Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20170628 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 28, 2017 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. 12:00 SITE VISITS A. Meet at 201 E. Main, followed by 209 E. Bleeker II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. 4:40 OLD BUSINESS A. 201 E. Main Street- Minor Development Review, Demolition, Commercial Design Review, Setback Variations, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14TH DUE TO NOTICING ERROR IV. 5:50 NEW BUSINESS A. 209 E. Bleeker Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, Residential Design Standards, Floor Area Bonus, and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING V. 7:00 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 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) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 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. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2017 Vice Chair, Gretchen Greenwood brought the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Commissioners in attendance were Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, John Whipple, Bob Blaich, Richard Lai. Jim DeFrancia and Roger Moyer were absent. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk PUBLIC COMMENT: There were none. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: There were none. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: There were none. Mr. Halferty joined the meeting. STAFF COMMENT: Justin Barker handed out printed copies of the Commercial Design Guidelines, which replaced the old Commercial Guidelines that were previously in place. He mentioned that they can also be found online. He thanked the board for their input. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon issued a certificate for Louis Vuitton in the Mill St. Plaza Building, next to JCrew. She said that on the side of the shop are windows that are inoperable and want to replace with fixed windows. She stated that it looks exactly the same so she signed off. PROJECT MONITORING: 28 Smuggler Grove: Ms. Simon stated that this is a Victorian Restoration, which they are making an addition to and building a new detached home all on one lot together. There was a window change that did not have prior approval so that is the focus of the discussion this evening. This is regarding a street facing and noticeable window. Don Glenn was present speaking on the plans for the window. The change was regarding a 9 in horizontal member in between the bottom windows and the top windows that was not on the approved set of prints. Ms. Simon said that the house has a gable and both gable ends had windows approved. On the rear façade, they wanted to put a header in and hide an inoperable shade. They made the leap thinking they could also do this in the front and that’s where it got caught up with her and Ms. Greenwood. She also stated that it would be nice to have shades for some privacy. The windows should have all been mulled together, but instead have a thicker horizontal head between them. P1 II.B. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2017 Ms. Berko asked if it is functional and Mr. Glenn said yes. Ms. Greenwood stated that she didn’t have a problem with it all and she is fine with it. Mr. Whipple said that he agreed with Ms. Greenwood. Mr. Pember said that he thinks it looks awful as is and that it’s really miserable and needs to be clad not in wood, but metal so it matches the window cladding. Ms. Greenwood agreed so that it will look more like one unit. Mr. Glenn said this can be easily done and to clarify, he said he will clad in painted metal to match the bronze of the windows. MOTION TO APPROVE by voice vote: All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Simon stated that the next order of business was to continue 500 W Main. She said the architects missed the deadline for posting and mailing. She said that they need a motion to continue to April 26TH. MOTION: Ms. Berko moved to continue, Mr. Blaich seconded. Voice Vote: all in favor, motion carried. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon said that Monday night in Council, the Bidwell/Red Onion building was discussed and Council did not remand it to HPC so this project is done and they can now apply for a building permit. Ms. Berko mentioned that she saw in the paper that there are two positions open for the HPC board. Ms. Simon said yes, they are Mr. DeFrancia and Mr. Whipple’s seats. Mr. Whipple said he is thinking about reapplying to HPC, but is weighing things out and hasn’t decided yet. Ms. Simon stated that there are two project monitoring items to speak with Mr. Halferty and Mr. Pember about after the meeting is adjourned. Ms. Greenwood made a motion to adjourn at 4:47 pm. ________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P2 II.B. 3 P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent was Jim DeFrancia. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney MOTION: Ms. Greenwood motioned to approve the minutes of March 22, 2017, Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: none. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: none DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS: Mr. Halferty recused himself from the first item on the agenda because he lives within 300 feet. PROJECT MONITORING: none. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that on Monday night, there were five Aspen properties designated as historic. Thank you for your effort and thank you to Ann Mullins for pursuing this with Council. This is a great thing to have happen. She meant to send email about 232 E Bleeker behind Hotel Jerome. They had issued a stop work order and are looking at having a special meeting on Wednesday May 31st. Ms. Berko noted that she will be absent on May 24th and will not be able to attend for 232 E Bleeker due to conflict. Mr. Moyer asked if they should have a site visit at 232 E Bleeker and Ms. Simon answered yes. Mr. Halferty asked if the contractor has done some work to protect it from the elements and Ms. Simon answered yes, they issued a second permit to button it up. They did an inspection today to make sure the site has been secured. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon issued one for a new ADA compliant door to Bidwell Building. There is a shop called “Kith” in the front and there was an opportunity to change a window into a door and get accessibility into that space. Right now, there are a couple of steps you have to go up to enter into the shop. This has been an outstanding issue that the building department has tried to correct for a long time. That building is slated to be demolished and replaced anyway. Mr. Halferty asked if we have public notice for the agenda items and Ms. Bryan stated that she has seen the notice for 500 W. Main. Sara Adams with Bendon Adams is bringing the notice for 210 W. Main. CALL UP REPORTS: none. HPC TYPICAL PROCEEDINGS: none. P4 II.B. OLD BUSINESS: Item A: 500 W. Main – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review and Variations: Mr. Halferty left the room. Ms. Simon began by saying this project was seen a little over a year ago for conceptual review. This has the biggest false front building left in Aspen. A year ago, you saw a proposal to make a two-story addition on the west side. The property is owned by Roland & Broughton Architects and this would be their new headquarters. After the initial approval, they had to consider the cost and scaled back the project. The new proposal is to leave the historic building in place along with an existing partial basement that will be preserved. She would like HPC to consider design, special review related to floor area, variations related to parking & setbacks, onsite pedestrian amenity, transportation impacts and trash area. Staff is recommending approval as before. This is subject to old commercial guidelines, but the new HPC guidelines. We think this is modest in scale, well placed and only about 20 feet wide. We are asking for set-back variations for the front yard and side yard. They are allowed 6000 feet of floor area, but can only get to that number by combining residential and commercial space. There is no longer residential space being built, but they would like to maximize square footage on the lot and will all be used as commercial space and staff is supporting this. Related to parking, there is only one parking space on site and is larger than the normal width. The rest of the alley is for trash storage and a bicycle path. They should be providing four to five spaces and are asking for a parking reduction from HPC. They are planning to restore this back to the previous historic design. Mr. Pember asked Amy to explain why staff thinks eliminating parking spaces is a good idea and she responding by saying that with trash and a transformer on site, there is just not enough room. They have the option to pay cash in lieu for what they cannot provide. $30,000 per space. HPC can waive that cash. Ms. Greenwood asked if Ms. Simon discussed public amenity and Ms. Simon answered yes, they need to provide 650 square feet and they are providing a 1000 square feet so no variation needed there. Mr. Blaich asked the question of where everyone is going to park and the balance of how this will work. Ms. Simon advised the applicant to go over this in their presentation. Ms. Greenwood asked about the general Planning Dept opinion on these commercial buildings that have residential and commercial space. Ms. Simon responded by saying that the zoning of the neighborhood is mixed use. The new code no longer allows mixed use, but they could choose to do a residential unit, but they do not want to and it won’t be any different in form and mass. John Roland and Dana Ellis presenting on behalf of Rowland and Broughton. Ms. Ellis described how they dug deeper into the historic potential this time around. They looked at the historic footprints of the building, but dealing with today’s setbacks and keeping the commercial feel of the building. It will have a false store front and idea of the mesa design concept. They will have a green roof, which is both modern and harkening back to what was there where grasses and plants native to area can grow. They are ambitious to move through conceptual review as this will be the future home of their offices so have some added pressures, etc. The parking that they currently have is 3 spots and will not be adding employees so they have a rotation for these three spots. They are getting a fleet of bikes and consider themselves a walking office. They have a carpool spot and no one is concerned about losing one parking space. P5 II.B. Mr. Blaich asked where the parking for contractors and clients will be Mr. Roland responded that they will have to fend for themselves and they aren’t sure where they park now at their current space. He stated that they also go to their clients for meetings at their homes or meet in outside places. Mr. Pember asked if they did a traffic study and Ms. Simon stated that they were not required to. Ms. Greenwood asked if they get housing waived and Ms. Simon stated that they should do a growth management review to do that calculation, but they do get some breaks on that. Ms. Ellis noted that the transformer is not on the site plan and is something they found out about later, but does not impact the massing of the property. She said it is setback 24 inches from what the board is looking at on their site plan. Mr. Pember asked how many of their employees live in Aspen besides the principles and Mr. Roland answered seven not including himself and Sara. There are people in Snowmass who drive or carpool and a lot of people in Carbondale who take the bus or carpool. They are not expecting to expand with more employees at this point. Mr. Pember asked if the connector has grown since the last presentation and Mr. Roland said it is the same size and same concept. It is glassy and transparent with the view looking into the kitchen. The main window on new façade will be the main conference room and you can see the activity going on inside. Mr. Pember asked if there is some expansion of the second-floor landing in which Ms. Ellis said yes. Ms. Greenwood asked if that is a roof over the open space over the two buildings and Ms. Ellis said yes, but it will appear smaller. Ms. Greenwood asked if it is accessible and Mr. Roland said yes, they will use as a deck and to have meetings outside. Ms. Greenwood clarified that it is a different level than the roof garden and Mr. Roland confirmed and said the garden cannot be accessed. PUBLIC COMMENT: none. Ms. Berko is in support of the project, but has a real problem with the parking. The residential areas take a hit on supporting the commercial use. Cash in lieu is great, but it doesn’t solve the problem of cars and is her only concern with this application. Mr. Blaich stated that he is comfortable with their answer and think it will balance out. No one is living in that neighborhood so no one is parking there, in his opinion. He hasn’t seen any kind of an overload problem over there. He respects what Ms. Berko said and agrees, but would speak up if he thought it was a problem. He likes the design and cut back on it makes it better from original proposal. He thinks it respects the site and honors the history of the Mesa when it was a bakery and just ate a cookie in honor of that. Mr. Moyer agrees with staff and thinks they have done a marvelous job, however, the cars aren’t going to go away, but we approve all of these projects with no parking. It doesn’t make sense. It is silly. He suggested that they have a special meeting just on parking alone and give recommendations to council. Mr. Pember said he tends to agree with Ms. Berko. He said the whole question of garbage cans and the transformer seems 11th hour and if they looked at alley more closely, it seems like an awfully big ask with people coming and going, clients, employees, etc. This is very annoying to not have any spots P6 II.B. available. He would hate imposing mayhem on the street scape and asked them to look more closely at getting rid of some garbage cans and adding some spots. Ms. Greenwood agreed with Mr. Pember and said she would like to see less of a linking element. It seems like the west façade of the building will be obliterated and the upper deck doesn’t have to be there. It seems like a lot of mass added onto the side of the building and agrees with the parking issues. Motion: Mr. Pember made a motion to continue with a denial of the waiver of the parking cash in lieu if they do not have come back with same parking spaces from previous approval and come up with a one story linking element. With a May 10th continuance, Ms. Greenwood seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, no; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Mr. Pember, yes. 4-2, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 210 W Main: Conceptual Major Development Review, Demolition, Special Review, Residential Design Standard Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review Mr. Halferty has rejoined the meeting. Ms. Bryan received the legal notice and said ok to proceed. Justin Barker started by saying that this property is located right on Main between First and Second Streets and is a 6000 square foot lot. Contains one hybrid commercial and residential space and one affordable housing unit. The proposed project includes demolishing the existing development and replacing with eight affordable housing units. This would be a little shy of 7,400 square feet of floor area with six parking spaces located in the alleyway. The requested approvals would be: demolition, Conceptual design review, special review for increase of floor area and parking with a deficit of one space as well as a waiver, asking for height increase to 32 feet. This project was submitted before the moratorium went into effect. The staff is concerned that they restudy mass and scale to relate to historic development modules and mining era buildings. Building placement and setbacks would be the second concern, relating to Victorian historic development. Staff would like to see some sloped roof elements added as well and an entry door located on the front facing unit. Staff is supportive of the parking reduction with a cash in lieu payment, similar to what was granted for the Fornell affordable housing project down the street. They would also like a FAR increase or height increase, but staff is not in support of what’s being requested at this time. Staff recommends a continuation. Sara Adams of Bendon Adams and Ted Guy who is the architect and property owner are present. Ms. Adams speaking first said this is a request for a 100 % affordable housing project. They are not looking for a vote tonight, they know lots of discussion needs to happen and are looking for a continuation for the end of May. The commercial unit would be removed so the deed restriction would be lifted and then would become eight free market residential units. Mr. Guy has owned the building since 1994 and it was originally called the Flower Garden Apartments. In 1995, they moved her salon into this building making it mixed-use. He said he has had a passion for affordable housing and has been thinking about this project for the past 15 years. It’s currently being used as affordable housing and there are currently ten tenants. Will provide a car on property as “car to go” program as part of their rent. It’s a great location and close to people’s jobs. P7 II.B. Ms. Adams said there are a variety of styles and roof forms in this area and there are not many other historic buildings around this one as it is in a gap area. There are high density lodge uses in this area. They are planning to maintain the same number of parking spaces and she says they meet all of the setbacks. Mr. Guy really wanted to create an interior protected courtyard to have some livability off of Main Street. Mr. Guy’s goals are to keep this project affordable and livable and there will be storage for all units provided. All units will have washers and dryers and he’s creating it as if he would be living there. The third goal is contextual design and this building will serve as a background building to support the architecture going on around it. There are a mix of landmarks, inspiring new design and then some background buildings so it fits into the district and blends in, but will be a little bit taller than the Annabelle Inn. They will plan to use a hybrid vertical collector – tromb wall , which is a highly efficient way to heat in the winter and then in the summer to bleed heat out of the building. There would be solar collectors on front façade. Ms. Adams said they would like feedback on the site plan, architecture/mass and leed (solar collectors) Mr. Halferty asked what Mr. Guy was thinking about the windows and he responded that it would be a low reflective glass and right now it looks misleading on the plans and featureless. Mr. Pember asked if the tromb wall will be heating water or space and Mr. Guy said probably both and will do space heating and cooling. Ms. Greenwood asked how many design variances are required and Mr. Barker replied that it is just one. Mr. Halferty asked staff if they feel the criteria has been met and Mr. Barker replied no, not on mass and scale. Ms. Greenwood asked what the reason is for the additional 1400 square feet and Mr. Guy responded that each unit must be 900 square feet to meet category 3 requirements and there are eight of them. Mr. Pember asked if the objections from staff are looking through the lens of current code and Mr. Barker said it is based on the old guidelines. There is not a lot that has changed in the code as far as scaling and FAR. The height is really the only thing that has changed. PUBLIC COMMENT: Brodie Kettlekamp speaking on behalf of his family and they have owned historic miners house behind the existing structure and was purchased in 1968. Brodie currently lives in the home behind the proposed structure and has a beautiful view of Aspen Mountain and feels their view would be diminished if this building is built at 32 ft. Pierre Willie owns the Tyrolean Lodge and has a couple of concerns. He feel that the car to go is a bad idea and will take up another parking space. Mr. Guy downplays the parking problem and should be considered five parking places instead of six and with eight units it will add traffic to the side streets. He is concerned about Mr. Guy being the project manager. This project will be super high impact on his hotel so would expect this to be done in a speedy manner and he also thinks his view will be obstructed. Mr. Barker mentioned the email received from Todd Kettlekamp and was forwarded to HPC members and has been added to the record. Mr. Guy shares Pierre’s concerns as far as quickness and thinks it will take about 10 months. He also noted that he will not be the project manager and will hire someone to do that. The existing building is 24 feet tall and has been a flat roof building since early 70’s. P8 II.B. