HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20090408ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Apri18, 2009
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: NOON -none
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes -March 11th and March 25th 2009
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
(Neat resolution will be #11)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS -none
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 1291 Riverside Ave. --Major Development (Final) and
Residential Design Standards Variance,
Public Hearing (30 min.)
X. WORK SESSION
A. Wheeler Opera House addition (60 min.)
B. Code Amendments - HPC Jurisdiction in Rights-of--Ways
and De Novo Review by Council on Appeals of HPC
Decisions (30 min.)
C. Discussion of Ordinance #48 process (30 min.)
XI. Adjourn 7:30 p.m.
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PI-~
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date pertain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
PROJECT MONITORING
Mike Hoffman 202 N. Monarch (Blue Vic)
426 E. Main (Main and Galena)
507 Gillespie (new single family home)
334 W. Hallam (Hayden Connor fence)
Paepcke Auditorium
Sazah Broughton 110 E. Bleeker
604 West Main Street
Firestation
Isis addition
308 E. Hopkins (LaCo)
222 E. Bleeker (new single family home)
214 E. Bleeker
426 East Main (Main and Galena)
Brian McNellis Fox Crossing Victorian
204 North Monarch (new single family)
332 West Main Street
510 East Hyman (Elks' deck)
Ann Mullins 135 West Hopkins Street
Boomerang
604 West Main Street
300 South Spring Street
204 North Monazch (new house)
214 E. Bleeker Street
222 E. Bleeker (new single family home)
Deep Powder
Greenwald Pavilion
Jay Maytin Red Onion
Firestation
28 Smuggler Grove Road
707 N. Third
627 W. Main
Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Road
707 N. Third
M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc
dii nnn4
a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
1291 Riverside Drive, Major Development Review (Final) -Public Hearing
April 8, 2009
SUMMARY: The subject property (Lot B) is a 3,920 squaze foot vacant lot that was created by
a Historic Landmazk Lot Split in 2004. The historic lot, 1295 Riverside Drive or "Lot A" was
allotted 2,233 squaze feet of FAR (including a 500 squaze foot FAR bonus) to accommodate the
existing chalet, and the new lot 1291 Riverside or "Lot B" was allotted 2,408 square feet of FAR.
The project is required to comply with all dimensional requirements.
HPC granted Conceptual approval on February 11`h. The approval included variances from
Residential Design Standazds related to the placement of the gazage and entry door, and lack of a
one story element on the front facade. The applicant was required to restudy the height of the
building and the dimensions of the fascia element for Final review.
The applicant requests Final approval. Fenestration is among the issues reviewed at this level,
and staff has determined that an additional Residential Design Standazd vaziance is necessary for
the proposed design.
Staff recommends that HPC grant Final approval and a Residential Design Standazds variance as
proposed.
APPLICANT: Scott and Alex Kendrick, represented by Scott Lindenau of Studio B, 501 Rio
Grande Place, Suite 104, Aspen, CO.
PARCEL ID: 2737-181-17-024.
ADDRESS: 1291 Riverside Drive, Lot B of Lot 20, 1295 Riverside Drive Subdivision,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-15
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, 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 jor the
1291 Riverside Drive, HPC Final Review
P1
Page 1 of 6
P2
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.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant
DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection
of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo.
Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the proposed new building and finds that the design
guidelines aze met. This is a good example of using efficient/green building concepts (prefab
construction) while still achieving a sophisticated approach to compatibility with a historic
resource. The design clearly references the historic chalet through the long rectangulaz massing
slightly sloped roof, materiality, and prominent front balcony.
At Conceptual, staff and HPC expressed concern with the difference between the floor levels and
overall height of this structure vs. the historic Chalet. The applicant was asked to lower the
height of the roof and to restudy the proportions of the roof fascia. Height has been reduced by
10," which is consistent with the dialogue at the Conceptual hearing. Regazding.the fascia, the
dimension has not been revised, however it is noteworthy that the fascia on the new house and
the old house are the same size; 18." The fascia on the Chalet has a different appeazance because
it has applied details, in contrast to the flat surface of the fascia on the new house. Staff finds the
elements to be compatible. It is another example of how the building proportions play off of
each other without copying.
The only aspect of the project which staff feels may require discussion is the landscape plan. It is
our impression that conifers aze accents within the neighborhood landscape, which is heavily
dominated by aspen trees. We feel that the proposed "row" of conifers on the west should be
minimized relative to the following guideline:
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 azeas for accent.
^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
Page 2 of 6
P3
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project does not comply with the following Residential Design standazd:
26.410.040.D.3 Windows
Street facing windows shall not span through the azea where a second floor level would
typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished first
floor.
26.410.O20.D.2 Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410:040.
Projects which do not meet Section 26.410.020.D above may be granted variances by the
Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is
subject to the requirements of Section 26.415. An applicant who desire to consolidate other
requisite land use reviews by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Boazd of Adjustment or
the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the
boazd or commission reviewing the other land use application. Ari applicant who desires a
variance from the Residential Design Standazds shall demonstrate, and the deciding boazd shall
find that the variance, if granted, would:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particulaz standazd. In
evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing boazd may consider
the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate
neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the boazd deems is necessary to
determine if the exception is warranted; or
b) Be cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff Response:
The proposed building has a floor to ceiling upper floor window that azguably violates this
standazd in that it is within the dimensional azea that is between 9-12 feet above the finished first
floor of the house. Staff's understanding of the Residential Design standazd is that it attempts to
avoid expressions of voluminous interior spaces, out of scale with adjacent buildings from the
street-view. This narrow window, which is cleazly only related to the second floor living azea,
and which is very obscured by the balcony railing, meets variance criterion a. It does not have
any negative impact on the relationship to the Chalet or the surrounding context.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
1291 Riverside Drive, HPC Final Review
Page 3 of 6
P4
• 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 grant Major Development Review
(Final) and a Residential Design Standazds Variance for the property located at 1291 Riverside
Drive, Lot B of the Lot 20, 1295 Riverside Drive Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado with the following conditions;
1. Revise the landscape plan to limit new conifer planting, for review and approval by staff
and monitor.
2. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
3. 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 boazd.
4. The conditions of approval, both Conceptual and Final HPC Resolutions, aze required to
be printed on the. cover sheet of the building permit plan set and al] other prints made for
the purpose of construction.
5. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval aze known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
6. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
7. 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:
1291 Riverside Drive, HPC Final Review
Page 4 of 6
P5
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) yeazs,
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: 541 and 541 '/: Race
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.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. HPC minutes of February 11, 2009
C. Application
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 1291 Riverside Drive, Final Review"
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
^ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the
"private" spaces beyond.
^ Provide a walkway running perpendiculaz from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways aze discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
^ Use paving materials that aze similaz to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
^ The front yazd should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod,
and not covered with paving, for example.
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 azeas for accent.
^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1291 Riverside Drive, HPC Final Review
Page 5 of 6
P6
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally.
^ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
^ Materials that appeaz similaz in scale and finish to those used historically on the site aze
encouraged.
^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in chazacter.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history aze
especially discouraged on historic sites.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
^ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
^ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
^ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
^ Shield lighting associated with service azeas, parking lots and pazking structures.
^ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of tone that exterior lights aze in use late at night.
^ Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
a Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of
buildings.
^ Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same azea.
14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building.
o Prevent glaze onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct
light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade,
or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged.
^ Lighting shall be cazefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the
property or into public rights-of--way.
14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street.
^ Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway
from the street.
^ Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated
with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete.
1291 Riverside Drive, HPC Final Review
Page 6 of 6
P7
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) AND A
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1291 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LOT B OF THE LOT 20,1295 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2009
PARCEL ID: 2737-181-17-024.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Scott and Alex Kendrick, represented by Scott Lindenau of Studio B,
501 Rio Grande Place, Suite 104, Aspen, CO request Major Development (Final) and a
Residential Design Standazd Variance for the property located at 1291 Riverside Drive, Lot B of
Lot 20, 1295 Riverside Drive Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structwe
shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, 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 procedwes
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Final 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
WHERAS, for variances from the Residential Design Standazds, Section 26.410.040, which do
not meet Section 26.410.020.D, the HPC shall find that the variance, if granted, would:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particulaz standard. In
evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing boazd may consider
the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structwes, the immediate
neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the boazd deems is necessary to
determine if the exception is warranted; or
b) Be cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints;
and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated April 8, 2009, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standazds, found that the review standazds for Residential Design
Standazd variance was met, and recommended HPC approve the requested variances; and the
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met for Final Review, and
recommended approval with conditions; and
P8
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on April 8, 2009, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standazds for the
Residential Design Standazd variances, and was consistent with 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 grants approval for Major Development (Final), and the request for a
Residential Design Standazd variance for the property located at 1291 Riverside Drive, Lot B of
Lot 20, 1295 Riverside Drive Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; as proposed
with the following conditions;
1. Revise the landscape plan to limit new conifer planting, for review and approval by staff
and monitor.
2. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
3. 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 boazd.
4. The conditions of approval, both Conceptual and Final HPC Resolutions, aze required to
be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for
the purpose of construction.
5. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval aze known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
6. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
7. 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 fmal 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
P9
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) yeazs,
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: 541 and 541 1/z Race
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.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of Apri12009.
Michael Hoffman, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11.2009
MOTION: Jay made the motion to approve the project on 541 Race Street
Lot 6 by changing conditions 2, 3, S, 6 and to bring back those four points
to the commission for approval. #2 is the foundation material, #3 a detailed
plan of the porch, #5 roof material and type of roof and #6 the landscape
plan. Motion second by Ann. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Ann, yes; .lay, yes;
Brian, yes; Sarah, yes. Motion carried S-0.
1291 Riverside Drive Major Development -Conceptual -Residential
Design Standards Variances -Public Hearing
Proof of Public Notice -Exhibit I
Michael seated.
