HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20040609ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2004
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE -VISITS: Please visit 135 E. Cooper and 939 E. Cooper on your own.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Roll call
Approval of minutes - May 26, 2004
Public Comments
Commission member comments
Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
Proj ,ct Monitoring
A. NONE
VII. Staff comments: Certificates of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #16)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. NONE
IX.
NEW BUSINESS -
A. 949 E. Cooper Ave.- Minor Review
B./~ 135 E. Cooper Ave. - Minor Review. and variances ~ ~/~
L
C./7501 E. Cooper.- Polo- Minor ReView
WORK SESSION
A. HP Awards criteria
B. Rules for applicant presentations
XI. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
.JAt>r
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
949 E. Cooper Avenue, East Cooper Court Unit A- Minor Development,
Public Hearing
DATE:
June 9, 2004
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 10,500 square foot lot that is listed on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
In 1995, HPC approved a project that involved the on-site relocation and rehabilitation of
the Victorian era home which sits on this site, along with a contributing barn. Three
additional homes were approved for construction, the last of which was recently
reviewed.
The board is asked to grant Minor Development approval for a deck extension on the
non-historic addition to the Victorian. The applicant has been before the board for a
worksession to discuss this plan.
Staff finds that the project complies with the applicable revIew standards and
recommends approval.
APPLICANT: Maurice Herman, owner, represented by Gilbert Sanchez, architect.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-52-001.
ADDRESS: 949 E. Cooper Avenue, East Cooper Court Unit A, Block 37, City and
Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: RMF (Residential Multi Family).
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the
submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with
the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the
reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff
1
analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the "project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The
HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to
obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the
application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the
Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC
decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three
hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth
in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: The request is that HPC approve an extension of the deck that is on the
west side of the non-historic addition to this house. A list of the design guidelines
relevant to this Minor Review is attached as "Exhibit B."
During a worksession, the board expressed concerns with the proximity of the deck to the
historic side porch. Because the addition to this house was designed before the adoption
of the current design guidelines, there is not as much separation between the historic
resource and addition as would generally be preferred. Arguably, the existing deck in its
current configuration is somewhat competitive with the front porch as viewed from the
west elevation although it's small size and cantilevered design are mitigating factors.
It appears that the deck is far enough back from the street that the expansion will have
minimal impact from the front elevation. There is some visibility of the west elevation
because the house sits on a courtyard. One guideline that may deserve some
consideration is:
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building
also is inappropriate.
o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
In truth, the integrity of the Victorian home that is affected by this project is solely its
overall shape, which is historically accurate. Perhaps particularly because of this
circumstance, Staff does share HPC's concern with allowing new construction to start to
visually encroach on the house, which it appears this deck does, at least from some
perspectives. Staff recommends the project be continued with the direction that the deck
may be expanded towards the south, but any increase towards the west must be restudied
to create some separation from the historic porch.
2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the public hearing on 949 E.
Cooper A venue for restudy of the deck design.
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated March 24, 2004
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Application
o
)
Land Use Application
~
THE CiTY OF ASPEN
PROJECT:
Narne: f3:11~1 COO UpJtT
Location: q 1-'1 C.
'-~T IT ~fAqc.. 37
(Indicate street andress, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
ParcelID # (REQUIRED) ;;t 7 ~ 7 / 8 ;L~ ;L-OO /
ApPLICANT:
Name: ;t1 Pi ce 'I"11i
Address: ~;). d-. t-f}t::e::. V IPvu /11.Ie"
Phone #: I. 107- ff:?~ Fax#:
ST~. ~- ?-7o
E-mail:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
to 8/6/;)..
Fax#:
E-mail:
r~ it Ii a ro . ne-.T
TYPE OF ApPLICATION: ( lease cheek all that a I):
o Historic Designation
o Certificate of No Negative Effect
o Certificate of Appropriateness
J2S' -Minor Historic Development
o -Major Historic Development
o -Conceptual Historic Development
o -Final Historic Development
o -Substantial Amendment
o Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
o Demolition (total demolition)
o Historic Landmark Lot Split
i3t15Ttltb
fff(b or-
buildin s, uses, rovals, etc.)