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Greenwood doesn’t think it comes close to being built on Main St. regarding mass and scale. The structure needs a sloping roof and the protected courtyard is forcing building to be too tall with area that could be used for living space. She thinks six parking spaces are ok, but it’s uncomfortable for her to see a three story building on Main Street. Mr. Lai agrees in part with Ms. Greenwood where the three stories bothers him and says it’s not ok on Main St. He does appreciate the interior courtyard, but feels it has sacrificed living space. He likes the six parking spots, but is not sure about the car to go. He disagrees with Ms. Greenwood on the view from the back alleys. The façade bothers him, but he really enjoys the affordable housing idea and thinks it’s very beneficial to the community. Ms. Berko supports everything from the staff memo. She is looking forward to seeing this when it comes back, but says as stewards of the historic district, she feels it is totally out of scale with the neighborhood and Main St. and would like to not have it higher than 28 ft. Mr. Pember does like the interior courtyard, but thinks there is a big price paid for it. He applauds the approach to technology and desire and wants to see lots of graphics regarding the tromb wall for us to understand and get behind it and is fine with the flat roof. Mr. Blaich makes motion to extend, Mr. Moyer seconds. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Moyer agrees with staff and is ok with variance. He applauds the green technology, but feels this is new Aspen and not old Aspen. He said maybe they could get more height with a sloped roof and hopefully not block neighbor’s views. He has no issue with parking and recommend continuance with all of comments from staff. Mr. Blaich doesn’t disagree with anything he’s heard and feels that all other buildings in the neighborhood have character. He thinks this is a practical and functional building, but it doesn’t have any spirit. He says to come back with something more acceptable and Mr. Guy has been in the community a long time and has a good feel for how to do this. Mr. Halferty referenced chapter 7 in the guidelines which talks about mass and scale and said this is the deciding factor for continuation. He also echoed the architect and designer for the green technology being used and appreciates it, but said there is a price to pay. He liked the size of the units and the storage for each unit. He said he is ok with part of the flat roof, but a possible mirage of sloped roofs to help conform to the guidelines. He said he is ok with the parking and thinks the car share is an interesting concept, but maybe make an extra space to take the burden off of the lot and streets. He thought he height on the alley definitely seemed tall on site today after looking at the other buildings. He said we can make sure it’s a good fit into neighborhood. Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 7:10 pm. __________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P9 II.B. P10 II.B. 201 E. Main Street Staff memo 6.28.2017 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 201 E. Main Street - Minor Development, Demolition, Commercial Design Review, Setback Variations, Public Hearing continued from June 14 DATE: June 28, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 201 E. Main is a 9,000 square foot parcel, zoned Mixed Use (MU) and located in the Main Street Historic District. The site currently contains vacant commercial space. The surrounding development includes primarily commercial and residential, with Paepcke Park to the west. There are two historic masonry structures in the northwest and southwest corners of the lot connected by a non-historic wood addition. The masonry structures were built in 1889, with the front building containing an office and a residence. The rear building was two residences. The stucco is believed to have been added in the 1940s/50s. The property remained in residential use until the 1980s when Main Street Bakery took over the space until late last year. This is the only example of a Terrace style structure in Aspen, which are mostly unique to Colorado from the 1880s-1920. Terrace structures are one- to two-story brick structures with flat roofs and corbeled cornices that served predominately as residences with multiple units. The applicant proposes to demolish the non-historic addition and construct a new slightly larger addition in roughly the same location. The applicant requests the following reviews from HPC: 1. Demolition 2. Minor Development review 3. Combined Commercial Design review 4. Setback Variations Staff recommends approval of the project with conditions. APPLICANT: 201 E. Main Holdings, LLC, 2416 E. 37th Ave. N., Wichita, KS 67219, represented by Rybak Architecture & Development, P.C. and Backen, Gillam & Kroeger Architects. PARCEL ID: 273707328001. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A, B, & C, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONE DISTRICT: MU, Mixed Use. P11 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Staff memo 6.28.2017 2 Figure 1 – Locator and Zoning Map PROPOSAL: The proposed project includes demolition of the existing infill addition between the historic masonry buildings, construction of a new infill addition, and construction of a service enclosure on the south wall. The project also includes relocation of a historic window, reconstruction of the south wall, new exterior lighting, a new trash enclosure and code-compliant parking area, and general landscape improvements. DEMOLITION (EXHIBIT A): As a designated historic property, demolition of any development on site requires HPC approval. The current photo below shows the area to be demolished in red. The other photo below from 1965, as well as an Architectural Inventory form from 1975, indicate that the current construction was not part of the original structure and was added more recently within the past 50 years. The current wood construction contains no historic, architectural or cultural significance. Staff finds the criteria for demolition within a historic district to be met for the non-historic wood addition. P12 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Staff memo 6.28.2017 3 201 E. Main Street from east, current. 201 E. Main Street from east, 1965. Aspen Historical Society Additionally, the alley wall of the structure has been significantly affected by trapped moisture and has been recommended for demolition by the Applicant’s structural engineer. There are several options to rebuilding historic walls which include: 1. Retain and repair existing material, if possible 2. Rebuild using same or similar material to match 3. Build using different material to differentiate from historic construction Although the preferred method is to retain as much of the existing material as possible, the brick is not usable, as the structural integrity of the material has been lost due to the moisture. There are several guidelines that suggest how to deal with historic building materials: P13 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Staff memo 6.28.2017 4 2.1 Preserve original building materials. · Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. · Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. · Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. · Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. · Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. · If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. · Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. · If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish. · Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent. The Applicant is representing to rebuild this wall using wood siding as the exterior material to distinguish it from the historic walls. Staff believes a brick wall without a coat of stucco may be an appropriate option as well. Staff would like HPC to weigh in on whether the south wall should be brick to match the underlying historic material or wood to match the new construction and differentiate from the historic development. MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW: The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision P14 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Staff memo 6.28.2017 5 shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” Staff responses are broken down by topic area below. Building Form: The property was originally developed with two small one-story masonry buildings in 1889. Over time there were several other small wooden structures and additions that were developed and subsequently demolished on the property, eventually resulting in the current wooden structure that connects the two masonry structures. The historic structures are rectangular in form with low sloped roofs and parapet walls that are flat on the two street facing sides and stepped on the courtyard side. The proposed addition is generally rectangular in form as well, with slight recesses at each corner to retain the prominence and clarity of the historic structures. The main addition includes a flat roofline which relates well to the historic structures. The applicant is also proposing a mechanical enclosure on top of the addition that includes a pitched roof form, which staff does not support. Originally, Main Street was developed as almost entirely residential with wood frame, gable roof structures. There are few flat-roofed or false front structures that were typically commercial buildings developed on corner lots. The flat roofs and false front are unique features that differentiate the history of these buildings and should be supported in new additions. A couple design guidelines speak to roof forms, but both suggest that the roof forms should relate to adjacent historic buildings: Main Street Historic District Commercial Design Guidelines 3.5 Roof forms should be in character with surrounding historic buildings. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. In response to staff comments, the Applicant has included an alternative option with a basic mechanical screen in place of the pitched roof enclosure. Staff believes that this form better relates to the existing historic forms and becomes more secondary to the historic buildings. The proposed mechanical equipment does not appear to meet the minimum setback of 15 feet from the Aspen Street façade required by the Land Use Code. The location of this will need to be adjusted to meet the requirement. Additionally, the mechanical equipment in the screened design appears almost a foot taller than in the gable design. These should be minimized as the Historic Preservation Guidelines suggest: 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. · Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with P15 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Staff memo 6.28.2017 6 materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. Gable roof enclosure Flat screen enclosure Fenestration: The proposed addition includes several double-hung windows on both the east and west façades that are ganged together in a curtain wall fashion. Double-hung windows appear in a variety of sizes and configurations on both historic buildings. Although the proposed windows do not exactly match any of the existing proportions, they fall within the range of existing widths. Given this existing variety, staff is comfortable with the proposed window design with the exception of the alignment. The proposed alignment sits higher up at both the sill and header level. The alignment of windows is a simple way to provide a relationship between the historic and new and allows for the varied proportions and is mentioned in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. Staff would like to see the sill height of the new windows more closely align with the historic windows, as this has a greater impact on the pedestrian experience. P16 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Staff memo 6.28.2017 7 The photograph from 1965 below indicates that there were originally three windows on the courtyard facing east façade of the north historic building. Over time, the middle window has been replaced by a door, while the other two windows have remained intact. The Applicant would like to switch the southern window on this façade with the door. The main purpose of this is to meet building code separation for exits from the proposed dining area. The historic preservation guidelines ask to preserve historic window locations and sizes. The proposed design relocates an existing historic window which is contrary to the guidelines, but is being relocated where it restores a previously altered window location. Staff supports the window and door switch as it restores a historic condition and subsequently moves the non-historic door further away from the Main Street façade, retaining a more accurate representation of the original design from the street view. The Applicant will need to study evidence of the original opening locations, particularly visible inside the structure now that they have gutted the interior, and use the exact original opening in relocating the window. 201 E. Main Street, 1965. Aspen Historical Society Proposed east façade of north building P17 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Staff memo 6.28.2017 8 Materials: The materials for the current development include masonry on the historic structures and wood on the non-historic addition. At some point (estimated around the 1940s/50s), the masonry was covered with stucco, which is still in place today. The Applicant has tested the materials to determine if removal of the stucco is possible, but discovered that a significant amount of moisture was trapped in the wall structure resulting in deterioration of the brick in such a way that the stucco cannot be removed without destroying the brick. The proposed addition is primarily wood siding and trim, which is consistent with the existing addition and serves as a distinct contrast from the historic buildings but a complimentary material for the historic district. The Applicant is proposing a slate roof for both the mechanical enclosure and the service enclosure. Slate was not used historically in Aspen and would not be appropriate for this addition. The Main Street Historic District guidelines state: 3.14 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. The application does not mention any additional repair or restoration work on the building other than the alley wall. There are several aspects of the building that may need repair or restoration as part of this remodel, such as the historic windows and front porch. Staff recommends a preservation plan detailing any such work should be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to building permit submittal. Landscaping: Changes to the landscaping include replacement of the existing wood fences on the north and east property lines with a new wood picket fence and replacement of several smaller trees and shrubs along the north and west property lines. None of these items are historic as older photographs indicate the property was more of an open front yard without a fence or landscaping. There are several mature trees on and adjacent to this property that Parks has identified for preservation, but they have not expressed any concerns with the other proposed changes. Staff would like to see the proposed evergreen plants along the base of the west and north sides of the historic structures removed. These are uncharacteristic of the historic landscape and may introduce too much moisture along the foundation of the building. A minimum of 25% of the gross lot area is required as pedestrian amenity, which can be provided in a variety of methods, including at-grade open space. The proposed design leaves the eastern courtyard largely intact, which represents approximately 56% of the lot area, easily meeting the pedestrian amenity requirement. Lighting: The proposal also includes several new light fixtures on the exterior of the building. There are existing gooseneck fixtures on the north façade above each of the windows, between the two doors, and in the gable of the porch. There is also a gooseneck fixture on the east façade high near the parapet above the “café” sign. The proposal includes replacing the existing gooseneck fixtures with new ones that are similar in style. Considering there are existing light fixtures in these locations of a similar design, staff is comfortable with the gooseneck fixtures. The Applicant is also proposing a series of wall sconces along the east and south façades. There is currently only one existing light fixture on the east façade, located above the door to be relocated. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines state: P18 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Staff memo 6.28.2017 9 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. · The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. · New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. · Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. · One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. · On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. Several additional wall mounted lights are not consistent with the character of the historic building and should be limited to only entries, particularly given the fragile state of the wall construction. Any additional code required lighting should be ground mounted or located on the non-historic development. VARIATIONS (EXHIBIT C): The Applicant is requesting variations to reduce the west side yard and south rear yard setbacks to zero (0) feet to accommodate the new addition and service enclosure. In addition to these requests, staff recommends memorializing setback variances for the existing historic structure in the west and north setbacks. See figure below for setback variance locations, with new construction in orange and historic development in blue. Setback variation locations P19 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Staff memo 6.28.2017 10 Setback variations on historic properties may be granted if the variation: 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 new construction is proposed to generally align with the two historic buildings along Aspen Street, with recessed edges to help define the corners of the historic structures. This is in alignment with the guidelines which also suggest maintaining the existing pattern of setbacks and alignment of facades. It also allows for a more efficient development layout that does not encroach into the landscape area to the east. The existing south wall is in extreme disrepair and needs to be reconstructed. This allows for a small service enclosure to screen essential services without compromising the integrity of the historic structure. Any other location on the site would be inappropriate and have a negative impact on the integrity of the historic structure. For these reasons, staff supports the requested variations. ______________________________________________________________________________ DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: · approve the application, · approve the application with conditions, · disapprove the application, or · continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the project with the following conditions: 1. The project must include repair of all existing historic exterior materials and features, including masonry, doors, windows, and porch. A preservation plan detailing all repair and restoration work shall be submitted to staff for approval prior to building permit submittal. 2. Align the sills of the windows in the addition with the sills of the windows in the historic structures. 3. Examine the exposed masonry on the interior of the front structure to identify the exact location to re-install the historic east facing window. 4. Remove all proposed wall sconces on the historic east walls that are not above an entry. 5. All mechanical equipment shall also be set back from any street-facing façade a minimum of 15 feet. Final mechanical equipment selection shall be submitted to staff for approval prior to building permit submittal. 6. Slate, which is proposed as a roofing material over the rooftop mechanical and on the rear lean-to, was not used historically in Aspen and is not an approved roofing material. Final selection of a wood shingle or metal roof material shall be approved by staff and monitor. 