HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20040714ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 14, 2004 5:00 P.M.
CITY MANAGER MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS:
II.
IlL
IV.
V.
VI.
Roll call
Approval of minutes - June 9, 2004
Public Comments
Commissioner member comments
Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments.: 'Certifi~ate of No Negative"Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #20)
VIII..OLD BUSINESS
IX.
A. 735 W. Bleeker - Project amendment-
B. 1000 N. Third - Aspen Meadows Restaurant - Final Review
NEW BUSINESS
/ v--~,LoA. 200 W. Hopkins - Minor Development and Variances -
Public Hearing~..~k
~ ~t~,-- B. 308 Park Ave. - Historic Landmark Lot Split, Subdivision
Exemption and GMQS Exemption, Major Development
(Conceptual) - Relocation and Variances - Public Hearing
L/~)/v,,~- 435 W. Main - Major Development (Conceptual) Public
Hearing
X. ADJOURN
~~---_.,,--- -"""-~"---------'''-'-'---.-"._-~-~--_. .
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
'JAA
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director
THRU:
FROM:
Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer c;-
RE:
735 W. Bleeker-Monitor Issues
DATE:
July 14,2004
SUMMARY: Final HPC approval was granted to 735 W. Bleeker Street in November
2001. Although the original architect is still involved, there is a new property owner. A
building permit for 735 W. Bleeker was issued in February 2004 with several HPC issues
unresolved. The two issues are as follows:
1. The window located on the north elevation of the addition was originally
approved as attached in Exhibit "A" of this memo. As outlined in Exhibit "B"
(a memo from the applicant's representative) of this memo there was
discussion of changing the window to a bay window although it is unclear as
to the final resolution of the matter. The proposed elevation can be found in
Exhibit "B." Staff has included the approved building permit set, with
redlines, as Exhibit "C." Staff and monitor have changed since the building
permit approval and both the staff and monitor felt it was appropriate to bring
the issue back to HPC. Both staff and monitor do not feel that the proposed
change meets the design guidelines and that the proposed change competes
with the historic elements ofthe house.
2. The project was granted approval with the following condition: "Reconfigure
the porch enclosures to express the historic quality of the original porch and
the design shall be approved by staff and monitor." Per the applicant's
memo, the applicant is not planning to make any modification to the porch to
bring the project into compliance with the condition of approval. At the time
of final approval, HPC placed this condition of approval on this property
without any plans and left it up to the staff and monitor to approve
modification. Just because no plan has been shown to staff and monitor does
not negate the condition of approval. .
APPLICANT: Ann Marcus represented by Rally Dupps.
LOCATION: 735 W. Bleeker.
.,_.,".......,.._~~~.,,,- ."....".,_.,".._,~-~"..,,-.~-_._---.,
RECOMMENDATION: The HPC should reevaluate the project to determine if the
amended proposal is satisfactory or uphold the original approved plan with conditions.
Staff recommends the original approval.
Exhibits:
A. HPC final approval of north elevation, dated November 28, 2001
B. Memo from the Applicant including building permit application plans without
redlines and proposed plans, June 23, 2004
C. Approved building permit plans with redline, approved by HPC on JiUluary 13,
2004
At
>t
>i
>c
>
>i
....:;.fr
.1a
n""">'it
>an
>el
>
>th bay window was not loved by jeffrey, but it was also my memory that
>he approved the drawings with it as-is.
>
>i
>wh'
>en
>pe
>su
>
>i i
>bac
>to
>thi
>
>i w 11 be back feb 20.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I
> > t
> > f
>"J;?or
o
''--'' "
> > 0
> > m
> > p
.H'
-
s
rom:
ent:
Amy Guthrie [amyg@ci.aspen.co.us]
Monday, January 19, 2004 2:04 PM
rallydupps@comcast.net
Re: your mail
bject:
H pe you feel better soon!!!
I did sign the permit, so none of this is holding anything up. We can talk when you get
b ck. Since the drawings you had Jeffrey and I review bubbled the changes on the
a dition, but nothing on the new house, that isn't approved at this time. The HPC reso
j st said that you have to make the porch look more open, not that it has to actually be
o en. Am sure it can be figured out.
T bay also can be figured out. It may just be a matter of the design of the brackets
un er it, etc. Not a huge deal.
An
kn
Oa
is now talking to my husband about building this
w.) I may end up stepping out of this discussion
es (who usually subs for me in these
si uations) and Jeffrey. Will let you know.
(among other people maybe, I don't
and having you wrap it up with Sarah
Don't worry about any of this for now.
10:12 AM 1/17/2004 , you wrote:
anks for your email. i am in kuajuharo right now in north centreal
dia. this place i certainly wild and i have diahorrea and a head
Id, but i am still managing to have fun with kathy
was never my recollection that anyone mentinoed anything about the
nt porch. we proceeded thinking that that was not required, since it
never been mentioned. it is shgown on the approval, but i thought
was the drawings that i showed you and jeffrey that over rode
thing it said on the resolution. ann does not want to change that
ment of her house. she was very clear about that.
hink it is somewhat unfortunate that these issues come to light
le i am out of the country and that we have already had the drawings
ineered and develoiped to a point that they are ready for building
it. i thougth everyone was on the same page with the drawings i
lied to both you and jeffrey way before my trip here.
agine that if you decide that the porch really needs to get opened
up, then ann may shut down the project altogethre or she may want
o back to hpc. i could not guess. my request is that we clear
issue up when i return.
ally- sorry to bother you on your trip.
e checking emails.
