 78-1989 5 131 E. Hallam - Ord 77-1981 216 E. Hallam, plus lot to the rear containing the barn- Ord 34- 1992 223 E. Hallam — Ord. 4 - 1995 232 E. Hallam - Ord 4-1982 100 W. Hallam - Ord 4-1982 215 W. Hallam - Ord 62-1987 229 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 233 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 304 W. Hallam — Ord 36 - 2002 320 W. Hallam - Ord 4-1982 323 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 334 W. Hallam - Ord 21-1988 403 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 417/421 W. Hallam (421 W. Hallam — Ord 34 —1992) 504 W. Hallam — Ord 4 - 1995 525 W. Hallam - Ord 46-1995 530 W. Hallam - Ord 7-1982 533 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 610 W. Hallam- Ord 58-1994 620 W. Hallam - Ord 11-1991 716 W. Hallam (condo unit 1)— Ord 34 - 1992 834 W. Hallam- Ord 56-1993 918 W. Hallam- new house on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 920 W. Hallam- Ord 23- 1998 922 W. Hallam- new house on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 113 E. Hopkins - Ord 77-1981 208 E. Hopkins - Ord 7-1982 214 E. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 623 E. Hopkins/625 E. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 635 E. Hopkins — Ord 34 —1992 (aka 205 S. Spring Street) 811 E. Hopkins, plus new house on same parcel — Ord 34 - 1992 819 E. Hopkins, plus new house on same parcel — Ord 34 - 1992 1008 E. Hopkins- Ord 18- 1997 134 W. Hopkins - Ord 21-1988 1341/2 W. Hopkins — Ord 21 - 1988 135 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 200 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 205 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 212 W. Hopkins - Ord 26-1988 222 W. Hopkins - Ord 77-1981 325 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 500 W. Hopkins (portion of the Boomerang Lodge)- Ord 21 of 2007 134 E. Hyman — Ord 44 - 2006 201 E. Hyman - Ord 7-1982 630 E. Hyman — Ord 26- 2009 920 E. Hyman- Ord 1- 1999 r� 935 E. Hyman - Ord 30-1996, Lot 1 990 E. Hyman — Ord 4 - 1995 214 W. Hyman — Ord 34 - 1992 216 W. Hyman — Ord 34 - 1992 312 W. Hyman — Ord 45 - 2006 107-119 Juan — Ord 4 -1995 0 920 King- new house on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split 930 King- Ord.20-1998 935 King — Ord 4 - 1995 206 Lake (Newberry House) (National Register) - Ord 57-1981 210 Lake - Ord 28-1980 212 Lake - Ord 17-1980 220 Lake - Ord 10-1981 240 Lake- Ord 15-1998 320 Lake - Ord 77-1981 330 Lake- Ord 4 - 2000 540 E. Main 835 W. Main- Ord 50-1993 Marolt Barns Site and Lixiviation Plant Ruins (National Register) - Ord 45-1988 Maroon Creek Bridge (National Register) — Ord 4 - 1994 920 Matchless (unit 1) — Ord 34 - 1992 930 Matchless (unit 2) — Ord 34 - 1992 950 Matchless- Ord 28- 1998 The Meadows (Restaurant, Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, racetrack, Bayer gardens) Ord 5-1996 327 Midland/328 Park — Ord 15 - 2001 590 N. Mill (Holy Cross Building) - Ord 51-1981 202 N. Monarch — Ord 34 - 1992 212 N. Monarch - Ord 57-1981 218 N. Monarch - Ord 77-1981 114 Neale/17 Queen- Ord 17-1990 311 North - Ord 79-1992 401 North Ord 4 -1995 500 North - Ord 77-1981 Opal Marolt House (40176 Highway 82) — Ord 45 - 1988 308 Park- Ord 4 - 1995 310 Park, new lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split 328 Park/327 Midland- Ord 15-2001 333 Park - Ord 4 - 1995 401 Park - Ord 4 - 1995 1080 Power Plant (City Shop) - Ord 21-1992 101 Puppy Smith — Ord 4 - 1995 17 Queen Street — Ord 17 —1990 and Ord 1-1997 541/541 1/2 Race Street/Alley - Red Butte Cemetery — Ord 5 - 1996 1295 Riverside Drive, plus new lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split — Ord 3 -2004 423 N. Second - Ord 77-1981 426 N. Second/229 W. Smuggler — Ord 40 - 1999 525 N. Second (Shilling -Lamb House) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 Sheeley Bridge (National Register) — Ord 34 - 1992 117 N. Sixth- Ord 48- 1998 106 N. Seventh Street- new house on Landmark property 28 Smuggler Grove Road- Ord. 25 - 2008 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. 2" d- Ord 40-1999 400 W. Smuggler - Ord 77-1981 406 W. Smuggler - Ord 49-1989 434 W. Smuggler — Ord 58 - 1992 513 W. Smuggler - new house on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split, Ord 77-1981 523 W. Smuggler — Ord 77 - 1981 609 W. Smuggler — Ord 34 -1992 610 W. Smuggler/505 N. 5th- Ord 77-1981 & Ord 5-2001 629 W. Smuggler — Ord 4 - 1995 715 W. Smuggler - Ord 77-1981 205 S. Spring Street - Ord 34 —1992 (aka 635 E. Hopkins) 470 N. Spring — Ord 34 - 1992 514 N. Third - Ord 32-1989 610 N. Third - Ord 4-1982 620 N. Third — Ord 34 - 1992 640 N. Third- Ord 18-2001, Historic Landmark Lot Split Ord. 47 of 2005, created new lot (335 Lake Avenue?) 701 N. Third — Ord 34 - 1992 710 N. Third - Ord 7-1982 205 S. Third (Matthew Callahan Log Cabin) (National Register) - Ord 77-1981 Triangle Park - Ord. 4-1982 Ute Cemetery — (National Register) Ord 15- 1973 1500 Ute Avenue — Ord 34 - 1992 520 Walnut - Ord 48-1994 557 Walnut — Ord 4 - 1995 1102 Waters Avenue — Ord 23 - 2010 2 William's Way- Ord 18-1999 RECEIVED OCT 14 2011 MEMORANDUM CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DDROPMEW TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: 517 and 521 East Hyman Avenue and the Parking lot at the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets (Block 95, Lots G, H, and 1) - Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Referral Comments to HPC DATE: September 20, 2011 SUMMARY: The proposed development is located at 517 and 521 East Hyman and the Parking lot at the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets. HPC has purview over the design of this project due to its location in the Commercial Core Historic District. The applicant requests Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review approval from the HPC. The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide referral comments to HPC regarding Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review. Staff has provided a summary and a response to the main elements of Conceptual review. P&Z will review this project for Growth Management and a recommendation of Subdivision- after the project receives Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conceptual Major Development for a project located within the Commercial Core Historic District, and Demolition approval for properties located within the Commercial Core Historic District. BACKGROUND: The project comprises three separate lots: 517 and 521 E. Hyman and the parking lot on the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets. Two buildings are located on the subject properties: the building that houses Little Annie's Eatery at 517 E. Hyman and located at 521 E. Hyman is Tom Benton's original design studio. Neither of these building are designated landmarks. The three properties are proposed to be merged through subdivision review. The newly created lot (which requires approval through Subdivision Review) is proposed to be 15,000 square feet in size: 3,000 (517 E. Hyman) + 3,000 (521 E. Hyman) + 9,000 (parking lot). Image 1: Vicinity Map P&Z referral comments, 9/20/11 Aspen Core Page 1 of 6 EXH IT d D D The applicant proposes to construct a mixed use building on the site including the following: subgrade parking garage and storage, commercial on the first floor, commercial and affordable housing on the second floor, free market residential and affordable housing on the third floor, and a rooftop deck on the free market residential portion of the building. Currently 7,505 square feet of floor area exists on the three parcels. A total of 32,640 square feet of floor area is proposed including about 56% commercial, 24% free market and 20% affordable housing. The maximum height is proposed to be 40 ft. with the elevator shafts extending to 50 ft. The proposal meets the dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core Zone District. The applicant requests approval for a height increase from 38 ft. to 40 ft., which is reviewed through Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review. CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW: The Commercial Core Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines policy is the following: "improvements in the Commercial Core Historic District should maintain the integrity of historic resources in the area. At the same time, compatible and creative design solutions should be encouraged. " Important defining characteristics of the historic district are the street grid; a hard street edge that is defined by buildings built to lot lines; variations in height between 1, 2 and sometimes 3 stories; and lot widths of 30 feet, 60 feet and sometimes 90 feet with a depth of 100 feet. Prominent storefronts on the ground level with a tall plate height and subordinate upper stories are traditional buildings in Aspen's downtown. Building Placement and Public Amenity: The proposed building continues the hard street wall that is typical of the historic downtown and meets the Design Guidelines. The project is required to provide public amenity space equal to 10% of the lot area, or 1,500 square feet. A 32 feet wide and 37 feet deep space (1,184 square feet) is proposed along Hyman Street in front of the proposed one story section of the building. The applicant requests approval from HPC to pay cash in lieu for the remaining 316 square feet that is not provided onsite. The public amenity space is north facing and is located across the street from an underutilized public amenity space. The applicant expressed a desire to have the public amenity space function as outdoor dining for a restaurant; however there is no guarantee that