7. The proposed evergreen plants are not approved along the base of the west and north sides of the historic structures because they are uncharacteristic of the historic landscape and may introduce too much moisture along the foundation of the buildings. P20 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Staff memo 6.28.2017 11 EXHIBITS: A. Demolition Review Criteria B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Variation Review Criteria D. Application E. Design Revisions – June 15, 2017 P21 III.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. -, Series 2017 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. - (SERIES OF 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING DEMOLITION, MINOR DEVELOPMENT, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, AND SETBACK VARIATION APPROVALS FOR 201 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS A, B, & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273707328001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 201 E. Main Holdings, LLC (Applicant), represented by R ybak Architecture & Development, P.C. and Backen, Gillam & Kroeger Architects, for the following land use review approvals: · Demolition pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, · Minor Development pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, · Setback Variations pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, · Commercial Design Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application, April 26, 2017, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code, the Community Development Director may combine reviews where more than one (1) development approval is being sought simultaneously; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended continuation; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on June 28, 2017, continued from June 14, 2017, during which time the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution No. -, Series of 2017, by a - to - (- - -) vote, granting approval with the conditions listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Demolition, Minor Development, Commercial Design Review, and Setback Variation approvals for the project as presented to HPC on June 28, 2017, with the following conditions: P22 III.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. -, Series 2017 Page 2 of 3 1. HPC grants the following setback variations: a. West side yard setback reduced to zero (0) feet to recognize the historic development conditions and to accommodate the proposed infill development. b. South rear yard setback reduced to zero (0) feet to accommodate a new service enclosure. c. North front yard setback reduced to zero (0) feet to recognize the historic development conditions. 2. The project must include repair of all existing historic exterior materials and features, including masonry, doors, windows, and porch. A preservation plan detailing all repair and restoration work shall be submitted to staff for approval prior to building permit submittal. 3. Align the sills of the windows in the addition with the sills of the windows in the historic structures. 4. Examine the exposed masonry on the interior of the front structure to identify the exact location to re-install the historic east facing window. 5. Remove all proposed wall sconces on the historic east walls that are not above an entry. 6. All mechanical equipment shall also be set back from any street-facing façade a minimum of 15 feet. Final mechanical equipment selection shall be submitted to staff for approval prior to building permit submittal. 7. Slate, which is proposed as a roofing material over the rooftop mechanical and on the rear lean-to, was not used historically in Aspen and is not an approved roofing material. Final selection of a wood shingle or metal roof material shall be approved by staff and monitor. 8. The proposed evergreen plants are not approved along the base of the west and north sides of the historic structures because they are uncharacteristic of the historic landscape and may introduce too much moisture along the foundation of the buildings. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. P23 III.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. -, Series 2017 Page 3 of 3 Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 28th day of June, 2017. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Halferty, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P24 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit A – Demolition Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A DEMOLITION 26.415.080.A. Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties or properties within a Historic District. 4. 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, 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 Staff Findings: There is no known documentation that the infill structure has any historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. The 1890 Sanborn map below shows other structures that were located between the two masonry structures that have been replaced over time. The photograph on the following page from 1965 also shows the current structure is a more recent addition and does not carry historic significance. Staff finds criterion d) to be met. P25 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit A – Demolition Page 2 of 3 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 Findings: Additionally, the area to be demolished does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Main Street Historic District, loss of the structure would not adversely affect the integrity of the district. There are several adjacent designated properties that will not be affected by demolition of this structure. Demolition of the structure is inconsequential to the historic preservation needs. Staff finds these criteria to be met. The south wall of the structure has been significantly affected by the trapped moisture and has been recommended for demolition by the Applicant’s structural engineer. There are several options to rebuilding historic walls which include: 1. Retain and repair existing material, if possible 2. Rebuild using same or similar material to match 3. Build using different material to differentiate from historic Although the preferred method is to retain as much of the existing material as possible, the brick is not usable as the structural integrity of the material has been lost due to the moisture. The guidelines suggest that original materials should be matched when replacing on primary surfaces. The Applicant is representing to rebuild this wall using wood siding as the exterior material to distinguish it from the historic walls. Staff believes a brick wall with no stucco may be an appropriate option as well. Staff would like HPC to weigh in on whether the south wall should be brick to match the P26 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit A – Demolition Page 3 of 3 underlying historic material or wood to match the new construction and differentiate from the historic development. P27 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 1 of 16 EXHIBIT B DESIGN GUIDELINES Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. · Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. · Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. · When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable. · Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones. · Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flower or add landscape. · Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged. · Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas. · Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a case by case basis. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. · Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. · Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. · Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. · When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. · Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater faciltiies and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. P28 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 2 of 16 · Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. · Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. · Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. · If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. · The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. · Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. · Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. · Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. · Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. · Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. · Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. · Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-by-case basis. · Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. · Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. · Uplighting is not allowed. 1.15 Preserve original fences. · Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved, removed, or inappropriately altered. · Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair. · Replacement elements must match the existing. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. P29 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 3 of 16 Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the character of a property. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. · The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of significance. · A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations. · Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. · A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not oversized. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. · A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature. · For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket. · For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. · Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. · A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. · A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. · All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. · An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape should be done before the beginning of any project. · The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved. P30 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 4 of 16 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. · Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape. · Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures. · Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site. · All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work. · New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features. · Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. · Minimize the impact of additional vehicular circulation. · Minimize the visual impact of additional parking. · Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. · Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. · Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. · Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. · Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. · Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. · If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. · Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. · If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish. · Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent. P31 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 5 of 16 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. · Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows. · Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them. · Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass for the repair. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. · Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. · Do not change the size of an original window opening. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. · If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. · Changing the window opening is not permitted. · Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. · A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. · The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. · Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls. · New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc. · Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade. · Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. P32 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 6 of 16 · Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. · Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. · If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. · Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. · Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. · A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. · A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered. · Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties. · Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. · Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource. · Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary walls. · A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the building and should be a product of its own time. · Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. · Repair only those features that are deteriorated. · Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. · On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. P33 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 7 of 16 · Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. · Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. · If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. · The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. · When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. · For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. · HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. · A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. · An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. · An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. · An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. · Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. · The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. · The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story P34 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 8 of 16 o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at least 10 feet. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: · The connector element that links the new and old construction is a breezeway or transparent corridor, well recessed from the streetfacing side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two story construction that appears directly behind the one story historic resource is minimal · The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource · The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource · The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically · There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed · The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or · The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. · An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. · A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. · Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. P35 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 9 of 16 · Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. · Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. · There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. · Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. An addition can not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. · An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. · Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate. · Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. · Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. · A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. · On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. · Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. P36 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 10 of 16 · All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. · The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. · New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. · Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. · One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. · On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. · Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. · Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. · Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. · Window air conditioning units are not allowed. · Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. · Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds · In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather that a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. · Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. 12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric. · Where possible, install a free standing sign that is appropriate in height and width. Consolidate signage for multiple businesses. · Mount signs so that the attachment point can be easily repaired when the sign is replaced. Do not mount signage directly into historic masonry. P37 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 11 of 16 · Blade signs or hanging signs are generally preferred to wall mounted signs because the number of attachment points may be less. · Signs should be constructed of wood or metal. · Pictographic signs are encouraged because they add visual interest to the street. 12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed. · Pin mounted letters with halo lighting will not be approved on Aspen Victorian buildings. · The size of a fixture used to light a sign must be minimized. The light must be directed towards the sign. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign bracket. 12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. · Signs should be located on the first floor of buildings, primarily. · Signs should not obscure historic building details. 12.9 Preserve historic signs. General 1.1 All projects shall provide a context study. · The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc. 1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid. · A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area. Refer to specific chapters for more information. · Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets. 1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building. · This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right-of-way. · High quality and durable materials should be used. · Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an integral part of the landscape design process. 1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space, to semi-public space to private space. · This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element, covered walkway, or landscape. 1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate. · Consider the entire block of a neighborhood to determine appropriate building placement. Carefully examine and respond to the variety of building alignments that are present. P38 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 12 of 16 · Consider all four corners of an intersection and architectural context to determine appropriate placement for buildings located on corners. · Consider the appropriate location of street level Pedestrian Amenity when siting a new building. 1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. · Use varied building setbacks and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale. 1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. · All on-site parking shall be accessed off an alley where one is available. · Break up the massing of the alley facade, especially when garage doors are present. · Consider the potential for future retail use accessed from alleys and the desire to create a safe and attractive environment for cars and people. · If no alley access exists, access should be from the shortest block length. · Screen surface parking and avoid locating it at the front of a building. Landscaping and fences are recommended. · Consider a paving material change to define surface parking areas and to create visual interest. · Design any street-facing entry to underground parking to reduce visibility. Use high quality materials for doors and ramps and integrate the parking area into the architecture. 