Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.regular.20201208
1 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING December 8, 2020 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL III.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES IV.CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) City of Aspen invites you to join this Webex meeting: www.webex.com Meeting number (access code): 126 626 7662 Meeting password: 81611 Tuesday, December 8, 2020 4:30 pm | (UTC-07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada) | 5 hrs More ways to join: Join by phone +1-720-650-7664 United States Toll (Denver) +1-469-210-7159 United States Toll (Dallas) V.SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Amendments c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI.CONSENT CALENDAR (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) VIA.Resolution #096, Series of 2020 - Mill Levy Certification VIB.Resolution #101, Series of 2020 - Professional Services Agreement-Fehr & Peers-TIA Update VIC.Resolution #102, Series of 2020 - Amended and Restated Agreement with Aspen 1 2 Skiing Company LLC for Purchase and Sale of Water Resolution #107, Series of 2020 - Marshall Settlement Agreement VID.Draft Minutes of November 24th, 2020 VII.NOTICE OF CALL-UP VIII.ACTION ITEMS VIIIA.Resolution #104, Series of 2020 - 211 W. Hopkins Avenue Extension of AspenModern Voluntary Landmark Designation Negotiation Period IX.FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES IXA.Ordinance #22, Series of 2020 - 211 W. Hopkins Avenue AspenModern Voluntary Landmark Designation and Notice of Call-Up of HPC Resolution #25, Series of 2020 X.PUBLIC HEARINGS XA.Resolution #106, Series of 2020 - 2020 Budget for Aspen Mini Storage Ordinance #21, Series of 2020 - Compensation of Mayor and City Council XI.EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to C.R.S. Section 24-6-402 (4)(a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; except that no executive session shall be held for the purpose of concealing the fact that a member of the local public body has a personal interest in such purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale; (4)(b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. (4)(e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators. The specific items of discussion involve the following: A proposed sale contract regarding 312 W. Hyman Ave., Aspen, Colorado Aspen Film Isis Lease XII.ADJOURNMENT 2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Sara Ott, City Manager Pete Strecker, Finance Director MEETING DATE: December 8, 2020 RE: Adoption of the 2021 Mill Levies, Resolution #96 (Series 2020) Request of Council: This memo outlines information for City Council to consider when adopting the general purpose and Stormwater property tax mill levies for 2021. Adoption of the proposed 2021 mill levy resolution is required to be submitted to Pitkin County no later than December 15, 2020. Previous Actions: City Council adopted the 2021 budget on November 24, 2020 which included revenue assumptions regarding property tax revenue for the General Fund, Asset Management Plan Fund and Stormwater Fund. These estimates were based on preliminary figures on assessed valuations from the County Assessor. Summary and Background: The General Fund and Asset Management Plan mill levy is, by law, subject to the TABOR restrictions. TABOR provides that the amount of revenue from property taxes cannot grow by more than the amount attributable to inflation plus new construction – this formula is intended to mitigate excessive fluctuation in total property tax revenue that could otherwise result from assessed valuations rising or falling. As assessed valuations rose in prior years, the City reduced its tax yield to the TABOR limits by implementing a temporary mill levy credit. In years past, the Council also applied the TABOR restriction to the separate Stormwater mill levy. Beginning with the 2018 collection year, Council directed staff to assess the full 0.650 mills going forward, to provide the maximum revenue from this tax source as authorized by voters. For 2021, the general purpose mill levy is calculated at 4.406 mills, or 1.004 mills below the maximum 5.410 mills. For the stormwater mill levy, based on voter approval given at the inception of this taxing authority, the maximum levy of 0.650 mills will be enforced for 2021. The expected collections from the above mill levies equate to roughly $9.3 million and are closely mirrored by the values assumed in the 2021 Budget that was adopted on November 24, 2020. 3 2021 Tax Rate 2021 Temporary Credit 2021 Mill Levy Rate General Property Tax 5.410 1.004 4.406 Stormwater Fund 0.650 0.000 0.650 Total 6.060 1.004 5.056 2020 Assessed Valuation Updated Mill Levy Rate 2021 Property Tax General Fund $1,839,384,990 2.423 $4,456,830 Asset Management Fund $1,839,384,990 1.983 $3,647,500 Total General Mill Levy 4.406 $8,104,330 Total Stormwater Mill Levy $1,839,384,990 0.650 $1,195,600 Refund/Abatements $1,839,384,990 0.037 $68,057 Total 2021 Property Tax 5.093 $9,367,988 Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution adopting the 2021 mill levies. City Manager Comments: 4 RESOLUTION NO. 96 (SERIES OF 2020) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO SETTING THE 2021 MUNICIPAL MILL LEVY RATES AND CERTIFYING SAME TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PITKIN COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepare the budget, has prepared and submitted to the Mayor and City Council the Annual Budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2021 and ending December 31, 2021; and WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of the taxable property for the year 2020 in the City of Aspen returned by the County Assessor of Pitkin County was certified on November 25, 2020, is the sum of $1,839,384,990; and WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of taxable property in Aspen increased approximately 0.5% between 2019 and 2020 assessment years; and WHEREAS, under section 9.9 of its Home Rule Charter, the City of Aspen shall constitute a levy of the property taxes incorporated into its adopted budget; and WHEREAS, a general purpose mill levy has been established at an amount not to exceed 5.410 mills, and is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds in the amount of $9,951,073 for collection year 2021; based upon the assessed valuation as determined by the County Assessor, and WHEREAS, a temporary reduction in general property tax collections is desired by the City Council in order to reduce the tax burden on owners of taxable property within the City of Aspen while preserving the City’s ability to increase property taxes to levels previously authorized by City of Aspen voters as described above, and WHEREAS, C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5 authorizes a local government to certify a refund in the form of a temporary property tax credit or a temporary mill levy rate reduction, provided that the certification includes the gross mill levy, the temporary property tax credit or temporary mill levy rate reduction expressed in mill levy equivalents, and the net mill levy and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(4), the Assessor shall, concurrent with delivery of tax warrants to the Treasurer, itemize duly certified temporary property tax credits or temporary mill levy rate reductions in the manner set forth in C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(2), and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(5) the tax statements shall indicate by footnote which local government mill levies reflect a temporary property tax credit or temporary mill levy rate reduction for the purpose of effecting a refund; and WHEREAS, voter approval on November 6, 2007 established the separate City’s Stormwater Fund mill levy rate at an amount not to exceed 0.650 mils upon each dollar of assessed valuation on all taxable property within the City annually with no date of 5 expiration, permitting collection of property tax revenues in excess of the mill levy limitation provided in Article X, Section 20 or the Colorado Constitution for property tax collection in all future years beginning in 2008; and WHEREAS, said mill levy rate is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds in the amount of $1,195,600 for collection year 2021; based upon the net assessed valuation of the City of Aspen as determined by the County Assessor; SECTION 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado for the purpose of balancing the 2021 budget, and providing a reasonable closing fund balance for said fiscal year, levies the following taxes upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within the City of Aspen for the year 2020; that a temporary mill levy rate reduction is authorized; and that the individual mill levies are expressed in terms of the gross mill levy, the temporary mill levy rate reduction shown in mill levy equivalents, and the net mill levy as shown below, which includes a temporary credit of 1.004 mills for the General Purpose mill levy: 2021 Tax Rate 2021 Temporary Credit 2021 Mill Levy Rate General Property Tax 5.410 1.004 4.406 Stormwater Fund 0.650 0.000 0.650 Total 6.060 1.004 5.056 2020 Assessed Valuation Updated Mill Levy Rate 2021 Property Tax General Fund $1,839,384,990 2.423 $4,456,830 Asset Management Fund $1,839,384,990 1.983 $3,647,500 Total General Mill Levy 4.406 $8,104,330 Total Stormwater Mill Levy $1,839,384,990 0.650 $1,195,600 Refund/Abatements $1,839,384,990 0.037 $68,057 Total 2021 Property Tax 5.093 $9,367,988 6 SECTION 2 The City is hereby directed to certify and deliver this Resolution to the Board of County Commissioners for Pitkin County on or before December 15, 2020. ADOPTED THIS 8th day of December 2020, ________________________ Torre, Mayor I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on December 8, 2020, which Resolution was adopted subsequent to public hearings on the City of Aspen’s 2021 Municipal Budget and prior to the final day established by law for the certification of the tax levy to Pitkin County, all was required by the Sections 9.8 and 9.9 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter. _______________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk 7 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Council FROM:Hailey Guglielmo, Engineer Kevin Rayes, Community Development Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health THROUGH:Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer John Krueger, Director of Transportation MEMO DATE:November 12, 2020 MEETING DATE:November 24, 2020 RE:Approval of Resolution 2020-101, Professional Services Agreement REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City staff is requesting approval of Resolution Number 101 of 2020, authorizing the City Manager to sign and execute the attached professional services agreement between the City of Aspen and consultant Fehr & Peers for an update to the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: In 2013, Aspen City Council approved the adoption of the current TIA process into the land use code. In August of 2020, Aspen City Council approved a grant agreement for the TIA project. This professional services agreement retains Fehr & Peers to undertake the grant- funded review and update of the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) process for evaluating and mitigating the transportation impacts of development. The total cost of the project is estimated at $80,000. Fifty percent of this project or $40,000 is funded by a Federal Transit Administration 5304 grant, approved by Aspen City Council in August of 2020. Matching funds of $40,000 will be provided in equal shares by the Transportation, Engineering, Community Development and Parking Departments at $10,000 per department. DISCUSSION: Aspen’s TIA system, in place since 2013, requires proposed developments to determine their transportation impacts based on customized trip generation formulas. Next, projects must select from a menu of both Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 8 and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) measures to fully mitigate all trips. TDM and MMLOS measures are also weighted via custom formulas, developed specifically for the City of Aspen. When developed, Aspen’s TIA system was unique for a small town, especially in its customization, using local data for various development types, rather than attempting to modify trip data based on examples in a large city. City staff believe that, 7 years later, a TIA review and update is needed to: 1. Ensure that Aspen-specific TDM/MMLOS data is still accurate: A key attribute of Aspen’s TIA process is the underpinning of local data used for both determining and mitigating impact. Rather than use traffic generation data from a hotel in Denver, for example, Aspen’s TIA uses local data for local project review. To remain effective, this data should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. 2. Add and remove TDM/MMLOS menu options based on the most current research: It is also important to ensure that measures of trip mitigation are current and relevant as policies and technology change. For example, the current TIA process allows credit for purchasing WE-cycle passes, although the program is now offered fare free. 3. Ensure validity of triggers, reporting and other policies: An example of this work area is the need to ensure that certain triggers for TIA requirement (square footage, geographic location, etc.) make sense seven years after initial implementation. 4. Ensure coordination between the new, integrated parking and mobility regulations in the Land Use Code and the TIA. The new regulations, adopted in 2017, require that all new development and significant renovations provide parking and mobility improvements. These regulations ensure that development activities contribute both parking and mobility improvements to the City’s transportation and pedestrian networks. When the regulations were adopted, Nelson/Nygaard, the consultants who advised City staff in their development, strongly recommended that the TIA be updated to ensure the effectiveness of this integrated system. This project will close the loop on that process. After Council approval of the 5304 grant agreement, staff issued a Request for Proposals for the TIA project. The staff team selected Fehr & Peers, the consultant involved in the development of the original TIA process, as the preferred vendor. Fehr & Peers has developed similar tools in use nationwide and recently completed both the City of Aspen Short-Range Transit Plan and the EOTC-funded Integrated Mobility Study. This base of experience and local knowledge allows Fehr & Peers to perform the TIA update work thoroughly, on schedule and within the project budget. The City’s process and vendor selection has been approved by the grantor. City Council approval of the Resolution Number 101 of 2020 will authorize the City Manager to execute the attached professional services agreement between the City of Aspen and Fehr & Peers for the review and update of the Transportation Impact Analysis process. 9 FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The TIA Update project is an interdepartmental project with several different funding sources. 5304 Grant Funding $40,000 Transportation $10,000 Engineering $10,000 Com Dev $10,000 Parking $10,000 Total Project Funding $80,000 The Transportation Department will manage the 5304 grant and will receive the reimbursement. Matching funding is available in each participating Department’s operating budget or departmental savings. Net cost of the project to the City will be $40,000. The net cost to the Transportation Department will be $10,000. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The TIA process, by requiring development to mitigate its transportation impacts, is a key component of meeting City GHG goals. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve Resolution Number 101 of 2020 authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement between t the City of Aspen and Fehr & Peers for the review and update of the TIA. ALTERNATIVES: Council could reject the attached resolution and eliminate the TIA project and associated grant funding from staff’s work plan. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Resolution #101 Attachment B:Contract Documents 10 RESOLUTION NO. 101 Series of 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND FEHR & PEERS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen seeks to reduce traffic congestion associated with development through an updated Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA); and WHEREAS the professional services agreement for an updated TIA between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Fehr & Peers is annexed hereto and made a part thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the professional services agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Fehr & Peers, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does herebyauthorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of December 2020. _________________________ Torre, Mayor I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. ______________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk 11 Agreement Professional Services Page 0 CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES City of Aspen Contract No.: 2020-087 AGREEMENT made as of 30th day of November, in the year 2020. BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: The City of Aspen c/o Sara Ott 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 920-5083 And the Professional: Fehr & Peers c/o Ann Bowers 518 17th Street Ste1100 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 720-539-7230 For the Following Project: Transportation Impact Analysis Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: The City and Professional agree as set forth below. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $50,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. City Council Approval: Date: ___________________________ Resolution No.:___________________ Exhibit A: Scope of Work. Exhibit B: Fee Schedule. Total: $79,863 DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 12 Agreement Professional Services Page 1 1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than JULY, 2020. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit B appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors’ officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor. 5. Termination of Procurement. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 6. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 13 Agreement Professional Services Page 2 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, to the extent and for an amount represented by the degree or percentage such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the wrongful act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 14 Agreement Professional Services Page 3 (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers’ Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each accident, ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) disease - policy limit, and TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non- owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above Professional’s Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability Insurance Policies shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 15 Agreement Professional Services Page 4 (d) The certificate of insurance provided to the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $350,000.00 per person and $990,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Proper- ty/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Risk Management Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. 12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above. 13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 15.04.570, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 16 Agreement Professional Services Page 5 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. Illegal Aliens – CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101. (a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. (b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen. “Basic Pilot Program” means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. “Public Contract for Services” means this Agreement. “Services” means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. (c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States; and DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 17 Agreement Professional Services Page 6 (ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that new employees are not illegal aliens. (d) Professional hereby confirms that: (i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. (v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall: (1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and (2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 18 Agreement Professional Services Page 7 (vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S. (vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional’s violation of Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. (viii) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 17. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (a) Professional warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Professional for the purpose of securing business. (b) Professional agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (c) Professional represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. (d) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 19 Agreement Professional Services Page 8 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Professional, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Professional; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 18. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 19. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 20. Electronic Signatures and Electronic Records This Agreement and any amendments hereto may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one agreement binding on the Parties, notwithstanding the possible event that all Parties may not have signed the same counterpart. Furthermore, each Party consents to the use of electronic signatures by either Party. The Scope of Work, and any other documents requiring a signature hereunder, may be signed electronically in the manner agreed to by the Parties. The Parties agree not to deny the legal effect or enforceability of the Agreement solely because it is in electronic form or because an electronic record was used in its formation. The Parties agree not to object to the admissibility of the Agreement in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic documents, or a paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on the grounds that it is an electronic record or electronic signature or that it is not in its original form or is not an original. 20. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Professional respectively and their agents, DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 20 Agreement Professional Services Page 9 representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Professional shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 21. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Professional or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any right to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Professional because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 22. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. 23. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 24. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion. Professional certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that Professional or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 25. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents exhibits referenced herein shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, Professional understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 26. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Professional, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Professional for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 21 Agreement Professional Services Page 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement of which shall be deemed an original on the date first written above. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESSIONAL: ________________________________ ______________________________ [Signature] [Signature] By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ [Name] [Name] Title: ____________________________ Title: ____________________________ Date: ___________________ Date: ___________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 11/30/2020 | 9:08:45 AM PST Ann T. Bowers Principal 22 Agreement Professional Services Page 11 EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT SCOPE OF WORK TIMELINE This project is partially funded by an FTA 5304 grant. Timelines may change based upon grant requirements. Responses due: October 27, 2020 Selection/contracting process: November 1-30 Project commencement: December 1, 2020 Project completion/presentation: June 30, 2021 SCOPE OF WORK/DELIVERABLES EXISTING CONDITIONS REVIEW & RECOMMENTATIONS 1. Review of current TIA procedure. The Vendor will work with City staff to fully understand the existing TIA process including successes and challenges. Specifically, the Vendor will review and make suggestions for changes/improvements to: Exempt vs. affected project categories Major/Minor categories Requirements for full traffic study Functionality of public facing TIA Guidelines and tool Existing workflow between departments managing the process Ease of understanding the process from a customer point of view (including outreach to local developers) Effectiveness of contribution credit option including cost per point value Effectiveness of project follow up, reporting and enforcement Deliverable: Existing Conditions & Recommendations report 2. Review of Trip Generation and Trip Reduction Models. The Vendor will work with City staff to fully understand the existing trip generation and trip reduction rationale and formulation. Additionally, the Vendor will review the existing Excel- based TIA tool Specifically, the Vendor will review and make suggestions for changes/improvements to: Trip generation categories/locations Trip generation validation (including traffic counts or other data at finalized developments) Trip reduction menu of choices in both TDM and MMLOS categories Trip reduction validation via current research in TDM and MMLOS fields (amount of points per menu item) User and back end interface with existing Excel-based TIA tool Deliverable: Existing Conditions & Recommendations report 3. Review Trip Generation and Mitigation Tool. The Vendor will work with City staff to fully understand the existing Excel-based trip generation/mitigation tool. DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 23 Agreement Professional Services Page 12 Specifically, the Vendor will review and make suggestions for changes/improvements to: Trip generation categories/locations Trip generation validation (including traffic counts or other data at finalized developments) Trip reduction menu of choices in both TDM and MMLOS categories Trip reduction validation (amount of points per menu item) Deliverable: Existing Conditions & Recommendations report 4. Review of Parking Code. The Vendor will work with City staff to become fully versed in newly adopted land use/parking code. Specifically, the Vendor will look for opportunities to incorporate parking into the TIA process and tool. This will include a comparison and evaluation of the cost of contribution credits vs. the costs of parking space mitigation. Deliverable: Existing Conditions & Recommendations report 5. Present and Refine Recommendations: The Vendor will present recommendations and make refinements based upon feedback and final direction from the City of Aspen. The Vendor will present via: Meeting with City of Aspen staff team (in person or via conference) Aspen City Council work session (in person) Focus group with development community In person) Deliverable: Presentation materials including memorandum, PowerPoint presentation and others as determined necessary. Refined, final Recommendations Report. TIA UPDATE 1. Update Code. The Vendor will work draft updated code. Deliverable: Revised code language in editable format. City is owner. 2. Update TIA Guidelines. The Vendor will draft updated public-facing guidelines. Deliverable: TIA Guidelines in editable format (print/web ready). City is full owner. 3. Update Traffic Count and Traffic Mitigation Formulas. Update formulas based on most current research and new data collected or similar based on best options due to COVID-19 conditions. City is full owner. 4. Update TIA Tool. Update tool editable in Excel. We own the final and rights to all data in an unlocked format. DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 24 Agreement Professional Services Page 13 EXHIBIT B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Fee Schedule DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F5AEDC-DB8D-41B8-AAF8-21613671F37C 25 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Council FROM:Tyler Christoff, Utilities Director Steve Hunter, Utilities Resource Manager Cynthia Covell, Water Counsel THRU: Jim True, City Attorney DATE OF MEMO:November 30th, 2020 MEETING DATE:December 8th, 2020 RE: Resolution #102, Series of 2020,Approval of Amended and Restated Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Water between Aspen Skiing Company LLC and City of Aspen SUMMARY:Since 1981, the City has provided water to the Aspen Skiing Company (“ASC”) for snowmaking and irrigation on Aspen Mountain, pursuant to an agreement dated March 23, 1981. That agreement, which expires March 22, 2021, sets out the terms and conditions under which Aspen has provided snowmaking water between November and mid-April, and smaller amounts of irrigation water between mid-April and the end of October. ASC wishes to continue to purchase water for snowmaking and irrigation on Aspen Mountain, and City staff has worked with ASC staff to develop an amended and restated agreement that provides for water sales to ASC on terms and conditions that staff believes are protective of the City’s water rights,supplies,and instream flows while also allowing the City to continue to provide safe, reliable water service to all of its customers in an environmentally-sensitive manner. Resolution #102, Series of 2020 is presented to Council today for adoption. BACKGROUND: The City Utilities Department is responsible for assuring Aspen and its water customers have access to a safe, legal and reliable water supply, now and in the future. The ski industry, and ASC in particular, provide economic and recreational benefits to the City and its inhabitants.ASC needs a reliable water supply for snowmaking to help ensure that it can continue to operate a viable ski area at Aspen Mountain. Aspen’s integrated water supply system provides treated water to its customers, primarily from Castle Creek and Maroon Creek. Aspen’s municipal water demand is typically highest in the summer months. Because snowmaking occurs during the winter months, it places demands upon Aspen’s water rights and treatment capacity at a time when less water is required for other municipal uses. Aspen entered into a 40-year contract with ASC in 1981 to provide water for snowmaking in the winter (and a smaller amount for irrigation in the summer.) Because that agreement expires March 22, 2021, ASC and City staff have worked diligently to develop a new agreement that will allow ASC to continue to 26 purchase City water for snowmaking and irrigation while also recognizing Aspen’s commitment to environmental values and to its mission to provide a legal, safe, and reliable water supply to all of its customers. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:Council approved the 1981 Agreement on or about March 23, 1981. DISCUSSION: As a result of lengthy negotiations, studies, and infrastructure evaluation and hydraulic testing, City staff and ASC staff have developed the amended and revised agreement that is provided to the Council with this memo. The 1981 agreement provides for deliveries of water for snowmaking at specified flow rates between November 1 and April 16. It includes a complicated method for calculating the price ASC must pay for the water, and some ability for Aspen to limit deliveries in emergencies and when the water is needed by its other municipal customers. The 1981 agreement also provides for construction of certain infrastructure, conveyance of easements, and lease to the City of ASC’s interest in the Stapleton Brothers Ditch on an “as available” basis. The amended and restated agreement similarly provides for delivery of water for snowmaking at varying rates between October 23rd and mid-April. Delivery of this water is provided at a time of year and times of day when Aspen’s municipal demands are reduced; therefore, the impact of these deliveries on streamflows and on Aspen’s treatment and delivery infrastructure is not added to an already-high demand. All snowmaking deliveries are subordinate to the City’s residential and commercial demands and shall be reduced or curtailed if the decreed instream flow is not met in the creek from which Aspen is diverting its municipal supplies (typically Castle or Maroon Creek), as well as during emergencies and as needed for the City to maintain operational safety and firefighting standards. Moreover, ASC is participating in streamflow monitoring programs intended to evaluate the impact of snowmaking on streamflows and habitat and recognizes that the City’s commitment to instream flow protection may require reduction or curtailment of snowmaking deliveries to protect decreed instream flows. ASC has also agreed to work with the City to investigate the cost and feasibility of using well water as an alternative source of snowmaking water. Like the 1981 agreement, the amended and restated agreement also provides for a lower delivery rate for irrigation.The irrigation delivery rates runs from mid-April through October 22nd. Irrigation deliveries, too, can be reduced or curtailed to protect instream flows, during emergencies, and as needed to maintain operational and firefighting standards. The amended and restated agreement has a ten-year term. Water rates to be charged to ASC will initially be $6.05 per 1,000 gallons plus the rate increase for 2021 for Billing Area 1. The rate of $6.05 per 1,000 gallons represents an average effective rate for 2020 calculated using current demand, fire, and variable billing data of all customers within Billing Area 1 and is subject to change when rates are changed for 27 Billing Area 1. The amended and restated agreement continues the “as available” lease of the Stapleton Brothers Ditch. Additionally, staff requested Aspen Ski Company’s support and partnership for additional stream gauging infrastructure. Attachment C outlines Aspen Ski Company’s cooperation in these increase monitoring efforts and their backing of these important projects. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests that Council consider the adoption of Resolution #102, Series of 2020.This Resolution will authorize the City to execute and perform the Amended and Restated Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Water to Aspen Skiing Company LLC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The City is committed to environmental values, including protection of decreed instream flows, and it is also committed to the City’s outdoors lifestyle and economic viability which are provided to the Aspen community by recreational skiing. The amended and restated agreement allows the City to sell water for snowmaking and limited irrigation uses while maintaining the City’s commitment to protection of instream flows and allowing it to efficiently utilize its water rights and supplies in a manner that is beneficial to the City as a whole. BUDGET IMPACT: The water rates to be charged to ASC are in line with the City’s water rates for Billing Area 1,and will therefore be consistent with anticipated water revenues from Billing Area 1. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Resolution #102, Amended and Restated Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Water Attachment B –March 23, 1981 Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Water Attachment C –Ski Company Letter of support for stream gauging 28 RESOLUTION #102 (Series of 2020) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE CITY OF ASPEN TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC FOR AN AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF WATER WHEREAS, the City operates an Integrated Water Supply System (IWSS) that uses various water rights, infrastructure and management techniques to best serve its customers; and WHEREAS, the City is party to a 40-year Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Water with Aspen Skiing Company LLC (“ASC”), dated March 23, 1981, by which the City provides treated water to ASC for snowmaking and some irrigation on Aspen Mountain; and WHEREAS, ASC provides significant recreational skiing and economic benefits to the City and surrounding areas, and contributes greatly to the outdoor recreation lifestyle that is important to the Aspen community; and WHEREAS, ASC requires water for snowmaking in order to provide the recreational experience its skiing customers require and expect; and WHEREAS, ASC and City staff have worked diligently to develop an amended and restated Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Water that will allow ASC to continue to purchase City water for snowmaking and irrigation while also recognizing and supporting the City’s commitment to environmental values and to its mission to provide a legal, safe, and reliable water supply to all of its customers; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby authorizes and approves the Amended and Restated Agreement for Purchase of Water between the City of Aspen and Aspen Skiing Company LLC and, subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney, authorizes the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen, in substantially the form provided to Council with this resolution. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of December, 2020. 29 Torre, Mayor I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held December 8, 2020. Nicole Henning, City Clerk 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 X f U> () � w .,, � i� "'ri! iz � ji � Aspen Skiing Company Ajax Booster Station 6SGM 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Genwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945. 1004 www.sgm-inc.com EXHIBIT D84 85 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Council FROM: James R. True, City Attorney DATE OF MEMO: December 2, 2020 MEETING DATE: December 8, 2020 RE:Resolution # 107 (Series of 2020) SUMMARY: The City Attorney’s Office is requesting that Council approve Resolution #107, authorizingthe settlement of litigation known as The Thomas M. Marshall Revocable Trust and The Ellen M. Marshall Revocable Trust v. The City of Aspen, et al., Pitkin County District Court Case No.: 2016 CV 30119, and the acceptance of a quit claim deed for and easement over certain property along Riverside Drive on the east side of Aspen. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: There has been no previous action taken by Council regarding this matter. However, pursuant to C.R.S.Section 24-6-402 (4), Council has been advised of the status of litigation and settlement discussions in executive session. DISCUSSION: In 2016 the Plaintiffs, in the above-referenced action, filed a quiet title action regarding the property of the Plaintiffs that is on the corner of Riverside and Dale Avenues and claims associated with such property. After years of delays, the Plaintiffs and the City have reached a resolution of the litigation outlined in the settlement agreement that is attached. The claims asserted in this case are complicated and affected by prior City action regarding this property and this neighborhood. This settlement resolves all issues with the Plaintiffs and clarifies the position of the City related to its rights-of-way. Specifically, it allows the Plaintiffs to maintain existing, long-standing and previously allowed encroachments into City right-of-way, including the existence of an old coal shed, until such time as the owner proposes to redevelop the property. At the time of redevelopment, which is specifically defined, all development must be within the described property, off of the defined City rights-of-way. In addition, the settlement agreement requires that the Plaintiffs provide a quit claim deed to property over which Riverside Drive currently runs and a non-exclusive easement across Plaintiffs’ property along Riverside Drive. The easement is contained within the settlement agreement. The quit claim deed is attached. 86 As noted, the settlement agreement resolves long standing issues between the City and the owners. Although it is recognized that these owners will most likely maintain the status quo for some time, when re-development does occur, all issues will be fully and finally resolved in the City’s favor. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests that Council approved Resolution #107, Series of 2020. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #107, Series of 2020 Settlement Agreement and attachment Quit Claim Deed 87 RESOLUTION #107 (Series of 2020) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN LITIGATION KNOWN AS THE THOMAS M. MARSHALL REVOCABLE TRUST AND THE ELLEN M. MARSHALL REVOCABLE TRUST V. THE CITY OF ASPEN, ET AL., PITKIN COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 2016 CV 30119, AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR AND EASEMENT OVER CERTAIN PROPERTY ALONG RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Settlement Agreement in litigation known as The Thomas M. Marshall Revocable Trust and The Ellen M. Marshall Revocable Trust v. The City of Aspen, et al., Pitkin County District Court Case No.: 2016 CV 30119, which Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, includes the acceptance of a quit claim deed for and easement over certain property along Riverside Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said Settlement Agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen and does hereby accept the quit claim deed and easement that are part of such Settlement Agreement. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8 th day of December 2020. Torre, Mayor I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, December 8th, 2020. 88 Nicole Henning, City Clerk 89 1318956.1 10/23/14 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into this ____ day of ____________ 2020 (the "Effective Date") by and between the Thomas M. Marshall Revocable Trust and the Ellen M. Marshall Revocable Trust (collectively hereinafter “Marshall”) and the City of Aspen, a Colorado municipal corporation (“City”). The above-named entities and individuals shall hereafter be collectively referred to as the "Parties", and each entity or individual shall be separately referred to as a "Party". RECITALS WHEREAS, Marshall is the owner of the real property known as Lot 1, Block 6, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, together with the South one-half of Dale Avenue lying between Riverside Avenue and Park Avenue adjacent to said Lot 1, also known as 300 Riverside Drive, Aspen, Colorado 81611(the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the City owns Riverside Avenue and Dale Avenue, which border the Property to the north and west; and WHEREAS, there is a dispute between the parties regarding ownership of the alleyway between the Property and Lot 10, Block 6, Riverside Addition, and a portion of Dale Avenue, which areas are labeled as Parcels A and B on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein, which dispute is currently in litigation in Pitkin County District Court Case No. 2016CV30119 (the “Litigation”); and WHEREAS, the northwestern corner of the Property, shown on Exhibit A as Parcel C, is used by the City for the passage of cars along Riverside Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Parties have reached an agreement to settle their disputes and desire to reduce the terms and conditions of their agreement to writing; and WHEREAS, the intent of this Agreement is to amicably and finally resolve all claims the Parties may have against each other in accordance with this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and of the conditions, covenants and agreements set forth below, the amount and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1.License Agreement. The City agrees to grant Marshall a license agreement for the areas labeled as Parcels A and B, which license agreement shall be irrevocable for so long as the main residence on the Property is not redeveloped or relocated, regardless of the ownership of the Property. During the period during which the license agreement is in effect, Marshall or 90 2 1318956.1 10/23/14 its successors in interest may use Parcels A and B for uses normally incident to ownership of the Property, including landscaping, parking and maintenance of the structures currently located on said parcels, provided, however, that no such structure shall prohibit or interfere with the installation or maintenance of utilities within the right-of-way. In the event any structure or improvement located within Parcels A or B is destroyed by an act other than that of the property owner, Marshall may replace that improvement within the currently existing footprint. During the period of the license agreement, Marshall may install fencing within Parcels A and/or B but agrees the installation of the fencing shall not constitute or serve as evidence of any claim of ownership. Fencing shall comply with all applicable Land Use Code regulations in place at the time a fence permit is requested, and shall provide a clear zone for vehicles as described in the City’s January 2019 Engineering Standards, 7 feet (7’) in width from the edge of asphalt. 