HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20081022ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 22, 2008
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: Noon -Meet at Red Butte Cemetery at noon, then
proceed to 601 W. Hallam Street and drive down Main Street.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - September 10, 2008 minutes.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
601 W. Hallam
Main Street Streetscape Project Proposal
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #26)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 334 W. Hallam -fence and landscape (30 min.)
B. Popcorn Wagon, cont'd public hearing (45 min.)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 308 E. Hopkins (LaCocina) rooftop deck -substantial
amendment and view plane review (45 min.}
X. Adjourn 7:10 p.m.
V~_ A, "
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 334 W. Hallam Street- Project monitoring/Landscape Design
DATE: October 22, 2008
SUMMARY: This property is a designated landmark and is listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. The site contains a 19`h century house, and an outbuilding that
was reconstructed in 1990.
HPC granted Final approval for a rehab of the primary building in 2004. The project has
been completed, except for landscape installation. There have been some issues in the
interim with regard to regular watering of the street trees, and the invasion of noxious
weeds on the site. The property owner has worked to solve these problems.
At the time of HPC's Final approval for 334 W. Hallam, the board accepted a landscape
plan, with two conditions:
1) Clarify that there are no alterations proposed for ~ the historic ditch on the City
right-of--way.
2) Eliminate the proposed wrought iron fence from the proposal or restudy it with
_ _ staff and monitor to determine where enclosure is actually needed or whether a
wood picket fence is acceptable.
The HPC resolution, minutes, and approved plan are attached.
The property owner would like to go forward with landscaping, but approached staff in
late spring with amendments that we did not find were appropriate. Insubstantial
Amendments to an approved plan can be authorized by the Community Development
Director, or by staff and the project monitor. Previous monitors for this project are no
longer members of the HPC. That circumstance, and staff's concern with the proposed
changes, led us to determine that input from the full board was needed.
HPC is asked to review changes which include a wood privacy fence facing Hallam
Street, construction of a 30" tall planter bed on the inside of the fence, and installation of
a hedgerow of approximately 30-40 norway spruces in the planter.
Staff has already signed a permit to allow two aspects of sitework to go forward on this
property, namely improvements to the previously existing driveway apron on the west
side of the house, installation of a hot tub and new fencing in that area, and reconstruction
of a privacy fence that existed along the south and east property lines. We felt that this
P2
work was consistent with HPC's approvals. What we disagree with are the stockade
fence facing south, and the heavy row of trees.
Relevant guidelines are:
1.2 Anew replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original.
^ Any fence which is visible from a public right-of--way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire
fences also may be considered.
^ A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence,
similar to traditional "wrought iron," also maybe considered.
^ Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards.
i
1.3 Anew replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard
from the street.
^ A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature.
^ On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be
taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential
Design Standards".)
^ A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a
building.
^ Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach.
^ Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context.
1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible
with the historic context.
^ Aside yard fence is usually .taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less transparent. A side
yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six feet}, but 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.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the
site.
^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of
mature growth.
^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
^ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate.
^ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the
mature canopy size.
^ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block
views to the building.
^ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
2
P3
Staff finds that a 6 foot tall stockade fence in alignment with the front facades of the
house is out of character with the Victorian and does not meet guidelines 1.2, 1.3, and
1.6. It blocks views of the east elevation of the historic house, has none of the thoughtful
detail of the house, and does not offer an aspect of transparency required by the
guidelines.
Staff finds that the hedgerow of trees, and their installation in an elevated planting bed,
does not meet guidelines 1.13 and 1.14. The Parks Department has indicated that the plan
does not accommodate the mature size of the trees. In addition, historic preservation staff
finds that this number of trees is very out of character with planting patterns of the period
when the house was built and therefore detaracts from the historic landscape. The
arrangement of the trees in a row creates a barricade that is not supported by the
guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: HPC has the following options:
1) Accept the proposal as designed;
2) Accept the proposal with amendments;
3) Direct the applicant to restudy the design; or
4) Reject the amendments. If the board, acting in a "project monitoring" capacity, is
unwilling to approve :the design, the applicant has the right to file a formal
application for a Substantial Amendment.
Staff recommends HPC reject the proposed amendments to the approved landscape plan
and provide direction for the applicant to work with staff and a new project monitor on
fence design and tree placement.
3
P4
u
w
u ~
~
a
a
~ }
~
z
~ F
a
i
~~
m~
oo'c
aam ~ n
°a~
an
•z
a
o
a,
. ~; ~~ ~a~
'-=i-
--- - ~
-~, ----
~.
~.- _
ti
m ~
m ~
a
a
w
~
~ m
m~ m }
~ ~ ~
w
a
0
w° ~ n
~.. !
~'
~+
I ~ -. +
••
~o Q: ~
~ I ~~~~
a ., •4
...