I think you said you would
am reviewing Ann Marcus'
be resolved. The first
ont
h. One
HPC's conditions of
econfigure the porch
the original porch.
nitor." Your permit
r me. I don't get
permit. There are two things that need
has to do with the existing enclosed
final approval for this house was
enclosure to express the historical quality
The design shall be approved by staff and
set says no work is proposed for the porch
1
>
>
>
.-,,,,,>
>
->
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
"......
-
tha t. When
> you showed Jeffrey and I plans for Ann's toned down version of the
> approval, you bubbled out the areas you were changing, which all
related to
> the new addition. I don't remember having any discussion about the
> porch on the old house, or waiving the condition that it be made to
> appear more like an op~ porch. So I c~n't approve that.
>
The other issue is related to the new bay on the front of the
addition. I remember that both Jeffrey and I had a concern about
that because it looks historic. I do not have good notes though on
this issue unfortunately, so I'm not sure if I communicated that to
you or got too caught up in the discussions about other aspects of
the new construction. I am very uncomfortable with the way this
element looks in terms of distinguishing old from new. The idea of
a bay may be alright, but the detailing
eeds to
be tweaked.
I'm going to go ahead and sign the permit with redline comments that
both of these issues will need to be worked out. I don't want to
hold it up in the meantime, and actually hope you are just enjoying
yourselves and not thinking about work at all! So you can either
respond if you see this, or we'll deal with it when you're home.
Amy Guthrie
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer 130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970-920-5096 (ph)
970-920-5439 (f)
Please visit our NEW Website: www.aspenpitkin.com
Amy Guthrie
Cit of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611
970 920-5096 (ph)
970 920-5439 (f)
PIe se visit our NEW Website: www.aspenpitkin.com
2
..........o :
~n:
To:
'"""""",,,ny
-"Cit
970
970
PIe
",,,,,,,,,,,-
-
rail du
s
Amy Guthrie [amyg@cLaspen.co.us]
Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:17 AM
rallydupps@comcast.net
Ral y- sorry to bother you on your trip. I think you said you would be checking emails.
I a reviewing Ann Marcus' permit. There are two things that need to be resolved. The
fir t has to do with the existing enclosed front porch. One of HPC's conditions of final
app oval for this house was f1Reconfigure the porch enclosure to express the historical
qua ity of the original porch. The design shall be approved by staff and monitor." Your
per it set says no work is proposed for the porch per me. I don't get that. When you
sho ed Jeffrey and I plans for Ann's toned down version of the approval, you bubbled out
the areas you were changing, which all related to the new addition. I don't remember
hav ng any discussion about the porch on the old house, or waiving the condition that it
be ade to appear more like an open porch. So I can't approve that.
The other issue is related to the new bay on the front of the addition. I remember that
bot Jeffrey and I had a concern about that because it looks historic. I do not have good
not s though on this issue unfortunately, so I'm not sure if I communicated that to you or
got too caught up in the discussions about other aspects of the new construction. I am
ver uncomfortable with the way this element looks in terms of distinguishing old from
new The idea of a bay may be alright, but the detailing needs to be tweaked.
I'm
wil
you
res
going to go ahead and sign the permit with redline comments that both of
need to be worked out. I don't want to hold it up in the meantime, and
are just enjoying yourselves and not thinking about work at all! So you
ond if you see this, or we'll deal with it when you're home.
these issues
actually hope
can either
"
Guthrie
of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611
920-5096 (ph)
920-5439 (f)
se visit our NEW Website: www.aspenpitkin.com
1
Sent By: consortium architects;
970-927-2266;
Jun-23-04 11 :57AM;
Page 1
consort
u m
Z=7-~lbIT cg - ~11~
~
......, ~
pob 7116
ea..1l, 0081621
fax: !170.e27-22ee
phone: 970 9aT 2299 '
TRANSMITTAL
TO:
Sarah Oates, Ann Marcus
.................................,.-..........................................................................-...........................................-......................-.--.-....-.-..
FROM:
!3~I!.Y-.!?~I?.I?.~".!lL~.........._............_................._.............._......._....._....__.........._...................................................
920-5439
........................................-...........................................................................-.-...--........-.............-,.............................--otooo........
FAX'
PAGES:
1j!]2!.\!g!.o.g_J!'!.l~_!1.!:l!?.~.L............................................_...._............._............................................................:..........
June 23 2004 .
..........._.,..__1...................................................................____._._._............_........._........................................__....._.__._._
DATE:
RE:
735 W. Bleeker HPC meeting July 14, 2004
Enclosed is a copy of what we thought were fully approved drawings per our meeting
with Amy Guthrie on September 23, 2003, plus what we are proposing for the upcoming
HPC meeting. At issue here for our July 14lh HPC hearing is two things. First, staff has
concems overthe porch not being 'opened up' and second, staff has concerns about
the bay window design.
At the September 23, 2003 meeting, everyone seemed pleased that Ann Marcus; the
new homeowner of 735 W. Bleeker, was proposing a design that was far smaller in tlize,
massing and scale that the design approved by HPC flnal of 10/24/2001. Our drawings
, showed bubbled areas that are to be changed in terms of the new addition. Italso
showed the eXisting front porch without any changes being made, therefore It was not
bubbled. The bubbled areas were shown to draw attention to our new design.: We
made the assumption that Amy understood that this drawing also communicated to her
that we were not planning on doing anything to the existing front porch. Our drawing
also showed the addition of the bay window. Since this was new, we discussed its
merits and Amy said she would ask for Jeffrey's opinion. It was later that I received a
phone call from her saying Jeffrey had approved the drawing, which showed. bay
window, same front porch and all. It Is my opinion that my drawing speaks for itself,
showing what we want to do. I always do my best to communicate the Intent to oU,ers,
but it is up to other building related professionals to draw our attention to what
requirements of theirs I need to meet. The front porCh has never been shown tj) be
changed from what it looks like now, nor do we want to make any changes to It in the
tutu reo
"~
At that meeting we discussed that overall this new proposal was a far better HPC
design than that of the approved final HPC of October 24. 2001. That old design shows
a full basement, a larger rear addition, is much taller, and furthermore builds out n~ar1y
'''","'/
-" -'-'---"-,".-_______'_',__~~e"___._,_
Sent By: consortium architects;
970-927-2266;
Jun-23-0411:5BAM;
Page 2/4
all available FAR. The new design is much smaller, lower, and does not cause the
building to go through a potenllally destructive moving process for a full basement. .