2.Conveyance of Parcel C. Marshall hereby agrees to quit claim to the City its interest in Parcel C and shall upon execution of this agreement deliver to the City an executed Quit Claim Deed in the form attached hereto. Upon execution and recording of the Quit Claim Deed, Marshall shall be relieved of any responsibilities or obligations related to Parcel C, including but not limited to the obligation to maintain insurance on Parcel C. 3.Grant of Easement. Marshall hereby grants a non-exclusive easement to the City, 7 feet (7’) in width from the edge of asphalt on the western boundary of the Property as shown in Exhibit A for the limited purpose of serving as a clear zone for vehicles as described in the City’s January 2019 Engineering Standards. The Riverside Avenue roadway may not be extended into the easement area. Marshall agrees to not install any new structures or new plantings that will exceed two feet (2’) in height at maturity in the easement area but shall not be required to remove any existing landscaping. Marshall may replace any existing plantings in the easement area provided, however, that the new plantings do not exceed two feet (2’) in height at maturity. 4.Re-Development of the Property. The City agrees that in the event Marshall or its successors-in-interest as owner of the Property ever desire to enlarge the main residence more than ten percent (10%) of its current floor area or replace it with a new structure, the License Agreement set forth in paragraph 1, above shall be terminated. All construction of a remodeled or new structure shall be within the boundaries of the Property as defined above and set forth in Exhibit A, complying with all applicable setbacks and other regulations. The parties specifically agree, based on the particular circumstances of the claims set forth in the litigation and the terms of this settlement, that the allowable floor area of the remodeled or new structure shall be calculated based upon the entire area of the Property, as described above, and that there shall be no deductions of allowable floor area due to any past, proposed roadway dedication. Nothing in the paragraph 4, shall preclude the owner from applying for an encroachment license into any of the portions of Parcel A or B under then applicable Engineering requirements but the grant of such encroachment license shall be within the sole discretion of the City. Further, the Property is deemed one lot, and nothing set forth herein shall be deemed to provide Marshall with any authority to subdivide the Property, except as otherwise authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code as amended from time to time. 5.Disposition of Claims. In consideration of the City’s issuance of license agreement to Marshall for Parcels A and B, and Marshall’s conveyance of Parcel C to the City and granting of an easement as described in Paragraphs 1 through 3 above, and to fully dispose 91 3 1318956.1 10/23/14 of the claims brought in the Litigation, the Parties agree to stipulate to Marshall’s dismissal of the Litigation. Conveyance of Parcel C shall occur by separate quit claim deed to be recorded in Pitkin County, Colorado. Any and all other claims raised by the Parties in the Litigation shall be dismissed by the Parties, with prejudice, with each Party to pay its own costs and fees. Further, it is acknowledged that this Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims and shall not be construed as an admission on the part of either party of the validity or lack thereof regarding or concerning any claim or defense asserted by either party in the Litigation described above. 6.Release. In consideration for and upon full and timely completion of the provisions of Paragraphs 1 – 3 and 5 above, the Parties for themselves and their successors, representatives, agents, heirs and assigns will completely release and forever discharge the others of and from any and all past, present or future claims, demands, obligations, actions and causes of action of any nature that were, or could have been brought in the Litigation relating to the ownership of Parcels A and B. 7.Covenant Not to Sue. Except to enforce the express obligations of the Parties under this Agreement, each Party covenants, as of the Effective Date, not to institute any action or proceeding (including, but not limited to, any action or proceeding arising out of or related to the Litigation) against the other Party under this Agreement related to the matters released above, or to cause such Party to be joined or substituted as a party in any other lawsuit or proceeding, or at all arising out of or in connection with the released claims. 8.Further Assurances. Each party to this Agreement shall execute and deliver any and all additional papers, documents, and other assurances, and shall do any and all acts and things reasonably necessary or appropriate in connection with the performance of his/her/its obligations hereunder and to carry out the intent of the Parties hereto, and to correct or modify in good faith any errors or omissions which shall subsequently be discovered following the Effective Date. Each Party to this Agreement agrees to cooperate to the extent necessary and appropriate to effectuate all terms and conditions of this Agreement following the Effective Date. 9.Authority. The Parties represent and warrant that they possess the sole and full authority to enter into this Agreement free of any rights of settlement, approval, subrogation, or other condition or impediment. Each Party represents and warrants that the entry of this Agreement or performance of any obligation called for hereunder does not violate any contractual or other obligation by which it is bound. 10.Nonreliance. The Parties to this Agreement expressly assume the risks that the facts or law may be, or become, different from the facts or law as presently believed by the Parties. The Parties represent that they have had the opportunity to consult with, and/or have consulted with, counsel regarding this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that their adversary relationship precludes any obligation of disclosure. 11.Entire Agreement. The Parties represent and agree that no promise, inducement, or agreement other than that expressed herein has been made to them and that this Agreement is fully integrated, supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, statements or representations and contains the entire agreement between them with respect to the subject matter hereof. 92 4 1318956.1 10/23/14 12.Voluntary and Informed Assent. The Parties represent and agree that they have read and fully understand this Agreement, that they are fully competent to manage their own personal and business affairs and to enter into and sign this Agreement, and that they are executing this Agreement voluntarily, free of any duress or coercion. 13.Governing Law, Forum and Attorneys' Fees. The laws of the State of Colorado shall apply to and control any interpretation, construction, performance or enforcement of this Agreement. Any action or proceeding to construe or enforce this Agreement, or to recover damages for its breach, shall be brought in the District Court for Pitkin County, Colorado and the Parties consent to the exercise of that Court's jurisdiction over them. In the event any litigation or other proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute, default, misrepresentation, or breach in connection with any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, costs and expenses actually incurred in initiating or responding to such proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which such Party may be entitled. 14.Construction. This Agreement and its exhibits shall be construed as if the Parties jointly prepared them and any uncertainty or ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one party. 15.Modification. This Agreement shall not be modified except in writing signed by the Parties or their authorized representatives. 16.Severability. The Parties agree that if, for any reason, a provision of this Agreement shall be held unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction this Agreement shall be automatically conformed to the law or determination and otherwise this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 17.Headings. The headings of paragraphs herein are included solely for convenience of reference and shall not control the meaning or interpretation of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 18.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts and all counterparts so executed shall constitute one agreement binding on all parties hereto, notwithstanding that all the parties are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart. Facsimile or electronic signatures shall be accepted the same as an original signature. A photocopy of this agreement may be used in any action brought to enforce or construe this Agreement. 19.No Waiver. No failure to exercise and no delay in exercising any right, power or remedy under this Agreement shall impair any right, power or remedy which any Party may have, nor shall any such delay be construed to be a waiver of any such rights, powers or remedies or an acquiescence in any breach or default under the Agreement, nor shall any waiver of any breach or default of any Party be deemed a waiver of any default or breach subsequently appearing. SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE 93 5 1318956.1 10/23/14 THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado municipal corporation By:_________________________________ Date:____________ ____________________________(print name) ____________________________(title) THOMAS M. MARSHALL REVOCABLE TRUST By:_________________________________ Date:____________ Thomas M. Marshall, Trustee ELLEN M. MARSHALL REVOCABLE TRUST By:_________________________________ Date:____________ Ellen M. Marshall, Trustee 94 C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\0180B.gxd -- 07/21/2016 -- 09:34 AM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000 PARCEL C ________ ____________ _________ _______ ______ ____ ___ __ __ _ _ 95 No. 933. Rev. 1-06. QUITCLAIM DEED (Page 1 of 1) QUITCLAIM DEED THIS DEED is dated December ___, 2020, and is made between the Thomas M. Marshall Revocable Trust and the Ellen M. Marshall Revocable Trust, collectively the “Grantor”, of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, and the City of Aspen, a Colorado municipal corporation, the “Grantee,” whose legal address is 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado. WITNESS, that the Grantor, pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated December __, 2020 and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release, sell and QUITCLAIM unto the Grantee, and the Grantee’s heirs and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the Grantor has in and to the property located in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, described as follows: That certain real property depicted on the attached Exhibit “A” as “Parcel C.” TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging, or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever of the Grantor, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the Grantee, and the Grantee’s heirs and assigns, forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. THOMAS M. MARSHALL REVOCABLE TRUST By: ________________________________ Thomas M. Marshall, Trustee ELLEN M. MARSHALL REVOCABLE TRUST By: _________________________________ Ellen M. Marshall, Trustee STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ____________ 2020, by Thomas M. Marshall, Trustee of the Thomas M. Marshall Revocable Trust and by Ellen M. Marshall, Trustee of the Ellen M. Marshall Revocable Trust. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: _________________________________________ Notary Public 96 1 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Torre called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Richards, Mesirow, Mullins and Hauenstein joining via video conference. CITIZEN COMMENTS: Peter Fornell—Mr. Fornell asked if Council has had the opportunity to read his email, he said if not he will summarize. Mr. Fornell stated that if an individual builds something in this town, the project is closely monitored by the Building Department the entire time. He asked Council if anyone from the Building Dept. has gone into the Mesa Store with a tape measurer and actually measured. Mr. Fornell said if someone actually did, what is the number they came up with because there are so many conflicting numbers. Mayor Torre gave a brief background of the Mesa Building at 500 West Main. He said that the project was a lot split between the Mesa Store and a proposed project and that there are regulations that surround this process and Mr. Fornell is asking for the actual square footage as built as conditions of the next steps in approval. Mayor Torre asked Jim True, City Attorney, to discuss the process of vetting the numbers. Mr. True stated that Mr. Fornell knows that there is a process when any building permit is issued and that he knows the difference between Gross Square Footage and FAR’s. Mr. True said that the issue that is being discussed is FAR’s of a lot split that involves a historic building. He said that part of the proposal of the lot spilt was for a remodel of the historic building and that plans were submitted to the Building Dept. and reviewed by staff. Mr. True said that Mr. Fornell knows the procedure and process of an application and that staff vet’s square footage and FAR’s. Mr. True stated that he has told Mr. Fornell in numerous conversations that in the vetting process, staff found the FAR’s awarded to this project were appropriate and that Referendum One was not an issue. Mr. True said that it is not the standard operating procedure for a staff member to walk on to a project with a measuring tape. What is determined is if the end product is consistent with the plans that were submitted that include a determination of FAR’s. He said that this project was properly vetted as far as the size of the building and there is not conflicting square footage regarding the project. Mr. True stated that there is one new issue that Mr. Fornell raised in his email to the Council and that is the status of the attic space. He further stated that if Mr. Fornell would like to file a formal complaint regarding that the owner of the property took action that is not consistent with their approval and go through the proper channels the City will investigate. Mayor Torre stated that this is not a public hearing, this is a public comment. Councilman Hauenstein asked Mr. Fornell what his desired outcome is. Mr. Fornell stated that the only outcome he is seeking is for the public to know the right number for the building. He said that he keeps getting told that this project has been properly vetted, but no one has gone and measured the building, and what if the plans are wrong. Mr. Fornell stated that the only way to figure out the correct measurements is to do a physical inspection. Mr. True stated that there have been numerous physical inspections pursuant to the remodel of the building permit that the applicant submitted. Mr. True said that Mr. Fornell is fully aware of 97 2 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 the procedures that are in place and he is complaining about something that the City has reviewed multiple times and has come to the same conclusion and he does not like it. He further said that it is time to move on and that he stands by his memo that was sent to Mr. Fornell. Councilwoman Mullins asked if Council could get a copy of the memo that was sent to Mr. Fornell. Mr. True stated that Mr. Fornell attached the memo to the email that the Council received. Mr. Fornell said that the part of the application he reviewed shows the third-floor roof and calls the FAR zero. Mayor Torre reiterated that this is not a public hearing and that Council needs to consider the question and complaint raised by Mr. Fornell. He said that Council will talk with staff about the issue. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS: Councilwoman Mullins stated that the food distribution has moved from the Buttermilk parking lot to the Aspen Chapel parking lot. She said that there will be fresh veggies from the Farm Collaborative and turkeys and supplies go fast. They have been serving three hundred plus families and it’s only getting busier. Councilwoman Mullins stated that there is now a Covid-19 testing kiosk available to the public in the alley behind City Hall. She said there was a line of people, and everyone was acting very civilized and the line moved very quickly. Councilwoman Mullins wished a Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. Mayor Torre asked Councilwoman Mullins to clarify if there are reservations needed for the food distribution at the Aspen Chapel. Councilwoman Mullins stated that no reservations are needed to collect food. She said when you pull up you will give the volunteer some information that the Foodbank of the Rockies requires and then they load you up with food. Councilman Hauenstein stated that everyone in the community should find something to be thankful for. He said he is thankful that 2020 is almost over and that ski season has started. Councilman Hauenstein said for everyone to stay safe and that it is upon all of us to take responsibility for the social distancing, physical distancing, wearing masks, and stopping the spread. Councilwoman Richards stated that she wishes everyone a Happy and Safe Thanksgiving and gathering if it is by phone or Zoom. She said that this is blowing up across the country and they are saying to have a safe Thanksgiving or spend Christmas in the ICU. Councilwoman Richards said that hospitals are becoming overwhelmed and that it is a staffing issue at this point. She explained that you can add more beds, but you cannot add more staff if they are out with COVID. Councilwoman Richards stated that Aspen is in a relatively good situation, however, other rural hospitals are struggling beyond belief. She explained that rural hospitals tend to ship patients to larger hospitals with more staff. She said that we all need to be safe right now and that 98 3 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 St. Mary’s in Grand Junction is full, and that is one of our overflows in an emergency. Councilwoman Richards urged everyone to be a little extra safe this coming holiday and give everyone a little extra room. Councilman Mesirow stated that a day of gratitude is so important, and it’s hard to find somedays. He said he can be hypercritical of himself somedays and not notice all that is going right. Councilman Mesirow said that he is grateful to live in the best place in the world with incredible people, colleagues, mountains, and emergency response. He said that 2020 has been hard and that he is grateful for every challenge that has come up because each one has taught himself or the community a lesson. Councilman Mesirow wished everyone a beautiful day of reflection, and that he is grateful for the community. Mayor Torre stated that there is a COVID-19 testing kiosk in the alley of City Hall however, this is not a walk-up facility, and that appointments are required and can be made at curative.com. He said that the kiosk is sponsored by The City of Aspen and operated by the Aspen Valley Hospital and sanctioned by Pitkin County as a truly collaborative effort. He explained that there is a limited number of spots per day so appointments are a must. Mayor Torre stated that the community needs to be judicious about the testing. He said that the testing needs to be prioritized for those who need it. If they are at high risk, essential workers, front line workers that deal with the public daily. He stated that testing is from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM each day. Mayor Torre said for those who don’t need a test right away it's about being smart right now. He explained that our hospital is sitting in a comfortable zone right now, but we don’t want to push it and overwhelm the system. Mayor Torre stated everyone needs to exercise caution and practice the five commandments of containment and limit your interactions, not eliminate it. Mayor Torre said to make sure to share your thanks and love with your friends and loved ones if it is by phone, emails, video chatting, or however that may be. He stated that the good news is our new caseload is down compared to the previous days of being high. Mayor Torre said that we are teetering on the edge of orange and red level restrictions, and it is upon us as a community and in our control to suppress the transmission of the virus so we can stay open, stay safe, and stay successful. Mayor Torre stated that he is extremely thankful for the community, for this Council, and the City Staff, he wished all an enjoyable week. Councilwoman Richards stated that her second job is working at City Market pharmacy and is not trying to promote City Market in any real way. She said that Kroger has the ability to test for antibodies at the pharmacy. Councilwoman Richards said that this test is not to see if you have COVID-19 but if you had it and are carrying antibodies. She explained that it is an online appointment through Kroger and reiterated that this is not for people that have symptoms or to check if they have COVID. Councilwoman Richards said the cost is $25. AGENDA AMENDMENTS:None CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Scott Miller, Interim Assistant City Manager, stated that the Council received an informational memo from Rob Schober, Project Manager for the Wheeler Opera House, regarding the masonry restoration project. Mr. Miller said due to the current public health order there will not be any 99 4 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 public events in the Wheeler any time before January. He continued to say that it is their preference to continue the masonry work and keep the scaffolding up. Mayor Torre asked if the workers are able to work in the snow and cold. Mr. Miller said that they can work until the weather is extreme and that put up plastic and heaters for installation. Mr. Schober stated that they will tent off the scaffolding and use heaters. He said that weather is not as big of an impact as it is on other projects. BOARD REPORTS: Councilwoman Mullins stated at Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) is in Phase 5 and advocating 75% capacity for bus rides 15 minutes or less,however, the State will not allow it. She said that RFTA is currently at 25% capacity. Councilwoman Mullins stated that the Maroon Creek bus program was very successful and the planning for next year is underway. She said a challenge that they are facing is the proliferation of E-bikes and the rules of the road. Councilwoman Mullins stated that most of the meeting was spent talking about RFTA’s response to COVID-19. Mayor Torre said that this is a tough topic and transportation this winter will be a heck of a tangle. Councilwoman Mullins said that RFTA is still operating with their backup busses and the RFTA team is working very hard. She said that RFTA is looking for drivers for employment. John Krueger Director of Transportation. Mr. Krueger stated that RFTA is currently at 50% not 25% for the winter. Councilwoman Richards said that Councilman Mesirow will share an update from Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). Councilman Mesirow stated that APCHA is narrowing in on their work plan for the year. He explained that the plan will be taking on ambitious topics around regulation guidelines, compliance, capital reserve, and maintenance. Councilman Mesirow said that there will be a presurvey after the holidays that will be focusing on the ambitious work plan items. Councilwoman Mullins asked where we stand in the database and census and getting this up and running. Councilman Mesirow stated that they are on track and by mid-January, HomeTrek will be up and running. Councilwoman Richards said that mid-January is right, but they will be working the bugs out at the same time and would prefer if staff gave an update on this topic since they work with the software every day. Councilman Hauenstein stated CORE met and had an election of officers. He said George Neman has been the chair for many years and is rotating out since his term as a Pitkin County Commissioner is up. Bill Sterling will become the new chair and the Vice-Chair will be Dave Munk from Holy Cross. Councilman Hauenstein stated that the meeting was a robust and 100 5 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 interesting conversation about CORE builders. He said there will be a special meeting set for December 17th about CORE builders. Mayor Torre stated that the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) was shown a presentation from the consultants on the study for the Arts Economic Impact and was two years in the making. He said that this was a really interesting study and very data driven and there were no suggestions or next steps but a real study of the economic and social impacts that the arts bring to the area. Mayor Torre said that the questions drilled down deep, for example, for new home buyers as to how much the arts and culture played into the decision of relocation. He stated that the report will be available to the Council for a discussion early in the new year. Mayor Torre said that the remaining part of the ACRA meeting was discussing where are we related to COVID-19, business, and plans for the coming winter. Mayor Torre stat that there was a back-to- back board of health meetings due to the holiday. He said that the board decided to strengthen the level orange restrictions to an orange plus rather than a voluntary level red. Mayor Torre explained that ramping up the orange level restrictions was more impactful and precise towards curbing the spread of the virus. He stated that there was a conversation with the State and a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) representative. the representative was expecting the numbers to be in the red level restrictive zone however, the representative was open to discuss best practices and measures. Mayor Torre stated that one thing that came out of the meeting was about the collective community effort to make a difference. He reiterated the importance of the five commitments of containment. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Richards moved to approve; Councilwoman Mullins seconded. Councilman Hauenstein stated that on the action item of snow polo, strikethrough “due to water” and replace with “unless stream flows allow it”. Councilwoman Richards accepted the amendment from Councilman Hauenstein; Councilwoman Mullins seconded. Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried. NOTICE OF CALL UP:None FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES: Ordinance #21, Series of 2020 - Mayor and Council Compensation. Mr. True stated that the memo and Ordinance #21 incapsulates what was discussed at the October work session. He said that this does require a second reading and proposed the December 8th meeting. Mr. True said that the health insurance issues that are addressed in the ordinance are the same as what has been provided in the past. 101 6 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 Councilman Hauenstein stated that in the ordinance it lists that Councilmembers have life, dental, and vision insurance. He said he does not believe that this is offered to elected officials. Mr. Hauenstein stated that he met with the City Manager and was told that the fore mentioned benefits were not extended to City Councilmembers since they are deemed as part time employees. Councilwoman Richards said that she does not agree with Councilman Hauenstein, that in fact, she said that she has used the dental and vision benefit this past year. She explained that the open enrollment packet that was sent out showed a specific package for elected officials and there is a minor fee attached. Councilwoman Richards said that with the rise in compensation for future councilmembers consider that maybe we work more than 20 hours a week and for the table to mull over that idea reflecting that. She said that living in deed-restricted housing she has to prove her hours of employment every year and she can only prove the 20-hour workweek when it is much more. Councilwoman Mullins stated that she still is not supportive of this raise at this time. She said that she agrees that they all work very hard and probably do work more than 20 hours a week. Councilwoman Mullins explained within a month we will start to see evictions and unless something changes fast at the federal level. She said that they are seeing longer lines at the food bank and we will see more spikes of COVID around the holidays. Councilwoman Mullins stated that she would like this topic to be taken up next spring with smaller incremental increases. Mayor Torre stated that this is the first reading. Councilwoman Mullins stated that she is asking the Council to reconsider the amount. She said we did not run and get elected for the money; we ran to help the community. Councilwoman Mullins reiterated that she would like the Council to think if this is the right time for this topic or even tabling this until the spring. Councilman Mesirow asked the staff about the changes to the health care plan and how they align with the rest of the organization. Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director, asked Councilman Mesirow if he was asking about the employee assistants’ program, vision, and dental insurance. Councilman Mesirow said yes, the whole package and the changes. Ms. Farrell stated that they are consistent, it’s just not in accordance with the language in the ordinance, with procedurally how and what is offered. Councilman Mesirow stated that he is going to continue his support for this ordinance. Councilwoman Richards said the compensation of these positions could be a deterrent for someone to run for elected office because it is not enough to live on. She explained that a better compensation plan will contribute to a pool of well-rounded candidates. 102 7 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 Mayor Torre stated that he is in support of the ordinance and will continue to do so. He asked Council if they want to keep in Sec. 2 the cost of living section or take it out for the next reading. Councilwoman Richards moved for the first reading of Ordinance #21, Series of 2020; Councilman Hauenstein seconded. Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried. Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk, read Ordinance #21, Series of 2020. Councilman Hauenstein stated that he supports the ordinance and agrees with Councilwoman Richards’ statements. He said that to serve is not only the weekly meetings but also the various board that Council sits on and the prep it takes. Councilman Hauenstein continued to say that this ordinance helps to make it not a penalty to serve and tries to fairly compensate. He stated at the second reading he would like it confirmed or denied about escalators of pay for other employees of the City in reference to sec. 2. Councilman Hauenstein moved for approval of the first reading of Ordinance #21, Series of 2020; Councilwoman Richards seconded. Councilwoman Mullins stated that she will be voting in favor of Ordinance #21 so it can move forward to the second reading and have public input. Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution #092, Series of 2020 - City of Aspen 2021 Budget Resolution Pete Strecker, Finance Director, stated that the budget was presented over six work sessions from October into November. He said that the spending proposal has $141 million in dollars of spending authority being requested, and that is a 25% increase from the adopted 2020 budget. He explained that the additional $40 million is to buildout Burling Game phase 3. Mr. Strecker further explained that if you took the $40 million out, the budget is down 10% from the 2020 adopted budget. He stated that a lot of City departments took a 5% cut and they are taking the approach of wait and see, to see how the winter holds up regarding the economy. Mr. Strecker stated that he is seeking adoption of the 2021 spending plan. Councilman Hauenstein thanked Mr. Strecker and the staff for six thorough work sessions on the budget process. Councilwoman Mullins thanked Mr. Strecker for the clear presentations. Mayor Torre said thank you to Mr. Strecker and Sara Ott City Manager. He said Ms. Ott has spent a lot of time and energy working with various departments. Mayor Torre stated that this 103 8 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 was the best budget presentation he has participated in. He said that this document moves us forward and securely forward, fiscally responsible, and even fiscally conservative. Councilman Hauenstein said that six work sessions gave Council the chance to deep dive and understand the line items that the staff works with. Mayor Torre opened the public hearing. Mayor Torre closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Mullins motioned to approve Resolution #092, Series of 2020; Councilman Hauenstein seconded. Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried Resolution #093, Series of 2020 - 2021 APCHA Budget Resolution Mr. Strecker stated that the APCHA budget includes three funds. First being administration fun, Second the Smuggler project, and finally the APCHA project fund. Mr. Strecker said that these are separate entities, and the Council is providing support in the form of a resolution to bless the subsidy amount to APCHA. Ms. Richards stated that she would like to reiterate her comments from the past work session about the Aspen Country Inn being utilized a bit better for the lower-income seniors. Mayor Torre opened the public hearing. Mayor Torre closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Resolution #093, Series of 2020; Councilman Mesirow seconded. Councilman Hauenstein stated that Council has gone over this in-depth in past work sessions. Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried Resolution #094, Series of 2020 - Aspen Country Inn & Truscott II 2021 Budget Resolution Mr. Strecker stated that these are two funds that are held in limited liability partnerships, and the partners are APCHA and the City of Aspen. He said that the 2021 budget for the Aspen Country Inn is a routine budget of operations. Mr. Strecker stated that for Truscott II, on top of the routine budget there is the annual dept serves that extends through 2021 and partially into 2022 and with a capital project of paint that will happen next year. Councilman Hauenstein asked if the paint job will go out to an RFP. 104 9 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 Mr. Strecker stated that it would. Mayor Torre opened the public hearing. Mayor Torre closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve Resolution #094, Series of 2020; Councilwoman Richards seconded. Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried Ordinance #17, Series of 2020 - 2021 Electric and Water Rates Tyler Christoff, Utilities Operations Manager, stated that this ordinance contains the annual updates of utility rates captured within the municipal code title 25. He said that at the November 10th first reading council raised a few questions being the criteria to qualify for electric senior rate and additional information on the electric availability charge. Mr. Christoff stated that the qualification for the electric senior rate is age and income. He explained that the income shown must be at or below the 250% federal poverty level. Mr. Christoff said that with any utility they must create a logical, defensible, and fair rate structure. He said the best way to achieve this is to create rates on utilities actually cost to serve the customers. Mr. Christoff showed a graph with the cost of utility and pointing out the electric availability charge and discussed the components of the cost to the customer. He said that the revenue that is collected must be matched with the cost of operation, without the basic balance of funding and expenditures, the utility cannot support its basic function nor maintain its infrastructure. Mr. Christoff showed a map of the electric cable system that serves Aspen, and that more than 60% is at or near its end of the life cycle. He explained that without appropriate funding from the electric availability charge to maintain and replace the asset could have large consequences. Mr. Christoff showed a map of rate comparisons and where Aspen falls in line compared to other utilities. He said like 2020, Aspen will be at or slightly below the middle of utility cost for 2021. Mayor Torre asked about the 1500kwh that was shown on the average bill and asked if that is normal for a small household. Mr. Christoff stated that in Aspen the average customer is seeing that 1500kwh per month usage. He said statewide an average household is seeing closer to 700-800kwh, so the Aspen customer is using a bit more. Mayor Torre asked with Aspen getting closer to the cost of services, if Aspen would move left or down on the graph that compared other utilities. Mr. Christoff stated that he would anticipate that Aspen would stay in the middle of the packet or maybe slightly taking a few steps right or up. 105 10 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 Mayor Torre stated that he is concerned with the 20% increase in one year of the availability charge to the locals that truly watch their energy consumption. Councilwoman Richards stated if you look at where we are now it seems that we should have been putting money away to address the aging infrastructure years ago. Councilwoman Richards stated that this is a difficult choice but building the integrity of the organization’s power and moving forward even though it will be an increase to the people. She said that Aspen has been able to invest over the years in green and renewable energy more so than other communities that are on the lower left side of the comparison graph that might just be depending on coal-burning power. Mayor Torre opened the public hearing. Mayor Torre closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Ordinance #17, Series of 2020; Councilman Hauenstein seconded. Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried. Ordinance #19, Series of 2020 Budget - Fall Supplemental Mr. Strecker stated that the Fall Supplemental is an adjustment to the current year's budget and has several requests that have been previously approved by Council. Mr. Strecker gave a high- level review of the requests. He said that revenues were reprojected based on earlier projections in the spring when the outlook was not great. With a reasonable set of summer months and into the fall, we revised the revenue projections upward and offset these expenditures by at least $12 million while adding to the further aggregate fund balance. Councilman Hauenstein stated he would like to see a memo at some point to explain why a supplemental is an ordinance requiring two reading while the full budget is a resolution requiring one reading. He said that this seems upside down. Councilwoman Mullins stated for the public wondering or thinking that we are breezing through the budget and supplemental requests, we have spent a lot of time digging into the budget components during the previous work sessions. Mayor Torre opened the public hearing. Mayor Torre closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve Ordinance #19, Series of 2020 Budget; Councilwoman Richards seconded. 106 11 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 Mayor Torre stated that he would like to clarify the supplemental new requests. He said that the two new requests from the City Clerk’s office and Community Development reflect the policy that has been driven by City Council in an effort to support the community's needs. Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried Ordinance #20, Series of 2020 - 2021 Budget - Fee Ordinance Mr. Strecker stated that this is the annual fee ordinance and is pretty much status quo. He explained that there were a few departments that have slight changes being requested. Mr. Strecker said that Council received communication from Steve Aitken Director of Golf regarding the golf program and easing of the ability to get on to the course. Mr. Strecker stated that he is requesting approval of the fee ordinance. Mayor Torre opened the public hearing. Mayor Torre closed the public hearing. Councilman Hauenstein moved to approve Ordinance #20, Series of 2020; Councilwoman Mullins seconded. Mayor Torre thanked Mr. Aitken and his staff for handling a challenging summer. He said that he hopes while planning for the summer Mr. Aitken will address some of the concerns that were brought up by guests and locals. Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried. Mr. True stated that the Aspen Charter states that there are two regular meetings in the month of December. He explained that the next regular meeting is scheduled for December 8th, making the second regular meeting December 22nd. Mayor Torre asked about alternatives. Mr. True stated that Council can pick a new date and suspend the rules and set the regular meeting to the desired date. Ms. Richards stated that she has marked on her calendar that Tuesday December 15th is the deadline for the mill levy adoption. She suggested a regular meeting on that date. Mr. True stated that it can work. He explained that a motion to suspend the rules and have that as the second regular meeting. He said that there is a special meeting scheduled for December 3rd, and a motion could change the special meeting to a regular meeting. Mayor Torre said they can have further discussion on this in executive session. 107 12 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020 EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Mullins moved to go into executive session; Councilman Mesirow seconded. Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried. ___________________ Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk 108 Page 1 of 1 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council FROM: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer THRU: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: December 8, 2020 RE: Resolution #104, Series of 2020, 211 W. Hopkins Avenue Extension of AspenModern Voluntary Landmark Designation Negotiation Period SUMMARY: On October 2, 2020, Community Development declared complete an application for AspenModern historic landmark designation related to 211 W. Hopkins Avenue. This initiated a Land Use Code-mandated 90-day timeframe within which the review process and negotiation for any site-specific preservation benefits is to be finalized between the applicant and City Council. Prior to Council review, designation requires recommendations from HPC. Busy agendas in front of that board, and the fact that the discussion was continued once for restudy of the design of proposed new development on the property will not allow conclusion of the review before the 90- day negotiation period runs out on December 31st, 2020. While First Reading, scheduled for December 8, 2020 will occur during the 90-day window prescribed by code, Second Reading will not, therefore an extension is necessary. Second Reading of the historic designation ordinance at City Council is currently scheduled for January 12, 2021. Staff and the applicant request Council extend the negotiation period by 30 days, to January 30, 2021. Additional extensions may be granted by Council if necessary, if the applicant is amenable. APPLICANT: Matt Joblon, 205 S. Detroit Street , Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206, with the consent of property owner Vaughan Capital Partners, LP. PROJECT ADDRESS: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, Parcel ID#2735-124-63-003. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution #104, Series of 2020, extending the AspenModern negotiation period for 211 W. Hopkins Avenue to January 30, 2021.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: __________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ EXHIBITS: Resolution #104, Series of 2020 A. Applicant agreement to extension 109 RESOLUTION #104 SERIES OF 2020 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING THE ASPEN MODERN NEGOTIATION PERIOD RELATED TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 53, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-63-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Matt Joblon, 205 S. Detroit Street, Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206, with the consent of property owner Vaughan Capital Partners, LP has requested HPC approval for AspenModern historic designation for the property located at 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the AspenModern designation process is described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.415.025.C.1, a ninety-day timeframe within which the applicant and City Council agree to evaluate the proposed designation commenced on October 2, 2020 and will expire on December 31st, 2020; and WHEREAS, the property contains historic architectural resources, the preservation of which will support the historic preservation policies and objectives of the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, a public hearing cannot be scheduled before City Council until January 12, 2021 therefore staff and the property owner are in agreement that a 30-day extension of the negotiation to January 30, 2021 is appropriate to allow additional time to discuss options for the property; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that the extension of the historic designation negotiation period furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: The 211 W. Hopkins Avenue AspenModern landmark designation negotiation period established by Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C is hereby extended to January 30, 2021. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on December 8th, 2020. Approved as to form: ______________________ James R. True, City Attorney Attest: Mayor: ______________________ ____________________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor 110 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM November 30, 2020 Aspen City Council c/o Community Development 130 South Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 211 West Hopkins Avenue – AspenModern 30 day Extension Dear City Council, Please accept this request to extend the AspenModern negotiation by 30 days. Holiday meeting schedules and two public hearings at the Historic Preservation Commission in October and November have made meeting the 90-day negotiation timeframe impossible. We look forward to presenting this important project to you and hopefully adding a significant pan abode to Aspen’s Historic Inventory. Please reach out if you need additional information to complete your review. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP 111 Page 1 of 3 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council FROM: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer THRU: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: December 8, 2020 RE: First Reading, Ordinance #022, Series of 2020, 211 W. Hopkins Avenue AspenModern Voluntary Landmark Designation and Notice of Call-Up of HPC Resolution #25, Series of 2020 APPLICANT /OWNER: Matt Joblon, 205 S. Detroit Street , Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206, with the consent of property owner Vaughan Capital Partners, LP REPRESENTATIVE: Rowland + Broughton BendonAdams LOCATION: Street Address: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue Legal Description: Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-124-63-003 CURRENT ZONING & USE: Single-family home, R-6: Medium Density Residential PROPOSED ZONING & LAND USE: Two detached homes, R-6: Medium Density Residential SUMMARY: The applicant has offered voluntary AspenModern historic designation of a 1956 Pan Abode home contingent on acceptance of a proposed redevelopment plan and benefits. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council support the application, including HPC’s approval of Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variation review for a project which involves restoring the Pan Abode to its original appearance, excavating a basement below it, and constructing a detached new home along the alley. Site Locator Map – 211 W. Hopkins Avenue 211 112 Page 2 of 3 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: 211 W. Hopkins is a 6,000 square foot lot located in the R-6 zone district. The site contains a 1956 Pan Abode, which is essentially unaltered. It is still owned by the same family that originally built it. REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL Council is asked to address the following: • AspenModern Historic Designation (Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030) for negotiation of a voluntary designation. • Notice of Call Up (Section 26.415.120.B) for Council to review HPC’s approval of Conceptual Major Development and Relocation of a historic resource. STAFF COMMENTS: As detailed in Exhibit A, Historic Designation and Benefits, Staff and HPC support the voluntary landmarking of this property as one of the best and most intact examples of a Pan Abode home in Aspen. Exhibit A includes the application of a scoring system the City adopted to provide an objective analysis of the physical integrity of the structure under consideration for designation. The property has scored of 19 out of a possible 20 points, identifying 211 W. Hopkins as a particularly significant remaining example of a modest housing type that was common and important to the early development of the ski resort. In exchange for designation the applicant has requested the following benefits: • a tree removal fee waiver of approximately $20,000; • expedited permit review; • a floor area bonus of 135 square feet for living space and 19 square feet for deck; and • a rear yard setback variation Staff finds these requested benefits to be reasonable in consideration of the community benefit of preserving this home in perpetuity. The applicant proposes to pay all required development fees aside from tree removals, including affordable housing mitigation. The redevelopment plan is an ideal preservation outcome. The cabin is to be preserved with no addition. New construction will be detached and located at the rear of the site. After an initial hearing on October 28th, HPC continued the project to November 18th for restudy of a very specific concern; the northwest corner of the detached structure, where a sympathetic relationship between the historic resource and the new home sitting behind it was considered to be especially 113 Page 3 of 3 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com important. At the second hearing, HPC unanimously approved a re-design labeled “Option 4.” The approved plans and elevations are provided in Exhibit C. NOTICE OF CALL-UP As is customary with HPC reviewed projects, Council is provided with a Notice of Call-Up for the 211 W. Hopkins designation and redevelopment project. As prescribed by code, following the adoption of a resolution approving, approving with conditions or denying a Conceptual Development Plan application for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval of a designated property, HPC shall promptly notify the City Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up procedure. Council may uphold HPC’s decision or may remand it to require reconsideration of specific issues. HPC’s decision on remand, is a publicly noticed hearing, shall be final. As described above, after careful review of the project relative to the historic preservation design guidelines, Conceptual approval was granted by a 5-0 vote with a standard requirement that the applicant work with other City departments to iron out construction requirements as part of moving towards building permit. The HPC memo, resolution, application and minutes are attached as Exhibit B. Staff recommends Council uphold the Commission’s decision and allow the project to proceed through the designation review which will be presented to Council for First Reading at this hearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to accept Ordinance #022, Series of 2020 on First Reading and to uphold HPC’s Conceptual Design approval for 211 W. Hopkins Avenue.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #022, Series of 2020 Exhibit A – Historic Designation and Benefits Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit B – Notice of Call-Up, Record of HPC decision Exhibit C – Approved Drawings Exhibit D – Application 114 Ordinance #022, Series of 2020 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, AspenModern designation Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE #022 (Series of 2020) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK NEGOTIATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 53, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-63-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Matt Joblon, 205 S. Detroit Street , Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206, with the consent of property owner Vaughan Capital Partners, LP has requested approval for AspenModern Historic Designation for the property located at 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the AspenModern designation process is described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the application, which was deemed to be complete on October 2, 2020, initiated a 90-day period of negotiation that may be extended if no agreement has been reached before expiration. Since the review process could not be completed within 90 days, City Council, through Resolution #104, Series of 2020, granted a 30-day extension of the negotiation period, from December 31, 2020 to January 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C(1)(b) states that, during the negotiation period, “the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting;” and WHEREAS, the property owner and representatives met with the Historic Preservation Commission on October 28, 2020 and November 18, 2020; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on November 18, 2020, the HPC considered the designation and proposed development, and found that 211 W. Hopkins Avenue is a “best” example of AspenModern era architecture. HPC recommended City Council approval of preservation benefits by a 5 to 0 vote; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)(d), states that, during the negotiation period, “council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property”; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)d establishes that “as part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations;” and 115 Ordinance #022, Series of 2020 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, AspenModern designation Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application for Landmark Designation and found that the review standards are met; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Historic Landmark Designation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby finds that 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado meets the criteria for landmark designation as an AspenModern historic resource. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of this ordinance. The location of the historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department. Section 2: Aspen Modern Negotiation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves the following benefits for the approved redevelopment of the property associated with this historic designation. Tree Removal Fee Waiver Granting of tree removal permits and waiver of all tree mitigation fees. Expedited Permit Review The building permit shall be subject to expedited building permit review consistent with the Building Department’s adopted procedure. Floor Area Bonus A floor area bonus of 135 square feet of enclosed space and 19 square feet to be used for larger outdoor decks is approved. Setback Variation A rear yard setback reduction of 2’, allowing the new residential unit to be 8’ from the rear lot line on all floors is approved. 116 Ordinance #022, Series of 2020 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, AspenModern designation Page 3 of 4 Section 3: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan and a vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for three (3) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of § 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to § 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 4: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. 117 Ordinance #022, Series of 2020 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, AspenModern designation Page 4 of 4 Section 5: Litigation This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7: Public Hearing A duly noticed public hearing on this Ordinance was held on the 12th day of January, 2021 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of December, 2020. FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved by a __ to __ vote on this 12th day of January, 2021. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ James R. True, City Attorney Torre, Mayor Attest: _______________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk 118 Page 1 of 5 Exhibit A Historic Designation and Benefits Criteria Staff Findings 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. C. Aspen Modern 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two (2) of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below: a) The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b) The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c) The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d) The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e) The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. 119 Page 2 of 5 Staff Finding: This Pan Abode home on 211 W. Hopkins is an excellent example of the pre-fabricated kit homes that were constructed in Aspen post World War II. It exemplifies this era of development in Aspen and is recognized as a contributing style of architecture to the local context. A context paper documents this method of construction in more detail. The home that is on this property has been minimally altered, therefore, clearly demonstrates the following key features of a Pan Abode: tongue and groove cedar log construction, overlapping notches, deep overhangs with a low-pitched roof, natural wood finish, and a one- story structure. The staff integrity score for this structure is a 19 out of 20 which put this property in the “best” range for historic integrity. Although the home is not directly associated with a significant individual, this is not a requirement. Staff finds that 4 of the 5 criteria for designation are met. Staff fully supports the designation of this property that contains one of the best examples of an Aspen Pan Abode home. 26.415.030.C.1 Aspen Modern Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. MET NOT MET a.The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b.The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; NOT MET c.The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d.The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e.The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.415.030 - Historic Designation. 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. MET Designation of Historic Properties The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) shall evaluate the application and forward their recommendation to City Council to make the final decision. MET MET MET 120 Page 3 of 5 The designation of properties as AspenModern is voluntary and allows the applicant to request benefits on a case by case basis as follows. 26.415.025.C. AspenModern Properties. Properties associated with Aspen’s 20th century history shall be called AspenModern. Properties identified on the AspenModern Map shall be eligible for certain preservation benefits without being designated by City Council and may be awarded preservation incentives above and beyond those identified at Section 26.415.110, as follows. Property owners are encouraged to meet proactively with the historic preservation commission before undertaking development plans to receive preliminary feedback on appropriate development and benefits. 1. Ninety-Day Negotiation Period. In the case that the owner of a property on the AspenModern Map submits a land use application which includes voluntary landmark designation, a negotiation period of up to 90 days shall be initiated. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this ninety-day negotiation period shall accompany the land use application. The ninety-day negotiation period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by the Council, or longer if mutually acceptable to both the Council and the property owner. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing any land use application or building permit affecting the subject property during the ninety-day negotiation period. Within the ninety-day negotiation period, the following shall occur: a) The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark. b) The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property’s conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a “good, better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. c) The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding the proposed land use application or building permit, the nature of the property, and the 121 Page 4 of 5 staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of its historic significance and the effects of the application or building permit. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. d) The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations. Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the property is 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. Council shall seek compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. When benefits are awarded as part of the negotiation, Council shall require that the property be designated as a Historic Landmark, pursuant to the standards and limitations of Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may choose to require the land use application or building permit that initiated the negotiation to be withdrawn by the property owner if said application or permit would have negatively affected the historic significance of the property. Once a property identified on the AspenModern Map is designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, additional negotiation under this section is not allowed. e) If, upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected land use applications shall be issued a Development Order upon compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The City Council, or the property owner, may choose to terminate negotiations at any time. Staff Findings: The applicant has requested benefits related to voluntary designation, as follows. Tree Mitigation Fee Waiver: The project involves removal of a number of trees that line the back of the property, cutting off alley access. The applicant has met on site with the Parks Department and have calculated the tree mitigation fee to total $20,122.75. This is requested as a fee waiver. Staff supports this as a reasonable request. Many of the trees are placed too closely together, and alley access is necessary. Large street trees at the front of the property are preserved. 122 Page 5 of 5 Expedited permit review: The applicant requests review under the City’s expedited policy. This provides quicker response time to the initial review and processing of the building permit. Staff supports this as a reasonable request. Floor area bonus: Under the recently revised floor area bonus criteria for landmarks, this project is only eligible for a 15 square foot bonus. The project receives a 360 square foot floor area boost by taking advantage of the allowance for a historic property to have a duplex on this lot size. In order to avoid the floor area bonus becoming a “double dip,” the duplex increase of 360 square feet is deducted from the 375 square foot bonus allowance, leaving only 15 square feet. Staff supports award of the 15 square foot bonus. As a negotiated AspenModern benefit, the applicant also requests 120 square feet of bonus area for enclosed space and 19 square feet to be used for larger outdoor decks. Typically, to be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following criteria: a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significance of the historic building are preserved; and c) The applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other non-original finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and d) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and e) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice the above grade square footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly incompatible non- historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. Staff finds that the preservation approach in this project is ideal and deserving of the requested bonuses. This is a voluntary landmark designation resulting in the Pan Abode being preserved in place with no addition. The application proposes removal of non-original addition and restoration of the rear facade, removing non historic paint and shutters and restoring windows. The new construction is completely detached. 123 1) Tongue and groove cedar log construction Character Defining Features of the Rustic (manufactured) Style 4) Low-pitched roof, usually gabled but occasionally shed 7) All or most of features 1-6 must be visible at the front façade. Total Points, 0 –10 8) Natural, stained wood 2) Overlapping notches at corners 3) Original wood framed, multi-light picture window 5) Deep overhanging eaves Check box if statement is true. One point per box. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A building must have 6 of the 10 character defining features, either present or clearly documented through photographic of physical evidence to qualify as Rustic (manufactured) Style. Restoration may be required as part of the award of incentives. If the property earned 6 or more points, continue to the next page. If the property earned less than 6 points, scoring ends. 9) Simple, rectilinear footprint 10) One story 6) Recessed entrance with rounded or squared corners 8 9 10 124 INTEGRITY SCORING If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: Best: 15 up to 20 points Better: 12 up to 15 points Good: 10 up to 12 points Not Eligible:0 up to 10 points Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- mum of 10 points: LOCATION OF BUILDING ON THE LOT: The bui l di ng i s i n i ts ori gi nal l ocation.2 poi nts The bui l di ng has be e n shi ft e d on the ori gi nal parce l , but mai ntai ns i ts ori gi nal al i gnme nt and/or prox i mi ty to the stre e t.1 poi nt SETTING : The prope rty i s l ocate d wi thi n the ge ographi cal are a surrounde d by Castl e Cre e k, the Roari ng Fork Ri ve r and A spe n Mountai n.1 poi nt The prope rty i s outsi de of the ge ographi cal are a surround by Castl e Cre e k, the Raori ng Fork Ri ve r and Aspe n Mountai n.1/2 poi nt DESIG N: The form of the bui l di ng (f ootpri nt, roof and w al l pl ane s) are unal te re d f rom the ori gi nal de si gn.3 poi nts a.) The f orm of the bui l di ng has be e n al te re d but l e ss than 25% of the ori gi nal wal l s have be e n re move d, OR b.) The al te rations to the f orm al l occur at the re ar of the subj e ct bui l di ng, OR c.) The f orm of the bui l di ng has be e n al te re d but the addi tion i s l e ss than 50% of the si ze of the ori gi nal bui l di ng, OR d.) The re i s a roof top addi tion that i s l e ss than 50% of the footprint of the roof. 2 poi nts MATERIALS Exteri or mate rial s The original e x te ri or mate ri al s of the bui l di ng are stil l i n pl ace , wi th the e x ce ption of normal mai nte nance and re pai rs.2 poi nts 50% of the e x te ri or mate ri al s have be e n re pl ace d, but the re pl ace me nts match the ori gi nal condi tion.1 poi nt Windows and doors The ori gi nal wi ndows and doors of the bui l di ng are stil l i n pl ace , wi th the e x ce ption of normal mai nte nance and re pai rs.2 poi nts 50% of the ori gi nal wi ndows and doors have be e n re pl ace d, but the re pl ace me nts match the ori gi nal condi tion.1 poi nt 125 Page 1 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: November 18, 2020 RE: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue– AspenModern Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development Review including Relocation, Variations, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 28, 2020 APPLICANT /OWNER: Matt Joblon, 205 S. Detroit Street , Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206, with the consent of property owner Vaughan Capital Partners, LP REPRESENTATIVE: Rowland + Broughton BendonAdams LOCATION: Street Address: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue Legal Description: Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen Parcel Identification Number: PID# 273512463003 CURRENT ZONING & USE: Single-family home, R-6: Medium Density Residential PROPOSED ZONING & LAND USE: Two detached homes, R-6: Medium Density Residential SUMMARY: The applicant has offered voluntary AspenModern historic designation of a 1956 Pan Abode, and requests Major Development, Relocation and Variation review for a project which involves restoring the resource, excavating a basement below it, and constructing a detached new home along the alley. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation for restudy of the design of the new unit, in particular the north façade and roof plan as indicated at the October 28th hearing. Site Locator Map – 211 W. Hopkins Avenue 211 126 Page 2 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: 211 W. Hopkins is a 6,000 square foot lot located in the R-6 zone district. The site contains a 1956 Pan Abode, which is essentially unaltered. It is still owned by the same family that originally built it. REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • AspenModern Historic Designation (Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030) for negotiation of a voluntary designation. • Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for removal of a non-historic addition, restoration on the Pan Abode and construction of a new structure at the rear of the property. • Relocation (Section 26.415.090.C) to excavate a basement below the Pan Abode in its original location. • Setback Variations (Section 26.415.110.C) for a rear yard variation. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is making a recommendation to Council on this application. STAFF COMMENTS: Following is a summary of staff findings. Please see Exhibits A, B, C and D for more detail. Staff supports the voluntary designation of this property as one of the best and most intact examples of a Pan Abode home in Aspen. The benefits requested for designation (tree removal fee waivers, expedited permit review, a floor area bonus and setback variation) are reasonable in consideration of the community benefit of the project. The project approach is an ideal preservation outcome. The cabin is preserved with no addition and new construction is detached and located at the rear of the site. Staff recommended on October 28th, and still recommends, restudy of the design of the north façade and roof plan of the new unit in order to achieve the most sympathetic and compatible relationship with the small historic structure being preserved. HPC agreed with this direction at the last hearing, the minutes of which are attached. The restudy that has been provided uses material changes and a vertical trim board to address the concerns expressed with a low pitched and wide gable form set behind the Pan Abode. Staff finds the restudy is not yet successful. A second design issue mentioned in the previous meeting was a fence near the northwest corner of the Pan Abode. A revision has been provided that reduces the height of the fence so that it meets the design guidelines. The new structure must meet the Residential Design Standards, which appears to be the case but will be confirmed based on the restudy. 127 Page 3 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred out to other City departments to preliminarily identify requirements that may affect permit review. Applicant follow-up on these comments as part of building permit review is a condition of approval. Parks: The new water line is to be installed under where the front walk is now located to minimize impacts to the spruce and aspen in the front yard. A site visit with the Forester is needed prior to this installation so he can direct the best route for the tree roots. A tree permit must be issued for all removals. This permit will call out specifics for the dripline excavation for the trees at the front of the property. No trees in the right-of-way on West Hopkins are approved to be removed. The impact of the project on the driplines of neighbor’s trees will be need to be considered. Some neighboring trees might need to be removed. The applicant will be required to provide the Forester with a letter from the trees’ owners saying they accept the impacts and risks to their trees. The applicant may need to treat impacted trees with growth regulating hormones and trunk injections for bark beetle protection. Engineering: One item needs to be addressed for this property prior to HPC approval. 1. The proposed transformer shown on sheet L300 does not have adequate space. 10’ in depth and 13’ in width needs to be provided for a 7’x7’ vault with 3’ clearances on the sides and back. The plan sheet shows only 5’ from the property line to the building. The following items will need to be addressed at building permit. 1. The proposed drywell must be 10’ from the neighboring property. A Geotech or structural engineer must supply a stamped letter stating the drywell within 10’ of the proposed structure and existing cabin foundation will have no adverse effects. 2. At building permit the project may be required to detach the existing sidewalk and install a new sidewalk with a 5’ landscape buffer between the curb and sidewalk. The neighboring property to the west has a current building permit and may detach their portion of the sidewalk depending on existing tree constraints. If this happens the sidewalk at 211 W shall also be detached. 3. At building permit the project will need to determine the water service line size and configuration for the two buildings. Currently two service lines are proposed per sheet L300. The water service line on the east runs under the dripline of the large spruce tree. The excavation that close to the tree trunk will most likely kill the tree. This needs further vetting. 128 Page 4 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com 4. Foundation drywells are proposed in close proximity to the east spruce tree. Excavation cannot take place within the dripline of the tree. It needs to be shown excavation can take place to accommodate the foundation drywells without adversely affecting the tree. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue the project to restudy the new unit for compliance with guidelines 11.3., 11.4 and 11.6. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Exhibit A – Historic Designation and Benefits Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit B – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit C – Relocation Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit D – Setback Variation Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit E – November 18th revised application Exhibit F – October 28th application Exhibit G – Draft Oct. 28th HPC minutes 129 HPC Resolution #25, Series of 2020 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #25, SERIES OF 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW INCLUDING RELOCATION, AND VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 53, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PARCEL ID: 2735-124-63-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Matt Joblon, 205 S. Detroit Street , Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206, with the consent of property owner Vaughan Capital Partners, LP has requested HPC approval for AspenModern Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations for the property located at 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the AspenModern designation process is described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; 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, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on October 28, 2020, considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and continued the proposal for restudy. On November 18, 2020, the commission found the revised application to be consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 130 HPC Resolution #25, Series of 2020 Page 2 of 3 Section 1: Approvals 1. HPC hereby recommends Council approval of historic designation for 211 W. Hopkins Avenue and approval of the proposed redevelopment, Option 4 for the design of the new structure on the alley as presented at the November 18th meeting, under the terms of AspenModern negotiation for designation as follows: • Granting of tree removal permits and waiver of all tree mitigation fees generated by the approved development. • Expedited building permit review consistent with the Building Department’s adopted procedure. • A floor area bonus of 135 square feet of enclosed space and 19 square feet to be used for larger outdoor decks. • A rear yard setback reduction of 2’, allowing the new residential unit to be 8’ from the rear lot line on all floors. 2. As part of the approval to relocate the house on the site, the applicant will be required to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application, along with a detailed description of the house relocation approach. 3. As part of building permit review, the applicant shall address the following referral comments to the satisfaction of the respective Departments. Parks: The new water line is to be installed under where the front walk is now located to minimize impacts to the spruce and aspen in the front yard. A site visit with the Forester is needed prior to this installation so he can direct the best route for the tree roots. A tree permit must be issued for all removals. This permit will call out specifics for the dripline excavation for the trees at the front of the property. No trees in the right-of-way on West Hopkins are approved to be removed. The impact of the project on the driplines of neighbor’s trees will need to be considered. Some neighboring trees might need to be removed. The applicant will be required to provide the Forester with a letter from the trees’ owners saying they accept the impacts and risks to their trees. The applicant may need to treat impacted trees with growth regulating hormones and trunk injections for bark beetle protection. Engineering: The proposed drywell must be 10’ from the neighboring property. A Geotech or structural engineer must supply a stamped letter stating the drywell within 10’ of the proposed structure and existing cabin foundation will have no adverse effects. At building permit the project may be required to detach the existing sidewalk and install a new sidewalk with a 5’ landscape buffer between the curb and sidewalk. The neighboring property to the west has a current building permit and may detach their portion of the sidewalk depending on existing tree constraints. If this happens the sidewalk at 211 W shall also be detached. 131 HPC Resolution #25, Series of 2020 Page 3 of 3 At building permit the project will need to determine the water service line size and configuration for the two buildings. Currently two service lines are proposed per sheet L300. The water service line on the east runs under the dripline of the large spruce tree. The excavation that close to the tree trunk will most likely kill the tree. This needs further vetting. Foundation drywells are proposed in close proximity to the east spruce tree. Excavation cannot take place within the dripline of the tree. It needs to be shown excavation can take place to accommodate the foundation drywells without adversely affecting the tree. 4. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Section 2: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 3: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Severability 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 COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 18th day of November, 2020. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _________________________ ___________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: __________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk 132 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM November 10, 2020 Historic Preservation Commission and Aspen City Council c/o Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 211 West Hopkins Avenue – Project Revisions Dear HPC and Staff, Thank you for your thoughtful comments during the public hearing on October 28, 2020. This is a challenging small site, with a small pan abode that cannot be relocated forward to the front setback line due to large trees. The design team has focused on restudying the north elevation to add dimension that breaks up the mass behind the pan abode. While this is typically a Final Design element, at HPC ’s direction we have restudied the fence proposed along the west elevation of the pan abode. The AspenModern request is unchanged with the project revisions (Table 1 is provided for easy reference). We are proud of this project – it fits into the context of the neighborhood, balances historic preservation and new development, and most importantly it preserves and restores an unprotected AspenModern resource. Table 1: AspenModern Request & Fee Summary (estimated based on 2,469sf floor area increase) Fee Request Affordable Housing 0.4 FTEs at Category 2 ~ $137,040 cash in lieu No request. TDM/Air Quality ~$1,506.09 No request. Parks Development ~$13,456.05 No request. Tree Removal Mitigation ~ $20,122.75 Request wavier of tree removal mitigation. Building Permit Review n/a Expedited permit review. Dimensional Variations n/a Rear setback – 2’ for living space (8’ provided) Historic Development Benefits n/a 135 sf FAR bonus; 19sf of deck exemption New Building Multiple roof forms were explored over the past few weeks, but we feel strongly that a gable roof form with a shallow pitch is most appropriate in relationship to the pan abode. When looking at a steeper pitched gable form, it resulted in a taller building and did not relate to the pan abode. Breaking the gable into different roof forms appeared overly complicated and distracted from the simple form of the pan abode. We concluded that a shallow gable roof was most appropriate and 133 have provided a symmetrical and an asymmetrical version for your consideration. A 20” deep eave is proposed to reflect the eave dimensions of the pan abode. The majority of the changes to the north façade are found in the material application and windows. A comparison of the original proposal to the revised two options are below. Option #1 (symmetrical) is preferred by the applicant. Figure 2: Option 1, north elevation November 18, 2020. Figure 1: October 28, 2020 proposed north elevation. 134 Figure 3: Option 2, north elevation November 18, 2020. Figure 4: Option 1 rendering November 18, 2020. 135 Figure 5: Option 2 rendering November 18, 2020. We prefer the symmetrical Option 1 and find that both options meet the Design Guidelines noted below: 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. Response - The new building is oriented parallel to the lot lines to maintain the traditional grid and to relate to the pan abode. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. Response – A front porch is proposed to define the entry into the new building. A walkway is proposed from Hopkins that reinforces the entrance. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 136 • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. Response – The new building is divided into smaller modules through material application and window placement. Vertical and horizontal wood siding divides the north elevation into modules that relate to the asymmetrical vertical joints and façade division of the pan abode, but in a contemporary application. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. Response – The primary plane of the new building is similarly scaled to the historic building in the application of the building materials. The new building is taller than the one story historic structure; however, the front porch is lower in height. 11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new structure(s). • This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot split. Response – While this is not a lot split project, the majority of the floor area is allocated to the detached new building at the rear of the property. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. Response – The new structure is consistent with form and materials, and diverts from the pan abode in the fenestration category. The primary form reflects the simplicity of the pan abode footprint and shallow roof. The secondary form of the new building is a steeper gable roof that is setback to break up massing. The primary material is wood with a similar scale and finish as the pan abode. The application of wood siding in both vertical and horizontal sections references the horizontal and vertical divisions of the pan abode but with a modern influence. Subtle references to the pan abode are found throughout the new building that create a strong dialogue between the two structures – for example, the rain screen has overlapping ends that reference the pan abode corners. Metal is woven as an accent throughout the façade. 137 The project diverts in fenestration from the pan abode. Windows and doors are contextual to the rest of the property, but the placement, size and style of the doors and windows are contemporary. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. Response -The new building reflects on the pan abode but is a clearly a product of its own time. The details are simple and subordinate to the pan abode. Fence HPC feedback on October 28, 2020 included concerns about the visibility of the west elevation of the pan abode with the addition of a 6 feet tall wood fence. Bluegreen restudied the fence and re- examined existing vegetation to propose a 2.5 feet tall wood fence with 4” vertical boards and 2” spaces between board. The fence is setback 3 feet from the front façade of the pan abode. At HPC’s suggestion Bluegreen looked at pushing the fence back behind the existing chimney, however, closer examination of mature vegetation onsite blocks any view of the proposed fence or west elevation of the pan abode. Applicable fence design guidelines are addressed below: 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. • The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of significance. Figure 6: Northwest corner of pan abode as viewed from Hopkins. Figure 7: Looking at west side yard of pan abode from Hopkins. 138 • A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations. • Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. • A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not oversized. Response – The proposed fence in the west side yard is 2.5 feet in height and a simple wood picket style. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. • A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature. • For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket. • For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. Response – The new fence in the west yard of the pan abode has 4” wide vertical boards and 2” spaces between. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. • A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. Figure 8: Proposed fence in west side yard of pan abode. 139 • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B. Response – The proposed fence is 2.5 feet tall and is setback 3 feet from the front façade to allow the northwest building corner to be visible from the street. We are excited about the preservation of Aspen’s most exemplary pan abode, the community benefits, and the positive contribution to the neighborhood. Please reach out with any questions. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP sara@bendonadams.com Exhibits A – T already provided U – Updated plans dated 11/18/20 Figure 9: Proposed landscape plan showing fence location and height in west side yard. 140 Option 1 - Symmetrical 141 Option 1 - Symmetrical 142 Option 1 - Symmetrical 143 Option 1 - Symmetrical 144 Option 1 - Symmetrical 145 Option 2 - Asymmetrical 146 Option 2 - Asymmetrical 147 Option 2 - Asymmetrical 148 Option 2 - Asymmetrical 149 Option 2 - Asymmetrical 150 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 14 10' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"20' - 6"COVERED FRONT ENTRY FENCE AND GATEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE23 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 8 12 8 12 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 3 12 10' - 4 7/8"31' - 9 1/4"5' - 9 7/8" 48' - 0" CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 3 12 BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISHPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEAST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY WEST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 11:59:28 AMAs indicated A4.1 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.1 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED - NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.1 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION - STREET 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE - OPT 1 151 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A ALLEY B PROPERTY LINEC D EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BASEMENT BASEMENT ± 12' - 2 1/2"PROPERTY LINE25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10' - 0"10' - 6"20' - 6"38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" 3 12 3 12 EXISTING PAN ABODE SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24' - 6 5/8"CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 11:58:05 AMAs indicated A4.2 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.2 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE 152 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1 4 ALLEY 10' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"20' - 6"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEBASEMENT FENCE AND GATE FENCE AND GATE GARAGE DOOR 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 18' - 0" 3 12 BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24' - 6 5/8"48' - 0" TRANSFOMER WILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSURE CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 2 3 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH NEW WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING BASEMENT 31' - 9 1/4"± 11' - 7 7/8"CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 12:24:01 PMAs indicated A4.3 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING CABIN 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE 153 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A ALLEY B 10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 0"20' - 6"PROPERTY LINECD EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BASEMENT BASEMENT± 12' - 2 1/2"PROPERTY LINE25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE 3 12 CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 1:07:39 PMAs indicated A4.4 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.4 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE 154 rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 1:17:03 PMA4.5 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR VIEWS VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS ENTRY VIEW VIEW FROM ALLEY LOOKING AT OFFICE TERRACE VIEW FROM ALLEY LOOKING AT MAIN BEDROOM TERRACE VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 1 155 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 10' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"20' - 6"COVERED FRONT ENTRY FENCE AND GATEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEBUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 8 12 8 12 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10' - 4 7/8"31' - 9 1/4"5' - 9 7/8" 48' - 0" 4 12 2 12 LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISHPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEAST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY WEST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 3:23:38 PMAs indicated A4.6 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.6 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED - NORTH ELEVATION - OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF SCALE:A4.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION - STREET VIEW OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF 156 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A B C D EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY PROPERTY LINEBASEMENT BASEMENT ± 12' - 2 1/2"PROPERTY LINE25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10' - 0"10' - 6"20' - 6"38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" 3 12 3 12 EXISTING PAN ABODE SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24' - 6 5/8"rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 3:01:06 PM1/4" = 1'-0" A4.7 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.7 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION - OPT 2- OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF 157 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1 4 CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY 10' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"20' - 6"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEBASEMENT FENCE AND GATE FENCE AND GATE GARAGE DOOR 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 18' - 0" BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24' - 6 5/8"48' - 0" TRANSFOMER WILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSURE rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 3:03:01 PM1/4" = 1'-0" A4.8 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.8 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION - OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF 158 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH ABCD EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY 10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 0"20' - 6"PROPERTY LINEBASEMENT BASEMENT± 12' - 2 1/2"PROPERTY LINE25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE 3 12 rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 3:16:34 PM1/4" = 1'-0" A4.9 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.9 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF - OPT 2 159 DN UP DN DN UP UP UP DN PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS WALL LABEL EXPOSED WALL AREA (SF)TOTAL WALL AREA (SF) PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS MAIN LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) GARAGE GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) GARAGE FLOOR AREA EXEMPTION (SF) MAIN LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,251 500 250 1,376 500 - 250 - 125 = 125 TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS BASEMENT FLOOR AREA (SF) UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SF) EXISTING CABIN AREA (SF) 49 37 832 TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (SF) DECK/PORCH AREA CALCULATIONS TOTAL DECK/PORCH AREA (SF) MAIN LEVEL ENTRY PATIO (SF) 559 258 < 540 SF ALLOWABLE > 3,615 SF ALLOWABLE PROPOSED AREA CONSTRAINTS LOT AREA (SF) MAX ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) MAX ALLOWABLE DECK AREA (SF) 6,000 3,615 540 15% * 3,600 ROOF DECK AREA (SF)N/A FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LEVEL 2 DECK - COVERED TERRACE (SF) 301 1 2 4 3 348 0 443 0 443 0 348 44 OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SF) 1,582 EXPOSED WALL AREA (SF)44 % OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL) 2.78% NEW HOUSE BASEMENT TOTALS (WALLS 1 - 4) PROPOSED NEW HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS BASEMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) BASEMENT COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,767 49 1,767 * 2.78% PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS UPPER LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) UPPER LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,403 1,403 125GARAGE COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) ROOF DECK (SF) - 3,600 + 15 HPC BONUS MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SF)1,376 PER ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE 26.575.020.d.7, 26.575.020-2 1,403 ROOF FLOOR AREA (SF) UPPER LEVEL DECK AREA (SF)N/A ALLOWANCE REQUESTED REQUEST: EXCESS OF 19 SF DECK ALLOWABLE AND 120 SF FAR 3,754 5 212 20 6 0 7 20 8 0 OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SF) 862 EXPOSED WALL AREA (SF)40 % OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL) 4.40% CABIN BASEMENT TOTALS (WALLS 5 - 8) PROPOSED CABIN BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS BASEMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) BASEMENT COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 862 38 862 * 4.40% 245 212 245 BASEMENT CABIN AREA (SF)38 3,735 1251 SF MAIN LEVEL AREA GARAGE AREA 500 GSF 125 CSF 832 SF CABIN OPEN TO ABOVE AND BELOW EXTERIOR AREA FENCE EXTERIOR AREA FENCE FRONT PORCH WITHIN 30" OF FINISHED GRADE IS EXEMPT FROM FAR CALCULATIONS -IT IS ALSO OPEN ON TWO SIDES T WILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSURE6' - 4 1/2" FIREPLACE OPEN TO ABOVE 258 SF COVERED TERRACE 1403 SF UPPER LEVEL AREA FLAT ENTRY ROOF BELOW OPEN TO BEYOND OPEN TO BEYOND LOWER LEVEL AREA 1767 GSF 49 CSF EGRESS LIGHTWELL LOWER LEVEL AREA 862 GSF 38 CSF 2 1 4 3 EGRESS LIGHTWELL EGRESS LIGHTWELL 6 8 7 5 301 SF ROOF DECK ROOF LEVEL INT. AREA 37 SF OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW NON-USABLE ATTIC SPACE 1146 SF EXISTING CABIN NON-HISTORICAL ADDITION rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 3:34:42 PMAs indicated A0.6 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 PROPOSED LEVEL 1 FAR SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 PROPOSED LEVEL 2 FAR SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FAR SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 PROPOSED ROOF FAR SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 5 EXISTING LEVEL 1 FAR 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 160 UP WDUP A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 4 A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 MEDIA LAUNDRY GUEST SUITE #3 BATH MECHANICAL MULTI WET BAR BELOW STAIRBUNKS ABOVE BATH TV 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL B B W D C C D D 2 3 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0"48' - 0"GUEST SUITE #4 Q T T PROPERTY LINE ALLEYSETBACK OPEN TO ABOVE CHIMNEY FOUNDATION HOPKINS AVENUESETBACKPROPERTY LINEA4.3 2 80' - 1 3/8" 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL PROPERTY LINE SETBACKHIDDEN DOORMECHANICAL / LAUNDRY BEDROOM BEDROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM FLEX ROOM 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL K Q rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 9:43:03 AM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.0 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.0 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 161 DN UP DN A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 448' - 0"A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 MUD POWDER COVERED STONE ENTRYOPEN TO ABOVE AND BELOW WALK FENCE AND GATEGARAGE EXISTING CABIN WITH ADDITION REMOVED GRAVEL ALLEYSETBACKPROPERTY LINEEGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW FIREPLACE STONE WALK HOPKINS AVENUEEGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW GUEST SUITE #2 (GEMMA) GUEST BATH B B GUEST BATH GUEST SUITE #1 (LOLA) Q COAT CLOSET BOOK SHELVES11' - 0"CLERESTORY WINDOWOFFICE KITCHEN BATHROOM BEDROOM STAIR LIVING ROOM CABIN GARDEN TERRACE C C D D 2 3DRESSERDRESSER10' - 6 3/4" A4.3 2 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8"FENCE AND GATEFENCE AND GATEFENCE AND GATE T REF CLOSETPROPERTY LINE SETBACK PROPERTY LINE SETBACK COVERED ENTRY CONCRETE APRON10 3/8"5' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0" OPEN TO BELOW EGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW EGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW 27' - 7"5' - 0 1/8" TR R WILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSUREFENCE AND GATE3' - 0"VAULT5' - 0"3' - 0"VAULT 5' - 0"1' - 0"3' - 0"1' - 0"MIN. 4" 4 1/2" 4' - 0"3' - 0" CONCRETE PAD 3' - 0" BOLLARDS rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 9:58:50 AM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.1 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.1 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 162 DN UP A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 4 A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 COVERED TERRACE MAIN BED BALLAST FLAT ROOF ABOVE ENTRY EXISTING CABIN ROOF, ADDITION REMOVED CHIMNEYPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEK TV / FP B B LIVING ROOM KITCHEN OPEN TO BEYOND OPEN TO BEYOND TV / FP ALLEYC C D D 2 348' - 0"REFBAR BBQCOVERED ENTRY A4.3 2 MAIN WIC MAIN BATH BENCH 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEHOPKINS AVENUEPANTRY WOOD PAN ABODE LOG SCREEN, ALTERNATING CORNER NEW WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 9:59:35 AM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.2 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.2 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 163 DN A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 4 A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 CHIMNEY BAR TOWELS OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW B B EXISTING CABIN ROOF ADDITION REMOVED LIVING ROOM CHIMNEY MAIN BEDROOM CHIMNEY ROOF DECK SPA C C D D 2 348' - 0"FP BALLAST ROOF OVER ENTRY A4.3 2 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEALLEYHOPKINS AVENUE3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0" NEW WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0"8 3/8" / 1'-0"8 3/8" / 1'-0"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF BALLAST ROOF rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 10:29:28 AM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.3 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 164 PROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING 5' SETBACKSIDE W A L K WEST H O P K I N S A V E N U E EXIS T I N G 1 0 ' S E T B A C K EXISTING 5' SETBACKEXIS T I N G 1 0 ' S E T B A C K ALLE Y B L O C K 5 3 PROP O S E D 8 ' S E T B A C K PROP O S E D 1 0 ' S E T B A C K 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 5 10 11 12 13 TREE REMOVAL SUMMARY EX. CONIFER TO BE REMOVED SYMBOL TYPE SIZE QTY. EX. DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED 4"-18" CAL. 6"-12" CAL. TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: NOTES: 1.TREES REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENCE AND/OR IN RESPONSE TO POOR HEALTH. 2.FOR PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, REFER TO PLANTING PLAN (LA 200). 3.REFER TO PLANTING PLAN (LA200) FOR MITIGATION. 4.EXISTING TREE(S) TYPE, LOCATION, SIZE AND CALIPER BY OTHERS; REFER TO SURVEY. 5.ALL EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED ARE REPRESENTED HERE, INCLUDING THOSE NOT MEETING THE 4"/6" CALIPER STANDARD (I.E. NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION). TREE MITIGATION SUMMARY TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE OF PROPOSED NATIVE TREES (REFER TO PLANTING PLAN): TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: 4 8 LEGEND TOTAL REMAINING: EX. DECIDUOUS TO REMAIN EX. CONIFER TO REMAIN VARIOUS VARIOUS 5 7 $20,122.75 NA $20,122.75 $20,122.75 LEGEND TREE PROTECTION FENCE EXISTING SETBACK LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY TREE PROTECTION ZONE PROPOSED SETBACK LINE L100 tree mitigation 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 10/28/2020 hpc revision 1 11/05/2020 hpc revision 2 0 4 8 scale northbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com211 W Hopkins l aspen, coloradopan abodedate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen TREE #SPECIES DIAMETER (IN.) 1 2 CONIFER 14 TREE TABLE MITIGATION VALUE ADJUSTED BY CONDITION 25% 3 4 CONIFER DECIDUOUS 8 12 25% 25% 5 6 CONIFER DECIDUOUS 12 12 50% 50% CONIFER 14 50% 7 CONIFER 9 25% 8 CONIFER 12 25% 1 L100 TREE PROTECTION FENCE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NOTE: 1.ADDITIONAL PROTECTION OUTSIDE AT TREE DRIP LINE MAY BE REQUIRED (EX. 12 IN. OF MULCH). 2.FENCE MAY BE CONTINUOUS TO PROTECT MULTIPLE TREES 3.MAINTAIN FENCE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. 4.REFER TO LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONS AND GOVERNING BODIES/AGENCIES FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. EXISTING TREE(S) TO REMAIN CHAINLINK FENCING TO BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED AT TREE DRIP LINE EXISTING GRADE TO REMAIN NO DISTURBANCE WITHIN TREE DRIPLINE TREE DRIP LINETREE DRIP LINE9 10 12 75% 11 12 11 9 25% 75% 13 0% CONIFER CONIFER DECIDUOUS DECIDUOUS PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT PROPOSED HISTORIC RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT - REMOVAL OF NON-HISTORIC ADDITION EXISTING RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT MAXIMUM MITIGATION VALUE $6462 $2110 $5087 $4748 $5087 $6462 $2671 $4748 $4748 $3989 $2861 $0 $1617 $528 $1272 $2374 $2544 $3231 $668 $1187 $3561 $998 $2146 $0 ACTUAL MITIGATION VALUE 13*10 0%CONIFER $0 $0 *pending neighbor approval 165 QQPROP O S E D F F E +94.0 0 DECK 94.00 FFE + 9 4 . 5 0 FFE + 9 4 . 5 0 FFE + 9 4 . 0 0 WW94.00WW BS 94 . 0 0 TS 94 . 4 0 93.00 WW 93.00 WW 94.00 WW 94.00 EXIST I N G F F E +93.7 0 93.5 0 93.5 0 93.50 93.35 93.30 93.40 93.30 93.70 LP 93.50 93.70 93.50 94.45 94.45 94.45 94.45 94.30 94.30 94.10 93.50 93.60 93.70 93.15 93.70 93.70 93.40 93.30 LP 93.15 93.20 93.50 93.50 94.50 94.50 94.50 94.50 94.40 94.40 94.00 WW 94.45 WW 94.00 93.75 94.20 DECK 94.00 94.45 LP 93.90 94.35 LP 94.15 94.00 94.00 93.25 93.25 LP 93.10 LP 93.40 TS 94 . 0 0 BS 93 . 5 0 WW 93.50 LEGEND GAS LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SPOT GRADE PROPOSED SETBACK LINE SANITARY SEWER LINE 85.36 FLOW ARROW WATER LINE L200 grading/drainage 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 10/28/2020 hpc revision 1 11/05/2020 hpc revision 2 0 4 8 scale northbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com211 W Hopkins l aspen, coloradopan abodedate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen 166 QQPROPERTY BOUNDARYSIDE W A L K WEST H O P K I N S A V E N U E ALLE Y B L O C K 5 3 PROP O S E D 8 ' S E T B A C K SETBACK LINE LEGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED 6' FENCE L300 site plan 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 10/28/2020 hpc revision 1 11/05/2020 hpc revision 2 0 4 8 scale northbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com211 W Hopkins l aspen, coloradopan abodedate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen HARDSCAPE HARDSCAPE WALKWAY MAINTENANCE BAND WALKWAY MAINTENANCE BAND PROPOSED 6' FENCE HARDSCAPE BEAR PROOF TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED GATE PROPOSED 6' FENCE DECK EXISTING TREES UTILITY LOCATIONS STORMWATER DRYWELL EXISTING HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE FOUNDATION DRY WELL SLOT DRAIN HARDSCAPE DRAIN PLANTING RE L400 GATE PROPOSED 6' FENCE PROPOSED 6' FENCE PROPOSED 2.5' FENCE HARDSCAPE STEP TRANSFORMER 3'-0"167 L800 details 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 10/28/2020 hpc revision 1 11/05/2020 hpc revision 2 0 4 8 scale northbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com211 W Hopkins l aspen, coloradopan abodedate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" FENCE TYPE 1 - TYP. L801 1 2X2 METAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO ARCH ENTRYHIDDEN FASTERNERS TYP.2X2 BOARDS, INTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY, TYP. 5'-0" ELEVATIONSECTION 2X2 BOARDS, ON INTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ADDITION, TYP. 2X2 METAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY 6'-0"INTERIOR OF PROPERTY EXTERIOR OF PROPERTY 2" TYP1"TYP4X2 BOARDS, ON INTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ADDITION, TYP.4"TYPSCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" FENCE TYPE 2 - TYP. L801 2 4X4 NOMINAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO ARCH ENTRY 1X4 BOARDS, ON EXTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY, TYP. 5'-0" ELEVATIONSECTION 1X4 BOARDS, OFFSET ON EXTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ADDITION, TYP. 4X4 NOMINAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY2'-6"1X2 NOMINAL POST ATTACHED HORIZONTALLY TO POST 2" 168 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM November 17, 2020 Historic Preservation Commission and Aspen City Council c/o Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 211 West Hopkins Avenue – Project Revisions Dear HPC and Staff, We have continued to study various roof forms for the north elevation to ensure that we propose the best option for this project. Below please find four proposed roof options to discuss tomorrow night. We prefer Option #1, the symmetrical gable end facing the street, and find that it is successful and supportive of the pan abode. Figure 1: Option 1, symmetrical gable end, preferred option. 169 Figure 2: Option 2, north elevation symmetric gable end. Figure 3: Option 3, north elevation with dormer. 170 Figure 5: Option 1 (symmetric) rendering November 18, 2020. Figure 4: Option 4, north elevation. 171 Figure 1: Option 2 (asymmetric) rendering November 18, 2020. We prefer the symmetrical Option 1 and find that both options meet the Design Guidelines noted below: 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. Response - The new building is oriented parallel to the lot lines to maintain the traditional grid and to relate to the pan abode. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. Response – A front porch is proposed to define the entry into the new building. A walkway is proposed from Hopkins that reinforces the entrance. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 172 • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. Response – The new building is divided into smaller modules through material application and window placement. Vertical and horizontal wood siding divides the north elevation into modules that relate to the asymmetrical vertical joints and façade division of the pan abode, but in a contemporary application. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. Response – The primary plane of the new building is similarly scaled to the historic building in the application of the building materials. The new building is taller than the one story historic structure; however, the front porch is lower in height. 11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new structure(s). • This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot split. Response – While this is not a lot split project, the majority of the floor area is allocated to the detached new building at the rear of the property. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. Response – The new structure is consistent with form and materials, and diverts from the pan abode in the fenestration category. The primary form reflects the simplicity of the pan abode footprint and shallow roof. The secondary form of the new building is a steeper gable roof that is setback to break up massing. The primary material is wood with a similar scale and finish as the pan abode. The application of wood siding in both vertical and horizontal sections references the horizontal and vertical divisions of the pan abode but with a modern influence. Subtle references to the pan abode are found throughout the new building that create a strong dialogue between the two structures – for example, the rain screen has overlapping ends that reference the pan abode corners. Metal is woven as an accent throughout the façade. 173 The project diverts in fenestration from the pan abode. Windows and doors are contextual to the rest of the property, but the placement, size and style of the doors and windows are contemporary. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. Response -The new building reflects on the pan abode but is a clearly a product of its own time. The details are simple and subordinate to the pan abode. We are excited about the preservation of Aspen’s most exemplary pan abode, the community benefits, and the positive contribution to the neighborhood. Please reach out with any questions. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP sara@bendonadams.com Exhibits A – T already provided U – Updated plans dated 11/18/20 174 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 14 10' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"20' - 6"COVERED FRONT ENTRY FENCE AND GATEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE23 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 8 12 8 12 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 3 12 10' - 4 7/8"31' - 9 1/4"5' - 9 7/8" 48' - 0" CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 3 12 BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISHPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEAST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY WEST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jgeorge\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jgeorgeZGMCR.rvt11/17/2020 12:40:30 PMAs indicated A4.1 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.1 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED - NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.1 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION - STREET 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE - OPT 1 175 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A ALLEY B PROPERTY LINEC D EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BASEMENT BASEMENT ± 12' - 2 1/2"PROPERTY LINE25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10' - 0"10' - 6"20' - 6"38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" 3 12 3 12 EXISTING PAN ABODE SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24' - 6 5/8"CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jgeorge\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jgeorgeZGMCR.rvt11/17/2020 12:40:32 PMAs indicated A4.2 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.2 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE 176 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1 4 ALLEY 10' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"20' - 6"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEBASEMENT FENCE AND GATE FENCE AND GATE GARAGE DOOR 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 18' - 0" 3 12 BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24' - 6 5/8"48' - 0" TRANSFOMER WILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSURE CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 2 3 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH NEW WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING BASEMENT 31' - 9 1/4"± 11' - 7 7/8"CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jgeorge\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jgeorgeZGMCR.rvt11/17/2020 12:40:34 PMAs indicated A4.3 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING CABIN 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE 177 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A ALLEY B 10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 0"20' - 6"PROPERTY LINECD EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BASEMENT BASEMENT± 12' - 2 1/2"PROPERTY LINE25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE 3 12 CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jgeorge\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jgeorgeZGMCR.rvt11/17/2020 12:40:36 PMAs indicated A4.4 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.4 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE 178 rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jgeorge\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jgeorgeZGMCR.rvt11/17/2020 12:40:44 PMA4.5 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR VIEWS VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 1 ENTRY VIEW -OPTION 1 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 1 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 2 ENTRY VIEW -OPTION 2 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 2 - OPT 1/2 179 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 10' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"20' - 6"COVERED FRONT ENTRY FENCE AND GATEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEBUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 8 12 8 12 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10' - 4 7/8"31' - 9 1/4"5' - 9 7/8" 48' - 0" 4 12 2 12 LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISHPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEAST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY WEST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jgeorge\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jgeorgeZGMCR.rvt11/17/2020 12:40:46 PMAs indicated A4.6 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.6 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED - NORTH ELEVATION - OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF SCALE:A4.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION - STREET VIEW OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF 180 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A B C D EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY PROPERTY LINEBASEMENT BASEMENT ± 12' - 2 1/2"PROPERTY LINE25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10' - 0"10' - 6"20' - 6"38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" 3 12 3 12 EXISTING PAN ABODE SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24' - 6 5/8"rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jgeorge\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jgeorgeZGMCR.rvt11/17/2020 12:40:47 PM1/4" = 1'-0" A4.7 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.7 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION - OPT 2- OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF 181 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1 4 CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY 10' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"20' - 6"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEBASEMENT FENCE AND GATE FENCE AND GATE GARAGE DOOR 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 18' - 0" 3 12 BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24' - 6 5/8"48' - 0" TRANSFOMER WILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSURE rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jgeorge\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jgeorgeZGMCR.rvt11/17/2020 12:40:49 PM1/4" = 1'-0" A4.8 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.8 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION - OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF 182 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH ABCD EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY 10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 0"20' - 6"PROPERTY LINEBASEMENT BASEMENT± 12' - 2 1/2"PROPERTY LINE25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE 3 12 rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jgeorge\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jgeorgeZGMCR.rvt11/17/2020 12:40:50 PM1/4" = 1'-0" A4.9 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.9 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF - OPT 2 183 rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jgeorge\Documents\22037.00_Pan Abode - 2020-11-16 V4_detached_jgeorgeZGMCR.rvt11/17/2020 12:38:29 PMA4.5 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR VIEWS VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 3 ENTRY VIEW -OPTION 3 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 3 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 3/4 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 4 ENTRY VIEW -OPTION 4 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 4 184 DRAFT MINUTES- HPC MEETING, NOVEMBER 18, 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Sherri Sanzone, Gretchen Greenwood. Commissioners not in attendance: Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jim True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone stated that she has a conflict with the second agenda item 211 West Hopkins. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon stated that there has been a lot of project monitoring happening and she has been in direct communication with the monitors. Ms. Yoon stated that she will be reaching out to her monitors with details on a project. OLD BUSINESS: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue– AspenModern Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development Review including Relocation, Variations. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that the project was near approval on October 28th however the board agreed with staff that a restudy needed to be done on the north façade of the proposed new building. Ms. Simon reviewed the application that was present at the October 28th meeting. Ms. Simon stated at the time the November 18th packet was written staff felt that not enough restudy was done in reference to the north façade. She explained that the applicant submitted more options of the restudy at a later date. Ms. Simon stated that she will outline staff’s recommendations and would like to see this project move forward. Ms. Simon reviewed and read the condition attached to the resolution. Ms. Simon stated the staff is recommending approval. Ms. Simon said that the applicant will be presenting two other alternatives that change the orientation of the roofline that brings it down to a low eave behind the Pan Abode. APPLICANT COMMENTS: Sara Adams with BendonAdams and John Rowland of Rowland + Broughton. Ms. Adams stated that the feedback that was given on the Oct. 28th meeting was great. She said that nothing has changed from the AspenModern request or the restoration plan. Ms. Adams stated that her team focused on the north elevation and the feedback that was given. She explained that HPC felt that the elevation was too flat and domineering and needed to add depth and breaking down the mass of the new addition. Ms. Adams stated that she will be presenting four different options that address the north elevation. The first option Ms. Adams showed kept the street-facing shallow gable with an add on of a 20inch eave that matches the Pan Abode. She 185 explained that the team has pulled in more reference material to the new addition with the vertical seams and a breakdown of the siding with different size wood siding. Ms. Adams stated that they wanted to relate form and material to the Pan Abode however wanted to be a bit more playful with the windows. She said that the entrance under the gable has not changed much under any of the options. Ms. Adams stated that option two has an asymmetrical shallow roof, the windows and materials are the same as option one. Option three shows the north façade turned to line up with the Pan Abode. She pointed out the added dormer that relates to the entrance to the Pan Abode. Ms. Adams stated in option four, is like option three with the north facade turned to line up with the Pan Abode however, there is no dormer and is just a simple roofline. Ms. Adams said that the fence that raised some concern was lowered to two and a half feet and spaced boards to create more transparency. Mr. Rowland stated the rotated ridge options that go parallel to the Pan Abode don’t change the operations of the house but are not as playful as the first two options. Ms. Adams stated that they would like to add language to the condition that states otherwise negotiated with the Parks Dept. and Engineering Dept. She explained the conditions seem to be too finite, and that is not the intent of staff or the referral departments. Ms. Adams stated that they plan on working with Parks and Engineering Dept for their approvals along the way and stay in constant communication. Mr. Kendrick asked if there is any room to lower the overall height. Mr. Rowland explained if lowered there would be an additional cost to the mechanical system and applicant. Ms. Adams said the Pan Abode is so small that anything behind it will feel big. She further said that with the two large trees in the front yard that will be preserved, and the addition will fit in nicely behind the frame. Mr. Halferty asked staff which roof line they prefer. Ms. Simon stated that option three or four with lower eave height is more sympathetic. PUBLIC COMMENT: David Scruggs neighbor. Mr. Scruggs thanked Ms. Simon for answering all of his questions that he had sent her and commended the applicant team for being responsive. He stated that the Pan Abode is twelve feet tall and is a product of the 40’s & 50’s and would be pretty difficult to live in by today’s standards without a modern addition. Mr. Scruggs stated that he is in favor of option one. He explained the eves and gable compliment the Pan Abode along with the simplicity of the form. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson said that the fenestration changes are great and definitely add a bit of playfulness to the different structures. She said she is torn between the options and that she likes them all. Ms. Greenwood agreed with Ms. Thompson about the fenestration changes. Ms. Greenwood stated that she likes option four the most. She explained that option four is the most sympathetic and best solution to simplifying the addition. Ms. Greenwood said when you compare to option one, option one has two different roof pitches and is much more complicated. She stated when HPC discusses Victorian homes with additions, the gable will always face the same way as the historic resource does and that same theme should follow with the Pan Abode. Ms. Greenwood said that she agrees with the materials and articulations. 186 Mr. Kendrick said that he agrees with staff that option three and four do bring the massing down however option one and two work better architecturally. He stated that he likes the fenestration and overall details that have been added. He said he is willing to move forward with option one or two. Ms. Greenwood asked Mr. Kendrick if he thinks the roofline of options one and two are a bit busy after reviewing options three and four. Mr. Kendrick stated he does not think so. Mr. Halferty stated that it is tough when you have a small Pan Abode and adding a large addition. He said he appreciates the fence redesign. He said he agrees with Ms. Greenwood that it does get busy. Ms. Thompson stated that the elegant sloping roofline of option four of the addition against the Pan Abode is a success and clean. Ms. Greenwood stated that she likes that the chimney of the Pan Abode and the new addition is on the same side. She said it tells a similar story. Ms. Thompson agrees and said it was very playful and sympathetic. Mr. Halferty stated that the plate height is too tall. Ms. Greenwood asked if the plate height is the same for each option. Mr. Rowland stated that the plate height does not change in any option. Mr. Moyer stated that this is a tough decision since the Pan Abode is 12 feet tall. He suggested a way around the height problem is to raise the Pan Abode a few feet with the foundation. He said that he would support a plate height reduction on the second floor. Mr. Moyer stated he likes option 3. He explained he likes the playfulness of the dormer. He said he could go with option 4 as well. Ms. Greenwood stated that you don’t see dormers on a Pan Abode redo concept. She said that the dormer is not successful. Ms. Greenwood said that you can’t tell what is old versus new with option four. She explained that option four follows the design idea into the future quietly especially from the street. Mr. Moyer restated that he is fine with option four. Mr. Kendrick stated that he prefers option four to option three, he explained that the dormer makes it too symmetrical between the three peaks of the entry of the Pan Abode, the dormer, and the new addition. Mr. Kendrick said that option four almost blends in too much to the Pan Abode and if HPC is looking for a product of its own time, option one or two delivers. 187 Ms. Thompson stated that the simplistic detailing on the new addition will be very clear and the difference will be highlighted while complementing. Ms. Thompson said that she could have been on board with the dormer if it was on the entrance to the new addition and more of a direct relation to the Pan Abode, however since it is a simple window there is no real relation and cannot support. Ms. Greenwood asked if the chimney on the new addition sits above the ridgeline as the Pan Abode does. Mr. Rowland said no the chimney will not sit on the ridgeline. He said that the chimney might look a bit short but the Pan Abode set a precedent. Ms. Thompson stated that she understands the concern about the plate height. She explained that it is extremely changing to add a two-story resource behind a one-story and not knowing that the addition is behind it. She stated that she is ok with the plate height. Ms. Greenwood stated that she is ok with plate height. She explained that if there was a reduction of any sort, that is should be on the 8:12 pitch over the entry. Ms. Greenwood said that she has no objections to the 4:12 pitch plate height. Ms. Greenwood stated that Ms. Thompson, Mr. Moyer, and herself agree with option four. She asked Mr. Halferty and Mr. Kendrick where is their thinking. Mr. Halferty stated that it is between option four and one. He explained he is always looking for a lower plate height on new additions. Mr. Kendrick stated that he is between options one and four and leaning towards one. Ms. Greenwood stated that HPC agrees that this project should move forward. Ms. Simon said that unanimous consent would be very helpful. Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #025-2020 with attached conditions and option four, for the roof form. Ms. Greenwood stated that they did not ask the architects which option they preferred. Ms. Adams stated they preferred option one and so does the neighbor. Ms. Greenwood seconded the motion. Ms. Greenwood stated that option one and four are the best. She said that she is in total agreement with staff about option four. 188 Mr. Kendrick asked if the applicant could state which option, he would prefer for him and his family. Matt Joblon owner. Mr. Joblon stated that his goals are to get an incredible home built that is long-lasting and sets a new standard with HPC. He said that the reality is if it is option one or four, it won’t change his family’s life. Mr. Joblon stated that he is excited to get this job done and would like for HPC to be proud to be coauthors of this world-class project with unanimous consent. Ms. Greenwood called for a roll call vote. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Thompson stated that all the requests that the applicant is requesting is extremely reasonable and should be an easy yes for City Council. She said that HPC is very excited about this project. Mr. Kendrick said he would like to reiterate Ms. Thompson’s comments. Adjourn All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. 