Sarah Brought, Vice- chaired the meeting.
Sara said the pazcel is a vacant lot that was created by a lot split in 2004.
The historic resource is a chalet on lot A. The proposal is for a new single
family home. Overall the proposed new building successfully balances old
and new construction. It fits in with the chalet form next door. The main
concern is the height issue which might dominate the chalet. The chalet is
set a few feet below grade. We are recommending approval that the height
be addressed at final in order to comply with guideline 11.2 and 11.4. The
pazking requirements have been met. There are three residential design
guideline variances being requested. The first is that the garage is facing the
street and is not set back from the front facade of the house. Staff feels there
is support for where the gazage is located. They aze trying to balance
numerous guidelines and make this building work with the chalet. The street
oriented entrance is the second issue and they are proposing the entrance on
the side. Staff is in agreement as the chalet entrance is on the side. The two
story front facade that relates to the chalet with the traditional balcony is
appropriate. The only condition of approval is that the applicant tries to
reduce the height of the building and strengthen the floor alignments with
the historic resource. Staff recommends approval of the three variances.
Scott Lindenau,Studio B
Scott said the neighborhood contains diverse sizes and scales of architecture.
There are a lot of small houses on large lots in this neighborhood. The
allowable FAR is 2408squaze feet and right now we fit about 2150 square
feet. In designing the house we looked at context with the house next door.
We are also employing pre-fab construction techniques for this project to be
eco friendly which do have some ]imitations. On the chalet next door the
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11.2009
house is three feet below grade. We really can't move our house lower due
to the pitch of the driveway, drainage etc. Pre-fab construction comes in
components that stack on the foundation we have limitations about depth
from floor to ceiling. The portion of the lower level to the upper level is 1/3
to 2/3rds. The eaves of the house project out three feet similar to the chalet
house next door. We aze within the height limits but we are 3 %x feet taller
than the historic resource. The front door has to be on the side because the
width of the house is only 22 feet. The floor to ceiling is only 8 feet. The
road slants so the houses appeazs to be back from the historic house.
Michael asked if the height could be reduced. Scott said they could reduce
the height by one foot without compromising the living area. The main
entry is basically a two car garage entry and master and the upper is the
living area. Michael also asked if the fascia width could be reduced to better
match the historic resource. Scott said he would look into it. Possibly the
modulaz company could do it or it could be applied afterwards.
Ann inquired about the angle of the proposed roof. Scott said the roof is
similaz to the Welgo's roof. Ann said she feels the height should match the
historic house or be significantly different.
Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing.
Sherie Grenell, neighbor
Sherie said she looks at the house right outside her window. The owners
implied that they will do everything to softer the fact that it is a garage and
hopefully put in a driveway that is more of a garden and woody rather than
having pavement. I am pleased that the cars will be in the garage. With
regard to the roof line maybe the architects can look at it so that the house
doesn't seem so modular. Maybe that is letting it be a little higher. Sherie
pointed out that the house design is something new for the neighborhood.
Dale Hower, neighbor to the right. At the lot split we talked about the
garage and variances. The only concern I have is that it looks modular. I
would like to see separate masses so we have integrity in the neighborhood
and we don't have a rectangular house. Maybe that means dropping the
front which would give a little more interest to the neighborhood and new
owners as well.
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009
Tony Welgos, next door neighbor. Having gone through this process I feel it
will all work out. I'm excited to have this project next to us and I support
the project.
Kathy Welgos, 1295 Riverside Drive. From what I have seen this house is
very compatible to our home. I'm a real traditionalist and to say something
is compatible is a stretch. The roof line is very interesting with the slight
slant.- You can't design anything else on that lot except a box home to
utilize as much space as you can. If anyone is impacted by this new home it
is Tony and I. I urge you to accept it as it is tonight.
Commissioner comments:
Michael said he is sensitive to the roof height in the fact that it is higher than
the Weldon's home. It needs to be softened. The architect has offered to
reduce the height by a foot and that is an offer I am willing to accept.
Jay said he would like the design to be more submissive to the historic
resource. Changing the roof may not be the answer. The way the house sets
back from the Weblog's house works well.
Brian said the historic house steps down and the model articulates the
different angles that are put in and the design is thoughtful. The design is
compatible with the chalet next door. The only issue is the height and
possibly that can be brought down slightly. Regarding the roof line
guidelines 11.5 and 11.6 talk about the relationship of roofs to the historic
resources. The roof line is not something that is taken from the historic
resource but somehow the design works. The lot is very confined and at the
next meeting maybe we can address the garage doors in relationship to the
streetscape.
Ann said this is a great solution to a tight site and the house next door is very
distinctive. With the landscape plan possibly you can save as many aspens
as possible. If the total height could be lowered that would be great. Right
now the roof line does not mimic the historic roof. If it could mirror the
historic house or be steeper it would work better with the historic resource.
The balcony detailing refers to the detailing of the chalet style and works
quite well with the design. The garage doors can be addressed at final with
materials. The intent is to not have the doors bulky.
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009
Nora said the way the chalet and modern building talk to each other is a
good solution on such a small lot. The design is great. At final we can
address the garage doors. There are many garage doors in town that don't
even look like garage doors. If lowering the roof works that would be
acceptable.
Sarah thanked the applicant for the model and the proposal is exciting. The
proposal is compatible with the historic resource. The scale and height are
appropriate. If it is reduced we need to make sure the proportions are
withheld. The design complies with many of our guidelines, 11.5, 11.10,
11.3, 11.4. HPC spent a lot of time on this project and we knew it would be
a challenging lot and this is a very good solution for this lot. The balcony
element ties in so well with the chalet. Sarah said she could approve the
residential design variances. In terms of the height if the applicant is willing
to look at a reduction I would be interested in seeing how the overall effect
is.
Scott Lindenau, Studio B explained that the entire exterior or the skin will be
built onsite. On the space between this house and the Welgos's house we
haven't discussed that with them yet and we will be sensitive to the privacy
issues. We will look at the reducing the roof ceiling height by a foot and the
thickness of the overhang to get that a little more compatible.
MOTION: Ann moved to approve Resolution #6 as written with the
condition that the height be reduced and that the applicant studies the
thickness of fascia compared to the fascia on the historic chalet house for
final; motion second by Nora. Roll call vote: Ann, yes; Nora, yes; Jay, yes;
Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 6-1.
MOTION.• Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor,
motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
10
P14
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
~b,
RE: Historic Districts code amendment/ HPC purview in the right of way
DATE: April 8, 2009
HPC's purview over changes in the right of ways of .Aspen's two historic districts was
questioned recently during the proposed improvements to the Main Street corridor. Staff
analyzed the Code and the designation ordinances for the Main Street (1976) and Commercial
Core Historic Districts (1974) and discovered that not only is the review process for changes to
Historic District right of ways confusing and unclear, but the defined boundaries of the Historic
Districts aze inaccurate.
One of the Historic Preservation goals listed in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan is to
"work to improve the Historic Preservation Commission review process." The Community
Development Director has initiated this code amendment to correct past clerical errors in the
ordinances designating the Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts and to clarify
review processes for development within the designated Historic District right of ways.
BncxcxovNn: As defined in code section 26.415.U20, Historic Districts aze "a collection,
concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings; structures, sites or objects united historically or
aesthetically by plan or physical development" The first Historic District in the United States
was created in Chazleston, South Carolina in 1931. Patterns of architecture, repetition of historic
uses and/or concentration of development aze important tangible and understandable pieces of
our history that create a sense of place for present and more
Exhibit B for maps.)
importantly future generations. The majority of historic districts
around the county have defined boundaries that encompass
properties containing buildings that contribute to a sense of place
and specific period of significance important to a town's history.
The image to the left illustrates the boundaries of Chazleston's
historic district, which includes all property, right of ways and
public domain within the defined boundaries.
Aspen's ordinances designating the historic districts describe lots
and blocks in the azea, but aze uncleaz as to how the adjacent public
spaces aze to be treated. Mapping of the districts over the yeazs has
indicated that the blocks and the streets within them aze part of the
district but clarification is needed to ensure a cohesive,
uninterrupted district that portrays Aspen's history (please see
ROWHDmemoHPC.doc
Page - 1 - of 3
P15
P16
Staff met with the following departments to discuss work that is typically done in the right of
ways to help figure out appropriate and realistic review processes for different types of
development: Parks, Engineering, Pazking, Streets, Water and Utilities.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS: Staff proposes adoption of code amendments that establish a
better process for work that should qualify as exempt, administrative review or HPC review.
The following narrative is to provide HPC background on the amendments included in the
attached resolution.
Sections 1 and 2: These sections propose amended language to the existing Ordinances
(number 49, series of 1974 and number 60 series of 1976) that designated the Main Street
and Commercial Core Historic Districts. There were a few clerical errors that need to be
corrected, and more importantly the boundaries of the district aze defined such that they
include all azeas between the alleyways to the north and south of Main Street for the
Main Street Historic District and between Mil] Street, Durant Street, Hunter Street and
the north alleyway behind Main Street for the Commercial Core Historic District. It was
always assumed that the Historic Districts were a contiguous azea with a defined exterior
border that included all areas within, both public and private. This amendment cleazly
defines the boundaries as illustrated in Exhibit A to the proposed Resolution.
Section 3: The proposed amendment to Section 3 proposes to include objects and landscapes
among the items that aze under HPC's purview.
Section 4: Section 4 proposes development in the right of ways that does not require review by
the Historic Preservation Commission. Any work that has no permanent and/or adverse
impact on the historic chazacter of the district is exempt; for example: temporazy signage,
seasonal lighting and regulaz repairs.
Section 5: Administrative approvals aze currently granted through a Certificate of No Negative
Effect. Section 5 proposes that any work that will have a minimal impact on the historic
district b approved administratively; for example, the installation of some street furniture,
so]az panels, replacement of ditches or streetscapes that aze minimal in nature.