~ ~
°u
x ~~
o
7
~ g
4 '
Y w q ~ ~ ~
F o
m z ov °m °u
U
a ~ ao
o 4
o
~ ~ bi
1 ~~~..L S a~ZH.l.
~~
~~ a
o.
~-
e.
~.
W
W
9
vI
y
Vl
x
b,P13
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation- Officer
FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner
RE: 305 S. Mill Street, Unit A, "Popcorn Wagon"- Minor Development Public
Hearing
DATE: October 22, 2008
SUMMARY: The Popcorn Wagon was built circa 1913. It is rumored to have come to Aspen in
1969 at which time it was completely renovated. The location of the Popcorn Wagon changed
over time. It has been located across from the Wheeler Opera House for about 30 years.
HPC is asked to determine whether the changes to the Popcorn Wagon meet the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines as a movable street furnishing and whether the new wagon
detracts from the Historic District, especially the Wheeler Opera House across the street. The
Popcorn Wagon was not an individually designated structure, but it is located within the
Commercial Core Historic District and therefore is under the purview of HPC. At the request of
HPC, James R. True, Special Counsel to the City of Aspen, wrote a memo explaining HPC's
authority (Exhibit B.)
Findings: Staff finds that the new wagon does not have an adverse impact on the Commercial
Core Historic District. However, we do feel that the proposed finishes for the wagon do not fully
address the goal of new construction being a "product of its own time." We recommend that
HPC and the applicant discuss how the historical references could be minimized.
APPLICANT: Marcus Wade and Dena Marino, 305 South Mill Street, Unit A, Aspen,
Colorado.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-17-003.
ADDRESS: 305 South Mill Street, Unit A of the Aspen Commercial Condominiums, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
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
P14
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 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
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: The Design Guidelines do not offer specific guidance for improvements to the
pedestrian malls; however, the overarching policy for design in the Commercial Core Historic
District states "improvements...should maintain the integrity of historic resources in the area. At
the same time, compatible and creative design solutions should be encouraged." The Commercial
Core Historic District Design Objectives (the document that was recently developed and adopted
in 2007) clearly emphasize the importance of street vitality through creative and interesting
public spaces. In Staff s opinion, not only is there a history of a "wagon" in Aspen, the operation
of the Popcorn Wagon is vital to the downtown experience.
The applicant has demolished the old Popcorn Wagon, pictured below, that was a combination of
wood, glass and a nickel frame. It's replacement appears to be a similar dimension and form,
which the applicant proposes to paint red similar to the previous wagon (Exhibit C). The benches
and tables added to the seating area around the existing planter boxes that were proposed/ in
place at the last meeting are unchanged.
y..
`~,, _
P16
overall, Staff finds that the new wagon does not detract from the Historic District. It contributes
to vitality downtown. Staff is concerned that painting the wagon red, unauthentically mimics the
1913 wagon and does not meet the preservation tenet that it be "a product of its own time." Staff
recommends that HPC discuss an appropriate finish for the wagon.
The Popcorn Wagon is located on the required open space for the property. The following
guidelines for public amenity space in the Commercial Core convey the overall concept of this
type of required open space. Staff finds that these guidelines are met.
6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements:
^ Abut the public sidewalk
^ Be level with the sidewalk
^ Be open to the sky
^ Be directly accessible to the public
^ Be paved or otherwise landscaped
6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use.
These may include one or more of the following:
^ Street furniture
^ Public art
^ Historical/interpretive marker
DECISION MAHING 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Development, after discussing the finishes.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines.
Staff recommends that HPC approve the application for Minor
B. Memo from James R. True regarding HPC's purview.
C. Proposed popcorn wagon appearance.
P17
Commercial Core Historic District Design Objectives
S. Accommodate outdoor public spaces where they respect the historic context. The street
vitality associated with the center of the city should be retained and enhanced through a
combination of the form and design of the walkable street network and the associated areas of
public gathering space at street level.. The design of any public space within the core should be a
central consideration in the design and configuration of the building, to ensure that it
contributes to a positive experience in the streetscene, whether or not used for street dining.
6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements:
^ Abut the public sidewalk
^ Be level with the sidewalk
^ Be open to the sky
^ Be directly accessible to the public
^ Be paved or otherwise landscaped
6.7 Astreet-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building
fronts in the Commercial Core.
^ Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the
streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the
sidewalk. edge.
^ Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street
character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements.
6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use.
These may include one or more of the following:
^ Street furniture
^ Public art
^ Historicallinterpretive marker
5
P18
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
POPCORN WAGON ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 305 SOUTH MILL STREET,
UNIT A OF THE ASPEN COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RES(LUTION NO. _ SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-17-003.
