The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20110323 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2011 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISIT- NOON — NONE I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes — February 23 III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring: VII. Staff comments — (15 min.) VIII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #4) I. OLD BUSINESS A. 610 E. Hyman Ave. — Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Ordinance #48 negotiation, Public Hearing (continue to May 25, 2011) B. 518 W. Main — Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design Standard Review, Demolition, Relocation, Parking Reduction and Setback Variances — Public Hearing II. NEW BUSINESS A. NONE III. WORK SESSIONS: A. Board discussion of future training opportunities, meeting ground rules, meeting length, etc. (30 min.) 7:00 Adjourn 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. PROJECT MONITORING Sarah Broughton 110 E. Bleeker 604 West Main Street 222 E. Bleeker (new single family home) Brian McNellis Fox Crossing Victorian 332 West Main Street 1291 Riverside Drive 212 n. monarch Ann Mullins Boomerang 604 West Main Street 300 South Spring Street 222 E. Bleeker (new single family home) Deep Powder Lift One Project 135 W. Hopkins Jay Maytin 28 Smuggler Grove Road 627 W. Main Red Butte Cemetery 212 n. monarch Lift One Project 920 W. Hallam Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Road Jason Lasser 525 E. Cooper, Aspen Grove Crandall Building Lift One Project 135 W. Hopkins Jamie Brewster McLeod Crandall Building 202 N. Monarch (Blue Vic) M: \city \planning \hpc project monitoring \PROJECT MONITORING.doc 3/16/2011 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 518 West Main Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Parking Waivers, Utility/Trash/ Recycle Service Reduction, Variances, Public Hearing continued from February 23, 2011 and March 9, 2011. DATE: March 23, 2011 SUMMARY: The applicant is interested in rehabilitating the historic home, relocating it forward toward Main > 411100 Street, removing a non - historic addition, and constructing 2 new detached buildings containing multi- family dwelling units. The entire project is proposed to be 100% affordable housing. On February 23, 2011, HPC continued the public hearing for the project proposed at • ik 518 West Main Street to allow time for the applicant to - � address parking concerns, increase the front yard setback .. of the historic home, simplify the rooflines and strengthen --- — "`` the relationships between the new and historic buildings. Concerns were raised about the future of lilac bushes located in the southeast corner of the lot and a cottonwood tree. BACKGROUND: The subject property is a 7,500 square feet lot in the Main Street Historic District and it is zoned Mixed Use. A modest 1880s miner's residence is located on the site along with a more recent non - historic shed. An interior fire gutted the historic home several years ago after which the building was mothballed and remains untouched. A worksession was conducted with HPC last summer to discuss the proposed concept. PROPOSED CHANGES FROM FEB. 23 The applicant reduced the number of units from 12 to 11, which reduces the parking requirement to 11 onsite spaces. Therefore, the request to reduce onsite parking has been decreased from a waiver of 4 spaces to 3 spaces. The proposed project is less than 7,100 square feet of floor area which is below the maximum 1:1 FAR in the Mixed Use Zone District. The historic home has been moved to the north to comply with the 10 ft front yard setback and is aligned with the front facade of proposed new building along Main Street. A Residential Design Standard variance is needed for the size of the front porch on the west building; however, the applicant is interested in hearing comments from HPC as to how best to meet the standard. The roof forms are redesigned and the mass of the building located behind the historic resource is stepped. Two options for roof forms of the new building fronting Main Street are proposed in addition to a more prominent front porch. The applicant confirmed that the lilac bushes and the cottonwood tree will remain with the proposed development. 1 The applicant requests the following reviews: 1. Major Development Conceptual review 2. Demolition of the shed and rear addition to the historic home. 3. Relocation of the historic home forward (south) on the lot to the 10 ft. front yard setback along Main Street. 4. Parking Reduction/Waiver for 3 parking spaces (8 are provided and 11 are required) 5. Utility /Trash/Recycle Service area reduction 6. A Setback variance for lightwells located in the west side yard setback. 7. Residential Design Standard variance for a front porch. Staff finds that the application meets the review criteria, as outlined below, and recommends HPC grant the requested approvals. APPLICANT: Fat City Holdings, Peter Fornell (manager), 402 Midland Park Place, Aspen, CO. PARCEL ID: 2735 -12- 443 -006 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 518 West Main Street, Lots 1 /2 0, P, and Q Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONE DISTRICT: MU, Mixed Use 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 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 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 1 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. BACKGROUND: • Why is the property significant? The property represents a typical 19 century miner's residence, which contributes to the residential aspect of the Main Street Historic District. 2 i...■ • What are the key features of the property? The interior of the historic home was greatly damaged during an interior fire, but the exterior form remains intact. • What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? The home is located within a designated historic district that contains a mix of commercial and residential 19 century architecture. The map below shows landmark properties in orange hatching, the star indicates the subject property. 518 W. Main is located next to a historic 19 century commercial building that currently houses 02 yoga studio. Across the street are historic Pan Abodes and a 19 century log y , , • ',4, : c , / a f r cabin incorporated into the 1 F - 1 , ri Christiana Lodge. The r - - %% °! . �' ' 4 y E ' 7'S+. 4 ' / g context has changed over ' � /, , i f i'. 