Section 6: Section 6 proposes language that would qualify for a minor review at the HPC. This
is a one step review process that involves a public hearing. Basically, any work in the
right of ways of historic districts of a magnitude that does not meet the criteria for an
administrative approval qualifies as a Minor Development review. A written referral
from CDOT is proposed as an additional application requirement for work involving
State Highway 82.
Section 7: Section 7 proposes that any work that has a significant impact on the historic district,
for example a master plan, qualifies for a Major Development review at the HPC, which
includes a two step process and public hearings. Similaz to a Minor Development
application, a written referral from CDOT is included as a requirement for work
involving State Highway 82.
ROWHDmemoHPC.doc
Page-2-of3
P17
NEXT STEPS: Staff is scheduled to present the proposed code amendments to the Planning and
Zoning Commission on April 21, 2009. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a
recommendation to, City Council. First and Second Readings of the proposed code amendments
are scheduled for May l la' and May 26's respectively.
The Land Use Code does not require a recommendation from the HPC for amendments to the
Code; however, Staff determined that HPC need to provide feedback because the proposed
amendments directly involve HPC's jurisdiction.
REQUEST of THE HPC: HPC is asked to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council regarding the proposed code amendments in the attached draft
resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC recommend approval of the proposed
code amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution # ,Series of 2009
Exhibit A -Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review
Exhibit B -Maps of Historic Districts
Exhibit C - "What is a Historic District" chapter of the Guide to Nominating Historic Districts,
published by the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado Historical
Society, 2006.
ROWHDmemoHPC.doc
Page - 3 - of 3
P18
~.
RESOLUTION No.
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL ORDINANCE NUMBERED 49, SERIES OF 1974 AND ORINDANCE
NUMBERED 60 SERIES OF 1976 MEET THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF
REVIEW, AND DETERMINING THAT THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND
SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW:
26.415.070-DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING DESIGNATED HISTORIC
PROPERTY; 26.415.070.A -EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT; 26.415.070.B -
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT; 26.415.070.0 - CERTIFICAET OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT; 26.415.070.D -
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.3]0 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Deparhnent
initiated amendments to Ordinance numbered 49, Series of 1974 and Ordinance
numbered 60, Series of 1976 related to the boundaries of the Commercial Core and
Main Street Historic Districts; and initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related
to the Historic Preservation Commission's (HPC) purview in the right of ways within
designated historic districts; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the official zone
district map and to amend text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and
recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community
Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public
hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these
recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, Ordinance numbered 49, Series of 1974 defined the Commercial
Core Historic District as "all of lots 80, 81, 82, 93, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, and the
south half of blocks 79, 86 and 92 of the City and Original Townsite of Aspen; and the
south half of Block 19 East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen," which did not include
the right of ways; and,
.WHEREAS, Ordinance numbered 60, Series of 1976 defined the Main Street
Historic District as "all of those properties abutting (on the north and south) Main Street
between Monazch and Seventh Streets, and all of Paepcke Pazk within the City of Aspen,
Colorado: which azea is more partiwlazly described as lots K, L, M, N, O, P, Q Rand S
of blocks 18, 24, 30, 37, 44, 51, 58, 66, 73; lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and J of Blocks 19,
25, 31, 38, 45, 52, 59, 74; and all of Block 67 of the Original Aspen Townsite," which
did not include the right of ways; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Duector has recommended approval
of the proposed amendments to the Aspen City Council Ordinance numbered 49 Series of
HPC jurisdiction code amendment
Page 1 of 12
P19
1974 and Ordinance numbered 60 Series of 1976, and has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.070 -
Development Involving Designated Historic Property; 26.415.070.A - Exempt
Development; 26.415.070.B -Certificate of No Negative Effect; 26.415.070.0 -
Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development; 26.415.070.D -Certificate of
Appropriateness for Major Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.415.020-
Definitions, the definition of a historic district is "a collection, concentration, linkag8 or
continuity of buildings, structures, sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by
plan or physical development," which, in part, necessitates the inclusion of the right of
ways within the established boundazies to be a cohesive historic district; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein aze consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "work to improve the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) review process" and to "ensure that the rules and regulations
regarding development and historic preservation in our community create projects that
are consistent with our broader community goals;" and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public heazing on April 8, 2009, the Historic
Preservation Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to Aspen
City Council Ordinance numbered 49 Series of 1974 and Ordinance numbered 60 Series
of 1976; and approve amendment to the text of Sections 26.415.070 -Development
Involving Designated Historic Property; 26.415.070.A - Exempt Development;
26.415.070.B -Certificate of No Negative Effect; 26.415.070.0 -Certificate of
Appropriateness for Minor Development; 26.415.070.D -Certificate of Appropriateness
for Major Development as described herein, by a vote; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission fmds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission fmds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code aze delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text beine added to the
code is blue with underline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Aspen City Council Ordinance numbered 49, Series of 1974 that defines the
boundaries of the Commercial Core Historic District is hereby amended to include the
right of ways within the existing outlying historic district boundazies and to correct
existing clerical errors.
Ordinance 49, Series of 1974. Section 1.
HPCjurisdiction code amendment
Page 2 of 12
P20
That the following described property located within Pitkin County, Colorado, be
and herby is placed within an H, Historic Overlay District and designated an historic site:
-- Deleted: A
_ -- De12tEd: lots
Deleted: Ne south half
-------- Deletld:;and the south half oflock l9
East Aspen Addition ro the City of Asper
Deleted:.
Further that the Official Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen is further amended by _--,.
the designation of the above-described azeas_as an H, Historic Overlay District_
Section 2: Aspen City Council Ordinance numbered 60, Series of 1976 that defines the
boundaries of the Main Street Historic District is hereby amended to include the right of
ways within the existing outlying historic district boundaries and to correct clerical
errors.
Ordinance 60, Series of 1976. Section 1.
That Main Street between Monarch and Seventh Streets is determined to have
historic significance and that Main Street, the sidewalks adjacent thereto and the
following described property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, be designated as an H
historic Overlay District pursuant to the provisions of Article D{ of Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code
Deleted: ,dated April 7, 1967, as
amended
Deleted: prece
Deleted: a
Deleted: ding
All of lots K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R and S of blocks 18, 24, 30, 37, 44, 51, 58, 66, Deleted: .
73 of the Original Aspen Townsite~dY----------------------------------------------------=
X11 of lots A, B, C, D, E,_ F,_G, H and ~, of Blocks 19, 25, 31, 38, 45, 52, 59, 74 of ,-.-- Delebed: a
- - --° -
the Original Aspen Townsite,~.------------------------------------------------------------------ Deleted: J
ll of Block 67 of the Ori mal As en Townsite a, nd Deleted..
~---------------------------------g-------- P--------------_----------------------------------------------- Deleted: A
The side streets between the above-described blocks within one-half block of
Main Street.
All as is set forth in the man attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
Further that the Official Zoning District Map of the Ciri of Aspen is further amended by
the designation of the above-described areas as an H, Historic Overlav District.
Section 3: Section 26.415.070 -Development involving designated historic property,
which section describes the procedure for designated historic property, shall be amended
as follows:
Sec. 26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property.
HPCjurisdiction code amendment
Page 3 of 12
All as is set forth in the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
P21
No building,~structure ob'e or landsca a shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, --,.-- oeietea: a~
altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or
district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community
Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for
their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a
development order.
Section 4: Section 26.415.070.A -Exempt development, which section defines
development that is exempt from staff or HPC review be amended as follows:
Section 26.415.070.A. Exempt development.
1. Selected activities aze exempted from the development review
procedures including interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior
repainting or replastering similaz to the existing finish or routine maintenance
such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window glazing or other
such minimallyintrusive work.
2. Selected activities within a designated historic district rieht of wav are
exempted from the development review procedures including reeular repair,
cleaning, snow removal. installation of utilities not visible within the historic
district, seasonal liehtine, temoorarv sienaee, or other such minimally intrusive
work
~, If there is any question if a work activity qualifies as exempt, the ueietm: z
Community Development Duector shall make the determination as to its
eligibility.
Section 5: Section 26.415.070.B -Certificate of No Negative Effect, which section
defines development that qualifies for administrative review and approval shall be
amended as follows:
Section 26.415.070.B. Certificate of no negative effect.
1. An application for a certificate of no negative effect may be made to the
Community Development Director for approval of work that has no adverse
effect on the physical appeazance or chazacter-defining features of a designated
property or historic district. An application for a certificate of no effect may be
approved by the Community Development Director with no further review if it
meets the requirements set forth in the following Subsection 26.415.070.B.2:
2. The!Community Development Director shall issue a development order
based upon a certificate of no negative effect within fourteen (14) days after
receipt of a complete application if:
a. It is determined that the activity is an eligible work item and meets
the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines; and,
HPCjurisdiction code amendment
Page 4 of 12
P22
b. Any modifications to the proposed work requested by the
Community Development Director aze agreed to by the owner/applicant;
and,
c. The proposed work will not diminish, eliminate or adversely affect
the significant historic and/or azchitectural character of the subject
property or Historic District in which it is located.
3. An application for a certificate of no negative effect shall include the
following:
a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
b. Elevations or drawings of the proposed work.
c. Photographs, building material samples and other exhibits, as
needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work.
d. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential , ~
design standards. ' ..