189 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 28 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Scott Kendrick, Kara Thompson, Roger Moyer, Gretchen Greenwood. Commissioners not in attendance: Sherri Sanzone Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jim True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk NEW BUSINESS: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue– AspenModern Historic Designation Conceptual Major Development Review including Relocation, Variations. Sara Adams of BendonAdams and John Rowland of Rowland+Broughton Architecture. Ms. Adams stated that AspenModern has a 90 day turn around, meaning this project will be moving pretty fast. Ms. Adams stated that there have been multiple demolition permits pulled on this property until AspenModern was adopted. Ms. Adams stated that they will only be asking for what is needed and what will work for the resource. Ms. Adams said that they are requesting for AspenModern is Landmark Designation, FAR Bonus, Deck Bonus, Waiver for Tree mitigation along the alley. Ms. Adams said that their request for Restoration with a demolition of the non-historic addition. Ms. Adams stated that the HP conceptual design with a temporary relocation for a basement, she explained that the Pan Abode will be placed back into its original location. Ms. Adams said the only variation that is needed is in the rear yard for living space. Ms. Adams stated that the location of the project along Hopkins is among other historic designated properties. Ms. Adams said that the Pan Abode is a rustic style of architecture, essentially a log kit with overlapping corners with a tongue and groove construction. Ms. Adams stated that this was a quick and affordable construction and is indicative of Aspen of post-World War II as a ski resort and destination. She further explained that the Pan Abode was built in 1956 and is the best example of a Pan Abode in Aspen with an extremely high level of integrity. Ms. Adams stated that she scored the historic resource with a perfect score and Ms. Simon scored it one point less due to the lack of a recessed entry. Ms. Adams stated that there will be a restoration effort on the Pan Abode. She explained that the restoration will be restoring the rear façade, removing the paint, removal of added shutters, repair and replace logs, improving the foundation through the adding of a basement, and finally the replacing of the roof in kind. Ms. Adams said that there are a lot of conceptual challenges on this property. She explained that it is a 6000sf lot with two large sprues trees that frame the resource. Ms. Adams said that the goal of this project is to keep the new construction detached while restoring the Pan Abode to its original footprint while maintaining 10 feet of separation between the two buildings. Ms. Adams stated that the Pan Abode is set back 15 feet from the front property line and the required setback is 10 feet but due to the spruce trees, the Pan Abode can not shift forward. Ms. Adams pointed out that the shape of the new building resembles the Pan Abode as a simple rectangle. She stated that the access for the new building is from the alley mimicking the symmetrical entrance of the historic resource or a sidewalk off Hopkins. Ms. Adams stated that they are required to have 10 feet of living space in the back and asking for a variance of 2 feet. Ms. Adams stated that they tried to balance the three main elements of HP 190 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 28 2020 conceptual design form, fenestration, and materials. Ms. Adams referenced the shallow roof of the designated Search and Rescue Pan Abode on Main Street for the new addition’s roof form. Ms. Adams said the width of the new addition will be the same as the historic resource. She explained, to break up the long façade of the new building one roofline of the new addition will have a more traditional gable while relating to the historic landmarks around the neighborhood and having contemporary glazing. The second roofline will have a Pan Abode form with a more of a direct relationship with the historic resource. Ms. Adams stated that the material that will be used on the new addition will be wood and there will be more detail at the final review. She said that Ms. Simon raised concern in the staff memo that this could come across too similar. Ms. Adams pointed out the overlapping corners on the new addition and stated that the owners wanted to bring some small references from the rescuers to the new addition. Ms. Adams stated that there will be a full basement under the Pan Abode, she said they have worked with the Parks Department in respect to the Spruce trees. Ms. Adams showed a rendering of each floor plan of the new addition. She explained that on the second and third floors of the new addition there will be decks carved out and are along the alley and not visible from Hopkins St and there will be no visible impact on the Pan Abode. Ms. Adams reiterated the community and property benefits. Mr. Rowland stated that it was very critical to his team was that the new architecture needed to be distinguished yet quiet, and the form needed to be pure and honest. Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant would be paying the parking fee for the historic resource since there will be no parking for that structure. Ms. Adams stated that there currently is no parking for the Pan Abode and that they are able to keep that condition. She said that they are required for two parking spaces for the new addition which has been met. Ms. Thompson stated that there was a note about a 3-foot setback on the side of the structure. Ms. Adams stated that was a carryover, that there was a lightwell that was proposed, and ultimately it was taken out. Ms. Thompson asked if the proposed railing up to code. Mr. Rowland stated that the railing is up to code. Ms. Thompson asked if the walkway that is under the trees has been reviewed by the Parks Dept. Ms. Adams stated that yes, the Parks Dept. has reviewed all walkways and have met on-site with them multiple times. Mr. Moyer asked how will the paint be removed. Ms. Adams stated that they will be doing a few spot tests on the section of wood that will be taken down. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that there is great enthusiasm for this project and that HPC has talked for over twenty years about preserving post-war area historic properties and that it is properties like this that we are dedicated to the preservation for our community. Ms. Simon said that this is the first designation that has come in since the reductions of benefits for a property. Ms. Simon stated that the benefits that are being requested are entirely fair since this application is starting out not as far along as previous discussions. Ms. Simon stated that there is less floor area bonus available, mitigation for affordable housing which the applicant is doing. Ms. Simon said that this is a negotiation and HPC will be making recommendations to City Council and then Council will be the ones deciding if the designation and requested benefits are appropriate. Ms. Simon further explained after Council's review then the project will return to HPC for final review. Ms. Simon stated that staff recommended a continuation and some of the 191 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 28 2020 issues that raised concern have been resolved in the previous restudy. She said that the Engineering Department has requested a larger easement for the transformer and that is why the building placement had to be adjusted. She further explained that there have been conversations with the Electric Department to see if any of the clearances can be supplied by the ally rather than the property. Ms. Simon stated that the Parks Dept. has agreed to the removal of the trees in the alley and that a few of the trees have grown so close they have cut off access. Ms. Simon stated that the idea of AspenModern is everyone working together to achieve a common goal. Ms. Simon said that staff suggested a restudy on a fence on the westside of the Pan Abode, the fence is 6-feet tall and would block views from Hopkins, and that it looks like it has been removed from the site plan. Ms. Simon said that this would be an easy issue to discuss at the final. Ms. Simon stated that there were concerns raised about the compatibility with the new structure and the Pan Abode. She further explained that it is the shallow pitch gable end behind the Pan Abode is what is causing concern with relationship and scale. Ms. Simon said that the material is matching so well that it is reading as an attached structure to the historic building and would like to see the material restudied for the best fit for the site. Ms. Simon stated that staff supports all the benefits that have been requested, tree mitigation waivers, and the applicant has asked for an expedited permit review process which is an easy way to reduce cost and move things along faster. She stated that the applicant has asked for some floor area bonus for closed space and deck space. Ms. Simon stated that the final condition would be financial reinsurance for relocation to be posted. Ms. Greenwood asked what aspect of the roof needed to be restudied. Ms. Simon stated that they cited three guidelines in chapter 11 which are the guidelines for new buildings on a historic lot. She further explained that chapter 11 talks about form, fenestration, materials picked, scale relationship, and form relationship to the historic resource. Ms. Simon stated that the street-facing gable end on the new building and a pretty shallow roof but is pretty broad and imposing on the Pan Abode. PUBLIC COMMENT: David Scruggs neighbor. Mr. Scruggs stated that he is very pleased that the Pan Abode is going to be preserved. Mr. Scruggs said that he has spoken with the applicant's team and finds them to be very fourth right and transparent. Mr. Scruggs stated that he supports the project. COMMISSIONER COMMENT: Ms. Adams stated that the fence Ms. Simon referenced is still in the plan. Ms. Adams said that they are still finessing the plan and where the best location for it. Ms. Greenwood asked if it is the plan to take the fence at 6-feet on the east and westside. Ms. Adams stated that is not the plan. She explained that on the west side there is a fence which code allows a 6-foot fence. Ms. Adams said that there is fencing in between the Pan Abode and the new structure to create a cornhole area. She further said that they will be looking at other ideas to define the yards and can discuss more at the final review. Ms. Greenwood stated that this is a beautiful project. Ms. Greenwood said that it is like a modern Pan Abode look and an excellent addition. She said that her first thoughts were that the massing is a bit overwhelming, however, after further review from different angles this project is appropriate and well done. Ms. Greenwood stated that she does not agree with staff on the restudy for the roof. She explained having the same width and style of the roof pulls the two together. Ms. Greenwood stated that she would be in favor of moving this forward except for the fence. She said that the fence cuts of the property to the community to see the past architecture 192 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 28 2020 with a modern complement. Ms. Greenwood said that she would be in favor of something that would not obliterate the historic sides and shields the beautiful yards. Ms. Thompson stated that restoration is phenomenal. She further stated that she is in support of all the floor area bonus, variations, and everything that Ms. Adams has listed. Ms. Thompson said that she agrees with Ms. Greenwood about the fence and would be nice to see a bit more of the resource from the street. Ms. Thompson stated that she agrees with staff that the front plane of the roof is beautiful and elegant. Ms. Thompson explained that the shed roof takes away from the rest of the proportion of the structure. She further explained that this style makes sense on the historic resource, however, when the scaling up to two stories it seems out of place. Mr. Halferty stated he appreciates the volunteering for designation. Mr. Halferty said he also has an issue with the scale of the addition and agrees with staff. He said he appreciates that the new addition is detached but the scale still feels large. Mr. Halferty stated that he agrees with HPC about the fence, and should be restudied for scale and transparency. Mr. Halferty said he agrees with Ms. Thompson about the shed form that it might not be the most appropriate form. He stated that overall this is a great project and thanked all the City departments that worked on this project. Mr. Halferty stated he would support a continuance on this project to flush out any concerns on the new construction. Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with staff about the awkwardness of the roof form. He said that he agrees with fellow commissioners about the restudy of the fence. Mr. Moyer said that it was great to hear support from the neighbor and overall this is a great project. Mr. Kendrick stated that this is a project that he struggles with. He explained that overall this is a great project and likes the preservation aspects and agrees with all the asks. Mr. Kendrick said that he agrees with the concern about the fence. He stated that the roof form of the north elevation of the main mass feels too big. Ms. Greenwood stated that she agrees with Mr. Kendrick about the north elevation and that a breakdown of scale does not happen, unlike the south elevation. Mr. Kendrick stated that he would like to see the north elevation restudied. He said that he would like to see the project move forward with a few restudies. Ms. Greenwood stated that the 3:12 roof pitch is what pulls the whole project together and would not want to see the roof pitch change. She said that she was surprised that the alley neighbors did not want to comment on the south elevation’s fenestration. Ms. Greenwood said that this is not too different from the swiss chalets that are seen throughout the town and that the shallow 3:12 pitch is what makes this project so successful. Ms. Greenwood reiterated that she would like to see the project move forward. Mr. Kendrick stated that he disagrees with Ms. Greenwood about the alley elevation that there is a lot of options to break the elevation. He explained that there is a lot more interest from the southside with the wrap-around deck, rooftop deck, all the different windows, and the garage doors. Ms. Greenwood stated that the Pan Abode is a pretty simple rectangle and the architects are successful in mimicking that and there is a strong relationship between the two. Ms. Greenwood said the new addition does dominate the resource, but it complements the resource in form. Ms. Thompson said that the typical 3:12 overhang in town is much deeper. She explained working with the façade depth could help break it apart. Ms. Greenwood asked what is the proposed overhang on the new addition and the current overhang of the Pan Abode. Mr. Rowland stated that the existing eve is 16 inches and the modern eve will be 4 inches. 193 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 28 2020 Ms. Greenwood stated that the applicant could bring the overhangs of the new addition out a bit more to break up the flat wall. Mr. Moyer said when you have a vertical wall with no overhang it makes the building seems more imposing. Ms. Adams asked with the tight turn around the board is wanting a restudy on the depth of the overhang rather than the 3:12 pitch. Ms. Greenwood stated that the roof pitch and overhang are very strong with the Pan Abode and the new addition should reflect that. Ms. Thompson moved to continue 211 W. Hopkins Avenue to November 18th. Mr. Halferty seconded. Ms. Simon reviewed the topic of conditions that will be reviewed at the November 18th meeting. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Sanzone, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. ADJOURN: All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. _________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy Clerk 194 UP WDUP A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 4 A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 MEDIA LAUNDRY GUEST SUITE #3 BATH MECHANICAL MULTI WET BAR BELOW STAIRBUNKS ABOVE BATH TV 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL B B W D C C D D 2 3 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0"48' - 0"GUEST SUITE #4 Q T T PROPERTY LINE ALLEYSETBACK OPEN TO ABOVE CHIMNEY FOUNDATION HOPKINS AVENUESETBACKPROPERTY LINEA4.3 2 80' - 1 3/8" 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL PROPERTY LINE SETBACKHIDDEN DOORMECHANICAL / LAUNDRY BEDROOM BEDROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM FLEX ROOM 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL K Q rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 9:43:03 AM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.0 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.0 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 195 DN UP DN A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 448' - 0"A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 MUD POWDER COVERED STONE ENTRYOPEN TO ABOVE AND BELOW WALK FENCE AND GATEGARAGE EXISTING CABIN WITH ADDITION REMOVED GRAVEL ALLEYSETBACKPROPERTY LINEEGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW FIREPLACE STONE WALK HOPKINS AVENUEEGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW GUEST SUITE #2 (GEMMA) GUEST BATH B B GUEST BATH GUEST SUITE #1 (LOLA) Q COAT CLOSET BOOK SHELVES11' - 0"CLERESTORY WINDOWOFFICE KITCHEN BATHROOM BEDROOM STAIR LIVING ROOM CABIN GARDEN TERRACE C C D D 2 3DRESSERDRESSER10' - 6 3/4" A4.3 2 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8"FENCE AND GATEFENCE AND GATEFENCE AND GATE T REF CLOSETPROPERTY LINE SETBACK PROPERTY LINE SETBACK COVERED ENTRY CONCRETE APRON10 3/8"5' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0" OPEN TO BELOW EGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW EGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW 27' - 7"5' - 0 1/8" TR R WILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSUREFENCE AND GATE3' - 0"VAULT5' - 0"3' - 0"VAULT 5' - 0"1' - 0"3' - 0"1' - 0"MIN. 4" 4 1/2" 4' - 0"3' - 0" CONCRETE PAD 3' - 0" BOLLARDS rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 9:58:50 AM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.1 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.1 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 196 DN UP A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 4 A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 COVERED TERRACE MAIN BED BALLAST FLAT ROOF ABOVE ENTRY EXISTING CABIN ROOF, ADDITION REMOVED CHIMNEYPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEK TV / FP B B LIVING ROOM KITCHEN OPEN TO BEYOND OPEN TO BEYOND TV / FP ALLEYC C D D 2 348' - 0"REFBAR BBQCOVERED ENTRY A4.3 2 MAIN WIC MAIN BATH BENCH 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEHOPKINS AVENUEPANTRY WOOD PAN ABODE LOG SCREEN, ALTERNATING CORNER NEW WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 9:59:35 AM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.2 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.2 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 197 DN A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 4 A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 CHIMNEY BAR TOWELS OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW B B EXISTING CABIN ROOF ADDITION REMOVED LIVING ROOM CHIMNEY MAIN BEDROOM CHIMNEY ROOF DECK SPA C C D D 2 348' - 0"FP BALLAST ROOF OVER ENTRY A4.3 2 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEALLEYHOPKINS AVENUE3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0" NEW WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0"8 3/8" / 1'-0"8 3/8" / 1'-0"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF BALLAST ROOF rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jrice\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_jonathan.riceLVAMF.rvt11/10/2020 10:29:28 AM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.3 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 198 rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\jgeorge\Documents\22037.00_Pan Abode - 2020-11-16 V4_detached_jgeorgeZGMCR.rvt11/17/2020 12:38:29 PMA4.5 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR VIEWS VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 3 ENTRY VIEW -OPTION 3 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 3 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 3/4 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 4 ENTRY VIEW -OPTION 4 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 4 Approved Option 4 199 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM September 22, 2020 Revised November 20, 2020 Historic Preservation Commission and Aspen City Council c/o Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 211 West Hopkins Avenue – AspenModern Application Dear City Council and Staff, Please accept this application for voluntary AspenModern historic designation. As part of the AspenModern negotiation the following reviews are included in this application: Conceptual Major Development Review, Setback Variation, Historic Benefits, Relocation, 19sf of deck exemption, and 135sf of the FAR Bonus for the property located at 211 West Hopkins Avenue. Property Background The property is 6,000sf in size and is located in the R-6 Zone District along West Hopkins Avenue. A small Pan Abode home, constructed in 1956, sits centered at the front of the property with two large spruce trees framing the log kit residence. There are surprisingly few alterations to this structure, all of which are reversible: a 1970s Pan Abode style addition is located on the rear (south)elevation, a few windows have been enlarged on the east elevation, shutters were added in the 1960s, and the exterior logs were painted. This is the best example of Pan Abode in Aspen. Figure 1: 211 West Hopkins Avenue, circa 1958. Photograph courtesy Aspen Historical Society. 200 Page 2 of 6 Figure 2: 211 West Hopkins, circa 1965. Figure 3: 211 West Hopkins, 2020. 201 Page 3 of 6 Rustic Style - Pan Abodes The AspenModern program recognizes Pan Abode construction as a historically significant representation of Aspen’s post World War II Rustic Style. Pan Abode is a type of pre-fabricated construction technique popular during the housing boom after World War II. Similar to a life-sized version of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Lincoln Log toy, Pan Abodes were an affordable do-it-yourself option that ‘fit in’ to the rustic mountain town context of Aspen as a vacation destination. Pan Abodes in Aspen were primarily sold by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company out of Renton, Washington. The logs were milled of Western Red Cedar and were joined on the top and bottom with a single tongue and groove design that fitted tightly to avoid any chinking or interior insulation. Building corners reveal the interlocking tongue and groove system – which is a signature characteristic of Pan Abode construction, and is preserved at 211 West Hopkins. According to the City of Aspen’s Pan Abode context paper, character defining feature are as follows, all of which are evident at 211 West Hopkins: • 3” x 6” single tongue and groove cedar log construction • Overlapping notches at the corners • Original wood framed, multi-light picture window • Low pitched roof, usually gabled but occasionally shed • Deep overhanging eaves • Recessed entrance with rounded or squared corners. At the height of their popularity in the 1950s and 1960s, Jack Holst was the official Pan Abode Cedar Homes representative living and selling homes in Aspen. He worked with the local Marthinsson Nostdahl Construction Company to build new Pan Abodes in Aspen for about $10 a square foot. Aspen used to have numerous Pan Abodes throughout town due to the quick and affordable construction style; however, most of these modest homes have been heavily altered or demolished due to the small footprint and lack of interior insulation. Pan Abode homes were indicative of the post-World War II renaissance of Aspen as an international ski resort. These affordable and easy to assemble buildings contributed to the development of vacation homes and the establishment of Aspen as a destination. As stated in the City of Aspen’s Pan Abode context paper: Aspen’s Pan Abode buildings represent six important hallmarks of the postwar era: • The pre-manufactured building movement following World War II; • Do-It-Yourself attitudes; • Rustic Style residential architecture; • Affordable construction attainable by many; • Adaptable architecture to suit a wide variety of building functions; and • Close associations with the rise of Aspen’s international ski and tourism industries. The adopted period of significance according to the City of Aspen’s documentation is 1956 – 1970 – 211 West Hopkins was constructed in 1956. The AspenModern website lists 7 Pan Abodes in the City of Aspen: 4 are designated historic landmarks (1 of which is city owned), and most have been heavily altered with additions, roof form changes, and window replacements. 211 West Hopkins Avenue is arguably the best example of pan abode style in Aspen and scores 20 points out of a possible 20 points (Exhibit B) with the proposed restoration work – removal of a 1970s 202 Page 4 of 6 addition, window restoration, and paint removal. The proposed project removes development pressure from the cabin and ensures the preservation of this exemplary pan abode without alteration. AspenModern Proposal A 6,000 sf lot in the R-6 zone district is allowed 3,240sf of floor area. The current Pan Abode is about 1,146sf leaving roughly 2,094sf of unused floor area on the property. Historic properties are allowed an additional dwelling unit on a 6,000sf lot in the R-6 zone district as an incentive for historic preservation that removes development pressure from the historic landmark. The development pressure on this property is evident in the numerous demolition permits applied for and issued since 2001. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines strongly recommend detached new construction on a historic landmark site, especially when the landmark is one story. This successful concept shifts development pressure from the landmark to a separate structure which clearly delineates between new and old construction, avoids altering the historic resource, and provides open space on the lot. The 211 project is consistent with this tenet and proposes to restore the footprint of the Pan Abode to the original 1956 rectangular shape, remove non-historic paint and shutters, restore the south elevation in accordance with historic photographs, dig a basement under the pan abode, and construct a new detached single family home at the rear of the property. This project is aligned with the allowances in the Land Use Code and previous AspenModern negotiations for properties with much lower integrity and significance scores. The proposed new building has a strong relationship to the simple pan abode. Subtle detailing - such as overlapping boards at the corners of the rain screen – create a relationship between the two homes and highlights important characteristics of the pan abode. Window styles and shapes, roof shape and slope, and the simple material palette of the new home reflect the pan abode and reinforce the important features of this simple manufactured pan abode style. A summary of the AspenModern request is found in Table 1 and described below. Table 1: AspenModern Request & Fee Summary (estimated based on 2,469sf floor area increase) Fee Request Affordable Housing 0.4 FTEs at Category 2 ~ $137,040 cash in lieu No request. TDM/Air Quality ~$1,506.09 No request. Parks Development ~$13,456.05 No request. Tree Removal Mitigation ~ $20,122.75 Request wavier of tree removal mitigation. Building Permit Review n/a Expedited permit review. Dimensional Variations n/a Rear setback – 2’ for living space (8’ provided) Historic Development Benefits n/a 135 sf FAR bonus; 19sf of deck exemption 203 Page 5 of 6 Tree Removal Mitigation – The trees along the alleyway are very closely spaced which impacts their health and the ability to utilize the alley as a vehicular access point to the property, which is a Code requirement. A tree health assessment is included as Exhibit Q, and the Parks Department has been to the site many times. The ability to remove the trees along the alleyway directly impacts the location of new construction and increases the distance between the cabin and new building. The most significant trees on the property that contribute to the Pan Abode’s context, setting and overall Rustic Style are the two large spruce trees in the front yard that frame the cabin. These are proposed to remain and to be protected. Building Permit – AspenModern properties are allowed to request expedited building permit review in accordance with the City’s adopted policy. This incentive is focused on review process rather than on development fees or development incentives and helps get a historic project, associated restoration and maintenance started sooner than the typical permit review time. Variations and Historic Benefits – A few variations are requested that mitigate adverse impacts on the cabin by pushing floor area below grade and toward the alley. • An FAR Bonus of 135sf is requested for restoration of the cabin’s south elevation and the original footprint. • A rear yard setback variation for living space to be 8ft where 10ft is required is requested to push development away from the pan abode. A stacked deck at the second floor and rooftop along the alley breaks up the south (alley) elevation and avoids the visual impacts of a tall two story mass fronting the alley. • As part of the AspenModern negotiation we respectfully request a deck exemption of 19sf be applied to the new building at 211 West Hopkins. We request outdoor decks on the second floor and rooftop of the new building - these spaces are meaningful, useful and add to the livability of the project, and more importantly do not impact the historic preservation of the Pan Abode. We feel that the community benefit of designating 211 West Hopkins as a local landmark and restoring the original footprint far outweighs the requested AspenModern incentives. We presented the project to HPC during two public hearings and removed a setback variation request for a lightwell and a floor area request for basement space. During the HPC hearings we designed four different roof form options to address concerns about mass and scale. Working closely with HPC and Staff results in unanimous support for the option that we are presenting to City Council. 211 West Hopkins is the best example of Pan Abode construction in Aspen which represents the pre-manufactured building movement following World War II that contributed to the development of Aspen’s international ski and tourism industries. Thank you for reviewing this application. We look forward to presenting this project and preserving this important piece of Aspen’s history. Please reach out if you need additional information to complete your review. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP 204 Page 6 of 6 Exhibits A – AspenModern B – Pan Abode Integrity Score C – City of Aspen Pan Abode Context Paper D – HPC Design Reviews 1. HP Conceptual Review Criteria 2. FAR Bonus 3. Setback Variation 4. Parking 5. Relocation E – Pre application summary F – Agreement to Pay G – Land Use application H – HOA form I – Authorization to represent J – Proof of ownership K – Vicinity Map L – Mailing List M – Streetscape context images N – Stamped survey O – Residential Design Standards for new home P - Drawing set including 3D renderings Q – Aspen Tree Service Tree Assessment R – Preliminary storm water summary 205 Exhibit A AspenModern Exhibit A – AspenModern 26.415.025. - Identification of historic properties. (a) Surveys, Maps and Historic Context Papers. The Community Development Director shall conduct or cause to be conducted such preliminary surveys, studies or investigations as deemed necessary or advisable to adequately inform City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission of those properties located within the City which represent Aspen's 19th and 20th century history. The Community Development Director shall memorialize the results of surveys, studies and investigations in a series of historic inventory forms, maps and historic context papers. Said inventory forms, maps, and context papers shall be maintained by the Community Development Department and shall be made available for public inspection at all reasonable times. New inventory forms, maps and historic context papers shall not be adopted by City Council except for every tenth year, starting in January 2011. These resources shall be referenced by the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council when reviewing applications for designation. Response – 211 West Hopkins Avenue is identified on the AspenModern map, is referenced in the adopted Pan Abode context paper (attached as Exhibit C), and has been included in City of Aspen surveys since 2000. In addition, the National Trust for Historic Preservation sponsored a booklet on AspenModern properties that features 211 West Hopkins as shown below. Figure 1: AspenModern booklet Figure 2: Page featuring 211 West Hopkins Avenue. 206 Exhibit A AspenModern (c) AspenModern Properties. Properties associated with Aspen's 20th century history shall be called AspenModern. Properties identified on the AspenModern Map shall be eligible for certain preservation benefits without being designated by City Council and may be awarded preservation incentives above and beyond those identified at Section 26.415.110, as follows. Property owners are encouraged to meet proactively with the historic preservation commission before undertaking development plans to receive preliminary feedback on appropriate development and benefits. (1) Ninety-Day Negotiation Period. In the case that the owner of a property on the AspenModern Map submits a land use application which includes voluntary landmark designation, a negotiation period of up to 90 days shall be initiated. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this 90-day negotiation period shall accompany the land use application. The 90-day negotiation period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by the Council, or longer if mutually acceptable to both the Council and the property owner. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing any land use application or building permit affecting the subject property during the 90-day negotiation period. Response - The contract purchaser and the property owner understand the AspenModern negotiation process and the ability to withdraw or to extend the application should an agreement not be met within the 90-day time frame. 2) Voluntary review/Processing Advantages. Owners of properties included on the AspenModern Map who voluntarily comply with the provisions of this Chapter may proceed with approved work without making application for designation. The Community Development Director shall consider waiver or reduction of permit fees for the subject work. If this is not achievable within the City budget, the Community Development Director shall ensure that the land use application and building permit review proceed ahead of all other applications except those associated with affordable housing and Essential Public Facilities. Response – The applicant respectfully requests an expedited permit review for the proposed project. (3) Transferable Development Rights. Properties which are included on the AspenModern Map shall be eligible to create and sell transferable development rights according to the provisions of Chapter 26.535 of this Code, even if they are not designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Response – TDRs are not requested at this time. (4) Removal from AspenModern Map. Owners of properties included on the AspenModern Map may apply to the Community Development Director to be removed from the AspenModern Map. If the property owner indicates in writing that they have no interest in designation or negotiation, the property shall be removed from the AspenModern Map and the Community Development Director shall issue the owner a certificate documenting the removal from the map. Except upon the written request and consent of the owner(s) of the subject property at the time of the request, the subject property shall not be eligible for historic designation in the City of Aspen for a period of ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this certificate. The certificate shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Response – n/a. 207 Exhibit A AspenModern (5) Addition to AspenModern Map. Owners of properties not included on the AspenModern Map may apply to the Community Development Director to be added to the map by submitting a written request. The Community Development Director shall determine if the property is eligible, based on the designation criteria. Response – n/a. Sec. 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. (c) AspenModern. (1) Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two (2) of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; Response – 211 West Hopkins represents the pre-manufactured building movement following World War II that contributed to the development of Aspen’s international ski and tourism industries. The pan abode style is documented in an adopted context paper., and is considered part of Rustic Style residential architecture (typically log cabins and heavy timbers) that is important on a regional and national level as a symbol of the nation’s interest in pioneer life out west. Pan abode cabins embody the Rustic log cabin aesthetic but with a post-World War II pre- manufactured approach. b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; Response – n/a. c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic 208 Exhibit A AspenModern achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; Response – 211 West Hopkins scores 20 points out of 20 points on the integrity score sheet, and has long been regarded as the best example of pan abode style in Aspen. The distinctive characteristics of pan abode construction are all evident at 211 West Hopkins. Preservation of this disappearing type of construction and important style is imperative to Aspen’s post War heritage, as noted in the City’s pan abode context paper. d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and Response – According to the adopted context paper, it is believed that the City of Aspen had one of the largest collections of pan abode cabins in the State due in large part to local Jack Holst who was the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company representative. The City of Aspen is down to four protected pan abodes on the Historic Inventory, all of which have additions and alterations. The opportunity to protect 211 West Hopkins and to prevent future alterations or demolition will significantly contribute to the character and sense of place in Aspen and the AspenModern program. e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. Response – The property earns a perfect score on the integrity score sheets when considering the proposed restoration – paint removal, window restoration, and removal of the 1970s addition. Without the proposed restoration, the property still scores 18 out of 20 points. The building has never been moved, the two fir trees framing the cabin are intact, and the only alteration to the footprint is a 1970s pan abode addition on the rear of the structure. The high level of integrity, location, and setting contribute to the determination that 211 is the best example of pan abode residential construction in Aspen. The proposed project does not alter the pan abode in a way that impacts the integrity score or jeopardizes the significance of the structure. 209 1) Tongue and groove cedar log construction Character Defining Features of the Rustic (manufactured) Style 4) Low-pitched roof, usually gabled but occasionally shed 7) All or most of features 1-6 must be visible at the front façade. Total Points, 0 – 10 8) Natural, stained wood2) Overlapping notches at corners 3) Original wood framed, multi-light picture window 5) Deep overhanging eaves Check box if statement is true. One point per box. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A building must have 6 of the 10 character defining features, either present or clearly documented through photographic of physical evidence to qualify as Rustic (manufactured) Style. Restoration may be required as part of the award of incentives. If the property earned 6 or more points, continue to the next page. If the property earned less than 6 points, scoring ends. 9) Simple, rectilinear footprint 10) One story 6) Recessed entrance with rounded or squared corners 8 9 10 x x x x x x x x x x 10 points 210 1 2 3 4 - 10 211 West Hopkins Ave. The numbers correspond to page 1 of the integrity score sheet. 211 INTEGRITY SCORING If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: Best: 15 up to 20 points Better: 12 up to 15 points Good: 10 up to 12 points Not Eligible:0 up to 10 points Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- mum of 10 points: LOCATION OF BUILDING ON THE LOT: The building is in its original location.2 points The building has been shi ft ed on the original parcel, but maintains its original alignment and/or proximity to the street.1 point SETTING: The property is located within the geographical area surrounded by Castle Creek, the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain.1 point The property is outside of the geographical area surround by Castle Creek, the Raoring Fork River and Aspen Mountain.1/2 point DESIGN: The form of the building (footprint, roof and wall planes) are unaltered from the original design.3 points a.) The form of the building has been altered but less than 25% of the original walls have been removed, OR b.) The alterations to the form all occur at the rear of the subject building, OR c.) The form of the building has been altered but the addi tion is less than 50% of the size of the original building, OR d.) There is a roof top addi tion that is less than 50% of the footprint of the roof. 2 points MATERIALS Exterior materials The original exterior materials of the building are still in place, with the exception of normal maintenance and repairs.2 points 50% of the exterior materials have been replaced, but the replacements match the original condi tion.1 point Windows and doors The original windows and doors of the building are still in place, with the exception of normal maintenance and repairs.2 points 50% of the original windows and doors have been replaced, but the replacements match the original condi tion.1 point 10 points 10 points 20 points 212 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context Prepared For: City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Prepared By: TEC, Inc. 1658 Cole Boulevard, Suite 190 Golden, Colorado 80401 Generously funded in part by the Modernism + Recent Past Intervention Fund, National Trust for Historic Preservation. 213 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 1 June 2010 Table of Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 2 The Pre-Manufactured Building in the U.S. ................................................................................... 2 The Pan Abode Companies ............................................................................................................. 7 Pan Abode Architecture .................................................................................................................. 7 Purchasing and Construction Process ........................................................................................... 11 Pan Abode Building Types in Aspen ............................................................................................ 13 Historic Significance of Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen .............................................................. 16 Period of Historic Significance ..................................................................................................... 17 References ..................................................................................................................................... 19 List of Figures Figure 1. Classic Notch System, as shown by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company ................. 7 Figure 2. A 1951 building by the Pan Abode Company’s sister-company in British Columbia, the Pan-Abode Company. ..................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Recessed entrance at 630 Main Street, built in 1965. ...................................................... 9 Figure 4. Curved brackets at the entrance of 1208/1210 Snowbunny Lane, built in 1965. ........... 9 Figure 5. A Chalet Style Pan Abode (demolished) ....................................................................... 10 Figure 6. The picture windows of Pan Abodes, as seen at 509 West Main Street, left, and 1355 Sage Court, right. .......................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7. Picture windows, as seen in 300 West Hyman. ............................................................ 11 Figure 8. Advertisement for Richard Wright, one of the Pan Abode contractors in Aspen, 1965 ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 9. 1970 Pan Abode single-family houses at 103 Ardmore (left) and 110 Ardmore (right). ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 10. Multiple family building at 403 and 404 Park Avenue, built in 1964. ....................... 