Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20090812` ~ 8/7/2009 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2009 5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISITS: NOON -Please visit the sites on your own. I. Roll call I. Approval of minutes -July 22, 2009 II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. Project Monitoring: VI. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #18) VII. OLD BUSINESS A. 434 E. Cooper Ave. (aka Bidwell/Mountain Plaza Bldg.) Major Development Conceptual, Commercial Design Standard Review, View plane Exemption Review 9 (cont'd public hearing from July 22, 2009) VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. NONE IX. Other A. 710 N. third Street -light fixtures (project monitoring) 20 min. X. WORK SESSION A. 630 E. Hyman Ave. -Patio Building (45min.) XI. Adjourn 6:45 p.m. 8/7/200.9 Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 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 certain. 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. 8/7/2009 PROJECT MONITORING ~ - Mike Hoffman 202 N. Monarch (Blue Vic) 507 Gillespie (new single family home) 334 W. Hallam (Hayden Connor fence) Paepcke Auditorium Sarah Broughton 110 E. Bleeker 604 West Main Street Firestation Isis addition 308 E. Hopkins (LaCo) 222 E. Bleeker (new single family home) Brian McNellis Fox Crossing Victorian 204 North Monarch (new single family) 332 West Main Street 510 East Hyman (Elks' deck) 1291 Riverside Drive Lift 1 Ticket Office Aru1 Mullils 135 West Hopkins Street Boomerang 604 West Main Street 300 South Spring Street 204 North Monarch (new house) 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 Lift 1 Ticket Office Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Road 707 N. Third M:lcity\plaiminglhpc project monitoringlPROJECT MONITORING.doc 8/7/2009 8/7/200.9 TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner 8/7/2009 P1 434 East Cooper Street • August 12, 2009 434 East Cooper Avenue, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Viewplane and Commercial Design Review- Public Hearing (continued from July 22, 2009) August 12, 2009 APPLICANT /OWNER: Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation, 434 East Cooper Street, Aspen, CO. REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning; LLC, Klein, Cote & Edwards P.C.; Rowland + Broughton Architecture. LOCATION: Lots Q, R and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly la~own as 434 East Cooper Street. CURRENT ZONING & USE CC, Commercial Core Historic Zone District containing a two story (above grade) office/retail building. PROPOSED LANs USE: The applicant proposes to redevelop the 9,000 square foot parcel with a new mixed use building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission grant Major Development Conceptual approval, Viewplane Exemption and Commercial Design Standard Review approval. SUMMARY: The HPC is asked to review the redesign at 434 East Cooper Street for Major Development Conceptual, Viewplane Exemption and Commercial Design Standard Review approvals. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation, has received approval to demolish the existing office/retail building located at the corner of Cooper Avenue and Galena Street that is located on a 9,000 square foot lot and redevelop the site with a new mixed-use building containing commercial, affordable housing, and free market residential uses. The existing property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District although not deemed Page 1 of 18 P2 8/7/2009 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 contributing to the District by the HPC, who granted demolition approval for the existing building. As a proposed building in the Commercial Core Historic District, the Historic Preservation Commission has purview over the design. On July 21, 2009, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) gave referral comments regarding the Commercial Design Standard Review to the HPC. Overall, P&Z found that the project met the Commercial Design Standards. A few members were concerned about the proposed height of the building, but the majority found that the three story building was appropriate. HPC continued the Conceptual public hearing on July 22, 2009 with the direction that the applicant restudy the modules on the Galena Street facade to better respond to the historic context. The large overhanging eave on the third floor flat roof was raised as a concern. The applicant restudied the Galena Street facade and cut back the projecting eave on the third floor flat roof. Staff finds that the applicant has responded to HPC's concerns and the redesign meets the HP Design Guidelines and the Commercial Design Standards. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with tl~e 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 coy:time, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and tl:e reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report aitd the evidence presetated at tl:e hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Desig~t Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information ~tecessary 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 t/te envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in tl:e Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing a~td proportions. No cltanges will be made to tl:is aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan u~tless agreed to by the applicant. DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as `'Exhibit A." Only those guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed, are included in the memo. Page 2 of 18 8/7/2009 P3 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 Staff Response: The July 22°d Staff memo is attached as Exhibit C. The discussion below focuses on the two issues raised by HPC during the last meeting. Galena Street facade: HPC voiced concern regarding the proposed modules on the Galena Street elevation, which divided the building into 20' and 30' sections. The applicant redesigned the elevation into 12,' 45,' and 25' sections. Double hung windows are proposed for the second floor to strengthen the relationship with the surrounding historic context. Staff studied historic examples of commercial corner buildings downtown to determine typical module sizes and elevation patterns (following two pages illustrate examples.) Street level features of traditional commercial buildings are clearly different from upper floors. The first floor is generally characterized by large storefront windows. A solid section of wall is typically found on the secondary facade of a corner building to facilitate interior floor plans, as illustrated on the following pages. Upper floors are the reverse: double hung windows punch through solid walls, which often creates a repetitive solid to void pattern. Staff looked at the 1904 Sanborn maps to study different module widths of corner buildings. A variety of storefront widths exist on corner lots, for example: the 1904 map shows a building on the corner of Hyman and Mill Streets (illustrated at the top of the next page) that has two 26' storefronts (in one building) facing Hyman Street and a 66' long secondary facade facing Mill Street that is largely a solid wall with a small block of storefront windows to the north; and a 24' separate building is located next door. Staff finds that the proposed 12', 45' and 25' modules are appropriate for a new commercial core building downtown. The lot extends 100' along Galena Street, but the 18' pedestrian amenity setback results in 82' of lot frontage and creates an unusual situation in comparison to a typical 19`" century corner commercial building that would be built to the lot line. Staff finds that the one story 12' module and two story 45' and 25' modules are successful in breaking up the building and expressing a variety of lot widths. Staff finds that guidelines 13.11 and 13.17 below are met. 13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to buildings seen historically. ^ Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design, facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered. These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings. 13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor. ^ The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass. ^ Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. ^ Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate. ^ Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship. Page 3 of 1 S 8/7/2009 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 - ~ F r~, "~ u7 . ~ , ~ ~. 