1.12 On lots larger than 6,000 square feet, break up building mass into smaller modules. · A street level front setback to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity in accordance with the Pedestrian Amenity Guidelines may be an appropriate method to break up building mass. · Building setbacks, height variation, changes of material, and architectural details may be appropriate techniques to vertically divide a building into modules. 1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic resource. · A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark. · A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping down in scale toward a smaller landmark. · Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials and fenestration. · When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. · When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site, and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of pedestrian scale. · When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size, shape, and proportion to those of the historic resource. 1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the street. · Finished floor and sidewalk level shall align for at least 1/2 the depth of the ground floor where possible. If significant grade changes exist on property, then the project will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. P39 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 13 of 16 · All buildings shall have at least one clearly defined primary entrance facing the front lot line, as defined in the Land Use Code. An entrance located within a chamfered corner is an alternative. (See Commercial Core Historic District). · If a building is located on a corner lot, two entrances shall be provided; a primary entrance facing the longest block length and a secondary entrance facing the shortest block length. 1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space. · An airlock or air curtain shall be integrated into the architecture. · Adding a temporary exterior airlock of any material to an existing building not allowed. 1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that conflict with the established scale are highly discouraged. · Transom windows above an entry are a traditional element that may be appropriate in neighborhoods with 19th century commercial buildings. · Entries should reflect the established range of sizes within the context of the block. Analyze surrounding buildings to determine appropriate height for entry doors. 1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the building. · Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen from view. · Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley access. · Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add visual interest. 1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade. · Minimize the visual impact of elevator shafts and stairway corridors through material selection and placement of elements. 1.20 Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design where feasible. 1.21 Minimize visibility of rooftops railings. · Mostly transparent railings are preferred. · Integrating the rooftop railing into the architecture as a parapet or other feature, may be appropriate considering the neighborhood context and proposed building style. · Set back the railing a distance that equals or exceeds the height of the railing. 1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required. · Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and location on the proposed building as part of the application. · Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior to installation may be required. 1.23 Building materials shall have these features: P40 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 14 of 16 · Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen historically in the Character Area. · Convey pedestrian scale. · Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension. · Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material. · Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate. · A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for secondary materials. 1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style of the building. 1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located along an alleyway where one exists, and screened from view with a fence or door. · Screening fences shall be 6 feet high from grade (unless prohibited by the Land Use Code), shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than 90% opaque, unless otherwise varied based on a recommendation from the Environmental Health Department. 1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys. 1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists. · Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or co-located on the roof. · Screen rooftop mechanical equipment and venting with a low fence or recess behind a parapet wall to minimize visual impacts. 1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. · Group and discreetly locate these features. · Use screening and materials that compliment the architecture. 1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and codes. · Place a transformer on an alley where possible. · Provide screening for any non-alley location. 1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23. 1.34 Consider updating windows, doors, and/or primary entrances to better relate to the Character Area and pedestrian experience. 1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain. P41 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 15 of 16 1.36 Incorporate elements that define the property line in accordance with Guideline 1.6. 1.37 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA compliance into the architecture are encouraged. · Minimize the appearance of ramps by exploring other on-site options such as altering interior floor levels or exterior grade. Main Street Historic District 3.1 Orient a new building or addition to the street. · All buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. · Generally, do not set a structure forward of any historic resources within the block. Alignment of front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot. 3.3 The imitation of older historic styles blurs the distinction between old and new buildings and is discouraged. · Overall, details should be modest in character. 3.5 Roof forms should be in character with surrounding historic buildings. · Roof forms should be simple. · If applicable, gable ends should be oriented toward the street. · Carefully consider roof eaves, orientation of ridgelines, roof pitch, dormers, and other features as a way to either create compatibility or differentiate a new building or addition. 3.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to historic buildings in the district. · The primary plane of the front elevation should not appear taller than historic structures. 3.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. · An addition that is lower, or similar in height to the existing building, is preferred. 3.9 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. · Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. · An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. · Detach building mass along alleyways, similar to the pattern of traditional shed development. 3.10 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian- era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. · These include windows, doors, and porches. · Overall, details should be modest in character. P42 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit B – Design Guidelines Page 16 of 16 3.11 Architectural details should reinforce the historic context of the block. · Consider how detailing can be used to create relationships between new and old buildings while still allowing for current architectural expression. · Consider scale, location, and purpose of historic detailing to inform new designs. · It is inappropriate to imitate historic details. 3.12 Primary materials should be wood or brick. · Alternate primary materials may be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the historic context of the block. 3.13 Secondary materials should relate to the historic context. · More variety is acceptable for secondary materials if a relationship to the historic palette can be demonstrated. · Stone should be limited to the foundation. 3.14 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. P43 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit C – Variances Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT C VARIATIONS 26.415.110.C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 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 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 Findings: The applicant is requesting two setback variations: 1. Side yard setback variation of 5 feet along the west property line 2. Rear yard setback variation of 5 feet along the south property line Staff also recommends memorializing setback variations for the existing historic structures for the west and north setbacks. The two existing historic structures both currently extend over the west property line and into the right-of-way by about 6 inches. The north structure extends into the front yard setback by a little more than 3 feet. The applicant is requesting a side yard setback variation to allow the new infill structure up to the property line. This allows the development to generally align with the historic development and prevents additional development from obscuring the historic resource on the east façade. The applicant is also requesting a rear yard setback variation to allow construction of a service vestibule. The existing service entrance is located in the southwest corner of the building and highly visible from Aspen Street and Paepcke Park. An enclosure allows for future tenants to screen necessary operations and enhance the aesthetic of the property. The south wall is also in disrepair and needs to be rebuilt. This is the most appropriate location to add a service enclosure instead of concealing more of the P44 III.A. 201 E. Main Street Exhibit C – Variances Page 2 of 2 historic development on the east façade. Staff finds the criteria to be met for the requested setback variations. P45 III.A. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 600 E. Hopkins Ave., Suite 303 Aspen, CO 81611 970 925 1125 dave@daverybak.com PROJECT: 201 E. Main Street Renovation DATE: April 26, 2017 TO: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: David Rybak ATTACHMENTS Items, including Cover DESCRIPTION Land Use Application, HPC Minor Development Agreement to Pay Application Fees Land Use Application Forms Pre-Application Conference Summary Owner’s Disclosure Statement-Pitkin County Title Letter Authorizing Representation H O A Compliance Policy Signed Land Use Application Written Summary Backen Gillam Kroeger-Land Use Submittal Drawings Ordinance No. 50-1986 HPC Staff Memo – 09/13/89 Exterior Light Fixture Cut Sheets Property Survey Vicinity Map COMMENTS: ACTION: For your review. CC: Dusan Motolik, BGKA P46 III.A. P47 III.A. P48 III.A. P49 III.A. AHPC 201 W. Main Street Minor Development 273707328001 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Justin Barker, 970.429.2797 DATE: 3/17/17 PROJECT: 201 W. Main Street REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Rybak, dave@daverybak.com DESCRIPTION: 201 W. Main Street is a landmarked property located within the Main Street Historic District. The existing development includes two historic structures that are linked together by a non-historic addition. The property owner would like to remodel and slightly expand the center portion of the building, and add a small partial enclosure on the alley side of the existing structure. The applicant has represented that the expansion will be less than 250 square feet of floor area. This will need to be demonstrated as part of the application. The proposal requires Minor Development Review by HPC, which is a one-step process. HPC must find that the relevant review criteria in Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code and the applicable design guidelines are met, in addition to the following reviews outlined below. Demolition of the existing portion of the structure also requires review by HPC, pursuant to Section 26.415.080. The proposed expansion also encroaches into the side yard setback. A setback variance may be granted by HPC, pursuant to Section 26.415.110.C, Variances. Revised Commercial Design Standards were just recently adopted by City Council via Ordinance 33, Series of 2016. This project is subject to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, and will be reviewed under the General and Main Street Historic District chapters of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. As a historic landmark property, the proposal will also need to meet the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapters 1, 10 & 12. The application will need to include documentation that the existing Pedestrian Amenity square footage is not being reduced, or a minimum of 25% of the gross lot area is provided at Pedestrian Amenity, pursuant to Section 26.412.070. The trash and recycle area will also need to be addressed in accordance with the General Chapter of the Standards and Guidelines and Section 12.10 of the Municipal Code. If the proposal increases the development by less than 250 square feet of floor area and 500 square feet of net leasable area, a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required for the project. However, the requirements of Chapter 26.515, Transportation and Parking Management will need to be met for the increase in commercial net leasable area. The available options to meet the parking impact requirement have been expanded by Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2016. The applicant is advised to meet with Transportation and Engineering Departments to discuss potential options to meet the parking impact requirement. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415.070.D Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development 26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district 26.415.110.C Benefits - Variances 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements P50 III.A. 2 26.710.180 Mixed Use (MU) zone district and Municipal Code Section 12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage Below are links for your convenience: Land Use App: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/businessnav/ApprovaltoDevelop/Land%20Use%20Application%20 Form.pdf Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use- Code/ Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/HPC/New%20Historic%20Preservation%20Guideline s.pdf Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines: https://app.box.com/s/wddyzggiei2wzr9imau5day9u61h21cc Review by: Staff for complete application and recommendation, HPC for decision Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC Planning Fees: $1,300 Deposit for 4 hours of staff time (less/additional planning hours are refunded or billed at a rate of $325/hour) Referral Fees: $325 Deposit for 1 hour of Engineering review (additional engineering hours are billed at a rate of $325/hour) Total Deposit: $1,625 To apply, submit 1 copy of the following information:  Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. P51 III.A. 3  HOA Compliance form (Attached)  A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.  Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations.  Accurate representation of exterior building materials, using photographs, physical samples, etc.  Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations.  A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Once the application is determined to be complete, submit:  12 copies of the project graphics.  Total deposit for review of the application.  A digital copy of the application emailed to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Please provide text and graphics as separate files. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P52 III.A. P53III.A. P54III.A. P55III.A. P56III.A. P57III.A. P58III.A. P59III.A. P60III.A. P61III.A. P62III.A. P63III.A. P64III.A. P65III.A. P66 III.A. P67III.A.          600 East Hopkins Avenue, Suite 303 Aspen, Colorado 81611 PH / FX 970 925 1125 daverybak.com 201 E. MAIN STREET (WEBER BUILDING) LAND USE APPLICATION – H.P.C. MINOR DEVELOPMENT APRIL 26, 2017 PROJECT OVERVIEW This application is submitted on behalf of 201 E. Main Holdings, LLC in conformance with the pre-application conference summary dated March 17, 2017. The subject property was designated a Historic Resource via Ordinance 50, 1986. The existing development consists of two brick structures dating from the 1890’s and a non-historic wood framed infill structure between the resources. Originally built as a residence, the building is unique for a residential structure, utilizing brick in an “Industrial” style. The original brick buildings were covered with stucco at some point during the 1940’s. Unfortunately, the stucco has caused trapped moisture within the walls to degrade the integrity of the bricks. Removal of the stucco would expose the soft inner cores of the bricks, and is therefore not possible. The property was purchased in January by the applicant; after operating the past 40 years as Main Street Bakery. The applicant is proposing a complete renovation of the resource and construction of a new infill structure between the masonry buildings. The new owner has undertaken similar rehabilitation projects in the Napa Valley, turning neglected structures into beloved resources of the community. The renovation of 201 E Main Street will facilitate the reopening of the building as a restaurant. Investigation of the existing structures has determined the brick buildings were constructed without foundations, and have been deteriorating at the base of the walls. The interior floors were framed in close proximity to exposed grade, and degradation of the joists is consistent throughout. The North building has aged better than the South. The exterior walls of both structures will require stabilizing the brick wythes and parapets. The structural capacity of the South building walls has deteriorated to the point where the walls can no longer support the roof loads. Structural Walls will be framed on the inside of this building to support the existing roof. This Minor Development proposal generates a functional kitchen to serve the restaurant, and brings the interior elements up to Building and Accessibility Code requirements through a minor expansion of the infill footprint. Minor site development is being proposed to bring the parking, trash enclosure and street scape up to current City of Aspen standards. Protection of the large spruce on the site has been discussed with the City Forester, as well as the construction impact upon the Cottonwood trees in the Aspen Street R.O.W. The west façade of the existing structures encroaches over the property line into the Aspen Street Right of Way. The entry gable and steps on the North Façade encroaches into the Main Street R.O.W. To minimize the impact on the exposure of the historic resources, the proposed development includes a request for a setback variance on the West and the South of the property. P68 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION APRIL 26, 2017   2    LAND USE CODE RESPONSES To avoid redundancy, the Commercial Design Guideline and Historic Preservation Guideline responses are combined. Commercial Guidelines are numbered CDG#.# and Historic Preservation Guidelines are numbered HPG#.#. Where guidelines overlap, both numbers are listed. 