Htr?OfUG- "6TfN(,,~ wi /195" 11:P~l7tof./.' jU?{.oCi}-7FO ~
,
;rtttJ UUOOtu 1/.1 /l/M. ~13()/V1 Au
Gr;Cf41<;W..{ aF- A-- ~1.fIt:J PUJ~ [JPa::- l}ulvT!f5 ftJf&T tJr
TKe- {1'ir' /r1)()f7io
RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECORD
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
t:::tJST C()0ffl'2- C4uf2-T ~ (J/Jrr ?!-
M 1ttJP/CE. fIPt2..-tt 4-1/.
q f-q f=.-- Coofht2- ~
H41F.
fIXI-~"
II ,q .; s SF-
(F or the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within
the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot
Area in the Municipal Code.)
/0/0
lilt-
f
1-
(t:5p m/t6- Cfk:t:..)
t//r
/
4-
Commercial net leasable:
Number of residential units:
Number of bedrooms:
Existing:
Existing:
Existing:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed % of demolition:
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area:
Height
Principal Bldg.:
Accessory Bldg.:
On-Site parking:
% Site coverage:
% Open Space:
Front Setback:
Rear Setback:
(write nla where no requirement exists in the zone district)
EXisting:~/o47'iFAllowaRie'ljJoD gFProposed:pl.lJrf7 <;if=- (fl/l4(l()fPt:J ~
~,k,tV tulT/<I1U .J1-u~
I I ;rcr2..)
Existing: ~~ Allowable: X Proposed:,;2;;-tJ pv
Existing: f.I~ Allowable: 1-14- Proposed: M
;L Required: ;2. Proposed:;;'
Existing: lilt- Required: flit-- Proposed: U4--
Existing: IIIr Required: 1-#--- Proposed: Mt
Existing: ;.lit- Required: lilt- Proposed: tI+
Existing: flit- Required: flit-- Proposed: ~
Existing:
Combined Front/Rear: ff1t.- 5<4j(J/U/7MI
Indicate N. S. E. W Existing: /-fA-- Required: f..I.Ir- Proposed: 'fJA- I
&j2.{){{.t1t1KE ~
Side Setback: Existing: f{Ir Required: M- Proposed: f.IIf-- FU11
Side Setback: Existing: f.IIr- Required: f.IIf- Proposed: f6t-
Combined Sides: Existing: f-flr Required: H;r Proposed: HI1-
Distance between Existing: f{!r-- Required: l{/t- Proposed: f#J
buildings:
'#e ff1.u.:J
~S cF we UWJDUtfJ./f()M
~ ~~JI.
~.----
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Joyce Allgai~puty Planning Director
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
135 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Development and Variance Request, Public
Hearing
DATE:
June 9, 2004
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures, as well as the National Register of Historic Places. The site contains the 1888
Dixon-Markle house, which is virtually unaltered on the exterior, along with an outbuilding that
appears to have been constructed in the 19'h century.
HPC recently granted final approval
for a Major Development
application that involves lifting the
historic house to excavate a
basement, relocating it slightly to
the north and east of its current
position, and making an addition on
the west side of the lot. The
existing outbuilding is also being
moved slightly and expanded with a
basement. A single car garage is to
be built on the northeast.
Construction of this project is now
well underway.
HPC granted several variances to facilitate this project, which has been viewed as a sensitive
addition that does little to directly alter the Victorian. Now that the development is coming
together, the owner feels that the new garage building is destroying too much of the yard and
negatively affecting the visibility of the back side of the historic house. She proposes to
eliminate the separate garage and to place the stall within an existing non-historic portion of the
guest house. Because the garage stall displaces an internal staircase, HPC is asked to approve a
request to move that stair into a new link that will join the outbuilding and the addition to the
historic house. Rear yard and side yard setback variances are requested to move the outbuilding
farther away from the new development.
I
Staff finds that the elimination of the garage is an excellent plan and would preserve more
of an open yard around this important house. However, Staff does not support linking the
buildings together, or awarding any variances for the proposal as designed.
APPLICANT: Chris Pat Aspen LLC,represented by Jeffrey Halferty.
PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003.
ADDRESS: 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City
and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: RMF, Residential Multi-Family.