1- ' ~ ~ il ~•s .-- ~Ce~9rirovtRw~ 1 _ _ _ , QN.! • ~/ _ _-- _ ~ j • ~~ „- . ' 1Y ~ ,. 2~ " ~ ,~ ~ ~ r Of3 i Yr u 8.nk.Yv ' I j ti ~' / T;V 7+w / 6 C,,. - rj-a- l 1 _ _ \ uuf ~i A ~ t w~i ~o :.L~... ' 13 ~ ~ ~ ~ i„r ~ ~ ~ --__ ~' I ~ rrf ~ L t rx ~~ .M~.J~/ - ~ '~A.~ ' ' .~.'~.~ y 8B ~ k r.. ~ 1 rr. a r,- - lJ Sr a . 1 a ~ ~ ~ ~ L V Y ` ~ i' ~ ~' ~ 0 c ~ ° ` t ~ I' . . ~~ + a ~n ~ ?p ~ _:a'o .:t Ire . Historic examples of corner buildings in Aspen's commercial core. Typically, the second and third floors repeat a punched opening pattern with double hung windows. The street- level of corner buildings had a clear primary and secondary facade. The Sanborn Map above depicts a typical downtown block. The photo- graph at the top illustrates the bottom left corner on the map. The individual building widths range from 10', 14', 18', 24' and 26.' 8/7/2009 P5 Examples of historic corner buildings currently downtown. Note the repetitive windows on the upper floors and the modulated storefronts, depending upon which facade is primary and secondary. From top: Wheeler Opera House, Bowman Building, Inde- pendence Square. Cooper Street -gust 12, 2009 <~ 8/7/2049 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 Overhanging eave on third floor: Previously, the eaves ranged from 6'-6" to 5'-0" to 3'-9" depending on location. The applicant reduced the overhanging eaves to 30" around the entire third floor, except at the stair tower which remains unchanged at 6". Staff finds that this is an appropriate compromise- the third floor units will still be able to reduce energy costs with a passive shading element and the overhanging eave will be less intrusive to the pedestrian by extending only 30." As part of a consolidated application, HPC is asked to grant Commercial Design Review approval. Applicable review criteria are addressed below. See Exhibit B for a full copy of the Code section. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards. 2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this section. 3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff Response: The Commercial Design Standards are in many ways similar to HPC's own guidelines. Staff response to each section is below: 26.412.060.A. Building Relationship to Primary Street. In summary, this Standard requires buildings to be square to the street, have consistent setbacks and commercial uses developed at the ground level. The general intent is to create a consistent street wall and coherent commercial downtown to enhance the pedestrian experience. Staff finds that the proposed building meets this Standard. ?6.412.060.B. Pedestrian Amenity. This Standard specifies the nature and function of the required pedestrian amenity space: mainly that it is versatile and contributes to the pedestrian experience. Staff finds that the proposed project meets and exceeds this Standard by providing more pedestrian amenity than required onsite (2% more.) Page 6 of 18 8/7/2009 P7 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 26.412.060.0 Street-level Building Elements. This Standard intends to create successful ground level storefronts by requiring 60% transparency at the ground level and defined entrances to contribute to the pedestrian experience in the Commercial Core. Staff finds that this Standard is met. 26.412.060.D. Parking. This Standard requires well-design parking that. does not detract from the quality of downtown. The applicant proposes a subgrade parking garage accessed off of the alley to meet and exceed (by 2 spaces) the parking requirements for the redevelopment. Staff finds that the Standard is met. 26.412.060.E. Utility, Delivery, Trash Service Provision. This Standard emphasizes well- designedtrash and utility areas that do not impede alley circulation. The project proposes utility, delivery and trash service that will be screened and located off of the alley. Staff finds that the project meets this Standard. Overall, Staff finds that amended massing meets the Commercial Design Standards and recommends approval. VIEW PLANE The application requires approval from the Wheeler Opera House and Jerome View Planes because the parcel is located within a view plane as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission typically handles View Plane reviews, however the Community Development Director has the right to consolidate reviews when deemed to be the most efficient and effective process. HPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requested view plane approval. If HPC does not believe that the proposal satisfies the criteria for construction within a view plane review, HPC may require the application to go through the PUD review process as is described in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050(0), Mountain view plane review standards. HPC is to apply the following criteria to this issue: 1. No mountain view plane can be infringed upon except as follows: When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.455 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated. Page 7 of 18 8/7/2009 F8 , .._ , ..,. 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 When anv proposed development infrinees upon a desiQttated view plane, but is located in front of another development which alreadv blocks the same view plane the Plannine and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infrinee upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adiacent structure will occur to re- open the view plane In the event the proposed development does not further infrinee upon the view lane and re-develo ment to re-o en the view lane cannot be antici ated the Plannin and Zonine Commission shall approve the development Staff Response: Only the southwest comer of the proposed building falls within the Wheeler Opera House View Plane. The proposed maximum height is about 4'S" below the previous proposal. The one story T-shirt shop and four story Morris and Frywald building (see last page of drawings for View Plane map and photographs) already block the Wheeler Opera House View Plane as it projects towards the subject site; therefore, the Mountain Plaza proposal does not directly impact the View Plane in the current downtown configuration. The Morris and Frywald Building is under HPC's purview, as it is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. Future redevelopment of the Morris and Frywald Building would appear to potentially open some of the View Plane; however the landmark Independence Square building, located across the intersection of Cooper and Galena, infringes upon the Wheeler View Plane. Due to landmark status, it is unlikely that Independence Square will be redeveloped in the future. Staff recommends that HPC grant View Plane approval due to extant buildings, with minimal likelihood of redevelopment that will open the view plane, blocking the view between the Wheeler Opera House and Aspen Mountain. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Overall, Staff finds that the project as proposed meets the HP Design Guidelines for Conceptual Review, Commercial Design Standard Review and Viewplane Review, and responds to concerns voiced by City Council and the public regarding the redevelopment of this parcel. As mentioned in the July 22, 2009 memo, Staff recommends that the applicant continue to study the storefront fenestration heights to better relate to the historic context for Final Review. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial Design Standard approval, and Wheeler Opera House View Plane Exemption for Page 8 of 18 8/7/2009 P9 434 East Cooper Street Augustl2, 2009 the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will continue to study the storefront fenestration heights and the impact to the overall height of the building to better relate to the historic context for discussion and approval during Final Review. 2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant 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. Resolution # of 2009. Exhibits: A. Design Guidelines B. Commercial Design Standards C. July 22, 2009 Staff memo. D. Application (Revised drawings only. The full application was presented to HPC on July 22°d) Page 9 of 18 8/7/2009 P10 >,.._ _ _ _. _ ,. ... 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), VIEWPLANE REVIEW, AND COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 434 EAST COOPER STREET, LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2009 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bidwell Investment Corporation, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, LLC; Klein, Cote & Edwards, P.C., and Rowland + Broughton Architecture and Urban Design requested that Aspen City Council reconsider the subdivision application for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Aspen City Council approved reconsideration of the application for subdivision for the subject property and remanded Commercial Design Standard Review, Historic Preservation Major Development Conceptual Review and Viewplane Exemption Review back to the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined that the application is governed under the Aspen Land Use Code in effect in March 2006; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(1) of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Director has approved a combined review to enable HPC review of the applicant's viewplane and commercial design review requests with major development (conceptual) finding that such combination will eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constmcted, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic properly or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and ' WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(1) of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Director has approved a combined review to enable HPC review of the applicant's viewplane and commercial design review requests with major development (conceptual) finding Page 10 of 18 8/7/2009 P11 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 that such combination will eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity; and WHEREAS, for View Plane 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 Municipal Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. 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. The HPC hereby finds that impact on the viewplane is minimal; and WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.412 of the Municipal Code, that the project conforms to the following criteria: 1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards. 2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this section. 3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated July 22, 2009 and August 12, 2009, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 22, 2009 continued to August 12, 2009, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," found a minimal impact on the Wheeler Opera House viewplane, and approved the application by a vote of _ to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Conceptual), View Plane Review, and Commercial Design Review for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lot Q, R & S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed and illustrated in Exhibit A, with the following conditions; Page 11 of 18 8/7/2009 P12 , 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 1. The applicant will continue to study the storefront fenestration heights to better relate to the historic context and the impact of raising the storefront height on the overall height of the building for discussion and approval during Final Review. 2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12`h day of August, 2009. Michael Hoffman, HPC Chair Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Page 12 of 18 8/7/2009 P13 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 434 East Cooper Street, Conceptual Review" 13.1 Respect the established town grid in all projects. ^ Maintain the alignment of streets and alleys whenever feasible. 13.2 Orient a new building parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. ^ The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. 13.3 Orient a primary entrance towazd the street. ^ Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way. ^ Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. ^ Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. 13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. ^ Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. ^ Balconies, court yards and decks are also encouraged. ^ Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be covered or protected and clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. 13.5 Retain the chazacter of the alley as a part of the original town grid. ^ Maintain an alley as an open space. ^ Alleys also may be used as pedestrian ways. 13.5 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. ^ Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible. ^ Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. ^ Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements to define the sidewalk edge. 13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. ^ The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of the downtown. ^ Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular, the windows in new construction should appear similar iit height to those seen traditionally. 13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ^ In general, a proposed three-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby. ^ The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale with nearby historic buildings. 13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similaz in width to buildings seen historically. ^ Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design, facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered. These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings. 13.12 Rectangulaz forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades. ^ Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. Page 13 of 18 P14 8/7/2009 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 ^ The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form. 13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. ^ A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. ^ Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building. ^ False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. 13.14 Along a rear facade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. ^ Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure. ^ Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. 13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged. ^ A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among historic buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products of their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors. ^ The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ^ In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design. 