3 ' ,, time, but since the 1970s all % *'a � j '� alterations in the Historic ' , ✓' , z . , ,- District have been under the f Ty �` ` �� ,, j . , '' :' purview of HPC and as such 0, �f % s I , ° are sensitive to the historic • % '7, 4 piy, .4 i a nature of the district. , P 6 ' ' _ • How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? The property's integrity assessment score is in the mid -range. The original clap board siding appear to be covered with a few layers of material from asphalt siding to the outermost layer of metal siding, and its condition is unknown. An addition was added to the front porch that enclosed the eastern corner. With the absence of interior walls, Staff was able to inspect the site and determine that an addition was added to the rear of the home. The proposed rehabilitation would increase the integrity assessment score. The context of the property is proposed to change significantly with the addition of 2 new buildings; however the buildings will be detached from the historic resource. • What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? The potential for additional future alterations to affect the integrity score is pretty low. DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW: The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines identify 6 Design Objectives for the Main Street Historic District. 1. Preserve the integrity of the Historic District. 2. Maintain traditional building widths. 3. Maintain the range of traditional building and roof forms. 4. Maintain the character of traditional materials. (final review issue) 5. Incorporate architectural details that are in character with the district. (final review) 1 6. Maintain the characteristics of traditional windows and doors. (final review issue) Conceptual review addresses site design, building alignment, height, scale, massing and proportions of the proposed building. Site design/building alignment: The property is located in a section of the Historic District that . contains groups of smaller 19 century residential homes located on 3,000 -6,000 square feet lots 3 with a range of front yard and side yard setbacks. There are a total of three detached buildings proposed for the 7,500 square feet lot: the one story historic resource and two new three story buildings. All of the buildings are oriented toward Main Street and meet the zone district requirements for distance between buildings. Traditionally residences along Main Street had a buffer of grass between the historic home and right of way: the guidelines refer to this concept as a transition between public and private spaces. Commercial buildings were built to the lot line to maintain prominence. The historic home is proposed to be moved south and east on the lot to the 10' setback line. The previous proposal dated February 23 proposed a difference in placement between the new and old construction to reflect the varied setback patterns throughout the historic district and place the historic resource in a more prominent location along the street. In response to HPC's concerns, the applicant has aligned the front facades of both new and old construction along Main Street. Staff is concerned that the historic resource loses some prominence along the street, but is supportive of a larger front yard setback which is indicative of residential development in the historic district. The stacked location of the new construction behind the historic home pushes the development pressure to the rear of the lot which alleviates some of the visible impact. Moving the historic home back to the 10' setback line decreased the space between buildings, but the minimum 10' required distance between buildings is still met. Staff finds that the configuration of the buildings on the site, orientation toward Main Street and distance between buildings is appropriate for the Main Street Historic District and meets the objectives below. Site design features • Residential buildings have relatively uniform front - setbacks. Although front setbacks are not identical, the minimal variation creates a sense of rhythm along the street. • Larger homes along Main Street generally have larger front - setbacks, while the smaller miner cottages have smaller front - setbacks. • Smaller homes have minimal side - setbacks and fill most of the lot width. • Despite the variety in setback patterns between house sizes, houses generally are oriented towards the street, with their primary entrance facing the street. 7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns. • Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space. 7.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. • The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. • A structure, or each street- facing unit in the case of a multifamily structure, should have a primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street. Walkways from Main Street to the new residence and the historic residence are proposed. The applicant has realigned the proposed walkway to the historic residence to be perpendicular which meets Guideline 7.8 below. A requirement that the applicant submit a detailed circulation 4 diagram to illustrate the different access points, walkways, and walkway materials is included in the draft resolution for review during Final. 7.8 Provide a walk to the primary building entry, perpendicular from the public sidewalk. An onsite parking area is proposed at the rear of the property to be accessed off of the alley. A waiver of 3 parking spaces is requested and addressed further in the memo. Staff finds that this is an appropriate location for onsite parking that meets the Design Objectives for Main Street. 7.3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the street. Visual impacts shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways: • Parking shall be placed underground or in a structure wherever possible. • Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the property, behind the structure. • Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and landscaped to soften parking areas. Building form: height, mass and scale: The Design Objectives and Guidelines emphasize the importance of visual continuity in the basic roof and building forms along Main Street. The aerial photograph from 1893 also shows a mix of one, two and three story building heights, the historic density and traditional roof forms. c • . 3 p lik ....0. a'' "4 i • .• 7 ....1. ''- .... j-- „.n .10r , . F r ti �� ss�� MEgr" �� 4.i `f . '. iii° r The applicant proposes a mix of gable, flat and shed roof forms for the new construction. Since February, one unit has been dropped from the proposal which reduced the mass and resulted in a stepped form behind the resource. A new gable roof form behind the historic resource is proposed to better reflect the historic resource. In addition there are two different redesign options for the 3 story mass located behind the new building along Main Street: Option 1 is a 3 story flat roof form; and Option 2 is a 3 story gable roof form. Below is a comparison of the February 23 design to the proposed Options 1 and 2: 5 -....