HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20170726
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 26, 2017
4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. 12:00 SITE VISITS
A. None
II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Draft Minutes for 5/31/17 and 6/14/17
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
124 W. Hallam Street
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. OLD BUSINESS
A. 4:50 210 W. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development Review, Demolition,
Special Review, Residential Design Standard Review, Conceptual Commercial
Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 14TH
B. 5:55 209 E. Bleeker Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition,
Relocation, Residential Design Standards, Floor Area Bonus, and Variations,
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 28TH
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. None
V. 7:00 ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 16
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
MAY 31, 2017
Chairman Halferty brought the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, John Whipple, Bob
Blaich, Roger Moyer, Willis Pember. Absent were Nora Berko and Richard Lai.
Staff Present:
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Denis Murray, Plans Examination Manager
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Whipple spoke about the outcome of the previous week’s meeting
regarding 232 E Bleeker. He said he personally feels like going forward, we need a board of
enforcement or adjustment for handing out punishments. He said it’s really hard to volunteer for a
board and then set up penalties for something they all care about. He stated he is not a law
enforcement officer and would like to recuse himself going forward. He suggested the City needs a
different plan than volunteers making these decisions.
Ms. Garrow responded by saying these types of meetings are far and few between with the last one
being 17 years ago, but they can work with what options they have going forward and what that process
might look like.
Mr. Halferty stated that he appreciates the time of the staff, applicant and board on that matter. There
were a lot of things not on the HPC purview as far as typical protocol and guidelines so this has been
educational for the applicant and board alike. He mentioned that hopefully there is an education piece
that we can all learn from and also prohibit this from happening again moving forward.
Mr. Pember commented that he thinks it is our purview. He said the board has specific knowledge of
dealing with older historic buildings. The board of adjustment or some other board without the specific
knowledge we have would be totally wrong in their decision.
Mr. Whipple replied that staff felt that our enforcement was light and if a heavy hand is what is needed,
he doesn’t feel comfortable doing that in this small community. He stated that he will always enforce
the guidelines, however.
Mr. Pember also mentioned that the applicant has an appeal process they can pursue if they aren’t
happy with our decision. He said the buck does not stop with HPC and It would go to City Council for
appeal.
P1
II.B.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 31, 2017
Mr. Halferty mentioned that he felt the City Attorney’s office handled it well and staff acted strongly in
their role. This is really an educational process too.
Mr. Pember asked if City Council can call our decision up and remand it back to HPC and Ms. Garrow
said that it’s a different process.
Ms. Bryan stated that City Council can review and recommend, but they cannot call up on something on
their own. Mr. Halferty reiterated that HPC was the governing body for the decision.
Ms. Greenwood mentioned that while this was unusual, applicants do come in to HPC for our help and
it’s a pretty strong process that we are here to help applicants. She said it’s appropriate for HPC to go
through the process and learn for ourselves as well. She said that seeing the problems and issues others
have is beneficial to the board as well.
Mr. Halferty stated that it is not our purview to look at all approved and every working drawing on the
job site. He said it’s one thing to have a preservation plan, but we do not look at full plans.
Mr. DeFrancia said that he understands that HPC isn’t an enforcement board, but it’s no different than
serving on a jury. He said if you take on this responsibility, you need to be prepared. We have our core
mission to advocate. These cases don’t come up often, but when they do, we need to deal with them.
Mr. Moyer mentioned that when this came up, he was stunned and said this is like corporate America.
He said he feels they let staff down but he doesn’t feel that they were prepared. He said they should
look at this moving forward. He suggested spending some time in a work session so they are more
comfortable handing down a penalty.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: 232 E. Bleeker – Ms. Simon said there are a couple of conditions in regards to
removing the stop work and allowing them to proceed. She wanted to make sure that everyone
understands, once the permit comes in, we as staff scrutinize the permits. While HPC doesn’t review
interiors, we most definitely require preservation of the historic structure. One of the questions staff
has is about the framing that still exits and whether it should be put back in place and if they should be
able to remove any additional historic framing on the upper levels of the building. This is a very unusual
situation here and last week we really didn’t wrap up properly. We need to know what HPC thinks
about reattaching the logs. The same goes for the wood studs. Ms. Simon is not recommending
reattachment, but she does recommend that HPC requires the applicant to keep the framing and logs
that are left. She would like them to use a spray foam instead which acts as a barrier instead of
removing anymore original materials.
Ms. Greenwood asked who was asking the question to remove more materials and Ms. Simon stated
that the applicant is asking. We‘ve already removed ¾ of the historic fabric and need to stop the
bleeding. She suggested they figure out some other framing methods and put the logs and studs back
the way they were or what is the point.
P2
II.B.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 31, 2017
Mr. Pember said the whole log discussion is totally irrelevant and it’s up to them. Who cares about the
logs? If this doesn’t impact the exterior, why are we even talking about this?
Mr. Halferty agreed that this is a tough one, but it is outside of our purview. He asked if maybe we
should amend our guidelines.
Ms. Greenwood said that it is clear to her that the structure is their purview and Mr. Pember said that it
is not structural.
Ms. Simon said she meant literally. She also said that one idea they are bouncing around is the idea of
using the 30,000 to come up with a standardized documentation that is required in every single building
permit so that she isn’t have to negotiate every single permit with the architects and contractors.
Mr. Moyer said that he doesn’t think we can allow another stick to leave the site and it’s all part of that
buildings history.
MOTION: Mr. Whipple made a motion to follow staff’s recommendation and monitor, Mr. Blaich
seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, no; Mr. Halferty, no; Mr. Halferty, no, Mr. DeFrancia, yes,
Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Whipple, yes, Mr. Moyer, no. 4-3, motion carried.
PROJECT MONITORING: 110 E Bleeker. Ms. Simon said when this project was approved through HPC,
there was a fireplace in the living that would be vented through one of the two historic chimneys. The
only way to do this is to add a “power vent”. This is causing multiple penetrations on the roof.
Carolyn Cipperly presented different options for venting. She feels the best option is through the
original chimney.
Ms. Simon said one of the three choices is to use the front most chimney and put the power vent on the
backside of it.
Mr. Pember and Ms. Greenwood like option 3 and painted black.
MOTION: Ms. Greenwood stated they should go out the chimney straight up in black (option 3), Mr.
Pember seconded.
Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Whipple,
yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes. 7-0 motion carried.
STAFF COMMENTARY: Phillip Supino speaking about updating the sign code. He handed out surveys and
scope cards. He stated that P&Z will need more respondents on the survey and hearing from HPC on
historic signage would be a big help.
Mr. Whipple exited the meeting.
P3
II.B.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 31, 2017
Mr. Moyer asked how historic signage can be preserved and Mr. Supino stated that this code
amendment is more focused on number and type, but they need to come up with a clever way to make
it work, whether it be national register plaques, etc. He stated that they can develop a category for
historic signs, but it is important to hear from everyone so this can move forward.
Mr. Supino reminded everyone that there will be a work session on June 13th when they will make a
presentation to council and this is why the survey is so important to get some feedback.
OLD BUSINESS: 210 W Main: Justin Barker presented and stated that the applicant has revised the
designs since the last meeting. He has broken it down into two-story masses from three and the height
showed a one foot increase instead of 32 feet as asked previously. The new footprints are more in-line
with historic guidelines and the small height increase can really add to the livability to the unit and they
feel this is a modest request. They feel the massing is correct now and are still asking for a floor area
increase. Staff still has an issue with the roof forms and says they are still flat, but feel it’s important to
show some form of sloped roof, which ties the district together. HPC needs to look at the demolition in
the historic district and the smaller amount of parking. Staff is recommending a continuation.
Applicant Sara Adams of Bendon Adams present with Ted Guy, property owner. The plans still show the
protected interior courtyard due to noise and dust on Main St. and why Mr. Guy feels this is important.
They cannot fit any more than six parking spots as they had presented previously. We were given clear
direction to add more doors along Main St. She stated that they have been meeting with staff over the
last month and have come up with options A – L. They are presenting option L to the board, which they
feel best meets the guidelines. They have removed one stair tower and added three front doors facing
Main St. at grade. Mr. Guy has re-oriented the open space facing the Tyrolean Lodge and has still met
all setbacks. They still have exterior storage in the basement with eight two-bedroom units. The roof
form, which seemed to be the biggest concern, now has flat and gabled pitching, which fits in with other
gabled rooves on Main St.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Mr. Guy checked on storm water treatment costs and he doesn’t want to do a bunch of drywells, but
would like to do the green rooves, which means they have to be flat. By using four different heights, it
will help break that mass up.
Mr. Pember asked about the floor heights and Mr. Guy said 9ft 4” and the ceiling heights are 8 feet with
a suspending ceiling structure. Unit four could have a higher ceiling.
Mr. Moyer concurs with staff recommendations completely and mentions that once again, they are
giving up another parking space.
Mr. DeFrancia said he agrees with Mr. Moyer and wishes that staff would give them more defined
recommendations for them to accept or reject. He suggests more re-study with staff regarding mass
and scale and roof.
P4
II.B.
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 31, 2017
Mr. Pember said he didn’t think the last meeting ended with them needing to come back with sloped
gabled roofs, particularly if he’s using green roofs, which he applauds. He said he thinks the gable roof
would destroy the green roof feature and it’s replacing a building that already has a flat roof, which
represented the late 50’s, early 60’s era architecture.
Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t have an objection to the rooves either, but she says if you’re on Main
St., you need to wear your best dress to the party. She thinks they could build this building in Denver,
Glenwood Springs or anywhere and that it’s not special to Aspen’s Main Street. She suggested they find
what is the right design for Main St. She said she finds this building to be really dull and doesn’t reflect
anything about Aspen regarding era, growth and architectural ideas. She feels it needs unique attention
to Main S. and the Aspen historic district. She said she knows Mr. Guy loves the interior courtyard, but
it’s not going to get much sun and doesn’t think it’s working for the project. She stated she likes the
height differences and the parking spaces are great, but thinks they could take it further and need
additional study on those items. She asked why can’t it be a remarkable building for the tenants who
live there with good curb appeal. She is going with staff recommendations regarding layout, mass and
scale.
Mr. Blaich said it’s an improvement over the previous presentation and likes the rooves and the multiple
heights, but said they need some oomph on this building and needs some tender loving care on the
aesthetics, but we are not here to re-design the building.
Mr. Pember said he thinks this is actually pretty good as far as the parking is concerned. He said it’s a
commendable response to what we asked for last time.
Mr. Moyer thought Ms. Greenwood’s comment were especially good.
Mr. Halferty went through the checklist from the last meeting of what needed to be changed and one by
one, he said they have met the criteria for the most part. He said the applicant has come a long way
and supports staff’s recommendations.
MOTION: Ms. Greenwood is in favor of staff’s recommendations, Mr. Blaich seconded.
Ms. Greenwood amended the motion to include green rooves and continue to work with smaller
modules and rethink the site plan for manipulating your building to smaller modules and add more
definition or detail along Main St. Mr. Blaich seconded the amendment.
Mr. Pember said he doesn’t see a point to pursuing smaller modules.
Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Halferty, no;
Mr. DeFrancia, yes. 4-2, motion carried.
Mr. Guy made a note that this building in inhabited by people who work at night so he does feel that the
courtyard is critical to livability and he doesn’t think they appreciated the decades he has spent on that
property. He doesn’t feel that this is a very helpful direction at this point.
P5
II.B.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 31, 2017
Mr. Barker suggested the continuation to July 12th and Mr. Guy agreed to that.
MOTION to adjourn by Mr. DeFrancia, Mr. Halferty seconded at 6:32 p.m.
____________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P6
II.B.
1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 14, 2017
Chairman Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:37 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, John Whipple, Bob
Blaich, Roger Moyer, Willis Pember, Nora Berko and Richard Lai.
Staff Present:
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Phillip Supino, Principal Long Range Planner
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer mentioned the Aspen Sojourner magazine and the full-page
interview with Mr. Lai regarding the mall. He said the mall was Mr. Lai’s graduate thesis in the 60’s and
then came to be built and thought it was very cool. Congrats to Mr. Lai from everyone.
Ms. Berko commented that the charge of HPC seems to be to preserve resources and per the guidelines
and she said it’s a privilege to be an HPC applicant and this comes with bonuses and consequences. She
said she hopes as a commission, they can take their charge super seriously and honor both the bones
and skin of their history in Aspen and to uphold the guidelines with the utmost strictness.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Mr. Whipple says he is conflicted on 500 W. Main St. and will recuse himself
once again as well as Mr. Halferty because he lives too closely.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she had a couple of things, but will follow up privately.
STAFF COMMENTS: Phillip Supino speaking on the Community Development work program. Mr. Supino
mentioned there are two current items being implemented by staff already and are: Basic Gov (universal
permitting and processing system used by staff to streamline internal process for taking in land use and
HPC applications). The second item is the Lift 1A location study, which relates to the historic lift 1A
terminal and how it will affect future land use cases. In the proposed work program items, discussion
will surround an expedited tenant finish project and this is typically an improvement project for
commercial units in a more expedited manner. There will also be an energy efficiency expedited
process, which are permits that are putting in a renewable energy system and keep these from getting
stuck in the cue behind larger projects.
Ms. Greenwood asked where the general public can read about these items and Mr. Supino said they
are working on the back end to develop a staff memo. He said there is a July 18th council meeting
scheduled on this subject and the packet will be available to the public the Friday before. P&Z will also
discuss this next week on the 20th.
P7
II.B.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTE OF
JUNE 14, 2017
Mr. Moyer stated that some people that come in to do business are crooks and we need to protect
historic resources from this. He also mentioned solar issues and asked if there are restrictions on
putting solar panels on the roof? Mr. Supino stated that the design guidelines are ok on new
construction or solar shingles on a historic building. The applicant would participate in the renewable
energy program and would be required to provide the requirement or pay a fee for example, heating in
the driveway for a historic property.
Mr. Pember supported wholeheartedly having two tracks for sequencing permits and Mr. Supino said
he’s not sure how the Building Dept. manages their permit queue. Mr. Pember asked if this includes
residential permits that rise to the same scope because there is a huge imbalance in the permits that are
issued.
Ms. Greenwood agreed and said that for a small remodel in the Building Dept., the whole process needs
a complete overhaul regarding residential permits. She said the permitting process is an absurd
experience in the architectural profession and that giving preferential treatment to commercial spaces
isn’t necessarily fair. Mr. Whipple, in agreement, says they have to ride the waves of cycles in town and
things should be more streamlined. Mr. Supino said he will discuss these issues with staff and present
them to council.
Mr. Lai commented that when you have a forward looking Planning Dept., there is a problem because it
adds another level of bureaucracy and this is an impediment to development.
Mr. Halferty thanked Mr. Supino and the staff for the forward thinking. He liked what the commission is
thinking and said it helps the review process.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon gave to Ms. Bryan.
CALL UPS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS:
201 E Main - Main St. Bakery.
MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia moved to continue to June 28th, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
500 W Main: for final major development and final commercial design review. A conceptual approval
was granted in October 2016. They are reverting to what was first shown to the board in Oct 2016,
which accepted size, mass and scale of the addition and also involved more commercial space than
residential and involved a waiver of some of the onsite parking requirements and some setback
variances. Tonight the discussion is on landscape, lighting and materials. At the time of approval, HPC
wanted the applicant to focus on the restoration plan, continue to talk with environmental health about
P8
II.B.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 14, 2017
their trash and recycling area, talk to other referral agencies to make sure all programs addressing new
trips generated to the site were properly addressed before moving to a building permit. Staff supports
the proposal and thinks it is successful. HPC should focus on the materials as both buildings are
proposed to have solar shingles on the roof. Staff supports the solar shingles on the new construction,
but a bit concerned about having them on the historic structure as it might be seen as too much of a
departure in character. The second item of discussion will be that the applicant wants to side the new
addition with composite board, but would use wood if it’s important to HPC, but staff supports the
composite board. The suggested conditions will be that we want more info about historic preservation
methods, detailed drawings of porch restoration, cut sheets on the windows. Part of the HPC review
tonight will have to do with growth management and affordable housing mitigation. The new addition
will be net leasable and the apartment is exempt and one of the last projects to add a free market unit
due to the moratorium. They are adding 1620 square feet of new net leasable space and they can make
a cash in lieu payment or buy affordable housing certificates from other projects in town that have
created new units. They have provided a transportation analysis report.
Mr. Pember asked if they had samples of the solar panels. Mr. Roland answered no, but it is exciting
technology from Elon Musk/Tesla.
John Roland and Dana Ellis with Roland & Broughton Architecture present and speaking on the project.
Mr. Roland mentioned that the restoration efforts are a little over a quarter of the project budget. This
building is on the corner of Main St. and 4th. Somewhere between 1963 and 1999, the owners made a
change to the covered deck, which they will take back to original along with the upper windows. They
want to keep the historic foundation intact and redo the covered stairs and add wood shingles to the
roof. They will replace the appropriate lighting on the building and they are now going to pursue the
wood shingles on the historic structure due to pricing and availability. They will be submitting for a lot
of tax credits. The historic structure has a non-historic door and window on the rear so they are bringing
back the historic proportions for the door and windows. The color palate will retain the slate blue that is
there now and work with the white trim and this will be the influence for the addition. For the siding
materials, they are open to doing wood, but have had great success using the composite. The addition
is setting 10 ft back from the Mesa building and the linking element is 10 ft back from that point and is
hard to see. They are proposing two types of siding on the addition for the upper and lower sections,
which will distinguish the use of the building. The lower half will be commercial and upper half will be
residential. The commercial fenestration won’t be very visible from main street and our hope is the
windows will provide a nice day lighting element. They are looking into what was used as the roofing
material for the front porch and was possibly a painted wood shingle so they are still looking for the
appropriate material to use and are working with Amy on this. They will not do a lawn at all, they are
going with a garden instead. The neighbors just installed a fence and the area of the planter is where an
existing concrete accessibility ramp is and will be removed and will retain all existing trees, but may not
work as the Engineering Department may not allow due to how the drainage is set up. Kolbe has a great
line of historic windows, which are currently used at the Jerome. Steel clad windows will be used for the
addition that have a good sound rating since they will be right on Main St. Flowers and grasses will be
P9
II.B.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 14, 2017
used that are good for the bee population with a muted palate and all peaking at different times. They
do not want the light fixtures to be “in your face” as the current ones are. They plan to have a company
We cycle account and will provide a wellness benefit to purchase bicycles and bus passes.
Mr. Moyer asked why they didn’t go back to the more historic red color and Mr. Roland said they are so
nervous about sanding and what might wear through so they thought it best to work with the existing
color. Mr. Moyer asked who the GC will be and Mr. Roland answered Schlumberger.
Ms. Berko asked about the concerning planter up close to the building and Ms. Ellis said there are water
issues and they are unsure if they will move forward with it.