13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity. ^ Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts should maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows and transoms. ^ Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are visible from the street, are particularly encouraged. ^ The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" entrances are inappropriate. 13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor. ^ The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass. ^ Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. ^ Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate. ^ Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship. 13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. ^ Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall as they are wide. ^ Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. 13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a block. ^ Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians. ^ Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by the upper floor(s). ^ Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront. 13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be maintained. ^ Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings. Page 14 of 18 8/7/2009 P15 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 ^ When lazge buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight variation in alignments between the facade elements. 13.21 Special features that highlight buildings on corner lots may be considered. ^ Develop both street elevations to provide visual interest to pedestrians. ^ Corner entrances, bay windows and towers are examples of elements that may be considered to emphasize corner locations. ^ Storefront windows, display cases and other elements that provide visual interest to facades along side streets are also appropriate. Exhibit B: Commercial. Design Standards. The following design standards shall apply to commercial, lodging, and mixed-use development: A. Building Relationship to Primary Street. A street wall is comprised of buildings facing principal streets and public pedestrian spaces. Consistent street walls provide a sense of a coherent district and frame an outdoor room. Interruptions in this enclosure can lessen the quality of a commercial street. Corner buildings are especially important, in that they are more visible and their scale and proportion affects the street walls of two streets. Well-designed and located pedestrian open spaces can positively affect the quality of the district, while remnant or leftover spaces can detract from the downtown. A building's relationship to the street is entirely important to the quality of the downtown pedestrian environment. Split-level retail and large vertical separations from the sidewalk can disrupt the coherence of a retail district. The following standards shall apply: I. Building facades shall be parallel to the adjoining primary streets. Minor elements of the building facade may be developed at irregular angles. 2. Building facades along primary streets shall be setback no more than the average setback of the adjoining buildings and no less than the minimum requirement of the particular zone district. Exempt from this provision are building setbacks accommodating On-Site Pedestrian Amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 3. Building facades along primary streets shall maintain a consistent setback on the first and second story. 4. Commercial buildings shall be developed with the first floor at, or within two (2) feet above, the level of the adjoining sidewalk, or right-of--way if no sidewalk exists. "Split- level" retail frontage is prohibited. 5. Commercial buildings incorporating a setback from a primary street shall not incorporate a substantial grade change between the building facade and the public right-of--way. "Moats" surrounding buildings are prohibited. B. Pedestrian Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting, and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Pedestrian amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights- of-way or private property within commercial areas. Page 15 of 18 8/7/2009 P16 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 On parcels required to provide pedestrian amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030 -Pedestrian Amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the Pedestrian Amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site pedestrian amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The pedestrian amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation, and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of--way are encouraged. 3. The pedestrian amenity, and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of--way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks, or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section 26.575.030(F) promote the purpose of the pedestrian amenity requirements. 6. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, may reduce the pedestrian amenity requirement by any amount, such that no more than half the requirement is waived, as an incentive for well-designed projects having a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment. The resulting requirement may not be less than 10%. On-site provision shall not be required for a reduction in the requirement. A mix of uses within the proposed building that enliven the surrounding pedestrian environment may be considered. C. Street-Level Building Elements. The "storefront," or street-level portion of a commercial building is perhaps the single most important element of a commercial district building. Effective storefront design can make an entire district inviting and pedestrian friendly. Unappealing storefront design can become a detriment to the vitality of a commercial district. In order to be an effective facility for the sale of goods and services, the storefront has traditionally been used as a tool to present those goods and services to the passing pedestrian (potential customer). Because of this function, the storefront has traditionally been as transparent as possible to allow maximum visibility to the interior. The following standards shall apply: 1. Unarticulated, blank walls are prohibited. Fenestration, or an alternate means of facade articulation, is required on all exterior walls. 2. Retail buildings shall incorporate, at a minimum, a 60% fenestration ratio on exterior street-level walls facing primary streets. (For example: each street-level wall of a retail building that faces a primary street must be comprised of at least 60% fenestration penetrations and no more than 40% solid materials.) This provision may be reduced or Page 16 of 18 8/7/2009 P17 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 waived for lodging properties with no, or limited, street-level retail, office buildings with no retail component, and for Service/Commercial/Industrial buildings. 3. Building entrances shall be well-defined and apparent. 4. Building entrances shall be designed to accommodate an internal airlock such that temporary seasonal airlocks on the exterior of the building are unnecessary. 