-m,....■..=.. - -• . _ —■ -=-■...— _ - - . - --- .., = = --............. .= _. • ,...... ...-...- MOM As. - , ...00.11.. ..... =17f loir __ __ __ __ ___= -__?........... _......= .....,- .. .... ... ...... ...._ .... .. ..... .... 1 ■ I I la Ma MN •10 MN m im. wow ••••• ••■ OMR al•M■MMM MIN Mm■1 ■11 ■IMM MI IMIIMI■M MEI 11■1•1 I IM■ 1■11 1 = ■Ima■M ME OMMI■111■, M•■•• — - — - . •• _ _ . . -......... Figure 1: February 23, 2011 proposal ••••■•■•■••■••■.:■- _, 4111111- --:7-: --------.. ' -'-- 0 mippr_NI 1 pliPP: ---'-'• • _ -- pp /00,0\ - - - - i = _ - - -, - _ - - - - , , _ . _ , •\,... - - - _ , _ _ __ _ 7 - ---_. - _ __..._ -_-- = -= = - • •.--- — ..... _=-_ . — r —_:.- __ - - - — ..--..- -,-• NI IMMI IIMM . ....W. pc . . _ _ _ ...eig • ■ .■• •ma 4■10•■ •M■mm• M .■■ ma■• a ma •■■ ■■ MEMMI■1 I■IM 1M SIMIMM■11 01■1111■11■11 , In.: IM •■■ MI= .1.■ ......■ 0 IIIIIMININIMI10111 ■••••■ 1 •Mi•M■1.••■• .0. ••••■• ■•■• •••■••■ 0 M,MMN■ •■••■•■ •■••■• Ell MONI■IN MMI Mila■ ■=.= ■INION■ OP M11■1■1 ■••■ PIIIIMIONNINNIENNIENNONOMININIINIMIla Figure 2: March 23, 2011 Option 1 __ • ,, __ _7--____-, - - - - ---- 1 - ....a....' • 5w • - 'cm , — — —. 111 ■IMINM I ■III••■ I = 1••••••• ■ .■• I ..................... ... .1■1. 7 00,00, . _ M■I• •■■•■•=1 IMMEI = - _ 1 A =EMI' ill .111.1 - • -- - - - =I ME ■■••■■ ■ M I= ■ ■■■ ■ MM. aMMIMMEMM■ AM■MMINN■ \ 7. mon e0 NM M■11=11 MOMMIMM I NM ,___.__._ =III _ •-___ • - • - = A1111111117 "'-=-• r, ..,',. ', •- -_._......'-. =---- . - - - —.- --%-_- .. - =MI 1■I •••■ 1■I ....ma m ■ ammo •■ 1■•■ ■•• mm■• = ■ ■ ■ MallirM -,...... MP OM I■It am ■• mM■a M. 0 1117M ■ ■ ■ ••■•■ ■ IN la OM INN MN .... MI •Ma UM 1 IMMO. m ■■■ ■■• MO MII■ NO n=MI ■111 ■ ... ... I■ ■■• mi■ M. .■ ■ •■1 ........ Rm ■• •■• .■ ••••■• ■■■ = ON .. .111■1■11 liNnin I 1■00 ■■■■ .1.1MMI MIMIONIMINIMMO •■•". .I!= --= _ MISMINMEM IMMNE■ IN= 411•■■ ■•■•=11 ol■ , .. ---. 4 Figure 3: March 23, 2011 Option 2 6 1 iI Staff finds that Optionl, the flat roof, is more appropriate for the project. The flat roof is lower in profile and breaks up the mass more successfully than the gable and is related to the adjacent false front commercial building that houses 02 Yoga. Staff suggests that the applicant further reduce the mass behind the historic resource by replacing the second story south facing shed roof with a flat roof and an outdoor roof deck facing Aspen Mountain. The new buildings on the site are proposed to be just within the maximum 28' height limit (27' 11" maximum is proposed) and are three stories above grade, each floor measuring 8' in height. The front facade of the new building along Main Street is two stories in height which alleviates some of the impact on the one story adjacent historic resource. The building behind the historic resource has a stepped front facade that is one, two and three stories high. A tall two story commercial building with a false front is located directly to the east and the 2 1 /2 story Ullr Lodge (currently multi - family housing) is located directly to the west. Even though the new buildings are more than two stories in height, Staff finds that the proposed three story construction is appropriate for the existing context. The different roof forms and varying heights help subdivide the mass into smaller modules, as stated in Guideline 7.15 below. 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era. • Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. 7.15 On larger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. • Other subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form. The floor -to- ceiling heights are minimal in the new buildings which facilitate 3 floors within the maximum height limit. Although this is an issue for Final Review, the new construction has the ability to soften the existing impact of the adjacent Ullr Lodge on the modest historic resource through materials, window openings and architectural details. Overall, Staff finds that on a conceptual level the proposed buildings meet the design guidelines and objectives in that the integrity of the historic district is preserved, traditional building widths and relationships are maintained, and an appropriate range of traditional building and roof forms are proposed. 7 DEMOLITION The applicant proposes to demolish a detached concrete block shed/ garage that was built in 1968 r d remove a rear shed addition to the historic r Iry 6r' It 4g411- me. Concrete garage located adjacent to the alley Rear additions to the historic home. .. - East elevation of historic home, rear addition and street facing facade of garage. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or 8 d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: 1968 garage: The architectural inventory forms list 1968 as the construction date for the concrete block garage. The detached garage does not contribute to the historic 19 century miner's cabin or the Main Street Historic District. Staff fmds that the criteria above are met and recommends demolition of the garage. Addition to historic home: The interior fire that gutted the historic home allowed Staff to investigate the remaining wall studs and confirm two rear additions to the historic home. The dates of the additions are unknown. The 1904 Sanborne map shows two rear additions to the historic home: an enclosed addition to the gable end and an open porch. During our site inspection the interior framing of the existing addition to the gable end shows newer construction. It is difficult to determine if the rear open porch roof on the 1904 map is the existing roof on the addition at the northwest corner of the home. However, even if the roof is from the turn of the century, the porch has been enclosed and would not be very useful in the context of the overall project if it was reopened. Staff fmds that the criteria are met and recommends approval of demolition as proposed. Relevant Design Guidelines 10.1 and 10.2 are listed below. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. • Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original buildings in terms of materials, finished and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. RELOCATION The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non - contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 9 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: The historic home is located in its original location. In this case, it is important to recognize that the location of the home in the center of the 7,500 square feet lot inhibits new development that maintains the historic resource as the dominant building. The proposed relocation of the historic home to the front of the lot places the historic resource into a more prominent position along the street and allows the new development to be entirely detached. The proposed location also moves the historic home closer to the adjacent landmark which creates a stronger relationship between the two buildings and provides distance from the large Ullr Lodge. Residential 19 century homes in the Main Street Historic District typically had a larger front yard setback than commercial buildings. The proposed location provides a 10' front yard setback for the historic home and a 10' front yard setback for the new construction. Staff finds that relocation is an acceptable preservation method in this case considering the central location on the site and finds that the relocation maintains some open space around the resource. Staff finds that the intent of Guidelines 9.1 and 9.2 is met. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case - by - case basis. • In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. • Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. • A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. • Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. • The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. • In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 10 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided. • The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered. • In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than moving an individually- listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to other historic structures in the area. PARKING WAIVERS: Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on -site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment in lieu fees in addition to parking reductions. The parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance of architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Special Review application. A. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off - street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account the potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on to the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Response: The applicant reduced the number of housing units from 12 to 11 since the February meeting. The proposed 11 units require 11 on -site parking spaces according to the Land Use Code (i.e. one space per unit.) The applicant provides a parking area across the width of the lot located off of the alley to accommodate 8 parking spaces. The applicant requests reduction of the parking requirement from 11 spaces to 8 on -site spaces and a waiver of the payment in lieu fees for the 3 waived parking spaces. The total payment in lieu fees for 3 spaces amounts to $90,000 ($30,000 /parking space). 11 HPC voiced concern over the request to reduce parking for this project and inquired about the residential parking pass program. According to the Parking Department, the residential permit parking program is as follows: Number of permit passes per residence Cost per year (not including guest passes) 1 $0 2 $0 3 $25 4 $75 5 $175 On average, the parking department finds that residences apply for 2 on street parking passes each year. The vehicle associated with the permit is required to be registered to an owner that resides in a residential permit parking zone (the same applies for a business.) The map below illustrates the number of parking permits issued to properties within close proximity to 518 West Main Street (the yellow square). Residential Parking Pass Analysis of Area around 518 West Main Street / F , 1Ncls ,,. f', -',,,, = 1117 , ori _ ,A(Ni..! . 40.1 - :,) k A:. 820 1 pass' 1 . _ 5 4 pass ` 635 2 pa , 0 L ' Nett' ' ?. , a t it 1 It aAr 't ate ` ! ;, — 631 re, 504 !0 t ..: a� , ' G - . r ., , . z rttc�„ 617 60 � pass,, • 635 120 ._. - �..,� • u passes 604 612 513 passes .. 604 520 517 501 447 437 1 3 Passes . 520 .20 433 .1,44.Z- 01 7 �_a°s 520 500 430 ,. y ---...............v, + 'k4uv gp 402 �1_,. 420 x , .,....ti :Jr- ,, 9, N Legend ?r;Syw properties analyzed for parking passes issued Q parking_zones parcels 12 Staff finds that the applicant has maximized the number of parking spaces possible for this property and believes that adding more parking to this site will adversely impact the historic resource and the historic district, resulting in an undesirable development scenario. The property is located on the RFTA bus route and is walking/biking distance to town. While this may not be the most desirable solution, on- street parking is available throughout the west end neighborhood, as shown on the map. Furthermore, the residents of 518 West Main Street will have the same right to apply for on street parking permits as free market residents in the west end neighborhood. It appears that 518 West Main will be no more "under- parked" than other adjacent properties. Staff finds that requested reduction of the parking requirement to 8 spaces and the requested waiver of the cash in lieu fee is appropriate for the proposed development and mitigates an adverse impact on the historic resource and the historic district. UTILITY /TRASH/RECYCLE SERVICE AREAS 26.575.060.B Review standards for reduction of dimensions. The [Historic Preservation Commission] may reduce the dimensions of a utility /trash/recycle service area by following special review procedures set forth at Chapter 26.430 if: 1. There is a demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility /trash/recycle service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. 2. Access to the utility /trash/recycle service area is adequate. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other development in the block. 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area. Staff Response: The Land Use Code requires trash/utility /recycle service areas to be 20' long, 10' deep and 10' high. The applicant proposes recycle bins, compost and trash in an area that is 20' long, 8' deep and 8.5' high. Staff consulted with Environmental Health regarding the requested reduction in size and its impact on trash service and function. Environmental Health found that the proposed dimensions are adequate for the proposed project and is willing to work with the applicant to determine the best locations for the different bins for circulation and accessibility. Staff finds that the criteria above are met and recommends that HPC reduce the utility / trash/recycle area depth to 8' and height to 8.5'. SETBACK VARIANCES The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are as follows: 26.415.110.B.2 In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and /or 13 b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: The applicant requests the following setback variance: 3.5' west side yard setback for lightwells where 5' is required and 1.5' is provided. Staff finds that allowing the lightwells in the side yard setback allows a greater distance between the new and historic buildings. The lightwells are proposed to be located adjacent to the Ullr Lodge and are significantly set back from the Main Street right of way. Staff recommends that HPC grant the requested side yard setback variance because the setback intrusion is below grade and has limited visual impact. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES: The applicant requests the following residential design standard variance for this project: 26.410.040.D.1.b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. Staff Response: The one story portion of the front porch proposed for the new home fronting Main Street is 39 square feet, which does not meet the requirement of 50 square feet. Staff recommends that the applicant look at ways to meet the required 50 sq. ft. entry porch, hopefully without losing square footage in Unit #7, for review at Final. NEXT STEPS: This project requires Growth Management review for the Development of Affordable Housing and the Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits by the Planning and Zoning Commission. City Council, based on a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, hears the project for Subdivision Review. After Subdivision Review, the project will be heard by the HPC for Final Review Major Development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Major Development Conceptual, Demolition, Relocation, and Parking Waivers with the following conditions: 1. Conceptual Major Development approval is granted with the following to be submitted in the Final Major Development application, in addition to the Land Use Code requirements: a. The flat roof option, Optionl, is conceptually approved. b. A flat roof with deck access will replace the shed roof on the second story of the new building located behind the historic resource for review during Final Review. c. Provide circulation diagram and hardscape materials in addition to specific plantings proposed for the landscape. d. Provide details on front porch rehabilitation (the Aspen Historical Society may have a photograph to aid in the rehabilitation). e. Provide actual material samples for the all proposed materials (i.e. roof, siding dimensions, foundation, window components etc). 14 f. Provide a detail for all of the front doors, specifically for the historic resource to match a typical 19 century front door on a modest miner's cottage. 2. Demolition of the 1968 garage and 2 non - historic additions to the historic landmark are approved as proposed. 3. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following to be submitted with the initial building permit application: a. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con's of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. b. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. c. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 4. Parking Waivers for 3 required on -site parking spaces and payment in lieu for those spaces is hereby waived. The project provides 8 on -site parking spaces, as indicated in Exhibit A to the Resolution. 5. Utility /Trash/Recycle Service Area is reduced to 20' wide by 8' deep by 8.5' high. 6. Setback Variances are granted pursuant to the attached site plan, Exhibit A to the Resolution, for the following: a. 3.5' west side yard setback for lightwells where 5' is required and 1.5' is provided. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Exhibits: Resolution # Series of 2011 and Exhibit A (approved site plan) A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines B. Application 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, A SETBACK VARIANCE, PARKING REDUCTION AND WAIVERS, AND REDUCTION OF TRASH/UTILITY/RECYCLE SERVICE AREA DIMENSIONS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 518 WEST MAIN STREET LOTS P, Q AND1 /2 OF LOT 0, BLOCK 30, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2011 PARCEL ID: 2735 -12- 443 -006 WHEREAS, the applicant, Fat City Holdings manager Peter Fornell, has requested Major Development (Conceptual) for a Historic Landmark Property, Demolition, Relocation, a Setback Variances, a Parking Reduction and Waiver, and a Reduction of the Trash/Utility/Recycle service Area Dimension for the property located at 518 West Main Street, Lots P, Q and '/z of 0, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 518 West Main Street is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, 518 West Main Street is located within the Main Street Historic District and is a considered a contributing building to the integrity of the Historic District; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution # , Series of 2011 Page 1 of 5 properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and ' WHEREAS, for approval of relocation, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 1. It is considered a non - contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. WHEREAS, for approval of parking reductions, HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that: 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2011 Page 2 of 5 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district; and 2. Pursuant to Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards: A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off - street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account the potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on to the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking; and, WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, for approval of reduction of trash/utility /service area dimensions, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.575.060.B and Section 26.430 of the Municipal Code, that the reduction: 1. There is a demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility /trash/recycle service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. 2. Access to the utility /trash/recycle service area is adequate. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other development in the block. 