HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20130424 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 24, 2013
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
Please visit the sites on your own
5:00 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
a
B. Approval of minutes L )
C. Public Comments
D. Commission member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificates of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
OLD BUSINESS
5:10 A. 110 W. Main Street, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual
Commercial Design, Demolition, Public Amenity—CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING
6:10 B. 305 S. Mill Street, Minor Review and View Plane Review- CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING
NEW BUSINESS
6:30 A. 605 W. Bleeker, Final Major Development and Variance- PUBLIC
HEARING
WORKESSIONS
7:00 A. 233 W.Hallam
7:30 B. Select 2012 HPC awards
7:50 ADJOURN
TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA
ITEM,NEW BUSINESS
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation (5 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Applicant presentation (20 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed(5 minutes)
HPC discussion(15 minutes)
Applicant rebuttal (comments) (5 minutes)
Motion (5 minutes)
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
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- Projects in bold are currently under construction.
Ann Mullins 217 E.Bleeker-Kribs
205 S. Spring-Hills
Fox Crossing
Red Butte Cemetery
Boomerang
Lift One
316 E.Hopkins
AspenCore
623 E.Hopkins
Jay Maytin 518 W. Main-Fornell
Red Butte Cemetery
320 Lake
435 W.Main-AJCC
920 W.Hallam
28 Smuggler Grove
Lift One
400 E.Hyman(Tom Thumb)
204 S. Galena
Nora Berko 1102 Waters
332 W.Main
28 Smuggler Grove
1006 E. Cooper
Jamie Brewster McLeod e 518 W.Main-Fornell
205 S. Spring-Hills
302 E.Hopkins-Hillstone Restaurants
1102 Waters
Sallie Golden 400 E.Hyman(Tom Thumb)
Jane Hills 320 W. Hallam Street
Willis Pember AspenCore
Patrick Segal 623 E.Hopkins
204 S. Galena
612 W.Main
M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc
4/18/2013
Pi
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 110 W. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial
Design, Public Amenity review, Demolition, Continued Public Hearing
DATE: April 24, 2013
SUMMARY: 110 W. Main Street is a 27,000 square foot lot developed as a small lodge; Hotel
Aspen. The property spans from Main Street to Bleeker Street and encompasses a former alley,
which the City conveyed to the hotel in the 1980s.
The south half of the property is located in the Main Street Historic District and is zoned MU
Mixed Use, while the north half of the property is within the West End neighborhood and is
zoned R-6 Residential. The entire site has an LP Lodge Preservation Overlay. Design review of
the project has been delegated to HPC, even though the northern area of the property is not in
HPC's typical area of purview. The alternative would have been to bisect this topic between
HPC and P&Z, which would have been very confusing since the boundary of the historic district
goes through the proposed hotel structure.
The Lodge Preservation Overlay allows some additional development options and flexibility for
Aspen's traditional small lodges, many of which have historically been located in residential
neighborhoods. The overlay allows all dimensional requirements, including floor area and
height, to be approved on a case by case basis. The proposal before HPC is complete demolition
of all the existing structures, except for a portion of the current hotel area facing Main Street, and
replacement with new lodge units, affordable housing and two duplex structures. HPC is asked
to focus review on overall issues of compatibility with the surrounding area. HPC's input will be
important as the project continues through the Planning and Zoning and Council reviews, where
the size of the project will be established. At the end of the process, HPC will hold a Final
design review hearing.
The Conceptual proposal was reviewed by HPC on January 9th, February 13th, and March 13th
The project has been continued each time for restudy, particularly regarding the height and
footprint of the free market units along Bleeker Street. Since the initial application, the height of
the buildings has been reduced and the duplexes have been pushed apart, accomplished by
moving the eastern structure into the sideyard setback area along Garmisch. Materials were
restudied in an effort to reinforce typical residential proportions and features found in the West
End. The applicant has worked to create new street-facing public amenity space along Main
Street and has resolved code related concerns of other City Departments such as Building and
Environmental Health. Possible improvements to the appearance of the head-in parking along
Garmisch are under study with the Engineering Department.
1
P2
Minutes from the March 13th HPC meeting are attached. The staff memo for that meeting
reiterated on-going concerns with height, footprint/setbacks, roof forms, and the appropriateness
of allowing the project to- reach the 32' maximum height that is possible through Commercial
Design Review. Staff suggested that incorporating gable roof forms, which are more typical of
the Bleeker Street environment, would go a long way in helping the project relate to context.
HPC's comments were essentially in alignment with staff s.
For this meeting, the proposed duplex units have been revised to have a pitched roof on the outer
units, still retaining a flat roof on the interior units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The new modifications made to the duplexes do reflect the
comments at the last hearing. Within the Planning Staff, there is remaining concern with the scale
of the residences. While necessary to enable the small lodge accommodations to be revitalized,they
do impose some impacts on Bleeker Street neighbors.
As the project moves.on through the P&Z and Council PUD review, those boards have the ability to
set the dimensional allowances of the proposal based on site specific, and program specific
considerations. If that were not the case, the Hotel Aspen proposal would not be allowed because
the development along Bleeker Street represents approximately 3,000 square feet of floor area
above and beyond what would be typical of an equivalent lot area in the West End. Approximately
2/3rds of the Hotel Aspen site is devoted to hotel rooms, affordable housing and amenities. Fitting
the desired residential square footage in the remaining property is causing the project to creep into
the traditional setback areas on the east, and up in height.
Options for locating at least one free market unit on top of the hotel were discussed with the
applicant, but found to create a new set of downsides.
The applicant has provided substantial context information and has shown the variety of building.
heights and massing that do appear within the vicinity of the project. The proposal is not
inconsistent with nearby buildings such as this fourplex on a 12,000 square foot lot located at 114
and 118 E. Bleeker.
i { 11 4
ir r i� � S � � :.r } {• r�t�r l�tlR}rlllritl r�.
rr pp,r
.L
r,
K
` rtt i li�l-Z r
P3
There are examples of residential buildings in Aspen that include third floor living space, such
as this landmark on Main Street.
i
r
Much of the West End is subject to rather limited design review. Flat roofs, for instance, would
be allowed on the adjacent properties if the owner desired. Staff finds that the applicant has
made a successful effort to.address the feedback received during the HPC process, and to design
the project to be sympathetic to both the Main Street and Bleeker Street environments, despite
its larger size.
Staff recommends two adjustments to the duplexes. First, the flat roofed elements of the
proposal require a height exception. The two interior units appear to have a slightly generous
height on the third floor. The hotel has been designed to accommodate three floors within 28.'
These units are 32' tall. Staff recommends a P minimum decrease so that the floor to ceiling
heights on the first, second and third floors of the interior residential units are a consistent 10' or
less.
Second, staff recommends that the gable roof form on the outer units slide forward,
encompassing the flat roofed master bathrooms 'facing Bleeker. This is intended strengthen the
reading of the gable end on Bleeker. Flat roofed elements, and decks, could be relocated on the
south fayade.
With these amendments, to be submitted to the board by April 23`d and reviewed at the April
24th meeting, staff would recommend HPC approval so that the application can proceed through
the review process. Short of outright reduction of square footage, which might be appropriate,
staff cannot identify any other design amendments that would be beneficial at the Conceptual
design level.