5. Non-traditional storefronts, such as along an alleyway, are encouraged. D. Parking. Parking is a necessary component of a successful commercial district. The manner in which parking is physically accommodated has a larger impact upon the quality of the district that the amount of parking. Surface parking separating storefronts from the street creates a cluttered, inhospitable pedestrian environment. A downtown retail district shaped by buildings, well- designed storefronts, and a continuous street wall is highly preferred over a district shaped by parking lots. Well-placed and well-designed access points to parking garages can allow convenient parking without disrupting the retail district. The following standards shall apply: 1. Parking shall only be accessed from alleyways, unless such access is unavailable or an unreasonable design solution in which case access from a primary street shall be designed in a manner that minimizes dismption of the pedestrian environment. 2. Surface parking shall not be located between the Street right-of--way and the building fagade. 3. Above grade parking garages in commercial districts shall incorporate ground-floor commercial uses and be designed in a manner compatible with surrounding buildings and uses. 4. Above grade parking garages shall not reveal internal ramping on the exterior facade of the building. E. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash, and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060 Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Areas, unless otherwise established according to said section. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as a historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Page 17 of 18 P18 8/7/2009 434 East Cooper Street August 12, 2009 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the Street as practical. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of--way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Suggested Design Elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most-desired development and project designers should use their best judgment. A. SiQnage: signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc. may minimize new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public wayfinding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory. B. Disnlav windows.• Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian interest. C. Lightinr: Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's Outdoor Lighting code, Section 26.575.050, is mandatory. D. Original Townsite Articulation: Buildings spanning more than one Original Townsite Lot should incorporate fapade expressions coincidental with these original parcel boundaries to reinforce historic scale. This may be inappropriate in some circumstances, such as on large comer lots. E. Architectural Features: Parapet walls should be used to shield mechanical equipment from pedestrian views. Aligning cornices and other architectural features with adjacent buildings can relate new buildings to their historical surroundings. Awnings and canopies can be used to provide architectural interest and shield windows and entryways from the elements. Page 18 of 18 8/7/2009 P19 TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner 434 East Cooper Avenue, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Viewplane and Commercial Design Review- Public Hearing July 22, 2009 APPLICANT /OWNER: Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation, 434 East Cooper Street, Aspen, CO. REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning; LLC, Klein, Cote & Edwards P.C.; Rowland + Broughton Architecture. LOCATION: Lots Q, R and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 434 East Cooper Street. CURRENT ZONING & USE CC, Commercial Core Historic Zone District containing a two story (above grade) office/retail building. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to redevelop the 9,000 square foot parcel with a new mixed use building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission grant Major Development Conceptual approval, Viewplane Exemption and Commercial Design Standard Review approval. SUMMARY: The HPC is asked to review the redesign at 434 East Cooper Street for Major Development Conceptual, Viewplane Exemption and Commercial Design Standard Review approvals. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation, has received approval to demolish the existing office/retail building located at the comer of Cooper Avenue and Galena Street that is located on a 9,000 square foot lot and redevelop the site with a new mixed-use building containing commercial, affordable housing, and free market residential uses. The existing property is located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. It is also located in Page 1 of 18 ,~~I~~ 2ZI^,~ l ni• UUII ~~- i. , :. Photo of subject property. P20 8/7/2009 the Commercial Core Historic District although not deemed contributing to the district and the existing building has been approved for demolition by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). As a proposed building in the Commercial Core Historic District, the Historic Preservation Commission has purview over the design. On July 21, 2009, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) was asked to make referral comments regarding the Commercial Design Standard Review to the HPC. Staff will relay the comments to HPC on July 22, 2009. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: In 2007, HPC granted Major Development Conceptual and Viewplane Exemption approvals, demolition approval and Commercial Design Standard Review approval for the proposed redevelopment of the subject parcel. After the HPC reviews, the P & Z reviewed the project and granted Growth Management approval for new commercial development, new residential development and affordable housing. P & Z recommended subdivision approval to City Council. During the City Council review concerns were raised regarding height, scale, mass and a lack of public amenity space. City Council denied the subdivision request. In an effort to respond to Council's and the public's concerns, the application made significant changes to the design and requested that Council reconsider the application. City Council approved reconsideration of the application and remanded review of the new design back to HPC for Major Development Conceptual, Viewplane Exemption and Commercial Design Standard Review. The previous Growth Management approvals and P & Z's subdivision recommendation are still valid. The application is still reviewed pursuant to the March 2006 Land Use Code. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews tl:e submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine tl:e project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue tlae 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 Fina/ 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) andlor addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, messing 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. Page 2 of 18 ~~~~ Z21~ ~. 8/7/2009 P21 The property is part of the Commercial Core Historic District and sits on a prominent corner location downtown. It is in close proximity to important landmarks: Aspen Block Building is directly across the alleyway to the north; the Independence Square building is located diagonally across the street; and the Red Union is located to the west. Directly across Cooper Street is the old Guido's building, which exhibits a chalet style form. 434 East Cooper borders the Cooper Pedestrian mall and the Galena Street thoroughfare and the east facade faces the popular open space in front of Paradise Bakery. DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed, are included in the memo. Staff Response: The applicant redesigned the entire building to respond to the concerns voiced by the public and City Council. The main concerns were the following: Lack of public amenity space: The applicant originally designed the building to meet the property line without any setback or public amenity space. Council and the public were concerned about the elimination of the open area in front of the existing Bidwell Building and the impact on the pedestrian malls and circulation. The applicant was providing cash-in-lieu to satisfy the required ]0% pedestrian amenity space (parcels with less than 25% pedestrian amenity currently on the site are required to provide no less than 10% pedestrian amenity for a redevelopment.) The redesign provides 12% pedestrian amenity space in front of the building at the comer of Galena and Cooper. HP Design Guideline 13.8 below recommends that buildings in the Commercial Core be placed at the property line to maintain a consistent street edge. The proposal sets 2/3 of the Cooper Street elevation 18' back from the property line to provide pedestrian amenity space. Staff finds that this is an appropriate response to the concerns raised by the public and by City Council. A "hitching post" railing is proposed at the property line to define the sidewalk edge as suggested below. 