WHEREAS, the applicants, Dena Marino and Marcus Wade have requested Minor
Development approval for the property located at 305 South Mill Street, Unit A of the Aspen
Commercial Condomimiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
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, the procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the
submittal 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 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; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated October 22nd, 2008, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met; and
WHEREAS, at a special public hearing on August 11, 2008, continued to October 22, 2008, the
Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application for Minor
Development met the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the
application by a vote of _ to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
- That HPC hereby recommends approval of the application for Minor Development for the property
located at 305 South Mill Street, Unit A of the Aspen Commercial Condominiums, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
1. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
P19
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: 305 South Mill Street,
Unit A, the Popcorn Wagon.
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 22nd day of October
2008.
Michael Hoffman, Chair
Approved as to content:
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
P20
~Xl!-l~~T' ~
The Cin' of Aspen
City Attorney's Office
MEMORANDUM
TO: SARA ADAMS
FROM: JAMES R. TRUE
DATE: September 24, 2008
RE: POPCORN WAGON
Both the applicant and the Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission have asked the
Planning Staff and the Attorney's Office to address the authority of the HPC to consider the
status of the Popcorn Wagon. This memo attempts to address that authority.
At the outset, some history of the original Popcorn Wagon must be noted. It is my understanding
that the original Popcorn Wagon itself never received any historic designation. It was a
moveable object that was: placed at its present location over twenty years ago. Although it was
attached to the property to some extent, it remained moveable. When it was moved to its
location across from the Wheeler Opera House, it received special approval by City Council.
The property on which it was to be located was actually an open space amenity created as part of
the approval of the construction of the building. However, I can find no indication that the
approval to locate the Popcorn Wagon on this space required that the wagon remain on the
property or that it remain in its original configuration.
Nonetheless, in the past when restoration work or other changes to-the wagon were proposed, the
owners applied for exemptions to the development review that was required. For instance, when
Sue Parry acquired the Popcorn Wagon in 1998, she undertook some restoration and other work
on the wagon. The work she proposed was granted an exemption under the then existing code.
The basis for the requirement for the owner to seek approval under the present Land Use Code
can be found in Section 26.415.070. That section states:
"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."
P21
Based on the definitions within the code of "structure", it would appear that the Popcorn Wagon
would be considered a "structure". Thus, although there may have been no specific approvals
regarding this property that require the Popcorn Wagon to stay, since it is within the Historic
District, it is subject to Section 26.415.070 and may only be altered, repaired or relocated
pursuant to a review.
As noted above, the previous owner sought an exemption for her restoration work. Subsection
A, of Section 26.415.070, sets forth activities that are exempted from development review.
However, none of the exemptions set forth in that Subsection A would apply to the activities of
this owner.
I would note that even if the wagon itself were not deemed a "structure", Section 26.415.070 C.
l .e., would, nonetheless, apply to any proposed alteration of the Popcorn Wagon. That section
states that minor development which requires a certificate of appropriateness includes:
"The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements
within designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the
cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of certificate of no negative
impact."
Here, the old wagon was removed and the new wagon is being erected. Without doubt, it is a
visible improvement within the district. The section requires that the Community Development
Department determine whether the magnitude is such to require a review. However, upon a
determination of the appropriate magnitude of the impact of the improvement by the Community
Development Department, the minor development must be reviewed by the HPC. It is my
understanding that the Department has made that determination.
Thus, it is my opinion that HPC had authority to review the removal of the Popcorn Wagon and
has authority to review what is now proposed as its replacement.
Please advise if you have any questions.
P23
~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer `~~-'
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner ~`
RE: 308 E. Hopkins Avenue- Substantial Amendment and Viewplane Review- Public
Hearing
DATE: October 22, 2008
SUMMARY: The applicant received approval from HPC, P & Z and City Council to demolish
and replace a. structure which was once listed, but has since been removed, from the historic
inventory. The property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. At HPC's
request during Conceptual Review, the applicant dropped the floorplate heights, and the overall
height of the proposed building, to reduce the impact on the Main Street Viewplane that
originates in front of the Jerome Hotel. HPC considered both the context of the site (i.e.
development potential in the same block, with frontage along Main Street) and precedent for
Viewplane approval in the Commercial Core (i.e. the Matsuhisha rear addition), and found that
the proposed 3 feet 3 inch intrusion had a negligible impact on the Main Street Viewplane.
Minutes from the meetings are attached.
The applicant requests a Substantial Amendment to the Development Order to allow an elevator
shaft to penetrate the rooftop, which will be a 30 inch infringement into the Main Street
Viewplane above that already approved for a total of 5 feet 9 inches into the Viewplane.
The applicant requests approval to alter the fenestration on the second floor of the street facing
elevation (south) and to eliminate two small third floor decks along the alley (north.)