Ann has concerns about the HPC process. After our meeting with Amy, both Annl!lnd I
were under the impression that that the drawings we showed her was later approV$d by
staff and the monitor. It was only after this verbal approval, that we began the building
process of hiring engineers, surveyors, and others to complete a permit set of drawings.
We were quite surprised to find out in a January 2004 emall from Amy during her plan
review that the bay and porch were not fully approved in her opinion. Amy allowed the
permit to go forward anyway and said that these issues could be handled later during
construCllon, by staff and monitor.
TOday, Ann finds herself In a bind. Through a twist of fate, Amy and Jeffrey are
conflicted out from being involved with this project. Sarah Oates has been handed, this
project and now charged with the duty of trying to find out who said what and what has
been approved or not approved. Meanwhile, Ann must halt construction and is required
to go back to the full board for HPC approvals on what we were lead to believe Were
two simple issues. Now, while Ann's home is tom apart she is forced to live with
construction mess and wait for direction from HPC.
Our position Is simple. We want to continue building what we thought was already
approved. We have not changed our design with regard to the porch or the bay window
since the September 2003 meeting. We are not proposing any alteration to that de$ign
today, nearly a year later. We simply want to finish what we have already begun.
We are including the drawing of the same elevation from our permit set for the project
that is now already under construction dated today.
Please let me know If there Is anything else I can provide you for the July 14th meetlllg.
Thanks,
Rally
.r-.
.~
I~
::t: -.s> ~
z'~
~F
flt}-
~~i
Ql..~
';). ~
'- o. <)
or . u
QO .
~.
~ ~.1t
? .0<::..
~ ,...\ rJI
...\~
~ . ()
V-N
. '-
-"l ~ ~
I ~Q/.~
I 4 Cl
~ ~
I 1~
I O!i
'1-V\
I .'
~~f
)l
[., I
'of]
I
,
~
I
I
I
~
r-~
I I
-.J I
I
"'\>~' I
i" itC 2. , I
3'21
' .....3
, :it.~1
Abi;l)1J'
I
I
-~-~
U
~I
h
Q
~
II I ij
~ I ~
~
.c~N
~~- ~~
to
~
~I~
~p
It:l~.
tv~~
~ ~,~
~ ~r
1,/1 O.~
..l..4a
*~~
z
o
t=
~:
...JO
Ill.
~-;;
~
~ I ij
!~ U'~ I
,ill Il~ ~f ~
~i ~~ ·
-"- ..
vie .Sed !W~8S:~~ vo'e~.unr !99~~'L~6'OL6
~SloalTUO.JB WnT1..JQSIJO~ .!.rJ '1IQt"
...y D ])
&
I.!l
"2-
, ~ :1=.4
g~~ ~~
c:..:::.
....l: -
~::.-o CJ
~~c
\I).fr1 ~ [gO <4-
!::~
~ I ~
~!~
~.~~ ..... ~
0
:z
~
~.~~ ~
I
i+-~ II I II ~
i=
2.Q.l. ~
Q/.. i z II I II III
...J
III
':;):. ClI.. S
......;j...
: -:>
~~ '0
i.-L
~()
~
3-Z
~' s ".
~~
"'''. .- ...... .............-
....,po""
:2.: 1/ I 1/ &
-l ~
I
~l
~W II I 1/ w~
oJI. ~ ---.--/ 3
~Q<t
2.V\
-
vlv aBed ~WVa5:~~ vo-~z-unr ~QQ7.7.-J7.R-nJR
~!=::':'"l;::a'TIl~.JP lIIn.,., InClln., .l... ..,,""....
(~
-z
:j;:O
= /U
II -l
I
1- m
Or
= m
<
)>
-{
o
z
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
~----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I __
Lr---
~
r'
m CJ
:< (\
.11 G
G/z
- (\
I .
q
OJ
~
Z
IJ
)>
:j
G
Z
01
m
r
G
~
--L
ILl
I I" / F
~?- 'F
-
-
,
-
-<)
:::s
~
"
'r
r
j;
- ".
'-" .'
m -l
r b
m. 3:
< OJ m
'11 ;;!
G. .y
G r
,- OJ
G s:
I ~
(j\
I
t
OI~
)>G
~g
z~
U\)>
-;lJ
S1IJ
Z
(j\",
L
L
L
I~ /" ,J
II [" ,,/
II
II
Il.l-LL.u J--LLLLl
f
I "'-! - _. '
L::::,
--
CJ
-1~
~
1I11Z
G/IIG
;lJG(\
(\1IJ:
J:G)>
u\z
m(j\
elm
OjU\
~)>
II
II
m --j
r'
m G
:< 11
r
a )>
~1n1
m -l
r'
m G
.< 11
~ _ r
G ~ /@
el U! IJ
{Jl"-G
G )> /II
)> U\ 3:
~ ~ 91
[\L lJ\
.~~ ~ -1"
J \~ ~~ ~
119\ ~~N"
1) J\\ ,- )>
~ \\- =#J~
~"
I~\
( 1'\
('
~~
~
~ '=
~~C=r-
~v; (;= _1[;'
,- =
r- -c:: ,---
1=
I
:- ,~
,- =
r-- = 1-
r-
II
II
1/1
c= ,-
=
= 1
1
,II
\= -
, , =
c=- -= I
I '_, _
I
=
-=
I -
-=
= -'-1]
r- >===1 I -~
,~
;.1, ';,.: ':,
.:~ ,'-' .'