26.412 COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW (CDG) GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS SITE PLAN AND STREETSCAPES CDG1.1 CONTEXT STUDY The proposed development is an infill between two historic resources on the same property. The infill does not affect the Main Street streetscape. Therefore, no context study has been provided. CDG1.2 TRADITIONAL STREET GRID The existing and proposed development is orthogonal to Main and Aspen Streets. CDG1.3 LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS The proposed landscape and site design maintains the open character of the parcel. The significant majority of the parcel will remain open space. The existing trees and shrubs will be maintained, and enhanced as required. A low evergreen shrub is proposed for the west façade, to link the existing resources and screen the new infill structure. Reconfigured, code compliant parking spaces will have permeable pavers and contain the storm runoff water treatment systems within their perimeter. All new pavers will be permeable. CDG1.4 OPEN SPACE TRANSITIONS PA1.4 STREET LEVEL AMENITY PA1.5 OPEN TO THE SKY PA1.6 USEFUL, VERSATILE AND ACCESSIBLE PA1.7 ENHANCES PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE AND FACES STREET The existing site open space will receive a new street fence to identify the property line, and maintain the semi-public/private aspect of the terrace area. The existing shrubs will continue to provide visual screening to the area, while enhancing the pedestrian sequence along the sidewalk. CDG1.5 MAINTAIN ALIGNMENT OF FACADES The proposed infill structure maintains the façade alignment along the West and East façades. P69 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION APRIL 26, 2017   3    CDG1.6 DEFINE PROPERTY LINE CDG1.36 INCORPORATE ELEMENTS THAT DEFINE PROERTY LINE. PA1.8 REINFORCE THE PROPERTYLINE The existing North Façade of the historic resource is setback from the property line approximately 2’. An existing wood/metal fence will be replaced by a wood fence, placed on the property line, east of the structure. ALLEWAYS CDG1.7 DEVELOP ALLEY FACADES CDG1.29 DELIVERY AREAS LOCATED ALONG ALLEY The existing historic structure will be renovated to create the original window opening fenestration pattern. Three original tall double hung windows were removed and infilled with louvers and smaller windows over the years. These window openings will be returned to the original size, and infilled with solid material. A small enclosure is proposed at the Service Entrance. This enclosure creates an additive form along the alley, breaking the flat façade, and will function as a visual screen from Aspen Street and the Alley. PARKING CDG1.9 MINIMIZE VISUAL IMPACT OF PARKING The existing parking spaces will be brought up to code dimensions. 4 spaces, including one Accessible will be provided. The parking is located along the alley, and is partially screened by existing shrubs. BUILDING MASS, HEIGHT AND SCALE 1.11 HEIGHT DIFFERENCE OF 2’ 1.12 BREAK MASS STREET LEVEL DESIGN CDG1.14 COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE The Main Street entrance to the historic building has two single doors, side by side entrances. These doors will continue to function as the primary entrance to the building. The south historic structure has two single leaf doors on the West façade along Aspen Street. Raised several feet above the sidewalk, due to a grade transition, these doors have not been used as a functional entrance for decades. These doors will remain in place, but again, not serving as an entrance. CDG1.15 AIRLOCK Introduction of an air lock into the interior of the building would overwhelm the space to provide required clearances between doors. Therefore, an air curtain will be installed to maintain the interior conditioned space. P70 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION APRIL 26, 2017   4    070 PEDESTRIAN AMENITY (PA) PA1.1 MAXIMIZE SOLAR ACCESS TO PEDESTRIANS The one-story massing of the existing structure and proposed infill will maintain the solar access for pedestrians, both within the R.O.W. and on site. PA1.2 FOUR CORNER DESIGN ON CORNER LOTS The existing structure placement on the site prevents addressing he 4 corners of this location. MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT CDG3.1 ORIENT ADDITION TO THE STREET CDG3.9 PRESERVE HISTORIC ALIGNMENT HPG10.7 PRESERVE STREET ALIGNMENTS The infill maintains the alignment of the Aspen Street massing. ARCHITECTURE CDG3.2 DESIGN NEW STRUCTURE TO BE PRODUCT OF ITS TIME HPG10.6 PRODUCT OF ITS OWN TIME The use of double hung windows of similar proportion to the original, are ganged together in curtain wall fashion to differentiate the infill from the historic structures. CDG1.22 MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION CDG1.23 BUILDING MATERIALS CDG1.24 NEW MATERIALS CDG3.3 IMITATION OF OLDER STYLES BLURS DISTINCTION DETAILS AND MATERIALS CDG3.10 BUILDING COMPONENTS THAT ARE SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SHAPE TO THE DISTRICT CDG3.11 REINFORCE HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE BLOCK CDG3.12 PRIMARY MATERIALS CDG3.13 SECONDARY MATERIALS The proposed infill is designed with wood siding and double hung windows that are historically used within the Main Street District, but also commonly used today. Paneled fenestration above the windows both reflects Victorian detailing of the District and brings detail to contrast the simplicity of the masonry structures. P71 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION APRIL 26, 2017   5    BUILDING PROPORTION, SCALE, HEIGHT AND WIDTH CDG3.4 SIMILAR SCALE AND PROPORTION WITH HISTORIC RESOURCE CDG3.8 SIZE AND SCALE WITH RESOURCE HPG10.8 COMPATIBLE SIZE & SCALE The infill structure of compatible size and scale to the original structures. CDG3.5 ROOF FORM HPG10.11 COMPATIBLE ROOF FORM CDG3.14 ROOFING MATERIALS The historic resources have pitched roofs concealed behind parapet walls of differing styles. The proposed infill has a flat roof at the perimeters with a pitched roof pavilion floating on the center of the flat roof. The pitched pavilion is mimics the gabled front entry porch, as a standalone element on the flat façade of the building. The pavilion will provide a screen for the kitchen HVAC units which will occupy the roof space. Synthetic slate roof singles will be used on the pavilion. The clean cut edges of the slate shingle mimics the masonry texture of the brick structures. BUILDING ADDITIONS HPG10.2 REMOVAL OF NON-HISTORIC ADDITIONS The non-historic infill between the resources is being removed. HPG10.3 DESIGN OF ADDITION TO MAINTAIN SIGNIFICANCE OF RESOURCE CDG1.35 DESIGN ALTERATIONS TO RELATE TO THE EXISTNG BUILDING STYLE AND FORM REMODEL CDG1.33 MEET STANDARDS 1.22 & 1.23 CDG3.6 ELEVATION SCALE The proposed design steps back from the two resource structures to provide clear differentiation of the historic masses. The new infill structure utilizes wood siding as a base to compliment the solidity of the masonry structures. The walls of the infill are lower than those of the adjacent structures, to clarify the hierarchy. 26.415.070.C CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A MINOR DEVELOPMENT 1. a) Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or The proposed development increases the floor area by 249 SF. b) Alterations to a building façade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or P72 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION APRIL 26, 2017   6    The proposed development will reposition a door on the North Building East façade into an existing window location, relocating that window to the previous door location. The proposal will also renovate the existing service entry on the South Building South façade, cleaning up the previous insertion of this door opening. HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES REAHBILITATION BUILDING MATERIALS COVERING MATERIALS HPG2.6 REMOVE LAYERS THAT COVER THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL The stucco which covered the building cannot be removed. It has adhered to the outer hardened layer of the brick material. Removal would expose the inner clay material, which has deteriorated to a powder consistency, due to trapped moisture. WINDOWS HPG3.1 PRESERVE THE FUNCTION OF HISTORIC WINDOWS The existing double hung windows in the North and South structures will be rehabilitated and reconditioned. HPG3.2 PRESERVE THE POSITION, NUMBER AND ARRANGEMENT OF WINDOWS CDG1.34 UPDATING WINDOWS AND DOORS The existing window locations in the North and South structures will remain in their existing locations. With the following exceptions: a. North structure, East façade, the south window will be relocated to the center of the façade, where a door currently exists. Photos show this position had originally been a window. A new accessible door, consistent with the historic design, will be located in the south position where the window was removed. The relocation is proposed to create Building Code required separation distance between exists within the Dining area. b. South structure, South Façade. Three window openings have been modified through the years, with smaller units installed, and the remaining opening infilled. The proposal will remove the current windows, louver and infill, rehabilitate the opening to their original dimensions. Brick will be utilized to infill the openings; windows are not desired in the back-kitchen area, where these are located. DOORS HPG4.1 PRESERVE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT DOORS Existing doors located on Main and Aspen Street facades appear to be original. These doors will be rehabilitated and remain in their locations. P73 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION APRIL 26, 2017   7    HPG4.4 REPLACEMENT DOORS New doors being installed in the North and South structures are designed to match the existing doors found on the West façade of the South Structure. HPG10.12 DO NOT OBSCURE RESOURCE OR FEATURES The infill design steps back from the resources at the connection. The remainder of the walls of the infill align with the facades of the resources. A Setback variance is requested for the West façade to generate additional floor space for the kitchen. If the variance is not granted, the east façade will need to project out further east to create needed functional space. This projection will begin to obscure the portions of the south structure. LIGHTING, SERVICE AND MECHANICAL AREAS ACCESSIBILITY, LIGHITING AND MECH EQUIPMENT HPG12.1 ADDRESS ACCESSIBILITY CDG1.37 CREATIVE SOLUTIONS TO INCORPORATE ACCESSIBILTY COMPLIANCE. The Main Street entrance is located up one step from the side walk elevation, under a central gabled canopy. The façade is set back from the property line only 2’, therefore the construction of a ramp to the front door would be within the right of way. The physical distance required for an accessible ramp does not exist along the façade. Therefore, we propose utilizing the door on the east façade as the accessible entrance. The proposed infill structure will provide space to create accessible restrooms in the structure. CDG1.26 LIGHT FIXTURE SELECTION HPG12.3 EXTERIOR FIXTURES Existing goose neck/utilitarian aesthetic light fixtures are present on the North and West facades, which are in disrepair. These fixtures will be replaced with new fixtures of this industrial aesthetic. Spot light fixtures are located on the East façade in 2 locations. The proposal includes removal of the spot light fixtures, and installation of industrial aesthetic wall sconces to illuminate the accessible route along the east. CDG1.27 TRASH AND RECYCLE SERVICE AREA CDG1.28 T&R DESIGN TO COMPLIMENT ARCHITECTURE CDG1.30 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT HPG12.4 MINIMIZE VISUAL IMPACT OF TRASH STORAGE AND MECH EQUIPMENT P74 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION APRIL 26, 2017   8    A trash and recycling enclosure is located along the alley and east end of the property per the Municipal Code section 12.10.30. To provide a visually screen, large mechanical equipment will be located under the pavilion pitched roof of the infill. 26.415.080 DEMOLITION OF DESIGNATED HISTORIC PROPERTIES OR PROPERTIES WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT 2. b) Narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance. The current wood frame infill has no known historical significance, as long as your favorite doughnut does not generate a historical event. Photos of the site show numerous, different structures between the resources, but none in the current configuration. A 1989 HPC Staff memo discusses a request to construct an enclosed walk-way/corridor between the two buildings. The infill was constructed of 2x and plywood sheathing materials. It has little envelope integrity, any attempt to retrofit the assemblies would require significant reconstruction. d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and No known documentation existing that the infill structure has any significance. 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 The existing infill structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the property. 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 The loss of the infill structure will not adversely affect the Main Street Historic District. c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. The demolition of the existing infill will allow the preservation of the resources by replacing allowing its replacement by a more efficient structure. P75 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION APRIL 26, 2017   9    26.415.110.C BENEFITS - VARIANCES 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 WEST SETBACK VARIANCE A side yard setback variance request of 5 feet is proposed along the West Property Line. The infill structure will be brought to the property line to accommodate the functional area with the kitchen. Without the variance, the infill would have pushed beyond the existing building faces on the east side of the building, obscuring some of the resource from the Main Street corridor. The request is consistent with the linear composition of the West façade. The infill steps back from the historic facades where the components meet, to maintain the visual independence of each element. 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. SOUTH SETBACK VARIANCE A rear yard setback variance of 5’ is requested along the alley property line. The existing structure sites 8’ from the alley, with the primary service entrance on the south west corner. A service vestibule is proposed on the south west corner to provide a secure, screened location for deliveries. The service entrance is prominently located adjacent to Aspen Street. Past use demonstrated boxes and deliveries being left out and visible to pedestrians and motorists along Aspen Street. The proposed enclosure will enhance the service façade of the building. MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 12.10.30 SPACE REQUIRED FOR TRASH AND RECYCLING STORAGE FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS (A) Adequate space for Commercial Buildings is defined as follows: b. For Commercial Buildings that will contain or that will have the capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service License, as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway must be reserved for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of fifteen (15) feet at ground level. The proposed site plan includes a Trash Enclosure area with 15’ parallel to the alley, with an 18’ depth, surrounded by a 6’ tall wood fence. The depth is maximized at 18’ to not encroach upon a group of aspen trees immediately north of the enclosure. The 15’ width is necessary to generate 4 compliant parking spaces and pedestrian P76 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION APRIL 26, 2017   10    access along the remaining alley frontage. The 8’ setback along the south building allows for utility connections on the building, therefore preventing placement of utility components within the Trash Enclosure. (B) If the property adjoins an alleyway, the trash and recycle service area shall be along and accessed from the alleyway. Designed enclosure complies. (D) The required area shall not be used for parking or as vehicular access to a parking area. Design enclosure prevents parking. (E) The required area may be used for utility equipment storage if approved by both the City of Aspen Utility Department and Environmental Health Department. Utility equipment is not anticipated within the trash enclosure. (F) The trash and recycling areas shall be accessible to all tenants within the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Alleyways (vehicular rights- of-way) may not be used as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. The trash enclosure will be access from the open yard. P77 III.A. P78III.A. C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\38169B.gxd -- 04/25/2017 -- 10:44 AM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000P79 III.A. P80III.A. P81III.A. P82III.A. P83III.A. P84III.A. P85III.A. P86III.A. P87III.A. P88III.A. P89III.A. P90III.A. P91III.A. 2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A YS A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860F A C S I M I L E 415 289 38661 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E TS T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924B A C K E NG I L L A Ma r c h i t e c t sK R O E G E RCopyright © 2017 byBACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS4/25/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\5-Historical Photos-201657.dwgSCALE : Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date IssueLAND USESUBMITTAL201657 DM 04/26/17 DM SHEET ID: SHEET TITLE: These documents are the property of Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611APN: 2737 073 28 001LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITEOF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OFCOLORADOLU5.0 HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPHSP92III.A. P93 III.A. P94 III.A. P95 III.A. P96 III.A. P97 III.A. P98 III.A. SP0427 REV A SAMPLE ORDER SAMPLE ORDER Notes: Suitable for Wet Location SIGN LIGHT COLLECTION: Emblem Angle Shade ASE08-PC ASE10-PC ASE12-PC ASE14-PC Item # Diameter (A) Height (B) ASE08-PC 8” 6 ¼” ASE10-PC 10 ¼” 7 ¼” ASE12-PC 12 ¼” 8 ½” ASE14-PC 14 ½” 9 ½” Model # Item # Standard Finishes Mounting Options Mounting Color Optional Accessories Accessory Colors Wattage/Lamp Options G- Gooseneck ASE08-PC ASE10-PC ASE12-PC ASE14-PC Powder Coat: 100-Black 200-White 300-Dark Green 600-Bronze 605- Rust Other: 975- Galvanized For additional colors, see color chart Gooseneck: G _______________ ^Specify gooseneck model For additional mounting options and details, see mounting option chart Standard Finish for ALL Mounting is: Same as fixture // Leave Code Blank OR Gooseneck: 100- Black 200- White 975- Galvanized 980- Brushed Aluminum For additional colors, see color chart SWK-Swivel Knuckle WC-Wire Cage Dusk-to-Dawn Photocell Standard Finish for Accessories is: Same as fixture // Leave Code Blank OR Powder Coat: 100-Black 400-Barn Red 975-Galvanized For additional colors, see color chart Standard Incandescent (Max 200 Watt per Socket) GU-24 Bi-Pin (Max 23 Watt per Socket) BLE-G ASE10-PC 100 G24 975 WC 975 ORDER SPECIFICS BLE-G -PC P99III.A. OL8701ORB: 1 - Light Wall Bracket   Collection:  Darby     UPC #:014817483499  Finish:   Oil Rubbed Bronze (ORB)   Dimensions:   Width:7 1/2'' Height:9 1/4'' Weight:1.4 lbs. Extends:8 7/8'' Wire:8'' (color/Black/White) Connection:Mounted To Box Bulbs:  1 - Medium 100w Max. 120v - Not included Features: Material List: 1 Body - Metal - Oil Rubbed Bronze  Safety Listing:  Safety Listed for Wet Locations / IC  Instruction Sheets: English (OL8701) Backplate / Canopy Details: Type Height / Length Width Depth Diameter Outlet Box Up Outlet Box Down Back Plate   7/8  5 3/4 3 1/2  Shipping Information: Package Type Product #Quantity UPC Length Width Height Cube Weight Frt. Class UPS Ship Individual OL8701ORB 1 014817483499 10.75 9.5 11.5 0.68 2.5 250 Yes NJ Pallet   84  48 40 72 80 210 No NV Pallet   84  48 40 72 80 210 No Feiss reserves the right to revise the design of components of any product due to parts availability or change in safety listing standards without assuming any obligation or liability to modify any products previously manufactured and without notice. This literature depicts a product design that is the sole and exclusive property of Feiss . In compliance with U.S copyright and patent requirements, notification is hereby presented in this form that this literature, or the product it depicts, is not to be copied, altered or used in any manner without the express written consent of, or contrary to the best interests of Feiss ï¿½ A Generation Brands Company.  Vist our web site at www.Feiss.com  OL8701ORB - page 1 of 1  P100 III.A. Home Porcelain Barn Lights Porcelain Hardware & Goosenecks G32 Gooseneck Arm - 23 3/4" Projection G32 Gooseneck Arm Click to enlarge (hover over images to learn more) Finish: * Click to ViewPowder Coat Finishes:Durable finish colors to fit any style from traditional to retro to modern Average rating 0 reviews Sort by Newest first  G32 Gooseneck Arm - 23 3/4" Projection CODE: BLE-G32 $109.00 Select Option  ADD TO MY WISH LIST SEND TO FRIEND Finish Chart / Features Product Details G32 Gooseneck Arm - 23 3/4" Projection - 3/4" NPT •Finishes: Multiple (See Finish Chart) •Includes: Wall Backing Plate and Mounting Hardware •Construction: Aluminum •Manufactured in the U.S.A. Reviews Customer Reviews WRITE YOUR OWN REVIEWWRITE YOUR OWN REVIEW Click button to post comments.Click button to post comments. © 2004-2017 Barn Light Electric Co.