this space will always be used for outdoor dining. Design Objectives: • Create an active and interesting street vitality through the promotion of public gathering space. • Maintain a well-defined street edge and street corner to ensure that such public space creates an accent within the street fagade. • Create an additional commercial frontage and/or space to the side or rear of the site or building. • Create a well defined, localized public space at the street edge, e.g. where additional space for street dining may be beneficial. • Design a space that maximizes access to sunlight throughout the year. P&Z referral comments, 9/20/11 Aspen Core Page 2 of 6 Staff Response: Staff finds that the location and size of the proposed amenity space could be closer aligned with the Design Guidelines and Objectives. Staff is concerned that the atypical size of the proposed 15,000 square foot lot is driving an oversized public amenity space to meet the requirement for the entire lot that is north facing and sandwiched between 3 story buildings on either side. Staff recommends that the applicant break up the public amenity space to by reducing the depth of or eliminating the proposed amenity space on Hyman and pursuing a possible amenity space on the Hunter fagade that is east facing and has the opportunity to contribute to the vitality of the block and break up the proposed 3 story, 100 feet long facade. Building Form and Orientation The proposed flat roofs and rectangular building modules, and the proposed building orientation meet the Design Objectives and Guidelines for development in the Commercial Core, specifically 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, and 6.24. See Exhibit A for a complete list of the Guidelines. Building Mass & Scale The Design Objectives and Guidelines state: "The character of the Commercial Core derives in part from the range and variety of building heights. These vary from one to three stories. Building height with traditional lot width creates a constantly changing cornice profile along a block face. This is the basis of the human scale, architectural character and visual vitality of the city center. New development in this area should continue this variation. " As mentioned previously, the applicant proposes a 15,000- 'square foot lot with one large building that is broken up into different modules through height and setback variations. A 15,000 square foot lot is much larger than the typical sized historic lot in the Commercial Core. Lot sizes at most were 9,000 square feet (90 x 100) with a minimum of 3,000 square feet (30 ft. x 100 ft.) Typically, downtown buildings are deeper than they are wide - the iconic downtown historic structures (Elks, Wheeler Opera House, Aspen Block, Independence Square) have a building footprint of about 60 ft. x 100 ft., the Hotel Jerome is the exception with a 115 ft. x 100 ft. footprint. Within the Commercial Core Historic District, the only other single developments occupying more than % of the block face are Mill Street Plaza (on Hopkins and Mill Streets) and Ajax Mountain Building (on Durant Avenue.) P&Z referral comments, 9/20/11 Aspen Core Page 3 of 6 Image 2: 3-1) rendering of proposal f'�",.9 P V.; FIE F 1 f � "all -- r'r 3 I HYMAN STREET VIEW Staff Response: Staff is concerned about the mass and scale of the proposed building on such a large lot. Changes in materials and building height attempt to break up the size of the building, however these elements do not have a strong relationship to traditional patterns of the historic district. Overall Staff is concerned that the proposed breaks in architecture (for example the intersection of the three story brick building with the tall double story entryway on Hyman Street) meant to reduce the size of the building and to relate to surrounding historic intervals of 30 ft. and 60 ft. building widths, are unsuccessful as proposed. Height Variations for Larger Sites The applicant proposes 3 stories, or 40 ft., at the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets for the entire length (100 ft.) of the Hunter Street fagade, and for about 90 ft. of the Hyman Street fagade. A rooftop deck for the free market residential units is located atop the 40 ft. section of the building. Elevators and associated access to the roof reach 50 ft. in height - all of these elements meet Land Use Code height requirements. The height requirement in the Commercial Core is 38 ft. with the ability to request a height increase to 42 ft. through Commercial Design Review. Relevant Design Guidelines are below: 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. • A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: P&Z referral comments, 9/20/11 Aspen Core Page 4 of 6 • o In order to achieve at least a two foot variation in height with an adjacent building. o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day lighting. 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: • Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building fagade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the fagade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the facade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • The faced height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum and preferable every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. • No more than two consecutive 30 ft. fagade modules may be three stories tall, within an individual building. • A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is setback a minimum of 40 ft. from the street fagade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: • Variation in height of building modules across the site. • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights. • Variation in building fagade heights or cornice line. Staff Response: Staff is concerned about the proposed 40 ft. height of the 3 story element that, essentially, comprises 9,000 square feet of the lot. Staff finds that Design Guideline 6.27 is not met for granting a height increase from the required 38 ft. Staff finds that the continuous height of the fagade along Hunter Street needs to be varied to meet the Guidelines 6.29 and 6.30. Staff is concerned that the amount of 3 story P&Z referral comments, 9/20/11 Aspen Core Page 5 of 6 construction proposed for the site is out of character with the Historic District, which is more varied with 2 story and some 3 story buildings comprising a block face, especially toward the perimeter of the historic district. Placing a 1 story building in the middle of the proposed development may exacerbate the heights of the proposed 3 story buildings. The Design Objectives and Guidelines state that "Designing a building in the historic district demands a sensitivity in design analysis and approach which is exacting and which will vary with each situation. The intent is that a new building or addition to an existing building should be designed to respect the height and scale of historic buildings within the Commercial Core. " Staff is supportive of a 3 story element at the corner of the property to anchor the intersection and preserve the street wall. Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the height of the building to meet the 38 ft. requirement and restudy the Hunter Street fagade to provide height variation and meet the Guidelines listed above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that P &Z provide feedback to HPC on the following points: 1. Size and location of public amenity space. Is a reduction in public amenity appropriate? 2. Mass and Scale. 3. Height Increase from 38 ft. to 40 ft. Exhibits: Exhibit A: Design Objectives and Guidelines Exhibit B: Application P&Z referral comments, 9/20/11 Aspen Core Page 6 of 6 • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RECFIVED OCT 142011 CITY OF ASPEN OOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: 517 and 521 East Hyman Street and the Parking lot at the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets (Block 95, Lots G, H, and I) - Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Public Hearing DATE: September 21, 2011 SUMMARY: HPC has purview over the design of this project due to its location in the Commercial Core Historic District. The applicant requests Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Major Development Conceptual Review, and Demolition. The applicant requests approval for a height increase from 38 feet to 40 feet, which is reviewed through Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review. The project comprises three separate lots, 517 and 521 E. Hyman Street and the parking lot on the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets. Two -buildings are located on the subject properties: the building that houses Little Annie's Eatery at 517 E. Hyman and located at 521 E. Hyman Street is Tom Benton's original design studio. Neither of these building are designated landmarks. The three properties are proposed to be merged through subdivision review. The newly created lot is proposed to be 15,000 square feet in size: 3,000 (517 E. Hyman) + 3,000 (521 E. Hyman) + 9,000 (parking lot). The applicant proposes to construct a mixed use building on the site including the following: subgrade parking garage and storage, commercial on the first floor, commercial and affordable housing on the second floor, free market residential and affordable housing on the third floor, and a rooftop deck on the free market residential portion of the building. Currently 7,500 square feet of floor area exist on the three properties. The applicant proposes about 32,640 square feet of floor area that is roughly broken down into the following percentages: 56% commercial, 24% free market residential and 20% affordable housing. The maximum height is proposed to be 40 feet with the elevator shafts extending to 50 feet. The proposal meets the dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core Zone District, with the exception of the requested height increase from 38 feet to 40 feet through Commercial Design Review. Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for redesign. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 1 of 14 1 s D 0 • DEMOLITION The applicant requests approval to demolish the Benton studio building and the adjacent building that houses Little Annie's Eatery. Neither property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark sites and structures; however, these properties are located in the Commercial Core Historic Districts and as such require HPC's approval for demolition. The image below, courtesy of the Aspen Historical Society Ann Hodges Collection, shows both buildings on December 28, 1967. Photograph 1: Benton Studio with second floor addition, 1967. The criteria for granting demolition approval are below: §26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. §26.415.080.A.4 The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 2 of 14 0 • b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Findings: Benton studio building (521 E. Hyman) The photographs ( # 2 and #3 below) depict before and after the fagade changes. Following is an excerpt about Tom Benton and his relationship with Aspen from the context paper titled Aspen's Twentieth Century Architecture: Modernism 1945 – 1975: Photographs 2, 3: Benton Studio, before and after remodel Almost twenty years after Bayer and Benedict, Tom Benton (1930-2007) arrived in 1963, as the ski town's growth and popularity were shifting into high gear. Serving in the Navy during the Korean War, Benton used the G.1. Bill to study architecture at the University of Southern California (B. Arch, 1960) and worked in southern California for a time. Though trained as an architect, he really wanted to be a "working artist. " ski trip to Aspen convinced him that it was where he should be. Bringing a sensibility that fit well with Aspen's growing image as a counter -culture mecca, Benton designed his studio and gallery—"unique, a clean and sharp blend of wood and cinder block" (heavily altered today) —at 421 E. Hyman Avenue. He collaborated with Hunter Thompson and others to create "images that helped to define Aspen's tempestuous political and social upheavals" in the late 1960s. More interested in graphic art than in architecture, he still designed the occasional building, including a residence for actress Jill St. John. His funky, organic, California esthetic was in sync with Aspen's Wrightian tradition. His designs, • such as the Patio Building (1969), a flat -roofed commercial building at 630 E. Hyman (1969), exhibit a similar interest in natural materials, simple geometric shapes, deep overhangs, horizontal emphasis, and orienting the building to frame views toward the mountains. Tom Benton designed the building located at 521 E. Hyman in 1964 as his design studio and residence. Additions in 1966 and 1970 added the second and third floors, both designed by Benton. Starting around 1979, the first floor was converted to a restaurantibar use. In 2004, the exterior of the building was significantly changed to the present condition. Stucco, copper details, and new windows erased Benton's aesthetic and use of natural materials and textures on the lower front facade. The original form of the east, west and north facades of the building are intact. The Benton studio was not included as part of Ordinance Number 48 (Series of 2007) or included as part of AspenModern due to the extent of the alterations. It is possible to restore the building to its original appearance using historic photographs since the form is intact; however the restoration of the building is not proposed by the applicant and it is not required. HPC is asked to grant demolition of this structure because it is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. Photograph 4: Recent photograph of Little Annie's Little Annie's Eatery (517 E. Hyman): Little Annie's Eatery is one of the few local watering holes left in Aspen. The restaurant/bar is well loved; but this is not a criterion for inclusion in the voluntary AspenModern program. As evidenced from the 1967 photograph above, the fagade has changed over time with the addition of a faux false front fagade reminiscent of 19th century frontier architecture. This replicated style does not architecturally or aesthetically contribute to the historic integrity of the district. Historic Preservation in Aspen does not address or protect important local serving businesses like Little Annie's Eatery. Instead the voluntary Aspen program focuses on tangible aspects of our local history like buildings, landscapes and cemeteries that reflect Aspen's architectural, cultural and aesthetic past — either the 19`h century, ski renaissance or Aspen Idea. As such, in Staff's opinion the physical aspects of 517 E. Hyman meet the criteria for demolition. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 4 of 14 CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW/ MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL Sec. 26.412.050. Review criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the . criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. The Commercial Core Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines policy is the following: "improvements in the Commercial Core Historic District should maintain the integrity of historic resources in the area. At the same time, compatible and creative design solutions should be encouraged. " Important defining characteristics of the historic district are the street grid; a hard street edge that is defined by buildings built to lot lines; variations in height between 1, 2 and sometimes 3 stories; and lot widths of 30 feet, 60 feet and sometimes 90 feet with a depth of 100 feet. Prominent storefronts on the ground level with a tall plate height and subordinate upper stories are traditional buildings in Aspen's downtown. Building Placement and Public Amenity: The proposed building generally continues the hard street wall that is typical of the historic downtown. The project is required to provide public amenity space equal to 10% of the lot area, or 1,500 square feet. A 32 feet wide and 37 feet deep space (1,184 square feet) is proposed along Hyman Street in front of the proposed one story section of the building. The applicant requests approval from HPC to pay cash in lieu for the remaining HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 5 of 14 316 square feet that is not provided onsite. The public amenity space is north facing and is located across the street from an existing underutilized public amenity space. The applicant expressed a desire to have the public amenity space function as outdoor dining for a restaurant; however there is no guarantee that this space will be used for outdoor dining. Most downtown lots are smaller in size than the proposed 15,000 square foot lot, which means that the required public amenity is typically smaller and varied throughout the block face, rather than one large public amenity. The 1904 map below shows typical lots sizes and open space. The left hand side of the map shows dense commercial buildings, some of which are as small as 15 feet in width. The density and open space loosens up toward the right hand side of the map, as development was located further away from the downtown core. The arrow indicates the location of the subject lots. The image to the right shows the current build out of the subject lots. Image 1: 1904 Sanborne Map compared to 2010 Map of building footprints �► j °* �p M 96 9d _ —7� .,'"44 asp-------------- -------- The --_ _ The guidelines for street facing amenity space state "a street facing amenity space, usually located towards the middle of a block, may be considered. However, within the heart of the district, where the greatest concentration of historic storefronts align, creating new gaps in the street wall is discouraged. Providing space on sites that are located in the outer edges of the district, especially along the southern edge is more appropriate. " The location of the subject properties is on the eastern edge of the historic district so there is some flexibility regarding the design of the public amenity space. The Design Objectives for Public Amenity are below. Design Objectives: • Create an active and interesting street vitality through the promotion of public gathering space. • Maintain a well-defined street edge and street corner to ensure that such public space creates an accent within the street facade. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 6 of 14 0 Create an additional commercial frontage and/or space to the side or rear of the site or building. Create a well defined, localized public space at the street edge, e.g. where additional space for street dining may be beneficial. Design a space that maximizes access to sunlight throughout the year. Staff Response: Staff finds that the location and size of the proposed amenity space could be closer aligned with the Design Guidelines and Objectives. Staff is concerned that the atypical size of the proposed 15,000 square foot lot is driving an oversized public amenity space to meet the requirement for the entire lot that is north facing and sandwiched between 3 story buildings on either side. Staff recommends that the applicant break up the public amenity space by reducing the depth of or eliminating the proposed amenity space on Hyman and pursuing a possible amenity space on the Hunter fagade that is east facing and has the opportunity to contribute to the vitality of the block and break up the proposed 3 story, 100 feet long facade. Building Form and Orientation The proposed flat roofs and rectangular building modules, and the proposed building orientation meet the Design Objectives and Guidelines for development in the Commercial Core, specifically 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, and 6.24. See Exhibit A for a complete list of the Guidelines. Building Mass & Scale The Design Objectives and Guidelines state: "The character of the Commercial Core derives in part from the range and variety of building heights. These vary from one to three stories. Building height with traditional lot width creates a constantly changing cornice profile along a block face. This is the basis of the human scale, architectural character and visual vitality of the city center. New development in this area should continue this variation. " As mentioned previously, the applicant proposes a 15,000 square foot lot with one large building that is broken up into different modules through height and setback variations. A 15,000 square foot lot is much larger than the typical sized lot in the Commercial Core as illustrated on the 1904 map above. Lot sizes at most were 9,000 square feet (90 feet x 100 feet) with a minimum of 3,000 square feet (30 feet x 100 feet) Typically, downtown buildings are deeper than they are wide - the iconic downtown historic structures (Elks, Wheeler Opera House, Aspen Block, Independence Square) have a building footprint of about 60 feet x 100 feet, the Hotel Jerome is the exception with a 115 feet x 100 feet footprint. Within the Historic District, the only other single developments occupying more than half of a block face are Mill Street Plaza (on Hopkins and Mill Streets) and the Ajax Mountain Building (on Durant Street). Staff Response: Staff is concerned about the mass and scale of the proposed building on such a large lot. Changes in materials and building height attempt to break up the size of the building, however these elements do not have a strong relationship to traditional HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 7 of 14 patterns of the historic district. Overall Staff is concerned that the proposed breaks in architecture (for example the intersection of the three story brick building with the tall double story entryway on Hyman Street, see image below) meant to reduce the size of the building and to relate to surrounding historic intervals of 30 feet and 60 feet building widths, is unsuccessful as proposed. Staff recommends that the applicant redesign the proposed modules to clearly reflect historic building widths. Imaee 2: 3-D renderine of nronosal ( 33 Y � 'I,{{jj ! Y fJ y7 1111 p f UN LAYMAN STREET VIEW The applicant proposes a horizontal stone band above the first story commercial windows along Hunter Street that wraps around the corner for a portion of the Hyman Street fagade where it terminates into a two story tall entry. This type of banding detail is encouraged in Guideline 6.25, however the thickness of the proposed stone band and the overall flatness and simplicity of the first story misses the intent of the guideline. The photograph below of Cooper Street shows the importance of a continuous horizontal band to define the first story commercial space. 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. • Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials or a molding at this level are examples. The floor to ceiling heights do not successfully relate to the surrounding historic architecture. The height of the upper floor of the proposed 3 story corner piece is 12 feet floor to ceiling; however the proposed 2 ft. parapet wall makes the upper floor read as 14 feet. Typically, the focus of 19t` century architecture was on the first floor where the commercial spaces were located. Offices and living spaces were on upper floors with a shorter plate height and simpler architecture. The photograph of the La Fave Block on the next page shows the elegance and attention to detail of the prominent first story. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 8 of 14 • Photograph 5: Cooper Street, courtesy of the Aspen Historical Society 44 A OA i ki F „ T � x � a 74`9Qr�.! .� _'`'snai'W :�.i�i„Y".. -•` yx„ »• _.,, ,�...�f The photographs intend to show historic references upon which the Guidelines and Objectives are based. Replicating historic buildings is not suggested; however referencing specific character defining aspects of historic architecture, a prominent HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 9 of 14 detailed first floor with subordinate upper floors for example, helps new architecture meet into the historic district. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the architecture to better reflect these Design Objectives and Guidelines. Height Variations for Larger Sites The Design Objectives and Guidelines state: "Buildings within the commercial center and historic core of Aspen represent the traditional lot widths of the city (30 ft.), either in building width or the horizontal and vertical design articulation of the street fagade. New development occupying a site of more than one traditional lot width should be designed to integrate with the scale created by narrower existing buildings. The architectural rhythm of earlier street facades should also be reflected in new development to retain and enhance the human scale and character of the center of the city. " The height requirement in the Commercial Core is 38 feet with the ability to request a height increase to 42 feet through Commercial Design Review. The applicant proposes 3 stories, or 40 feet, at the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets for the entire length (100 feet) of the Hunter Street fagade, and for a portion of the Hyman Street fagade. A rooftop deck for the free market residential units is located atop the 40 feet section of the building. Elevators and associated access to the roof reach 50 feet in height - all of these elements meet Land Use Code height requirements. Moving from east to west along the Hyman Street fagade, about 50 feet from the corner, the P story is set back to provide a break in height and to create a roof top terrace for a third floor free market residential unit. In the center of the proposed Hyman Street fagade, the applicant proposes a one story, 32 feet module setback from the street about 37 feet The rooftop of the one story element is not accessible. Continuing to the west, the building steps up to 3 stories or 38 feet, with the third story slightly set back from the street. Refer to Image 2 on the previous page for illustration of heights. Relevant Design Guidelines are below: 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. • A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: o In order to achieve at least a two foot variation in height with an adjacent building. o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. HIPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 10 of 14 o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day lighting. 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: • Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building fagade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the fagade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the facade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • The faced height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum and preferable every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. • No more than two consecutive 30 ft. fagade modules may be three stories tall, within an individual building. • A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is setback a minimum of 40 ft. from the street fagade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: • Variation in height of building modules across the site. • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights. • Variation in building fagade heights or cornice line. Staff Response: Staff is concerned about the proposed 40 feet height of the 3 story element that, essentially, comprises 9,000 square feet of the lot. Staff finds that Design Guideline 6.27 is not met for granting a height increase from the required 38 ft. Staff finds that the continuous height of the fagade along Hunter Street needs to be varied to meet the Guidelines 6.29 and 6.30. Staff is concerned that the amount of 3 story construction proposed for the site is out of character with the historic district, which is more varied with 2 story and some 3 story buildings comprising a block face, especially toward the perimeter of the historic district. Placing a 1 story building in the middle of the proposed development may exacerbate the heights of the proposed 3 story buildings. The Design Objectives and Guidelines state that "Designing a building in the historic district demands a sensitivity in deign analysis and approach which is exacting and which will vary with each situation. The intent is that a new building or addition to an existing building should be designed to respect the height and scale of historic buildings within the commercial core. " HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 11 of 14 Staff is supportive of a 3 story element at the corner of the property to anchor the intersection and preserve the street wall. Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the height of the building to meet the 38 feet requirement and restudy the Hunter Street fagade to provide height variation and meet the Guidelines listed above. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Sec. 26.412.060. Commercial design standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The.dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at -grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Response: As mentioned previously, staff recommends that the applicant restudy the public amenityspace to meet the Design Guidelines listed above and Standard A.3. Staff is concerned about the size and placement (north facing and across the street from existing public amenity) of the proposed space. Staff is unsupportive of the request for a reduction in the public amenity requirement considering that this property is a complete HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 12 of 14 scrape and replace. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall Staff Response: The applicant demonstrates that these standards are met. Staff is unclear as to the location of the trash area for the affordable housing tenants. A service court is provided off of the alley that is accessible near the commercial spaces and the free market residential lobby. The basement garage plan illustrated only mechanical, parking and storage areas. Staff recommends that the applicant provide more information as to how the minimum standards of 20 feet x 10 feet x 10 feet for trash/utility/recycle is met onsite. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the public hearing for a restudy. Staff suggests that HPC discuss and provide feedback to the applicant regarding the following points: 1. Demolition of 521 and 517 E. Hyman Streets. 2. Size and location of public amenity space. 3. Mass and Scale: proposed building modules, horizontal banding above the first floor. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 13 of 14 4. Floor to ceiling heights. 5. Height Increase from 38 ft. to 40 feet. 6. Height Variations. 7. 3 stories at the corner of Hunter and Hyman. EXHIBITS' Exhibit A: Design Objectives and Guidelines Exhibit B: Application HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 14 of 14 RIC PRESERVA' ISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 Mitch Maas said if we did go with mixed use and stuck with the C 1 zone there would be zero setback requirements on the front, side or rear and a whole lot more floor area and height. This is being as sensitive as we can get and we are hearing that there could be more sensitivity done. Greg has demonstrated a better track record than anybody in trying to respond to the issues made by this commission. Jay said we are 85% close to mass and scale and there are a few things that can occur for fmal. One idea would be a full streetscape and full landscape plan. We know you want to be a duplex. 517 E. Hyman Nora seated Jay recused himself Sarah seated Exhibit I — Public Notice RECFIVED OCT 14 2011 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Sara Adams, The project is the redevelopment of the projects at 517 E. Hyman, 521 E. Hyman and the parking lot at the corner of Hyman and Hunter Street. A site visit occurred today and Jason, Jamie, Brian and Ann were. present. John Toya, architect Stan Clausen, Stan Clausen architects represented the applicant Sara said HPC is asked to review major development conceptual, commercial design review and demolition of properties located within the commercial core district. The proposal is to demolish the two existing buildings onsite; one is the old Tom Benton design studio and the other houses Little Annie's restaurant. The proposal includes a sub -grade garage and storage area; commercial, free market residential and affordable housing. It also includes merging the three lots into a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. Right now there is a 9,000 sq. ft. lot which is the parking lot, 3,000 sq. ft. which is Little Annie's and a 3,000 sq. ft. lot which is the Benton building. The proposal meets all the requirements of the commercial core zone district. There is a request to increase the height of a portion of the building from 38 to 40 feet which is under HPC purview. -XHIB 5 ASPEN ORIC PRESERVA MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 There are clearly two separate reviews: Demolition review and the presentation. Demolition review is based on the merits of the existing buildings not what is proposed to possibly replace them. Disclosure: Sarah Broughton said her office has done work with the applicant in the past but currently they are not under any contract. Sara said the criteria for granting demolition are A and B and whether the structure is sound or not. Criteria C talks about practically be relocated and criteria D talks about documentation that exists that supports historic significance to the district. The second set of criteria deals with whether or not the structure contributes to the historic district in this case. Sara said 521 E. Hyman is the Benton building. Tom Benton was a trained architect and he is recognized as important to Aspen's post war history. Two photos are provided to show what the building looked like and what it looks like now. The building has been heavily altered. This happened in 2004 and the lower portion of the front fagade was bumped out and the fenestration was changed and the material palate was changed; however, when you walk around the building and look at the building the form is still intact and the three dimensional geometric shapes that Tom Benton is expressing in the building are still intact. The siding and facades aren't changed very much. Staff is struggling with the recommendation about demolition of this building. As the building sits today it is heavily altered and we cannot require the applicant to restore it to its original appearance. I'll leave HPC with this question: Does the building as it appears today contribute to the integrity of the historic district and does it contribute to the integrity of the historic preservation program? 517 E. Hyman — Little Annie's building. The photograph is from 1967. Sara pointed out that a false front was added. There is no doubt that the restaurant is well loved by the community but the demolition criteria don't address the restaurant use of the building. The historic preservation program and the demolition criteria reflect whether or not there are historic architectural or aesthetic aspects of the building that in this case contribute to the historic district. In staff s opinion this replicated architectural style false front building does not meet the criteria to not permit demolition so we are in favor of demolition of the Little Annie's building based on the criteria in the packet. We ask the same question of HPC, does this building that Ri ASPEN IRTORIC PRESERVATION COMMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 houses Little Annie's contribute to the integrity of the district and the integrity of the preservation program according to the criteria of the packet. Jim True, Special Counsel said the attorney's office suggest that HPC consider the demolition issue not in context as to what will replace it but in context to what is there now under the two review sections 26.415.080.A.4 I suggest you take public comment now and completely address the demolition issue before the conceptual design review because they are two separate items in the review. Sarah said she would like to move forward with the hearing and deal with demolition and then conceptual. Demolition: Stan Clausen, Stan Clausen and associates John Toya, architect Stan said we have separated per the advice of Jim True the presentation into two parts. The Benton building and Little Annie's are structures that are not included in the Aspen Inventory of historic place. When you look at the list of properties that constitute the commercial core historic district you do not find either of those properties listed. For that reason actually we believe that makes it a clear statement that the historic preservation commission over the years has chosen not to include this as an appropriate historic property for land marking. That in itself says everything about the demolition issue that is to say it is not an historic property and it is not a contributing property to the historic district or it would have been on that list and it would have been placed on that list by previous historic -preservation commissions. That list includes not only those properties that were part of the original ordinance of 1974 but a number of properties were added in subsequent years as historic preservation committees considered other properties and determined that they were appropriate to put, on that inventory. By virtue of it being in the historic district we do not believe it creates a situation that it is under demolition review as an historic landmark structure as per the land use code. Tom Benton did a number of renovations to the building and adding a second floor and modifying the fagade as he felt appropriate. In 2004 the prior owner of the bldg. changed the front fagade with the permission of the HPC from a store front that was a bar that had a large deck out front and the owner could not find a subsequent restaurant that wanted to be in that location so he put a store front fagade on the front and considerably altered 7 ASPEN HAORIC PRESERVATION COA MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 the fagade in an attempt to make it a viable economic building. It also has an inefficient layout internally and on the second floor doesn't provide ADA access to the upper floor. It has been consistently