3
P4-
APPLICANT: Hotel Aspen, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Poss Architecture and
Planning.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-61-800.
ADDRESS: 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen Condominiums, City and Townsite of
Aspen.
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
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
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.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal.
The design guidelines for conceptual review of a new building in the Main Street historic district
are all located within the "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives." The
relevant guidelines are attached as"Exhibit A."
Because the north half of the property is not in the historic district, a different set of design
guidelines apply to review of its redevelopment; the Small Lodges Character Area guidelines,
attached as"Exhibit B."
The design guidelines acknowledge that the small lodges along Main Street are a departure from
the Victorian era character of the neighborhood. The portion of the Hotel Aspen that addresses
Main Street is being retained, with changes to materials. No setback or form changes are
proposed immediately at the front of the site, except for an two story entry canopy element that
extends into the front and side yard setbacks. The lobby portion of the hotel is close to the
sidewalk, which is appropriate to the use. The remaining street facade is substantially setback
behind a pool area.
4
P5
A third floor is being constructed at the middle of the site as part of the reconfiguration of
existing lodge units and addition of nine new lodge units. This is accomplished within the 28'
height limit that is allowed for lodge development in the Mixed Use Zone district.
Staff finds no conflicts with the conceptual design guidelines relative to the hotel and affordable
housing elements. We have had more concerns with the compatibility of the rear development
with the lower scaled residential neighborhood setting.
The existing building on the rear half of the lot is the tallest structure on the site and includes
lodge units on the third level, within a pitched roof form. This structure is to be demolished.
The lodge units move to the front of the site, and the Bleeker Street side is to be developed with
four residential units. As noted above, this portion of the property is currently zoned R-6, which
is the standard single-family/duplex zone that applies throughout the West End. As part of the
P&Z and Council review process, staff expects the property to be entirely zoned to Mixed Use,
--- simplifying the land use regulations for the property and accommodating the larger scale of this
type of project. The Mixed Use zone district does allow a 28' height limit, with the opportunity
to increase to 32' if found to be appropriate through Commercial Design Review.
Where the project has been restudied to incorporate pitched roofs,which are measured differently
than flat roofs, the height is 27'6", which meets code. The flat roofed areas range from 31'=32'.
Staff recommends that the flat roofed master bathrooms on the outer units be encompassed under
the gable roof, therefore meeting the height limit. Staff recommends that the floor to ceiling
heights be tightened up on the interior free market residential units so that the height is no more
than 31'.
According to Municipal Code Section 26.412.050.A, HPC must determine that the proposed
development meets the Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards
provides a more 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 (such as the proposed height.)
The Small Lodge Character Area guidelines state:
New Development should be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located.
Many Lodge sites are located in residential areas, where the single family character should be
respected. In these settings, because the overall mass and scale of a lodge is likely to be
larger than that of adjacent residences, the treatment of the edges of a lodge site is
particularly important.
5
P6
5.4 Front, side and rear setbacks should generally be consistent with the range of the existing
neighborhood.
• These should include landscaping.
5.6 Building height should generally fall within the range established by the setting of adjacent
buildings and the nearby street blocks.
® If two stories are predominant, a third story portion may be permitted if located in the center, or as
an accent on a corner.
e Higher sections of the building should be located away from lower adjacent buildings.
• A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher.
Staff finds that the pitched roofs, which drop the measured height of the project along the east
and west edges of the lot, create greater compatibility with the Bleeker Street environment.
During the HPC process, the applicant did create more separation between the residential
structures, in keeping with standard setback requirements. The project is closer to the east lot
line (Garmisch Street) than typically permitted, but otherwise reflects setback standards.
PUBLIC AMENITY
An additional site planning topic that HPC must discuss is public amenity. All projects in the
Mixed Use zone district are required to provide a certain amount of public amenity space on their
site, or request approval to pay a cash in lieu fee. Generally, on-site public amenity is in the form
of some sort of usable open space. There are some locations where on-site open space is
appropriate and some locations where creating an alignment with adjacent buildings is more
important. The review criteria are:
Provision of public amenity. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation
Commission, pursuant to the review procedures and, criteria of Chapter 26.412, Commercial
Design Review, shall determine the appropriate method or combination of methods for providing
this required amenity. One (1) or more of the following methods may be used s.uch that the
standard is reached.
1. On-site provision of public amenity. A portion of the parcel designed in a manner
meeting Subsection 26.575.030.F., Design and operational standards for on-site public
amenity.
2. Off-site provision of public amenity. Proposed public amenities and improvements to the
pedestrian environment within proximity of the development site may be approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Review. These may be improvements to private property, public property or public
rights-of-way. An easement providing public access over an existing public amenity
space for which no easement exists may be accepted if such easement provides permanent
public access and is acceptable to the City Attorney. Off-site improvements shall equal
6
P7
or exceed the value of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment and be consistent with
any public infrastructure or capital improvement plan for that area.
3. Cash-in-lieu provision. The City Council, upon a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, may accept
a cash-in-lieu payment for any portion of required public amenity not otherwise
physically provided, according to the procedures and limitations of Subsection
26.575.030.E, Cash-in-lieu payment.
4. Alternative method. The Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Review, may accept any method of providing public amenity not otherwise described
herein if the Commission finds that such method equals or exceeds the value, which may
be nonmonetary_community value, of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment.
Staff Response: Hotel Aspen currently has less than the minimum on-site amenity required of
new development, and the amenity will be reduced through the reconfiguration of building
footprints. Since the original application, greater on-site amenity has been proposed along the
Main Street fagade, in the form of outdoor dining. The tall wall surrounding the pool area is to
be pulled away from the street, improving the relationship to the sidewalk.
The applicant proposes to pay a cash-in-lieu fee or to undertake off-site improvements for the
approximately 830 square feet of public amenity that remains due. Improvements are planned to
be focused on the Garmisch Street head in parking area.
HPC discussed the parking issue at the January meeting, and the applicant provided a possible
revision that is a combination of parallel and head in parking. That plan has been referred to the
Engineering Department, but no comments have been received. This issue will be revisited
again as the project moves on to P&Z and Council. HPC may make choose to make a
recommendation.
DEMOLITION
The existing buildings are to be almost entirely demolished. For the portion of the property that
is located in a historic district, HPC must grant Demolition approval.
It is the intent of the historic preservation ordinance to preserve the historic and architectural
resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of
properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be
allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in.this Section.
The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. 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,
7
P8
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
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: Staff supports. demolition of this non-contributing structure finding that no
documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural,
archaeological, engineering or cultural significance.
The HPC may:
® approve the application,
O 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 finds that the applicant has made a successful effort to address
the feedback received during the HPC process, and to design the project to be sympathetic to
both the Main Street and Bleeker Street environments, despite its larger size. Staff recommends
a 1' minimum decrease in the overall height of the two interior free market residential units so
that the floor to ceiling heights on the first, second and third floors are a consistent 10' or less.