® - A division of Barn Light USA™ | Terms of Use 1 0 0Google +1 Page 1 of 1G32 Gooseneck Arm - 23 3/4" Projection 4/25/2017http://www.barnlightelectric.com/porcelain-lights-goosenecks-pendants/porcelain-hardwar... P101 III.A. C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\38169B.gxd -- 04/25/2017 -- 10:44 AM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000P102 III.A. P103 III.A.          600 East Hopkins Avenue, Suite 303 Aspen, Colorado 81611 PH / FX 970 925 1125 daverybak.com 201 E. MAIN STREET (WEBER BUILDING) LAND USE APPLICATION – H.P.C. MINOR DEVELOPMENT - REVISIONS June 15, 2017 STAFF COMMENT RESPONSE Staff Comment May 25: The massing of the new addition is appropriate, but the gable roof does not fit with the rest of the development. A flat roof or open air screen would be a more appropriate way to hide the mechanical equipment, even if that means a slightly taller height. Staff Comment June 6: Is it possible to get a version somewhere between the two regarding the mechanical enclosure? We agree that the exposed mechanical is not desirable, but perhaps a simple screen wall? It would be helpful from our perspective to see something like the preferred design without the gable roof form, but retaining the walls. A unique design feature of the existing historic resources is often overlooked; the East and West Facades are not symmetrical to the other. The parapets on the West Façade are a singular height on each building, providing uniformity. The parapets on the East façade are stepped, reducing in height with the roof pitches behind the walls. This could have been a pragmatic design choice for these Industrial Style structures, allowing the inner lot façade to be functional rather than have the aesthetic continuity of the West Façade along the public street. These different parapet conditions were considered when designing the central infill massing. The design team believes the proposed solution, with the primary wall heights below the lowest adjacent wall height works well for both facades. The secondary gable roof form, which floats within the infill foot print is consistent with the Industrial vernacular of the buildings, being a simple primary form for the function of screening mechanical equipment. The gable form is secondary to the primary rectangular mass of the infill and the resources. Stepped away from the primary facades, we believe this form will recede and not compete with the overall composition. Two design studies are submitted with the revised drawings, Sheet numbers with “B” demonstrate the equipment exposed. Due to the stepped parapet heights on the East facade of the resources, the design team left the building wall height below the lowest adjacent wall. Raising the infill parapet beyond the adjacent conflicts with the cascading parapets on the East facades. Removing the gable form exposes the mechanical equipment. The result is an infill dominated by large air handlers. Sheets numbers with “C” demonstrate a screen wall surrounding the equipment. The design team believes the screen wall becomes a secondary mass on the roof, which does not respond to or compliment the massing of the historic Resources. We respectfully believe the gable mass is the appropriate solution. P104 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION - REVISION June 15, 2017   2    Staff Comment May 25: The addition seems too fancy or busy in comparison to the historic structures. For additions and new structures next to historic landmarks, we often look to HP guideline 10.6. It speaks to considering form, material and fenestration and picking two to strongly relate to the historic resource. The form pretty clearly relates, but the other two items it is difficult to see the relationship. The windows and paneling are more elaborate and grouped, whereas the historic structures are simple punched openings and the material is obviously different. The proposed infill addition addresses HP guideline 10.6, as well as Chapter 10’s “Basic Principles for New Additions…Alterations and additions should reflect their own time while being subordinate and supportive of the historic resource.” An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, as submit change in material or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. 1. As stated in Staff’s comments, the form is compatible with the form of the resources. 2. The proposed design utilizes vertically proportioned double hung windows, as exist in the resources. The single punched and double ganged openings within the resources are construction capabilities of their time. The design utilizes a ganged double hung windows to differentiate the infill from the resources, making the use of appropriately proportioned windows in a manner which reflects the building capabilities of our time. A previously submitted vertical mullion within the windows has been remove, simplifying them to the original motif. 3. Wood siding and panels are building materials and details widely used within the Main Street Historic District, and are proposed to differentiate the infill from the masonry construction of the original resources. We understand staff’s positions that the initial submittal may have been too busy, therefore the design team has reduced the detailing of the wood columns and panels above the building. The simplified panel bands relate to the stepped cornice of the North Building West Façade, providing relief to an otherwise flat face. P105 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION - REVISION June 15, 2017   3    Staff Comment May 25: It is pretty clear that you will easily meet the minimum 25% pedestrian amenity requirement, but we would like a site plan that shows the calculated amount so we have it on record. Pedestrian Amenity Calculations have been added to sheet LU1.1 Site Plan. To document the percentage of Pedestrian Amenity being proposed. The largely open site provides a Pedestrian Amenity area of 56% of the total parcel. This calculation excludes the parking and trash/service areas at the south alley perimeter. Staff Comment June 5: The windows on the historic resources are tall and narrow, whether punched or grouped in twos. The proportions for the addition windows are wider. I think we are alright with the grouping, but the proportions should relate better. The windows also have higher sill and header heights than the historic. It would be good if at least one of these could relate, preferably the sill height. The windows on the North Façade of the resource are much wider in proportion than those of the east or west facades. The windows proposed for the infill portion balance the proportions of the North and East facades. In addition to Planning Staffs comments regarding the proposed design and Public Amenity, we received comments from the Engineering and Parks departments. Both sets of comments are relevant to the overall site development, however, we feel they are Building Permit level items. Most of the comments are items which are required to be addressed under City codes and will be properly designed and incorporated into the site development plan, however, they are not issues which will modify the proposed site design or modify the proposed aesthetics. We will address the comments under the Building Permit Application. SOUTH RESOURCE - SOUTH WALL: The design and construction team continues to review and determine appropriate repair techniques for the existing structures. The South wall of the South resource (alley façade) has been found to be in poor structural condition. The inner and outer wythes of brick are no longer tied together, and a void has been created between the wythes. The mortar between bricks is falling out, and the bricks have been damaged by moisture penetration and trapping. Landon Anderson, of Anderson Structural Engineering, Inc., project Structural Engineer has recommended demolition of the majority of this wall due to its condition. We reviewed numerous systems to try to tie the bricks back together, but due to the pour condition of the brick, we have not found a technique which will provide a structurally stable result. Staff Comment June 5: In terms of the south wall, we will likely suggest a few options of how to handle rebuilding it with pros and cons in the staff memo to HPC which you will have a chance to address in your presentation. The revised proposal utilizes wood lap siding on the South Replacement wall, clearly linking this new construction with the new infill structure. P106 III.A.   201 E. MAIN STREET LAND USE APPLICATION - REVISION June 15, 2017   4    SITE PLAN - TRASH ENCLOSURE: Per discussion with the Environmental Health Department, the location and design of the Trash Enclosure/Utility Area has been revised to be adjacent to the building. The relocated area provides direct access from two doors within the kitchen and is accessible from the Alley. We are requesting approval of a Trash Enclosure 2’ smaller than Code to accommodate future site development. The large spruce tree in the Southeast area of the parcel has an extensive root structure, which the City Forester will require to be protected. The design team is contemplating a future small outbuilding located between the parking/trash zone, Spruce tree and existing terrace. Due to the limited footprint available, and the desire to maximize the open space on the parcel, we would like to maximize the small zone left available. P107 III.A. 201 E MAIN STREET, ASPEN, CO 81611 SHEET INDEXNORTHLAND USE SUBMITTAL2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A Y S A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965 T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860 F A C S I M I L E 415 289 3866 1 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E T S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920 F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924 B A C K E N G I L L A M a r c h i t e c t s K R O E G E R Copyright © 2017 by BACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS 6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\0-Cover Sheet-201657.dwg SCALE :Plot DateDrawn ByChecked ByProject No.Date Issue LAND USE SUBMITTAL 201657DM04/26/17DMSHEET ID:SHEET TITLE:These documents are the property ofBacken Gillam Kroeger Architects.Any unauthorized use without thewritten consent is prohibited by law.Backen Gillam Kroeger Architectsdisclaims responsibility for thedocuments if used whole or in part atany other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 APN: 2737 073 28 001 LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOreview boardAbove finish floorA.F.F.Architectural siteA.S.R.B.ContinuousCONT. CONTR. ContractorTypicalTop of WallTop of PlywoodVeneerUnfinishedVariesUnless Otherwise NotedUnexcavatedVinyl Composition TileUniform Building CodeU.B.C. T.O.W. T.O. PLYTYP. VEN. U.O.N. UNEXC. VAR. UNF. V.C.T. VestibuleWestVolumeVerticalVerify in FieldWoodWithoutWithWork Point orWater HeaterWall CoveringW. VOL. VEST. V.G.D.F. V.I.F. VERT. WD. W.P. W/O W.H. W.C. W/ WainscotWeightWaterproof MembraneWelded WireWet StandpipeWater ResistantW.S.P. WSCT. WW. WR. WT. W.P.M. WaterproofingVertical Grain Douglas FirReinforcedRegisterRetainingRequiredResilientREINF. REG. RESIL. RET. REQ. MountedMTD. MISC. NumberNominalNewNorthMullion(N) NO. or # NOM. N.I.C. N. MUL. HardwoodHardwareHandrailHeightHangerHourHot Water HeaterHollow MetalHorizontalOpeningOverallOn CenterOPP. O.D. OPNG. O.C. O.A. N.T.S. PerimeterPlasterPlatePlywoodPanelPL. P.LAM. PLAS. PERIM. PLYWD. PNL. OppositeInteriorInchIntermediateInside DiameterInsulationKitchenJanitorJointJoistLaminateOutside Diameter (Dim.)Plastic LaminateNot in ContractNot to ScaleMiscellaneousPaintedPointPaintP.T.D. PTD. P.S.I. P.T. PT. PNT. RiserReturn AirQuarry TilePartitionR. R.A. Q.T. P.T.R. PTN. PoundLinearLightLineLavatoryMaterialMaintainMachineMedicine CabinetMachine BoltMaximumReferenceRecessedReflectedRadiusREFR. REFL. REF. REC. RAD. OverlayMetalMinimumManufacturerMembraneMechanicalMedium DensityRefrigeratorPaper Towel ReceptaclePaper Towel DispenserPer Square InchPressure TreatedPost TensionedHDWD. HDW. H.M. HORIZ. H.W.H. H.R. HR. HGT. HGR. Flat BarF.D. F.B. FinishFixtureSrewCabinetF.H.M.S. FIN. FIXT. F.H.W.S. F.E.C. Flat Head Wood ScrewFlat Head MachineFire ExtinguisherFloor DrainINTER. INSUL. INT. I.D. IN. KIT. JAN. JST. JT. LAM. FlashingFloorF.O.S. F.O.F. F.O. Ply FLASH. F.O.C. FLUOR. FLR. FurringFootingFrameFireproofFutureFT. FURR. FTG. F.P.R.F. FR. FUT. Face of PlywoodFace of ConcreteFace of StudFoot or FeetFace of FinishFluorescentConcreteConditionClosetConnectionConstructionCOND. CONC.CLOS. CONN. CONST.LT. LIN. LAV. LB. LN. MAT. M.D.O. M.C. M.B. MAX. MAINT. MACH. GeneralGaugeGalvanizedG.F.I. GEN. G.D. GA. GALV. G. GradeGypsumMetalGroundGlassGR. GYP. G.S.M. GND. GL. InterruptGalvanized SheetGarbage DisposalGround FaultGas OutletMECH. MEMB. MIN. MFR. MTL. HeaderHardboardHeadHose BibbHDR. HDBD. H.C. HD. H.B. Hollow Core orHandicappedExistingEXIST. EXP.ExpansionExteriorFire AlarmExteriorForced Air UnitF.A.U.F.A.EXT.EXP.EXT.ExpansionAnd< & At0A.C. # @ AngleAGGR. ALUM. ADJAC. ALT. A.D. ADJ. ACOUS. AsphaltBoardBITUM. BLDG. ARCH. APPROX.ASPH. BD. BetweenBottomBlockingBeamBlockBTWN. BLKG. B.P. BOT B.O. BM. BLK. CementCeilingCeramicCEM. CLKG. CLG. C.J. CER. C.B. ColumnCounterClearC.M.U. CNTR.COL.C.O.CLR. CaulkingBuildingBituminousConcrete Masonry UnitClean-OutControl JointCatch BasinBuilding PaperBottom ofAluminumArchitecturalApproximateAggregateAlternateArea DrainAdjustableAdjacentDiameter or RoundAcousticalAsphaltic ConcreteAir Conditioning orPound or NumberABBREVIATIONSBeverageBEV. Cast in PlaceCIP CenterCeramic TileC.T. CTR. DimensionDiameterDetailDoubleCold WaterDrinking FountainDrawingDownDishwasherDispenserDoorDrawerDIM. DIA. D.F. DET. DBL. C.W. DR. DWG. D.W. DISP. DN. DWR. ElectricalElevationExistingEachFinish SystemExpansion JointExterior Insulation &EqualEquipmentEnclosureEmergencyElectrical Panel BoardELEC. EL. E.J. (E) E.I.F.S. EA. E.P.B. EQUIP. EQ. ENCL. EMER. PROJECT STATISTICSLU0.0COVER SHEETInterior Finish & FixtureIFFR RemovalSITE LOCATION201 E MAIN STREET,ASPEN, CO 81611APN: 2737 073 28 001Top of T.O.To Be DeterminedT.B.D.Towel BarTreadTerrazzoTemperedTelephoneThickTongue & GrooveTop of CurbT.B. T. TEMP. T.M.E. T.&G. THK. TER. TEL. T.C. Top of PlateTop of ConcreteT.O.P. T.O.C. To Match ExistingRoomRemovableREMOV. R.O. RM. REV. SouthSee Civil DrawingsStorm Drain,Solid CoreRedwoodSheetSectionShowerSprinkler HeadSeparationScheduleSoap Dispenser/DishS.C.D. S.C. S.D. S. RWD. SHT. S.E.D. SCHED. SECT. S.H. SEP. SHR. Rough OpeningSimilarSlidingSee Kitchen DrawingsSheathingSteelSquareStandardService SinkStainless SteelS.P.D. S.L.D. S.M.D. S.K.D.SHTG. SIM. SL. SPEC. SQ. S.S. S.S.D. S.S.K. STD. STL. SystemStorageStructuralShear WallSheet VinylSymmetricalSTRL. STOR. SYS. SYM. S.V. S.W. See Structural DrawingSee Mechanical DrawingsSee Plumbing DrawingsSpecification or SpecialSee Landscape DrawingsSee Electrical DrawingsRevision/Revised/ReversedPROJECT DIRECTORY2015 International Building Code (IBC)2015 International Mechanical Code (IMC)2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)2014 National Electrical Code (NEC)2015 International Plumbing Code (IPC)2015 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)The National Fire Protection Association Standards (NFPA)Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments2009 ICC/ANSI A117.1, Accessible and Usable Buildings and FacilitiesCity of Aspen Municipal CodeNote:These drawings are to conform to the requirements of the code editions cited above.Any work performed in association with these drawings must also comply with thesecode editions.APPLICABLE CODES:PROJECT DESCRIPTION:THIS APPLICATION IS PROPOSING A COMPLETE RENOVATION OF THE HISTORICALRESOURCE MASONRY BUILDINGS, PROPOSED BUILDING INFILL BETWEEN THEMAND A SMALL ADDITION. TOTAL FLOOR AREA INCREASES BY 249 SF.ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE MINOR LANDSCAPING UPDATES, PARKINGUPDATES, SIDEWALK ACCESSIBILITY UPDATES AND NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE.OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE CURB, SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPINGUPDATES IN RIGHT OF WAY ALONG EAST MAIN STREET.APN:2737 073 28 001TOTAL LOT AREA:8,952 SF (0.207 ACRES)ZONINGMIXED USE (MU) - HISTORIC DESIGNATIONCONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE V-BPROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA:2,511 SFPROJECT ADDRESS:201 E MAIN STREET, ASPEN, CO 81611OCCUPANCY:ASSEMBLY GROUP (A-2)NUMBER OF STORIES:1FIRE SPRINKLERS:NOPROPOSED FLOOR AREA (F.A.R.):2,707 SFLU0.0 COVER SHEET-TOPOGRAPHIC IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLATLU1.0 SITE PLAN - DEMOLITIONLU1.1 SITE PLAN - PROPOSEDLU2.0 ROOF PLAN & ELEVATIONS - DEMOLITIONLU2.01 ZONING DEMOLITION COMPLIANCELU2.02 ZONING DEMOLITION COMPLIANCELU2.1 FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSEDLU2.2A ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED - OPTION ALU3.0A NORTH ELEVATION - OPTION ALU3.1A WEST ELEVATION - OPTION ALU3.2A SOUTH ELEVATION - OPTION ALU3.3A EAST ELEVATION - OPTION ALU3.4A LONGITUDINAL SECTION - OPTION ALU3.5A CROSS SECTION - OPTION ALU4.0A RENDERINGS - OPTION ALU5.0 HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPHSLU2.2B ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED - OPTION BLU3.0B NORTH ELEVATION - OPTION BLU3.1B WEST ELEVATION - OPTION BLU3.2B SOUTH ELEVATION - OPTION BLU3.3B EAST ELEVATION - OPTION BLU3.4B LONGITUDINAL SECTION - OPTION BLU3.5B CROSS SECTION - OPTION BLU4.0B RENDERINGS - OPTION BLU2.2C ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED - OPTION CLU3.0C NORTH ELEVATION - OPTION CLU3.1C WEST ELEVATION - OPTION CLU3.2C SOUTH ELEVATION - OPTION CLU3.3C EAST ELEVATION - OPTION CLU3.4C LONGITUDINAL SECTION - OPTION CLU3.5C CROSS SECTION - OPTION CLU4.0C RENDERINGS - OPTION CNORTH & WEST FACADE FROM EAST MAIN STREET & SOUTH ASPEN STREET CORNERVICINITY MAPPROPERTY OWNER:Principal: Howard BackenContact: Dusan MotolikTel: (510) 213-0650Email: dmotolik@bgarch.comBacken, Gillam and KroegerArchitects2352 Marinship WaySausalito, CA 94965ARCHITECT / OWNER'SREPRESENTATIVE:OWNER'SREPRESENTATIVE:Contact: Dave RybakTel: (970) 925 1125Email: dave@daverybak.comRybak Architecture &Development600 E Hopkins AvenueSuite 303Aspen, CO 81611201 E. Main Holdings, LLC2416 E 37th Street NWichita, KS 67219Main Contact: Jerald BettsContact: Guy ByrneTel: (707) 287-1026Email: guy.byrne@lrico.comSURVEYOR:Contact: John M. HoworthTel: (970) 925 3816Email: aspensurveyors@gmail.comAspen Survey Engineers210 South Galena StreetAspen, CO 81611P108III.A. C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\38169B.gxd -- 04/25/2017 -- 10:44 AM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000P109 III.A. P110III.A. P111III.A. P112III.A. BACDEFGHIJJKLMKMNOOOODDDPMQQMRRKRLJALL ROOFS=2,527 SFPORCH ROOF = 62 SF1,170 SF48 SF14 SF25 SF15 SF239 SF12 SF579 SF264 SF12 SF12 SF476 SF32 SF32 SF26 SF26 SFHATCH REPRESENTS SURFACE AREAPROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED, TYP.THROUGHOUTK2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A Y S A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965 T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860 F A C S I M I L E 415 289 3866 1 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E T S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920 F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924 B A C K E N G I L L A M a r c h i t e c t s K R O E G E R Copyright © 2017 by BACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS 6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\2-Compliance Demo-201657.dwg SCALE :Plot DateDrawn ByChecked ByProject No.Date Issue LAND USE SUBMITTAL 201657DM04/26/17DMSHEET ID:SHEET TITLE:These documents are the property ofBacken Gillam Kroeger Architects.Any unauthorized use without thewritten consent is prohibited by law.Backen Gillam Kroeger Architectsdisclaims responsibility for thedocuments if used whole or in part atany other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 APN: 2737 073 28 001 LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLU2.01ZONING DEMOLITIONCOMPLIANCENP113III.A. MPQNIHGCBDEF0DEMOLITION CALCULATIONLABELINDIVIDUAL SURFACE AREA (SF)AREA REDUCED FORFENESTRATION (SF)SURFACE AREA USED FORDEMOLITION CALCULATION (SF)AREA TO BEDEMOLISHED (SF)ABCDEFGHIJROOFS KLMNOPQRROOFS TOTALWALLS TOTALGRAND TOTALWALLS 2,527 SF0 SF2,527 SF579 SF55 SF0 SF55 SF0 SF54 SF0 SF54 SF0 SF54 SF55 SFCHIMNEY (ALL FOUR SIDES)= 13 SF13 SF0 SF13 SF0 SF22 SF22 SF0 SF22 SF22 SF14 SF14 SF0 SF14 SF14 SF87 SF87 SF0 SF87 SF0 SF24 SF24 SF0 SF24 