unoccupied. The Little Annie's was also remodeled on the front fagade. It was originally developed as a store front as far back as the parapet wall and it was then altered to include the front section. It may have had an outdoor deck at one point that was closed in. It has no historic features to make it a landmark structure which is why it is not on the inventory. Both of these buildings are proposed for demolition and replacement and while it is part of our presentation to follow what it does do are permit the installation of a continuous sub -grade level which would be difficult to do if these buildings were retained. The sub -grade level will provide for parking which is part of the land use code for a new project. Noted in "Aspen Modern" that there were considerable changes to the Benton building and while this particular report does not make a specific recommendation for any property it does note those properties that have been altered and lost their historic significance. If demolition criteria were to apply the key demolition criteria would be that the structure cannot practically be moved to an appropriate place in Aspen and that is fairly clear for a cinder block building of its size and type. I'm speaking of the Benton building and it would also be true of the Little Annie's building. There is no documentation that supports that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. I am sure there are people that want to speak of the cultural significance. Tom Benton did poster making of his anti -war during the Vietnam War all of which make for an interesting story. That story is not encompassed within the Benton building. The building as it stands right now does not reflect that story in any meaningful way. The structure itself does not fit with Victorian architecture. With respect to Little Annie's we will stick with the staff recommendation. Chairperson Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Georgia Hanson: I am a 40 year resident and I feel very strongly that Tom has earned the right to be acknowledged and I understand the entire building can't be completely returned to where it was. I am surprised that it didn't show up on a list before all the alternations happened. His architectural circles that are echoed across the street are important and to the story and the modern movement. I would like to see the developer and this committee come up with a way to signify the importance and his talent as an architect. 8 C PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 Junee Kirk said she has lived her 43 years. I served on the historic task force commission and we need to look at these buildings as not whether they have historic significance because they were altered but who built them, who lived there and how they contributed to our culture and our history which Tom Benton definitely has. With his poster business he encapsulated the 70's with the people he know and people who governed. If it is a significant person that dwelled in that place, designed the place, it is historic even though it has been altered. I'm sure there is a way to have the fagade or parts of it preserved to honor some of our history that is so important to the community. The same with Little Annie's. If you tear the buildings down there goes the character of the neighborhood. People should come along as developers and try to give back to the community in some way. I ask you to work with the developers so that they can preserve a portion of this. Bill Wiener, retired architect The Tom Benton building is an architectural form and the core is still there, the roof and the circle. ' We are here to discuss concepts with the building. I am asking that you don't vote on demolition until you hear the entire story. I am asking that the center part of the roof be retained and the first floor kept open. Jim said Bill Wiener handed out a book as an Exhibit H. Joe Edwards submitted a photograph. Tom built this building 48 years ago during a time of great conflicts in the issue of land use and whether we are going to turn into something like Vail looks like in the spread of condominiums. Tom was a big mover in that decision to try and stop what happens if you just let the free market developers have their way. Many decisions were made in this building. The building should look like Tom had it in the photograph. It is stupid not to utilize this building as historic. This building and Tom's history are historical on modern Aspen. Modern Aspen is what it is because of what occurred in this building. It is an abomination to demolish this building. Sara also said there was a letter from Bill Wiener that was included in the book. Exhibit III, letters from Matthew Moran and Associates; Kelsey Moore; Calie Edward; Meg Braested; Ruth Hosteller; Lonnie White; Linda Edwards and Patrick Siegel. Most are against demolition of either Little Annie's or the Benton building. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21,2011 Sarah said Exhibit IV — map from Bill Wiener and Exhibit V is the photograph from Joe Edwards. Chairperson Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Stan Clausen said no one is questioning Tom Benton's importance. In this particular building it is not a building that embodies Mr. Benton. I can think of many places in Aspen's history that were important. Nothing ensures that Little Annie's will remain a restaurant as things change. It is important not to confuse the memories that we have. This corridor has the potential to add vibrancy down Hyman Ave. and to Spring Street. Jason said as an architect and an artist Tom Benton is the kind of person that I moved to Aspen to be. I moved here because I don't want to see McDonald signs and parking lots etc. Tom Benton had the courage to question systems and our authority and our landscape. This town looks different than any other place. We are losing buildings that represent people. I know his son Brian Benton. He had an open door policy and people could just walk into his building. The inventory list is just a list. This is a case by case commission and a case by case town. 26.415.080.A.4 Demolition of designated historic properties. -a. The property has been determined to be an imminent hazard. The structure is not structurally sound. c. The structure cannot practically be moved. d. No documentation exists to support that the property has architectural or cultural significance. There is cultural significance and the one story element is significant. We have head that if this gets torn down it will not be inconsequential. It would be a significant blow to our culture. The party walls are there and they could be exposed. This building would provide scale on the street if it is kept. On 517 E. Hyman the fagade is not original and it would be a stretch to keep it. Brian said upon moving to Aspen I was exposed to Tom's poster work. I have deep admiration and respect to what he did. His brilliance was highlighted by his architecture and art work. Little Annie's doesn't contribute to the historic integrity of the town as it is not an historic fagade, it is something that retrofitted. There is not a lot of "teeth" to say that building should be preserved. The Benton building does contribute to the character of the town mostly because of its funkiness and it is those collection of elements that make Aspen great. This particular building has 10 ASPEN COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 been altered significantly and to me it has become a detriment to the streetscape. As a landscape architect that is something that I am constantly looking at. It is my obligation as a member of this board to see to it that there is vitality in the Aspen core and I do not think this building is . providing that anymore. I wish this building was intact the way Benton intended it to be. I would be open to maintaining the facade but they aren't usually successful like the Mother Lode. Ann thanked the public for their comments. The Benton building should not be demolished and it should be restudied and somehow incorporated in the plan that the developer comes up with. We have seen great restoration projects, the Berg cottage and the patio building etc. All are assets to the downtown. We continue to lose the 70's buildings and the size and scale of them and the funkiest of the architecture. I'm not convinced that you couldn't work the interior to make the building work. Little Annie's is one of the busiest restaurants in town and it would be a shame to see that go away and have an empty storefront in its place. Jamie said this is difficult because it is hard to distinguish between a - building and a business. With the Little Annie's building it does bring vitality to that area but our criteria is to judge the building not the business. The one thing the two buildings have going for them is the size and scale of the buildings which is reduced from everything else around them. I'm concerned what that street facade would look like if it was all built out and there was no smaller scale buildings to show the change over time. I would like to see the Benton building studied as to how we can preserve it and if there is a way to preserve it. I haven't made a decision on either building. Nora thanked the public for their comments and compassion. If we look back we can take a number of buildings and say why didn't we designate that. I'm trying to be cautious about this and this block is the end of the book mark. You have the Wheeler Opera House, Aspen Block, Eagles, Ute City Banque and Benton. I would encourage you to find a way to voluntarily designate it and make it part of something fabulous. You