4. The following work shall be considered for a Certificate of No Negative
Effect:
a. Replacement or repair of azchitectural features which creates no
change to the exterior physical appearance of the building or structure.
b. Replacement or repair of architectural features that restores the
building or structure to its historic appearance.
c. Installation of awnings or similar attachments provided no
significant feature is damaged, removed or obscured by the installation.
d. Fencing that has no adverse effect on the historic or architectural
character of the property or historic district.
e. Mechanical equipment or accessory features that have no impact on oeietetl: o~
the character-defming features of the building structure or historic district. ;='
f Signs which have no effect on the character-defining features of the
historic property or historic district.
g. Alterations to noncontributing buildings within historic districts that
have no adverse effect on its historic or architectural character.
h. Alterations to no more than two (2) elements of nonprimary fayades
of a designated building.
i. Installation of site improvements, such as walkways, patios, pools or
hot tubs, or similar significant features.
HPC jurisdiction code amendment
Page 5 of 12
P23
i. Alterations of ditches, streetscape and/or landscapine such that
there is a minimal impact on the historic chazacter of the historic district.
k. Installation of street furniture (i.e. benches, olaverounds. trashcans,
bike racks) such that there is a minimal imnact on the historic character of
the historic district.
1. Installation of eeneral roadway sienaee not includine saferi sienaee
reJc aired by MUTCD, installation of visible mechanical equipment or
utilities (i.e. solaz oanelsl such that there is minimal imoact on the historic
chazacter of the historic district.
5. The development order and associated certificate of no negative effect
shall expire and become null and void after three (3) years from the date of
issuance by the Community Development Director unless a building permit is
issued within that time.
6. In the event that the Community Development Director determines that
the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect is not appropriate, the owner
may apply for a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC.
Section 6: Section 26.415.070.0 -Certificate of appropriateness for minor development,
which section defines development that qualifies for a one step review and public hearing
before the HPC shall be amended as follows:
Section 26.415.070.0. Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development.
1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of
appropriateness for minor development shall begin with a determination by the
Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a
minor development. Minor development work includes:
a. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the
floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less
or
b. Alterations to a building fagade, windows, doors, roof planes or
material, exterior wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony
or ornamental trim when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the
work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or
c. Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning,
canopies, mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and
other attachments to designated properties or within a historic district such
that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate
of no negative effect or
HPC jurisdiction code amendment
Page 6 of 12
P24
d. Alterations that aze made to ^onhistoric portions of a designated
historic property or historic district that do not qualify for a certificate of
no negative effect or
e. The erection of street furniture, signs, public art, bus stops and other
visible improvements within designated historic districts of a magnitude or
in numbers such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the Deleted:.
issuance of a certificate of no negative effector
-- Deleted:
effect.
The Community Development Director may determine that an
application for work on a designated historic property or within a
designated historic district involving multiple categories of minor
development may result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered
a major development. In such cases, the applicant shall apply for a major
development review in accordance with Subsection 26.415.07.D.
2. An application for minor development shall include the following:
a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
b. Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its
relationship to the designated historic buildings, structures, sites and
features within its vicinity.
c. An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to
be used in the development.
d. Photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict
location, extent and design of proposed work.
e. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410,
Residential design standards or a written request for a vaziance from any
standard that is not being met.
f A proposal involvin¢ state owned or controlled property requires a Deleted: ~o~e~aeao~
written consent from the Colorado Denartment of Transportation
3. The procedures for the review of minor development projects aze as
follows:
a. The Community Development Director will review the application
materials and if they aze determined to be complete, schedule a public
hearing before the HPC. The subject property shall be posted pursuant to
Pazagraph 26.304.060.E.3.b.
HPC jurisdiction code amendment
Page 7 of 12
P25
b. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepaze a report that
analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other
applicable Land Use Code sections, This report will be transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and
the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application,
the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the
project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines.
a The HPC shall 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
Developtttent Director shall issue a development order.
d. The HPC decision shall be fmal 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.
Section 7: Section 26.415.070.D - Certificate of appropriateness for major development,
which section defines development that qualifies for a two step review (conceptual and
fmal) and two public hearings (conceptual and fmal) before the HPC shall be amended as
follows:
Section 26.415.070.D. Certificate of appropriateness for major development.
1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for
major development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development
Director that the proposed project constitutes a major development. A major
development includes one or more of the following activities:
a. The construction of a new structure within a historic district; and/or
b. Alterations to more than three (3) elements of a building fagade
including its windows, doors, roof planes or materials, exterior wall
material, dormers, porches, exterior stavcase, balcony or ornamental trim;
and/or
c. The expansion of a building increasing the floor azea by more than
two hundred and fifty (250) square feet; and/or
d. Any new development that has not been determined to be minor
development.
2. The procedures for the review of major development projects include a
two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a conceptual development
plan and then a final development plan. If a major development project
involves additional City Land Use approvals, the Community Development
HPC jurisdiction code amendment
Page 8 of 12
P26
Duector may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant
to Subsection 26.304.060.B.
3. Conceptual development plan review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the
following:
(1) The general application infonnation required m Section
26.304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the
location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements
and predominant site characteristics.
(3) 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.
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be
used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs.
(5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of
the context surrounding the designated historic property or
historic district including at least one (1) of the following:
diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter
26.410, Residential design standazds or a written request for a
variance from any standard that is not being met:
(7) A proposal involvine State owned or controlled property
requires a written consent from the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for
major development projects aze as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the
application materials submitted for conceptual or final
development plan approval. If they aze determined to be
~•, complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a
public heazing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the
hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3
Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a
report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
HPC jurisdiction code amendment
Page 9 of 12
P27
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This
report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information
on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions add 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 Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) 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.
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as
follows:
(1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not
constitute fmal approval of a major development project or
percussion to proceed with the development. Such authorization
shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the prepazation
of an application for a fmal development plan.
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be
binding upon HPC in regazds to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the
conceptual plan application including its height, scale, massing
and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the
proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the
fmal development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the
applicant chooses to makes substantial amendments to the
conceptual design after it has been approved, a new conceptual
development plan heazing shall be required.
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting
conceptual development plan approval, a development
application for a fmal development plan shall be submitted within
one (1) yeaz 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 aone-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.
4. Final development plan review.
HPC jurisdiction code amendment
Page 10 of 12
P28
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
(1) The general application information required in Section
26.304.030.
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or
addition(s) included as part of the development at 1/4" = 1.0'
scale.
3) An accurate representation of all major building materials
to be used in the development, depicted through samples or
photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics,
indicating how the final development plan conforms to
representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the
approval of the conceptual development plan.
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major
development projects aze as follows:
(1) The Community Development Drector shall review the
application materials submitted for final development plan
approval. If they ate determined to be complete, the applicant
will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the
HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the heazing shall be provided
pursuant to Pazagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, band c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepaze a
report that analyzes the projects conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This
report will be 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 will review the application,
the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the heazing
to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) 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.
(4) A resolution of the HPC action will be forwazded to the
City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.130 and no
HPC jurisdiction code amendment
Page 11 of 12
P29
permit will be issued for construction of the project until the
thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has expired.
(5) Before an application for a building permit can be
submitted, a fmal set of plans reflecting any or all required
changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the
City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which
must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on
the plans.
Section 8:
A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 8i° day of April, 2009, at 5:00
p.m. in the 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.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
day of ,2009.
Michael Hoffman, Chair
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R True, Special Counsel
HPC jurisdiction code amendment
Page 12 of 12
P30
Exhibit A
Standasds of Review
Historic Districts Code Amendment
Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official
Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Response: The proposed amendments aze not in conflict with any applicable
portions of this Title; rather they meet the purpose of Land Use Code Chapter
26.415 Development Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures or Development in an "H" Historic Overlay District, which is to
"promote the public health, safety and welfaze through the protection,
enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent
the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic,
political and architectural history." Furthermore, the amendment reflects the
common practice of review that has been in place for years.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Response: The Historic Preservation chapter of the 2000 Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP) states that "we must continue to build on what we have
by authentically preserving historic structures and creating thoughtful new
buildings that encourage and shape that feeling of historical continuity."
Cohesive historic districts that include right of ways and public areas within its
boundaries are paramount to a preserving historic continuity and a defined sense
of place.
One of the policies in the AACP is to "ensure that the rules and regulations
regarding development and historic preservation in our community create projects
that aze consistent with our broader community goals." The AACP seeks to
"work to improve the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review process."
Clarifying the boundaries of Aspen's two Historic Districts and HPC's purview
over certain actions within the Districts will improve the efficiency of the review
process and will ensure compatibility of new projects in the right of way with the
chazacter defining features of the Districts.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with suttounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood chazacteristics.
Staff Response:. The proposed amendments are compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses. It will maintain the chazacter defining features of Aspen's
Page 1 of 3
P31
Exhibit A
Standazds of Review
Historic Districts Code Amendment
Historic District by clarifying the review process for specific additions and
alterations within the right of ways of Historic Districts:
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Response: No traffic will be generated with the proposed amendments.
Road safety within the Historic Districts is imperative for the community to be
able to enjoy and experience the period of significance that is preserved along
Main Street and in the downtown Core. The proposed code amendment requires a
written recommendation from the Colorado Department of Transportation for
Major Development applications that involve Highway 82. Further, national
safety regulations regazding road safety, accessibility, etc. aze not compromised
by this code amendment. HPC will be charged to work with other departments to
find a compatible solution that meets national standards and historic preservation
goals.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, pazks, drainage, schools and emergency
medical facilities.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment will not impact public facilities.
Relevant departments have been consulted regazding the proposed amendments
(i.e. Engineering, Pazks, Streets, Water, Utilities, Pazking.)
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment will not result in significantly adverse
impact on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
chazacter in the City.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community chazacter in Aspen and seeks to maintain a defined sense of place
within the local Historic'Districts by cleazly outlining the process for alterations
and addition within the right of way in Historic Districts.
Page 2 of 3
P32
Exhibit A
Standazds of Review
Historic Districts Code Amendment
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Response: The recent Main Street corridor project brought the question of
HPC's purview in the right of ways of Historic Districts to the forefront. Staff
analyzed the code and historic district ordinances and discovered that not only
was the review process uncleaz, but the boundazies of the two Historic Districts
were inaccurate.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and
whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment supports the purpose and intent of the
Land Use Code in that it will "recognize, protect and promote the retention and
continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City" and it will
"retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support
tourism and the economic welfare of the community."