CURRENT LAND USE: Two detached residences.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions mid 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, {lisapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures setforth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: The request is that HPC approve the elimination of a detached single car
garage, and instead allow the garage to be incorporated into the existing guest house. The garage
stall will displace an internal staircase, so the applicant is asking to construct the staircase
between the guest house and addition to the Victorian (linking them together).
During previous discussions about this project, Staff strongly discouraged the idea of attaching
the outbuilding to the rest of the project. This building is from the 19th century based on
inspection of the materials and framing, however it may not be original to this site. It can be seen
in old photographs of the property from at least 35 years ago. The guideline that discourages
linking the whole project together is:
2
8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure.
o Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern
should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a
case-by-case basis.
The addition that is being constructed on this house has been sympathetically designed, but
doubles the size of the building. Staff believes it would be very out of character with the
Victorian to allow the plan to become any more "sprawling" by eliminating the independence of
the outbuilding and connecting everything. Staff cannot support this plan. Should the HPC find
it has any merit, the following guideline must be considered in relation to the nature of the link
itself:
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may
be considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
The proposed garage door would be added to a portion of the outbuilding that is not original,
based on site inspections, therefore staff has no concern with this aspect of the proposal.
VARIANCES
The variances requested are a 2 foot reduction of the required 5 foot west sideyard setback and an
additional 2 foot reduction of the required 10 foot rear yard setback, which results in the building
being placed on the rear lot line. The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code
are as follows:
HPC must make a finding that the setback variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Finding: Now that the project is underway, the owner is concerned about the crowding
between the addition to the Victorian and the outbuilding. This tight space is driven in part by
the desire to hold the addition as far back from the front of the Victorian as possible. The
approved plan leaves 5 feet between these structures. 10 feet is required, however, HPC granted
3
a variance. The new concept is to increase the distance between the buildings to 7 feet by moving
the outbuilding 2 feet closer to the alley. Staff has no concerns with this idea, however the
proposal in general creates a negative impact to the historic resource, therefore there is no basis
for HPC to award a setback waiver.
The second variance that is proposed involves moving the guest house 2 feet closer to the west
property line. The lightwell that was approved in the west yard would move to the east side of
the building, which is not a concern to Staff. Staff does not support the west sideyard setback
variance though. This request was part of the original conceptual review and was turned down
unanimously by the board, who seemed to feel strongly that the neighbors to the west should not
be additionally impacted.
Undoubtedly the preservation of the property would be better achieved by eliminating the garage,
however, it is Staff s finding that anything gained by this is spoiled by the proposed new link.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Minor Development approval and Variances
be denied finding that guideline 8.3 and the criteria for variances are not met.
Exhibit:
Resolution # , Series of 2004
A Staff memo dated June 9, 2004
B. Design Guidelines
C. Application'
4
"Exhibit B, Relevant Design Guidelines, 135 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Review"
8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure.
o Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern
should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a
case-by-case basis.
8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure.
o A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure.
o If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure.
o If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
o It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
o It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building
in front of it.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may
be considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
5
10.9 Roofforms should be similar to those of the historic building.
o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
o The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
6
t,
;
-<t
o
o
N
'<t
:::J
:::>
:J
n9T9 OaVH010J 'N~dSV
H~dOOJ .LSV~ 9f:T
~JN~mS~H H~H~j
"
~
~5
."
"
g"-
,.
..
o~
,.
~::;-
"
.
.
.
, ,
~ ~
" ,
. -
2:8:
~U,J
~C
~ ~
:5
CD
j,",
.
.
,
~ .;;. ..
~~~
o
U
j
1111ll
l'- lliiilll
I: !, -J Illillll
lllj 1'*1 /} ,~~
11'IHI'1 '1 Ol. )1;)01 A:;I11V,
Iii 1,1 Ii . , 1
\ be::-.. ,OO.S9 Nd ~,60es- N t
i~~ ~
,. ~J1 ,Itzs:;:
I I 11 t! II II!I I
fit 'i', II -U- ~ ! ~'
\ -~
\ ~ - ~ I. ~_ l II~
~_._.' of;\~r:~ ~~_,
lliP' ~ -'" m~ ::::.
jl!!lIil \~;3 'I'" :~\Ib _ :::: i' ,o~,
~ 1--' , ' Li +J+ If+ + i< ,
I, t '~' . '" .( ad: : : I '
,I.' I"'ii,!'! I .x-v/~\ r + :. + + m' '
. ~ I ~Wi ,f"\. ,(."