Mr. Laid mentioned that when looking at the rear view and the color choices for the addition, he feels
that by choosing two different colors, it makes the two buildings distinctly two buildings and asked what
their reason was behind that. Mr. Roland said the off white would be the trim that is currently there.
We want to make it benign and singular and allow the white to be a compliment. We want to have an
element of blue on the addition to relate the two buildings.
Ms. Greenwood asked about gutters and downspouts and Ms. Ellis said they will apply a gutter and they
don’t really have a choice. There won’t be any snow guards, but a little bit of heat tape.
Ms. Ellis said the garage is for the residence, which is a free market unit and one is a bit larger to be van
accessible. The city just installed a bike path through this neighborhood as well.
Mr. Lai asked about fenestration and wanted to know if the connecting neck is transparent and Mr.
Roland answered yes, that it is a continuous piece and is all glass.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Mary Sue Bonetti who resides at 518 W. Main in the red house said she likes this
project.
Public comment closed.
Ms. Greenwood mentioned that the Tesla shingles on this historic building horrifies her, but loves the
project otherwise. She said it’s a very successful project and would like to see it move forward tonight
with the set conditions.
Mr. Moyer stated three other conditions: 1. Historic building retains historic lighting on the exterior 2.
No siding torn off and replaced 3. The composite on the new addition, be dealt with in a proper manner.
MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia moved to approve with the seven conditions presented by staff, Mr. Blaich
seconded.
Mr. Pember made a friendly amendment to review Mr. Moyer’s conditions. They should consider period
fixtures to be reviewed by staff and monitor, minimize removal of historic materials on false front
P10
II.B.
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 14, 2017
building and bring in a sample of the Tesla materials for the roof and gutter. Add a staff monitor to
review the shingles on the main roof and verify roofing materials of the reconstructed porch.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to accept the amendment, Mr. Blaich seconded.
Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes;
Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 7-0 Amendment to the motion carried.
Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr.
Moyer, yes; Mr. Pember, yes. 7-0 original motion carried.
Project monitor will be Mr. Moyer.
Mr. DeFrancia motioned to adjourn, Ms. Greenwood seconded. All in favor, motion carried. 6:20 p.m.
______________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P11
II.B.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 124 W. Hallam Street- Project Monitoring
DATE: July 26, 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 124 W. Hallam is a Victorian era home, built in approximately 1887. The house has
been significantly remodeled over the years, with alterations to historic features, and additions on all
sides. In 2016, HPC granted final approvals to demolish non-historic elements, to set the structure
on a new basement, and to construct an addition at the rear of the site.
The project is in building permit review. HPC member Gretchen Greenwood is the project monitor,
along with staff. The property owner has requested two insubstantial amendments to the design,
one of which has been approved (the installation of a skylight on the roof of the connector between
the old and new portions of the home) and one of which is being referred to HPC (the installation of
a skylight on an alley facing roof of the historic resource.) Drawings of the proposed skylight are
attached.
Staff and monitor were unwilling to grant approval for the skylight on the historic home without
agreement by the full board that the guideline below is met
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
q Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an
obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a
front roof plane is not allowed.
q A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should
be positioned below the ridgeline.
Staff and monitor find that the skylight may be viewed from the alley given the height of the
historic resource, and that this disruption of the shingled roof plane is intrusive and detracts from
the historic character of the home. A determination by HPC is requested.
P12
II.F.
RO | ROCKETT DESIGN
The work shall be carried out in accordance with the attached supplemental instruction issued in
accordance with the Contract Document without change in Contract Sum or Contract Time. Prior to
proceeding in accordance with these instructions, indicate your acceptance of these instructions for
minor change to the Work as consistent with the Contract Documents and return a copy to RO |
ROCKETT DESIGN. Any changes to the contract must receive prior written approval by owner.
Issued By:
Date: 06/23/2017
Accepted By: Date:
1306 Bridgeway, Floor 2 | Sausalito CA 94965 | T 415 289 0830 | mgranelli@rorockettdesign.com | www.rorockettdesign.com
Description
Amy,
Please see attached drawings and 3D images for a proposed low-profile skylight at Victorian
North roof. The proposed skylight will not be visible from the adjacent streets (First St, Hallam St)
and has a minimal visual impact, if any, to the neighbor to the east. (See photo and 3D views
attached). A skylight adds light to the constrained and low-lit closet space and has almost no
impact to the structure and roofline as opposed to adding a north-facing dormer.
Thank you,
Andrew
Attachments:
- 170623 SKYLIGHT DRAWINGS.pdf
- 170623 SKYLIGHT 3D IMAGES.pdf
REQUEST FOR DESIGN APPROVAL
To: Amy Simon
Aspen Historic Preservation
Commission
From: Andrew Alexander Green
Date: 06/23/2017
Via: Email
Job:
124 W Hallam Street / 1507
Re: Request for design approval –
Roof Skylight
CC: Bill Guth, Zac Rockett, Jason Ro
P13
II.F.
P14II.F.
P15II.F.
P16II.F.
P17II.F.
P18II.F.
P19II.F.
P20II.F.
P21II.F.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
7.26.2017
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner
THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 210 W. Main Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Residential
Design Standard Review, Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Setback
Variances, Continued Public Hearing
DATE: July 26, 2017
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 210 W. Main is a 6,000 square foot parcel, zoned Mixed Use (MU) and located in
the Main Street Historic District. The site currently contains 6 free market residential units, 1
affordable housing unit, and one commercial/residential unit. The surrounding development
includes a mix of residential, commercial and lodging.
The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with eight (8) affordable housing units to create
Affordable Housing Credits. The applicant requests the following reviews from HPC:
1. Major Development Conceptual review
2. Demolition of a building within a historic district
3. Special Review for:
a. FAR increase from 1:1 to 1.25:1
b. reduction of 1 parking space (7 required and 6 proposed)
c. reduced front yard setback to 5 feet
4. Setback Variances for porches and balconies
5. Conceptual Commercial Design Review to allow a height of 29 ft.
6. Residential Design Standard review for multi-family buildings
HPC reviewed this project at public hearings on April 26th, 2017 and May 31st, 2017. HPC voted
to continue the project suggesting smaller modules incorporating green roofs and site plan
adjustments to provide more definition on Main Street. The vote was 4-2.
The applicant has revised the design based on comments from staff and HPC. The revised design
is attached as Exhibit I.
Staff recommends continuation.
APPLICANT: King Louise, LLC, PO Box 1467, Basalt, CO 81621, represented by
BendonAdams.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-40-009.
P22
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
7.26.2017
2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots P & Q, Block 51, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONE DISTRICT: MU, Mixed Use.
Figure 1 – Locator and Zoning Map
DISCUSSION:
In general, staff supported the project at the May 31st meeting, except for roof form. Staff
recommended continuation to further study the incorporation of a sloped roof form into the
project to better relate to the historic district. One of the core design objectives for the Main
Street Historic District Guidelines is to “Maintain the range of traditional building and roof
forms” by having basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally.
Additionally, the guidelines for Building Form state:
“A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity along Main
Street. In order to maintain this feature, a new building should have basic roof and building
forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Overall facade proportions also should be
in harmony with the context. The character of the roof is a major feature of historic buildings
in the Main Street District. The similar roof forms contribute to the sense of visual continuity
when repeated along the street. In each case, the roof pitch, its materials, size and
P23
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
7.26.2017
3
orientation are all important to the overall character of the building. New construction
should not break from this continuity. New structures and their roofs should be similar in
character to their historic neighbors.”
The historic district is largely comprised of historic residential structures. The form is important
to compatibility and sloped roofs are an important element that ties the district together. Staff
continues to recommend the applicant explore adding sloped forms on at least one of the
proposed masses on Main Street to maintain the continuity and compatibility that is stated in the
guidelines. The original application included a streetscape rendering, but staff is unsure how the
revised design will relate to or improve the streetscape and would like to see this further
developed. HPC was generally comfortable with flat roofs on this project, particularly if used as
green roofs. Although staff recommends a sloped roof form, a resolution has been prepared
accommodating the board’s comments with flat roofs conditioned on the installation of a green
roof system.
The other main points of discussion related to outdoor space and the building modules created by
the proposed site plan and building design. HPC wanted to see more definition created on Main
Street, particularly through the use of outdoor space, porches, and balconies. The applicant has
modified the design to increase the size of the proposed porches and balconies and make them
more prominent. Due to the increase size, these features extend into the front and side yard
setbacks, requiring variances. The front yard setback in the Mixed Used zone district may be
reduced through Special Review, while the side yard setbacks require Dimensional Variances.
The Special Review criteria (Exhibit B) requires compatibility with the surrounding land uses
and purposes of the zone district, while mitigating the adverse impacts of the development.
Porches, porticos, and stoops are an important aspect within the guidelines to the massing of
structures and defining entries on Main Street. They add a one-story element to the building
front, help establish a uniform sense of human scale along the block, and tie the historic district
together. Balconies provide important outdoor space for the upper floor units and help to further
break down the perceived mass of the building. While staff is supportive of the inclusion of these
features, staff does not support the proposed porch and entry between the two units on Main
Street.
P24
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
7.26.2017
4
Porches have traditionally been used to define entries into a specific unit and serve as an outdoor
living space for the residents of that unit. The proposed porch and entry door lead into the
courtyard and circulation instead of a specific unit and do not relate to the historic pattern of
entries. These features also blur the separation between the two masses facing Main Street,
making it appear more as one large structure at the ground level instead of independent masses
that are similar in scale and width to those during the mining era. Staff recommends that this
P25
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
7.26.2017
5
particular porch be removed from the design. Staff is supportive of a reduced front yard setback
to accommodate the porches on the east and west sides of the front buildings as these are more
traditional in character and better relate to the historic development on Main Street.