Staff finds that all of the Standards of review are met.
Page 3 of 3
P
Historic Parcels in Downtown Core
Legend y~, L ` N
Historic Distric Boundary~I""'I~"~~ ~ ~`""~'~s~;~-
., L cN4~"Y1(~"
Histonc Parcels-~,~J~'Iln~ ~IU~
250 125 0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
P34
I r '
v ~ Q
~~ s
~ ~
~.
= ao
~, o
. c
~ a
~ ~
rn ~
~r
~.
o
~- ~--f
~~ ~ ~
~~ ~
o ~.
~~-" _
0
0
n'
j ~
o ~
0
o
rn
0
0
N
O
~z ~o
Eff 8.
what ~s a tt~stor~.c p~str~ct?
A historic district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of ekes,
buildings, structures, or objects unked historically or aesthetically by plan or physical
development.
Concentration, Linkage, & Continuity of Features
A district derives its importance fri5m being a un~ed entity, even though it is often composed of a
wide variety of resources. The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources,
which convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or form an arrangement of
historically or functionally related properties. For example, a district can reflect one principal
activity, such as a mill or a ranch, or it can encompass several interrelated activities, such as an
area that includes industrial, residential, or commercial buildings, sites, structures, or objects.
Significance
A district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity. It must be important for
historical, architectural, archeological, engineering, or cultural values. Districts are often significant
for more than one reason. For example, a business district may be significant for its commercial
history as well as its architecture.
Types of Features
A district can comprise both features that lack individual distinction and individually distinctive
features that serve as focal points. It may even be considered eligible if all of the components lack
individual distinction, provided that the grouping achieves significance as a whole within its historic
context. In either case, the majority of the components that add to the district's historic character,
even if they are individually undistinguished, must possess integrity, as must the district as a
whole.
A district can contain buildings, structures, sites, objects, or open spaces that do not contribute to
the significance of the district. The number of noncontributing properties a district can contain yet
still convey its sense of time and place and historical development depends on how these
properties affect the district's integrity.
Guide to Nominating Historic Districts
P-3 6
_ ~.
f,
The most numerous types of National Register historic districts are those for residential and
commercial properties. A good way to learn about what constitutes a National Register historic
district Is to read one or more district nominations. Recently listed districts provide the best
examples of current standards for a complete and well-documented nomination. Copies of all
National Register district nominations may be obtained from the Office of Archaeologyand Historic
Preservation.
See the section on Special District Types for information on other National Register district types.
Examples of National Register residential and commercial districts
Residential neighborhoods Year Listed
- Park Hill, Denver ..................-.........;............................................................... ...2004
- Sherman Street Historic District, Denver ............................................................. ....2004
- Louviers, Louviers ................................................................................................. ....1999
- Reno Park Addition, Arvada .......................................................................... ....1999
- Stocke-Walter Addition, Arvada ..................................................................... ....1999
- Arapahoe Acres, Engiewood ......................................................................:......... ....1998
- Boulder Crescent Place Historic District, Colorado Springs ............................... ....1987
- Sherman Street Historic Residential District, Fort Morgan .................................. ....1987
- West Side Historic District, Longmont .................................................................. ....1987
- East Side Historic District, Longmont ................................................................... ....1986
- North Weber Street-Wahsatch Avenue Residential District, Colorado Springs. ....1985
- North 7"' St. Historic Residential District, Grand Junction .............................. ....1984
- East Third Avenue Historic Residential District, Durango .............................. ....1984
- Twelfth Street Historic Residential District, Golden ....................................... ....1983.
- North End Historic District, Colorado Springs ................................................ ....1982
- San Juan Avenue Historic District, La Junta .................................................. ....1980
- Laurel School Historic District, Fort Collins .................................................... ....1980
- Pitkin Place Historic District, Pueblo .............................................................. ....1978
- Auraria 9'" Street Historic District, Denver ...................................:................. ....1973
Commercial districts
- Littleton Main Street, Littleton .................................................. ..........................1998
- Arvada Downtown, Arvada ...................................................... ........................:.1998
- Monte Vista Downtown Historic District, Monte Vista .............. ..........................1991
- Idaho Springs Downtown Commercial District, Idaho Springs ..........................1984
- Salida Downtown Historic District, Salida ............................... .............:.............1984
- Cation City Downtown Historic District, Cation City ............... ...........................1983
- Ouray Historic District, Ouray ................................................. ...........................1983
- Old Colorado City Historic Commercial District ...................... ...........................1982
- Union Avenue Historic Commercial District, Pueblo ............... ...........................1982
- Boulder Downtown Historic District, Boulder .......................... ...........................1980
- Durango Main Avenue Historic District, Durango ................... ...........................1980
- Old Town Historic District, Fort Coliins ................................... ...........................1978
- Corazon de Trinidad District, Trinidad .................................... ...........................1973
National Register of Historic Places in Colorado 3
i
_ oo~
•---,.....4,
Combination districts
- Eldora Historic District, Eldora .................................................:.
- Goid Hiil Historic District, Gold Hill .........................................
- Redstone Historic District, Redstone .....................................
- Cokedale Historic District, Cokedale ......................................
- Victor Downtown Historic District, Victor ................................
- Breckenridge Historic District, Breckenridge ..........................
- Lake City Historic District, Lake City ......................................
(amended and revised in 2005)
- Piaza de San Luis de la Culebra Historic District, San Luis...
- Morrison Historic District, Morrison ........................................
- Crested Butte Historic District, Crested Butte ........................
- North Fork'Historic District, Jefferson County ........................
.............1989
.............1989
............. 1989
.............1985
.............1985
.............1980
............. 1978
........................... 1976
........................... 1976
........................... 1974
........................... 1974
4 Guide to Nominating Historic Districts
Sherman Street Historic District, Denver
P38
i°,
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Design call up code amendment
DATE: Apri18, 2009
'~b.
City Council has the authority to call up certain design related approvals granted by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z)
within thirty (30) days of approval. Council reviews the application on the record and
makes a finding as to whether the review board denied due process, exceeded its jurisdiction
or abused its discretion.
Council directed Staff to propose a code amendment that expands the call up review to
consider an application de novo. De novo is a latin term meaning "from the beginning."
Some communities (e.g. Boulder, Telluride) authorize their City Councils to conduct a
content based review of an application pursuant to call up procedures. Expanding Council's
purview strengthens the checks and balances for new development; however, it creates a
level of uncertainty for the applicant regazding the validity of a development approval
granted by the HPC or the P & Z that may be reversed, amended or sent back to the review
boazd for further study. The predictability of the land use process may be jeopardized by
adding a content based call up provision and potential extra layer of review.
It is important to recognize the qualifications of the review boazds and how different
backgrounds represent different community interests and goals. Members of the HPC, a
lazgely design specific review boazd, must have specific credentials to volunteer. Pursuant
to Section 26.220.030.H and I, the HPC is comprised of a least three (3) professionals in
preservation related fields and all members shall have a "demonstrated interest, knowledge,
or training in fields closely related to historic preservation." Specific qualifications to serve
on HPC reflect the complexity of historic preservation applications and the expertise
required to interpret design guidelines, designation criteria and historic preservation
incentives.
The Standazds of Review for amendments to the Land Use Code are addressed in Exhibit A.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 Appeals, Notice to Ciry Council Call- up of HPC Decisions: This
Section proposes to provide call-up notification to City Council after the approval of Conceptual
review because the main issues (i.e. mass, scale, height, context, location) aze considered and
approved at this time. The call up period of 30 days is consistent with the existing regulations.
Part D specifies that the Council review will be de novo. Staff proposes that Council consider
denovomemoHPC.doc
Page - 1 - of 2
P39
P40
the same review process and requirements criteria as the reviewing body when they conduct the
"call up" review:
Section 2: 26.412.040.8 Appeals, Notice to City Council Call- up of Commercial Design
Review Decisions: The proposed amendments mirror Section 1, except this section relates to
Commercial Design Review decisions by the P & Z and HPC.
Section 3: 26.415.070.D.3 HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review: This Section of the
Historic Preservation Chapter of the Code outlines proposed requirements for call up after a
Conceptual Design is approved. Staff proposes that the Community Development Director can
extend the 1 yeaz timeframe for submitting a Final Review application to HPC if there is a delay
associated with call up review at Council.
Section 4: 26.415.070.D.4 HPC Final Development Plan Review: Staff proposes to delete part
b.4 that requires call up notification to Council after Final Development approval is granted by
HPC. Staff finds that the call up notification is more appropriate after Conceptual approval
because the primary aspects of the project aze decided at that level. It seems unfair for an
applicant to proceed through Final Review at' HPC if the primary features of the project may
warrant a de novo review by Council pursuant to the proposed call up provision.
NEXT STEPS: Staff is scheduled to present the proposed code amendments to the Planning and
Zoning Commission on April 21, 2009. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a
recommendation to City Council. First and Second Readings of the proposed code amendments
are scheduled for May 11`s and May 26~' respectively.
The Land Use Code does not require a recommendation from the HPC for amendments to the
Code; however, Staff determined that HPC needs to provide feedback because the proposed
amendments change the HPC process.
REQUEST of THE HPC: HPC is asked to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission regazding the proposed code amendments in the attached draft resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the
AACP, as outlined in Exhibit A, and recommends denial.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution # ,Series of 2009
Exhibit A -Section 26.310.040 Standazds of Review
denovomemoHPC.doc
Page-2-oft
P41
RESOLUTION No.