Staff recommends that the gable roof form on the outer two free marked residential units slide
forward, encompassing the flat roofed master bathrooms facing Bleeker. Amendments must be
submitted to the board by April 23rd so that they can be reviewed for approval at the April 24th
meeting.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Guidelines for the Main Street Historic District
B. Relevant Guidelines for the Small Lodges Character Area
C. Application
8
P9
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN
(CONCEPTUAL),AND DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 110 W. MAIN STREET, HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION# , SERIES OF 2012
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-61-800
WHEREAS, the applicant, Hotel Aspen, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Poss
Architecture and Planning. has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial Design
(Conceptual), and Demolition review for the property located at 110 W. Main Street, Hotel
Aspen Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, development affecting the southern half of the property is within the purview of
the Historic Preservation Commission because the property is located in the Commercial Core
Historic District. The existing structures are not considered contributing resources within 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 of structures on the southern half of the
property, 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
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
110 W. Main
HPC Resolution# , Series of 2012.
Page 1 of 3
P10
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, although the northern half of the property is not located within the Commercial
Core Historic District, Commercial Design Review of this portion of the proposed development
was delegated to HPC to consolidate design review at one review board; and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design 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 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review
Procedure, 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated April 24, 2013, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards would be met
with project revisions, and recommended approval pending those revisions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 24, 2013 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_to_.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial Design
(Conceptual) and Demolition approval for the property located at 110 W. Main Street, Hotel
Aspen Condominiums,City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
1. Design a 1' minimum decrease in the overall height of the two interior free market
residential units so that the floor to ceiling heights on the first, second and third floors are
a consistent 10' or less.
2. Bring the gable roof form on the two outer free marked residential units forward,
encompassing the flat roofed master bathrooms facing Bleeker.
3. HPC approves a combination of on-site Public Amenity space as represented in the
drawings, and off-site improvements to the Garmisch Street right-of-way. The specific
plan for Garmisch Street improvements requires further review and approval by the
Engineering Department, and HPC at Final review.
110 W. Main
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012
Page 2of3
P11
4. 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 24th day of April,,
2013.
Jamie Brewster-MacLeod,Vice-Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
110 W. Main
HPC Resolution# , Series of 2012
Page 3 of 3
P12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 13,2013
Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Patrick Sagal and
Jay Maytin. Excused were Jane Hills, Sallie Golden and Jamie McLeod
Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Justin Barker, Planner
Willis will recuse himself on 110 W. Main and 612 W. Main
110 W. Main— Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual
Commercial Design,Demolition, Public Amenity
Amy said property is 27,000 square feet and expands from Main Street to
Bleeker Street. It is zoned mixed use on the front half of the property and
R6 on the rear half and lodge preservation overlay. As the development
goes through the entire property will be mixed use. It is partially in the
historic district. After HPC they go to P&Z and council for a PUD review.
The front 113 of the property most of the existing development is remaining.
The only real change is a canopy element over the front which is
appropriate. In the.middle third they are adding an additional story for lodge
units but within the 28 foot height limit. Staff s comments have been
focused on the residential development along Bleeker in the back. The rear
has four new units. The 4 units are 32 feet high and they have been pushed
apart a little to make them have a residential feel. Amy said perhaps the flat
roof is not in keeping with the neighborhood. There are three Victorians next
to this site. At the edge of the property we still would like to see some
revision to the mass even if it made the buildings taller. At the last hearing
we had a lot of discussion about the different departments and those issues
have been addressed and at this time HPC doesn't have to be concerned with
them. They are reducing their public amenity by 830 square feet and they
are talking about improvements along the Garmisch parking area. They are
also proposing an outside dining area. Staff recommends continuation.
Stan Clauson Associates and Poss.Architecture and Planning—Kim Weil
Stan said council said protecting small lodges is important and a goal. You
have a project before.you to enhance its existing lodge development. This
commission is charged with Historic Main Street that extends to Bleeker
1
P13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2013
Street. You have a project before you to enhance its existing lodge
development and create 54 lodge units that are among the smallest in the
city. Normally you wouldn't have any charge on Bleeker Street. This is a
LP overlay with a PUD. This project needs some spirit of compromise to
move it forward. The outstanding issues from the last meeting sewer line,
size of units, accessibility, trash, affordable housing and size of units, all
have been resolved.
What we have done to emphasize the separation is increase the distance
between the buildings. Engineering has asked that we go to parallel parking
on a portion of the street. We have tried to create architectural quality and
is a compliment to the neighborhood. The roof design changed and front
massing has more identity between the units. We have moved the entrances
slightly and provided open railings which reduce the visual mass and height
of the walls. We reduced the amount of stone and provided more wood
siding to give a residential feel.
Kim Weil said they also reduced the amount of fenestration that faces the
street. We also removed columns to open up the corner and kept the mass.
toward the center. There is nothing that precludes a flat roof in the West
End anywhere. Materials, patterns and textures are consistent and a grade
above the palates and textures that are found in that area. We feel this
enhances the residential element.
Kim Weil said the roof lines have been adjusted in an attempt to modulate
the 4 units. The landscape plan offers dining off Main Street.
Stan said in all we need to focus on compromise and jurisdiction. We are
getting 54 units out of this project and with careful capitalization can move
forward. Roof gabling would add overall height and massing.
Nora said she feels we are getting close. The eastern building shifted 3V2
feet east. On Bleeker you did not move toward the north or the alley. Only
the eastern building was moved.
Kim said there is ten feet apart on the buildings and then it is cantilevered
over.
2
P14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2013
Nora said our charge is still to preserve scale and mass in the neighborhood
and is there room for compromise to have the buildings can come down four
feet. It is big on that block.
Stan said it is two stories on all sides and the third floor provides the square
footage that makes for the development to work. You can't have a six foot
high third story. We are considerable less than the amount of free market
development associated with a lodge preservation project of this type.
Patrick asked about a garden level for the four units. Kim said the ramping
doesn't allow us to go lower etc.
Stan said if you were walking along the sidewalk you would only see a two
story.
Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment portion of the agenda
item.
Ed Walkabee, owner of 121 W. Bleeker. Our house is next to the proposed
structure. The West End is to be preserved and we need to do the best we
can to do that. All of the three houses are 1888 vintage and our setbacks are
the same with large yards. We paid 4.2 million and put in 675 thousand.
Our house stands out and it is a showcase. The mass we are dealing with is
a tremendous width and.square and 32 feet high. The square shape does not
fit the West End. Next door the historic houses have a height of 24 or 25
feet. I object to what the new structures will look like. The commission's
charge is to preserve the historic feeling of Aspen.
Julie Ann Steele—Exhibit II— e-mail. The height should fall under the R-6
guidelines as two story residences. The proposal is not in keeping with the
historic buildings. Our living area height is 24 to 25 feet and the height to
the ridge is 31 feet.
Aaron Brown said he and his brother Michael own the Hotel Aspen and
Molly Gibson. We always knew this was going to be a compromise. There
is the issue of preserving the lodge and the architecture of the free market
units. We have 45 rooms with affordable housing. We wanted more
affordable rooms. This lodge will last another 30 years and this is what we
thought the city wanted, smaller and more affordable rooms. We have
underground parking and 9 more rooms and rebuilding 30 rooms and has a
3
P15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2013
new public amenity; has affordable house and it is paying all its fees. We
feel this is a great balance and compromise between the city's policy and our
desire to build these lodge rooms. We are delivering the 54 rooms and
consistent with the city and we are being pushed back on the free market.