These porches also extend into the side setbacks. The side yard setback variance criteria (Exhibit
C) are different than the preservation related variations HPC often considers. They require the
determination of an unnecessary hardship being placed on the applicant, as distinguished from a
mere inconvenience. As a new construction project on a generally flat lot, the Applicant has
every opportunity to revise the porch and balcony design to be more south-oriented and contained
within the side yard setbacks. This would seem to be the more desirable solution, as the views
would be oriented toward Aspen Mountain and more daylight instead of neighboring properties.
Staff recognizes the Applicant’s desire to provide outdoor space that is protected from the noise
of Main Street, however staff is not supportive of the side yard setback variances as there are no
unique site conditions or circumstances that could be considered a hardship.
Staff believes it is worth mentioning that many of the design issues may be a result of the
Applicant’s desire to provide an interior courtyard for the project. Although staff understands the
desire to provide outdoor space protected from Main Street, staff questions whether the proposed
design will result in a desirable space. Privacy, views and sun are limited. At the May 31st
meeting, some members of HPC suggested the use of rooftop decks as an alternative to achieve
common outdoor space. Being able to use the space where the interior courtyard is located may
provide additional opportunity to vary the massing of the project and/or create a front yard that is
a typical feature consistent with historic development in the district.
Discussion of the other aspects of this project are summarized below and evaluated in more
detail in the staff memo from the May 31st HPC meeting (Exhibit J).
Height: The current design requires a height increase, but only for one additional foot above the
Code allowance, from 28 feet to 29 feet on the alley mass. The two smaller masses have heights
of 19 feet and 22 feet. A height of up to 32 feet may be granted by HPC through Commercial
Design Review1. Staff finds that a one-foot height increase is minimal and a reasonable request
to allow more livable floor-to-ceiling heights and better solar access to the units in the north
structure without significantly impacting the neighboring properties across the alley.
Floor Area (Special Review): The MU zone district allows for a 1:1 FAR within the Main Street
Historic District. Through Special Review, 1.25:1 may be granted by HPC. The current design
requests a FAR increase to 1.25:1. With a more appropriate massing along Main Street and lower
heights across the project, staff believes that the current proposal reduces the potential impacts of
the development and is supportive of the FAR increase.
Other issues: The other items that require HPC approval include Demolition, Special Review for
a parking reduction of one space, and Residential Design Standard Review. HPC did not have
any concerns with these at previous meetings.
1 This is no longer permitted under the current Land Use Code.
P26
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
7.26.2017
6
Although the materials, fenestration and architectural details are not reviewed during Conceptual,
staff has some concerns related to these items. The Main Street Historic District Design
Objectives include the following:
4.Maintain the character of traditional materials.
5.Incorporate architectural details that are in character with the district.
6.Maintain the characteristics of traditional windows and doors.
The proposed design represents several design features that do not support the characteristics of
historic development in the district and staff will look for significant improvement on these
aspects moving forward.
SUMMARY OF HPC DECISIONS NEEDED
Decision Staff Support
Layout Yes
Mass/Scale Yes
Height Increase Yes
FAR Increase Yes
RDS Yes
Roof Forms No
Parking Reduction Yes, with payment-in-lieu
Demolition Yes
Reduced Front Setback Yes
Setback Variances No
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends continuation to:
1. incorporate a sloped roof on one of the Main Street building masses
2. remove the center porch and courtyard entry door
3. restudy the balconies and porches so that they are located out of the side yard setbacks
4. consider modifying the site plan to create a front yard similar to the historic development
in the district
EXHIBITS (UNLESS BOLDED, INCLUDED IN APRIL 26TH AND MAY 24TH PACKETS):
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Residential Design Standards - updated
C. Demolition Review Criteria
D. Special Review Criteria – updated
E. DRC comments
F. Application
G. Revised Design received May 24, 2017
H. Variance Review Criteria
I. Application Update 7.17.17
J. Staff memo 5.31.17
P27
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, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT,
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, AND SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVALS FOR
210 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS P & Q, BLOCK 51, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-124-40-009
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
King Louise, LLC (Applicant), represented by BendonAdams, for the following land use review
approvals:
· Demolition pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415,
· Major Development, Conceptual pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415,
· Residential Design Standard Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410,
· Special Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430,
· Conceptual 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, February 21, 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, as a result of a Development Review Committee meeting held March 29,
2017, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Environmental Health Department, Parks
Department, and Zoning; 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 July 26, 2017, continued from April 26, 2017, May 24, 2017, May 31,
2017, and June 28, 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.
P28
III.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution No. -, Series 2017
Page 2 of 3
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, Relocation, Conceptual Major
Development, Residential Design Standard Review, Special Review and Commercial Design
Review approval for the project as presented to HPC on July 26, 2017, with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall re-design the porches and balconies to be entirely out of the side yard
setbacks.
2. Green roof systems are required on all structures.
3. HPC grants Special Review approval to reduce the front yard setback from ten (10) feet
to five (5) feet for porches and balconies only.
4. HPC grants Special Review approval to increase the maximum allowable cumulative
FAR to 1.25:1.
5. HPC grants Special Review approval for the reduction of one (1) parking space on-site.
Six (6) parking spaces shall be provided on-site.
6. HPC grants a maximum allowable height of 29 feet, pursuant to Section 26.412,
Commercial Design Review.
7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
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.
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.
P29
III.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution No. -, Series 2017
Page 3 of 3
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 26th day of July, 2017.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P30
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit D – Special Review
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT D
SPECIAL REVIEW
26.430.040.A Dimensional requirements.
Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special
review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met.
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks
of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or
enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the
underlying zone district.
Staff Findings: The applicant is requesting Special Review approval to increase the
allowable Floor Area from 1:1 to 1.25:1. Staff did not support an FAR increase for the
original project as the mass, height and building layout were not compatible with the
historic development in the Main Street Historic District. The revised design lowers the
heights, particularly along Main Street, reducing the height from three stories (28 ft.)
to two stories (19 ft. and 22 ft.), which is typical for the historic development. The
massing is broken down into three structures instead of two and reduced along Main
Street to limit the perceived scale from the street and appear similar to the historic
structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
JULY 26TH UPDATE: The applicant is also requesting Special Review to reduce the
front yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to accommodate larger porches and
balconies. Porches, porticos, and stoops are an important aspect within the guidelines
to the massing of structures and defining entries on Main Street. They add a one-story
element to the building front and help establish a uniform sense of human scale along
the block and tie the historic district together. Balconies provide important outdoor
space for the upper floor units and help to further break down the perceived mass of
the building. For these reasons, staff is supportive of the reduced front yard setback for
porches and balconies only and finds this criterion to be met.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts
on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the
effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking
of a designated view plane.
Staff Findings: The existing development is approximately 24 ft. tall. The original
design proposed a height of 32 ft. for a large portion of the structure, which staff and
HPC did not support. Some members of HPC suggests that a height increase may be
acceptable in select areas. The revised design lowers the proposed height to 29 ft. along
the alley, which is one foot taller than what the zone district permits. The mass is also
pulled back from the property line to 8 ft. 9 in. (originally 5 ft.). Both the reduced
height and increased setback reduce the impacts on the properties north of the alley by
better preserving the views, reducing shading in the winter, and alleviate the perceived
massing. Relocating the courtyard to the east and reducing the height of the buildings
P31
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit D – Special Review
Page 2 of 3
along Main Street helps to preserve the views and alleviate massing along the lodge
units in the Tyrolean to the east. See discussion on parking impacts in Section
26.515.040 below. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
JULY 26TH UPDATE: Staff finds that the increased size of porches and balconies has
little to no additional impact to the surrounding uses. These features will likely serve as
a benefit to neighboring development by breaking down the scale of the proposed
development and creating more visual interest. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
26.515.040. Special review standards
Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special
review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common
development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the
following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community
Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the
Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the
special review application.
A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be
approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have
been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation
of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands,
the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass
transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for
residents, guests and employees.
Staff Findings: The Land Use Code requires 1 space per unit. The existing property
contains 7 spaces for 8 units, although only six spaces have been functionally used.
The applicant is proposing 6 parking spaces on site. The close proximity to downtown,
bus service and bike share stations provide transportation services that can help
alleviate the parking needs. The applicant is also proposing one of the spaces be
dedicated for Car-to-Go, which could serve as a shared use vehicle for multiple
tenants. The surrounding neighborhood appears to have capacity to accommodate the
additional required parking for the development, however staff has concerns about the
potential parking that will be needed by the development (see discussion in subsection 3
below). Staff finds this criterion to be met, with conditions.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in
an undesirable development scenario.
Staff Findings: Current ADA regulations require an accessible parking space, which is
wider than a typical parking space. This makes it physically impossible to fit 7 parking
P32
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit D – Special Review
Page 3 of 3
spaces across the width of the property. A reconfiguration of the parking plan would
require a much larger surface area, which is an undesirable solution, particularly in
the historic district. A subgrade parking garage is a cost prohibitive option considering
the size of the development and use as affordable housing, particularly to only
accommodate one additional parking space. Given these constraints, staff finds this
criterion to be met.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the
development, including the availability of street parking.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing to use one of the on-site spaces as a Car-to-
Go space, which could potentially serve multiple tenants of the new development.