can do an iconic project in keeping what is important to the history of the town culturally as well as architecturally. I have a hard time saying there is nothing there to keep. Sarah said while I love the scale and this is my community also there needs to be space for the next Thomas Benton. It is too bad this building couldn't 11 ASPEN H*ORIC PRESERVATION CO MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 be incorporated. I personally feel that the building in its current state 521E. Hyman structurally cannot be moved given its structure type, 26.415.080.A.4 c. On 517 E. Hyman criteria d. If we could retain Little Annie's as a restaurant for the rest of our lives that would be a different story. That restaurant could close tomorrow and would be an empty store front. That to me does not contribute to the history of our down from an architectural context viewpoint. Not meaning any disrespect to our town and citizens and the friends of Thomas Benton I am in support of demolition and it meets the criteria. Stan Clausen requested that the motion be set up in two resolutions for the two properties. Jim said the properties are designated as part of the historic district and they are historic sites. HPC has the purview to consider this and it is appropriate to do two different resolutions. Stan said should there be a vote for against demolition this meeting would effectively be over because the design was predicated on demolition. MOTION: Brian moved to approve resolution #9 for the demolition of 517. E. Hyman Ave, Little Annie's, second by Sarah. Sarah amended the motion to allow for demolition under code section 26.415.080.A.4.d. and in addition a,b,c criteria are met. Brian accepted the amendment. Jason said we will hear more about Little Annie's than the Benton building from community back lash. It is a struggle because I dislike loosing the use and demolishing the building but it doesn't meet the criteria and it is a fairly modern building. Ann said she isn't convinced and there may be documentation that demonstrates that it has some significance. The front was put on in 1971. It is in the historic district and I don't feel any of the criteria in the second portion is met because it does contribute to the historic district. Vote: Nora, yes; Sarah, yes; -Brian, yes; Jason, yes; Jamie, yes; Ann, no. Motion carried 5-1. MOTION: Jason moved to deny 521 E. Hyman the demolition request by the applicant for this particular property setting forth that the criteria has not 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMML SION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 been met 26.415.080.A.4 a,b,c,d and a.b.c. motion second by Ann. Motion carried 4-2. Vote: Jason, yes; Brian, no; Sarah no; Ann, yes, Jamie, yes, Nora, yes. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue Conceptual Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Standards, Public Hearing to Oct 26th second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 320 Lake Avenue Work Session Sarah recused herself on 320 Lake Ave. Jim True, Special Counsel — We are going into a work session so the meeting will not be recorded. It is a work session and there is nothing binding on the commission or any individual commissioner. This is done to provide information to the applicant to assist them. There is nothing upon which the applicant can rely of the commission as a whole or individually. Motion: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. l Meeting adjourned at 8:30 Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 Parcel Detail Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED Pitkin County Assessor OCT 14 2011 CITY OF ASPEN Parcel Detail Information COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEW, Assessor Property Search I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search I Treasurer Tax Search. Search Basic Building Characteristics I Value Summary Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Owner Detail I Land Detail I Photographs Tax Area]l Account Number Parcel Number 2010 Mill Levy 001 R012512 273718254001 26.708 Primary Owner Name and Address ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC 11 IC/O KATIE REED MGMT I 1418 E COOPER AVE #207 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 Additional Owner Detail Legal Description Subdivision: BENTON BUILDING Unit: 1 Location Physical Address: 521 E HYMAN AVE AS Subdivision: JFBENTON BUILDING Land Acres: Land Sq Ft: I 0 2011 Property Value Summary Actual Value F Assessed Value Land: 0E EXHIBIT Improvements: 3,367,100 976,460 a a 3 http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=RO12512 10/11/2011 Parcel Detail . • Page 2 of 2 Total: 11 3,367,1 Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Too of Page Assessor Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=RO12512 10/11/2011 Commercial/Industrial Building Occurrence 0 Characteristics SPECIAL PURPOSE FIRST FL: 12375 ' Total Area: 2,375 Property Class: I2245 Actual Year Built: 1987 Effective Year Built: 1987 Quality of Construction: GOOD -BASE Exterior Wall: GOOD BASE Interior Wall: GOOD -BASE Neighborhood: BENTON COMM CONDO "A" Too of Page Assessor Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=RO12512 10/11/2011 Parcel Detail 40 • Pitkin County Assessor Parcel Detail Information Assessor Property Search I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search I Treasurer 'Tax Search Search Basic Building Characteristics I Value Summary Page 1 of 2 Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Owner Detail I Land Detail I Photograuhs 1Tax Area Account Number 11 Parcel Number 2010 Mill Levy 1 001 R012513273718254002 26.708 Primary Owner Name and Address ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC C/O KATIE REED MGMT 418 E COOPER AVE #207 ASPEN, CO 81611 Additional Owner Detail. Legal Description vision: BENTON BUILDING Unit: 2 Location cal Address: 521 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN Subdivision: BENTON BUILDING Land Acres: Land Sq Ft: 0 2011 Property Value Summary 11 11 Actual Value 11 Assessed Value Land: Improvements: 1,827,40011 529,95 http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=RO12513 10/11/2011 Parcel Detail • 0 Page 2 of 2 IL- Total: 1 1,827,40011 529,95011 Sale Date: 11/9/2010 Sale Price: 1117,750,000 Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential OF Buildings: 1 Number of Comm/Ind[ Buildings: Top of Page Assessor Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber—RO12513 10/11/2011 Commercial/Industrial Building Occurrence 0 Characteristics OFFICE THIRD FLOOR: IF980 OFFICE SECOND FLOOR: 1,690 Total Area: IF2,670 Property Class: 2245 Actual Year Built: 11987 Effective Year Built: I 1987 Quality of Construction: GOOD -BASE Exterior Wall: IGOOD BASE Interior Wall: GOOD -BASE Neighbor IBENTON COMM CONDO "A" Top of Page Assessor Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber—RO12513 10/11/2011 Parcel Detail . Page 1 of 3 RECFIVED Pitkin County Assessor OCT 14 2011 CITY OF ASPEN Parcel Detail Information COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Assessor Property Search I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search I Treastuer Tax Search Search Basic Building Characteristics I Value Summary Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Owner Detail I Land Detail I Photographs Tax Area Account Number Parcel Number 2010 Mill Levy 001 R001311 273718224002 26.708 Primary Owner Name and Address ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC il IC/0 KATIE REED MGMT 1418 E COOPER AVE #207 1 SPEN, CO 81611 LITTLE ANNIES Additional Owner Detail Business Name Legal Description Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 95 Lot: E Location Physical Address: 1517 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Land Acres: 0.000 Land Sa Ft: 113,000 EXHIBIT 2011 Property Value Summary http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=ROO1311 10/11/2011 Parcel Detail • 0 Page 2 of 3 Actual V—a—lue—T Assessed Value Land: 2,100,000F 609,000 Improvements: 943,60011 273,640 Total: 3,043,600 882,64 Sale Date: 11/9/2010 Sale Price: 1117,750,000 Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential 0 Buildings: Number of Comm/Ind 1 Buildings: Top of Page Assessor 'Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any of the http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R001311 10/11/2011 Commercial/Industrial Building Occurrence 0 Characteristics SPECIAL PURPOSE FIRST FL: 2 460 ' Total Area: 112,460 Property Class•' SPEC. PURPOSE - IMPROVEMENT Actual Year Built: 1960 Effective Year Built: 1985 Quality of Construction: GOOD -BASE Exterior Wall: JIGOOD BASE Interior Wall: GOOD -BASE Neighborhood: 11COA COMMERCIAL "A" CORE Top of Page Assessor 'Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any of the http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R001311 10/11/2011 Parcel Detail • Page 3 of 3 information herein contained. Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=RO01311 10/11/2011 r-, IVED OCT 14 2011 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a. The change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.412.060, the change represents a minimal effect on the aesthetics of the proposed development or the change is consistent with representations made during the original review concerning potential changes of the development proposal considered appropriate by the decision-making body; and b. The change requires no other land use action requiring review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2. Historic Preservation Commission approval. An insubstantial amendment to a commercial design review approval granted by the Historic Preservation Commission shall comply with the standards outlined in Paragraph 26.415.070.E.1., Insubstantial amendments. B. Substantial amendments. A substantial amendment to a commercial design review approval granted shall be reviewed pursuant to the standards and procedures of this Section. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, § 1) Chapter 26.415 DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT IN AN "H," HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29-20-104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical; architectural, archaeological. -engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage productive, economical and attractive reuse of historic structures. (Ord. No. 1- 2002, §7 [part]) Sec. 26.415.020. Definitions. The following definitions are specific to the terms as used in this Chapter and in the field of historic preservation: Alteration. A change to an existing building, structure or feature that modifies its original appearance or construction. EXHIBIT YI d D a • RECEIVED OCT 14 2011 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DIMLOPMEW instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. (Ord. No. 28 -20109 §1) 26.415.020. Definitions. The following definitions are specific to the terms as used in this Chapter and in the field of historic preservation: Alteration. A change to an existing building, structure or feature that modifies its original appearance or construction. Certificate of appropriateness. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed work on a designated historic property is compatible with its historic and architectural character and, therefore, the work may be completed as specified in the certificate and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work specified in the certificate. Certificate of demolition approval. An official form issued by the City authorizing the issuance of a demolition permit for a designated historic property or for a building or structure located in a designated historic district. Certificate of economic hardship. An official form issued by the City, in connection with a certificate of demolition approval, that allows the demolition of a designated historic property as the owner has demonstrated that maintaining it will impose an economic hardship. Certificate of no negative effect. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed work will have no detrimental effect on the character -defining features of a designated property and, therefore, the work may proceed as specified in the certificate without obtaining further approvals under this Chapter and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work in the specified certificate. Contributing resource. A building, site, structure or object that adds to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities or archaeological values for which a property or district is considered significant. Designated property. A property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Historic District. A collection, concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings, structures, sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Historic context paper. Research papers that define Aspen's architectural and cultural patterns in the context of local and national history. Historic context papers are used to guide staff, the Historic City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 28 EXHIBIT b a a 8 4RECFIVED OCT 14 2011 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEW RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ORDINANCE N0. (Series of 1974) AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE COMMERCIAL CORE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, 14ORE PARTICULARLY BLOCKS 80,81,.82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 951 96, AND THE SOUTH HALF OF BLOCKS 79, 86, 92 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE AND SOUTH HALF OF BLOCK 19 OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDITION THERETO,AS AN H, HISTORIC DISTRICT WHEREAS, The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has studied the commercial core of the City of Aspen and .such investigation demonstrates, and the Committee has concluded, that the commercial core of the City has character, interest and value as a part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City; exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social and historical heritage of the community; includes many structures which portray the environment of a group of people in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style; and which structures, in addition, contain elements of design, detail, material and craftsmanship representing a significant architectural style; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that designa- tion of the commercial core as an historic district will promote the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the community, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, Section 1 That the following described property located within Pitkin County, Colorado, be and hereby is placed within an H, Historic Overlay District and designated an EXHIBIT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves /W• 41. K.lCtR LL. L 16 historic site: All of lots 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, and the south half of blocks 79, 86 and 92 of the City and Original Townsite of Aspen; and the south half of Block 19 East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen; and further that the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen, dated April 7, 1967, as amended, is further amended by the designation of the preceeding as an H, historic Overlay District. Section 2 If any provisions of this ordinance, or applications thereof, shall be declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions or applications, and for this purpose the provisions and applications of this ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 3 A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on "L-' ?- _" - ' 3 , 1974, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing there shall have been published notice of the same in a newspaper of general circulation of the City. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published all as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held 1974. ATTEST: Stacy tand ey III // Kathr* n b`. ' Tauter City Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rma cr. ream r.F��. ca ' FINALLY PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this =-;9& day of . n 1974. STATE OF COLORADO ) CERTIFICATE ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I, -Kathryn S. Hauter, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen on December 9 197 4 , and publish- ed in the Aspen Times a weekly newspaper of general circul- ation, published in the City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of December 12 , 197 4 , and was finally adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on. December 23 , 197 4 , and ordered published as Ordinance No. 49 , Series of 197 , of said City, as provided by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and - the seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado, this 24 day of December 197 4 Kathryn S Hauter, City Clerk-. X 4 _WA A-z-z— "iD k —a" L'3 Zi -iqa, P­�, ;> A�, J-117 ardens-Me, kov& Ll �Jw_ CJ k-1 k\ �x lt A -3 -x ? g `�A __ _J \-6ardens-Meadows Ilk 4 l"j, Anderson, R�rk�/ kr, > 'N' < f__Jf c7l,'\ — ----- k, *-3 pIk t "i8 Al ff _?k NJ "u, 407 if - I z k le, X U Red Butte Cemetery % X ­ 'n S;-,% Ok 0 A e Zjll i, 1, i � I-, Z �110,- L__ I 9d1V kip q- 4 (P 0 NS " .-I , L 0 fcDy J 0 j b M 0� 0' J_ W \NO, ri­, <,j \:\� ;i_�\\ - "I % C-3 I TA Race Tra W, ck 0" 5 4,1 t t 0 V, T, "kI T 711 VA INSET It f L-A v C7, L-OME p E_7-7 -/ vc, TIJ_ G\ 'k- 10 < -V ..... .. - ------ 7 el, Z v A 7 k�, 'pq z-/V/C&O% J, `17 ko C) L U) ar tSMUG GLER-ST=-�-=- MITH ST P riangle Park U U U -�NOR44-STI W-NORTH:ST _W NORTH /V A r7 U ff El 81d H61y,Cros 4 0 629' > r F- C? =W_ FRANC Is -ST=— z 00 z co z n 0 MAROON CREEK BRIDGE r (SEEINSET) z Lu ri 34 :2 0 13 2 T_ -HALLA S E M:Sr HWY-82 ::Z��WHALL ... . ...... 2 z 0 C- , nrn^ x -ST :----E-BLE R-. ---W-BLEEKER -:::�:M1DLAND-PARK­Fk-_ EKE SI= It=777� z C/) 0 U) z --ul z L 7 Ln L Uj z 7n� - — cr, F 7 f < z z z < t z ar -ST-J ------- -ST- -MAIN E,MAIN L _Y Paepcke Park , ro arn 2 0 LU -A 'INS — ------ Z ­AVE E: H 0 P K -AVE OPKINS. VE 40- 0 E:H W-HUHKINZ) V z LL LU z U C) 2k -E�HYMAWAVE N-AVE - co -AVE -W-HYMA E-��YMAN 0 W U LU 2 V) OOPER-AVE-I IF z 0 0), L di z 4 - E ove Cemetery Aspdn!Gw� tj < 0 DO, '4 DEAN:S' LL -b DEAN:ST U /,C) z z n L n U) f&'Boa �Iory -7 z ry P, 0 ell - 0 G' Hole a"rk AN -ST_ -Y k/ rT" ��:�_-=__=WATE RS -AVE co r P > rn ��pOARING:FoRK:O _oRK:O -BERT-- N ---------- < V IUMMI I_ -ST= 7_-rL-jS_C n -yor ri AYF-- 0 X -S ,A L ng -k)? Z Ute Cemetery f 44 S -MTN:RD PEN The City of Aspen has two local Aspen inventory of historic districts. The Commercial Legetul Core Historic District was created in Roads National Register of Historic Places HI*stojvL*-JLc Landmark Sites 1974 (Ordinance #49). The Main St Historic District was created (Ordinance #60). Structures Architectural Landmarks and Structures and This map/drawing is a graphical; resentation Irep Water Features Park/Openspace Landmarks Feet of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change THE Crry oF AsPEN City of Aspen Historic District Historic Districts depending on the enlargement or reduction. Pitkin County April 12, 2011 0 20 11 City of Aspen