Without the third story there is no development. It doesn't work
economically as we don't have the funds for these rooms. We need the free
market in order to make the project work.
Ann closed the public comment portion of the agenda item.
Height mass scale
Trash, sewer has been approved by city staff
Public amenity
Cash-in-lieu
demolition
Jay said they are close to the same square footage if there were two single
family houses.
Nora said she is stuck and understands the small lodge issue and the
economics of it. My charge is preservation of the West End and this feels
incompatible. We have to respect the integrity of the West end and at the
same time applaud small lodges.
Jay said we are in this because of the Main Street District and small lodges.
If the two lots were sold there could be something else built that could be
worse. This corner can handle these buildings because Garmisch Street is
very wide and can handle it. We will end up with a great little lodge in the
Historic Main Street District. The building is being preserved and they are
preserving what is there and bringing it up to current energy codes etc. I can
support the project. I would ask you to consider ten feet off Bleeker Street
just because of the front setbacks on the 1800 Victorians next door.
Patrick said we are close. Mass and scale should be changed a little bit. If
they took the square footage away of the restaurant and moved rooms into
that and kept the residential and changed that around a little bit that might
work. To me it is the revision of a roof forms so it appears residential than
commercial.
4
P16
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2013
Ann said she hasn't seen that much change in the massing and it is
superficial. It is primarily a residential area except for Main Street.
We need to be preserving residential.
Stan said the buildings have changed. The Hotel Aspen owners.have tried to
make this into something that is acceptable. Aspen can be considered the
West End but it is also home to lodges and tourism and we always.have
needed to maintain some kind of balance. Lodge preservation was enacted
based on the concept of having small lodges that have adjacency to
residential districts need to be allowed reasonable development. We are
being quite consistent and the neighbor did move next to the lodge with.
expansion potential. We need to think of Aspen and protect lodging
facilities. Your charge is to protect the Main Street Historic District and it
just happens that it extends into Bleeker Street. If these owners were not
able to do the kind of lodge expansion they could do a lodge contraction and
build single family development or sell the property which would allow for
flat roofs. .The issue seems to be revolving around gable roofs.
Aaron Brown said everyone makes good points. If you want us to go and
make changes there is no road map from this meeting of what those changes
should be for an approval because everyone has different concerns. There is
nothing said from the HPC about going higher which staff mentioned.
Stan said this needs more approvals down the road.
Ann said what she is hearing from the board is that it is too big.
MOTION: Ann moved to continue until April 24`h. Motion fails for lack of
a second.
MOTION: Jay made the motion to approve 110 W. Main. Motion fails for
lack of a second.
Jay said all the discussion is on these two houses and nothing on the lodge.
The lodge is going to be beautiful. Preserving this lodge is where we
should be focusing. This commission should believe in the Main Street
Historic District. The renditions of this project have changed for the better.
There is a park across the street and a school nearby. There is also a
doctor's office directly across the street and we have a chance to help this
project.
5
P17
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2013
MOTION: Jay made the motion to approve the project as proposed,
approving height, mass and scale, demolition, cash in lieu and the
representation that the fire, utilities etc. is as represented. Motion'fails for
lack of a second.
MOTION: Patrick move to continue the application and restudy the roof
form only. Motion fails for lack of a second.
MOTION: Ann moved to continue 110 W. Main to April 24th to restudy
height, scale, mass and proportion; motion second by Patrick. Motion
carried 3-1. Vote: Patrick, yes; Jay, no; Nora, yes; Ann, yes.
605 E. Blecker— Conceptual Major Development and Setback
Variances-Public Hearing
Debbie said the public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed.
Affidavit of posting Exhibit I
Willis was seated.
Justin said currently on the site there is an historic miners cottage along with
a non-historic 1999 rear two story addition between the two. The applicant
would like to remodel that rear addition and the connecting element as well
as renovation the interior of the historic building and adding a front porch to
the historic building. The non-historic addition had received variance
approvals for the side and rear yard setbacks. The proposal is looking to
reuse the same foundations from that rear addition so they need the
variances re-approved for this project. Staff is recommending those be
reapproved. On the rear addition the massing is similar to what exists and
the dimensions will be the same. They are proposing a gabled roof. The
height would increase by 2'3" inches for the new addition but within the
height limitations for the district. On the connection element the dimensions
are less than the ten feet minimum that is required by the guidelines. This is
mainly due to a glass enclosed staircase that juts off the addition and down
on top of the connector. Staff feels that this is still achieving the intent of
the guideline. Also for the connector there is a private patio proposed on top
of the connecting element and most of the mass will be on the west side and
hidden from view from the street but there is.a portion that will be visible.
Staff is recommending that the size of the patio be reduced so that it is
completely hidden. The connector should only be used as access to the
6
STAN CLAUSCIN ASSOMATES INC
landscape architecture. planning. resort design
EM"D
!}12 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t-970/925-2323 f-970/92o-i628 REC
info @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com
MAR 21 2.013
26 March 2013 CITE' OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Amy Guthrie
City of Aspen Historic Preservation
130 S.Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Hotel Aspen /Supplemental Submission-Gabled Roots
Dear Amy:
On behalf of our client, please accept ten (10) sets of revised architectural plans
incorporating roofscape changes. These revisions respond to comments received at the
Historic Preservation Commission meetings recommending that additional design elements
from neighboring residential structures be incorporated in the proposed townhouses.
The Applicants have modified the roof lines of the townhouses to provide gable roofs on both
end units. The gable roof forms remain substantially unchanged from the drawings we
reviewed with you and Jennifer Phelan on 15 March 2013. At the time it was our
understanding that the proposed changes were acceptable and appropriate. The inclusion
of a gable roof form is rooted in staff's suggestion, made most recently at the last HPC
hearing, that gabled roof forms should be explored, even if this increased the overall ridge
height of the proposed townhouses. In fact,from a code measurement standpoint, the
building height is actually reduced from the 32-foot height to 27 feet, 6 inches at the edges of
the structure,where a one-third point measurement might be taken.
Other previous modifications, such as the increased separation between the two townhouse
buildings, increased public amenity space, and enhancements to the parking along
Garmisch, remain unchanged and are provided here as well. With the modifications
provided in response to HPC and staff comments, the Applicants are confident that the
resulting design will be regarded as supporting neighborhood character in the context of an
important Lodge Preservation project.
We look forward to presenting these modifications to the HPC on April 24th. Please call me
with any questions.
Very truly yours,
Stan laus AICP, ASLA
Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
Enclosure
Cc: Aaron and Michael Brown (w/ enclosure)
Kim Weil (w/enclosure)
MAIN ST. f~
w
`In I a+
A + I I
All
f \ ,�lyaynplS
I i
i
_ u nll
�I
I
+ -
II
it .,.4M,,.•�: .-
G e '*
o �•
`o =
I
-
+ I I o
I
u
0 i ;
I
I
I
I I ° t
I �
I
7-9 3/4 "
fT L—, 16'•3' _ _ __�' S'�4' � 2A'•3' ^ `
I `
---
n V-
HOTEL ASPEN 0, 51 1
110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 NORTH SCALE:1°=10'-0"
pons: � """"'„`"- Conceptual Public Amenity Addition February 1,2013
__..._..
sn.a-..rnanx•_ -._._.._ C
STAN CUUSON ASSOCIATES INC _
Exhibit E
odded more overhanging roofs to soften the Additional break up of larger pones of glass changedthe-roof design and front
verticat planes of the massing to give more residentlat scale.
ossing to create more identity
betwaenunits 0ndroof fovms
More diversity of moterial pallete to reduce
scale and enhonce the diversity between unit
designs.