Although the existing development has functioned with only 6 resident space, the
number of FTEs housed by the proposed project increases from 11 to 18. This will
likely increase the number of vehicles associated with the new development. Although
it appears that there is capacity in the adjacent neighborhood to accommodate the one
additional required space, these potential impacts are not accounted for on-site. Staff
recognizes the inability to feasibly or appropriately fit the additional space on-site, but
recommends that the space not be waived, but provided as a cash-in-lieu payment
($30,000) to help further improve other transportation facilities and services in town.
P33
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit H – Variance
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT H
VARIANCE
26.314.040. Standards applicable to variances.
A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the
appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3)
circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and
Staff Findings: The requested variances are side yard setback variances for balconies
and porches associated with a new affordable housing development. The Land Use
Code supports the development and livability of affordable housing, while the Mixed
Use zone district promotes standalone residential uses as a reflection of the historic
nature of the district. Although balconies and porches are not, certain features are
permitted to project into setbacks in recognition of the limited impact that these
features have on bulk and mass of a development. For a long time, balconies were
permitted to project up to 1/3 into the setback, however that allowance has recently
been removed from the Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the parcel, building or structure; and
Staff Findings: The Code currently allows architectural projections that are
nonfunctional or ornamental to project into the setback by 18 inches. This allows
features such as roof overhangs or window sills to project into the setback, however
balconies are viewed as a functional feature and therefore are not permitted. The
Applicant is requesting only 18 inches into the setback for the balconies and porhces,
which would align with the maximum allowed for features that have a similar impact
on the massing of a structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the
Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings
in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied
by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or
structures, in the same zone district.
Staff Findings: The subject property is a 6,000 square foot lot that is rectangular in
shape and mostly flat. The proposed development includes complete demolition and
new construction. There are no special conditions or circumstances which are
P34
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit H – Variance
Page 2 of 2
unique to this parcel versus any other parcel in the Main Street Historic District or
Mixed Use zone district. The Applicant is requesting both Floor Area and height
increases, which would already provide for more development than the underlying
zoning allows by right without Special Review. The addition of porches and
balconies that encroach into the side yard setback would be a special privilege for
this property that would not be permitted for similar properties, particularly with an
increased Floor Area and height. Staff does not find this criterion to be met.
P35
III.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
July 26, 2017
Justin Barker
Senior Planner
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 210 West Main Street – revised application
Mr. Barker :
The applicant has made some revisions to the application based on feedback from HPC as outlined below.
Proposal: The application proposes redevelopment of the site as 100% affordable housing, eight two-
bedroom apartments, in exchange for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Removal of the live/work
space and lifting the Category designation of apartment 8 is proposed, thereby returning all eight units to
free-market status prior to redevelopment.
A three story building with surface parking along the alley is proposed to contain eight 2-bedroom units.
Category 3 rental units are proposed with the ability to convert to “for sale” units in the future. Units 103
and 203 are located in the module to the west of the property along Main Street. 103 and 203 are smaller
in size due to a reduction in the mass and scale of the buildings facing Main Street to better relate to the
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Other units sizes are unchanged. Unit 102 is a stacked two
bedroom unit located in the smaller module facing Main Street on the east of the property. All units are
100% above grade.
On May 23, 2017 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved an amendment to the deed restriction
for the live/work space in Unit 7 that allows the commercial use to be removed and in turn, the deed
restricted unit reverts back to a free market residential unit.
This project has been considered by HPC during two public hearings. The applicant has continually revised
the application to address HPC’s comments. On May 31, 2017, HPC provided the following direction:
1) Rethink the site plan/ add front porches along Main Street/ look at larger front setback.
The site plan has been altered to provide larger front porches for the ground level units facing Main
Street. The front porches for Units 102 and 103 extend 18” into the 10 ft. setback and require
setback variances. A large front porch is proposed between the modules at the center of the
P36
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 7/26/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
building facing Main Street. Required walkway width and a desire to maximize net livable area
within the units caused the front porch element to extend to the 5 ft. setback toward Main Street.
The building façade is on the 10 ft. setback line. A request for a front yard setback variance through
special review is requested as noted below. Setback variances for the porches and balconies on
the east and west elevations that extend 18” into the setback are requested, as the allowance of
18” into the setback for architectural elements does not apply to porches or balconies. Blue
highlights below show intrusion into setbacks. The existing buildings in the block have a variety of
front yard setbacks. The proposed slight intrusion for front porches softens the existing setbacks
(currently ranging from 0 ft. to 10 ft.).
2) Provide more architectural detail along Main Street and smaller modules.
Architectural detail, windows, and initial materials are more developed than previously shown to
HPC. The eastern module (at right below) is more contemporary than the western module facing
Main Street. The proposed window and material changes between the east and west module start
to represent the project as two separate buildings which reduces the scale of the building. The two
different modules better relates to the rhythm of smaller buildings along the west end of Main
Street which meets guidelines 7.14 and 7.15. A rendering will be presented to HPC on July 26th.
P37
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 7/26/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the
mining era.
• Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height.
7.15 On larger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller “modules” that are similar in size
to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street.
4) General consensus was that provided parking is adequate.
Parking is unchanged from May 31st. The proposed 6 parking spaces, including 1 accessible van
space, remains unchanged.
5) General consensus was that the flat roofs are ok.
Flat roofs are unchanged from May 31st. The applicant proposes flat roof forms for all three
modules to facilitate green roofs that will meet required Storm Water Mitigation on the property,
to be consistent with the existing building, and to maintain a low profile. The applicant further
studied the impact of gable roofs on the project and surrounding neighbors, paying close attention
to the Tyrolean Lodge’s rooms along the shared property line. A gable roof raises the height of the
building and presents snow shedding issues for walkways. The majority of HPC at the May 31st
meeting expressed support for flat roofs; therefore, the roof forms of the project are unchanged.
6) Addition height request is generally ok.
The height has been reduced from 32 ft. to 19 ft. 4 in. (eastern module) and 22 ft. 4 in. (western
module) along Main Street and 29 ft. along the alley. The mass has been shifted to be respectful
of the adjacent Tyrolean Lodge rooms with open space in the form of a small courtyard proposed
P38
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 7/26/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
along the east lot line. The minimum height of 29 ft. needed for a 3-story residential building is
requested with this application. A height increase to 29 ft. along the alley benefits the livability of
the affordable housing units.
7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main
Street Historic District.
• Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject
property.
• A minimum second story floor to ceiling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is
respectful to historic buildings.
• Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the
following reasons:
- The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum,
Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.)
- Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to
a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area
may be appropriate.
- To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units.
- To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution To the
building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved
daylighting.
P39
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 7/26/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Units are proposed as shown below:
Table 1: Proposed unit sizes and configurations
Unit Bed-
rooms
Unit
Net
livable
Assigned
Storage
Outside
Unit
Total Net
livable
Area
(including
storage)**
Minimum
Size
Requirement
%
reduction
Amount
over
minimum
counting
storage
Cat. FTE
101 2 846.1 159.7* 1005.8 900 6% 105.8 sf 3 2.25
102
(stacked
unit) 2 849.5 80 929.5 900 6% 29.5 sf 3 2.25
103 2 757.2 161* 918.2 900 16% 18.2 sf 3 2.25
201 2 839.3 80.5 919.8 900 7% 19.8 sf 3 2.25
202 2 848.8 80.5 929.3 900 6% 29.3 sf 3 2.25
203 2 756.7 80.1 836.8 900 16% -63.2 sf 3 2.25
301 2 848.8 80.9 929.7 900 6% 29.7 sf 3 2.25
302 2 868.9 81 949.9 900 3% 49.9 sf 3 2.25
TOTALS 16 7,419 18
* note: ADA units 101 and 103 each have 2 assigned 80 sf storage units on the basement level and
level 1.
** note: The recent 834 W. Hallam (Poppie’s) application counted exterior storage toward total net
livable area for each unit.
FAR : The revision has reduced the overall mass by about 160 sf of decks. The floor area is roughly the
same as previously proposed: 7,361 sf of FAR was originally proposed - the revised total of about 7,300 sf
of Floor Area or roughly 1.22:1 is needed for this project. The maximum allowable through special review
is 7,500 sf or 1.25:1 FAR.
This application requests the following reviews of the Historic Preservation Commission:
• Conceptual Major Development Review (Exhibit 1)
• Demolition for properties within the Main Street Historic District (Exhibit 1)
• Residential Design Standard Review (Exhibit 2) No longer requested.
• Special Review for 1.25:1 FAR and for Parking (Exhibit 3)
• Special Review for front yard setback for front porch roofs (Exhibit 18)
• Side yard variance for porch overhangs of 18” (Exhibit 19)
We feel that HPC’s concerns are addressed in these revisions and we look forward to discussing this project
with you and with HPC - it is a great addition to the Main Street Historic District, ensures that the property
remains multi-family housing, and provides affordable housing units within walking distance to downtown.
Please contact me with any questions or concerns: 925-2855 or sara@bendonadams.com
P40
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 7/26/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
Attachments: Please note that attachments 1 – 17 have been provided.
1 –Major Development Conceptual Review and Demolition
2 – Residential Design Standards – Multi-family Buildings
3 – Special Review
4 – TIA
5 - Pre-Application conference summary
6 - Vicinity Map
7 – Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Form
8 – Authorization to represent
9 – Disclosure of ownership
10 – Agreement to pay form
11 – HOA compliance form
12 – list of owners within 300 ft.