14 214 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 2 Summary This historic context statement on Pan Abode buildings has been prepared for the City of Aspen to determine the potential significance of the city’s group of at least 50 buildings that were pre- manufactured by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Company and built in and around Aspen in the 1950s and 1960s. The City retained TEC Inc. (TEC) to conduct primary and secondary research to expand upon the existing information compiled on Pan Abode buildings in Aspen. Historical research focused on the local, regional, and national historic context of Pan Abode buildings and relevant historical themes. Resources consulted included materials from the City of Aspen, Pitkin County Assessor, Denver Public Library, Prospector Interlibrary loan, and historic maps, photographs, and newspaper archives. TEC also conducted oral history interviews with current and past Aspen residents familiar with the history of Pan Abode buildings to supplement information available in the written record. This historic context statement is an assessment of the significance of Pan Abode buildings in Aspen based on this research only. The project did not include fieldwork or evaluations of individual buildings; rather it assessed the significance of the Pan Abode building type using information compiled in this historic context. The City of Aspen provided the photographic illustrations included in this narrative. Based on this information, TEC recommends that the 1950s and 1960s-era Pan Abode buildings have historic significance on the local level in Aspen. The following paper explains this recommendation and includes a description of the Character-Defining Features of Pan Abode buildings. 215 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 3 The Pre-Manufactured Building in the U.S. The historical origins of the Pan Abode buildings of the 1950s and 1960s begin with the factory- made balloon frame houses made popular by the Sears, Roebuck & Co. mail-order catalog introduced in 1908 and, to a lesser degree, the Aladdin Homes catalog introduced in 1910. These pre-manufactured “kit” houses were essentially packages of pre-cut, numbered wood parts that were delivered to the desired building site to be easily erected by any person unskilled in the building trades. Their affordability and easy do-it-yourself construction became most attractive during the nation’s most uncertain economic times. Pre-manufactured building’s first wave of popularity followed the end of World War I in 1918 when soldiers returning home sought affordable housing in which to start a family. While new building technologies emerged throughout the Depression years of the 1930s, advances in pre-manufactured materials and building methods skyrocketed during the World War II years between 1942 and 1945 when the United States (U.S.) military concentrated its building efforts on fast, efficient, and inexpensive construction techniques. The private sector applied these techniques to meet urgent building needs that followed the end of the war. Six million returning veterans found an inadequate supply of suitable buildings to house themselves and their new families and pre-manufactured ready-to-assemble buildings became especially attractive to the many people in need of decent housing during the nation’s postwar housing crisis. It was this dire and urgent need for housing that spurred the second wave of factory-made buildings to new heights of affordability and sophistication (Ebong 2005). The population growth in the rest of the country boomed during the postwar years of the late 1940s and 1950s, but building activity was comparatively quiet in Aspen. The silver crash of 1893 deeply affected Aspen’s mining industries, and the town witnessed a dramatic decline that left it sparsely populated through the 1930s. Aspen struggled for the first three decades of the twentieth century until the commercial ski industry began to revive the town. The development of ski areas in and around Aspen in the 1930s and 1940s brought a renewed need for buildings and infrastructure. Although many of the nineteenth-century buildings were available for use, prospective buyers were required to pay back taxes on these properties, many of which carried unpaid property taxes since 1893. Thus by the early 1940s, buying property in Aspen became prohibitively expensive due to the accumulation of taxes owed on many of the existing properties. This circumstance made affordable building options an attractive feature of Pan Abode kit buildings, and for many it was the only way they could afford to live in Aspen during the early postwar years. 216 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 4 Although their low cost and easy construction was a critical factor, Pan Abode buildings also offered something more intangible than simply affordable shelter. Their log-frame architecture gave its inhabitants the romanticized rustic aesthetic that many sought in their mountain homes. The log cabin’s symbolism is deeply rooted in the American identity for its associations with the American frontier and our national ideals of rugged individualism. This identity and mythology is particularly entrenched in the American West, including Aspen, Colorado, where the town’s scenic mountainous surroundings became a backdrop for Rustic Style architecture as early as the 1930s. The Rustic Style developed in Colorado after 1905 and is identified through its log construction with battered walls, overhanging roofs, and small paned windows. The style grew out of the Pioneer Log structures found in Colorado which are often associated with the American west. After World War II, Americans extolled these ideals with even greater enthusiasm through popular culture and even children’s toys such as the iconic “Lincoln Logs” blocks. The Pan Abode’s cedar logs were grown, milled, and manufactured in a far-off location, but for many Americans these “log” buildings still resonated with their cultural past, even if they was a modern facsimile of a romanticized concept. For people looking for adventure, the Pan Abode’s self-built quality presented an opportunity for the “can-do” generation of the 1950s and 1960s to tackle a realistic project that reaped the rewards of an entirely new building. By the 1950s, “do-it-yourself” became a cultural phenomenon of the postwar generation. The attitude began as part of the postwar suburban ideal, but it undoubtedly carried into the vacation home. Many returning veterans welcomed the opportunity to apply technical skills they learned during the war toward realizing the postwar dream of a modern and comfortable new home (The National Building Museum 2003). In rural Colorado, people took this attitude one step farther in part due to the romanticized influence of the western frontier’s spirit of hearty self-reliance. Once Americans began establishing themselves as the well-off and burgeoning population of the middle class in the early 1950s, families began to enjoy recreational activities afforded by the nation’s newfound economic prosperity. They also enjoyed more leisure time than ever before. The New Deal’s Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 regulated a maximum 40-hour work-week, and after World War II the five-day work-week became typical. By 1950, leisure time accounted for over 34 percent of American’s waking lives (Gilbert 1995). At the same time, increasing personal wealth and the dramatic rise of personal automobile ownership gave Americans the freedom and mobility to venture outside of their hometowns in search of weekend getaways. Improved roads and the nation’s new interstate highway system provided access to areas not readily available before the war. Americans began traveling the highways and staying in motels 217 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 5 on Route 66 and at National Forest visitor cabins. As Americans discovered new communities, they sought modest vacation homes in their pursuit of outdoor leisure activities, such as skiing. Attracted to the town’s picturesque Rocky Mountain setting as well as its three highly regarded ski areas established by 1958, vacationers found their way to Aspen for lodging or to establish second homes. Kit buildings sold by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company fulfilled many of these buyers’ preferences for Rustic Style architecture in the mountain town. Pan Abodes were an affordable choice in addition to being easily transportable, and reflected the romanticized idea of a western log cabin. These buildings also interested buyers due to their simplicity and ease of construction. Pan Abodes were often viewed as a symbol of the do-it-yourself independence of the west. In 1947, 37,000 of kit homes built nationwide were constructed using prefabricated components, and by 1960 the number had grown to 126,000 houses, or nine percent of all homes built. Prefabricated techniques for permanent house construction in particular grew parallel with the increasing market for vacation homes (Randl 2004). This increasing need for vacation homes was especially visible in Aspen, where many of the Pan Abode buildings constructed in the 1950s and 1960s were used as second homes associated with the ski industry. Individuals and families from Denver, Texas, New York, and other areas around the country utilized the ease of construction and affordability associated with Pan Abode buildings in order to construct their vacation homes. The increasing interest in Aspen’s ski industry in the late 1950s is evidenced by an increase in the number of new homes constructed in the city between 1958 and 1959. According to the Aspen Times, eight new homes were constructed in 1958 while in 1959 that number increased to 19 (Aspen Times 1960a). During this era of second home growth, Pitkin County’s population increased roughly 44 percent and Highway 82 leading into Aspen saw a traffic increase which was the highest of any road in Colorado. In 1960, the road experienced a 10.9 percent increase in traffic over the 1959 numbers (Aspen Times 1960b). Aspen’s Pan Abode homes allowed many owners to purchase a second home when they might not otherwise have been able to afford the cost of building. On average new houses cost $15.00 a square foot to build in 1960; however, the cost of a Pan Abode structure averaged between $8.06 and $13.67 a square foot around this time. Indeed, during the early 1960s, Pan Abode buildings constructed in Aspen cost roughly $10.00 a square foot, significantly less than the national average (City of Aspen 2010). Ski areas that were largely run by local ski clubs before the war and catered to locals as well as a handful of elite clientele transformed themselves into business ventures during this era. New ski areas were established and older slopes were improved to serve the new postwar consumer 218 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 6 culture. Backed by prominent financiers, the ski industry aimed to attract all types of visitors, from destination skiers to weekend visitors from Denver. In the process, Aspen became home to some of the earliest well-developed ski areas in the country. In 1946, the Denver Post magazine headlined with “Money Fever is Running in Aspen Again: Famed Silver Town Looks to Day When It Will Be World Ski Capital.” Although other skis areas had also been established in Colorado and other western states at the time, in 1950 Aspen was chosen to host the International Skiing Federation championships, the largest international competition of the year and one that had never before been held in the U.S. With thousands of people flocking to Aspen each year, Aspen distinguished itself from other ski areas early, and the flourishing postwar economy helped make this possible (Gilbert 1995). While the Pan Abode served as an idealized version of the western log cabin for many, in Aspen Pan Abodes also served as an integral part of the fledgling American ski industry. Aspen’s ski industry created an immediate need for buildings and infrastructure, including single-family homes, rental properties for tourists, multi-family apartments, and commercial buildings. Due to the temporary nature of the industry’s employment, employees interested in buying a residence were unable to qualify for traditional home mortgages. However, if a buyer had purchase money for a parcel of land, he or she could buy an affordable Pan Abode kit. By Aspen’s standards, the cost of a pre-manufactured building was significantly less than the cost of purchasing an existing home or hiring a contractor to build a house by traditional building methods. Perhaps seizing upon Aspen’s postwar growth, the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company stationed a sales representative in Aspen to sell Pan Abode buildings. The sales representative was also able to answer potential buyer’s questions about financing and referred buyers to institutions providing mortgages. By the 1960s, Pan Abode kit buildings became the most common type of Rustic Style architecture built in Aspen, with more than 50 Pan Abode buildings erected during the mid- 1950s through the late 1960s. Prior to the construction of Pan Abode buildings in Aspen, the majority of buildings were constructed using an architect’s plan, making these pre-planned buildings a different resource within the city. Part of the rise of Pan Abodes’ popularity can be attributed to the fact that they offered an attractive, affordable alternative to costly architect- or builder-designed buildings. During the earliest postwar years of the late 1940s and early 1950s, the U.S. was still trying to adjust to a peacetime economy after four years of war. Adjustment to a non-military economy and demand for single-family homes expanded exponentially. The U.S. housing construction industry could not keep up with the demand due to scarcity of materials and adequate financing immediately after the war. Before pre-manufactured kit houses became available, buildings often took many months or even years to construct. The Pan Abode Cedar 219 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 7 Homes company’s assortment of kit houses allowed these new homeowners to move into their houses within a few weeks instead of months. The Pan Abode Companies Aage Jensen, a Danish cabinetmaker, established the original Pan-Abode International, Ltd. in 1948 in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada, to create pre-manufactured cedar log buildings. Jensen expanded his venture to the U.S. in 1952 with a second factory located in Renton, Washington, where the American company still operates today. The two companies became separate corporations: the American company assumed the name Pan Abode Cedar Homes, while the British Columbian company is distinguished by their hyphenated name, Pan-Abode. The main difference between the pre-manufactured buildings produced by the two companies lies in the British Columbian company’s double tongue-and-groove system, while the Renton, Washington, factory produces a single tongue-and-groove interlocking system. Because the 1950s and 1960s Pan Abode buildings in Aspen were sold by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company in Renton, each features this single tongue-and-groove construction. Pan Abode Architecture Each Pan Abode was entirely constructed of milled logs made of Western Red Cedar. The company hailed cedar’s low-expansion properties that include resistant to shrinking, swelling, and warping during drastic changes in temperature. Cedar timber also provides good insulation, an important feature in Pan Abode buildings since the only insulation came from the 3-inch thickness of the cedar logs themselves. The buildings included no insulation within the walls until much later. All of the Pan Abode logs manufactured between 1952 and 1970 in the Renton factory were milled in 3”x6” rectangular logs with flat edges to create a relatively flat exterior and interior wall surface. The logs were joined on the top and bottom using a single tongue-and-groove design to create a tight seal that required no traditional chinking or any other interfacing (Figure 1). The ends of the logs formed overlapping, interlocking corners that Figure 1. Classic Notch System, as shown by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010) 220 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 8 joined in a style the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company calls the “Classic Notch” solid wall system. The continuous vertical notch at all of the building’s corners thus became a distinguishing characteristic of the building. The overlapping corner notch was intended to strengthen the building and facilitate construction (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010). The length of the log timbers were cut to size depending on the Pan Abode model ordered through the company catalog. Window and door openings were wood-framed. During the 1950s and 1960s, the majority of Pan Abode-manufactured buildings were one-story buildings between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet. The Pan Abode’s interior walls featured no additional finishes, leaving the cedar walls bare on the inside of the building. Electrical and plumbing infrastructure could be inserted through the walls, down joint seams, or inserted into the floor depending on local ordinances. Although the vast majority of the Pan Abode buildings sold were stock models advertised in the company catalog, a small portion of the company’s sales consisted of custom-designed buildings that were pre-manufactured and cut to size by request. These early custom-designed buildings also used 3”x6” timbers using the Classic Notch design. Pan Abode buildings were typically covered by a low-pitched, gabled roof; however, some were covered by a low-pitched shed roof (Figure 2). Roofs almost always had open overhanging eaves with wood trim. As a result, the one-story Pan Abode buildings took on the form and appearance of a mid-century Ranch-style house. The fascia board at the end of the roof Figure 2. A 1951 building by the Pan Abode Company’s sister-company in British Columbia, the Pan-Abode Company. 221 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 9 eaves was usually left flat with straight edges, but in a few cases the fascia was cut into a decorative cut-out vergeboard trim. Distinctive architectural features common to Pan Abode houses of the 1950s and 60s include recessed entrance porches that are framed at the edges by the building’s log ends with curved corners (see Figures 3 and 4). The logs ends were used decoratively in a variety of ways in the Pan Abode. This is also seen in the supporting brackets for a Pan Abode house’s entrance gable in Figure 4. Pan Abode buildings in Aspen were usually plain and lacked ornamentation. However, Aspen had at least one “Chalet Style” Pan Abode building that featured notched ends shaped into ornate scalloped curves, deep overhangs, vergeboard fascia, and cut-out patterns at the balustrade, window trim, and decorative shutters (Figure 5). Figure 3. Recessed entrance at 630 Main Street, built in 1965. Figure 4. Curved brackets at the entrance of 1208/1210 Snowbunny Lane, built in 1965. 222 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 10 Figure 5. A Chalet Style Pan Abode (demolished) A ca. 1950s and 60s Pan Abode buildings’ fenestration typically featured at least one large multi- light picture window at the façade. The multi-light arrangement was divided into horizontally oriented rectangular lights, which formed the module by which all of the original Pan Abode windows were based. The size of the window was determined by the number of rectangular lights used. The house in Figure 3, above, has one large 12-light picture window, as does the house in Figure 6, below. The house at right in Figure 6 depicts a house with one 9-light window and one narrow three-light rectangular window. The building in Figure 7 includes two large 9-light windows, one in each of its two projecting wings. In the case of most Pan Abodes constructed during the 1950s and 1960s, the fenestration consisted of either fixed panes, such as in large multi-light windows or sliding as in the case of smaller single and double light windows. Occasionally large multi-light windows would made into sliding windows; however, these windows have a large bar affixed to the window’s interior panes to ease their opening. Often these fixed windows are replaced with multi-light pivoting casement windows (Pan Abode Cedar Homes personal correspondence 2010). 223 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 11 Figure 6. The picture windows of Pan Abodes, as seen at 509 West Main Street, left, and 1355 Sage Court, right. Figure 7. Picture windows, as seen in 300 West Hyman. Purchasing and Construction Process One major selling point of the Pan Abode was its ease of construction from beginning to end. Once a customer selected a Pan Abode model, the company shipped the prefabricated building materials directly to the building site on a flatbed truck (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010). The Renton Pan Abode Cedar Homes company estimates that roughly 100 kit homes were sold each year during the 1950s and 1960s (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010). Although there is little documentation of how many Pan Abodes were built nationwide, a company representative revealed that the company’s largest clients during those years were ski companies across the Western U.S. The U.S. Forest Service also purchased numerous Pan Abode kits to erect small 224 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 12 cabins in national forests in the western U.S. The U.S. Forest Service documents that it began building small Pan Abode cabins along with A-frame cabins in Alaska at the Tongass National Forest in 1962 and in the Chugach National Forest in 1963 (Lantz 2009). The Pan Abode Cedar Homes company advertised and sold their buildings through their company brochures and their home office in Renton, Washington, but perhaps most importantly through the Pan Abode company representatives located in strategic cities across the western U.S. One such sales representative named Jack Holst played a prominent role in Aspen during the 1950s and 1960s. Jack Holst’s position with Pan Abode Cedar Homes Company lasted approximately 20 years in Aspen. During this time, his sales resulted in a substantial concentration of Pan Abode buildings in Aspen. Although all company representatives used a marketing brochure to show and describe the pre-designed kit plans to prospective buyers, representatives like Jack Holst built their own Pan Abode buildings to serve as models for selling Pan Abodes.1 An interview with Magne Nostdahl revealed that Jack Holst was the only official Pan Abode representative in Aspen (Nostdahl personal correspondence 2010). Pan Abode Representative Jack Holst handled all of the arrangements for new Pan Abode construction in Aspen from selling the building to ordering the structure, to the necessary transportation from Renton, Washington to Aspen, Colorado. Marthinsson and Nostdahl Construction Company worked alongside Holst constructing the new buildings for the owners. Nostdahl recalls that the majority of Pan Abodes he and his partner constructed measured between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet while only a few measured under 1,000 square feet. During the 1960s, the Marthinsson and Nostdahl Construction Company charged $10 a square foot to construct the new Pan Abode buildings. Marthinsson and Nostdahl Construction Company constructed Pan Abode buildings for roughly seven years before the market for these easy to assemble buildings began to fade. Nostdahl remarked that he believed Pan Abodes began to lose their popularity due to the lack of insulation in the structures. A city ordinance in Aspen required a level of insulation in each building and Pan Abodes did not conform to these needs. As a result, Jack Holst began ordering double walled Pan Abode buildings which increased the cost of the building and led to a decrease in buyer’s interest in the buildings (Nostdahl personal correspondence 2010). 1 Like a number of Aspen’s residents during the 1950s and 1960s, Holst continued to work several jobs in order to keep busy and afford the new postwar lifestyle. In addition to serving as the Pan Abode company representative in Aspen, Holst was also a commercial airline pilot and a ski instructor. 225 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 13 Pan Abode Building Types in Aspen Research suggests that Pan Abode buildings were primarily constructed throughout the western U.S. as small cabins for the U.S. Forest Service or as privately owned vacation homes (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010). In Aspen, Pan Abodes were used for a wider variety of purposes that were both unique and representative of Aspen’s economic circumstances in the 1950s and 1960s. Although Pan Abode buildings were most often built as single-family primary and secondary dwellings in Aspen, there are examples of Pan Abodes used as multiple-family apartment buildings, commercial buildings, a church hall, and even for ticket sales, administration, ski patrol, and maintenance facilities at Highlands Ski Area. City records indicate that the majority of the Pan Abodes in and around Aspen were built as modest-sized single-family dwellings. This was representative of the Pan Abode company sales during the 1950s and 60s, as most of the buildings sold consisted of smaller dwellings less than 2,000 square feet, with few custom plans (Pan Abode personal correspondence 2010). Building permits for known Pan Abodes in Aspen state they were constructed in Kennydale, Washington, a neighborhood in Renton. One building in Aspen, the Cortina Lodge may have been purchased from the Pan-Abode Company in Richmond, British Columbia due to its double tongue and groove construction. In 1970, two entire subdivisions, Ardmore and East Meadow, were platted and developed by local Pan Abode Cedar Homes contractors in Aspen. It was a speculative venture whereby this group of Pan Abode developers built and sold the Pan Abode houses along with their lots as a residential subdivision. The Ardmore subdivision had eight Pan Abode houses, and the East Meadow subdivision contained five Pan Abode houses (Figure 9). Charles Brinkman was a developer of the Ardmore subdivision, and longtime company representative Jack Holst was at least one of the developers of the East Meadow subdivision of Pan Abodes. Figure 8. Advertisement for Richard Wright, one of the Pan Abode contractors in Aspen, 1965 226 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 14 Figure 9. 1970 Pan Abode single-family houses at 103 Ardmore (left) and 110 Ardmore (right). Pan Abodes catered directly to the ski industry, which needed to house seasonal workers. At least one Pan Abode in Aspen served as a multiple-family residence. The apartment building at 403 and 404 Park Avenue consists of a raised two-story building with shallow overhanging eaves and decorative vergeboard at the side-gabled ends (Figure 10). This 10-unit multi-family building was developed in 1964 by Pan Abode contractors Arne Marthinsson and Magne Nostdahl. Both Marthinsson and Nostdahl were typical contractors who held multiple jobs. In the case of Marthinsson and Nostdahl, they were contractors during the summer months and ski instructors during the winter. Ski industry pioneer and founder of the Aspen Highlands ski area, Whipple “Whip” Van Ness Jones utilized two Pan Abode buildings to help establish the ski mountain in 1956 and during its long tenure. When Jones first moved to Aspen in the early 1950s, he purchased a property on 2nd Street that included a Pan Abode building. He also purchased the property across the street that housed a stable that was also of Pan Abode construction. When Jones established a new ski resort on the outskirts of downtown Aspen, instead of contacting one of the two architects or two designers listed in town in 1955 to Figure 10. Multiple family building at 403 and 404 Park Avenue, built in 1964. 227 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 15 construct new buildings, Jones determined it would be easier and more cost effective to relocate two Pan Abode buildings from his property in town up to the Aspen Highlands ski area (Doremus 2010). These two buildings became the ticket sales, administration, ski patrol, and maintenance buildings in 1957 and were used until the Aspen Highlands’ ownership transferred in 1993. When Jones needed a larger administration building, he ordered a new Pan Abode building to replace the old building because Pan Abodes were easy to assemble, inexpensive, functional, and fit into the aesthetic alpine environment with their cedar log materials and Rustic architectural style. After fire destroyed the Cloud 9 restaurant on the Aspen Highlands in the 1970s, the replacement restaurant consisted of a new Pan Abode building. The new building’s erection took roughly 45 days from start to finish. Subsequent to the Aspen Skiing Company assuming ownership of Aspen Highlands in 1993, the Pan Abode buildings at Aspen Highlands were demolished with the exception of Cloud Nine (Doremus 2010). In addition to owning several Pan Abode buildings at the Aspen Highlands mountain, Whip Jones and his family also resided in a Pan Abode building in town. According to his stepson Andrew Doremus, the Jones family moved from his original Pan Abode on 2nd Street to a second Pan Abode house on Francis Street. One of the more unusual uses for a Pan Abode building in the 1960s was for a church. The Messiah Lutheran Church erected a Pan Abode building in 1963 when the congregation relocated to its current site on Mountain View Drive. The church used the Pan Abode building for its services until 1985, when the Pan Abode was moved to Redstone for use as a private residence (Aspen Times 2004). The energy crisis of the 1970s slightly changed the design of Pan Abode-manufactured buildings, as the company introduced wider cedar log dimensions of 4”x6” for improved insulation and greater energy efficiency (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010). The slightly wider style of the post-1970 design appears to be a distinguishing feature between the company’s pre- 1970 and post-1970 designs. Later designs also introduced a double-wall structural system in which two 3”x6” timbers were separated by a 4” gap that could be filled with rigid foam insulation (Log Home Living Magazine 1987). 228 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 16 Historic Significance of Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen Aspen’s postwar-era Pan Abode buildings are significant under the City of Aspen’s significance Criterion 2a as a representative building trend closely associated with Aspen’s period of rise of the local international ski industry and tourism, both important historical events of the city’s postwar history. In an emerging tourism town, Pan Abode buildings fulfilled a basic need for buildings and lodging. Their flexible design made them highly adaptable for a wide variety of functions, resulting in a diverse group of Pan Abode buildings in Aspen. Pan Abode’s structural adaptability allowed them to serve in a variety of situations. They were also well-equipped for adaptive reuse; two were relocated to the Aspen Highlands ski area for nearly 40 years of continuous use. This architectural flexibility accommodated Aspen’s changing needs like no other building could. The Pan Abode Cedar Homes company sold at least 50 Pan Abode buildings in Aspen during the 1950s and 1960s. This may be considered a large collection of Pan Abode buildings at that time when the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company produced only about 100 per year nationwide. Aspen’s group of contractors even developed two small speculative subdivisions consisting only of Pan Abode houses in the early 1970s. As a result, preliminary research suggests that Aspen’s had a relatively high concentration of Pan Abode buildings when compared with similar cities in Colorado and possibly the Western U.S. Aspen’s postwar Pan Abode buildings are also significant under Criterion 2c for their building design. Pan Abode buildings’ distinctive pre-manufactured method of construction was representative of the architectural technology available following World War II. They are also architecturally significant as unique representatives of national historical themes and attitudes of the postwar age. Their ability to be easily constructed by unskilled labor is evocative of the emerging “do-it-yourself” spirit that permeated the postwar generation of the 1950s and 60s nationwide. They also fulfilled the need for affordable construction, and their easy financing made them attainable to people who ordinarily would not qualify for traditional home mortgages or who could not afford Aspen’s expensive back-taxes on the existing pre-World War II building stock. This was especially important for the temporary employees who worked in the seasonal Aspen’s Pan Abode buildings represent six important hallmarks of the postwar era: The pre-manufactured building movement following World War II; Do-It-Yourself attitudes ; Rustic Style residential architecture Affordable construction attainable by many; Adaptable architecture to suit a wide variety of building functions; and Close associations with the rise of Aspen’s international ski and tourism industries. 229 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 17 ski industry. Finally, the Pan Abode form as an entirely cedar-log-built building represents the popularity of Rustic Style architecture during the postwar years, particularly in the mountainous regions of Colorado. In summary, Pan Abode buildings’ historic significance in Aspen lies not simply in the fact that they are kit houses, but the manner in which they were ideally suited to Aspen’s unique circumstances during the postwar years. Period of Historic Significance Although Pan Abode buildings continue to be manufactured today in the company’s Renton factory, their period of significance in Aspen began in 1956 when the first Pan Abodes were built, and ends in 1970. By 1970, the desire for a modest-sized vacation home in Aspen came to an end as development pressures increased in town. As land values steadily increased in connection to Aspen’s population growth and tourism success, developers sought to maximize the capacity of their properties with larger and taller buildings that capitalize on the allowable square footage. In 1966, the city of Aspen adopted its Aspen Area Master Plan to control growth and development. As Aspen continued to grow in population and popularity as an internationally acclaimed ski resort through the 1970s and 1980s, the city sought to reduce the density and future population of Aspen and utilized growth management plans and ordinance restrictions to aid in achieving this goal. The Pan Abode buildings constructed between 1956 and 1970 represent the last generation of buildings prior to the institution of these regulations. Character-Defining Features of Pan Abode Buildings are the physical characteristics of the buildings from their period of significance between 1956 and 1970. They are: • 3”x6”, single tongue-and-groove cedar log construction • Overlapping notches at the corners • Original wood-framed, multi-light picture window • Low-pitched roof, usually gabled but occasionally shed • Deep overhanging eaves • Recessed entrance with rounded or squared corners Character-Defining Feature: A prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or characteristic of a historic property that contributes significantly to its physical character. Structures, objects, vegetation, spatial relationships, views, furnishings, decorative details, and materials may be such features. NPS 2010 230 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 18 All or most of these character-defining features should be visible at the façade in order to convey the original appearance of the Pan Abode building. These character-defining features can be used as a guide for evaluating individual Pan Abodes; however, individual survey and an assessment of integrity of the individual known Pan Abode properties in Aspen will be required to determine whether a Pan Abode building continues to conveys its historic significance to the 1956-1970 period of significance. 231 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 19 References Aspen Times (The) 1960a January 8. 1960b January 15. 2004 “Messiah Lutheran Marks 50 Years.” Accessed Online: http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20040922/NEWS/109220011&parentprofile= search 2007 “Jack Holst Obituary.” Accessed Online: http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20071103/ASPENWEEKLY04/111040083&p arentprofile=search City of Aspen 2010 Estimated Cost per Square Foot for Pan Abode Construction, 1956-1969. Ditto, Jerry, and Lanning Stern. 1995 Design for Living: Eichler Homes. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books. Doremus, Andrew 2010 Personal Correspondence. April 1. Ebong, Ima. 2005 Kit Homes Modern. New York: Collins Design. Fetters, Thomas T. 2002 The Lustron Home: The History of a Postwar Prefabricated Housing Experiment. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Gilbert, Alice M. 1995 Re-Creation Through Recreation: Aspen Skiing from 1870 to 1970. Aspen Historical Society. Gordon, Alastair. 2001 Weekend Utopia: Modern Living in the Hamptons. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Holst, Les. 2010 Personal Correspondence. March 30. Koones, Sheri. 2006 Prefabulous: The House of Your Dreams, Delivered Fresh From the Factory. Newtown, CT: The Taunton Press. 232 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 20 Meinecke, Conrad. 1945 Your Cabin in the Woods: A Compilation of Cabin Plans and Philosophy for Discovering Life in the Great Outdoors. New York: Bonanza Books. Meyer, Guido 2010 Personal Correspondence. March 29. National Park Service (NPS) 2010 Denver Service Center Workflows, Design and Construction Definitions (C). Accessed Online: http://www.nps.gov/dsc/workflows/definitionsdc_c.htm. 28 April. Nostdahl, Magne. 2010 Personal Correspondence. June 3. Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010 “About Us – History.” Accessed Online: www.panabodehomes.com/history.php 2010 “Classic Timber Building System.” Accessed Online: www.panabodehomes.com/classic_timber.php 2010 Personal Correspondence with Tom Prevette. March 31 and April 29. Ramsey, Dan. 1987 Building A Log Home From Scratch, 2nd Edition. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: TAB Books. Randl, Chad. 2004 A-Frame. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Rybczynski, Witold. 1991 Waiting for the Weekend. New York: Viking Press. The National Building Museum 2003 Do-It-Yourself: Home Improvement in 20th-Century America. October 19, 2002- August 17, 2003. Accessed Online: http://www.nbm.org/exhibitions- collections/exhibitions/diy.html Watkins, A.M. 1962 Building or Buying the High-Quality House at the Lowest Cost. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Weslager, C.A. 1969 The Log Cabin in America: From Pioneer Days to the Present. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 233 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] Exhibit D.1 – Conceptual HP Review 26.415.060.A Approvals Required. Any development involving properties designated on the aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual property or located within the boundaries of a 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. HPC shall provide referral comments for major projects to rights of way located within the boundaries of a Historic District. Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below: Streetscape 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. Response – The buildings reinforce the traditional grid pattern of the neighborhood. The open space around and in front of the cabin is preserved. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable. • Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones. • Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add landscape. • Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged. • Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas. • Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a case by case basis. Response – No change to streets or alleys is proposed, and there is no ditch on the property. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. • Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets. • Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to the alley. Response – n/a. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. • If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. 234 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] • Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. Response – n/a. The alley will provide vehicular access to the property. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi- public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. Response – The historic hierarchy of spaces is unchanged in the proposal. Simple walkways and fencing distinguish between public, semi-public, and private spaces. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example, on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. Response – The simple existing stone walkway to the entrance of the pan abode is maintained in the proposal. In contrast to the perpendicular walkway to the pan abode, a walkway is proposed along the east side yard to access the new detached building. The walkway protects tree roots and has a slight jog at Hopkins Avenue to offer a different experience to the pan abode’s entrance. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. Response – The existing open space in front and at the sides of the pan abode is maintained. Meaningful open space is provided between the two buildings, and on the roof of the new residence. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. 235 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. Response – A preliminary storm water plan is provided in the application. A more detailed plan will be provided for review at Final Design Review. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape. • Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred. Response – Built in features are not proposed in front of the pan abode. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. • If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. • The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. Response – The large spruce trees on either side of the pan abode are preserved. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is over textured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. • In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. 236 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] Response – The preliminary landscape plan honors the existing simple landscape at the front of the pan abode and maintains open side yards for porosity. A walkway is proposed from Hopkins Avenue to access the new residence. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. Response – New plantings will not block the historic structure. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. • Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. • Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case- by-case basis. • Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. • Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. • Landscape uplighting is not allowed. Response – Landscape lighting is not proposed at this time. 1.15 Preserve original fences. • Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved, removed, or inappropriately altered. • Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair. • Replacement elements must match the existing. Response – n/a. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. Response – n/a. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. • Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the character of a property. Response – A fence is not proposed in the front yard. 237 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. • The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of significance. • A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations. • Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. • A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not oversized. Response – A new 6’ tall wood fence is proposed around the new building to define outdoor space for each dwelling. A new 2.5’ tall fence is proposed in the west side yard of the pan abode to define outdoor space for the cabin. The fence design pulls details from the pan abode’s overlapping corners. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. • A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature. • For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket. • For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. Response – There are two fence designs proposed – one is a horizontal privacy fence to create a private outdoor space behind the pan abode, and the second is a more transparent fence that references the overlapping ends of the pan abode. Fence details and design will be finalized at Final HPC review. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. • A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B. Response – The privacy fence is only around the southwest corner of the pan abode. The entire north and east elevations of the pan abode are visible to the public. The fence design and location will be further studied for the final HP application. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls • Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size and finish. 238 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] • Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed. • Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate. Response – n/a. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. • All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure. Response – n/a. 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Response – Regrading will be limited and will comply with Parks requirements for tree protection. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. • An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape should be done before the beginning of any project. • The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved. Response – n/a. 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. • Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape. • Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures. • Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site. • All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work. • New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features. • Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible. Response – n/a. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. • Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation. • Minimize the visual impact of new parking. • Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically. Response – n/a. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. • Protect established vegetation during any construction. • If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species. 239 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] • New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species. • Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site. • Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements. Response – n/a. Restoration Materials 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. • Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. • Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. • If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. • Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. • If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish. • Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. • Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. • Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. • Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed. 240 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. • Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. Response – The south elevation 1970s addition will be removed and restored to match the 1965s photograph. Areas of the pan abode are deteriorated from normal wear and tear. Existing material will be restored and replaced if necessary (potentially using the demolished 1970s material), with staff and monitor review in the field. Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. • Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows. • Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them. Figures 1 & 2: 1965 photograph of south elevation (top) compared to current condition (bottom). 241 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] • Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass for the repair. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. • Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. • Do not change the size of an original window opening. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. • If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. • Changing the window opening is not permitted. • Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. • A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. • The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. • Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc. • Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade. • Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window. • Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. • If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning around the perimeter. A storm window should not include muntins unless necessary for structure. Any muntin should be placed to match horizontal or vertical divisions of the historic window. 242 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] Response – Historic windows will be repaired as needed. Windows on the south elevation will be restored to match the 1965 photograph (see Figure 1 above). Doors 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. • Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. • Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. • If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. • Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. • Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. • A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. • A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered. • Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties. • Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. • Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource. • Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the building and should be a product of its own time. • Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure. 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. • Match the material, frame design, character, and color of the primary door. 243 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] • Simple features that do not detract from the historic entry door are appropriate for a new storm door. • New screen doors should be in character with the primary door. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. • When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of the building. • On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads. Response – The existing pan abode doors are proposed to remain and to be repaired as needed. Porch 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. • Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and spacing of balusters. • Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. • Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. • Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. • Match original materials. • When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony • Steps should be located in the original location. • Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc. • Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps. 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. • If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony. 244 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] Response – The original front porch/entry is proposed to remain and be repaired as needed. Architectural Details 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. • Repair only those features that are deteriorated. • Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. • On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. • Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. • Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. • If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. • The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. • When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. • Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. • Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. Response – Architectural details are proposed to be repaired and/or replaced using the 1970s addition as needed with staff and monitor approval in the field. Roof 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. 245 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be appropriate on an addition. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. • Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures. • Locate vents on non-street facing facades. • Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. • Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists. 7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. • A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary, character defining façade. • A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. • The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. • While dormers improve the livability of upper floor spaces where low plate heights exist, they also complicate the roof and may not be appropriate on very simple structures. • Dormers are not generally not permitted on AspenModern properties since they are not characteristics of these building styles. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. • If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. 246 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non- reflective finish. • Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured. • A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a secondary structure from that time period. • A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. • Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. • Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building. • The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building. Response – The pan abode roof will be replaced with wood shingle to match existing. New Detached Home 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. Response - The new building is oriented parallel to the lot lines to maintain the traditional grid and to relate to the pan abode. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. Response – A front porch is proposed to define the entry into the new building. A walkway is proposed from Hopkins that reinforces the entrance. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 247 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. Response – The new building is divided into smaller modules through material application and window placement. Vertical and horizontal wood siding divides the north elevation into modules that relate to the asymmetrical vertical joints and façade division of the pan abode, but in a contemporary application. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. Response – The primary plane of the new building is similarly scaled to the historic building in the application of the building materials. The new building is taller than the one story historic structure; however, the front porch is lower in height. 11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new structure(s). • This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot split. Response – While this is not a lot split project, the majority of the floor area is allocated to the detached new building at the rear of the property. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. Response – The new structure is consistent with form and materials, and diverts from the pan abode in the fenestration category. The primary form reflects the simplicity of the pan abode footprint and shallow roof. The secondary form of the new building is a steeper gable roof that is setback to break up massing. The primary material is wood with a similar scale and finish as the pan abode. The application of wood siding in both vertical and horizontal sections references the horizontal and vertical divisions of the pan abode but with a modern influence. Subtle references to the pan abode are found throughout the new building that create a strong dialogue between the two structures – for example, the rain screen has overlapping ends that reference the pan abode corners. Metal is woven as an accent throughout the façade. The project diverts in fenestration from the pan abode. Windows and doors are contextual to the rest of the property, but the placement, size and style of the doors and windows are contemporary. 248 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria [12.8.2020] 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. Response -The new building reflects on the pan abode but is a clearly a product of its own time. The details are simple and subordinate to the pan abode. 249 Exhibit D.2 FAR Bonus [12.8.2020 update] Exhibit D.2 – FAR Bonus 26.415.110 Benefits F. Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is determined by net lot area such that a 3,000 – 5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of two hundred fifty square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a three hundred and seventy five square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount allowed for the lot. If a property is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on the original lot size, though the bonus may be allocated amongst the newly created parcels to the extent permitted. On any lot where a historic property is permitted a duplex density while a non-historic property is not, the increased allowable floor area that results from the density will be deducted from the maximum bonus that the property may receive. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following criteria: a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significant of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other non- original finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structure on the site, limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice that above grade square footage of the historic resource, limited the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. Response – 211 West Hopkins is eligible for 15sf of bonus floor area on top of the 3,600sf of floor area allowed by right on a 6,000sf lot with two detached dwellings. As part of the AspenModern negotiation the project is also asking for 120sf of additional bonus floor area for a total of 135sf of floor area. The pan abode is the key element of the property and is the primary entry into the site. A detached building is proposed behind the cabin to remove all development pressure from the cabin and to avoid any future 250 Exhibit D.2 FAR Bonus [12.8.2020 update] addition to the original footprint. There is no above grade square footage added to the cabin and a 1970s addition is removed from the cabin to restore the original footprint. A basement with two small lightwells is proposed beneath the pan abode. As part of the AspenModern negotiation for this important pan abode, we respectfully request a 135sf FAR bonus for this property. Table 1: Use and Square footage breakdown for bonus Allowed floor area by right Floor area bonus (375sf) Single family 3,240sf Maximum of 3,597sf Two detached 3,600sf Maximum of 3,615sf 5. Separate from the floor area bonus described above, on a lot that contains a historic resource, HPC may exempt wall exposed by a light well that is larger than the minimum required for egress from the calculation of subgrade floor area only if the light well is internalized such that it is entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facades closest to any street, the lightwell is screened from view from the street by building walls or fences, and any addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction of the light well is entirely one story. Response – n/a. This request was removed as part of the HPC review process. 251 Exhibit D.3 Setback Variation [updated 12.8.20] Exhibit D.3 - Setback Variances 26.415.110. Benefits. The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and maintaining their property. Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both economically vital and cherished by many. Only designated properties may be eligible for the following benefits. C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. 252 Exhibit D.3 Setback Variation [updated 12.8.20] Response – We respectfully request the following variations: Required Proposed Rear yard 10’ living space 8’ living space Protection of the two large spruce trees at the front of the property result in a larger than required front setback for the cabin. Maintaining at least 10 feet between detached buildings to have ample separation between the cabin and the new residence pushes development toward the alley. The proposed variations allow the new development to be pushed away from the pan abode to the rear of the lot. 253 Exhibit D.4 Parking/Transportation Exhibit D.4 Transportation Transportation and Parking Management 26.515.060.C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards: 1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines. Response – n/a. 2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050. Response – The project is required to provide 2 onsite spaces for the residence. 3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that increment of the expansion. Response – There is currently no parking onsite for the pan abode, which will be maintained. The project triggers 2 onsite spaces which are provided in the garage. 4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking. Response – n/a. 254 Exhibit D.5 Relocation 211 West Hopkins Ave. Exhibit D.5 Relocation 26.415.090. Relocation of designated historic properties. The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Response – The historic landmark is proposed to be stabilized and temporarily lifted or potentially moved to dig a basement and to replace the foundation. It will be placed back in its original location after the basement is completed. The structure is capable of being picked up, and the new foundation will provide structural stability ensuring the future of the landmark. 9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the historic fabric. • This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting of financial assurances as a building relocation. 255 Exhibit D.5 Relocation 211 West Hopkins Ave. Response –In order to keep construction impacts minimized, protect the large trees and limit disturbance on Hopkins Avenue, we are exploring two options – 1) shift the pan abode to the south temporarily; or 2) temporarily lift the pan abode in its current location. We have met with Parks onsite to discuss tree protection and foundation location in relationship to tree roots. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. • Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. • In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. • If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. Response – Only a temporary relocation is proposed to excavate a full basement. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. • A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. • Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. Response – The structure will be in its original location. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. • Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. • Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. 256 Exhibit D.5 Relocation 211 West Hopkins Ave. Response – The structure will maintain the same relationship to grade as existing. Grade will be documented prior to relocation to ensure an accurate final grade. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. Response – The new foundation will match the existing concrete foundation. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. Response – Lightwells are minimized to the greatest extend possible while still providing natural light to below grade bedrooms. The lightwells are not located in a setback, and are the minimum size per Building Code. 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. • The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. • During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. 257 Exhibit D.5 Relocation 211 West Hopkins Ave. Response – A letter from a housemover will be provided prior to the HPC hearing. 9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged. • Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative. Response – n/a. 258 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com DATE: August 31, 2020 PROPERTY: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, sara@bendonadams.com REQUEST: Historic Designation, Major Development DESCRIPTION: 211 W. Hopkins is a 6,000 square foot lot zoned R-6. It is developed with a Pan Abode home built in 1956 which makes the property eligible for voluntary historic designation through the City’s AspenModern program. This designation process allows for the negotiation of site-specific benefits to be awarded by City Council in response to the owner’s commitment to historic preservation. It is staff’s understanding the applicant’s approach will be to preserve the Pan Abode, with the possible removal of a non-original addition, and to construct a detached second dwelling unit on the site. The second unit is an option only available to landmarks. Variations and waivers may be requested related to setbacks, parking, affordable housing and other requirements. There are numerous trees on the property which need to be preserved or issued tree removal permits through the Parks Department. The first review step will be a hearing with HPC, who will provide a recommendation to City Council on the appropriateness of landmark designation and the benefits package. At this hearing, HPC will also conduct Conceptual review of the redevelopment plan. HPC will use the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Land Use Code Sections that are applicable to this project to assist with their determinations. Following approval, staff will provide Council with Notice of Call-Up of the HPC design determinations and will provide HPC’s recommendation on designation and benefits. Council will respond to the Call-Up Notice and will make the final determination on the designation and benefits. The Municipal Code provides that the Council review is to be accomplished within 90 days of application submission, unless the City and applicant agree to a longer timeframe. The applicant may withdraw from the process at any time until a designation ordinance is passed. Following Council, HPC will conduct Final Design review to consider landscape, lighting and materials. This review is not required to happen within the 90 day negotiation timeframe. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Historic Preservation Land Use Application Land Use Code Land Use Code Section(s) 259 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards (new unit only) 26.415.025.C Identification of Historic Properties 26.415.030 Designation of historic properties 26.415.070.D Historic Preservation – Major Development 26.415.090 Relocation 26.415.110 Benefits 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations HPC for recommendations on designation and benefits, and decisions on Major Development and Relocation review Council for decisions on designation and benefits Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC and Council Planning Fees: Planning Staff hours related to review of Historic designation are exempt from land use fees. Staff will seek referral comments from the Building Department, Zoning, Engineering and Parks regarding any relevant code requirements or considerations. There will be no Development Review Committee meeting or referral fees. A $1,950 deposit for 6 billable hours of staff time will be due at Conceptual and Final submittal. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) To apply, email the following information in a single pdf to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com: Completed Land Use Application. An 8 1/2” x 11” vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation and the high-water line and 100 year flood plain (flood hazard area) showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. HOA Compliance form. 260 List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing. A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. A map indicating the boundaries of the historic designation. Historic property description, including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. Written description of historic preservation benefits which the property owner request be awarded at the time of designation, and relationship to Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent of the historic preservation program. A proposed site plan. Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location and extent of proposed work. For Conceptual, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above: Graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials. A preliminary stormwater design. For Final Review, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above: Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale. Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples are preferred for the presentation to HPC. A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features. 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. 261 262 City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ Applicant: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_______________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:________________________________________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 211 West Hopkins Avenue - AspenModern 211 West Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO 81611 2735-124-63-003 Matt Joblon and Vaughan Capital Partners LP 205 Detroit St. Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206 508-344-2557 matt@bmcinv.com BendonAdams and Rowland + Broughton 300 S. Spring Street, #202, Aspen, CO, 81611 and 500 West Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 925-2855 and 544-9006 sara@bendonadams.com + john@rowlandbroughton.com 263 City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Proposed % of demolition: __________ DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 264 265 266 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM September 10, 2020 Phillip Supino, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 211 West Hopkins Avenue; Aspen, CO. Mr. Supino: Please accept this letter authorizing Matt Joblon and BendonAdams to represent our ownership interests in 211 West Hopkins and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to contact me. Property – 211 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description – Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen Parcel ID – 2735-124-63-003 Owner – Vaughan Capital Partners LP Kind Regards, VAUGHAN CAPITAL PTNRS LP PO BOX 390 HEBRON IL 60034 Charles S. Vaughan 09/10/2020 Nicole Rowean 09/11/2020 Howard A. Vaughan 09/16/2020 267 Land Title Guarantee Company Customer Distribution PREVENT FRAUD - Please remember to call a member of our closing team when initiating a wire transfer or providing wiring instructions. Order Number:Q62011752 Date: 09/08/2020 Property Address:211 W HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER'S ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS For Closing Assistance Closing Processor For Title Assistance Melissa J. Jones 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 925-1678 (Work) (303) 393-4941 (Work Fax) mejones@ltgc.com Contact License: CO450818 Company License: CO44565 Marc Obadia 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 925-1678 (Work) (800) 318-8202 (Work Fax) mobadia@ltgc.com Company License: CO44565 Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title Team 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 927-0405 (Work) (970) 925-0610 (Work Fax) valleyresponse@ltgc.com Buyer/Borrower MATT JOBLON Delivered via: Electronic Mail Seller/Buyer Agent CHRISTIE`S INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTATE ASPEN SNOWMASS LLC Attention: NICK LINCOLN 510 E HYMAN AVE #21 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 544-5800 (Work) (970) 544-8185 (Work Fax) nick@christiesaspenre.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail Seller/Owner VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP Attention: Charles S. Vaughan Delivered via: Electronic Mail Buyer/Borrower Erin Fetter Attention: ERIN FETTER 510 E HYMAN AVE #21 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 544-5800 (Work) (970) 544-8185 (Work Fax) erin@christiesaspenre.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail 268 Land Title Guarantee Company Estimate of Title Fees Order Number:Q62011752 Date: 09/08/2020 Property Address:211 W HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 Parties:MATT JOBLON VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Visit Land Title's Website at www.ltgc.com for directions to any of our offices. Estimate of Title insurance Fees "ALTA" Owner's Policy 06-17-06 $10,402.00 Deletion of Standard Exception(s)$75.00 Tax Certificate $26.00 Total $10,503.00 If Land Title Guarantee Company will be closing this transaction, the fees listed above will be collected at closing. Thank you for your order! Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These documents, such as covenants conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and use of the property. You may wish to engage legal assistance in order to fully understand and be aware of the implications of the effect of these documents on your property. Chain of Title Documents: Pitkin county recorded 07/02/1965 under reception no. 121094 at book 213 page 528 Pitkin county recorded 01/16/1997 under reception no. 400963 Pitkin county recorded 07/25/2008 under reception no. 551440 Pitkin county recorded 01/05/2010 under reception no. 565887 269 Copyright 2006-2020 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Property Address: 211 W HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: 08/21/2020 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured: "ALTA" Owner's Policy 06-17-06 Proposed Insured: MATT JOBLON $6,000,000.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A FEE SIMPLE 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 5. The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 53, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule A Order Number:Q62011752 270 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part I (Requirements) Order Number: Q62011752 All of the following Requirements must be met: This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. 1. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. 2. FURNISH A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO, FOR THE PARTNERSHIP NAMED BELOW, FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PARTNERSHIP NAME: VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 3. A FULL COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO FOR VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP MUST BE FURNISHED TO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY UPON REVIEW OF THIS DOCUMENT. 4. DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SETTING FORTH THE NAME OF VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AS A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST STATE UNDER WHICH LAWS THE ENTITY WAS CREATED, THE MAILING ADDRESS OF THE ENTITY, AND THE NAME AND POSITION OF THE PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITY AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-30-172, CRS. NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER. 5. SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FROM VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO MATT JOBLON CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. 271 REQUIREMENTS TO DELETE THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS IN THE OWNER'S POLICY TO BE ISSUED A. UPON RECEIPT BY THE COMPANY OF A SATISFACTORY FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT FROM THE SELLER AND PROPOSED INSURED, ITEMS 1-4 OF THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED. ANY ADVERSE MATTERS DISCLOSED BY THE FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT WILL BE ADDED AS EXCEPTIONS. B. IF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE CONDUCTS THE CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTIONS AND RECORDS THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, ITEM NO. 5 OF THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED. C. UPON RECEIPT OF PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL PRIOR YEARS' TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, ITEM NO. 6 OF THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS WILL BE AMENDED TO READ: TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2020 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part I (Requirements) Order Number: Q62011752 All of the following Requirements must be met: 272 This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction, or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 8. RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE DEED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED NOVEMBER 02, 1887 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 75, PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS: THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER OR TO ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS. 9. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, NO. 21, SERIES OF 2009 RECORDED DECEMBER 4, 2009 AS RECEPTION NO. 565020. 10. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, NO. 19, SERIES OF 2017 RECORDED AUGUST 9, 2017 AS RECEPTION NO. 640553. 11. CLAIMS OF RIGHT, TITLE AND/OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BETWEEN THE BOUNDARY LINE AND THE FENCE AS DEPICTED ON THE SURVEY PREPARED BY ROCKY MOUNTAIN SURVEYING, JOB NO. 17586 WHETHER SAID CLAIMS ARISE BY ABANDONMENT, ADVERSE POSSESSION OR OTHER MEANS. SAID DOCUMENT STORE AS OUR ESI 36115478 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: Q62011752 273 LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real property). (B) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. (C) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. (A) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. (B) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's liens. (C) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. (E) 274 Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, in Schedule B-2. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of Regulatory Agencies. Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and (A) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. (B) 275 JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF SUMMIT COUNTY LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information"). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based transaction management system; your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others; a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non-affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 276 Commitment For Title Insurance Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Corporation NOTICE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. . COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS 2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. 3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: 4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a) “Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy. (b) “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c) “Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (d) “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e) “Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (f) “Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (g) “Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h) the Notice;(a) the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b) the Commitment Conditions;(c) Schedule A;(d) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g) The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to: (a) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing. (b) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. (c) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount. (d) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e) 277 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services. 8. PRO-FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. 9. ARBITRATION The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. Issued by: Land Title Guarantee Company 3033 East First Avenue Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80206 303-321-1880 Senior Vice President This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Land Title Insurance Corporation. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (f) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment. (c) The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (d) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f) 278 323 311 311 323 323 311 323 323 331 311 323 311 311333 333 333 333 333 311 311 311 311 311 311 301 301 301 301 301 311 233 311 311 233 311 233 200 311 311 311 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 218 300 322 312322 326 315 324 324 325 301 315 334 312 333 303 222 204204 204211 222 233 233 233 233 233 124 233 233 222 233 233 222 205 233 233 222 233 233 233 233 124 127 127 211 116 232 204 232 221 210 214 124 232 300 124 232 216 134 232 212 124 237 232 234 200 308 232 232 211 127 232 232 124 205 232 135 120 232 235 R/MF R-15 R-6 W HY M A N A V E S 1ST STS 2ND STS 2ND STS 1ST STN 2ND STS 1ST STS 2ND STS 2ND STS 3RD ST211 West Hopkins Vicinity Map Historic Sites Historic Districts Parcels Zoning AH Affordable Housing R/MF Residential/Multi-Family R-6 Medium Density Residential R-15 Moderate Density Residential MU Mixed Use P Park PUB Public Roads Zoomed In 9/3/2020, 5:40:18 AM 0 0.01 0.030.01 mi 0 0.03 0.060.01 km 1:1,479 Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS Pitkin County | 279 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273512463003 on 09/03/2020 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com 280 HITE ANGELA R FAMILY TRUST WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PO BOX 155 MULLINS MARGARET ANN ASPEN, CO 81611 216 W HYMAN AVE DWR AI LLC CHICAGO, IL 60607 1101 W MONROE ST #200 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST TRAGGIS ELIZABETH G NEW LONDON, CT 06320 PO BOX 284 ASPEN A CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 308 W HOPKINS AVE BIELINSKI JUDITH R TRUST GLENVIEW, IL 60026 2121 TROWBRIDGE CT CHISHOLM HEATHER M ASPEN, CO 81611 205 W MAIN ST EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC OMAHA, NE 68022 18081 BURT ST SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE BACON SHIRLEY LIV TRUST MIAMI, FL 33133 3 GROVE ISLE DR # 1608 SWISS CHALET/KITZBUHEL PARTNERSHIP ASPEN, CO 81611 333 E DURANT AVE WEST HOPKINS LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 400 S HOPE ST, STE 1000 108 HYMAN LLC MIAMI, FL 33133 3500 N BAY HOMES DR 211 WEST MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 323 W MAIN ST INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST FRANK VALERIE EXEMPT TRUST U/W PORTLAND, OR 972013544 1500 SW 11TH AVE #1504 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST ALBANO DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 121 W HYMAN AVE WINKELMAN WENDY L ASPEN, CO 81611 108 W HYMAN AVE #8 SEIDER FAMILY TRUST MALIBU, CA 90265 26642 LATIGO SHORE DR INVENTRIX LLC CHICAGO, IL 60606-5096 227 MONROE WARSHAW MARTIN R TRUST 1 ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2585 1058 SCOTT PL CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M & CANDICE L ASPEN, CO 81611 1240 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR GREENASPEN LLC KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 30 ISLAND DR BRENNAN SHAWN TIFFANY MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 408 TENNESSEE GLEN WY 235 W HOPKINS B LLC BOCA RATON, FL 33432 250 S OCEAN BLVD # 14A SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST ANLUJO CAPITAL INC ROAD TOWN TORTOLA BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS VG 1110, WOODBOURNE HALL POB 3162 281 PECHTER JEFFREY S DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 280 NE 2ND AVE GROVER FREDRICK W & PAULA J ST PETERSBURG, FL 337043717 725 BRIGHTWATERG BLVD NE SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC OMAHA, NE 68022 18081 BURT ST CONNOR WILLIAM E II TRUST RENO, NV 89502 990 S ROCK BLVD #F JACOBSON SUZAN & JAY ASPEN, CO 81611 108 W HYMAN #7 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE DHM FAMILY TRST ATLANTA, GA 30309 2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12 STRAUCH ELAINE B GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 4327 S YOSEMITE CT POOL ALEXANDRA M DENVER, CO 80206 1650 FILLMORE ST #1304 DIMITRIUS RALLI TRUST PASADENA, CA 91103 535 FREMONT DR FRANK EDMUND H EXEMPT TRUST PORTLAND, OR 972013544 1500 SW 11TH AVE #1504 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1248 BIELINSKI ROBERT A JR HOUSTON, TX 77018 523 WEST 34TH ST SHADOW MOUNTAIN DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W HOPKINS AVE TIEMANN CAROLYN ASPEN, CO 81611 124 W HYMAN AVE #2D NAUGHTON ANN N COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 36 BROADMOOR AVE WILLIAMS ROBERT A REV TRUST ENCINO, CA 91436 16255 VENTURA BLVD #800 BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 HAYMAX LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 101 W MAIN ST BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 COLES DAVID SEP A TRUST CULVER CITY, CA 90232 4223 DUQUESNE AVE SAND KATHERINE M ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 51 212 WEST HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 212 W HOPKINS AVE JLR QPRT TRUST CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 355 MARQUESA DR 282 MCBEE LISA A SANTA ANA, CA 92705 2306 KEEGAN WY STEVENSON KAREN H ASPEN, CO 81611 205 W MAIN ST HARPER MARILYN HILL & HILL ASPEN, CO 81612-7952 PO BOX 7952 SONNENBERG FAMILY TRUST BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 350 S BEVERLY DR # 300 135 HOPKINS LTD AUSTIN, TX 78738 12400 HWY 71 W #350-371 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE YONCE SUSAN GREENWICH, CT 068313721 81 ROUND HILL RD SMITH MARKELL LEIGHTON CHICAGO, IL 60657 645A W SURF ST # A2 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST COLES PETER SEP A TRUST MASSACHUSETTS, MA 02138 20 PRESCOTT ST #41 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST GILDENHORN MICHAEL S BETHESDA, MD 20816 5008 BALTON RD COTTONWOODS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 124 W HYMAN AVE HYMAN STREET CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 719 W HYMAN AVE HITE HENRY HARRIS REVOC TRUST WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PO BOX 155 COHEN ALIX O & CRAIG S ROCKVILLE CENTRE, NY 11570 5 BUCKINGHAM RD MAYER KEVIN ASPEN, CO 81611 222 W HOPKINS AVE #2 BERGHOFF MICHAEL R TRUST INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236 9112 WALNUT GROVE DR INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST SHADOW MOUNTAIN LODGE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W HOPKINS AVE CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST HOLTZMAN L BART & PATRICIA G SAINT LOUIS, MO 63124 9741 LITZSINGER RD HAYMAX LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE SHOAF THOMAS L DALLAS, TX 752053021 4224 BEVERLY DR ROSS PAULINE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9969 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST WEIGAND FAMILY LLC WICHITA, KS 67202 150 N MARKET 283 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE #202 MARTIN SCOTT M ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 51 GOLDSMITH HENRY JOSH PIKESVILLE, MD 21208 7902 BRYNMOR CT #504 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 12384 ASPEN TOWNHOMES 3 LLC BASALT, CO 81621 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD THOMAS GAIL HICKS REV TRUST BEDFORD, VA 24523-1508 1242 HAMPTON RDG INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST TARPLEY GERALD W JR & SUSAN ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 2255 PLACID WY BERGHOFF KRISTIN TRUST INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236 9112 WALNUT GROVE DR BRENNAN SAMANTHA SCOTT MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 408 TENNESSEE GLEN WY FCB LLC SNOWMASS, CO 816549102 525 SHIELD O RD SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE MORGAN DONALD ATLANTA, GA 30309 2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12 BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 WEIGAND FAMILY LLC WICHITA, KS 67202 150 N MARKET KOCH TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W HYMAN AVE KOENIG RAYMOND J NEW LONDON, CT 06320 PO BOX 284 SALTER CLAUDE C ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 5000 SHIELD JULIET E ASPEN, CO 81611 221 N STARWOOD DR BOWMAN AL MOUNT DORA, FL 32757 700 HELEN ST SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945 409 OCEAN AVE ZITELLI MARK C ASPEN, CO 81611 414 N 1ST ST MARTIN SCOTT M ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 51 POOL JUDY F M DENVER, CO 802113829 3038 ZUNI ST WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 234 W HOPKINS AVE DEAN FAMILY LTD PTSHP LLP BOULDER, CO 80301 590 DELLWOOD AVE 284 LAMPTON PATRICIA M TRUST ASHEVILLE, NC 28814 PO BOX 18013 BOURKEY888 LLC SINGAPORE 436853, 16 THIAM SIEW AVE JES 2002 GRANTOR TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 221 N STARWOOD DR GARET CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E MAIN ST #2 HALCYON ENTERPRISES LLC PRINCETON, NJ 08540 78 LOVERS LN SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST SAND KATHERINE M ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 51 ASPEN UPTOWN LLC SNYDER, OK 73566 PO BOX 348 WINER CAROL G BETHESDA , MD 20817 6740 SELKIRK DR MELTON DAVID ASPEN, CO 81611 135 W MAIN ST 285 Neighborhood Uses 1 - 234 West Hopkins, 3 units 2 - 222 West Hopkins, 6 units, AspenVictorian 3 - 212 West Hopkins, single family, AspenVictorian 4 - 200 West Hopkins, single family, AspenVictorian 5 - 205 West Hopkins, single family, AspenVictorian 6 - 211 West Hopkins, proposed 2 detached units, potential AspenModern 7 - 221 West Hopkins, single family 8 - 235 and 237 West Hopkins, duplex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 286 287 Residential Design Standards Administrative Review Section 26.410.020.B. of the Land Use Code requires an Administrative Review for compliance with the Residential Design Standards (RDS) for all residential projects, unless otherwise exempted pursuant to Section 26.410.010.C. Exempt projects include: • An addition or remodel to an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building • A remodel of a structure where the alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by any of the RDS • A residential unit within a mixed-use building • A designated historic resource listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. New buildings on a historic landmark lot are not exempt. All applicable residential projects shall submit for RDS Administrative Review or Alternative Compliance prior to building permit submittal. An applicant may choose to apply directly for a variation from the Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.410.020.C. A pre-application summary will be required for a variation request. Review Process: The Community Development Department staff shall review an application for applicability and compliance with Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. If the application complies with all applicable standards as written, a signed Checklist and stamped plan set shall be provided to the applicant to be included with building permit submission. If the application does not comply with one or more applicable standards, an unsigned Checklist and redlined plan set shall be emailed to the applicant including comments from staff on which standard(s) the application does not comply with and a description of why the standard(s) is not compliant. The applicant shall be provided the opportunity to revise and resubmit the design in response to the comments. Staff will keep an application open for 30 days from the date an unsigned Checklist is emailed to the applicant. If after such time no revisions are submitted, the application will be removed from the review system. Pursuant to 26.410.020.C, projects that do not meet the criteria for Administrative Review or Alternative Compliance (as determined by staff) may be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, or HPC if appropriate, at the applicant’s request. A pre-application summary will be required for a variation request. Page 1 of 2 288 Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions (Flexible) Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached. Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 2 289 Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes C.4.Garage Door Design (Flexible) D.1.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) D.2.Door Height (Flexible) D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) E.1.Principle Window (Flexible) E.2.Window Placement (Flexible) E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Page 2 of 2 290 Tree Survey Report 211 West Hopkins, Aspen CO October 9, 2020 PROVIDED BY: Jason Jones Board Cer,fied Master Arborist #RM-0734B Aspen Tree Service Inc. Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-3070 jason@myaspentree.com exhibit Q 291 Summary I have been asked by MaQ Moritz of Bluegreen to analyze and comment on the tree resource located at 211 West Hopkins Street in Aspen. I have also been asked to expose the roots and comment on any poten,al founda,on impacts that may be notable as a result of a large tree growing very near the house. I have provided an inventory and evalua,on of all of the significant trees and results of the air excava,on performed on the tree near the house. There are 34 significant trees (over 6 inch in diameter) on the property. All of these trees are in rela,vely good health and there are no immediate concerns over health or structural integrity in any of these trees a this ,me. Basic maintenance pruning and removal a few trees that are crowding understory trees could be beneficial to the long term health of the landscape. While the exposing of the tree roots of the large spruce on the Northwest corner of the house indicated roots up against the founda,on, it did not appear these roots had damaged the wall at this ,me. Methodology I reviewed the site and performed a visual inspec,on on each tree located within the boundaries of the site. I measured each tree at approximately 4.5 feet above ground level to obtain an accurate Diameter Breast Height (DBH). I was provided a base map from which I numbered and labeled each tree on the map and affixed a metal tag with the tree numbers physically to the south side of each tree stem. Individual trees were entered into the aQached tree inventory worksheet with an accurate DBH, condi,on ra,ng and comments specific to each tree. Condi,on values were assigned as a result of visual indicators such as the presence of dead limbs, signs or symptoms of disease/insects, or structural defects. Details of the condi,on scale are as follows: 1)A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 2)Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3)Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mi,gated by regular care. 4)Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant pathogen ac,vity or structural defects that cannot be abated. 5)Tree is in severe decline, highly hazardous or is dead. I was also asked to evaluate one tree, number 16 , in regards to poten,al founda,on damage. This tree has a large structural root near the house that is growing in the direc,on of the founda,on wall. I u,lized a high pressure air tool called an “Air-Knife’ and a high pressure compressor to remove the soil and expose these roots and the wall. Upon request the area was lee exposed and flagged with cau,on tape so that further analysis could be performed by other par,es if desired. Limits of the Assignment My inves,ga,on is based solely upon the informa,on noted on my visit to the site on October 9, 2020. I have not performed any laboratory examina,ons, studied soil composi,on or employed any other 292 diagnos,c techniques beyond visual examina,on of the trees and the site. I have developed general conclusions of tree health and provided recommenda,ons based upon these observa,ons. This document is strictly a tree survey report and individual tree risk assessment or long term management plan for the site may be performed addi,onally upon request. Any comments pertaining to the impacts of roots to the founda,on wall are strictly based on my observa,ons as I am not qualified to provide informa,on pertaining to structural walls or impacts from the trees roots. A structural engineer should be engaged for a complete analysis of this maQer if desired. Observations Site Description The property is a single family home located at 211 West Hopkins in downtown Aspen. There are numerous trees of various sizes on the site, some that have been planted and some that have come up as volunteers over ,me. In general all of the trees are in good condi,on and no risks of imminent hazards to people or property were noted at this ,me. There are two large Engelman spruce in the front of the house that are the most significant trees. There is also a significant grouping of trees along the back fence screening the property from the alley behind. There are also trees between the house and the neighboring property to the West as well a mature aspen group par,ally in the city right of way. General Site Observations The landscape in general is in good condi,on overall. The property has been irrigated and the trees have generally grown well. The trees on the site are aspen (Populus tremuloidies) , and two varie,es of spruce, blue spruce (Picea pungens ‘glauca’), and Engleman spruce (Picea englemannii). There are several smaller aspen trees that have come up as volunteers (not planted) that are very close to the house or fences that should be removed before they cause damage. SpeciFic Tree Observations Each tree was evaluated visually and entered into the aQached tree inventory worksheet. This worksheet contains the tree species, condi,on and any specific notes. I have further elaborated on any other specifics pertaining to individual trees and below. Trees #14,#15,#34,#33,#32- Blue spruce trees- This grouping consists of the trees along the West border of the property and separates the two homes. The trees are somewhat crowded in this area as there are also trees on the neighboring property line. The lead tree in the group, #14, is the most valuable tree in this row and the rest of these trees will ul,mately not be sustainable in these loca,ons for the long term due to spa,al constraints. Trees #16, #17-These trees are the most significant and largest trees on the property. They are growing very close to the house but upon examina,on do not appear to be causing any structural damage at this ,me. The removal of some low limbs making direct contact with the house would be recommended and the removal of dead limbs in the interior would improve the aesthe,cs of these trees. One of the trees, number 16, has a co-dominant stem high within the crown. This condi,on could make this tree more likely to split in a high wind situa,on but no imminent threat exists. The installa,on of a cable/brace in the canopy of this tree could mi,gate this risk further. These trees are also suscep,ble to the Spruce bark beetle which is currently exhibi,ng high pressures to this tree species in the area. If these trees are 293 deemed highly valuable to the property then some preven,ve treatment op,ons should be evaluated. Tree number 16 was evaluated specifically to determine if the tree roots were causing visible founda,on damage. We u,lized a high pressure air tool to excavate the soil away from this wall without damaging roots. This tree species is, in general, fibrous rooted and not par,cularly invasive or impachul to infrastructure. The roots that were exposed were growing right against the wall but no cracking or penetra,on into the concrete was noted. These roots were of a rela,vely small diameter with the largest root es,mated at no more than 2 inches in diameter. Trees #18 through #23-Quaking aspen- This group of trees is at least par,ally if not en,rely within the city right of way. These trees are generally healthy although tree number 22 has a significant scar from a previous branch failure and tree number 21 has a co-dominant stem that could present a structural issue at some ,me in the future. All of these trees would benefit from maintenance pruning and show signs and symptoms of previous aphid and mite ac,vity. These pests could be easily controlled through the implementa,on of a plant health care program. Trees #24-#31 Engelman and blue spruce, quaking aspen- This group of trees is notable in that they provide valuable screen from the alley and homes behind the house. The trees were planted very closely together and the faster growing aspen have dominated the spruce. These larger aspen while currently rela,vely healthy may be considered for removal as they are causing significant impact to the spruce trees. These spruce will ul,mately live much longer and therefore this species could benefit the site for the long term in comparison to the aspen stems that live typically less than 30 years in these sejngs. Tree 26 has two co-dominant stems that are beginning to split at the base as evidenced by the crack going to the ground. This tree is most severely impac,ng the growth of the spruce. Pruning could also provide some clearance for these trees and removal of the dead limbs in the spruce would also improve aesthe,c and tree health long term. Miscellaneous other trees- I noted several other trees that were not of significant size but should be considered due to the loca,ons. There is an apple tree in the city right of way that is in poor condi,on as it has likely been repeatedly damaged by bears harves,ng fruit. There are also 3 aspen growing very close to the house that will cause roof damage in the near future as they grow. One of these trees is just under the 6 inch diameter size that would require a permit from the city for removal. At 5.9 inches in diameter if this tree is not removed promptly it will likely require a permit to be removed. The other two trees are on the East side of the house and these trees are around 4 inches in diameter. There are also several aspen growing within the fenceline on the west side of the house in the back. These trees should be removed as they are beginning to cause damage to the fence and do not have room to grow any further in this loca,on. Recommendations Upon review of each tree on the site I would make the following recommenda,ons- •Remove the aspen trees under code sized growing very near the roof line to prevent damage. •Prune or remove trees numbered 26 and 28 to allow the spruce trees in this area to grow properly. This work would require a permit and it is not certain the City of Aspen would allow this work. 294 •Prune all of the spruce trees along the west border of the property to clear the roof of the house. Some of these trees could be evaluated for removal as this is a limited area and the trees are very crowded. The city would need to issue a permit here as conifers over 4 inches in diameter require permits for removals. •While the large spruce number 16 does not outwardly appear to be cracking the founda,on it would be advisable to contact a structural engineer to confirm. •If the health, aesthe,cs and longevity of the trees on this site are of importance to the property owners the property should be reviewed for an annual plant health care program to manage insect, disease and cultural issues trees may be facing. This program should administered by a company with a Cer,fied Arborist. 295 Map of Site and Trees 296 Tree Inventory Tree #Species D.B.H.Condi3on Comments 14 Blue Spruce 12.5 2 Crowded by neighboring coQonwood tree. Overall good health 15 Blue Spruce 8.5 3 Very crowded, dead limbs interior, limbed up heavily 16 Engleman spruce 20.5 3 Has co-dominant stem high in canopy. Very close to house. Dead limbs in interior. Overall health is good. Prune away from house. 17 Engleman spruce 24.5 2 Some dead and broken limbs in canopy, Some lean but not of structural concern. Very close to house, no outward signs of structural damage 18 Aspen 11 2 Good health 19 Aspen 9 2 Good health 20 Aspen 11.5 2 Good health 21 Aspen 11,10 3 Co-dominant stem with included bark, overall health good and currently structurally sound. 22 Aspen 13.5 3 Large tear out of branch and decay signs in main stem, crowded. 23 Aspen 9 2 Good health 24 Engleman spruce 15 3 Crowded by aspens above, Co-dominant stem in top 25 Engleman spruce 8.5 3 Crowded, lots of deadwood 26 Aspen 13.13.5 3 Co-dominant stem with included bark , overall health good. Removal would benefit surrounding trees. 27 Engleman spruce 13 2 Good health, crowded by aspens above, some mechanical damage to stem. 28 Aspen 13 3 Crowding understory spruce, leaning towards alley, overall good health. 29 Engleman spruce 14.5 2 Good health, crowded by aspens above 30 Engleman spruce 5.5 3 Crowded by spruce on each side, co-dominant stem, significant dead limbs in interior. 31 Blue Spruce 12.5 3 Stem irregulari,es, significant deadwood in interior, lean. 32 Blue Spruce 12.5 2 Overall good health 33 Blue Spruce 11.5 3 In between houses, interfering with roof, significant deadwood in interior, limited space to grow long term 34 Blue Spruce 12.5 3 In between houses, interfering with roof, significant deadwood in interior, limited space to grow long term 297 Photos Tree # 17 showing need to clear low limbs for building clearance 298 Tree #16- Showing proximity to house and exposed roots next to foundation. 299 Trees #17-23-Aspens in right of way in good health 300 Trees 24-30- Showing crowding of spruce from faster growing, shorter lived aspen stems and co-dominant stem with included bark on tree 26. 301 Photo showing smaller trees that should be removed growing close to house roofline. 302 p. 1 of 2 www.bluegreenaspen.com to Aspen Historical Preservation Committee from Bluegreen date Oct 14th, 2020 project name 211 W Hopkins subject Stormwater Management Plan Purpose: The purpose of this report is to address the water supply, wastewater disposal, other utilities, and storm water drainage, for 211 W Hopkins. The applicant, 211 W Hopkins LLC, intends to construct a single family residence on the lot while maintaining the Historic house on site. 1.Location a.The property is located in the City and Townsite of Aspen Block 48: Lots K, L, M. See survey of property attached separately. The location is show below. 2.Water Supply a.This residence is served by City of Aspen Water. The curb box will be located and service size will be replaced if necessary. An additional service line will be placed during construction for the new single family structure from Hopkins. The Historic Pan Abode will be serviced from replaced existing line, or a new direct line with be constructed from Hopkins. 3.Wastewater Disposal memorandum exhibit R 303 p. 2 of 2 www.bluegreenaspen.com a. The existing residence is served by Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and the service line is located within the alley. This service may be replaced if the service age dictates need for replacement. Evaluation and the design will be coordinated with the district requirements. 4. Other Utilities a. The lot at 211 W Hopkins is currently served by other utilities including telephone, gas, and electricity. b. The existing buried electric service line crosses into the property from the alley to the south. This electric line is owned, operated and maintained by City of Aspen Electric. The applicant has no plans to alter this public service upgrade is necessary. Phone likely runs with the electric service. A gas line also currently serves the property and will continue to serve the proposed residence. 5. Storm Water Drainage a. The applicant intends to construct storm water improvements in conjunction with the proposed buildings. Anticipated storm drainage improvements include storm drainage swales, piping, inlets, and drywells. The storm water runoff is to be mitigated via a proposed drywell located in-between the two buildings in the center of the property that would overflow to the city storm sewer if inundated through an overflow pipe. Otherwise the drywell will percolate after being treated into soil below. Runoff from the proposed single family residence will be directed to the drywell to limit runoff rates to the pre-developed condition of the site. 6. Conclusion a. It is our professional opinion that the proposed property can be adequately designed from the aspects of water supply, wastewater disposal, utilities, storm drainage and public services and maintain the historic character of the residences. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Matt Moritz Bluegreen 304 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pete Strecker, Finance Director MEETING DATE: December 8, 2020 RE: Approval of Resolution No. 106 (Series 2020): 2020 Budget for the Aspen Mini Storage REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting for City Council approval of a 2020 budget for the Aspen Mini Storage operation as a component unit of the City. The total requested spending authority for this entity is $620,000. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council approved the purchase of the Aspen Mini Storage site adjacent to the Lumberyard site in February 2020. The funds used to purchase the site came from the Housing Development Fund (150 Fund) with the intention of expanding the footprint of developable land for future affordable housing for the Community. BACKGROUND: On February 4, 2020, the City of Aspen purchased the land at 105 Woodward Lane at the Aspen Airport Business Center. Concurrent with this acquisition, the City also established a new limited liability corporation to operate the existing mini storage facilities located on the premises. The land lease terms established between the City of Aspen and the new LLC are such that the annual rent charged will equal the net profit from the storage operation, less $20,000 for cash flow needs. These lease revenues are received back into the Housing Development Fund as the property owner, and allow the Fund a return on its roughly $10M investment as plans for future site development continue. Based on roughly eight months of actual financial activity at the storage facility, it is projected that storage unit rental income should equal roughly $620,000; and annual expenses BEFORE the LLC payment to the City for the land lease will equal roughly $150,000. Assuming these projections, the net profit of the mini storage operation should be roughly $470,000 and would be the rental income that goes back into the Housing Development Fund this year. Given these details, staff is requesting approval an initial 2020 Budget for the Aspen Mini Storage operation of $620,000. RECOMMENDED ACTION:Staff requests City Council approval of the proposed budget for the Aspen Mini Storage operation, acquired February 4, 2020. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to adopt Resolution #106 (Series 2020) which recognizes the 2020 Budget for the Aspen Mini Storage, as a component unit of the City of Aspen.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 305 RESOLUTION NO. 106 (SERIES OF 2020) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING THE 2020 BUDGET FOR ASPEN MINI STORAGE WHEREAS,on February 4, 2020, the City of Aspen purchase the parcel of land commonly known as 105 Woodward Lane at the Airport Business Center which was and currently is home to Aspen Mini Storage; and WHEREAS,Aspen Mini LLC was established as a separate legal entity for the purpose of operating the mini storage operation located at 105 Woodward Lane at the Airport Business Center, with the City of Aspen as the sole member of that LLC; and WHEREAS, the purchase of the land was facilitated using resources Affordable Housing Development Fund with the intent of expanding the adjacent site already owned by this same fund for a future affordable housing development; and WHEREAS, a land lease agreement was established between the City of Aspen and Aspen Mini LLC, such that the lease terms specify that the annual lease payments to the City by the LLC will equal the net operating profit from the mini storage operation, NOW THEREFORE,be it resolved by City Council, that the budget for the Aspen Mini Storage operation for fiscal year 2020 is hereby approved. All constituted appropriations amounting to $620,000 and estimated revenues amounting to $620,000, are hereby declared to be sufficient and necessary to pay the expenses at the close of the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2020and ending December 31, 2020. Adopted this 8th day of December 2020. _____________________________ Torre, Mayor I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on the 8th day of December 2020. _______________________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk 306 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Council FROM: James R. True, City Attorney DATE OF MEMO: December 2, 2020 MEETING DATE: December 8, 2020 RE:Ordinance # 21 (Series of 2020)/Mayor and Council Compensation SUMMARY: Council has requested an opportunity to consider an ordinance that would increase the compensation paid to Mayor and Council. Ordinance #21, which is attached, was approved at first reading on November 24, 2020, and is before Council for final consideration. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Section 3.6 of the Aspen Municipal Charter states, in pertinent part, as follows: The members of the council shall receive suchcompensation, and the mayor such additional compensation, as the council shall prescribe by ordinance; provided, however, that the compensation of any member during his term of office shall not be increased or decreased. … Based on this provision, Council raised the compensation for the Mayor and Council pursuant to Ordinance #1 adopted in March of 2001. Ordinance #1, Series of 2001, is attached. Compensation has remained at that level since then. In 2008, a permanent modification of compensation tied to County Commissioner salaries, which is set by state statute, was considered as a Charter amendment. However, that effort was abandoned. In April of 2019, Ordinance #11 was broughtbefore Council to provide an increase of $200 per month for Council and Mayor. It also included an automatic increase based on CPI at the beginning of each term for Council. Ordinance #11, Series of 2019 was tabled at first reading and was not timely taken off the table. Pursuant to applicable rules, it must be deemed to have died. DISCUSSION: Ordinance #21, Series of 2020, provides for an increase of $1000 per month for Council and Mayor. It also includes an automatic increase based on CPI at the beginning of each term for Council and each term for Mayor. This allows an increase to 307 occur at the beginning of a new term so that no Council member receives an increase during his or her term. At first reading, Council requested some clarity on the medical and prescription insurance benefits that would be available to Council. It was the intent of the proposed ordinance to continue thepayment of a stipend to the Mayor or anyCouncil member who chose to obtain or retain insurance outside of the City’s program. The ability to elect to participate in the City’s insurance program, at a certain level without additional expense to the elected official, also remains. I have modified the language in this section to address some of the questions that were raised. The changes are not substantive. They are intended to clarify the intent of the ongoing program and what is available to the Mayor and Council. Also, I have added a statement within the initial recitals that acknowledges an understanding of a minimum amount of time that is required of the Mayor and Council members. Clearly, this varies from member to member and time to time. However, I believe there was a consensus that this was the minimum requirement. As with first reading, I have attached hereto a memo from Ron LaBlanc dated September 22, 2020 that provides data obtained by staff regarding compensation provided to elected officials in other western, resort municipalities. The compensation of elected officials is debated throughout this country on a regular basis. There are many varied opinions regarding amount and purpose. I will not attempt to capsulize those opinions and that debate. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff does not have a recommendation for action by Council. 308 ORDINANCE NO. 21 (Series of 2020) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, INCREASING THE COMPENSATION FOR THE OFFICES OF MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILPERSON. WHEREAS, Section 3.6 of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Aspen provides that members of the City Council and Mayor shall receive such compensation as the Council shall prescribe by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the current levels of compensation for the Mayor ($2,325.00 per month) and members of City Council ($1,700.00 per month) were established in January 2001, and have not been adjusted since that time; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide a reasonable and equitable increase in the levels of compensation provided to the Mayor and members of the City Council so as to reflect not only the increase in the cost of living since 2001, but the increase in the commitment of time necessarily required to fulfill the duties of such elective offices, which is acknowledged to be a minimum of twenty hours per week; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a salary that is fair compensation and maintain that salary as it relates to increases in the cost of living without further action by Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The monthly compensation for the office of Mayor shall be increased from $2,325.00 per month to $3,325.00 per month; the monthly compensation for City Council members shall be increased from $1,700.00 per month to $2,700.00 per month. Increases in compensation as set forth 309 2 herein shall become effective upon the first regular City Council meeting in April 2021 for the Mayor and June 2021 for those Council Members elected in the general election of 2021. In accordance with Section 3.6 of the Home Rule Charter, no current member of the City Council, including the Mayor, shall be entitled to receive such compensation increase until their present term of office has expired, and they have been duly elected or appointed to a new term. Thus, for Council positions set for election in March 2023, increases in compensation as set forth herein shall become effective upon the first regular City Council meeting in April 2023. Section 2. The monthly compensation for City Council members shall be increased based on the increase in the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CPI (“CPI”) every four years to take effect at the commencement of a new term for each Council position. For Council members elected in 2021, the CPI compensation increase shall take effect in April 2025, and each April every four years thereafter. For Council members elected in 2023, the CPI increase shall take effect in April 2027, and each April every four years thereafter. The monthly compensation for Mayor shall be increased by the CPI every two years commencing April 2023. The Director of Finance shall calculate and implement the CPI increase authorized pursuant to this Section 2. Section 3. In addition, compensation for the office of Mayor and for City Council members shall include the ability to participate in the City’s medical and prescription insurance program at no additional cost or receive an amount sufficient to allow the officeholder to participate in a third-party medical and prescription insurance program.If the Mayor or any member of Council elects to obtain or maintain thirty-party individual medical and prescription insurance, such individual shall be entitled to receive an insurance stipend; provided, however, that the stipend is actually used to purchase the 310 3 insurance through a third-party insurer and that the stipend does not exceed the cost of the medical and prescription insurance for a single person in the City’s insurance program,which equals the employee premium plus City’s costs for such insurance. Any Council member and Mayor requesting the stipend shall provide evidence of the actual third-party insurance coverage and the cost of the coverage obtained by the individual to the Human Resources Department annually during open enrollment extended through January 31st. If electing to participate in the City of Aspen’s insurance program, the Mayor and City Council members may also elect dental and vision coverage but shall be responsible for and pay the premium for such coverage. If enrolling in the City of Aspen’s insurance program, the Mayor and City Council members may enroll eligible dependents, at the Mayor’s or Councilmember’s full expense, in compliance with the Affordable Health Care Act. The maximum stipend shall be determined by the Human Resources Department and implemented at the commencement of each Mayor or Council Member’s term and shall remain the same throughout the elected individual’s term. Further benefits for the Mayor and City Council members shall include access to a deferred compensation (457b) retirement plan, Employee Assistance Program (EAP), and the Elected Official Wellbeing Program. Any additional costs associated with participation in these programs shall be borne by the individual elected official. The EAP allows access for the Mayor and Council members and their dependents up to 26 years old and/or spouse. Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 311 4 Section 5. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 8 th day of December 2020, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of November 2020. ______________________________ Torre, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 8th day of December 2020. ______________________________ Torre, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk 312 MEMORANDUM TO:Sara Ott, City Manager FROM: Ron LeBlanc, Special Projects Manager Copy:Jim True, City Attorney Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director MEMO DATE:September 22, 2020 RE:Comparison of City Council Compensation REQUEST FROM CITY MANAGER: Per your direction, a review of comparable communities was completed to determine a comparison of compensation provided to Mayors and members of the governing body. This has been drafted as an information memo. BACKGROUND: The City Council discussed the topic of Mayor and Council compensation during a Work Session on March 9, 2020. The agenda packet contained a memo prepared by City Attorney Jim True, with the assistance of Alissa Farrell who prepared a table of data to illustrate comparisons of various cities. For the convenience of those who may be reading this memo, the agenda memo dated March 5 is attached. The summary of the legal basis for the current City Council compensation has not changed since the previous discussion. The focus of this memo is to provide expanded and updated comparison data with other cities. This information was compiled using information obtained from the Colorado Municipal League (CML), Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST), and individual contacts with additional cities. TABLE 1 – COMPARISON OF SALARIES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS displays data from 28 cities and towns throughout the Rocky Mountain West. While these communities are similar to Aspen in many respects,each community has a distinctive character that makes it unique. The majority of these peer cities are from Colorado. Colorado has a strong Home Rule tradition that is rooted in the Constitution of the State of Colorado. The majority of these peer Colorado communities operate with a Home Rule Charter that was adopted by a vote of the people and follow the Council-Manager form of government. Five of these peer cities in Colorado are statutory 313 towns (Basalt, Eagle, Estes Park, Fraser, and Grand Lake) taking their powers and authorities from state statutes. The powers granted to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager are very similar for each of the peer cities in Colorado. The Council or Town Board is the legislative body. In most situations, the Mayor is a voting member of the governing body. Their role is to set policy including the approval of the annual budget. The governing body is responsible for appointing the city manager, city attorney and municipal judge. It might be instructive to provide additional details regarding roles and responsibilities. The Aspen City Charter specifies that the Mayor is “recognized as the head of government for all ceremonial and legal purposes and he or she shall execute and authenticate legal instruments requiring his or her signature as such official.” This is typical language found in most Home Rule Charters that are based on the National Civic League’s Model City Charter. Only three mayors in Colorado possess true executive authority (such as developing the annual budget and hiring/ firing staff) can be found in Denver (technically a city/county consolidation), Colorado Springs and Pueblo. The vast majority of municipalities in Colorado view the Office of Mayor as a part time position. The powers and duties of City Managers in Colorado represent a traditional executive function, designed to “execute” the policies of the governing body. The Aspen City Charter enumerates the powers and duties of the City Manager in Section 6.3. The City Manager is responsible for all personnel functions, developing an annual budget, reporting financial condition on a routine basis, supervising and directing the various departments and managing the day to day affairs of the City. A notable exception to this is the Town of Avon which was initially created with a Council-Mayor form of government and provides for a Council-Manager form when the Council determines such form is appropriate. Five peer cities used in this comparison are located outside Colorado. These are Jackson WY, Ketchum ID, Moab UT, Park City UT, and Sun Valley ID. All of these communities more closely resemble statutory communities in Colorado rather than Home Rule municipalities. Ketchum, Moab, Park City and Sun Valley are statutory municipalities established under state statutes. Jackson operates under a Charter Ordinance that was adopted by the City Council. In Ketchum, Moab, Park City, and Sun Valley, the Mayor serves as the Chief Executive. The form of government may be a contributing factor to explain why the salaries of these five out of state communities are the highest of the peer cities. Park City has the highest salaries for elected officials. It pays its Mayor $3,706 per month and City Council members are paid $1,914 per month. Jackson is the second highest: Mayor ($3,275); Council ($2,729). This is followed by Ketchum with salaries for Mayor ($3,122) and Council ($1,734). The City of Aspen comes in at number four on the list as it pays the Mayor $2,325 per month and members of the City Council receive $1,700 per month. Snowmass Village is number five on the list at $2,200 per month for Mayor with City Council getting paid $1,700 per month. The City of Sun Valley is next paying their Mayor $1,700/month and City Council $1,000/month. Most Colorado communities pay less than $1,500 per month for Mayor and $1,042 per month for City Council. 314 Colorado has 271 incorporated cities and towns. Denver, Colorado Springs, Aurora, and Pueblo compensate their Mayors more than Aspen. Denver, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo follow the Mayor-Council form of government. The Mayors in these cities receive: Denver- $14,266/month, Colorado Springs - $8,614/month, Aurora - $6,867/month, and Pueblo - $12,500/month. It appears that the City of Aspen currently compensates the Mayor $2,325/month (fourth highest in the state) while the majority of Colorado cities compensate the Mayor less than $1,500/month. A sitting Council cannot vote to increase their compensation until an election has taken place for their seat on the governing body. The comparison data reflects the most recently approved salary for Mayor and Council in that municipality. While some sitting elected officials who have not run for re-election under the new ordinance may be compensated at the old rate, all newly elected members of the governing body will be compensated at the new rate after the next election. Benefits are also part of the total compensation for members of the City Council. This becomes very complicated to identify and quantify. Benefits for members of the governing body differ greatly from city to city. Of the 28 peer cities, only ten were confirmed to offer health, life, dental, and vision insurance (Aspen, Avon, Durango, Estes Park, Jackson, Park City, Snowmass Village, Steamboat Springs, Sun Valley and Telluride). These costs are budgeted annually, however, not every member of the governing body who is eligible opts to take the city’s insurance. The out of state peer cities frequently also contribute to the state pension system on behalf of the elected official. Typically, the vesting period for a state retirement system is five years, most terms of office are only four years. Those municipalities that offer health insurance and paid retirement will also have the highest total compensation numbers. Most of the peer cities in Colorado offer a wide range of low cost/no cost benefits such as wellness passes to recreation centers, free car washes at the city owned facility, and cell phone stipends. SUMMARY: This information represents the most current data available. The COVID economy has forced some cities to reduce salaries, including those of elected officials. However, those reductions are considered to be temporary, so the maximum authorized salaries are reflected in these data. TABLE 1 – COMPARISON OF SALARIES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS City/Town Population Mayor Council Month Month Avon 6,442 $1,500 $750 Aspen 7,287 $2,325 $1,700 Basalt 4,658 $1,562 $1,042 Breckenridge 5,038 $1,500 $1,000 Carbondale 6,997 $1,500 $900 Crested Butte 1,771 $900 $500 Dillon 983 $900 $400 Durango 19,097 $1,117 $876 Eagle 7,085 $800 $500 Estes Park 6,310 $917 $667 315 Fraser 1,348 $140/mtg $100/mtg Frisco 3,281 $950 $500 Glenwood Springs 9,972 $1,200 $1,000 Grand Lake 516 $0 0 Gunnison 6,914 $750 $625 Jackson Wyoming 10,427 3,275 $2,729 Ketchum, Idaho 2,889 $3,122 $1,734 Moab, Utah 5,268 $1,000 $700 Mt. Crested Butte 886 $300/mtg $150/mtg Mountain Village 1,432 $800 $400 Park City, Utah 13,382 $3,706 $1,914 Silverthorne 5,129 $750 $300 Snowmass Village 2,741 $1,700 $1,200 Steamboat Springs 13,764 $1,192 $895 Sun Valley, Idaho 1,499 $1,700 $1,000 Telluride 2,494 1,000 $800 Vail 5,408 $1,000 $625 Winter Park 1,087 $400/mtg $200/mtg 316 ORDINANCE NO. 1 Series of 2001) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, INCREASING THE COMPENSATION FOR THE OFFICES OF MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILPERSON. WHEREAS, Section 3.6 of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Aspen provides that members of the City Council and Mayor shall receive such compensation as the Council shall prescribe by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the current levels of compensation for the Mayor ($1,725.00 per month) and members of City Council ($1,200.00 per month) were established in March. 1996. and have not been adjusted since that time: and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide a reasonable and equitable increase in the levels of compensation provided to the Mayor and members of the City Council so as to reflect not only the increase in the cost of living since 1996, but the increase in the commitment of time necessarily required tc fulfill the duties of such elective offices; and WHEREAS, the City Council f'mds that the current compensation for the Mayor and members of Council even after being adjusted for increases in the CPI are not sufficient to encourage persons from all economic backgrounds to participate in public service; and WHEREAS, increasing the compensation of the Mayor and members of Council may provide one incentive for citizens with modest financial incomes to consider public service; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to proclaim and establish a custom and policy of evaluating and adjusting the compensation levels for the Mayor and council members more frequently than it has in the past. 317 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The monthly compensation for the office of Mayor shall be increased from $1,725.00 per month to $2,325.00 per month; the monthly compensation for City Council members shall be increased from $1,200.00 per month to $1,700.00 per month. In addition, compensation for the office of Mayor and for City Council members shall be increased by an amount sufficient to allow those officeholders to participate in health insurance benefits as follows. The Mayor and each member of Council shall be entitled to receive a stipend in addition to their monthly compensation equal to the cost of health insurance benefits authorized for regular full time City employees; provided, however, that the stipend is actually used to purchase health insurance through the City or a third party insurer and that the stipend does not exceed the cost of health insurance premiums for a single person. All increases in compensation as set forth herein shall become effective upon the first regular City Council meeting in June 2001. In accordance with Section 3.6 of the Home Rule Charter, no current member of the City Council, including the Mayor, shall be entitled to receive such compensation increase until their present term of office has expired and they have been duly elected or appointed to a new term. Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 2 318 Section 3. This ordinance shall not have anY effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the )~ day of~, 2001, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of January 2001. ATTEST: _ Katfirya S'-Y~h; City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 12th day ATTEST: --' - ~ . .~...,. Kathryn S. K~l~;C~ty (~lerkJPW-02/ 13/01-G:\]ohn\word\ords\SALARIES.doc 319