SF0 SF41 SF41 SF0 SF41 SF0 SF62 SF0 SF62 SF0 SF2,899 SF0 SF2,899 SF615 SF1,170 SF102 SF1,068 SF251 SF476 SF116 SF360 SF0 SF1,312 SF164 SF1,148 SF275 SF326 SF76 SF250 SF213 SF163 SF0 SF163 SF163 SFSCREEN (ALL FOUR SIDES) = 163 SF81 SF12 SF69 SF0 SF178 SF0 SF178 SF178 SF264 SF24 SF240 SF0 SF3,970 SF494 SF3,476 SF1,080 SF6,869 SF494 SF6,375 SF1,695 SFTOTAL PROPOSED DEMO AREA = 1,695 SF /TOTAL SURFACE AREA OF BUILDING= 6,375 SFTOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DEMO = 26.6%81 SF12 SF178 SF1,312 SF14 SF14 SF14 SF14 SF31 SF31 SF23 SF23 SF163 SF275 SF326 SF55 SF6 SF6 SF9 SF213 SFHATCH REPRESENTS SURFACE AREAPROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED, TYP.THROUGHOUT2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A Y S A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965 T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860 F A C S I M I L E 415 289 3866 1 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E T S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920 F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924 B A C K E N G I L L A M a r c h i t e c t s K R O E G E R Copyright © 2017 by BACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS 6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\2-Compliance Demo-201657.dwg SCALE :Plot DateDrawn ByChecked ByProject No.Date Issue LAND USE SUBMITTAL 201657DM04/26/17DMSHEET ID:SHEET TITLE:These documents are the property ofBacken Gillam Kroeger Architects.Any unauthorized use without thewritten consent is prohibited by law.Backen Gillam Kroeger Architectsdisclaims responsibility for thedocuments if used whole or in part atany other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 APN: 2737 073 28 001 LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLU2.02ZONINGDEMOLITIONCOMPLIANCEP114III.A. P115III.A. BRICK CHIMNEYPROPOSED ROOFTOPMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FORDISHWASHING ROOM & PREP.KITCHENBRICK PARAPET TO REMAIN, TYP.PROPOSED BRICK PARAPET TO MATCHBUILDING INFILL PARAPET HEIGHTSOUTH HIST. BUILDING TPO ROOFNORTH HIST. BUILDING TPO ROOFCOVERED PORCHWOOD SHINGLE ROOFSLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.MTL.GUTTER &DOWNSPOUT, TYP.PROPOSED SLATEROOFSLOPE DN.PROPOSED PARAPET ABOVE BUILDINGINFILL FACADESLOPE DN. SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.PROPOSED CRICKET, TYP.PROPOSED ROOF DRAIN, TYP. OF (4)PROPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENTENCLOSURE WITH SLOPED SLATE ROOF TO HIDEMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FOR MAIN KITCHEN,SEE LU3.5APROPOSED FLAT TPO ROOF ABOVE MAINKITCHEN, SEE LU3.5APROPOSED MAKE-UP AIR MECHANICALEQUIPMENT LOCATED BELOW RAISEDMECHANICAL ENCLOSURE ROOF, SEE LU3.5APROPOSED HOOD EXHAUST MECHANICALEQUIPMENT LOCATED BELOW RAISEDMECHANICAL ENCLOSURE ROOF, SEE LU3.5A9' WIDE MTL. LOUVER & ACCESSPANEL TO MECHANICAL ENCLOSURE,TYP. ON BOTH SIDESPROPOSED BRICK PARAPET TO MATCHBUILDING INFILL PARAPET HEIGHTPROPOSED PARAPET ABOVE BUILDINGINFILL FACADE10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"REQUIRED SETBACK FOR PLACEMENTOF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FROMPROPERTY LINESLOPE DN. SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.PROPERTY LINE(E) 6" (E) 6"(E) 25"2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A Y S A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965 T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860 F A C S I M I L E 415 289 3866 1 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E T S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920 F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924 B A C K E N G I L L A M a r c h i t e c t s K R O E G E R Copyright © 2017 by BACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS 6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\2-Roof Plan-Proposed-201657.dwg SCALE :Plot DateDrawn ByChecked ByProject No.Date Issue LAND USE SUBMITTAL 201657DM04/26/17DMSHEET ID:SHEET TITLE:These documents are the property ofBacken Gillam Kroeger Architects.Any unauthorized use without thewritten consent is prohibited by law.Backen Gillam Kroeger Architectsdisclaims responsibility for thedocuments if used whole or in part atany other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 APN: 2737 073 28 001 LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLU2.2AROOF PLAN -PROPOSED -OPTION ANP116III.A. BLDG. INFILL ROOF RIDGE17'-4" A.F.F.FINISH FLOOR0'-0"PORCH ROOF RIDGE13'-5" A.F.F.NORTH HIST. BLDG. PARAPET14'-9" A.F.F.NORTH HISTORICAL BUILDINGSIDEWALK WITHLANDSCAPING PLANTERSOUTH ASPEN STREET(E) PATIO WITH OUTDOOR SEATING & LANDSCAPINGROOF ABOVE PROPOSEDBUILDING INFILL BEYONDLOCATION OF FUTURE SIGNAGEPROPOSED GOOSENECKLIGHT, TYP.(E)HIST. WOOD DOUBLE HUNGWINDOW TO REMAIN, U.O.N.(E)WOOD & GLASS DOORS TOREMAIN, U.O.N.3'-0"3" BOARD3" GAPPROPOSED 3' TALL WHITEWOOD PICKET FENCE(E)BRICK WALL WITHSTUCCO TO REMAIN2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A Y S A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965 T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860 F A C S I M I L E 415 289 3866 1 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E T S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920 F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924 B A C K E N G I L L A M a r c h i t e c t s K R O E G E R Copyright © 2017 by BACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS 6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\3-Elevations-201657 - Opt A.dwg SCALE :Plot DateDrawn ByChecked ByProject No.Date Issue LAND USE SUBMITTAL 201657DM04/26/17DMSHEET ID:SHEET TITLE:These documents are the property ofBacken Gillam Kroeger Architects.Any unauthorized use without thewritten consent is prohibited by law.Backen Gillam Kroeger Architectsdisclaims responsibility for thedocuments if used whole or in part atany other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 APN: 2737 073 28 001 LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLU3.0ANORTH ELEVATION- OPTION AP117III.A. BLDG. INFILL ROOF RIDGE 17'-4" A.F.F. PROPOSED GOOSENECK LIGHT, TYP. FINISH FLOOR 0'-0" BLDG. INFILL PARAPET NORTH HIST. BLDG. PARAPET 14'-9" A.F.F. (E)CAFE SIGNAGE TO REMAIN (E)HIST. WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW TO REMAIN, U.O.N. PROPOSED ADDITIONSOUTH HISTORICAL BUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDING INFILLNORTH HISTORICAL BUILDING 4' TALL EVERGREEN SHRUBS PROPOSED WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS PROPOSED 2' TALL EVERGREEN GRASS PLANT, TYP. PROPOSED PAINTED SHIP LAP WOOD SIDING, TYP. PROPOSED PAINTED WOOD PANELLING & TRIM PROPOSED SLATE ROOF PROPOSED MECH. EQUIPMENT FOR DISHWASHING ROOM & PREP. KITCHEN (E)BRICK CHIMNEY (E)HIST. DOOR & TRANSOM ABOVE TO REMAIN (E) WOOD SHINGLES ROOF FRONT COVERED PORCH (E)BRICK WALL WITH STUCCO TO REMAIN SIDEWALK WITH LANDSCAPING PLANTER EAST MAIN STREET ALLEY 12'-0" A.F.F.2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A YS A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860F A C S I M I L E 415 289 38661 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E TS T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924B A C K E NG I L L A Ma r c h i t e c t sK R O E G E RCopyright © 2017 byBACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\3-Elevations-201657 - Opt A.dwgSCALE : Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date IssueLAND USESUBMITTAL201657 DM 04/26/17 DM SHEET ID: SHEET TITLE: These documents are the property of Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611APN: 2737 073 28 001LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITEOF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OFCOLORADOLU3.1A WEST ELEVATION - OPTION AP118 III.A. P119III.A. PROPOSED ADDITIONSOUTH HISTORICAL BUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDING INFILLNORTH HISTORICAL BUILDINGFRONTCOVEREDPORCHSIDEWALK WITHLANDSCAPING PLANTERALLEYBLDG. INFILL ROOF RIDGE17'-4" A.F.F.FINISH FLOOR0'-0"ADDITION ROOF10'-0" A.F.F.SOUTH HIST. BLDG. PARAPET16'-4" A.F.F.PROPOSED WOODDOORPROPOSED WALL SCONCELIGHT, TYP.PROPOSED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNGPASS-THRU WINDOWSPROPOSED WOOD DOOR WITHTRANSOM ABOVEPROPOSED PAINTED SHIP LAPWOOD SIDING, TYP.PROPOSED PAINTED WOODPANELLING & TRIMPROPOSED SLATE ROOFPROPOSED MECH. EQUIPMENTFOR DISHWASHING ROOM &PREP. KITCHENPROPOSED WOOD DOORWITH LIGHTSRELOCATED HIST.WINDOW(E)HIST.WOOD DOUBLEHUNG WINDOWTO REMAIN,U.O.N.(E) BRICK WALL WITH STUCCOTO REMAINBLDG. INFILL PARAPET12'-0" A.F.F.2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A Y S A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965 T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860 F A C S I M I L E 415 289 3866 1 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E T S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920 F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924 B A C K E N G I L L A M a r c h i t e c t s K R O E G E R Copyright © 2017 by BACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS 6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\3-Elevations-201657 - Opt A.dwg SCALE :Plot DateDrawn ByChecked ByProject No.Date Issue LAND USE SUBMITTAL 201657DM04/26/17DMSHEET ID:SHEET TITLE:These documents are the property ofBacken Gillam Kroeger Architects.Any unauthorized use without thewritten consent is prohibited by law.Backen Gillam Kroeger Architectsdisclaims responsibility for thedocuments if used whole or in part atany other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 APN: 2737 073 28 001 LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLU3.3AEAST ELEVATION -OPTION AP120III.A. PROPOSED ADDITIONSOUTH HISTORICAL BUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDING INFILLNORTH HISTORICAL BUILDINGFRONTCOVEREDPORCHSIDEWALK WITHLANDSCAPING PLANTERALLEYBACK DOORVESTIBULEHALLWAY & PREP. KITCHENMAIN KITCHENTOILET ROOMHALLWAYDINING ROOMMECHANICAL ENCLOSUREBLDG. INFILL ROOF RIDGE17'-4" A.F.F.FINISH FLOOR0'-0"ADDITION ROOF10'-0" A.F.F.SOUTH HIST. BLDG. PARAPET13'-8" A.F.F.PORCH ROOF RIDGE13'-5" A.F.F.NORTH HIST. BLDG. PARAPET14'-9" A.F.F.BLDG. INFILL PARAPET12'-0" A.F.F.PROPOSED MECH. EQUIPMENT FORMAIN KITCHEN LOCATED BELOWROOFED MECH. ENCLOSUREPROPOSED MECH. EQUIPMENTFOR DISHWASHING ROOM &PREP. KITCHEN2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A Y S A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965 T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860 F A C S I M I L E 415 289 3866 1 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E T S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920 F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924 B A C K E N G I L L A M a r c h i t e c t s K R O E G E R Copyright © 2017 by BACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS 6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\3-Elevations-201657 - Opt A.dwg SCALE :Plot DateDrawn ByChecked ByProject No.Date Issue LAND USE SUBMITTAL 201657DM04/26/17DMSHEET ID:SHEET TITLE:These documents are the property ofBacken Gillam Kroeger Architects.Any unauthorized use without thewritten consent is prohibited by law.Backen Gillam Kroeger Architectsdisclaims responsibility for thedocuments if used whole or in part atany other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 APN: 2737 073 28 001 LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLU3.4ALONGITUDINAL SECTION -OPTION AP121III.A. BLDG. INFILL ROOF RIDGE17'-4" A.F.F.FINISH FLOOR0'-0"NORTH HIST. BLDG. PARAPET14'-9" A.F.F.MAIN KITCHENMECH. ENCLOSUREPROPOSED BUILDING INFILLSIDEWALK WITHLANDSCAPING PLANTERSOUTH ASPEN STREET(E) PATIO WITH OUTDOOR SEATING & LANDSCAPINGBLDG. INFILL PARAPET12'-0" A.F.F.PROPOSED MECH. EQUIPMENT FORMAIN KITCHEN LOCATED BELOWROOFED MECH. ENCLOSURE2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A Y S A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965 T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860 F A C S I M I L E 415 289 3866 1 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E T S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920 F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924 B A C K E N G I L L A M a r c h i t e c t s K R O E G E R Copyright © 2017 by BACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS 6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\3-Elevations-201657 - Opt A.dwg SCALE :Plot DateDrawn ByChecked ByProject No.Date Issue LAND USE SUBMITTAL 201657DM04/26/17DMSHEET ID:SHEET TITLE:These documents are the property ofBacken Gillam Kroeger Architects.Any unauthorized use without thewritten consent is prohibited by law.Backen Gillam Kroeger Architectsdisclaims responsibility for thedocuments if used whole or in part atany other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 APN: 2737 073 28 001 LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLU3.5ACROSS SECTION -OPTION AP122III.A. 2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A YS A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860F A C S I M I L E 415 289 38661 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E TS T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924B A C K E NG I L L A Ma r c h i t e c t sK R O E G E RCopyright © 2017 byBACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\4-Renderings-201657 - Opt A.dwgSCALE : Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date IssueLAND USESUBMITTAL201657 DM 04/26/17 DM SHEET ID: SHEET TITLE: These documents are the property of Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611APN: 2737 073 28 001LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITEOF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OFCOLORADOLU4.0A RENDERINGS - OPTION A EAST & NORTH FACADE FROM EAST MAIN STREET - OPTION A WEST & SOUTH FACADE FROM SOUTH ASPEN STREET - OPTION A EAST FACADE FROM OUTDOOR PATIO - OPTION A WEST FACADE FROM SOUTH ASPEN STREET - OPTION AP123 III.A. 2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A YS A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860F A C S I M I L E 415 289 38661 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E TS T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924B A C K E NG I L L A Ma r c h i t e c t sK R O E G E RCopyright © 2017 byBACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\5-Historical Photos-201657.dwgSCALE : Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date IssueLAND USESUBMITTAL201657 DM 04/26/17 DM SHEET ID: SHEET TITLE: These documents are the property of Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611APN: 2737 073 28 001LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITEOF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OFCOLORADOLU5.0 HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPHSP124III.A. P125III.A. P126III.A. P127III.A. P128III.A. P129III.A. P130III.A. P131III.A. 2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A YS A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860F A C S I M I L E 415 289 38661 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E TS T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924B A C K E NG I L L A Ma r c h i t e c t sK R O E G E RCopyright © 2017 byBACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS6/8/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\4-Renderings-201657 - Opt B.dwgSCALE : Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date IssueLAND USESUBMITTAL201657 DM 04/26/17 DM SHEET ID: SHEET TITLE: These documents are the property of Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611APN: 2737 073 28 001LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITEOF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OFCOLORADOLU4.0B RENDERINGS - OPTION B EAST & NORTH FACADE FROM EAST MAIN STREET- OPTION B WEST & SOUTH FACADE FROM SOUTH ASPEN STREET - OPTION B EAST FACADE FROM OUTDOOR PATIO - OPTION B WEST FACADE FROM SOUTH ASPEN STREET - OPTION BP132 III.A. P133III.A. P134III.A. P135III.A. P136III.A. P137III.A. P138III.A. P139III.A. 2 3 5 2 M A R I N S H I P W A YS A U S A L I T O C A L I F 94965T E L E P H O N E 415 289 3860F A C S I M I L E 415 289 38661 0 2 8 M A I N S T R E E TS T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574T E L E P H O N E 707 967 1920F A C S I M I L E 707 967 1924B A C K E NG I L L A Ma r c h i t e c t sK R O E G E RCopyright © 2017 byBACKEN GILLAM KROEGER ARCHITECTS6/9/17 S:\2016\201657 - Oakville Grocery, Aspen\1-Drawings\01-Current\Land Use Submittal\02-Plotfile\4-Renderings-201657 - Opt C.dwgSCALE : Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date IssueLAND USESUBMITTAL201657 DM 04/26/17 DM SHEET ID: SHEET TITLE: These documents are the property of Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.201 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611APN: 2737 073 28 001LOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITEOF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OFCOLORADOLU4.0C RENDERINGS - OPTION C EAST & NORTH FACADE FROM EAST MAIN STREET - OPTION C WEST & SOUTH FACADE FROM SOUTH ASPEN STREET - OPTION C EAST FACADE FROM OUTDOOR PATIO - OPTION C WEST FACADE FROM SOUTH ASPEN STREET - OPTION CP140 III.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 1 of 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 209 E. Bleeker Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, Residential Design Standards, Floor Area Bonus, and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 28, 2017 SUMMARY: 209 East Bleeker is a designated landmark located in Aspen’s West End neighborhood. The home belonged to the Hayes famil y for 60 years. In 2015/2016, HPC reviewed a proposal by a new owner to renovate the home, which was approved and proceeded to building permit. The property was then sold again and the most recent buyer has a revised proposal which requires a new board review. This 6,000 square foot, R-6, Medium Density Residential property has an allowable floor area of 3,240 sf for a single family home or 3,600 square feet for a duplex, which is proposed. Demolition of non-historic construction, relocation of the resource onto a new foundation, a floor area bonus, setback and Residential Design Standards variations are requested from HPC. This historic resource on this property was significantly altered decades ago to provide more space for the Hayes’ expanding family. A second floor was added on top of what was a classic Aspen miner’s cottage. A c. 1950s photo is below left and a current photo is below right. There is enough historic fabric, along with photographs and maps available to inform the restoration of the resource, but it will admittedly require a good deal of reconstruction. P141 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 2 of 13 DEMOLITION APPLICANT: Cathedral Cutthroat, LLC, represented by Z Group Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-20-002. ADDRESS: 209 E. Bleeker Street, Lots C, D and a portion of Lot B, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen Colorado ZONING: R-6 The applicant has provided photographs of the existing structure, indicating areas to be demolished. These demolished areas include an addition to the house on the east side of the original structure, walls which were built to infill historic porches on the front and southeast corner of the building, and the entire upper floor/roof of the building. Following are the criteria for demolition. 26.415.100.4. 