J ;~ 1~''''iTi;' LtZ~;:.1 n :1tJ~ ~ .)W .
') :;:':"~1 /;'- ': J ~ :'11 '1':l!.' - '
)1'1\"" "I ?'t t '
/ 1 '!IK ~\,'\ll.ij. ~ '~"l I ' (/; V' ,~
~,iI ,; ~~\\I,'li~'l : .. If')' /~
#!j4r~ I ,:;:J!~~f: u ~/ / ~ J:\(
/ ~l:~ )1j,1'S~ ! ~ ; fA 'r ~ t, .
H "1\1(" 'J,'C"e.".. , i 11'\.1 (.I :,A. or
JI Jl."" ilr2l;., IlJ~(, 'Iff'1)( Jr,\~);'/ " ):: (i"
,,/( If .' II.. '-;l.l..~; t '/ ~.L ~llltl '
~ ~ rtsa
j~
~.,' ."
O/-~ii,"" m~AYC ':,~hl; I;"
.. n., ~lI; . hj~ ' ., 8
.' Iv.')," , g
~ /' .~', ,,' ~~,~~~- . '~.. . t:
~ i ; 'E " :, ,~~ " ' 'I ~ II
(fJ ~ ' ,D:Cl' ~ ..
~ ~,~'.~~~~~ ~;'
~~\,l~/~-I:' ~\\Il,;~jj~~~' '~\~lJl" ~j,,~
::S ,t/I/-l{~~ ". . -3 6 ~==-.... lilll!!l" ~tl~~
- - u ~ :::::-....... VA: ; :: -? ""::::'-1. 1---,' )'711\ ,\\
-::::;,-;. '" - -;'~1111,\\\\0.;--.. '0' I
./ /111\\\\ " W _ /7i \\...... !!Iii
~ /, I' \ \\~'-- 'Ill'!, I I f I \ \. Ii,
-; 11\\'\\ (' Ki: ~Dl~ 1111\\'\\ ~~71
1~'ll"'1 h10~ II ~ ) \
J' Iii Iii I J~),,' ~ ) I I
,11M!, ')
- - - tl~ - -:00093,' ,60'OL S ~!/ ~
rrJv tJ' I )6.1
?SSQ ~
112 ~
1DPD 'I( ]
- --
~ :;IfiN:;IAV H~dOOJ lSV:;I
,
.
~ "
- , ~
If I) ~
.... it ,.
.'~.s
_ Ii
~
I~~J€ _
'"',
, w
II
i
~
...
'"
'"
~
...
(fJ
j
i ,N'.....'
,
, CD-
i
j I 1
SA<
IIV
1
'L-:""
~,~l,i,':_;,_,.
. ,...,,,,,,,--_....
u ! .;~ ~
-' ~
-' ~ :; g g ~:;~ :; ~ '5 ,....;
ui "'g... g..!!,;;; .;! N]O ,,;:~~:; i ~ .
r ." ~'s' l' ~,g<'>S~_~gj a:!! 0
u .,,8O~'H:;l
i" ~;; .i\:~ .'t~1 1Il0-'<:!-ar--t3 tJ
I "'''''il :=;:1<0:;: ';-. ci~~lI.6:6J>l2 <
u ~ 5" CII ... n ".:10> ~ [;; ~ ~,
~, j
"' , ~ o.
<( "'
"I
zl
~I
>;!,
rx:ll
I'
z!
~I
~I'~
0.1-,
~I~ 0 .::J
~;;~~
[;':!i~ ~7
e ')~
III l,j
d=,:I,III!11
! nliu filiI!:
~ IIllil!
" .
<]:1
<1:
<
- <::
<
-<
<:
<
<
.
. .
!:i ~ .,
IU
. .
<
./
_.'
.."
_.'
J~
:l
.~
.s
~ ~
~
z
w
" .
" . .
0 I ~
0 ~
r ~
Z
~ 33
--- U~~~ ~
W
N ..