13 – City of Aspen Land Use Code Interpretation dated January 30, 2015
14 – Planning and Zoning Resolution 39, Series of 1995 and meeting minutes
15 - Context photographs
16 - Drawings, survey, (rendering to be produced prior to public hearing)
17 – updated drawings 5-31-17
18 – Special Review for front yard setback.
19 – Variance request for side yard setback.
20 – updated drawings 7 – 26- 17
P41
III.A.
Exhibit 18 –
Special Review
210 W. Main St.
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 18
Special Review
26.4130.040. Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be
permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed
development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below.
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed
development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved
if the following conditions are met.
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of
the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances
the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying
zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts
on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of
shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated
view plane.
The proposed project requests Special Review approval to reduce the front yard setback from 10 feet to 5
feet for front porch projections. The building façade sits at the 10 feet setback line. The applicant has
revised the project countless times to respond to HPC and Staff’s concerns. One reason for continuance at
the May 31st HPC meeting was for the addition of front porches along Main Street. The applicant has
added more prominent front porches facing Main Street to better relate to the historic residential context
of the District; however these elements require relief from the 10 feet required setback. The Main Street
Historic District permits a front yard setback of up to 5 feet through Special Review.
Figure 1: Existing setbacks within blockface. Arrow indicates subject property.
Note: Anabelle Inn – 0 ft. setback and Tyrolean – about 3 ft. setback.
0’
~3’
10’
P42
III.A.
Exhibit 18 –
Special Review
210 W. Main St.
Page 2 of 3
The proposed density of 8 units replaces
the existing 8 units on the site. Multi-
family housing is identified within the
purpose of the Mixed Use zone district
and consistent with the existing use on
the property. Multi-family residential
uses are found throughout the Historic
District, for example: 518 W. Main
Street, 7th and Main Affordable
Housing, and the Ullr to name a few.
The property has historically been used
for multi-family residential units and
has consistently served a local
population. The replacement units will
continue this use pattern, and the new
building will improve the overall
aesthetics of the block.
Figure 2: Proposed setback reductions for front yard.
18” front porch
intrusion
5’ front
porch
intrusion
18” front porch
intrusion
P43
III.A.
Exhibit 18 –
Special Review
210 W. Main St.
Page 3 of 3
The neighborhood has on-street parking available on the side streets on a regular basis. The project
proposes to maintain the existing deficit of 2 parking spaces. Currently, the 8 residential units only have 6
parking spaces which has been adequate for the residents. The proposal is to maintain the density and
the parking configuration. Street parking is readily available at nighttime.
P44
III.A.
Exhibit 19 –
Setback Variances
210 W. Main St.
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 19
Setback Variances
Setback Variances: The following setback variances are requested:
East side yard: 5’ required, building façade is at 5’ but front porch and upper balconies
extend 18”
West side yard: 5’ required, building façade is at 5 ‘, but front porch and upper balconies
extend 18”
The property is located within the Main Street Historic District but is not a designated landmark. As such,
it is subject to the following review criteria for setback variances:
26.312.040.A Standards applicable to variances. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional
requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following
three (3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of
this Title and the Municipal Code; and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of
the parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive
the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would
cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In
determining whether an applicant’s rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider
whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building
or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same
zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by
the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in
the same zone district.
The rear elevation, shown below, highlights the front porches and balconies on the east and west
elevations that overhang 18” into the setback. The porches and balconies allow private outdoor open space
for the tenants. These elements are just large enough to place a chair. The elements only extend 18” into
the setback. The Land Use Code currently allows building eaves, bay windows, window sills, and similar
architectural projections to extend 18” into the setback; however, Planning does not consider the front
porch or balcony elements to fall under this provision. Previous Land Use Codes have allowed balconies to
extend 1/3 into the setback, but that allowance is no longer in the Code. The roof eave is permitted to
extend 18” as shown below.
P45
III.A.
Exhibit 19 –
Setback Variances
210 W. Main St.
Page 2 of 2
The requested variances of 18” is generally consistent with the goals of Title 26 and the Municipal Code
which promotes livability of affordable housing units. The requested 18” does not add bulk or mass to
the building, but provides usable outdoor space for the residents. Private porches and balconies are not
required for these units. The applicant feels strongly that a private outdoor space for each unit is
important for the livability of the project. The requested 18” is the minimum needed to accomplish a
small private outdoor space to fit a chair. Limiting the request to 18” is consistent with years past when
Planning allowed balconies and porches to utilize the 18” projection into the setback provision.
Figure 1: rear elevation showing projections into side setbacks.
P46
III.A.
KING LOUISE AHASPEN, COLORADOARCHITECTS ANDSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERSP.O. BOX 164023280 TWO RIVERS ROADBASALT, COLORADO 81621PHONE (970) 927-3167FAX (970) 927-4813THEODORE K GUYASSOCIATES PCISSUE #, 02/15/17TKGAP47III.A.
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
NEW GROSS FAR
& DECK AREA
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike RackP48III.A.
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
NEW NET
LIVABLE AREA
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike RackNET LIVABLE FLOOR AREAUNIT 101846.2 SFUNIT 102868.9 SFP49III.A.
A1.1
SITEPLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 Rev071017-JS rev.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
11 X 17 DRAWINGS ARE SCALED BY HALF.DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
LIVING
UNIT STORAGE
TRASH
UNIT STORAGE
DINING
KITCHEN
ADA BATH
BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 1
HALLPANTRY UNIT 101
UNIT 102
DINING
LIVING
24'-0"5'-0"37'-0"2'-2"
24'-0"21'-8"22'-6"50'-1 1/2"68'-2"
5 1/2"7'-8 1/2"3 1/2"3'-4 3/4"3 1/2"3'-4 3/4"3 1/2"7'-8 1/2"5 1/2"
2'-6"3 1/2"
3'
2'
3'
5'W. MAIN STREETALLEYXPARKING SPACE 2
PARKING SPACE 3
PARKING SPACE 4
PARKING SPACE 5
PARKING SPACE 6
HANDICAPPED
PARKING SPACE 1
5 1/2"10'-8 1/2"3 1/2"2'-0"3 1/2"10'-4 1/2"3 1/2"10'-4 1/2"3 1/2"14'-7"5 1/2"W/D
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike Rack
4'-10 1/2"16'-4 1/2"14'-5"KITCHENSTAIR
UP
10'-0"
21'-9"
5'-0 x 9'-0"
PORCH
3'-9 3/8"18'-0"5'-0 x 7'-6PORCHUPDN
PORCH
2 BDRM SOUTHUNIT 103
DINING
BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 1
BATH
BATH
LIVING
W/D
HALL
ENTRY KITCHEN5'-0 x 7'-6PORCHEDGE OF SITE
SETBACK
W. MAIN STREETALLEY5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"10'-0"
FRONT YARD SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
REAR YARD SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
SETBACK
SITE PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"1a
NORTHLAWN
LAWN
LAWN
5'-0"7'-2"
SETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE846.1 NET LIVABLE
846.1 NET LIVABLE
STREET
TREES
REPLACE EXISTING LILACS
STREET
TREES
STREET
TREES
STREET
TREES
STREET
TREESP50 III.A.
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
BASEMENT
LEVEL PLANP51
III.A.
FIRST LEVEL
PLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
X
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike Rack
P52III.A.
SECOND LEVEL PLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P53
III.A.
THIRD LEVEL
PLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P54 III.A.
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
July 14 16103 Rev071417-JS.vwx
7/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P55
III.A.
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
July 14 16103 Rev071417-JS.vwx
7/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P56 III.A.
BUILDING
SECTIONS
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P57
III.A.
BUILDING
SECTIONS
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P58 III.A.
P59III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner
THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 210 W. Main Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Residential
Design Standard Review, Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Public
Hearing continued from May 24, 2017
DATE: May 31, 2017
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 210 W. Main is a 6,000 square foot parcel, zoned Mixed Use (MU) and located in
the Main Street Historic District. The site currently contains 6 free market residential units, 1
affordable housing unit, and one commercial/residential unit. The surrounding development
includes a mix of residential, commercial and lodging.
The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with eight (8) affordable housing units to create
affordable housing credits. The applicant requests the following reviews from HPC:
1. Major Development Conceptual review
2. Demolition of a building within a historic district
3. Special Review for an FAR increase from 1:1 to 1.25:1
4. Special Review for a reduction of 1 parking space (7 required and 6 proposed)
5. Residential Design Standard review for multi-family buildings
6. Conceptual Commercial Design Review to allow a height of 29 ft.
HPC reviewed this project at a public hearing on April 26th, 2017. At that hearing, staff
recommended continuation to restudy the building layout, massing, and scale of the project to
better relate to the historic district. The full staff report from that meeting is included below
(starting on page 5 of this memo). Overall, HPC supported staff recommendation and voted to
continue the project to address these issues.
The applicant has revised the design based on several comments from staff and HPC. The revised
design is attached as Exhibit G. Generally, staff finds that the design revisions address several of
the concerns from the previous meeting and is moving in the right direction.
Staff recommends continuation to incorporate sloped roof forms into the proposal.
APPLICANT: King Louise, LLC, PO Box 1467, Basalt, CO 81621, represented by
BendonAdams.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-40-009.
P60
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots P & Q, Block 51, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONE DISTRICT: MU, Mixed Use.
Figure 1 – Locator and Zoning Map
UPDATE SINCE APRIL 26TH HPC HEARING:
The applicant has revised the design in response to comments from staff and HPC at the April
26th meeting. The changes are outlined below with staff responses.