More entrance identity to the residences
open railings to reduce visible
height of vvtlliand mass along
street
Reduced amount of stone and and more
YJf7ad Siu,l'ry i c?�rcl7 xri i Cr�DV Plait moS3inC]of
the design and togive.more residential feel.
����_ ,�_^ __ Landscaping to enhance and
+
i - soften Me runt yardsrraaV
• appearcnce
!'" f Additional Design notes:
✓lait• �',Fans - �.! 'a77'�fY .f _
and torred exterior paretfe to soften the overall
appearance he exter
t _ 7 ggni icant change to quontties of hard surface stone in the design of the
d + 3 e!evotions.
f K F 3. Revisions to the design are intended to make the character shift more
from the Motel character to the qualities of the residenlio3 nei I boyhood.
q g'
tit
w
s —
Proprosed-New CresIgn: Bleeker Street View
i
t
PPreviatit-Deng --:.BCeekier Street View
11G.WESrMAIUSTRET ASPS ,COL09ADG81 611
POSS AI?C19lt1 ' 114. SCEEM. TfC. llEfeGN'_ E3RIDESIGNCOMPARITIVE
c05 Ea %?"%1 ""114 i�a14Yq *4411
Ara mss" K 0301.3
aid 1aolaxl aria 10 a11/N e•11s•
IW
i
P21
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
FROM: Justin Barker, City Planner
RE: 605 W. Bleeker Street-Final Major Development and Setback Variances, Public
Hearing
DATE: April 24, 2013
SUMMARY: 605 W. Bleeker Street is
a landmark designated 4,500 square
foot lot that contains a remodeled Oil '4
miner's cottage style home and a 1999 B`F
non-historic rear addition. The property l "
was created as a result of a Historic f .
Landmark Lot Split. The applicant has
received HPC Conceptual approval pproval to
remodel the rear addition and
connecting element. Final review
approval is needed.
The project received HPC approval for side and rear yard setback variances at Conceptual. The
proposal has been modified in response to a condition from Conceptual to restudy he master
bedroom stairs and.connecting element. The changes affect the approved setback variances. HPC
reapproval of the variances is needed.
APPLICANT: David & Meg Roth, 605 W. Bleeker St., represented by Poss Architecture +
Planning.
ADDRESS: 605 W. Bleeker Street (121 N. Fifth Street), Lot A, Small and Large Fries
Subdivision, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen.
PARCEL ID: 2735-12-4-87-001.
ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential).
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff reviews
the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's colzformance with the
design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to
1
P22
the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and �{Zeecoeasonsd for the
continue, approve, disapprove or approve with condtttons
recommendation. The HPC will review the application,
the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to detern3ine the projectmaconformance Ve,d disapprove, approve
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC y PP
ith conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
w
make a decision to approve or deny.
uiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Major Development is a two-step p rocess re 9
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plsn�o theplorcation and form of the
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regard
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted o changes n ges will be made o thipaspect of
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No g
their review of the Final Development Plan
the proposed development by the HPC as part of
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Respo lighting, fenestration, and selection
Staff nse: Final review focuses on landscape plan,
new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as"Exhibit A."
Conceptual Conditions
A Conceptual condition for approval required the applicant ion between the historic st cture sand e massing f the
bedroom stairs and connecting element to create more separat the mass of
the addition. The applicant has responded to this by reconfiguring the and moving re separation
the addition 1.5 feet further south n to create
lalso reconfigured he stairs,moving the east wall 2.5
from the historic structure, proposal
feet further from 5`" Street and making it a solid material to reduce light pollution. The addition
mass is slightly narrower than Conceptual,but the height has not changed. The guideline states:
ric 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than link it to the h building,
building back
substantially from significant facades and use a connector
❑ A 1-story connector is preferred. set
❑. The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long beatw e ld ngddition and the primary building.
❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary
but requiring the full 10
The connector is only 9 feet long, the t
omplishes intent nt of the guideline and the
allowable FAR. Staff finds the 9 feet acc
reconfiguration is successful in satisfying HPC's concerns from Conceptual.
nce tual, HPC expressed that adding a porch to the historic structure would not be
At Co p applicant has proposed a small steel plate over
appropriate if one did not historically exi p ro ct the retry. Although the guidelines encourage the
the door as an alternative option to-help p t
use of a P orch on residential buildings, the proposed plate would appear out of character on e
historic structure. Staff recommends, the applicant restudy options to protect the entryway that,
comply with the following guideline:
2
P23
rIf porch replacement is necessary,reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail.
Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered
that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple.
Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or
others like it.
Variances
At Conceptual, the applicant received reapproval of side and rear yard setbacks from a 1999
development approval. The original proposal was going to reuse the existing foundations for all
new development. Due to the shifted mass of the addition, the proposal now requires additional
foundations in different locations than those that received approved setback variances.
The setback variances approved at Conceptual were:
2.3' west sideyard setback reduction(2.7' provided)
3' west sideyard setback reduction for lightwell (2' provided)
1' east sideyard setback reduction(4' provided)
3.3' combined sideyard setback reduction (6.7' provided)
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
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.
The modified proposal is only moving the mass of the addition further to the south by 1.5 feet. The
new location of the addition does not extend any development further into the sideyard setbacks.
The variance reapproval is necessary because the new proposal extends the side variances approved
at Conceptual in length by 1.5 feet to the south. No rear variances are created. Staff recommends
reapproval of the variances.
Landscape
There are four trees proposed for removal on the north side of the property to increase the health
and longevity of the remaining trees. The applicant proposes to replace the existing curved front
walkway with a straight stone paver walkway, and to remove the side walkway. New pavers are
proposed for the side patio and rear parking area. The guidelines suggest:
E.112 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
Historic photographs do not show the side walkway and it should be removed. There is no
evidence to support the front walkway's significance. Staff supports the proposed front walkway
straightening based on the following guidelines:
3
P24
rrehabilitation 9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when consid7alo g a
project.
This includes a sequence of experierrvatebego rhnor the
ending in the "pridv epacces
"semi-public" walkway,to a "semi
-private"
beyond.
❑ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways
are discouraged,except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood
or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
The applicant proposes to remove the 6 foot fence along the alley and replace the 30" picket
e. No existing
fence all the way around with a metal fence, straightening straightening the 5th Street the fence, but a
fences appear in any historic photos. Staff supports
wood picket fence as the most appropriate material based on the following guidelines:
F1.2A new replacemen t fence should bli math�iof--way muP be builtlof wood orwroughtgron.•Wire fence which is visible from a pu g es also may be considered.ood picket fence. s an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence,
similar to traditional wrought iron, also may be considered.
❑ Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade"afe transparent aqual quality allowing views into the yard
1.3 Anew replacement fence should
from the street.
❑ A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature.
❑ On residential properties, a fence which is located
nation see the City of Aspen
in t t se"Residential
taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional
Design Standards".)