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution # , Series of 2011 Page 3 of 5 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area. WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated March 23, 2011 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 23, 2011 continued to March 9, 2011 and continued again to March 23, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Setback Variance, Parking Waiver, and a Reduction of Trash, Utility and Recycle Area Dimensions for the property located at 518 West Main Street, Lots P, Q and '/z of 0, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Conceptual Maior Development approval is granted with the following to be submitted in the Final Major Development application, in addition to the Land Use Code requirements: a. The flat roof option, Optionl, is conceptually approved. b. A flat roof with deck access will replace the shed roof on the second story of the new building located behind the historic resource for review during Final Review. c. Provide circulation diagram and hardscape materials in addition to specific plantings proposed for the landscape. d. Provide details on front porch rehabilitation (the Aspen Historical Society may have a photograph to aid in the rehabilitation). e. Provide actual material samples for the all proposed materials (i.e. roof, siding dimensions, foundation, window components etc). f Provide a detail for all of the front doors, specifically for the historic resource to match a typical 19 century front door on a modest miner's cottage. 2. Demolition of the 1968 garage and 2 non - historic additions to the historic landmark are approved as proposed. 3. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following to be submitted with the initial building permit application: a. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not the existing floor structure will be maintained and the advantages and disadvantages s of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution # , Series of 2011 Page 4 of 5 b. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. c. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 4. Parking Waivers for 3 required on -site parking spaces and payment in lieu for those spaces is hereby waived. The project provides 8 on -site parking spaces, as indicated in Exhibit A to the Resolution. 5. Utility /Trash/Recycle Service Area is reduced to 20' wide by 8' deep by 8.5' high. 6. Setback Variance is granted pursuant to the attached site plan, Exhibit A to the Resolution, for the following: a. 3.5' west side yard setback for lightwells where 5' is required and 1.5' is provided. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23 day of March, 2011. Sarah Broughton, Chair Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit A: Approved Conceptual site plan 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution # , Series of 2011 Page 5 of 5 Exhibit A Design Guidelines and Objectives EXHIBIT A: RELEVANT DESIGN GUIDELINES Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. • Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. • Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. • Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. • Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original buildings in terms of materials, finished and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines: Street Grid 7.1 Preserve the historic district's street plan. • Three distinct street grids intersect in the neighborhood (Main Street, side streets and alleys). This layout should be retained. Alleys 7.2 Maintain the traditional character and function of an alley where it exists. • Locate buildings and fences along the alley's edge to maintain its narrow width. • Paving alleys is strongly discouraged. • Closing an alley is inappropriate. Parking 7.3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the street. Visual impacts shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways: • Parking shall be placed underground or in a structure wherever possible. • Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the property, behind the structure. • Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and landscaped to soften parking areas. 7.4 Underground parking access shall not have a negative impact on the character of the street. Underground parking access shall be: • Located on a secondary street where feasible - except where alley access is feasible. • Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building facade. • Integrated into the building design. 1 Exhibit A Design Guidelines and Objectives Setbacks & Building Alignment The pattern of principal and side street, as well as the alley, should be retained and enhanced. The predominant pattern and scale of development is varied but well defined. Building alignment varies along the street, but in larger buildings perpendicular ridge lines and street facing gables predominate. The slightly varying setbacks create an orchestrated visual vitality which, along with building scale, should be respected in further development. Mature trees also should be safeguarded. Corner sites present the scale of the building in a very public three dimensions. Particular attention to design and building configuration to accord with this scale and presence will be required. Site design features • Residential buildings have relatively uniform front - setbacks. Although front setbacks are not identical, the minimal variation creates a sense of rhythm along the street. • Larger homes along Main Street generally have larger front - setbacks, while the smaller miner cottages have smaller front - setbacks. • Larger residential units are generally located on multiple lots, and centered within the lots. • Side - setbacks of larger homes are often half -or full lot width. • Smaller homes have minimal side - setbacks and fill most of the lot width. • Despite the variety in setback patterns between house sizes, houses generally are oriented towards the street, with their primary entrance facing the street. • Secondary structures are set towards the rear and sides of the lots along the alleys. • Commercial units were historically located on corner lots and fronted the sidewalk. More recent commercial buildings are sited similarly to residential patterns. 7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns. • Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space. 7.6 Where a sidewalk exists, maintain its historic material and position. • Historically, sidewalks were detached from the curb, and separated by a planting strip. 7.7 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street. • Provide auto access along an alley wherever possible. • New curb cuts are not permitted. • Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut. Site 7.8 Provide a walk to the primary building entry, perpendicular from the public sidewalk. Orientation 7.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. • The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. • A structure, or each street - facing unit in the case of a multifamily structure, should have a primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street. 2 Exhibit A Design Guidelines and Objectives Building Alignment 7.