VI "'''lOll''''' .:=)
~ ~
w .~ ".~
"
< u9~ ..~
z ! g og
~ ~::I ....J VI
<( "P~~~,
0
z "'~::lI~"~
<(
~ ~~~~I"~~
0
'" m ::l a::...: :r 8 a
>-1
p
"" ~
'"
~
u w ~ & ~
UJ "
<(
... z H!~ ~~g
z 6
j " 19d9::li j:!8..
~ ~~:li~uf1~
'" 0 !Ji.o:~~t~~!
0
.
o
~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
,~it
l
--J
z
o
~
>
~
'"
>-1
~
<
...
"'.
AY'
..
rx:l~
U;,
z..
"'11
1>..
..;..-..
J/I.J,/".s
(\]
H
Je
,JJ.\
':.::....;...
;';:"''-l:.,\,tl~w:h\I:;
.,.....
rY-
:"
i~;r'I'i
~~\ I
. .\ \ I I
I. ,\
- ,\
,\
, I
! I
ill
'1=
. F
C
I: i: ill! i! Iii
..11 I i
I I
I
I
:1 -Li
..;.
-
, 1III
~~I I I
i
I I
I !
I
I
I i
, I
I I i
l' ..j.
o
o
~ ~-
: fiT: I !'
: I I I
I i I
i
I
C(j))
~
lJJ
..J
W
::t
t-
8
{/)
J.LLl!:l-U~J:l~.L" ..'
: I[
~
J
>.1
~~?;~. ct
...../"1, ~ / I,..:'t..
/ . L l-i~
// =
If,
L k1~= CiJ ~~/ ;: !
" " L!L v I ) ill !
',,~ ". rt17/ I
~R~ ~ ~/-1/
~ II ~ r
~ ,~rn :
~ ~ '\~\'{ i
. r'1\ ~ ~ . _
, ,1, ~"
'L .......I~.~
, 1Ll@]' I~~~
~.
~ '\,r
'(
II i I
II .
I .
1m
~
~
@
I
,
i I
,
I: I I
II I
I ,I
I 1
!
,
II
I
I
I
I
,
I I
I
i
1.
,
--
-
_ ';;l/Y If
-\=-_.,--- -1.~
$
~
'-5
s
.+
f
~
~
~
,
I
I
j
-I
1-
.
I
- --+
T
,
.-J
,
J.
J I ~ ~
i ""' In
i \ I,
I ;="'11
. ~ 1 'r0- "t:J !-p-
~" 'i'0 :t-I- -- "'- '
" l\ ~"*1-l f- 1_ '('
, ~ ~,,:: (~l',~
[i / I~.. ......"\' "
I."'~"i:
, <l.c 1/ Q' 1'''1<<'
I.
t]"\ r1I /
~,\,* i
/"
\/ (!J
'\
"
(0
I
f! ,/ tv.
~ 11/ . ~i
~ ~ ~1/
b '", \~
I r
""t
'rt-
@]
I '
!!II'
>--
J=j
\
T
/'1
-I
11
I '
y
-~_..-
- - - -" ~
1-%
~
i
~
~
--1-1
~
__ I
.--~..:.::..--,- -i
i / ~'" ·
/ (,\ \ Ii
I lV)' .
~ ?--~-~
r K -;~; -t
lv' "" \ .
~_~ - L I
I -- T rl
'i" /1 rJ
I '... _) / I ~.J.
1-~ _l~.l. ·
1"/ \
!-<.".-Y" ~ .
II' = -' --'
l- -".--
.z.
,0
'i=;
I jC
\-;-t
~ LLJ I
I- I
(f) I
~ I
~ ......
. I " on 1 7
/
11-1- _ _ ,/ I
I T ~ '
-+
"
ml
I
~
.1..
,
_ J..(~_
'~-
"--
-J
:iJNI/ -"01
>-
Q>
. == I
._-----.....:........-;(
~
'\ 'g,. ~\'
j,d'" ~ \ \
:n '= :;, \ \
ri_' "~\ 4
"en z
,~~ a r.....1 AI..,g..,
. --c l ~
1) 'l ~ g
~ :ri~ -- ,...... E-o JHl
rn ~ ___I ~l--:::b ~... _
~l :rr--"~ ,,~ ~~ d ~ ,~..