❑ A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a
building.
❑ Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach.
❑ Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context.
1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally.
❑ Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
Li htin
re are
The applicant proposes to retain the existing light fixtures on i is proposed. An imeage of
minimal proposed fixtures for the addition and no landscape lighting p
the proposed fixture for the new construction is in the packet.
Materials
e a modern material palette.11 weather to ol
The new addition proposes to us
a matte silver grey color.
stucco covered in a horizontal ipe wood screen th
et. The
Medium grey cement panels will clad the garage and connecting element the aci gs5 h Stre e gable
west side of the connecting element will be horizontal wood g
roof is proposed as a dark grey standing seam metal.
4
P25
The historic structure will be repainted to reflect more traditional colors and to create prominence
over the addition. The applicant also proposes to replace the existing wood shingle roofing of
the historic structure. Staff finds all of the proposed materials to be acceptable.
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 HPC grant Conceptual Major Development and
Variance approval with the following conditions:
1. The setbacks granted at Conceptual are reapproved, with a 1.5' extension of the
encroachment on the east and west. The setback reductions are:
2.3' west sideyard setback reduction(2.7'provided)
3' west sideyard setback reduction for lightwell (2' provided)
P east sideyard setback reduction(4' provided)
3.3' combined sideyard setback reduction(6.7' provided)
2. Applicant shall restudy the front porch roof element, for review and approval by staff and
monitor.
3. Applicant shall submit a fence design, for review and approval by staff and monitor.
4. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development
plan vested for a period of three (3)years from the date of issuance of a development
order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104..050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested properly right.
No later than fourteen(14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk
shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a
site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this
Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3)years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 605 W. Bleeker Street
5
P26
(121 N. Fifth Street),Lot A, Small and Large Fries Subdivision, Block 24, City and
Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules,regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
and judicial
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights
of such rights hall not begin
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final
be limited as set forth inithe
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Guidelines
B. Application
Exhibit A
Fences
1.2 A new replacement fence should use
must be builtlof wood orwroughtgronl.Wire
❑ Any fence which is visible from a public g
fences also may be considered.
❑ A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence,
similar to traditional wrought iron, also may be considered.
❑ Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences ansparent'aquality l allowing views into_the yard
1.3 Anew replacement fence should
from the street.
Li A fence that defines a from fen e which is located forward ofd the tfront abuilding facade may not be
Li On residential properties,
! from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential
taller than 42'
Design Standards".)
❑ A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a
building.
• Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach.
raditional fences should be compatible with the historic context.
• Contemporary interpretations of t
1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally.
❑ Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
s.
❑ This setback should be significant enough to sense of open space
along the alley should beecompatible
1.6 Replacement or new fencing between s► y ards
with the historic context. transparent. A
side
❑ Aside yard fence is usually taller than its f yard ard fences counterpart.
should inco porate
yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard
transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts.
❑ Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of
a solid plank fence when seen head on.
Li Also consider using lattice,or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence.
6
P27
Walkways
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
❑ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a
"semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces
beyond.
❑ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkwas
are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. y
❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood
or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
Private Yard
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not
covered with paving, for example.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site,particularly landmark trees and shrubs.
❑ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged
or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
❑ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large
enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
❑ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be co
site. nsistent with the historic context of the
❑ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of
mature growth.
❑ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
❑ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
Treatment of Porches
5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged.
❑ This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and
should be identified with a porch or entry element.
Porch Replacement
5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail.
❑ Use materials that appear similar to the original.
❑ While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately,
alternative materials may be considered.
❑ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered
that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple.
Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or
others like it.
❑ When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building.
❑ The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork.
❑ The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically
as well.
7
P28
New Additions
t one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
10.3 Design a new addition such tha
primary building is maintained.
❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary
building is inappropriate.
n earlier period than that of the primary building also is
El An addition that seeks to imply a
inappropriate.
Li addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should
be avoided.
_ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
E)
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually
compatible with these earlier features.
❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the s t styles are�aldlltechniques that may be considered to
differentiation between historic, and more current ty
help define a change from old to new construction. is
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition thctnnectolr'i to link it to the historic back
c building.
substantially from significant facades and use a o
❑ A 1-story connector is preferred.
❑ of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building.
The connector should be a minimum primary buil
❑ The connector also should be propo tmat r�als that are compat ble with the historic materials of
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior
the primary building. .
❑ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
Color
14.3 Keep color schemes simple.
❑ Using one base color for the building is preferred.
❑ Using only one or two accent colors is also encouraged,except where precedent exists for using more
than two colors with some architectural styles.
14.4 Coordinating the entire building in one color scheme is usually more successful than working
with a variety of palettes.
Li the color scheme to establish a sense of overall composition for the building is strongly
encouraged.
14.5 Develop a color scheme for the he entire building facehogether, For ta commercial building, t can
❑ Choose a base color that will link t
tie signs, ornamentation, awnings and entrances together. On residences, it can function similarly. It
can also help your building relate better to others in the district.
❑ The complexity of the accent colors should beoappropriate be left a naturalrwoodl finish. H sto ically,
❑ Doors may be painted a bright accent color, Y Y
many of the doors would have simply had a stain applied.
❑ Window sashes are also an excellent opportunity for accent color.
❑ Brilliant luminescent or"day-glo" colors are not appropriate.
Lighting
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that use
traditionally.
❑ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by
the HPC.
8
P29
❑ 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 are in use late at night.
❑ 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 area.
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 carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the
property or into public rights-of-way.
On-going Maintenance of Historic Properties
14.11 Plan repainting carefully.
❑ Note that frequent repainting of trim materials may cause a buildup of paint layers that obscures
architectural details. When this occurs, consider stripping paint layers to retrieve details. However, if
stripping is necessary, use the gentlest means possible, being careful not to damage architectural
details and finishes.
❑ Remember good preparation is key to successful repainting but also the buildup of old paint is an
important historic record of the building. The removal of old paint, by the gentlest means possible,
should be undertaken only if necessary to the success of the repainting. Remember that old paint is of
very good quality and is enviable in today's painting world.
❑ Old paint may contain lead. Precautions should be taken when sanding or scraping is necessary.
14.12 Provide a weather-protective finish to wood surfaces.
❑ The rustic bare-wood look is not a part of the heritage of the historic districts or individual landmark
properties.
❑ Painted surfaces are most appropriate. Stains may be accepted in combination with materials that
give a well-finished appearance. Use water seal to preserve the porch deck.
❑ Rustic finishes will not be approved.
9
P30
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PAP APPROVAL RVATION COMMISSION
THE PROPERTY Q
GRANTING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT A
LOCATED AT 605 W.BLEEKER STREET,LOT A, MALL AND LA YGOF PIE IES
SUBDIVISION,BLOCK 24, CITY TATE OF FCOLORADO
RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2013
PARCEL ID: 2735-12-4-87-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, 605 W. Bleeker LLC, represented by
for Architecture ite property Planning,d at
requested HPC Conceptual Major Development and Variance approval
605 W. Bleeker Street, Lot A, Small and Large Fries Subdivision, Block 24, City and Townsite of
Aspen; and structu
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal states that
building or
nvolvi gra
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, p
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient ith t e procedures
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance w
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review,
the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing Guidelines per Section 26.415 070.D 3 b.2
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design rove,
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other ri pnue theeapplication tto obtain additional may nformation
disapprove, approve with conditions or co
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS,the HPC may approve setback variances according finding that such a 6.415.11 O.C.La,
Variances. In granting a variance,the HPC must make
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or icance or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact adjoining designated historic properrty or historic
character of the historic property, an g
district; and
WHEREAS, Justin Barker, in his staff report to HPC dated April 24, 2013, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval with conditions;
and commission
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 24, 2013it t e proposal
considered the application, the staff memo and publ c comments, and found
consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of_to_.