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, 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: The applicant proposes demolition of the non-historic additions to the landmark in order to restore the original form of the building. Historic photographs are available to guide the restoration and the demolition effort. For instance, the 1904 Sanborn map shown below left identifies the original footprint of the home, and indicates the location of the original P142 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 3 of 13 front porch (shown with a dashed line.) The map also indicates that the small shed currently located in the southeast corner of the site, shown below right, is not the same as the larger structure that sat at the rear of Lot D historically. This low head height building appears to have been a toolshed or playhouse and is proposed to be removed. The photo below shows the east side of the home before an addition was constructed along that wall. Staff finds that the review criteria for demolition of the non-historic aspects of the building are met and recommends approval, however, the applicant must supplement the application with a west elevation of the existing house (difficult to document due to the proximity to a concrete block wall) and floor plans indicating the areas of demolition. There is historic framing and a P143 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 4 of 13 RELOCATION few historic doors and windows in the areas to be retained. Those elements will be required to be preserved in place. The historic home appears to be in its original location, although a basement was built beneath it several decades ago. The foundation has a number of unsatisfactory structural conditions that require it to be rebuilt. Relocation of a historic buildings will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing 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; 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: Lifting the house for a new foundation is a necessity. In the process, the applicant intends to shift the house about 9” west of its current location, so that instead of being 1.2’ away from the west lot line the house will be 2’ away from it. Anytime a structure is this close to a property line, there are numerous building code requirements that come into effect to slow fire from travelling from one building to another. The applicant will be required to add additional layers of drywall to the interior of the structure and protect the eave. No windows will be allowed on this façade, which in this unusual case will be acceptable because there are no west facing windows on the historic photo shown on the first page of this memo. Staff recommends HPC discuss the possibility of placing the house 3’ from the lot line and/or requiring the demolition of the concrete block wall along the property line in order to expose P144 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 5 of 13 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT some view down the side of the resource. The distance between the east side of the historic house and the west side of the new house would likely be reduced from about 9’ to 8’. The application notes the fact that the house is sitting rather low in comparison to the street and alley, which have been built up over the years. Relocation will allow the house to be set at a more proper elevation, with new grading of the site. The application indicates that the floor level of the house will be just over a foot above grade, which is appropriate. More information about the treatment of the exposed foundation will be required at Final review. The applicant will be required to provide a financial assurance in the amount of $30,000, to be held by the City to provide for the safe relocation and repair of the building if needed. The applicant must relocate the structure as a whole and may not undertake demolition of the walls and roof until the building is set on a new foundation. The goal is to maintain the greatest possible integrity of the remaining historic fabric in place. Staff recommends relocation be approved, with the conditions mentioned above. 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. Given the extent of the project, HPC’s approval will be subject to Call-Up review by City Council. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the site plan, height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” The proposal before HPC is to reconstruct the miner’s cottage for use as a residence, and to build a new home along the east and rear of the historic resource. The units have full basements which abut below grade. P145 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 6 of 13 VARIANCES: FAR BONUS, SETBACK VARIATIONS, RDS VARIANCES In terms of site plan, the historic house will remain essentially in its historic location. The proposed new structure does not attach the resource above grade, which is commendable. Placement of a second structure on the lot does entail setback variations, which are discussed later in the memo. The new HPC design guidelines which are applicable to this project require some level of discussion of stormwater design at Conceptual review. While engineering may not be the main focus of the design team at this point, staff has found that waiting until permit to design the system often ends up with unexpected features in the foreground of the historic structure. Since information has not been provided, staff recommends a condition of approval that no stormwater features, including retention areas or drywell covers, will be permitted forward of the front façade of the historic resource. Reviewing the floor plans, there are two minor adjustments that will be needed due to zoning requirements and design standards. First, duplex units can only abut along a common, unpierced wall. The central lightwell which is meant to serve both units below grade provides an opportunity for the two units to be combined illegally at some point in the future. In order to avoid that scenario, a solid concrete wall must be added to separate access. Regarding the lightwell which is proposed along the west façade of the new unit, the Residential Design Standards require all lightwells to be recessed behind the front most wall of the unit which they serve. This lightwell encroaches past the façade, alongside the front porch and must be moved southward. Looking at the height, scale, massing and proportions of the proposal, staff finds that the applicant is successfully addressing the guidelines. The height of the ground floor on the historic structure and new structure are very similar, and the front porches relate strongly to each other. The upper floor of the new house is not taller than the lower level, and the 12:12 roof pitches, street facing gable ends and east-west cross gable all relate well to the resource. The outdoor deck on the new house faces the alley, allowing the new building to be relatively simple in character behind the resource. To create compatibility between the units, the applicant has indicated that they are relating in form and materials and will depart from the Victorian vocabulary with their fenestration, to be discussed in more detail at Final review. Staff finds that the Conceptual design guidelines are met, however we have some objections to the award of a full floor area bonus (which contributes to the size of the project), discussed below. The application includes requests for a 500 square foot floor area bonus, Setback variations, and Residential Design Standards variations. P146 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 7 of 13 26.415.110.F. Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e) The construction materials are of the highest quality; f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. The floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split Review. 4. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet total. Staff Response: The applicant requests the 500 sf floor area bonus. Extensive restoration/reconstruction of the miner’s cabin is proposed. Historic photographs are available to inform the reconstruction but many details will need to be based on general architectural details of the Victorian era. The diminished level of historic integrity for this building calls into question whether the entire 500 sf Bonus is appropriate. In reality, this particular project is mostly new construction, such that the cost and effort of preserving historic materials is not as much of a factor. The application is already receiving 360 square feet of additional floor area, and a second unit on the site, since landmarks are able to have a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot where other properties are not. Significant affordable housing and other fee waivers will be part of the permit process. Staff does find that floor area bonus criteria a, b, c, d, e, and f are arguably met. The design appears to accommodate the requested square footage appropriately, but the new structure is in P147 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 8 of 13 fact about three times the size of the Victorian above grade. The restored building will add value to the neighborhood as a representation of a miner’s cottage. Staff recommends that HPC discuss a reduced bonus, perhaps half, in light of other benefits that are available to the project. 26.415.110.C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 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 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 applicant requests the following variations (bold numbers indicate a variation request): Required Provided East side yard setback 5’ 5’ West side yard setback 5’ 2’ Combined side yard setback 15’ 7’ Rear yard setback 5’ required for garage; 10’ required for living space and decks 5’ for garage; 10’ for living space above and below grade 5’ for a deck on top of the garage Staff Response: Staff is supportive of a west sideyard setback variation to allow the historic resource to sit 2-3’ from the west property line, close to the existing location. Staff is also supportive of a combined sideyard setback variation, which will be measured from the smallest distance from property line to a structure on each side, meaning 5’ provided on the east and 2’ provided on the west totalling 7’ of combined sideyard. Finally, because pushing the mass and activity of the new house towards the alley and away from the historic resource is appropriate, staff supports a variation to allow a rear deck to be 5’ closer to the alley than typically permitted. P148 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 9 of 13 26.410 Residential Design Standards. The Residential Design Standards apply to most residential development throughout Aspen. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate to the review board that the variation, if granted would: a) Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A1-3; or b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The proposal as designed includes two RDS variations; Articulation of Building Mass and Build- to Requirement. In order to avoid a variation related to lightwells, staff has mentioned earlier in the memo that the applicant must shift the location of a lightwell serving the basement below the new unit. At Final review, Residential Design Standards concerning fenestration will be considered. The General intent statements of the guidelines are: P149 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 10 of 13 The specific standards for Articulation of Building Mass read: P150 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 11 of 13 The language related to Build-to Line reads: Staff response: With regard to Articulation of Building Mass, staff finds that a variation is not appropriate. The applicant has three design options to meet the requirements to reduce the length of continuous sidewall along the east property line. The maximum unbroken length of wall that is permitted is 50,’ not including the front porch. The applicant proposes 55.’ Staff has consistently upheld this standard on other residential properties and does not support a variation in this case. Adhering to the Build-to Requirement would mean that the new house would have to be placed almost in alignment with the historic resource. While this would not necessarily be inappropriate, staff does prefer the deeper front setback of the new house, which sends the P151 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 12 of 13 message that this unit is to some extent secondary. The applicant also has to recess the new house due to trees at the front of the site. Staff supports HPC granting a variation on Build-to Requirement. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has suggested a number of areas of restudy on the project, which requires a continuation and resubmittal of drawings. Recommended amendments to the project and/or likely conditions of approval are: 1. Provide a representation of the west elevation of the existing house indicating proposed demolition. 2. Provide floor plans of the existing house indicating proposed demolition. 3. This approval allows for the historic home to be raised 12-18” above its current elevation. Once re-grading has occurred, the finished floor of the historic home may be no more than 12” above the new finished grade. Before and after topographical elevations must be provided to HPC, to be included in this Resolution. 4. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structure can be moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. In addition the applicant must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 per cabin to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process. The applicant must relocate the structure as a whole and may not undertake demolition of the walls and roof until the building is set on a new foundation. The goal is to maintain the greatest possible integrity of the remaining historic fabric in place. 5. No stormwater features, including retention areas or drywell covers, will be permitted forward of the front façade of the historic resource. 6. The lightwell in the center of the property must be divided into two separate lightwells; one for each unit. The lightwell divider must be a concrete wall. 7. In order to meet the Residential Design Standards, the applicant must shift a lightwell on the northwest side of the new residence so that it is aligned with or located behind the north façade of the new residence. 8. Staff recommends that HPC discuss a reduced bonus, perhaps half, in light of other benefits that are available to the project. 9. Staff supports the granting of a 2-3’ setback requirement for the west sideyard, a 7’ combined sideyard and a 5’ rear setback requirement for a deck over the garage. Regarding the west yard, staff recommends demolition of the concrete block wall sitting close to the house in order to open up a view of that side of the house given the minimal setback. 10. Staff supports HPC granting a variation on Build-to Requirement but not Articulation of Building Mass. 11. 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 P152 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker Street Page 13 of 13 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: Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines Exhibit B: Application text Exhibit C: Application drawings P153 IV.A. pg. 1 2015 HP Design Guidelines Exhibit A: Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. · Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. · Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. · Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets. · Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to the alley. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. · If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. · Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. · Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. · Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. · Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. · The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. · Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. · Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. · When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. P154 IV.A. pg. 2 2015 HP Design Guidelines · Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. · Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. · Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. · Do not change the size of an original window opening. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. · Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls. · New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc. · Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade. · Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. · Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. · Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. · If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. · Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. · Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. · Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource. · Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary walls. · A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the building and should be a product of its own time. · Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. · Match original materials. · When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. P155 IV.A. pg. 3 2015 HP Design Guidelines 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony · Steps should be located in the original location. · Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc. · Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. · The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. · When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. · Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. · Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. · Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. · Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. · Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. · Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. · AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. · Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be appropriate on an addition. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. · Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. · In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. · In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. · Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. · In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. P156 IV.A. pg. 4 2015 HP Design Guidelines · If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. · It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. · A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. · Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. · Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. · Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. · On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. · Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. · Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. · New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. · The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. · Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. · Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. · Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. · For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. · HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. · A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. · An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. · An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. · An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. · Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. P157 IV.A. pg. 5 2015 HP Design Guidelines 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. · The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. · The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. · An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. · A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. · Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. · Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. · Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. · There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. · An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. · Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate. · Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. · Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. P158 IV.A. pg. 6 2015 HP Design Guidelines · A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. · On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. · Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. · Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. · AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. · Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. · The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. · A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. · Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. · Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. · The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. 11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new structure(s). · This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot split. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. · Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. · When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. · When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale · When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. · This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. · Overall, details shall be modest in character. P159 IV.A. P160 IV.A. P161 IV.A. P162 IV.A. P163 IV.A. P164 IV.A. P165 IV.A. P166IV.A. P167IV.A. P168IV.A. P169IV.A. P170IV.A. P171IV.A. P172IV.A. P173IV.A. P174IV.A.