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block historically during the mining era. • These include front yard , side yard and rear yard setbacks. • Setbacks vary in some areas, but generally fall within an established range. A greater variety in setbacks is inappropriate in this context. • Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block. Secondary Structures 7.11 Locate a new secondary structure in a manner that is similar to those seen historically in the district. • Secondary structures should be placed along the alley edge. Building Form A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity along Main Street. In order to maintain this feature, a new building should have basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Overall facade proportions also should be in harmony with the context. The character of the roof is a major feature of historic buildings in the Main Street District. The similar roof forms contribute to the sense of visual continuity when repeated along the street. In each case, the roof pitch, its materials, size and orientation are all important to the overall character of the building. New construction should not break from this continuity. New structures and their roofs should be similar in character to their historic neighbors. Building Height, Mass & Scale The well - defined pattern of building height, mass and scale on Main Street should be preserved. Here the building spacing, scale, height and roof profiles create a design discipline for the form of future development. Larger buildings within the area should step down in scale next to residential units. 7.12 A new structure should step down in scale where it abuts a single story historic structure. 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • A minimum second story floor to ceiling height of 9 ft should be used in a method that is respectful to historic buildings. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. Building Scale 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era. • Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. 3 Exhibit A Design Guidelines and Objectives 7.15 On larger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. • Other subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form. 4 RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2011 To: Sara Adams/Amy Guthrie From: Peter Fornell CITY OF ASPEN Date: February 28, 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: changes to 518 Main Dear Sara/Amy, Thank you for your assistance, I believe we still have an excellent product for the community and for the historic cabin. We have made a number of changes once again to respond to the HPC board and I would like to describe them briefly. We have moved the location of the historic cabin to the 10 foot setback line to conform with the requirement in the zone district. The new west structure has a porch change. That change makes the porch nearly 3 times the original size and quite a bit larger than the minimum required in the MU district. We reviewed the alley elevation. The main st. historic district guidelines under 7.2 of the code shows the 7 and main housing and calls it an example of enhanced building form and good design. It is by coincidence that we show and intend to use the same materials and a form which strongly resembles the form at that location. Based on this information, we did not make changes to the alley. I have a landscape review from Blizzard Landscaping and the owner determined that both the previous design and the new design allow both lilacs and the large cottonwood to remain. There was concern about the design from a standpoint of fussiness. We have changed the roof form on the rear building which reduced that building by one unit. The new design is responsive to those concerns. We also responded to the concern of the step up of the front of that building. The one less unit allows a re- design of that building giving it the step -up architectual feature. This new design gives us 3 varying roof heights which is a goal in the main st. historic district. From a practical standpoint, the original design allows us to respond to community more effectively but we are respectful of it's orientation to the historic cabin which our change accommodates. Finally is the parking issue. We understand that we are relying on the surrounding area for a small amount of parking need. We are responsive to HPC's concern in that we now have 11 units instead of 12. This means that our parking variance is only 3 cars instead of 4. HPC has a track record of waiving parking for historically significant development, most recently at 1102 waters where they waived 100% of the parking requirement for a free market speculative development. I believe that we deserve even more consideration when we are taking trips off the main street cooridor and Hwy 82 by providing employee housing inside the S curves. At some point we need to decide what is more important, people or cars. I believe that responding to our local workforce takes priority over 3 vehicles. Finally I am convinced that we have made changes to the plans that both retain the goal of providing affordable housing while addressing the HPC and also giving the historic cabin the respect and consideration it deserves. We plan to address building materials and landscaping at final review. Since , -ter MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: HPC Board Process notes DATE: March 23, 2011 On March 9 HPC discussed goals and possible process improvements. HPC agreed on these basic goals: Promote, preserve and retain the community's history Preservation can sustain Aspen's sense of community, environmental goals, and economic goals Encourage, promote and act as stewards of Aspen's legacy of high quality design Facilitate in a positive manner Educate applicants and residents Ensure the continuum of cultural and social history as well as built environment Advocate for the future Encourage community involvement and understanding HPC discussed possible process improvements: Ask every applicant for a 2 sentence summary of the design goals of their project. Don't design the project for the applicant. Make sure any projects that are to be continued for restudy, or any workessions end with a summary for the applicant. On easy projects, allow a motion early in the discussion, and then focus on any conditions or amendments that are necessary. Keep the discussion succinct and helpful. Only comment to the extent that you have a different opinion than other board members. How can the Chair and Vice -Chair best assist? Do they want a cheat sheet as a reminder of the order of business? Keep public comment to 3 minutes. Don't let the applicant keep interjecting during board comments. Staff could provide better bullet points to give the board an agenda of sorts to start their discussion. The board should start with the tough issues and work them out first. HPC wants to establish 7 p.m. as an end time for the meetings. The board will have to vote to go on longer. Staff will continue to try to identify a time limit for each agenda item and HPC will try to stick to the time budgeted. It would be a good educational tool to create a storyboard of how some projects have transformed from their first review to final approval. HPC would like training on some of the issues that periodically come in their purview, like parking. How can HPC best educate themselves and applicants? What are other communities doing that we should know about? • Follow up At the March 23` meeting, HPC would like to talk further about how to handle minority opinions and how to be most effective when reviewing a project that appears to be significantly out of line with the guidelines. What if the applicant's goals for their property are significantly different than HPC's? What are some strategies for finding a solution? • . +„ ^ . 