605 W. Bleeker
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2013
Page 1 of 3
P31
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants Final Major Development and Variance approval for the property
located at 605 W. Bleeker Street with the following conditions:
1. The setbacks granted at Conceptual are reapproved, with a 1.5' extension of the
encroachment on the east and west. The setback reductions are:
2.3' west sideyard setback reduction(2.7' provided)
3' west sideyard setback reduction for lightwell (2' provided)
1' east sideyard setback reduction(4' provided)
33' combined sideyard setback reduction(6.7' provided)
2. Applicant shall restudy the front porch roof element, for review and approval by staff and
monitor.
3. Applicant shall submit a fence design, for review and approval by staff and monitor.
4. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development
plan vested for a period of three (3)years from the date of issuance of a development
order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk
shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a
site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this
Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 605 W. Bleeker Street
(121 N. Fifth Street), Lot A, Small and Large Fries Subdivision, Block 24, City and
Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
605 W. Bleeker
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2013
Page 2 of 3
P32
judicial
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to el xer rights
of such rights shall not begin
review; the period of time permitted by law for the
to run until the date of publication of the notice of fial dev shall be lent approval
set a r required
the
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of April,
2013.
Ann Mullins, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
605 W. Bleeker
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2013
Page 3 of 3
P33
Haas Land Planning, LLC
Memo
To: Ms. Amy Guthrie and the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
From: Sol Kumin, Owner of 233 West Hallam Street
Thru: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC
Melissa Mabe-Sabanosh, DHR Architecture
Date: April 24, 2013
Re: 233 W. Hallam Street Work Session
The Kumin family owns the property located at 233 West Hallam Street, which is a
9,692 square foot lot that contains a single-family house. The legal description of
the property is Lots A, B, and C, and the west 6.64' of Lot D, Block 50. Located
in the West End neighborhood, the zoning is R-6, Medium Density Residential.
The greater than 9,000 square foot size of the property permits development of a
single-family home, a duplex, or two detached homes, which is the scenario the
property owner is pursuing. The original square footage of the house is
approximately 24" x 32 , on two floors, or 1,500 square feet, more or less. The
remaining building area is considered non-historic additions, built in the
1950s/1960s.
Although located at the corner today (mainly on Lot A), the 1904 Sanborne Fire
Insurance Map shows that the subject residence was originally located on Lot C.
The house was moved westward after a fire destroyed the house that was on Lot
A. The Sanborne Map indicates that, historically, there were three identical
houses in a row on Lots C, D, and E. The three houses still exist today, although
each has been rather substantially altered; their relationship to one another has
been impaired in not only proximity.but appearance, too.
This property is a designated landmark, but the integrity or authenticity of the
structure was greatly affected by past remodels. The only clearly Victorian
characteristic remaining on the home is its original two-story form, which is still
visible at the core of the building. Most of the original exterior materials are
gone, and it seems most of the framing evidence that could be used to recreate
original openings has been destroyed.
201 NORTH MILL STREET,SUITE 108•ASPEN,CO 81611 • (970)925-7819•FAX(970)925-7395
Page 1
P34
As depicted on the provided plan set, the proposal is for demolition of the non-
historic construction, relocation of the historic building of a new detached house. As
the lot, a complete restoration, and construction royal of Conceptual Mayor
such, an application will be submitted for app
Development, on-site relocation, partial demolition, and an Fhi R bonus. The be
variance request anticipated is for the side yard
relocated.
The HPC can grant a Floor Area bonus of up to 500 square feet. The applicant
that
is confident that the review standards for the bonus will b s tbeie given i red and
difficult but outstanding preservation and restoration efforts
achieved, reinvigorating the historic significance of
adjacent his properties.one Viictoriiian but
also its relationship with the two structures Ilcation that includes the FAR bonus
session is required before submitting an app
request.
The applicant's historic preservation efforts e house,clarrefuully irec eating any
focused on restoring the 1904 footprint of th
features that can be reasonably documented, and reestablishing andt e II work
the relationship to the homes immediately to the
the
cooperatively with the Historic Preservation officer and originally to pAfter the
windows, openings, and details where they were believe d 9
o sisters," a new,
historic asset is moved back to its original Ioo`L'formt at thetcorner to face West
detached single-family residence will be built n an Street
Hallam Street but have its two long sides fronting on s the h stor and the
es alley.
the
new home will have the same rhythm and massing
south side of West Hallam Street. As such, this restoration of theWtlh"three sisters"
the building itself by reestablishing the historic relationship
and, thereby, enhancing the historic integrity of the block.
Because the applicant will be going to such great effort be earned.restore By bringing back t e
rhythm of the lot and block, a 500sf FAR bonus it to
history that has been almost completely masked r eSworkg g co its perafively
aesthetic and location at great expense to the owner, and b
Y
with staff and the HPC to ensure an outstanding preservation effort, the requirements
for the grant of an FAR bonus will be satisfied.
At this early stage, we are asking for and welcoming input that can b provided
with regard to the direction of the proposal. Thank y for Y our
C:/My Documents/City Applications/233 W Hallam—DHR Architects/Memo to HPC for Work Session-4-24-13
Page 2
P35
NO. 01
DATE: April 16, 2013
BY: Adam Roy, Method Planning+ Development
i 0: Chris Bendon, City of Aspen Community Development Department
CC: David Johnston Architects
5(103i CT: The Spring Cafe-Basement Storage/Net Leasable Clarification
This memo is intended to clarify the condition of the previously designated "storage" space in the
basement of the Spring Building (the "Building") at 632 East Hopkins Avenue (the "Property"). Currently
a tenant, The Spring Cafe (the "applicant"), has submitted a building permit application for Tenant
Improvements for the Main Level commercial space, Unit 101. In addition to improvements to Unit 101,
the applicant is planning to improve Limited Common Element (L.C.E.)Space#1 in the basement.
Approvals for the redevelopment of the Property were granted through the attached Development
Order on December 26, 2010, and vested under the City of Aspen Land Use Code (the "vested Code")
that was active at the original point of land use application submittal during June of 2010. The vested
Code provides the following definitions for Net Leasable Area and Storage Area respectively:
Net Leasable Area (vested Code): Those areas within a commercial or office building which are or
which are designed to be leased to a tenant and occupied for commercial or office purposes,
exclusive of any area including but not necessarily limited to, areas dedicated to bathrooms,
stairways, circulation corridors, mechanical areas and storage areas provided, however, that these
areas are used solely by tenants on site.