:d.~ / y ~~ -~ "~
7 -/ ~V / . ~ Q
I I /'7 ' ~ ~ '.
f
I
!
M" I ~ ,600gL N
J
~
~
t!l
::3
~
~ ~
t!l
..iI
e
~
o
r:I.,
.
'"
ll\
!),
r-......
~~
.//
/
y~~
,~I ,'l " J''I>.. /
? ?
r
T
@ lJ
ui '11:\ i
~;;;
"" .
~
,.~ I",~\~ ,co
~ --
~
)l
o
o~
~...
~...
~
~
~@]
~
Ir: .,,1 hb
o ~~O
s.
.' .c
.~{~;
-l
It lj!
.. oJ)
;!;~
IL'
Q~
~~
'""@)
"
@~
---
%
~CD
~t'-
1l!~
~ lllz~
~~ ~~ Z~@l
~~9~1I' EgEJ
w u %oe{ ~ &15a
~
I~~
O'
~~
.9;ClI
fg
()
(i
;::r
\7~ ,
JI
/",
Q
?
i~ '
~i ~
\
.~...
.-r-,...
ffi -p.
~S~ ~O
"'. v,-,C; )~ 1i~ ~ Jt)
ill = ~[i1f;O
>:~~ Iii ~~,
51
In
Ci)\..
1
"'u
~~
. p~
C\
\..[./
....,...
( c..?
-~ Z
-+"--1- H
o V ~
~ ~
~ C ~
~(:)~
--
-ti-
~~
'5
~
-
(~)
--
r--
U)
;
:.
~
~
~
@)
11-
,
,
.
';
~
'J
I
1
I
I
I
--- -1
r
...-----
':?t.J
~'<fC::
-:t: -"- -
t.~
-0
11;,
'-
~~
~t>.-
..'-7
c
"
.',.
~
'S
,""
~
~
~~
4
l_
--?/)I'T rO/j
t.-
n
--_..,._~...._---
, J---"
,
, i"':::::::'::~'::-::'::;', "::::-==,.:":::... ",'
, I
I
,
i' !
I, I . ,
---1J~" ...." "._-,.....'
J ]"- ...~ .... :;~~.....:-:-
\ I I Ii
I" i; 'i
==..:..., ,.. ~. JJ ,I :: I
" : " ,I I .;
lLL' :1~li
), ".
- -~
----~---
" --.~_.~~-~.._.....~
t-.- --1 [,--.-t-
+--~~-- ----I
[--
, --
II--
I
II
I
1\
I
I
I
,
I.
"
,_:=-:==-,;::~ I....
\
'I
'I'
I'
, I,
: i
i i'l
~ 1 .
I!
II
1
; I
i!
) !
I
i ~ i:
,~..
-- ,..,--- - ---'I
,
==-:::.L.- --..:,::1 1_~.. I _
" - -, _n I, -- I
I
i 1_ \ I
c
C",
L~
'"
\:J\:;.-.
-~
t
~
~
~
'"
~,
'"
-,-
~
\)
_..~~~-~----_.....
.~
:::,
.~~
'-
~""
.:::.:..
,.._....:._.~.. -r'
","'_~"'n.',
I I i \ l'
I i) \ I \ ! I
,
I ,
i i
I i
I , i
I , ,
i , i I
, I :
, I I !
I i ,
, , I ,
I / ! I
! I ,
\ , i
i \ I
,
, I I :
,
I :
,
~i
~
-{'
~l
~'
~
I
I
r
-:t.,
,
: I
i
,
"
.~.._~---~....
.~. ... ...
------j-
Ii
i Ii
Iii i
, ,
I
, ,
, i
: \ : I '
: Ii \
, '\
t
, I
II!
\-
(~
'> s:
, c::.
~ 5;.
-.J 'L\-.
\11~
~
I ,
I I
\ I 1
I
I
r
I
I
! i
'I ,
i \ i
I
i ,
l :
I
i
'. I, I ' ,
" !
, ,
! l I .
,
I
.