It
~
~
~1>
~
d~
}~
-1- J
,,;"...,,,,,,.,
"'''~i'.:i ~ ''''~'~~_frt';~~."~
......-:,,--..,"';-,......,..,.." ,,' -, ";,.,,
'"
,:. '.';'~'
-"'~;.t'#;i#.;2~{,t:;~;,,~' , '
'-"""'. "", ;;,'i,,~~..,"".,i:I;'Y,> ,,<i'~ ":w.-:!.~ ',__,~(' ;..,>
"--"
;t. '" "I.. ,~ .~ . _::,(,^,
, -. '. "~.~...,.::.., ."~ '(j" -:
rn-l
r~
~-n
.1\ ~
,. I\!)
ql~
()
~
ll\
rn
~
UlZ
i3~
~~
rn~
Ill\;)
rnY
r-l
0-
~2
',G0 '..-r::' - L
. . ',0
,
I'
I
'."= ~.,:"\ ,'. ~ I
~C'\t~1
'\; ~ ~"'I
__J t. ~ ,j)
_.'t.-t" I
t1 ~ I
~ lr-
~ ;u
r- 0 m
.~ ~n
" fii~" Nl . ~,""
, ""0' "'GlIiI1I
':~>~": ~:':',<
':::q .~.-
_!:'~ co>'"..,.
..'~ ~;.O
~ ",-.~'
~--
1--""'", -, ';'~'.:J
~-'/!jJ,
~"I~. '
[1j .:Z; I ",:'1
'f:=. 0 ,.If}.
. .'- ~. ~
!;.J. "'-li::i J
~j~ "-.) ,'-
=
.p,..
,,'
)>
W
.
...
"< '
rn-\
~~
--n
~I@
'x
qy
Z
rn -\
~~
X!
pI\!)
~11lI
:I:rn
.,.. \;)
~~
~o
- X
Z
ll\
3!!:-
11l 0
...."
oil,
-"
:' ill
() '"
Q,11l
-. 0
ili3
.t>
~~
\;)
~IJ
-0
G~
Om
~~
. ,
'.
v
'I
t.
"II ,,'..','" I\i
': ~ 0'" ,-'~ _"
,,- .. .' -,.' ,
l,
I
I
I
i
! i,
., n
~0
}' J.
~~~
~j~
--~(\
l;~
I,
"
I
([
D
ANN M~CUS RENOVATION
735 WEST BLEEKER ST.'
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
consortium
I
I archlteots I
p.o.a. n8, ba..JI, CQIoro.clc> 81811 I
U. IC7n\ Q?7 _ ??RR f. IQ70\ 927 . 2266
I'\)
C>
,
P","MIT'1?_16.2003
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
~f.r
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
1000 N. Third Street, Aspen Meadows Restaurant- Major Development Review
(Final)- Public Hearing
DATE:
July 14, 2004
SUMMARY: The Aspen Meadows Restaurant building was designed by Herbert Bayer and
Fritz Benedict and was constructed in 1958. It is a designated Aspen Landmark.
In 1991, the Meadows area completed an SPA (Specially Planned Area) review which
established the rights to expand structures and activities on the campus. The restaurant building
received approval to add 2,000 square feet, and HPC was given the authority to review and
accept the design, )Nhich was ultimately never constructed. The "vested rights" for the project,
which guaranteed the approval protection from any changes to City Land Use regulations for a
period of three years, have expired and a new HPC review is necessary.
Staff finds that the project is significantly better than the 1991 version in terms of being
distinguishable as a product of its own time, a finding that HPC agreed with at the Conceptual
approval on May 26, 2004. Staff recommends that Final approval be granted.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by Harry Teague Architects and Jim Curtis.
PARCEL In: 2735-121-29-008.
ADDRESS: 1000 N. Third Street, The Prince Bandar bin Sultan Center/Aspen Meadows
Restaurant and Reception Center, within the Aspen Meadows SPA, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: SPA.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major 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.
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: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the
appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be
the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project
(note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
1. Why is the property significant?
2. What are the key features of the property?
3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes?
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score?
5. What is the potential for cumulativeaIterations that may affect the integrity of the
property?
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic was created in 1947 by Walter Paepke and formed the
foundation for the Aspen Renaissance period after World War II. The Meadows campus is very
significant as the center of activities related to Paepcke's "Aspen Idea." Paepcke brought Herbert
Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design consultant for the Institute, a role in which he
served until 1976. Bayer, with assistance from Fritz Benedict, was offered the chance to design a
plarmed environment, where the goal was total visual integration.
The key features of the property are the campus plan and the relationship between the
architecture and landscape. A number of original Bayer buildings remain, and new structures
have been designed in a marmer that is generally sympathetic to the Bauhaus aesthetic. It is very
important that this careful stewardship of the property be maintained.
The Restaurant is the gateway into the Meadows area. The building exterior is relatively
unchanged from the original design, with the exception of replacements of certain features such
as railings, and minor additions for mechanical areas. This project will use 1200 square feet of
the 2000 square feet that was allotted through the SPA.
Desi!!:n Guideline review
Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, selection of
new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials. A
2
list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those guidelines which
staff finds the project does not meet, or where discussion is needed, are included in the memo.
"",..'