Layout & Massing: In the initial design, the building was laid out in an L shape with two larger
masses along the alley and east property line. The design also included a circulation tower
connected by walkways across Main Street creating an interior courtyard on the west side. HPC
appreciated the courtyard concept, but suggested that the tradeoff of this space created larger
massing that is inappropriate for the historic district and does not meet the design guidelines.
HPC also suggested that a three-story mass on Main Street was inappropriate. The revised design
retains the mass along the alley with a lower height (discussed below) and larger setback from
the alley. The revised design also removes the circulation tower and walkways, and separates the
Main Street mass into two smaller structures. The footprint of these two structures is more in line
with structures from the mining era. The smaller masses are also both two stories tall, which is
P61
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
3
more consistent with other development in the historic district. There are several examples of
buildings that have two stories along Main Street and a third story set back on the property. The
revised design is also able to retain a smaller courtyard on the east side of the property. Staff
finds that the massing changes help break down the scale of the development and better reflect
the historic pattern of development and is supportive of the proposed building layout and
massing.
Porches, porticos, and stoops are an important aspect within the guidelines to the massing of
structures and defining entries on Main Street. Staff supports the addition of these elements in the
revised design. They add a one-story element to the building front and help establish a uniform
sense of human scale along the block. The size and proportion of porches needs to be carefully
considered as part of the overall massing for the project.
Height: The original design was 28 feet tall for the mass facing Main Street (permitted in MU
zone district) and 32 feet tall for the mass along the alley (requires Commercial Design Review
approval from HPC). Generally, HPC did not support 32 feet and recommended the applicant
design within the 28 feet permitted in the zone district. The revised design still requests a height
increase, but only for one additional foot (29 feet) on the alley mass. The two smaller masses
(discussed above) have heights of 19 feet and 22 feet. Staff finds that a one foot height increase is
minimal and a reasonable request to allow more livable floor-to-ceiling heights and better solar
access to the units in the north structure without significantly impacting the neighboring
properties across the alley.
Floor Area (Special Review): The MU zone district allows for a 1:1 FAR within the Main Street
Historic District. Through Special Review, 1.25:1 may be granted by HPC. The original design
requested the full increase to 1.25:1. Staff did not support this increase for the original design
based on the impacts of the increased height and proposed massing for the project. HPC agreed
with staff, but also noted that an increased FAR may be appropriate if the mass and scale of the
development is more appropriate. The revised design still requests an FAR increase to 1.25:1.
With a more appropriate massing along Main Street and reduced heights across the project (both
discussed above), staff believes that the revised project reduces the potential impacts and is
supportive of the FAR increase for this design.
Residential Design Standards (RDS): The RDS require one entry door per four street-facing,
ground level units. The original design included one such unit, requiring a minimum of one entry
door, which was not provided. The revised design includes two such units, which both contain
entry doors facing Main Street that meet the RDS. This was the only unmet standard, so the
revised design meets all the requirements for multi-family development.
Roof Forms: The one remaining concern that staff has relates to the proposed roof forms. Staff
recognizes the drainage requirements can be challenging, and the use of flat green roofs is an
effective way to meet those requirements, as well as the many other benefits green roofs provide.
However, as mentioned in the previous memo, almost every property in the Main Street Historic
District contains sloped roof forms on a portion of the project, particularly the residential
buildings. HPC was somewhat divided on this issue. Most commissioners mentioned adding
some sloped roof, but did not think the whole project needed sloped roofs. One of the core design
P62
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
4
objectives for the Main Street Historic District Guidelines is to “Maintain the range of traditional
building and roof forms” by having basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen
traditionally. Additionally, the guidelines for Building Form state:
“A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity along Main
Street. In order to maintain this feature, a new building should have basic roof and building
forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Overall facade proportions also should be
in harmony with the context. The character of the roof is a major feature of historic buildings
in the Main Street District. The similar roof forms contribute to the sense of visual continuity
when repeated along the street. In each case, the roof pitch, its materials, size and
orientation are all important to the overall character of the building. New construction
should not break from this continuity. New structures and their roofs should be similar in
character to their historic neighbors.”
Sloped roofs are an important element that ties the District together and staff recommends the
applicant explore adding sloped forms on at least one of the proposed masses.
Other issues: The other items that require HPC approval include Demolition of the existing
development in a historic district and Special Review for a parking reduction of one space. HPC
did not have any concerns with either of these at the last meeting.
Although the materials, fenestration and architectural details are not reviewed during Conceptual,
staff has some concerns related to these items. The Main Street Historic District Design
Objectives include the following:
4.Maintain the character of traditional materials.
5.Incorporate architectural details that are in character with the district.
6.Maintain the characteristics of traditional windows and doors.
The proposed design represents several features and materials (such as stucco siding) that do not
support the characteristics of historic development in the district and staff would like to see
significant improvement on these aspects moving forward.
SUMMARY OF HPC DECISIONS NEEDED
Decision Staff Support
Layout Yes
Mass/Scale Yes
Height Increase Yes
FAR Increase Yes
RDS Yes
Roof Forms No
Parking Reduction Yes, with payment-in-lieu
Demolition Yes
P63
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
5
THE FOLLOWING MEMO IS FROM THE APRIL 26TH HPC PACKET:
Proposal:
The proposed project includes demolishing the existing building and constructing a new structure
containing eight affordable housing units. Following are the proposed unit descriptions:
Table 1: Unit breakdown
Unit # Bedrooms Net livable area
(sf)
Storage outside
unit (sf)
Total area
(sf)
Number of
FTEs
101 2 845 80 925 2.25
102 2 870 80 950 2.25
201 2 840 80 920 2.25
202 2 850 80 930 2.25
203 2 870 80 950 2.25
301 2 870 80 950 2.25
302 2 850 80 930 2.25
303 2 840 80 920 2.25
Totals 16 6835 640 7475 18
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW:
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan
application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to
this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final
Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.”
Development in the Main Street Historic District began with primarily residential buildings
constructed during the early mining era with only a handful of other uses mixed in, such as
churches and a grocery store. More than 50% of the lots in the district contain Victorian-era
structures 1, which justified naming it a historic district in 1976. Starting in the 1930s, lodging
development occurred, first as small scale cabins and bed and breakfasts, then as larger hotels.
Only about 12% of the properties on Main Street are lodges. While some of these more recent
buildings may be of significance, they do not establish the historic context for Main Street.
1 This block face contains no historic structures.
P64
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
6
Figure 2 – Proposed design, viewed from southwest
The proposed design is three-stories with a flat roof. In the Main Street Historic District,
buildings are generally one to two stories in height. Where a third story is present, it is typically
set back on the site and in limited areas. Most of the historic development in the district were
wood frame with gable roof forms (see Figure 3 below). Even the non-historic development,
such as the various lodges and 7th & Main affordable housing, often contain sloped roof forms
and varied heights to relate to the context of the Victorian era buildings. Incorporating some
sloped roof forms or more variation in height would better relate to the historic development.
P65
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
7
Figure 3 – 1893 Birdseye view. Sloped roof forms were prominent during the mining era.
Overall, staff is concerned that the form and layout of the proposed project do not relate to the
Main Street Historic District. The Main Street Historic District Guidelines state:
“A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity
along Main Street. In order to maintain this feature, a new building should have
basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Overall
facade proportions also should be in harmony with the context. The character of
the roof is a major feature of historic buildings in the Main Street District. The
similar roof forms contribute to the sense of visual continuity when repeated
along the street. In each case, the roof pitch, its materials, size and orientation
are all important to the overall character of the building. New construction
should not break from this continuity. New structures and their roofs should be
similar in character to their historic neighbors.”
The mass of the building includes two large rectangular forms with a separate circulation tower
connected to the front mass by exterior walkways. Although the application notes there are
several larger buildings within the vicinity that the proposed design relates to, the guidelines call
for design that appears similar in scale to the mining era buildings. Most of the larger buildings
are small lodges that were constructed as a response to the tourist boom following World War II.
These are considered “anomalies” and even have their own design guidelines to address how they
are treated differently. The proposed massing and layout contribute to a design that appears
significantly larger than what would traditionally be seen in the Victorian era buildings. The 1893
Sanborn map is shown below as reference. Although staff recognizes some of the historic
buildings have been modified and added onto over time, the map is helpful in representing the
historic scale of building modules. Staff suggests that the circulation tower should be relocated
and overall mass should be broken down to reduce the apparent scale of the development.
P66
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
8
Figure 4 – 1893 Sanborn Map. Massing is typically smaller for historic buildings (purple).
Staff finds the following guidelines are not met:
7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the
mining era.
• Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height.
7.15 On larger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller “modules” that are similar in
size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street.
• Other subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form.
A front yard is a typical feature that is consistent with historic development in the district.
Generally, the only properties that don’t have front yards are the larger lodge projects, which are
not from the mining era. The proposal includes open space, however the three-story circulation
tower and walkways block the space from Main Street. Staff recognizes the desire to reduce
sound and dust from Main Street, but this element makes the building appear more massive and
does not reflect the open space character of the historic district. A desirable outdoor space could
still be accommodated through landscaping and a low fence, which is typical for historic Main
Street. Larger balconies and porches could also be an appropriate way to provide outdoor space
which relate to the historic district.
P67
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
9
Figure 5 – 1893 Sanborn Map. Historically, setbacks are more consistent.
Staff finds the following guidelines are not met:
7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns.
• Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes
consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space.