Staff finds that the criteria are not met and recommends that HPC deny the request for Viewplane
exemption, fenestration changes and the enclosure of the decks.
APPLICANT: JW Venture LLC, represented by Tom Gilchrist, Charles Cunniffe Architects.
~ -PARCEL ID: 2737-073-29-007.
ADDRESS: 308 E. Hopkins, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
P24
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT- SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at
the lsearing 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 t/ze application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. (Ord. No. 1-2002 ~ 7 (part), 2002).
Staff Response:
Fenestration: The applicant proposes a different fenestration configuration for the second floor
of the street facing facade, as illustrated on Sheet A3.1. Staff finds that the proposed fenestration
does not relate to the typical solid to void repetition visible throughout historic buildings in the
Commercial Core Historic District and does not meet Guidelines 13.18 and 13.20. Staff finds
that the fenestration approved in 2007 (illustrated below) meets the Guidelines and conveys an
appropriate balance of modern design. a
13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block.
^ Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall
as they are wide.
^ Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement
relative to cornices and belt courses.
13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be
maintained.
^ Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices,
copings and parapets at the tops of buildings.
^ When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight
variation in alignments between the facade elements.
2
P25
Decks: The applicant proposes to enclose two sma114 feet by 6 feet 6 inch (4' x 6'6") decks that
are located on the third floor of the north (alley) elevation. Despite their size, the decks are very
important to creating interest along the alley and minimizing the perceived width of the building
that is visible from Main~Street. Staff finds that Guideline 13.14 is not met. The enclosure of the
decks will most likely result in an increase in floor area and net livable area for the free market
residences that will require affordable housing mitigation.
13.14 Along a rear facade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is
encouraged.
^Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived
scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure.
o Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility
structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity.
VIEW PLANE
The application requires an exemption from the Main Street View Plane because the parcel is
located within a view plane as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View
Plane Review. The Main Street View Plane originates from a point in front of the Hotel
Jerome.
The Planning and Zoning Commission typically handles View Plane reviews, however the
Community Development Director has the right to consolidate reviews when deemed to be the
most efficient and effective process. HPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
requested view plane exemption request. If HPC does not believe that the proposal satisfies the
criteria for exempting it from the full view plane review, HPC may require the application to
go through the PUD review process as is described in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050(C),
Mountain view plane review standards.
HPC is to apply the following criteria to this issue:
1. No mountain view plane can be infringed upon except as follows:
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable
building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the
provisions of Chapter 26.455 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum
flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and
pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height
requirements, view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated
requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to
require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated.
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front
of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon
3
P26
the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-
open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the
view plane, and re-development to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall approve the development.
Staff Response: A Viewplane exemption is granted based on a finding of no significant visual
impact. If that finding cannot be made, the project must be reviewed through a PUD to look for
alternatives, including variances which redirect the development out of the protected corridor.
After multiple public hearings in 2006, HPC found that the proposed 3 feet 3 inch (3' 3")
intrusion had a negligible impact on the Main Street Viewplane.
The applicant .provided illustrations that depict the 30 inch additional intrusion into the
viewplane for a total of 9 feet 6 inches of building height that would obstruct the Viewplane. It
appears that the Miner's building blocks some of the visibility of the elevator shaft; however a
portion of the elevator will be visible. Staff finds that further infringement on the viewplane with
the proposed elevator shaft has a visual significant impact. Staff recommends that the applicant
resolve the elevator access within the approved building envelope.
DECISION MAHING 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.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC deny the request for a Substantial
Amendment and Viewplane Exemption for the property located at 308 E. Hopkins, Lots M and N,
Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
Exhibits:
A: HPC Minutes from Conceptual Review Hearings:
B. Letters from public
C. Application
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Substantial
Amendment"
13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
4
P27
^ Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce
perceived scale.
^ Balconies, court yards and decks are also encouraged.
^ Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be
covered or protected and clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the
primary street-side entrance.
13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ In general, a proposed three-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact
on smaller, historic structures nearby.
^ The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale with nearby
historic buildings.
13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to
buildings seen historically.
^ Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to
suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design,
facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered.
These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the
composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings.
13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form.
^ A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form.
^ Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building.
^ False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
13.14 Along a rear facade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is
encouraged.
^ Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived
scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure.
^ Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility
structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity.
13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged.
^ A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among .historic
buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products of
their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors.
^ The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design.
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
^ The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass.
^ Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story
windows should have a vertical emphasis.
^ Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.
^ Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels
through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important
feature in this relationship.
13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block.
^ Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall
as they are wide.
P28
^ Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement
relative to cornices and belt courses.
13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be
maintained.
^ Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices,
copings and parapets at the tops of buildings.
o When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight
variation in alignments between the facade elements.
6