Staff finds that this project completely meets the spirit of the design guidelines and the goal of
allowing dynamic additions to happen when they can be accommodated without taking away
from the character defining features of the resource that is being preserved. The addition at the
back of the restaurant will improve the usefulness of the building but will allow the simple, flat
roofed character of the restaurant to still be the predominant perception from Meadows Road.
The material palette is compatible with the historic building.
The project is in conformance with all guidelines. Some details, such as the selection of light
fixtures and construction details, can be handled by staff and monitor.
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 HPC grant Major Development (Final) for the
Aspen Meadows Restaurant with the following conditions:
I. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what
"A treatments will be used to repaiuhe deterior~ed concrete.
Q.) HPC staff and monitor must 'the '.typ: ~~ Pl';;;;.rtion of exterior lighting fixtures by
reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. I I
3. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available, prior to installation.
4. No existing exterior materials on the historic building, other than what has been
specifically approved herein, may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor.
5. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
6. The conditions of approval are required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building
permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
7. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
o
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
~
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
TFlRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
.200 W. Hopkins Avenue, Minor Review and Variances- Public Hearing
DATE:
July 14,2004
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 6,000 square foot lot that is listed on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
The board is asked to grant Minor Development approval for a single car garage along the
alley. Because of the location of the existing structure, the garage must be "side-loaded"
and setback variances are needed.
Staff finds that the project complies with the applicable review standards and
recommends approval.
APPLICANT: Branding Group III, represented by Zone 4 Architecture.
PARCEL In: 2735-124-54-007.
ADDRESS: 200 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots R and S, Block 52, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6.
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 set forth
in Chapter 26.316.
-
Staff Response: The request is that HPC approve construction of a new garage at the
rear of the subject property. The existing addition to the miner's cottage on this site takes
up much of the lot, leaving no room for a garage other than in a side-loaded
configuration. This complies with the City's requirement that access be taken from the
alley because cars will enter from the alley right-of-way rather than via a new curb cut on
the street.
The property is currently slightly under the maximum allowed floor area and has no on-
site parking. Guidelines applicable to the design of the proposed garage are attached as
"Exhibit B." Staff finds that those listed below are the only ones that require discussion
related to the proposal.
8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure.
D 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.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
ofthe primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also
is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
D 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.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D 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 existing addition to the house was built in 1977 and does not have the kind of
separation from the designated house that is required by HPC today. A detached garage
would be preferable in order to not expand on the elongated character that the miner's
cottage has acquired, however it is not possible to create a meaningful amount of
"""
2
.",-,>,
separation between the buildings and staff finds that the way the new garage is tucked
into the rear corner of the site does give it some independence.
The only aspect of the design that staff questions is the use of decorative shingles in the
gable ends of the new garage. It is preferred that new construction avoid using the same
decorative detailing as the historic structure. Staff recommends a different treatment be
selected for this area of the building.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The setback variances needed for this project are a 2' 6" rear yard setback variance and a
1 '7" west sideyard setback variance The criteria, per Section 26.415.1l0.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 Response: It is not possible to construct a garage on this site without setback
variances. The applicant is requesting to be 2'6" from the rear property line rather than 5'
as required, and 3'5" from the west property line rather than 5'. The proposed garage has
the character of a one story accessory structure as was historically found along the alleys.
It will allow the property to have one on-site parking space and has little impact on one's
overall perception of the character of the miner's cottage. Staff finds that the review
criteria for setback variances are met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve Minor Development for 200
W. Hopkins Avenue with the following conditions, as stated in the attached Resolution
# , Series of 2004.
1. HPC hereby grants a 2'6" rear yard setback variance and a 1 '7" west sideyard
setback variance.
2. There shall be no changes from the plans unless approved by HPC staff and
monitor.
3. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve a new treatment for the gable
ends of the garage as well as cut sheets for the light fixtures.
-
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated July 14, 2004
3
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Application
-..
"Exhibit B, Relevant Design Guidelines, 200 W. Hopkins Avenue- Minor Review"
8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure.
D 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.
D A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure.
D If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary
structure.
D If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also
is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
"""
.....;tII'P'
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D 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.
D 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.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will
not alter the exterior mass of a building.
-
4
'crtil--
ilI:<<:O...l...l
:::Jl--fiIW{Q
1-(j)1.Ld);j)
XX~O<J)
iLWXctO
I.'JIw 0-
z\J t01J)
j::1- <t'1
I" ill
cr1: w
::::iO OC
~ 1"
X
iL
1
II I
II
T
~I
~
;::
ill
X
W
II,
I'
I
.........
1.......
z
()
I-
<[
>
ill
-1
ill
I-
<J)
<[
ill
-1_
<[~
- ,
I- '-
~ =11
<[~
D-~
Iii i
i,
I
I
i I
I
I
,
I ,!
Iii
ILJ
I
,I
I
II
i
11
II
111'01
II
I
I i I I
ill
[
"'~'"
, ,
I
.
"
, III
11,11
, U'I
IC'~I,
! ,I : I
i I :llll1i
I! II i II i ili
Il' 111 j. i I,
LJ _ _JJ mL.L ~
_.?