'}VV\ ~t/'"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
.;;j~k
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
501 E. Cooper Avenue, Polo- Minor Development, Public Hearing
DATE:
June 9, 2004
SUMMARY: The subject property, the Brown and Hoag Block, is listed on the Aspen Inventory
of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and is located in the Commercial Core Historic
District.
The applicant is in the process of remodeling the ground floor commercial space. Staff has
already granted a "Certificate of No Negative Effect" for new awnings, lights, planters, ADA
compliant door openers, and a mechanical chase on the east side of the building to vent
fireplaces. The matter before HPC relates only to a request to modifY the entry doors facing
Cooper A venue and the corner entry on Cooper and Galena.
The existing entries are not original, but were modifications that took place in the early 1990's
when Banana Republic opened. The new entries were necessary at that time because the
previous tenant, Crossroads Drugs, had taken out the historic materials and installed metal doors.
In reviewing the case files, it appears to Staff that HPC granted approval for Banana Republic to
build doors that were similar to, but not an exact match to the historic condition. Staff does not
support the current application from Polo because it takes the building further away from an
accurate door design. Staff recommends that HPC suggest Polo restore the entries as they appear
to have existed in the 19th century based on historic photographs, but deny this application.
APPLICANT: Polo ColoradoLLC, represented by Rod Dyer, architect.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-24-006.
ADDRESS: 501 E. Cooper Avenue, the south 68' of Lots K and L, Block 95, City and Townsite
of Aspen.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
CURRENT LAND USE: Retail and Hotel.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures setforth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: The request is that HPC allow the existing entry doors to be removed and
replaced with'!. light wood doors.
Staff has located the following photographs which, while not entirely clear images, give evidence
about how the storefronts on the Brown and Hoag Block originally appeared.
This photograph shows the easternmost storefront on the building. Although the entry is fairly
dark, what can be seen is that there are no sidelights on the entry door, as exist on the building
today. The storefront had a pair of doors, which was very typical of the period.
2
This photograph shows the corner entry. Although it is obscured by a pole, it certainly appears
that there are double doors in this picture and that the upper half of the door was a four pane
divided light and the lower half was paneled.
The Banana Republic remodel gave a nod to the design of the glass, although in a more modern
configuration. The paired doors were not installed at that time either because it was not
recognized that that was the original design, or else the Building Department would not allow the
more narrow doors that would be created. The Building Department is willing to approve a
restoration of this character now and the doors would be approximately 2'6" wide.
Staff was not able to issue a "Certificate of No Negative Effect" for this part of the proposal
because we are allowed to authorize changes that restore a building, which this does not. There
have been significant successes in the downtown over the last few years in terms of accurately
restoring storefronts on the Prada building and the old Sportstalker building. Staff believes that
accurate restoration of storefronts is very important in preserving the kind of elegant proportions
that were typical of these buildings. We do not support Polo's request based on the following
guideline:
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
o Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
3
Staff recommends that HPC deny this application, but encourage Polo to follow suit with other
retailers and the restoration efforts they have completed.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Minor Development approval be denied for
this application, but that the board authorize Staff and a monitor to work with the applicant on a
restoration of the doors if they are willing to do so.
Exhibit:
Resolution #_, Series of2004
A. Staff memo dated June 9, 2004
B. Design Guidelines
C. Application
4
"Exhibit B, Relevant Design Guidelines, 501 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Review"
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
o Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original
door or a door associated with the style of the house.
o A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
o A historic door from a similar building also may be considered.
o Simple paneled doors were typical.
oVery ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
5
Land Use Application
~
THE CITY OF AsPEN
PROJECT:
Name:
Location:
Parcel ill #
fftPF k5. ~ "Goc.;<. q~
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
o
(. evello
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
I\ddress:
oc....l Gb .....c-+:
oJ -(.. 'i10.'\'1.S ~
dyu..tG-l-\ e rof. f\et'
E-mail: l.t...-4..(e(.ovJ~.M.CoM
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
g /' Historic Designation
L0' Certificate of No Negative Effect
o Certificate of Appropriateness
o -Minor Historic Development
o -Major Historic Development
o -Conceptual Historic Development
o -Final Historic Development
o . -Substantial Amendment
o Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
o Demolition (total demolition)
o Historic Landmark Lot Split
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (descri tion of existin
'3 ';;1MY !3/(/Ck, !;'ifI'i/(,11/tU Wrm- &r~MENr.