Storage Area (vested Code): A detached accessory structure or separately accessible portion of a
structure, intended to house items normally associated with the principal use of the property but not
independently capable of residential, commercial, or lodging use. Areas defined for storage purposes
shall not contain plumbing fixtures or mechanical equipment that support the principal residential,
commercial or lodging use of the property. Mechanical equipment may be located in conjunction
with storage space, but the floor area on which mechanical equipment exists shall not be considered
storage area.
Because the storage areas designated in the basement of the Building were approved as meeting the
above definition, the floor areas of these storage areas were not included as part of the net leasable
area calculations associated with the Building approvals. Under the original vesting, these storage areas
were required to meet, and were therefore approved pursuant to, the definition of a storage area as
described above.
With the adoption of the current City of Aspen Land Use Code (the "current Code"), Storage Area is now
considered part of the Commercial Net Leasable Space of a building as provided for in the following
excerpt of Sec. 26.575.020.1:
P36
Measurement of Net Leasable Commercial Space (current Code):
The calculation of Net Leasable
Space shall include all interior space of a from
interior
to an wall
indiv dual tenant t
including interior partitions and inclusive of all area which
ays, meeting rooms, display areas, showrooms, kitchens, dining rooms, coot
including offices, hallw or
rooms, bathrooms, storage, storage rooms,
leased to a�enantSThe calculation of Net Leasable
T
waiting rooms and similar space which y esigned
ed to on
Space shall exclude common areas of a buildiCogmmonnsta�waysr dommon ciroculationscorridors,
individual tenant such as common bathrooms,
common mechanical areas, common storage areas or similar common spaces not intended or
designed to be leased to an individual tenant...
As a result of the modified definition of Net Leasable commercial s of Space with
nghappearrttonnofw the current
qualify as
Code, the existing storage areas designated in the basement
thout being
Net Leasable Commercial Area pursuant to the language in
nconformoty oroundefinable aslthey cannot
viewed as such, it would place these areas in a state
exist forward as void space or standalone storage space and not fall under the definition of Net Leasable
Commercial Area.
The specific clarification being sought is that, in fact, the de UsenCodd as Net Leasable commercial Area
the Spring Building are now viewed under the current Lan approvals or e need any aitional
and can operate and function as suc eut Assuming th thisf nqu ry isclarifie l
d as described herein,the
employee generation mitigation requirements.
building permit application will be submitted and reviewed by Zoning accordingly.
I would be happy to discuss the above items further with you. Please let me know if you have
questions, comments or need any Upon reaching an
signature�'n g p lease
in the s
acknowledge the City's agreement by signing p ace provided below
Sincerely yours,
V, C
Adam C. Roy
AGREED:
City of Aspen Community Development Department
By:
Date
Chris Bendon, Director
Spring Cafe Memo 01 -NLA Clarification (2013-04-15).docx Page 2
P37
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 2012 Awards Selection
DATE: April 17, 2013
SUMMARY: Since 1990, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has celebrated
local historic preservation successes by presenting awards to individuals, companies, and .
projects demonstrating excellence in preservation. This year's awards will be held on
May 13th during a City Council meeting. Descriptions of the categories are below, along
with a list of eligible projects. Photographs of the project will be presented at th
meeting.
Eligible projects were approved by HPC and have received Final Inspection or Certificate
of Occupancy within the last year. Only a few projects have been completed within this
period. There is no limit on the number of awards that may be presented. Within the last
few years, HPC identified a point system that could be used for reference in determining
which projects to recognize.
RESTORATION/REHABILITATION
.rEligible Projects:
❑ Hotel Jerome
❑ 612 W. Main shed
Maximum of 40 points:
o The quality and compatibility of design (including landscape) and workmanship with
the historic resource (0-5 points)
o The quality of new materials and restoration of historic material in accordance with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (0-5 points)
o Sensitivity to the building's historic and architectural character(0-5 points)
o The impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood/community(0-5 points)
o An outstanding example of creative work within the HPC design guidelines (0-5
points)
o An outstanding investment of time and money in restoring a building and landscape
to it's historic appearance (0-5 points)
o Adaptive use of a historic building that enhances the interpretation of the historic
resource (0-5 points)
1
P38
o Contribution or enhancement to the interpretation of the historic resource or Aspen
history (0-5 points)
NE
W CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT- No eligible projects
for 2012
NEW CONSTRUCTION ON A LANDMARK PROPERTY
Eligible Project:
El Butte Cemetery maintenance building
Maximum of 25 points:
o The quality and compatibility of design (including landscape), workmanship, and
materials within the historic district (0-5 points)
o Sensitivity to the adjacent buildings' historic ned hborhood/community (0-5 points)
o The impact of the project on the surrounding g
o An outstanding example of creative work within the HPC DesignGuidelines (0-5
points)
o Contribution or enhancement to the interpretation of the historic resource or Aspen
history (0-5 points)
THE "EXTRA EFFORT" AWAY
This award is for an individual or group that has taken extra steps to preserve a historic
resource.
Potential Recipient: ?
Maximum of 25 points:
• The participants' dedication to look at creative options in an effort to find the best
solution for the project(0-5 points)
• The participants' willingness to volunteer dg0na5ti a property or to sacrifice
some aspect of a property's development rights ( points) aterials
o The quality of design (including landscape), orkma sh parchrtectural cha0racte01(0 5
o Sensitivity to the districts or buildings historic
points)
o The impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood/community
(0-5 points)
THE ELIZABAETH PAEPCKE AWARD
rd is for an individual or group that has been along-time preservation 000leader,ho
This award
commitment to historic preser effort that has individual
hashad a clear impact on
has lead an outstanding one-time
preservation
Aspen.
Potential Recipient: ?
P39
Maximum of 20 points:
o The overall quality (craftsmanship, design, landscape, programming) of
their work(0-5 points)
o The innovative interpretation and enhancement of Aspen's heritage
through their work (0-5 points)
o Their dedication to preserving Aspen's heritage (0-5 points)
o Contribution of their work to the Aspen community(0-5 points)
THE WELTON ANDERSON AWARD
This award is for an individual or firm that has contributed to Aspen's built environment
through outstanding new design over a sustained period of time, or through one
particularly important project.
Potential Recipient: ?
Maximum of 20 points:
o The overall quality (craftsmanship, design, landscape) of their work
(0-5 points)
o Sensitivity to context (0-5 points)
o The innovative interpretation and enhancement of Aspen's heritage
through their work(0-5 points)
o Contribution of their work to the Aspen community(0-5 points)
3
•.t Ott . , .
_. "`_ b
:s y.lev
�a X77 ) I r
if
I'll,F
i
o
�r
�IIIt
7 9 f Q.,
lf
r.
is 1 t• �
7 1
3 r
� R ,
�v
R
M1�:L,� rCyt ire -
TI
t
• u � � `� ....,.o„ai.+..w.o-..r'w'-:=;�"�--".a« .+�iF'^*'e•'.'.JC.� '�'P Y^"'°�; vhYn+..P"a+ ,�> :.n.ow ..
zSt
r '
s
t �
h
t.•F'x
- � z
y amt
NIX!;
E,ti$�i+
i
1
r z {
v.
r'b
00 �
`t4li�fit; r
1
Y5 .f,7 r >„i r x� k4..1}4x" a Frc2Lt .t it »r~t x `R
17.Fi
"CWT'
t r•
«
>eL4le:,w N
b
y �
t