~
,
,
z
Q
~
Q
~I
w
cr
"
Ii
"
cr
I
I z
~ ()
W
ill
J
()
I
cr
:<<:
~
<j)
X
w
I-
<[
>
ill
...J
ill =
:I~
1-'-
{}" ="
()~
Z ~
~~
~ 1
I I I
~ I I
I I
"'"Al----JJ I I I
-" , z
/f? I! I i I I III ()
,
~I I I l-
II <[
! >
- I I II ill
~ , -1
I I , I ill
I I w I-
11111 1 ill
J <J)
II 0
I ill
~ cr 3
:<<:
~
1 ill -1
x -
w <[ ~
- ,
I- -
,~~ {}" "
:>. I gj <[ ~
l!Io--' '" I I ]
::J~!Q D- '-
~Will , I ~I '"
X~ill I
u::xO
crwlL r w
zcr'" I cr
i=~<t "
I~>- Ii
~~~ "
...lXW I I I cr
will
TO I I
LJ--' I I
~LJ 1
"ill I I
1: ,1 I j
0,0 I
~w I
Il' I I I
" i
~ ll111 Ii
X I
'L
....~.,.J ~
,).J on. "'1'-1 1oI~> 7
Cwz.oV/:,""2 oF UclVftS"
VIEV or W6Jb-r::( /rYl~ ~ 1S:"T' )7~arr
';::,.,\,,'J;
'-).r.,' 'f
>0';
'''':.f~,
;".""'
'.f
\,
,
!
t
'.
-~
\'
~ .
I
~
,
,
.
'lI'-_
:.:~
. .
fl'
. _;i~
)...,<;,- -
'~'~~:~:~:~1-1 '.
a::,::'~'r.
\':~
:~:d':
:~
.f '.
;l
!"
:#':>'
~+;?' L
. "1
, \
~. ..-'
~,.,
"
~
<
1
~ /'
> . c/
\~ I \ t ' I\r\ l'
Jh.
'. {I I
!
r
JU,ll. I \ ~H
t#.
1.-"
,-,
~,
:-"C- #,,"' "'~-
~ ~",
.. ')
ij;.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
308 Park Avenue- Historic Landmark Lot Split, Subdivision Exemption and
GMQS Exemption, Major Development Review (Conceptual), On-Site
Relocation and Variances- Public Hearing
DATE:
July 14,2004
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures and is recognized as a Rustic Style cabin constructed in 1949. The owner requests
HPC approval to complete a historic landmark lot split that will result in a small addition to the
resource with the remaining allowable FAR allocated to an adjacent new house, On-site
relocation of the cabin and variances are also requested in this redevelopment.
'.",.""
HPC held a work session to be introduced to this project on April 13, 2004, At the meeting the
board raised concerns with the design of the connection between the historic building and new
addition, The architect responded to the feedback with a redesign, and staff finds that all of the
applicable review standards are now met. Approval of the request as submitted is
recommended.
APPLICANT: Tim Mooney, owner, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and AI
Beyer Design,
PARCEL In: 2737-181-30-047,
ADDRESS: 308 Park Avenue, Lot I, Block 2, Riverside Addition, and all that part of Regent
Street lying Southerly orand adjacent to said Lot I projected Southerly to the Southerly line of
Regent Street. Also the Northerly 15 feet of Lots 9,10,11 and the Northerly 15 feet of the
Westerly half of Lot 12, Block 2 of the Riverside Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen,
ZONING: R-6,
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following
requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section
26.470,070(C), and Section 26.415,OlO(D,)
1
26.480.030(A)(2). SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS. LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a
lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following
conditions are met:
--
a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board
of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes
and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision
regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not
apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures; and
Staff Finding:
The property is not part of a subdivision,
b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section
26.100.040(A)(1)(c).
Staff Finding:
This proposal will create one 4,803 square foot lot, which will be developed with a new home in
the future, and one 3,010 square foot lot, which will contain the historic cabin, Both lots will
exceed the minimum 3,000 square foot lot size established for Historic Landmark Lot Splits,
-
Council has recently adopted new benefits for historic properties, pursuant to Section 26.420 of
the Municipal Code, which states that affordable housing mitigation will not be required for
properties created through a historic landmark lot split,
c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split"
exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and
Staff Finding:
The land has not received a subdivision exemption or lot split exemption,
d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the
requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision
may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of
applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation
pursuant to Chapter 26.100.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community
Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action,
............,
2
e)
Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in
the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the
applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following
approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of
the plat by the City Council will be requiredfor a showing of good cause.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval.
f) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is
eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a
lot split.
Staff Finding:
The existing cabin is to be relocated onto one of the new lots and preserved as part of the project.
g) Maximum potential buUdout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not
exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family
home.
Staff Finding:
The parcel currently contains a single family home, The proposal will add one new homesite, No
more than two units in total can be created as part of this redevelopment.
26.480.030( A)( 4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it
meets the following standards:
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square
feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or 0 zone district.
Staff Finding:
The subject parcel is 7,813 square feet and is located in the R-6 Zone District.
b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of
the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot
shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat.
Staff Finding:
The maximum floor area for the original parcel, containing a historical landmark in an R-6 zone,
is 3,493 square feet. The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus, discussed below.
Should the FAR bonus be granted, the total FARis to be allocated as follows: 2,493 square feet
to the North Lot, which will be vacant for the time being, and 1,500 square feet to the South Lot,
3
which contains the historic cabin. This plan to allocate little additional FAR to the landmark
building is exactly the intent of the lot split program. """"
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c)
are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR bonus
will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel.
Staff Finding: Setback variances are requested for the parcel that will contain the cabin, but not
for the vacant new lot.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
,...'........
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
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: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the
appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be
the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project
(note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
1. Why is the property significant?
2. What are the key features of the property?
3. What is the character ofthe context? How sensitive is the context to changes?
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score?
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property?
The cabin on this property is significant as an example of the type of buildings that were being
constructed in Aspen immediately following World War II. Rustic style buildings such as this
'--"'"
4
were common and appear to have been motivated by both practicality (the use of local materials),
as well as a national romance with the American "Wild West." Many lodges and summer homes
that were built in Aspen during this time share common characteristics with the house at 308
Park Avenue.