7.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard dimensions
seen in the block historically during the mining era.
• These include front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks.
• Setbacks vary in some areas, but generally fall within an established range. A greater variety in
setbacks is inappropriate in this context.
• Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block.
The applicant is also requesting design approval to increase the height to 32 ft. The Code this
project was submitted under limits height to 28 ft. for multi-family residential uses, or up to 32 ft.
through Commercial Design review 2. Increased height may be permitted to benefit the livability
of affordable housing units or if the project makes demonstrable contributions to the building’s
overall energy efficiency. Although an increased height would allow taller ceiling heights which
benefits the livability of the units, the guidelines also call for new buildings to reflect the range
and variation in building height. The existing development is approximately 24 ft., while must of
the surrounding development varies between 20-27 ft. A height of 32 ft. for a large mass of this
project is out of scale with the rest of the block and would be inappropriate.
Staff finds the following guideline is not met:
7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of
the Main Street Historic District.
• Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject
property.
• A minimum second story floor to ceiling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is
respectful to historic buildings.
• Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the
following reasons:
- The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Performance
Hall, Fire Station, etc.)
- Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a
2 The ability to increase height through design review has been removed in the current Code.
P68
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
10
historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be
appropriate.
- To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units.
- To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the
building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (EXHIBIT B):
The proposed project is a multi-family residential building, which is subject to Residential
Design Standards. Generally, staff finds that the proposal meets the applicable standards.
However, staff does not believe that the proposed “entry door” meets the standard. The proposed
design includes one street-facing, ground level unit, requiring either one street-oriented entrance
or open front porch. There is one proposed door, however it enters into the common outdoor
space and not the unit itself. The intent of the standard is to promote both a physical and visual
connection between the building and the street and to provide a sense that one can directly enter
into the building from the street.
W. MAIN STREET
Figure 6 – Proposed RDS Entry Connection
DEMOLITION (EXHIBIT C):
The existing building is not historic, however the location within a historic district requires HPC
review for demolition. Staff finds that the review criteria are met to demolish a non-historic
building in a historic district.
SPECIAL REVIEW (EXHIBIT D):
The Mixed Use (MU) zone district has a maximum allowable FAR of 1:1 (6,000 sq. ft.) for the
Main Street Historic District. HPC may approve an increase up to 1.25:1 (7,500 sq. ft.) through
Special Review. The proposed project has a Floor Area of 7,362 sq. ft. and is therefore
requesting Special Review approval. In general, staff is not fundamentally opposed to an increase
in allowable Floor Area as an incentive for the development of affordable housing. However,
staff believes that the proposed project is not designed in a manner that is compatible with the
surrounding land uses and is out of scale with most of the development in the Main Street
P69
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
11
Historic District, as discussed above. Staff does not support granting a Floor Area increase at this
time.
Additionally, the Applicant is requesting Special Review approval for a reduction of one parking
space. The Land Use Code requires one space per unit. The current development includes 7
spaces for 8 units, a deficit of one space. The current deficit may be maintained, however the
proposal only includes 6 spaces. As a multi-family development in the Aspen Infill Area, Special
Review approval may be granted for a reduction in parking spaces. Staff recognizes that
providing the additional parking space on-site is not feasible or appropriate given the size of the
lot and proposed use. However, staff does not support a full waiver of the space and recommends
that mitigation be provided as a cash-in-lieu payment as a way to help offset the potential parking
impacts of increased density and to help further improve other transportation facilities and
services.
REFERRALS (EXHIBIT E):
Comments from the DRC are attached. The Applicant will require Special Review approval from
Environmental Health for the trash and recycle area. The Applicant also needs to determine if a
new or upgraded transformer is required, which may have significant impacts on the parking area
and building layout. The APCHA Board is scheduled to review this project on their May 17th
regular meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Overall, staff believes that there may be too much development proposed for this site. A potential
reduction in programming, such as changing some of the 2-bedroom units into 1-bedroom units
or eliminating one unit entirely, could help remedy several concerns including massing,
compatibility and parking. Staff recommends a continuation to restudy the layout, mass and scale
of the project to better relate to the historic district.
Alternatively, a draft resolution has been included in the packet if HPC supports the project as
presented.
EXHIBITS (UNLESS BOLDED, INCLUDED IN APRIL 26 PACKET):
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Residential Design Standards - updated
C. Demolition Review Criteria
D. Special Review Criteria - updated
E. DRC comments
F. Application
G. Revised Design received May 24, 2017
P70
III.A.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 1 of 14
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 CONTINUED FROM JUNE 28TH
DATE: July 26, 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
In June, HPC reviewed a project proposed at 209 E. Bleeker and continued it for restudy.
While the board indicated support for many aspects of the proposal, there was discussion
regarding variations to setbacks and floor area. There was some indication that the board
wished to see all setback variations removed from the project before a 500 square foot floor
area bonus would be considered to be appropriate. The premise, as staff understood it, was
that extra floor area allowed as an incentive for preservation was acceptable if it could be
accommodated within the building envelope established by setback requirements.
The applicant has restudied the project and proposes two alternatives; neither of which
remove the setback variations. In fact a new variation has been added along the rear of the
property, where the basement level is now 5’ from the rear lot line instead of 10’. In both
new alternatives, the design creates more separation between the above grade structures by
moving the historic resource 2’ forward of its historic location, to the minimum front
setback. No variance is required to do this. Also in both alternatives the applicant has
reduced the length of the new unit along the east lot line so that a previous conflict with a
Residential Design Standard limiting that length to 50’ is eliminated.
Aside from those changes, the new information provided for this meeting is illustrated in
plan form, where portions of the new unit to be deleted are shown in red and portions being
added are shown in blue. The applicant requests either a 500 square foot bonus or a 400
square foot bonus.
Following this summary is the staff memo from June 28th, without edits. Our
recommendation at that time was to continue the project in order to reduce the floor area
bonus request to approximately 250 square feet and to eliminate the Residential Design
Standards conflict mentioned above. At that time there were some additional drawings
needed and some lightwells to be relocated to meet code requirements and these were
mentioned as reasons for continuation. The drawings and lightwell tweaks were
accomplished and are no longer issues for staff.
Totally eliminating the setback variations requested in this project may be unreasonable or
undesirable. The historic house has always been located very close to the west property line.
It was built 1’ from that line and after the new basement is built, it will be 2’ from the west.
This causes the project to not meet the minimum west sideyard. It also causes the project to
not meet the minimum combined sideyard of 15’, since this measurement is taken from the
“worst case scenario” on each side so that the 2’ setback on the west would need to be
countered with a 13’ swath left undeveloped along the east.
P71
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 2 of 14
Staff remains more concerned with an excessive amount of floor area on the site, between
the additional square footage allowed for a duplex instead of single family (a 360 square
foot increase) and the full 500 square foot bonus request. We recommend that HPC
continue the project again, indicating that the floor area bonus request must be reduced to
250 square feet.
In the alternative, if HPC wishes to acknowledge the quality of the project with the full
bonus, we recommend that 250 square feet of the floor area allocated to the property must
be converted into a Transferable Development Right (requiring approval by City Council)
and sold for use on a non-historic site.
A third option is for HPC to require that the new unit itself meet the minimum sideyard
and combined sideyard requirements, providing at least 5’ on each side and a combined
total of 15’ on the sides. The placement of the Victorian would not be factored in.
If HPC wishes to award an approval to one of the alternatives provided by the applicant for this
hearing, conditions of approval should include:
1. This approval allows for the historic home to be raised 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
confirm this condition is met at Final review.
2. 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.
3. No stormwater features, including retention areas or drywell covers, will be permitted
forward of the front façade of the historic resource.
4. HPC grants a 3’ setback reduction for the west sideyard along the historic resource, an 8’
combined sideyard reduction and a 5’ rear setback reduction for a deck over the garage and
for the basement level. Regarding the west yard, the applicant must demolish the concrete
block wall on that lot line in order to open up a view of that side of the house given the
minimal setback.
5. HPC grants a waiver to the Residential Design Standards Build-to Requirement.
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1)
year of July 26, 2017, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file
such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a
Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request
for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
P72
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 3 of 14
The balance of this memo was provided to HPC on June 28th.
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.
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
P73
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 4 of 14
DEMOLITION
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
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.
P74
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 5 of 14
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
few historic doors and windows in the areas to be retained. Those elements will be required to
be preserved in place.
P75
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 6 of 14
RELOCATION
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
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’.
P76
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 7 of 14
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
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.
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.
P77
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 8 of 14
VARIANCES: FAR BONUS, SETBACK VARIATIONS, RDS VARIANCES
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.
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:
P78
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 9 of 14
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
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.
P79
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 10 of 14
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.
26.410 Residential Design Standards. The Residential Design Standards apply to most
residential development throughout Aspen.
P80
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 11 of 14
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:
The specific standards for Articulation of Building Mass read:
P81
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 12 of 14
P82
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 13 of 14
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
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:
P83
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 14 of 14
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
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 provided for July 26, 2017
Exhibit C: Application drawings provided for July 26, 2017
P84
III.B.
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.
P85
III.B.
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.
P86
III.B.
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.
P87
III.B.
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.
P88
III.B.
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.
P89
III.B.
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.
P90
III.B.
P91
III.B.
P92III.B.
P93III.B.
P94III.B.
P95III.B.
P96III.B.
P97III.B.
P98III.B.
P99III.B.
P100III.B.
P101III.B.
P102III.B.
P103III.B.
P104III.B.
P105III.B.
P106III.B.
P107III.B.