HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080213ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
'"" REGUALR MEETING
February 13, 2008
5:00 P.M.
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON - 212 W. Hopkins Ave.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - January 9"' and January 23, 2008
minutes.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #4)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Hannah Dustin - Minor D velopment, Commercial Design
Review (45 min.) ~~2~'~~ (~'~~
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. NONE
X, WORI{SESSIONS
A. Paepcke Auditorium (45 min.)
IX. ADJOURN 6:35 p.m.
~r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: 300 South Spring Street, Minor Development Review and an Amendment to
Commercial Design Review- Public Hearing
DATE: February 13, 2008
SUMMARY: 300 South Spring Street, aka the Hannah Dustin Building, built in 1969,
represents the International Style of azchitecture, which emphasizes a concern with volume as
opposed to mass and solidity, balance as opposed to preconceived symmetry and the exclusion of
actual and applied decoration. The building was designed by the local firm of George Heneghan
and Dan Gale, who had previous experience as architects within Benedict's office. The firm
completed a number of residences in Aspen and Snowmass. One of their other noteworthy
designs is the Aspen Chapel.
The Hannah Dustin Building, received approval on June 26, 2006 to construct an addition that
includes new net leasable space, two free market units, and three affordable housing units. Since
then, the property has sold and the new owner wishes to improve the project. Hannah Dustin is
not a designated landmark, but was identified by Staff as a potential historic resource and
therefore was adopted as part of Exhibit A to Ordinance #48 Series of 2007. Ordinance #48
limits alterations to the affected properties, so to move forwazd, the applicant elected to apply to
HPC for the proposed significant changes to the approved addition, which requires Commercial
Design Review and Minor Development Review. The other option for the applicant is to enter a
negotiation with City Council regarding voluntazy landmark designation.
The applicant requests an amendment to their previous Commercial Design Review along with
HPC Minor Development for the proposed changes to the addition. There aze no changes
proposed to the existing Hannah Dustin building. HPC's scope for this application is defined as
the following: massing, fenestration, landscape and materials as they relate to the new
information only. The overall height and footprint are consistent with the 2006 approvals, and
the project meets all setback requirements for the mixed use zone district. HPC shall consider
both the Commercial Design Objectives and Guidelines and the Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines.
HPC continued the application on January 23, 2008 for a restudy of the north elevation
fenestration and a possible restudy of the proposed PaperStone rainscreen material to better
relate to the existing Hannah Dustin Building.
Staff recommends that HPC grant Minor Development approval and an amendment to the
Commercial Design Review.
P1
APPLICANT: Snowmass Corporation, 24398 Highway 82, P. O. Box 620, Basalt, CO 81621,
v.... represented by Bruce McKinnon, 24398 Highway 82, P. O. Box 620, Basalt, CO 81621.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-27-001.
ADDRESS: 300 South Spring Street, Lots A and B, Block 105, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use zone district.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that ana[yZes the project's conformance will? the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC
with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. Tlie
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
,,... shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
~,„, ojthe subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response:
Massin Staff finds that the proposed addition along the west elevation is compatible with t e
existing Hannah Dustin Building. The. horizontal emphasis and proposed third floor open
corridor relate to the exterior passageways and horizontal planes of the existing building. The 3-
Dillustrations help demonstrate the spatial relationship of the proposed addition to the adjacent
residential development and the existing Hannah Dustin Building. Staff finds that the mass is
appropriate and the guidelines are met. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for
additions to historic landmazks suggest:
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historicall si ' icant features is ina ro riate.
Commercial Design Guideline 2.16 emphasizes the desire for small modules to create a
pedestrian friendly experience. Staff finds that this is achieved with the material changes on the
~""" north elevation and by recessing portions the west facade for the third floor passageway and the
elevator corridor.
2
P2
2.16 Subdivide the mass into smaller "modules" that convey a human scale.
• Multiple modules can be connected to create a larger building
Fenestration: The proposed fenestration for the west elevation is successful in relationship to the
existing building. The asymmetrical proportions and placement work well with the geometrical
shapes created in the existing building. The large first floor fenestration creates pedestrian
interest along the street, as does the proposed internal elevator with channel glass panels. Staff
finds that Guideline 10.4 is met.
The applicant has successfully restudied the north elevation and proposes a more interesting
configuration of windows. The north elevation is not viewed concurrently with the existing
Hannah Dustin building; and therefore there is more flexibility for innovative design. Staff finds
that the proposed fenestration is appropriate and adds interest to the corner.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually
compatible with these earlier features.
^ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a
differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to
help define a change from old to new construction.
Materials: '~}
The applicant proposes PaperStone rainscreen panels and stucco for the addition. The applicant `.~/
submitted four color samples of the rainscreen panels for HPC to review at the meeting. Staff
finds that the rectangular proportions of the panels represented in the elevations correlate to the
forms of the existing building and create visual interest along the street. Stucco is proposed for a
small portion of the second and third floor of the north elevation, which successfully breaks up
the large mass. Staff finds that the material is appropriate for the addition by differentiating old
construction from new and meets the guidelines below. Following are relevant Commercial
Design Guidelines regazding materials:
2.25 High quality, durable materials should be employed.
• The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved
as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of
materials as required.
2.26 Building materials should have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically.
• Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the facade.
• Convey a human scale.
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate.
And, relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
^ The new materials should be either similaz or subordinate to the original materials.
P3
Landscape: Staff finds that the proposed landscape changes are appropriate for the site and
+..~ enhance the pedestrian experience on the corner.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
26.412.050 Review Criteria
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060,
Commercial Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-
appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is
proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a
deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design
Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design
Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the facade of the building may be
required to comply with this section. .
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
,,,~ Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that
`r.- are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine
when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although
these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be
circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might
be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still
met, albeit through alternative means.
Staff response: The requirements of Section 26.412.060 are not proposed to change from the
previous approval; and therefore are inelevant to this application. Staff finds that criterion C is
met. The proposed changes are compliant with Design Objectives and Guidelines and meet the
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
~....~
4
P4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the application for Minor
Development and Commercial Design Standard Review for the proposed addition to 300
South Spring Street, Lots A and B, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado,
with the following conditions:
1. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first
being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
2. The conditions of approval and the Historic Preservation Commission Resolution
is required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all
other prints made for the purpose of construction.
3. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific
development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a
development order. 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 Section 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 of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, 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 this Title. 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: 300 South Spring Street.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent
reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations
and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals aze
not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and
judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights
shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final
development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of
referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the
Aspen Home Rule Charter.
5
P5
Exhibits:
'`-' A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. 2006 approved elevations and site plan.
C. Application
Exhibit A- Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 300 South Spring Street
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
^ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
^ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to
remain prominent.
^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
^ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
^ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
^ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
~..- avoided.
6
P6
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
^ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
^ If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
^ Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure
wr
7
P7
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
`" APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND AN AMENDMENT TO
THE COMMERICAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300
SOUTH SPRING STREET, LOTS A AND OLORADO105, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL H): 2737-182-27-001.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Snowmass Corporation, represented by Bruce McKinnon, 24398 Highway 82,
P. O. Box 620, Basalt, CO 81621, has requested Minor Development, Demolition, and Variance for the
property located at 300 South Spring Street, Lots A and B, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, 300 South Spring Street, Lots A through D, Block 105, was adopted as part of Exhibit A to
Aspen City Council Ordinance 48, Series of 2007 as a potential historic resource; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025 of the Municipal Code states that "an owner may volunteer to have any
proposed work be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to the procedures and
limitations of Chapter 26.415 of the Municipal Code, and if the work is found by HPC to be in
conformance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," an application for
building permit shall be issued;" and
r-
``„ WHEREAS, the procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submitta
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and
other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information
on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with
conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC reviews the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the projec~ove,nd sa arove,'ah trove'with
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may app PP pp
conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Standards, according to Section 26.412.050 Review
Criteria, an application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.4]2.060, Commercial
Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-appealing pattern of
development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of
the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standards.
Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be
used to justify a deviation from the Standards.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed
the groeatesttextentspractical'Changes~oshetfa~ade of the bu Iding may be)req~redato cromply
'~* with this section. .
P8
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that
are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine
when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although
these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be
circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might
be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is
still met, albeit through alternative means; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2006, the Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance 16, Series of 2006, granting
subdivision approval for the property located at 300 South Spring Street; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated February 13th, 2008, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found the Commercial Design Objectives and Guidelines and the
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on January 23, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, and continued the public hearing to February 13, 2008, at which time the
Historic Preservation Commission found the application for Minor Development and an amendment to
the Commercial Design Review met the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the
Commercial Design Objectives and Guidelines, and approved the application by a vote of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves the application for Minor Development and an amendment to the Commercial ""`~
Design Review with the following conditions: a„/4
1. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
2. The conditions of approval and the Historic Preservation Commission Resolution is
required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other
prints made for the purpose of construction.
3. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the date of issuance of a development order.
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 Section 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 of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, 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 this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form: """^
P9
+"` 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, Colora o
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 300 South Spring Street.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances
or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with
this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as
required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set
forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of February 2008.
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
~, Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Michael Hoffman, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
r,,...
F10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23 2008
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Nora
Berko, Ann Mullins and Jay Maytin. Alison Agley was excused.
Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Jim True, Special Counsel
MOTION.• Ann moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 28`" °"d Dec. 12`h
2007; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried.
Disclosure:
Michael will recuse himself on Hannah Dustin.
Brian disclosed that he is on another board with the architect, Charlie Eckart
that is working on the Hannah Dustin project and he also worked with Stan.
Brian said he can evaluate the project objectively.
Stan Clausen said he had no issues with Brian reviewing the project.
300 S. Spring -Hannah Dustin
Michael recused himself.
Sarah chaired.
Proof of legal notice -Exhibit I
Amy explained why the application is in front of the HPC. The building
came through the subdivision process in 2006. This component involves the
commercial Hannah Dustin building and an addition that is being proposed.
It was entirely approved in 2006 under the design of a different architectural
firm and different owner. Now CCY is the architect and they are proposing
some fenestration material changes. That requires an amendment to their
commercial design standards approval but it is also coming up in the midst
of our discussion about preservation of post war buildings, ord. 30 and ord.
48. Essentially they have voluntarily decided to come to the HPC and have
the board handle their design review amendment and a minor development
approval. The footprint, massing and shape have already been approved.
HPC is only looking at amendments to the materials.
Minor Development
The architect that designed the building got their start from Fritz Benedict's
office and designed this building in 1969. The firm also designed the Aspen
Ooh
1