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 -APPEALS, NOTICE TO
CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.B -APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY
COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 -CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4-FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Dtrector of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council
"call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Duector and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of
the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.B -Appeals, notice to City
Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review;
26.415.070.D.4 -Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein aze consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of
design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2009, the Historic
Preservation Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the
text of Sections 26.415.120 -Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.B -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 -Conceptual Development
Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 -Final Development Plan Review, as described herein, by
a vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission fmds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission fmds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
P42
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and m standard print and looks like this. Text being added to the --- - Deleted: Tex[ being remnvea is rea
code is blue with underline and looks like this. witn avikeaunngh ana looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 -Appeals, notice to City Council and Call-Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation
Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call-Up.
A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or
disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for
major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
B. Notice to Clty Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving,
approving with conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Dpvelopment_Plan application __--- Deleted: a
for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or
relocation approval of a designated property, the 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 set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and eranhic form of the oroiect with a copy of the aoorovine
document.
C. Call-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as
described al Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not
be accented by the Ciri and no associated permits shall be issued during the thirty (30) -.---
day call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-uo Drovision, no anolications for
Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the Citv and no associated permits
shall be issued until the Ciri Council takes action as described in subsection
26 415 120 D If the Ciri Council does not call uo the action within the call-up period - ~ Deleted: can
the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter. .Deletes: nn the rewra eatabhahea
tiefoa the HPC
D. City Council action on appeal or call-up. The City Council shall, at a public Fomwtted: Font Marc
meetine, consider the application a novo. The City Council max_ at ItS dlSCiettOn, fi' Deleted: shell affum the decision of the
consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic PreSBN3tlOn HPC unless there is a finding that [here
Commission or suoolement the record with additional evidence or testimony as was a denial of due process or the HPC
has exceeded itsjunsdic[ion or abused its
necessary The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same aiaeretlon.
process and requirements applicable to the reviewing body. The City Council shall take % .- Deleted: s
such action as iZ deem_ ,necessary, including, but not lim_it_ed_ to: - - Deleted: ea
- Deleted: [o remedy said situation
P43
1. Accepting the decision.
2_Reversing or amending the decision.
,. ceieced: z
~, Altering the conditions of approval
e4. Remanding the application_ to the HPC for rehearing. -(Ord_ No_ 1-2.00.2, § 7 _-„--- De~etetl: 3
[part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10)
5 Continuing the meeting to reouest additional evidence analvsis. or testimonv as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. -Appeals, notice to City Council and Call-Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Commercial Design Review
decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call-Up.
1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standazds of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for C~pnceptual_Design, the_City_ ..-- oeiecea:c
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity oeietea: a
to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below.
3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with
conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council
may order call-up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, aonlications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the
Ci and no associated permits Shall be issued during_ the thirty-day call-up period. If ----- ce~~: c~
takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call
up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the
matter.
4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting.
consider the application a novo._ The City Council mav. at its discretion consider „---- Formatted: Four. IWrc
evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation Commission or Deleted: on the rennrd eatab~ishea
Planning and Zoning Commission as applicable or supplement the record with before the Planning and Zorung
Commission or Historic Preservation
additional evidence or testimonv as necessary The Ciri Council shall conduct its review Commission, as applicable.
P44
'he City Council shall take such action as itt deems necessary~_ including but not
t0:
a. Acceotine the decision.
b_Reversing or amendine the decision.
~_ Altering the conditions of approval.
~. Remanding the application to the aoolicable Commission for rehearing. (Ord. No.
13, 2007, § 1)
e. Continuine the meetin tg o request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-uD review.
Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 -Conceptual Development Plan Review, which
section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans
by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundazies, the location and
orieptation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site
chazacteristics.
(3) 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.
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction
represented by samples and/or photographs.
(5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context
surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at
least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or
streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential
design standazds or a written request for a variance from any standard that is
not being met.
DelMetl: shall affvm the decision ofthe
Commission unless there is a Cmding that
Here was a denial of due processor [he
Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or
abused its discretion.
De1Met1: s
Deletetl: ed
DelMetl: to remedy said situation
Dektetl: b
Dekted:c
P45
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects aze as follows:
(]) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or fmal development plan approval. If they aze
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and
a public heazing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the heazing
shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Pazagmphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepaze a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be 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 will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the heazing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) 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.
(41 A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwazded to the City Council in
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows:
(1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute fmal approval
of a major development project or permission to proceed with the
development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to
proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan.
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in
regazds to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or
addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the
proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the fmal
development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses
to makes substantial- amendments to the conceptual design after it has been ,-.- ceteted::
- - --
approved, anew conceptual development plan ,gpproval shall be required, ----.-- ceieced: news
-------------
pursuanttoSection26.415.070.D.3 _______,__________--_-----------------------.--..- ceieted:.
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development
plan approval, a development application for a fmal development plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual
P46
development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period
shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan.
applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion
and for good cause shown, grant aone-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 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 -Final Development Plan Review, which section
describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the
Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
-~ Formatted: Tabs: 108 pt, LeR +
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review. Not at le pt
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part
of the development at 1/4" ° 1.0' scale.
(3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the
development, depicted through samples or photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the fmal
development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a
condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan.
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development
projects aze as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for final development plan approval [f they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public heazing
before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided
pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, band c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepaze a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be 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
P47
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the heazing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) 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.
_..
f4)Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a fmal set of -- Deletetl:(a>.AmsomtionnftheHPc
_
-""-----"'""""""""""""""""""""""
the HPC or Cit
Council must '
or all re
uired chan
es b
lans reflectin
an action will be frrwarded to the City
y
,
q
g
y
p
g
y counrilin accordance with seetinn
be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues `' ze.au.l3o anam cerndt win be isaucd
which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the for construction ofthe project until the
thirty (30) day "call up' period by City
plans, Council has ezpired.Q
DeleteO: S
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the Sa' day of April, 2009, at 5:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fiReen (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.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 2008.
Michael Hoffman, Chairman
Attest:
Kathy Strickland City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, Special Counsel
P48
Exhibit A
Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official
Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions
of this Title.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions
of the Municipal Code. It will provide another layer of checks and balances to the
development review process by authorizing Council to call up and review applications de
novo.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment provides Council with more flexibility
regarding future development applications and their compliance with review criteria and
community goals. However, Staff finds that the proposed amendment is not completely
consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan which states that "we
must allow change without restrictive rules dictating a level of conformity that stifles
community creativity. The excessive body of regulations must not keep expanding and
many should be reconsidered." The AACP suggests that "rather than creating new rules
community members should creatively solve problems." Staff finds that the proposed
amendment may potentially introduce unpredictability for land use applicants, but it may
also provide the community with a more balanced application at the conclusion of the
entire process.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Response: n/a..
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Response: n/a..
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not
limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Response: n/a.
P49
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Resnonse: n/a.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community chazacter in the City.
Staff Resnonse: n/a.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject pazcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
StaffResnonsei n/a.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Response: The purpose of the code amendment is to improve the checks and
balances system for new development by authorizing Counci] to call up and review a
project de novo. It will increase the probability that an application meets the review
criteria in the Code and complies with the goals of the community. On the other hand,
expanding Council's purview over projects that aze approved by the HPC or P & Z may
create unpredictability within the review process, which may be in conflict with the
public interest.
P50
_.
_ ....... .. P 51
~ {{ Qn,~ _..
~, ~~~ ~~SI.cJSSI DVr . -
ORDINANCE N0.48
(Series of 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 26.415 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL
CODE, DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC LANDMARK STTES AND STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT IN
AN "H," HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, in light of the on-going demolition of buildings, structures or objects that
may have historical significance for the City of Aspen, the City Council adopted an Emergency
Ordinance, Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2007, on July 10, 2007. The Ordinance amended Title
26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 26.415 Development Involving the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures or Development in an "H"
Historic Overlay District and established a new process for the identification and protection of
potential historic resources. The Ordinance was adopted to address the aegative impacts that
the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general
well-being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen's unique
azchitectural character, livability and attractiveness as a destination; and
WHEREAS, City Council subsequently directed the Community Development De-
partment to prepaze further amendments to the historic preserv8tion ordinance, including limit-
ing the protection of potential historic resources to a list of properties which are at least 30.
years old and which, in stafFs opinion are associated with architectural styles and historical
trends which represent Aspen's first one hundred years of history, most particularly Aspen's
development since World Waz II. Said list is attached to this Ordinance as "Exhibit A;" and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommends approval of the pro-
posed additions and amendments to Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as described
herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider
the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter and Section on October 2, 2007, took
and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Community Development Di-
rector and recommended, by a 3-1 vote, City Council adopt proposed amendments to the land
use code by amending the text of the above noted Chapters and Sections of the Land Use
Code; and,
WHEREAS, the geographical area of the City of Aspen east of Castle Creek and
south of the Roaring Fork River substantially defines the perceived character of Aspen's built
environment and the buildings in this area are visibly accessible and can be appreciated by the
general public; and,
WHEREAS, multi-family buildings aze typically owned by multiple parties and are
subject to heightened development exactions upon demolition and are, therefore, less likely
than other types of buildings to be demolished in the near future; and,
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 1
P52 _ --.._ _.. _____._
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 ORDAINED BY THE CITY COIJNCII. OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby de-
letes inits entirety Section 26.415.035, Designation of Historic Properties. (Note to codifier
-this Section has been amended and recodified as Section 26.415.025.)