13.8 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. ^ Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible. ^ Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. ^ Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements to define the sidewalk edge. Hei ht: The applicant originally designed the three story building to be 41' at the highest point. The public and Council were concerned about the impact of the height on surrounding buildings and the downtown experience. The building is still three stories; however the height has been dropped to 36'7" at the highest point. The maximum height limit in the Commercial Core for this project is 46' (the current Code allows a maximum height limit of 42'.) The third story is set back from [he building edge a between approximately 20' to 30' on the Galena Street elevation and between ] 0' and 18' on the Cooper Street elevation. Staff finds that the two story elevation Page 3 of 18 ~~l~y ~,Liq n/~ lilN I P22 8/7/2009 closest to the Red Onion is significantly lower than the Red Onion cornice. The third story is about 2' lower than the highest point of the Red Onion and it is setback 18', which staff finds to be a successful configuration of massing that is somewhat subordinate to the historic Onion building. Mass and Scale: The original design was a three story building that filled the entire 9,000 square foot lot with different materials (rather than actual setbacks) to express building modules. In the new design, a one story element with a deck is proposed at the comer that steps up to two stories, and a third story is recessed behind the two story parapet on both the Galena and Cooper Street elevations. Commercial storefronts are proposed for the ground and second levels. The building is located on arguably the most active comer in town and as such it needs to successfully anchor the comer. During City Council review of the previous proposal, both Council and the public expressed concern over filling in the existing open condition at the Bidwell corner and the impact of building to property lines on the experience at the Paradise Bakery plaza. The applicant responded by pulling the building back from the Cooper Pedestrian Mall and dropping the height of the corner to one story. HP Design Guideline 13.9 below recommends two story infill buildings in the Commercial Core to maintain consistency with other historic commercial building in the Historic District 13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. ^ The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of the downtown. ^ Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular, the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen traditionally. Staff is very sensitive to the public comment received during the City Council hearings. On one hand, the one story element and horizontal wooden railing recalls a false front commercial building style and reflects the heavily altered old Guido's chalet building across the pedestrian mall. However, the integrity of the Historic District relies on a level of consistency for infill projects to maintain coherency in the downtown Commercial Core. The Cowenhoven Building, located at Hyman and Galena Streets and shown to the right, is the only historic corner building that is one story tall. There are other one story buildings on downtown comers as evidenced in the map on the page 6. Atypical streetscape from the 19`h century is illustrated below and shows evidence that two story buildings were generally found at street corners during that time. Page 4 of 18 J ul~ 221 ~. 8/7/2009 P23 Looking west down Cooper Street. Arrow points to the corner of Galena and Cooper. Typical one and two story commercial buildings downtown. Page 5 of 18 View of town from Aspen Mountain. P24 Page 6 of 18 8/7/2009 ~u~~ 22i1~ Current map of the Commercial Core with important intersections that contain landmarks aze circled in yellow. Number of stories at the corner are noted in red. There are a mix of building heights at the corners in our downtown, as was the case in the 19~h century. The proposed one 8/7/2009 P25 story corner element that steps up to two stories, and ultimately three stories, would arguably fit into the existing context. Scale: Council expressed concern over the loss of "western vernacular" in the new building and over the magnitude of the proposed mass and scale. The redesign incorporates more of a western. vernacular style and proposes 30' and 60' modulations along the Cooper Street elevation and smaller 20' and 40' modulations along the Galena Street elevation to break up the perceived mass of the new building. Staff finds that the modules along Cooper Street are successful in breaking up the building and expressing traditional lot widths. 13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to buildings seen historically. ^ Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design, facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered. These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings. The applicant provided a comparison of street level storefront heights of surrounding historic buildings to the proposed new building. The glazing proposed for the new building is 10' 2" to the top of the storefront which is about 2' to 4' lower in height than the adjacent historic storefronts, as measured to the top of the transom. The height of the building relies directly on interior floor to ceiling heights. Staff finds that the height of the building is appropriate for the context and responds to Council and the public's concerns; however the height of the proposed storefronts are not really in scale with nearby historic buildings. Typical storefronts span up to between 13' and 14' to the top of the transom to permit the maximum amount of sunlight into the shop. Two examples are below. The Andres Building (left) storefront is 14'2" to top and the Red Onion (right) storefront is 13' to the top. r ~:.~. Page 7 of 18 ~l` 1 ZZ~~ ~.. 8/7/2009 P26 The Design Guidelines recommend that proportions and scale of facade elements appear in scale with adjacent historic buildings. Glazing is a Final Review issue, so Staff recommends that the applicant continue to develop the height of the fenestration on the Cooper and Galena Street ground level elevations to create a better relationship to the Historic District. Staff recognizes the relationship between floor to ceiling heights and the overall height of the building. Staff suggests that the applicant try to increase the storefront height without impacting the height of the building and recommends that HPC provide clear direction as to whether it is an appropriate tradeoff to slightly increase the height of the building in order to have the storefronts better relate to the surrounding historic commercial context. Guideline 13.10 relates to "true three-story buildings" which Staff interprets as a three story front facade wall. The proposal does not qualify as a "true" three story building; however the general philosophy that facade components should be in scale with historic context is relevant. 