The key feature of the property is that the cottage is intact in terms of its original form and scale,
something of a rarity here, Alterations may have been made to the entry porch, but overall this is
a good example from the period, There are some Pan Abode buildings and other mid_20th
century structures that remain in the immediate area, but the neighborhood is being redeveloped
at a fairly intense rate,
There will be no remaining potential for future additions to the property if this project is built,
because it creates a commitment to transfer all but a small amount of the allowable FAR into a .
new detached home.
Desil!:D Guideline review
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B."
The proposal is to move the existing 1,059 square foot cabin onto a new basement and construct
an addition that is approximately 450 square feet plus a single car garage. The review standards
for On-Site Relocation will be discussed below,
Staff finds that the applicant has done an excellent job of designing an addition that connects to
the resource in a very minimal way and respects its height and scale, It is a clearly separate mass
that does not take away from the ability to understand the modest size of the historic cabin,
There are only two guidelines which staff would call to the attention of HPC. The first is related
to the lightwell that is planned to be located at the front corner of the building, The guidelines
state:
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
D In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards),
D The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
D A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it, should be
surrounded by a simple fence or rail.
It would be preferable to re-work the basement floor plan so that the lightwell could be located
on the southeast corner of the historic building, particularly because the cabin is planned to be so
5
close to Park Avenue and an exposed basement in that location does have some impact on
character. _
The second guideline to discuss is related to the driveway. It reads:
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
D Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts, New curb
cuts are not permitted.
D If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
The concept of a shared driveway for the North and South lots has been discussed, but is not
preferred by the applicant. A more detailed site plan is needed so that the amount of paving that
is planned and its relationship to the cabin is more clear.
Staff finds that all guidelines relevant to this conceptual proposal will be met with conditions
stated in the recommended motion, The project can be considered an excellent effort to restore
and sensitively add onto a historic home.
ON-SITE RELOCATION
The intent of the Historic Preservation ordinance is to preserve designated historic buildings in
their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical
relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to
particular site, However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a building may be
appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on
the attributes that make it significant.
-.
<,"
26.415.090.C Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets anyone ofthe following standards:
1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation
will not affect the character of the historic district; .!!!
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parceI on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; .!!!
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; .!!!
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
,-
6
"',-...
Additionallv. for approval to relocate all of the followinl! criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
Staff Response: The house currently sits in the middle of the site with some open space around
it. As is often the case with the historic lot split, there is some trade off between protecting more
of the qualities of the setting and ensuring that the building is preserved without a destructive
addition, The cabin will maintain its original orientation towards the street and will be closer to
Park Avenue, It will certainly remain a prominent building on the site as a result of this plan,
Staff finds that the guidelines related to building relocation, as well as the above criteria, are met.
Specifics of the housemoving plan will be required as conditions of approval.
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus, The following standards apply to
an FAR bonus. per Section 26.415.110,E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
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 and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
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 Section 26.415.070(D).
--
7
No development application that includes a. request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
.......
'.-
Staff Response: Based on the review provided earlier in this memo, Staff finds that criteria a,
b, d, e, and f are being met, and that granting an FAR bonus is appropriate, All of the guidelines
are satisfied, the historic building will have prominence on the lot, and the new construction is
modest in size and design,
SETBACK VARIANCES
The setback variances needed are a 2 foot front yard setback variance, a 2,5 foot north sideyard
setback variance (plus any projection required to accommodate the existing eaveline and log
ends), and a 6 foot rear yard setback variance, 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: The side and rear yard setback variances that are requested exist along an
interior lot line and will not affect any neighboring property. They are needed in order to place
the addition in the best location relative to the historic cabin, The applicant requests approval to
be 2 feet closer to the front lot line than is required so as to provide the kind of physical
separation between new and old that is desired. As noted in the application, many buildings in
the vicinity appear to have a close proximity to Park A venue, therefore staff finds the variance is
appropriate.
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.
.......
8
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this is an appropriate project and recommends that the
HPC recommend approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, Subdivision Exemption and GMQS
Exemption to City Council, and grant approval for Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site
Relocation, and Variances with the following conditions:
I, The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus,
2. The HPC hereby approves the following setback variances for the South Lot: a 2
foot front yard setback variance, a 2,5 foot north side yard setback variance (plus
any projection required to accommodate the existing eave line and log ends), and a
6 foot rear yard setback variance
3, Restudy the lightwell that is proposed at the front of the historic cabin.
4. Provide a site plan that indicates the location of proposed paving on the site,
5. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information
about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with
the building permit application,
6. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of
the structure must be submitted with the building permit application.
7. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected
during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
S, An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the
HPC within one year of July 14, 2004 or the conceptual approval shall be
considered null and void per Section 26.415,070,D,3,c.3 of the Municipal Code,
9. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (1 SO) days of final
approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption
agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and
reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good
cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall:
a, Meet the requirements of Section 26.4S0 of the Aspen Municipal Code;
b, Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these
lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals
pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of
application;
c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform
to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the variances
approved by the HPC; and
d. Be labeled to indicate that this proposal will create a North Lot of 4,803
square feet in size with 2,493 square feet of floor area, and a South Lot of
3,010 square feet in size with 1,500 square feet of floor area.
Exhibits:
Resolution # _' Series of 2004
A. Staff memo dated July 14, 2004
B, Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Application
9
"Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 308 Park Avenue, Conceptual Review"
-
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
D In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in
a historic district.
D It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
D Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements,
D A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
D Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a
new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
D The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction,
D In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved,
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
D If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the
lots, Both lots shall remain landmarked properties,
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
D It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
D It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building
in front of it, .
-,
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
D Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate,
D Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it
enhances the resource.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
D In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards),
D The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
D A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be
surrounded by a simple fence or rail.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate,
10
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate,
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
D 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.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D 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.