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby
amends Chapter 26.415 by adding Section 26.415.025, Identification of Potential Historic
Resources, which section describes the process and criteria for the Identification of Potential
Historic Resowces to read as follows: '
26.415.025 Potential Historic Resources
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section and identifying a List of Potential Historic Re-
sowces (alternatively, the "List's is to prevent the loss of buildings, sites, structwes or objects,
or collections of bui]dings, sites, structwes or objects that may have historical, architectural,
azchaeclogical, engineering and cultural importance, and to limit the detrimental effect of de-
velopment or demolition of these potential resowces on the character of the town during the
time period that the City is undertaking revisions to the Historic Preservation Program. Pre-
serving and protecting historic resources promotes the public welfare by making Aspen a more
attractive and desirable place in which to live, work, or visit_
B. List of Potential Historic Resonrces. There is hereby identified a List of Potential His-
toric Resources. The properties identified in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007,
shall constitute this List. The List shall be maintained and made available to the general pub-
lic bythe Community Development Department.
C. Amendments to the List of Potential Historic Resources. No properties shall be added
to the List of Potential Historic Resources by the City of Aspen for the effective period of Or-
dinance No. 48, Series of 2007, while the City is undertaking an evaluation of the historic
preservation program and a Citizen Task Force charged with making recommendations is in
operation. Properties may be removed from the List pursuant to Section 26.415.025.E. If the
primary structwe(s) on any property identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources have
been destroyed by an act of God or are otherwise declazed unsafe and ordered demolished by
the Chief Building Official, the property shall be removed from the List.
D. Applicability and Exemptions. For those properties identified on the List of Potential
Historic Resources no alterations shall be undertaken by the property owner and no building
permits or land use applications for alterations, demolition or other similaz development activ-
itythat substantially alters the Potential Historic Resource may be accepted by the Community
Development Depar,Unent except as permitted pwsuant to the provisions of Section
26.415.025.E.
Ordioaace 448, Series 2007
Page 2
_... .. P53
Exempt from this restriction shall be alterations, land use applications, and building permits
limited to interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similaz
to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement offasteners, or re-
pair ofwindow glazing. The Community Development Director may exempt other such exte-
rior alterations which aze determined by the Community Development Director to be mini-
mallyintrusive orreversible work that does not dintinishthe historic character ofthe property.
Alterations, land use applications, and building permit applications which exclusively impact
the interior of a building shall be exempt from this Section.
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 Guidelines," an application for building pemrit shall be issued. Work undertaken
in conformance with the International Building Code provisions for emergency repairs, assum-
ingthat the repair matches the surrounding exterior materials and character to the extent prac-
ticable, shall be exempt from this Section.
E. Ninety-Day Negotiation Period. For those properties identified on the List of Potential
Historic Resources, building permits and land use applications for alterations, demolition, re-
development, or other simifaz development activity that substantially alters the Potential His-
toric Resoureeshall beaccepted bythe Community Development Department. Only wmplete
Land Use applications, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall be ac-
cepted. A letter from the property owner indicating anunderstanding ofthis rtinety-day nego-
tiationperiod shall accompany the building permit or land use application. Upon acceptance,
the building permit or land use application may be reviewed, but shall not be issued, fora pe-
riod of ninety days to allow for a period of negotiation regazding the preservation of the Re-
source. This period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted
by a majority of the Council.
Within the ninety-day negotiation period, the following shall occur:
1. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to
discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits
that the property maybe eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark.
2. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, during a public meeting, regazding the proposed building permit and the
nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The property owner shall be provided no-
tice of this meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission.
3. The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding
the proposed building permit, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the
staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the Resource and the ef-
fects ofthe building permit upon the Resource. The property owner shall be provided
notice of this meeting with the City Council.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 3
P54
4. The City Council may negotiate dtrectly with the property owner or may choose to di-
rectthe Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negoti-
atewith the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the preserva-
tion ofthe Resource. The City Council tnay choose to provide this direction in Execu-
tive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part ofthe mutually acceptable agreement,
the City 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 His-
toric Properties. As part ofthe mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may
choose to require the affected building permit or land use application be withdrawn by
the property owner.
5. ]f, 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 building permits
shall be reviewed and shall be issued upon compliance with all applicable building
codes. Affected land use applications shall be reviewed and shall be issued a Devel-
opment Order upon compliance with all applicable provisions ofthe City of Aspen
Land Use Code. The City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to terminate ne-
gotiations at any time and allow the permit or land use application to be reviewed.
Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing building permits or land use applications
during the ninety-day period.
If, in the opinion of the Community Development Director after completion of a building per-
mitissued pursuant to this Section, the Potential Hisloric Resource has been demolished or so
altered as to render the property no longer a Potential Historic Resource, the Community De-
velopment Director shall remove the property from the List of Potential Historic Resources.
F. Procedure to Confirm a Property is not included on the List of Potential Historic
Resources. To request confirmation that a property is not included on the List of Potential
Historic Resources, a property owner may submit a request to the Community Development
Department. The request shall include the name and address of the property owner and any
authorized agent acting on behalf of the owner- The confirmation letter shall be in a-record-
able format and indicate whether the subject property is on the List of Potential Historic Re-
sources, shall include a current copy of the List of Potential Historic Resources, and shall con-
firm that the property is exempt from the procedures and limitations of this Chapter for the
effective period of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007, while the City is undertaking an evalua-
tion ofthe historic preservation program and a Citizen Task Force charged with making rec-
ommendations is inoperation. For structures between thirty (30) and forty (40) old, the con-
firmation letter shall also exempt the property from the procedures and limitations of this
Chapter for a period of one (1) year after the date of amendments to Chapter 26.415 adopted in
response to the Citizen Task Force recommendations. The confirmation letter shall not create
or constitute a vested right. Confirmation requests may be assessed an administrative review
fee. An owner of the subject property aggrieved by the Community Development Director's
determination may appeal the decision to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Ap-
peals.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 4
_. P55
G. Voluntary Designation. The City Council, the Historic Preservation Commission
and the Community Development Director may not initiate an application for designation
unless the property owner consents to designation for the effective period of Ordinance 48,
Series of 2007. An owner of a property identified on the List of Potential Historic Resowces
who consents to Historic Designation may request the Community Development Director ini-
tiate anapplication for designation pursuant to Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic
Properties. An owner of the subject property who consents to designation may concurrently
submit any proposed redevelopment plans to be reviewed according to Chapter 26.415.
H. Penalties. Any owner who takes action to alter or demolish a property identified
on the List of Potential Historic Resowces, including purposeful removal, change or damage
to any exterior materials, featwes, portions of a building, or structural members of a building
shall be subject to the penaltles established in Section 26.415.140, Penalties. The Community
Development Department must demonstrate to City Council, using date stamped photographs,
that the exterior of the building has been altered after the adoption date of this ordinance in
order to apply penalties.
Tn addition, properties on the List of Potential Historic Resowces aze required to receive rea-
sonablecare, maintenance and upkeep as described in Section 26.415.100, Demolition by Ne-
glect.
Repairs or minimally intrusive work permitted under Section 26.415.025.D or completed ac-
cording to aDevelopment Order or Building Permit issued by the Community Development
Department, as maybe required, shall not be subject to penalties.
Section 3. Notice to Prnperty Owners.
All owners of properties identified on the List of Potemially Historic Resources, as provided in
Exhibit A to this Ordinance, shall be mailed a copy of this Ordinance by registered mail, within 10
days of the final City Council approval of this Ordinance. Property owners may submit to the
Community Development Department alternate or additional addresses for this infomtation to be
mailed. (As opposed to or in addition to the address on file with the Pitkin County Assessor's
Office.)
Section 4. Effect on Esistiag Ordinance No. 30 Determinations.
17ris Ordinance shall not affect any Determination of No Historic Significance approved by the
Community Development Director pwsuant to Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2007. These
determinations issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 30 shall continue to be valid for afive-yeaz
period from their issuance date.
Section 5. Policy Task Force.
A Historic Preservation Policy Task Force shall be established in order to provide guidance on
additional changes to the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Program. Membership ofthe Task
Force shall be by appointment by City Council. Duties of the Task Force shall be detemtined by
City Council, but shall include a review of the following as a minimum:
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 5
P56 ._.. __ _ -
The criteria upon which designation applications are judged, including whether additional
or different criteria should apply when the property owner objects to the designation and
for 20'~ century properties.
Changes to the Integrity Scoring System used to evaluate properties, including to the
process by which the Scoring System is adopted.
Existing and additional benefits for owners of historic properties.
• Strategic policy level review of the historic preservation program objectives and benefits
and congruence with community goals as outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The City shall not proceed with property designations without owner consent until the Policy
Task Force has made their recommendations and the City Council has considered proposed code
changes.
Section 6. Availability of Documents.
The Community Development Department shall make available to the public all documents
related to the List 'bf Potential Historic Resources, criteria upon which properties shall be
evaluated, reseazch paper;, swung sheets, development and other benefits, and copies of this
ordinance and shall diligently pursue timely inclusion of this information on the City of Aspen
website.
Section 7. Effect on Existing Applications.
This Ordinance shall not affect any active Land Use Application, existing Development Order, or
Building Permit, as such terms are used in the Land Use Code, submitted and determined
wmplete prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
Pre-Application Conferences, Pre-Application Conference Summary reports, or formal or infomral
discussions with Community Development staff or review Boazds shall not wnstitute a wmplete
application or any other official status. Applications submitted after the effective date of this
ordirrance shall wmply with the terrrrs of this ordinance and of the Land Use Code, as amended.
Section 8. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unwnstitutional in a wort 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 9. Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not opernte 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 wnsttued and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
Section 10. Notice
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on November 12, 2007, wntinued to November 2ti,
2007, and wntinued to December 10, 2007, 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.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 6
--R6 7
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of October, 2007.
~ ~d"~ ~ /Z-/1 -O
Michael C. Ireland, Ma or
ATTEST:
- ~~
Kathryn Kq9 ,City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this t~{s~ay of AF' 2007.
cha C. Ireland, M or
ATTEST:
Kathryn Ko ,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jim Tree, Special Counsel
Ordiaaace #48, Series 2007
Page 7
-.-P-a>~-.. . _._ . _.. .. _ _.... ._ _~._. _ ..