13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ^ In general, a proposed three-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby. ^ The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale with nearby historic buildings. As part of a consolidated application, HPC is asked to grant Commercial Design Review approval. Applicable review criteria are addressed below. See Exhibit B for a full copy of the Code section. COMMF,RCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: ]. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standazds or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standazds. 2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this section. 3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff Response: The Commercial Design Standards are in many ways similar to HPC's own guidelines. Staff response to each section is below: Page 8 of 18 Judy 2Z~ n ,,. ,p ~ . (/L1/ 8/7/2009 P27 26.412.060.A. Building Relationship to Primary Street. In summary, this Standazd requires buildings to be square to the street, have consistent setbacks and commercial uses developed at the ground level. The general intent is to create a consistent street wall and coherent commercial downtown to enhance the pedestrian experience. Staff finds that the proposed building meets this Standard. 26.412.060. B. Pedestrian Amenity. This Standard specifies the nature and function of the required pedestrian amenity space: mainly that it is versatile and contributes to the pedestrian experience. Staff finds that the proposed project meets and exceeds this Standard by providing more pedestrian amenity than required onsite (2% more.) 26.412.060.0 Street-level Building Elements. This Standard intends to create successful ground level storefronts by requiring 60% transparency at the ground level and defined entrances to contribute to the pedestrian experience in the Commercial Core. Staff finds that this Standard is met. 26.412.060. D. Parking. This Standard requires well-design parking that does not detract from the quality of downtown. The applicant proposes a subgrade parking garage accessed off of the alley to meet and exceed (by 2 spaces) the parking requirements for the redevelopment. Staff finds that the Standard is met. 26.412.060. E. Utility, Delivery, Trash Service Provision. This Standard emphasizes well- designed trash and utility areas that do not impede alley circulation. The project proposes utility, delivery and trash service that will be screened and located off of the alley. Staff finds that the project meets this Standard. Overall, Staff finds that amended massing meets the Commercial Design Standazds and recommends approval. VIEW PLANE The application requires approval from the Wheeler Opera House and Jerome View Planes because the parcel is located within a view plane as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission typically handles View Plane reviews, however the Community Development Director has the right to consolidate reviews when deemed to be the most efficient and effective process. HPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requested view plane approval. If HPC does not believe that the proposal satisfies the criteria for construction within a view plane review, HPC may require the application to go through the PUD review process as is described in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050(0), Mountain view plane review standards. HPC is to apply the following criteria to this issue: Page 9 of 18 ~ ~ ~~ ~1,~ 1 ~,,q C~ P28 8/7/2009 1. No mountain view plane can be infringed upon except as follows: When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.455 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated. When any proposed development infrin es upon a designated view plane but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adiacent structure will occur to re- ~en the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re-development to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve the development. Staff Response: Only the southwest corner of the proposed building falls within the Wheeler Opera House View Plane. The proposed maximum height is about 4'S" below the previous proposal. The one story T-shirt shop and four story Morris and Frywald building (see last page of drawings for View Plane map and photographs) already block the Wheeler Opera House View Plane as it projects towards the subject site; therefore, the Mountain Plaza proposal does not directly impact the View Plane in the current downtown configuration. The Morris and Frywald Building is under HPC's purview, as it is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. Future redevelopment of the Morris and Frywald Building would appeaz to potentially open some of the View Plane; however the landmazk Independence Square building, located across the intersection of Cooper and Galena, infringes upon the Wheeler View Plane. Due to landmark status, it is unlikely that Independence Square will be redeveloped in the future. Staff recommends that HPC grant View Plane approval due to extant buildings, with minimal likelihood of redevelopment that will open the view plane, blocking the view between the Wheeler Opera House and Aspen Mountain. Page 10 of 18 .~~Ily 22,2 ~, 8/7/2009 P29 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC focus on the following points of discussion: • Proposed public amenity and 18' setback • One story element at comer • Height and setback third floor • Tradeoff between heightening the proposed storefront to better relate to the historic context and the possibility that the height of the building may be slightly increased to comply with this request. Overall, Staff finds that the project as proposed meets the HP Design Guidelines for Conceptual Review, Commercial Design Standazd Review and Viewplane Review, and responds to concerns voiced by City Council and the public regarding the redevelopment of this parcel. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to study the storefront fenestration heights to better relate to the historic context for Final Review. nF('iSit7N MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial Design Standard approval, and Wheeler Opera House View Plane Exemption for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will continue to study the storefront fenestration heights and the impact to the overall height of the building to better relate to the historic context for discussion and approval during Final Review. 2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant 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. Resolution #_ of 2009. Exhibits: A. Design Guidelines B. Commercial Design Standards C. Application Page 11 of 18 J'~IyzZ,u~ C. P30 tea. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 710 North Third Street, Project Monitoring- Light Fixtures DATE: August 12, 2009 SUMMARY: 710 N. Third is a large Queen Anne house. hi 2005, HPC approved demolition of non-historic construction in order to create a new addition and garage. . One condition of approval was "HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures." Unfortunately, lights were installed without review. The owner, Suzanne Leydecker, is seeking approval in order to complete the "Certificate of Occupancy" process. Photographs of the installed lights are attached. Staff is referring the topic to HPC because of the number of lights involved, and our opinion that the design guidelines, pazticulazly 14.6, may not be met due to the ornate style of the fixtures. The installed lights do not meet the City Lighting Code because the bulbs aze exposed to view. They could be modified by making the glass more opaque. Staff is concerned only with lights that are visible from the street, primarily those on the front of the house. HPC is asked to make a determination whether the work is approved, approved with conditions, or denied. Guidelines 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. ^ Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 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 areas, parking lots and parking structures. ^ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights aze in use late at night. 