!h/ 1E/.. t) '1/ A ov.
rovals, etc.)
~/L- ,\TDI?RgetJNr ON 6~{)(/"'O Fu;,cJ€"
C 11
PROPOSAL:
ro osed buildin s, uses, modifications, etc.)
AleN ,f/GNAUt?
,
,
-<t-
o
o
N
'q-
::::>
:J
:)
- ________.J
,
" .
o <
ci ~
,,; ~
.
o
o
N
n919 OaVH010J 'N3:dSV
H3:dOOJ .LSV3: 981
3JN3G1S3H H3:H3:.oJ
i:.
.
.
2:8:
~ll-l
~~
Z
is
::;)
co
~ "" ;.;
~.g ..
A,O
o
u
I
i
!
j
11,111
l'- 11'-"1
I ill' l
~ dl~dll
A:!!11V
:: I
0'
....
"'
"'
'"
....
UJ
Z ,0'
"' <>
0. 0
UJ "
.. "
:I1 ;<
.... m
~
~ <>
0 ~
.
UJ ~
~
I
I
.
~ :'~"~l-
<>
o
"
o
I
i
j
"
I !'
!~~l !ll',
..J !iHI"
lid, dl
---
I "'--
~~-
~) . z !!
31 ~ ~)1 ,r ~,/
\~\\-r-'l!;j I I \~I A I
~~~\\~I;:::l~~' ,0' ! !!J, ~~ ~
I 6 t ::---:F dlllll! t ~f~';\' ~~
-';;> -"::::"::l I' ]7'1\'\\
);9,1/(1'\\" ,......~ II I
/// I' \ \\~ Ii:
'if II \ \' \\ !I~
w
a.
v
<>
~
.
v
,N,,,".,,
:!!ONaAV H:!!dOOJ JSV:!!
u
~
~
vi
~
u
i"
I
u
<r
<(
!
~ .;; "" ..., ~
",,,,;;j g..~ .tl
~:;: ~'i'i'i' ~~
,,~ooo.l:o s-
;la;; ~~~ ~~ k ~
11<"'~ ~~l:? :!
.,!;- '" '" .:
....... "
t- ~
"I
zl
-,
fill
R
"'I
I'
Zl
jl
",I
-~I'~
0-,.., ""'"
" .0:<1"" <......J
Z ;:l ~k
f;1 ~!i ~7
~ UJ!. ~
(3 .x ,
~
M:l fi,i!il
! fIllY film:
i IUd!!
; '" ..
<1l
.. ........ .zJ,.
~ ~ ><
III
,
.):/1.....
.0-,1
:~ ~
~:a; 6 :.; "5
<.~9:!r~~~~
~.e'-'c~_~~ a~
alC ,;.<:.... ~l'- 11
~~:( *.:.* '"l~
"'.....: '" '" ~
o~ ,
-.. :!!
~ ' ,....;
,
,
z
~ .
~ ~
.
o
-<
s
~ i
0
~ ~
z
w >
" ~~ .
" 0
0 "
u Ii! .
~
Z
0> ~~liolJoIU
'-
W
N 10101",;1",
In ..:..:..."'''''''''''''
~ ~
w .~o ..~
"
<( ~9g ~~~
z
~ ~i::li $!3",
<( ..,Wi~m
u
z ",~jlj<1~ ~
<(
~ ~...zH
0 :I~~~~~8:
"' w
>-1
P
Q ,
"'
;r: .
.
u w , " ~.
UJ " ^
<(
.... z F f? ,~~
z
Z 0 d~ !i81S
j " r; g::li ~ ..;
~ ~~::Ii"'uf~~
p.. 0 ~..;~~~\i!~~
u
z
o
F
~ ~
i ~
-.i Z ~
~i~
z
o
E
~
..
-""
.)./,. ..[
"
J
1
{
s
;s
~
~
~
:)
l
]
>-1
::;;
....
",.
A.1'
..
""
u~
Z ..
"'3
"'.
C\l
J"
,--_,..:'J.'
,,;-,,;-,~.-;"-
. ;,:(.,~iff'
~
('
o
)