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007
114 E. Bleeker St: Pazcel Id: 273512437010; 273512437009. Legal Description: BLOCK 65,
114 EAST BLEEKER CONDOMINIUMS.
118 E. Bleeker St: Pazcel Id: 273512437012; 273512437011. Legal Description: BLOCK 65,
HOGUET CONDOMINIUMS.
408 E. Cooper Ave: Aspen Sports Parcel Id:2737-182-16-009, LegalDescription:BLOCK
89, LOT PART OF L&M.
Cooper Avenue, Hyman Avenue and Mill Street Pedestrian Malls
333 E. Durant Ave., Mountain Chalet: Parcel Id: 273718245002, Legal Description:
BLOCK 84, MOUNTAIN CHALET PUD SUBDIVISION.
100 E. Francis St., Given Institute: Parcel Id: 273512419851, Legal Description: BLOCK
63, LOT A -LOT F, DESCRIPTION: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING ALL OF BLK 63
PART OF FRANCIS ST PART OF CENTER ST & PART OF THE NW4 OF THE SW4 OF
SEC 7-10-84 & PART OF THE NE4 OF THE SE4 OF SEC 12-10-85 SAID PARCELS
DESC AS BGNNG AT A PT OF THE N LINE OF FRANCIS ST & 24.00 FT ELY OF THE
W LINE OF CENTER ST TH N 14 DEG 50'49" E 121.59 FT TH N 33 DEG 03' 19"E 42.21
FT TH N 7 DEG 19'05 "E 1 l 2.35 FT TH S 70 DEG 18' 15"E 286.57 FT TH S 6 DEG 18'51 "W
103:11 FT TH ] 8 DEG 12'00"W 108.73 FT TH 9 DEG 25'21 "E 52.10 FT TH S 23 DEG
21'00"E 83.49 FT TO THE BTHLY LINE OF FRANCIS ST EXTENDED ELY TH N 75
DEG 09'11"W 288.99 FT TO THENW COR OF BLK 64 TH N 31 DEG 00'50"W 107.29 FT
TO THE POB.
210 W. Francis Ave: Pazcel Id: 273512417005, Legal Description: BLOCK 48, LOT P & Q.
621 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 2735142426011; 2735142426012, Legal Description: BLOCK
22, REEDS HOUSE CONDOMINIUM.
624 W. Francis St: Pazcel Id: 273512409012, Legal Description: BLOCK 21, STARRI
CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT B.
626 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 2 73 5 1 24090 1 1, Legal Description: BLOCK 21, STARRI
CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT A.
215 N. Garmisch St., Yellow Brick: Pazcel Id: 273512436850, Legal Description:
BLOCK57, LOT A -LOT S, PLUS VACATED ALLEY.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 8
--~b9
233 Gilbert St., Skier Chalet Lodge: Parcel Id: 273513119002, Legal Description: BLOCK
9, LOTS 5 - LOT 10 AND LOTS 4 & 11 LESS THEW 22' EAMES ADDTTION
SUBDNISION.
700 W. Gillespie St., Aspen Center for Physies: Pazcel Id: 273512129803, Lega] Descrip-
tion: LOT 3, ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDMSION.
110 E. Hallam St., Red Brick: Parcel Id: 273707313801, Legal Description: BLOCK 71,
LOTS K,L,M & FRACTIONAL LOTS. A, B, & C, BLOCK 64, LOTS A-I & LOTS K-S
AND A STRIP OF LAND.
327 W. Hallam St: Pazcel Id: 273512434001, Legal Description: BLOCK 43, LOTS A - C.
928 W. Hallam St: Parcel Id: 273512300015, Legal Description: BLOCK 4, LOTS PART K,
L & M SECT,1'WN,RNG:12-10-85, TRACT OF LAND IN SW4 (ALSO 50METIMES
KNOWN AS LOT 9) SEC 12-]0.85 DESC BY M/B BK 385 PG 357 & TRACT
FORMERLY KNOWN AS PARCEL C OF HERNDON SUB FIRST AMENDMENT.
122 W. Hopkins Ave: Pazcel Id: 273512455004, Legal Description: BLOCK 59, LOTS M &
N.
129 E. Hopkins Ave: Pazcel Id: 273512458004, Legal Description: BLOCK 68, LOTS G - I.
211 W. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512463003, Legal Description: BLOCK 53, LOTS F &
G.
100 E. Hyman Ave., Chalet Lisl: Parcel Id: 273512458005, Legal Description: BLOCK 68,
LOTS K - M.
322 W. Hyroao Ave: Pazcel Id: 273512464005, Legal Description: BLOCK 46, LOTS N &
0.
334 W. Hyman Ave., St. Moritz: Pazcel Td: 273512464004, Legal Description: ST MORITZ
LODGE MINOR PUD SUBDIVISION.
606 E. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273718212003, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOT K & L.
610 E. Hyman Ave: Pazcel Id: 273718212004, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOT M.
630 E. Hyman Ave., Patio Building: Pazcel Id: 2737182]2007, Legal Description: BLOCK
99, LOTS R & S.
720 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen Athletic Club: Parcel Id: 273718211008 THROUGH
273718211019; 273 71 821 1 02 1 THROUGH 27371821 1 03 1, Legal Description: BLACK 104,
ALL UNITS, ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB CONDOMINNMS.
301 Lake Ave., Parcel Id: 273512416003, Legal Description: HALLAM ADDITION
SUBDNISION BLOCK 40, EAST 1!2 OF LOT 5 -LOT 7.
Ordinance 1148, Series 2007
Page 9
P60 ~~
120 E. Main St., Design Workshop: Parcel Id: 273512438002, Legal Description: ELY 20
FT OF LOT M, ALL OF LOTS N Bc O BLOCK 66 & SLY ] 0 FT OF VACATED ALLEY
ADJACENT ALSO LOT 2 OF US WEST SUBDIVISION.
200 W. Main St., Tyrolean Lodge: Pazcel Id: 273512440010, Legal Description: BLOCK 51,
LOTS R & S.
220 E. Main St., Cortina Lodge: Parcel Id: 273707320707, Legal Description: BLOCK 73,
LOTS P&Q.
420 E. Msin St: Parcel Id: 273707322801; 273707322014; 273707322015, Legal Description:
BLOCK 86, ALL UNITS, GALENA PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS.
435 East Main St., Gas StationRocal's corner: Pazcel Id: 273707330005, Legal Description:
BLOCK 87, LOTS E - I.
630 W. Main St., Mountain Rescue: Parcel Id: 273512444805, Legal Description: BLOCK
24, LOT M.
730 W. Main St., Hickory Hoose: Pazcel Id: 273 5 1 2445004, Legal Description: BLOCK 18,
LOTS M - P.
745 Meadows Rd: Parcel Id: 273512201003, Legal Description: BLOCK 1, LOT 3,
SNOBBLE SUBDIVISION. '
765 Meadows Rd: Parcel Id: 273512201002, Legal Description: LOT 2, SNOBBLE
SUBDIVISION.
119 S. Mill St., Wells Fargo Bank: Pazcel Id: 273707329009, Legal Description: BLOCK
80, LOTS P - S.
307 S. MiU St., D-19 Restaurant: Parcel Id: 273718217004, Legal Description: ASPEN
COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM, UNIT:B.
536 W. North St., Christ Episcopal Church: Parcel Id: 273 5 121 1 1 808, Legal Description:
BLOCK 99, LOTS 11 - 15 HALLAM ADDITION.
411 Pearl Ct: Pazcel Id: 273 5 121 1 0002, Legal Description: BLOCK 101, LOTS 7 & 8 & A
STRIP OF LAND SITUATED IN BLK 101 HALLAMS ADDITION BEING ONE HALF OF
THE ALLEY W IDTH ADJ TO THE SLY BORDER OF LOT 7 & 8 HALLAM ADDITION.
434 Pearl Ct: Parcel Id: 273512109002, Legal Description: BLOCK 100, SOUTH 1/2 OF
LOT 2 AND LOT 3, HALLAM ADDITION.
850 Roaring Fork Rd: Pazcel Id: 27351212600], Legal Description: LOT 1, MERRIAM
SUBDIVISION.
Ordiaaoce #48, Series 2007
Page 10
P61
500 West Smuggler St: Pazcel Id: 273512404006, Legal Description: LOTS Q, R &S,
BLOCK 26.
949 W. Smuggler Ave: Pazcel Id: 273512212001, Legal Description: BLOCK 3, LOT A - I.
300 S. Spring St., Hannah Dustin: Parcel Id: 273718227800; 273718227101, Legal Descrip-
rion: BLOCK 105, LOTS A - D, ALL UNITS, HANNAH DUSTIN CONDOMINIUMS.
219 S. Third St: Pazcel Id: 273512465005, Legal Description: BLOCK 39, LOTS O - S.
407 N. Third St: Pazcel Id: 273512413006, Legal Description: BLOCK 34, LOTS P - S.
615 N. Third St: Pazcel Id: 273512110001, Legal Description: BLOCK 101, LOTS 9 & 10.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr Ho-
Bier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Lega] Description:
ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT lA.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id: 273512129809,
Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1 B.
1280 Ute Ave., Benedict Building: Parcel Id: 273718156001 tluv-003; 273718156005 thru-
020; 273718156023 thru -034; 273718156036; 273718156129; 273718]56131;
273718156804; 273718156821; 273718156822; 273718156835, Legal Description: ALL
UNITS, POWDERHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS.
1005 Waters Ave: Pazcel Id: 273718282001, Legal Description: BLOCK 41, LOTS A-C,
EAST ASPEN ADDITION.
1102 Waters Ave: Parcel Id: 273718266001, Legal Description: LOT 14, CALDERWOOD
SUBDIVISION.
Ordiuaoce #48, Series 2007
Page 11
P62