8/7/2009 8/7/2009 P31 ^ Do not wash an entire building facade in light. ^ 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. ^ Prevent glare 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. P32 There are 2 fixture types for the exterior of the house 8/7/2009 Fixture "A" is a coach light. This fixture was used on the front of the house in 2 locations on both the historic main house at the entry, and the Garage fagade which was designed to match the historic house. Victorian lighting was typically quite elaborate. These fixtures are quite understated. The finish is an antique museum tin with a bit of gold finished filigree around the perimeter of the lighted area. I installed candle lights to give an effect of actual candle light or gas light which is typical to the period of the house. The candle lights give off only 4 lumens, and are basically decorative. The glass can be switched out to frosted and the lights replaced with a standard bulb if needed. A sample of the candle light is enclosed. Fixture "B" is a more transitional fixture that meshes well with the addition which was designed to look more contemporary. This fixture is in one location on the front and 5 locations in the back of the house, none of which are visible from the street. The finish on these fixtures is a blackened iron which matches other finishes on the house. The glass hurricanes on these fixtures are frosted. I can be reached to review these details at 970-948-1153. Todd Heimel JH Todd Interiors 8/7/2009 P33 AMERICAN VICTORIAN 301 Lighting 1 l\ ~ %! a~ _ . QAn ail-burrrirrg light fixtGre of the 1840s. ~ A hall lantern, cA890, rn the Aesthetic style. The smoke bell at the top indicates this lamp burned kerosene (paraffircJ. 3~ 77xe daxglir:g crystal fnnge is a luxury touch an this turn-of the-centwy kerosene (anxp. ~ A gas-6urnmg ~zTUre wrtlx multiple globes, 1850s. It could be lowered from the ceiling for cleaning and maintenance. 5 Akerosene or coal-oil larnh. 6 A~xedgas bracke, 18gOs. 7 ARococo gas blacker, Stan; Fello~rrs and Company, New York, 1856. A ~S Between c.1850 and the century's end, life evolved dramatically Erom the sparing use of a modestly lit family room to a more general and constant form of illu- mination. This change was accomplished by combined use of candles, oil lamps, kerosene (paraffin) and, ulti- mately, electricity. The most advanced lighting by 1850 was still gravity- fed oil and fluid-burning lamps. Popular in Gothic and Italianate interiors, they were improved by means of new burners and chimney designs. This type was super- seded by gas light; shades and scrubbers made the light gentler and minimized the smell. Kerosene, perfected in the 1850s, did not require 9 Agaschandelier, 1880s. ~o A wall bracket holding a kerosene lamp, 1865. ++ ARococo Revival gas bracket, rn gilt metal, 9850. ~z A kerosene wall bracket, mounted on a Hinged arna. The shade is etched glass. as Oil and gas light frxtures were first attacked to staircase newel posts irx the 1850s. These rota Renaissance-style examples date frarn the 18gOs. 94 An ltaliarcate design fora installation of the complex and costly piping needed Eor gas. Also, kerosene fixtures could be moved for specific tasks. Gas, however, continued to be popular, as it did not require manual refilling of fixtures, and burned cleaner than kerosene. The use of kerosene with piped gas and, eventually, electricity provided afail-safe for convenient but sometimes unreliable lighting systems. The Edison system of electric lighting included an inexpensive carbon-filament lamp which gave a pleasant light and could be turned on and oEE like a gas jet. But as electricity became popular with the Late Vic- torians, at the same time flattering candlelight gained renewed favour for evening entertainments. • 11 ,~ 8/7/200.9 P34 ' ~~ Xf ~ Sizes: (Including Mowx~ing) Large - H42" W8.5" Dl l" (L~fd ~ Small - H30" W6" D8" (Righ~) Configurations Available: Wall Mount • C Bracket Finishes: Copper • Natural Copper • Dark Copper (Lef~) • Museum Copper • Verdigris Copper (Righe) Brass • Natural Brass • Antique Brass Srze: U+tcluding Mounting) H15" W7.5" D7.5" Configurations Available: Wall Mount • Flush Mount (Shovun) Hanging Finishes: Copper • Natural Copper • Dark Copper (Shown) • Museum Copper • Verdigris Copper Brass • Natural Brass • Antique Brass ~~ ~~~ LIGHTING WORKS www.McLeanLighcing.crnn I ~k~'alI Mount I Page 2 8/7/2009 P35 Coach (Small) Options • Flush Mount W6" D8" H30" (including mounting) Finish: Museum Copper with Gold McCormick Gallery along top P36 Sterna l~o~nli~ht 9e Idcnl where Guilding codes require down light fo minimize glare. ' ~. l i ~~ ~0~ ~01~ 13 fA•c Rob Roy as exicrlor lantern an page I0.) 8/7/2009 "When tillage begins, other arts follow.' Daniel Webster Unbroken land...a simple tool._e neiv beginning. The genesis v/ tke Etcrua ivas a halved plow blade. Today spun steel discs are t{re sculptural body o/ this piece. Strahvarf in puality and ^ersaiile in style... from the classic unadorned dish, to the bauntiitd vineyard-inspin leaf treatment - Eternn is simphr lovely in any setting. Et¢rna l~ownli9ht Pot ecfcrinr use. Available in two (iuishes Rush. nr gnlrnniud and acid elrbcd (Inf9~. WiJth Ucpth Ht. Wt. Bulbs Tvpc 9~. 19" 9" 7" 13.5 Ihs I +Ow cTlcrior lniandesccn[ 1~oG 1~oy Seonc¢ liemrp band-lmgrd metal wiNr copper lid. Designed lnr infrrlor m' rxterror ~~sc. 6ucrinr finish o/ nauual bincL srrcl, hand-bloron glass Ices. Ea~tcrior ctylr gnh~nnlzcd and acid-cidrcd. WiJth Depth HL W[. Bulbs Type 13, > s 6.5" 25" 19165 I +Uw c~~lcrfor inea ndc5ccnt 8/7/2009 P37 0 a 0 0~ ~ ~~ WEST ELEVATION -Historic House 1 /~ 99 ~ 9 0 99 P38 I O m --~ m r- r~ D O 8/7/2009 8/7/2009 ' P39 ~~~ ~~ "~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~. ;a ~,~~ .. ~~:-~ ~~ _.~: , . ~ ~, ~,a ~~ ~ 6 - ~ ~. a y: i ~~ ~~ ,;~:.. , i i r ~~~~ .~- .. ~ ~ . ~,~ ,~ ~. ' -- t, ~~ < < ~. ,. ~~ ~ t It Y4- r 3 i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ • ~, ~ ~ j ~ ~ `~ r ~ j ~ ~ ~~ ~~, t3~ tt 7 L ~' _ ~ O~t~~c. fir{/: J- k" F ~. ~~ ~' ir+~~~~~ .~~ ~ - ~ ~' ;~ .:.~,, ~.~ _ ~, ': ~; , ~° ~i ` 5 ,1r ~ `' ~ ,I },~ 4. ~ 3 'i~'ti ~ ~'E'! _. I ~~ ~ ~ 8/7/2009 i t~!..r_ .,.. __ b ~. ,..__. P42 ?~ _, . ., ~ ~; t. 1~~R1 ~~ li 1`r P ~ LJ I. , . T~. ,a~ _i ~~ '!~ ~ , t ~. Iii -.:, : ' i • ~a / /20Q9 ~~ # [ ~ w. ~~ ~, ~A ~. 1 ' ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ •~ s ~;-~'.4 w 8/7/2009 P43 \P `~ II ~ o p a a ,.... ~. 0 8/7/2009 P44 _ 1`~ f 1 _ ,1'i a. F~ t ~ a `_ +. -. ~ ,. ~~ , .....: :... i ~rii...--,~,• .. l ~~ ` . 8/7/2009 P45 ~ D ~ ~ D II ~ m r~ ly D o cn r~ C D _~ O z I I IV 0 c~ D G~ r~ c~ D _~ O z ~4f i. r ' ~~ - ~. ,~ ~~~ C ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 7/2009 I .. ~ 1 8/7/2009 ~i i .~~ • ~''1 )' ~ ~ ~,~ a '. ~1( • ` ~, ~ i ~ i ~~ ' r ~ .. ~ _. i~~`! t .1 Y i 8/7/2009 ~, ~~ .:£4• 4~1 8/7/2009 P49 P50 O m r C a 0 z 8/7/2009 • F : ~ titer ~ •y'~ f ^~9Cif" - ,y ~ ~. ~. ~ tTT' M'~ ,~ 'I, ~'"F" ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. yl~,.., ~/Il ` ~iMt , ~ ~ _~- 1 ~y~~ t j.q.~ _.. - ,- ~~~~' ' _ ~ ~ ~b. ~• ~1~ i i•'~. 1 1~. ti ~ ~ ~ y ` nfe ~ 1 Fire. ~. _ 1 .3 ., V l f ~, I I \ ~ I '1''~ ~, i .. ,c : ~~ ~ ° , ~ ~ , P52 ~ ~ ~~ 0 C~J y r r~ C H O 8/7/2009 I~ K .~ ~ .• ~ ~ ~~ 111 ' 11 ~1 ~ 1 ~~ 8/7/2009