1 � . V ! y 1^, cll.", --I rn o m D J z Ill m !* 1 11 01 11 111 » 0 -n• ° 11111111111 20 0 -- ,.a .r, (Ti f 11 - 0 I fi 0 1� ' °° 7r! Fri 1.:11 c n . uuumil � , , '� . 111111111111 I / 3 , L i if ll 111111 III , !�� ■ II, N. m 1 I iii11111111111 ,i IIIII +� ' n) _ MCI ill -I 1 .11 I ( 1 'IIIlIli lilII � �� ; ! t m iiii II 11111111 J— , r 1 1, 6 ; / '' , II1IIIIIIIIIJII1L D. p.__\, _1 , ' ,.I .....____. Z 0 _ is 1 P / III .r sie .. ..1 a 0961 1 .......- 1 1 r i!3 N ro' -.--- O -to o 'awm rn _ l ifl z GfiX —i ri El G7 X7 D C) P - \ or 3 r 0 z ,.. c v)3 or 3 0D .. '� o o rri z n 1 1 1 00 A3 0 - 0 - o n � -, (.4 -o Fl zi/ ID d V) 11111111111 �.. - ■■ 46 ' ti Ill 1) 0 c —I 1 1 1 , 1 k ,;� D Ili ' i hr i: III ;111111 CO Z � � • ' -I O Et , ' I :', ru lI I1II D1 ! H ! IIIIIIIIIII : �� AD . li i "�! � � ' • �' �':��Illr , : , • • F � 1 1 . III f ' r , D H ~- P1 n - < z 1 -H `B CD ` I z 1 L' o o V) X 3 r -1 in Z q, )7\-.:- > > i 5j -- , v r l` --,..„ `[' 1 m ,,,lgt 4 ; 4 as R. ` ' '*' r -„,„„ - t Y f IV a L '+L S'1 ll fir u y L, 45F +• c T--- f ,r4 -I 0 r f T — 1 -4 I I ( �I I I I k% UM ' I I I i h ! i 1 1 1'1 LJ 11 , i L ' 1 T ' ' { I'i t "1 �,J T ' - t '1 4 O I ilI ' t Ill 1 IIIIIIIffi ■ d I IIIIIIlli Fri 1 1111 �I` ' 1 � t D ii I �1 I I g 1111 �I�� IIIIIIIIII 111111 I 'I I I � �� LA c Z , I c Z x _, lig 1 I z1,, ', z m . iigi PI -A. xi El o rr, fr. r_,,, 7,, mill , ' alli rir, 7,, .... \_, FT, �� 1 1 I I Ilri limn, ,,,,,, I lis 1 MOM I : )l la \ a fir Iii El • \ II 0 0 i 111111 1111111 ��,� o I z 1i ii 1 jos H , , E, z •• z �� ; i!'„ I ,I 70 1 1 . 7 0 ° my _ pi 1 n 7 I. _ o Q =1 ■ I ► CI C' 1 E, . 11 , -17, .... H , , .. . . . . . 0,, H c 1 1 _ c 1 --C __I wv)' , N. H 1i � R) - i D r ri - t'1 �i , ❑ , i Frl ' I' i - - ' 1 r` i i; II ` r; D r M a , I H� , ,: C I I r 0 : ; "' 1 I l ` „ i „ 1 i h 1 I r nnnnnnni " I V) V) 0 • i 0 --I 1 y -1" 1-- -ii -- 1 _ , I 'SL 3NI1 101 I I j I j I i I i ' i : -'f I I T I I I t cre t r� fd 1 won 0 r _ : — 1 °i • —' i i 1 o .1 i HIR ii i 01 i . Io . 1 i° 1 NS L■rA r 4\LL 1 M GEM I � I 1 ■ , 1 / i r J Q�40 ' .„ 1 ,,' — i h _ _ A A Y a _________,, , I I ,, I I n8 C.11 - 0 fl W SL 3NI1 101 -- - - -- - 0 "-' V) 3 r ccccc C - r f fxttxtx ac — I °. '�. A C til 4 W N'_' 1-1 - z r —I 2 1 2 ° 0 4 , ° °' NJ f V) ° - y0v) w in X3 ,SL 3NI1 101 1 =� T ill j m j m 0Eil I t1 y• yl I co ,-- � I r--,---1 j �_ I I I I N t�� ' j I I the I I j i nuttapIIIINIS U 1- -..:7 7 1 sin }' - t . -I , IOW r mom 01 4 2 4 ! Mil ■11 I rnI = j j fo: UMW. cm I rn S l D ∎ - j , r azza , r gr isa int iel Ma: � ____l M INI 7 _ ■ ,-- i I I i __ r r , . A e l A , LI: mom- �i Y OI ■ lo' BIT LO ® ..., •, r t j i■ � , ti I ii I ... b n Cl - 0f Cl .SL 3NI1 101 r I-- - I'''1 xi D 0)011! 4 cccccc Z \a Z in C fl S4�ZM�� ". n C z CI z % -r -i-i -1 -1 A "� r p ,. y a ri * #t a s at * (4 - 1 - < 0% UI A UMW"' "' ►-4 D TI 1 CD r m42. l N 1.--1 r r* iN a.Ac0tD.a,o in D n � l7 , vaoromo � SD 0vioLl)N 0 y -9 r1art - 9 ' l J J73 d IIlIN 31FA I £L 3NI1 101 I [ "6 r " 1 I I �. cc) ii 1 VP �� Il _ � � lir ink ! Ili ±r F�` i [7 - . IP �i i t rI 1 _9 zl to it rn1 IZ 8 I I ,, i o Iii .III ., ......... ....... i sag R In-- 1 I. EN - ii MIL II tg ri I • P IA IL 0 . in' – i 41 \"......Talill11111111111art ) Dfl01 SLJNI1IZ1 m C m ri 00 D - /XI 2 ZZzzz .., pi rr r . ■+ .. r-i 7. 4 C i —I k lt ltnitlt v' xi - o et:a i N I— E, NNNm Qs In N In 1' 0 -ri SL 3NI1 101 j I j I T - _ trett„-- ~ r F — a I r ill 1 is 0 j — n c.. iii r +4 YY, a. l Q I r 3 H j ni I� j i r i \ c iQ / 1 1 I x 111 j I 1 a ' - I ,, P E i v, i; __-_ l l 1 1,_ I j j I I j j – I 0 t_____ ________________________ _____ ________ ______.___I _ 3 , 01 TJ I V) ,CL 3NI1 101 3. D < n c cccc z ' • • Z zzzz U r " 1 m rp _ r 1' __, Z 0 r W`U ?a .... f •SL 3NI1 101 I I I I f I 1 II 4, � I I a Po I j I I I I MINN - ■ r CI j rl j o z, I of Irn RI j am. E jo I � _ nn I j I j I � I I I j I 0 ---------- . t._._. ..______ _._____________._____._____,____ ____ _______ _t I I I i I i I j I I I I I I a n &I 1 70 SL 3NI1 101 3 z - Ti -a.. «�. o X D T. H Z V) v) x o r cIIIIIIIIr ❑ 0 1 3 rri 7U ] r, ❑ x o 111111 1111 1111111111 1 1 IIM I1 111111 )116111: I I ` ' ' ,., r i it , , 1 i ' ' Ii l 1 I I , 0 1 r 111 ll 10 , " �;! i o —o ° 1111IIIIIIIIIIITi � 7 I ,, i, ,,, , , in Et 0 I in nnn , } 1 : � • . 1 1 mum!' a 3� � Z —I f Z v, = IIIIIIIIIIII I 11 111111 �� 111111 DllDllUDniii� ' :.'. p r ii, i 11111111 El Ilk t ,. �. 11.1111, II Lip rn Wzi 1.--1-1-1 IIIIIIII ,, n o S i Y Iiii ,i ® 1 i8 - 0 __ 1 - lid. 1 (4 3 L ❑ V) I BD D n M �I; 0 3r 3rn ` ❑20 `, z iti yes,. l J o JEW (4 3 3 -1n x 0 V) ❑ 27 X) I> Z q n r 0 ■ • - 0 /x 0 it7�' 0 _ ED d �/ v) i nnu \\ — , . V) * tLI II , I 1 II � 1 II co C I at 1 7 o o 0 I 1f 1 j ^.� 1'., 1 111 o I A Co —I i lo 11 ," 1 I -1 0 , �' • (II 1)11.i, ,', ? T i M 1 . 1 , 1 1 1 S A Cn 4 V) H IIIIIIIIIIII 1 ` ' t . 11 , ( 1 0 F 1 PAIIIIIS m r ,,i, ii , 73 vit. ,, , 0 < D r F1 1 1 0 • < z D O Z 1 U n Q 0 v) 3 3C —I 3 E ❑ V) lc 1's'�` 0 0 o Iiii C I I I ( I I III s ■ilq 1 '. r, ti ^ • — , it I NI Ii 1 � � I i ., � I I � I1 k it T i t � � I I � � �� ' llll III , �� i i V /wTl ,' 4 , 1 �1 1 I . f1F M V 1, 1 I 'T''� — 1 , I .I ! II V 1 , r 1 � 1 I . I. CI 11 ' . F 1 'I '� 1w • ) � .r � a • llllli r 1 ; i ii 1, ' 1 1 1 �' I��. it 1 i r I M I P i 1 I I d '4.,4 ti h 1=1 � 111111�� Ili ■' , IIII� , 1. �1 , D. 11 . G 11111111111 1 ; ` 1 ' � •V it cn AII 1 0o I—i ■ — 1 ,,,, rn in rn 70 pil , _ I' rr� D ■ Z ■ Ell — F � i m 70 CI _ I to 1-1 I* H , It. ' � I �< 11119 ,, I P ,..., .... II o p ; o ItiLt ,� z r o Idi LIt�! x,1 .. 1 _, t /! 14 - II ii j . .. . j Z z - O 00 :D I ■,. �� , r �, o ,L / I�1■ h` ,, ,, 1 I 0 O , - r i `� , , v ■I _ / ► En 11/ ao ❑ d k / Pir . El F 1 - 1 � 1� L� ti p , ''I 3 m W v I D --1 z N N r o r9 � si 11 is f i 111.1/ t . 1 /• 1 'I11 / 1 - r( /1 1 [ r l 'I11 1 !I I ' • 11111111 1 I1II1'll1"�fl I '• I , 1 , I' I I� 1 MIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 1 V) CO 0. I i I I I 0 C L I L -I r j .--- —; —i _ _ Q lillj •D -51a el • 0 0