D An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
D A I-story connector is preferred.
D The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
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.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
D 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.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate,
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roo fs,
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
D For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided,
II
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
D Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb
cuts are not permitted,
D If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
.......,.,
14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene.
See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures.
14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
D Large parking areas should be screened from view from the street.
D Divide large parking lots with planting areas, (Large parking areas are those with more than
five cars.)
D Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature.
D Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas should be screened from adjacent
lots and the street.
-
""""'-
12
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT,
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND GMQS EXEMPTION TO CITY COUNCIL, AND
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),
ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
308 PARK AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _' SERIES OF 2004
PARCELID: 2737-181-30-047
WHEREAS, the applicant, Tim Mooney, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and
Al Beyer Design, has requested Historic Landmark Lot Split, Subdivision Exemption and GMQS
Exemption, Major Development (Conceptual), On-site Relocation, and Variances for the
property located at 308 Park Avenue, Lot 1, Block 2, Riverside Addition, and all that part of
Regent Street lying Southerly of and adjacent to said Lot 1 projected Southerly to the Southerly
line of Regent Street. Also the Northerly 15 feet of Lots 9,10,11 and the Northerly 15 feet of the
Westerly half of Lot 12, Block 2 of the Riverside Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the
following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section
26.470,070(C), and Section 26.415,OlO(D;) and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415,070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b,2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections, The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation of a Designated Property, the HPC must review the
application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per
Section 26.415.090.C of the Municipal Code, that:
1, It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will
not affect the character of the historic district; ,or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4, The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
-
Additionallv, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3, An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security; and
WHEREAS, for approval of an FAR bonus, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415,llO,C of
the Municipal Code, that:
a, The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
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
and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's
form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are ofthe highest quality; and/or
f, An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g, The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h, Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and
.-
WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.l10.C of
the Municipal Code, that the setback variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
b, Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character
of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 14, 2004, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with
conditions; and
-
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 14, 2004, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote
of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC recommends approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, Subdivision Exemption and GMQS
Exemption to City Council, and grants approval for Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site
Relocation, and Variances with the following conditions:
1.
2.
The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus,
The HPC hereby approves the following setback variances for the South Lot: a 2
foot front yard setback variance, a 2,5 foot north sideyard setback variance (plus any
projection required to accommodate the existing eaveline and log ends), and a 6
fO~~~ff s~~k variance
Re~ _ he {I'ghtwell that is proposed at the front of the historic cabin,
Provide a site plan that indicates the location of proposed paving on the site.
A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information
about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with
the building permit application,
A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of
the structure must be submitted with the building permit application,
A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected
during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the
HPC within one year of July 14, 2004 or the conceptual approval shall be
considered null and void per Section 26.415,070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code.
A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final
approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption
agreement within _ the specified, time limit shall render the plat invalid and
reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good
cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code;
b, Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these
lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals
pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of
application;
c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform
to the dimensional requirements of the R -6 zone district, except the variances
approved by the HPC; and
d, Be labeled to indicate that this proposal will create a North Lot of 4,803
square feet in size with 2,493 square feet of floor area, and a South Lot of
3,010 square feet in size with 1,500 square feet of floor area.
3.
4,
5.
6,
7,
8.
9.
..."",
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of July, 2004.
Approved as to Form;
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
-
....."
\
\
:f
-Il'
~
'" 01
~ >-
j;; Cj\
- 111
~ ~
111
- Z
(, -\
r
111
<
111
r
II
r
()
()
~
11
r
>-
z
, ,
"I
~,
~, .11
~i
"
r'
Z'
rn,
';:I>
,.{
I
I~~
)-
,
(1\
-~
"
,
~
,
~
~
~
~
j
-1-&-
.
.
.
PARk.
AVENUE
-"
:rt-4"
421_.t,u
--."----
I '-
I
~--=---~---~._~--
,=_c~~
I
j
.,,~
,..
j
j
,--~
, ,
"
,r
l
I
I
I
1
1
I,
I~
.
o
~
,
I
,
1
,
I
,
1
,
I
,
1
,
I
,
1
,
I
,
1
,
I
,
1
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
1
,
I
,
~j
,
1
,
I
,
I
,
1
,
I
,
1
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
1
,
1
,
1
,
I
,
1
,
I
,
I
__~O~R~~~________~
a
Q
,
9
~
;014(_ vr
.
ti
.
.
.
o
""""
p
ffi
rr '
~ I
g-"
.
w
':~'-
.
~~
. Q~
~~
D~
0"
'I' ,.--
, -~ I
\
,
\ 1
\1
..~
I
.
I, ~~
I '2
I~
I~
'J
~
zo
O~
~>
~ji
zr
>>
!.:..-{
NO
me
O~
,
.
.
'--
~
~
~
~
J..- ..'~
//
r'"
>
~ji
.
"- --- -_..:.__:._~
r-------------------~-------------------------
,
,
,
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-----..1
Ii
PROPERTY' LINE
------ --..
1 5'
.
~
~
Z
.
,
Q
.
,
,
~ I
~
I
~ i
I
f.) I
.t>" i
I
\
~ I
fJ, I
I I
~ I
65' I
i r
----- ------- J
-
~ ~
, 11
~ ~
~ !D
~
.
~
O'H~F:tli!.
l<1,'.l....
Ie Hhmf
i~ ~u.~ l~~!r
"f'i!..,.!
~ajimii'
[~.h~p~l
~!T;~ U 1;' ~
g.~ )>
~~ -
~i o:J
~!~
~: ~
::;:- 0
;, CD
'0 CJl
~; cO'
II>
(}
"
:>-.
"':>
~;\l
.z"
(\:>
0<
'r!
LI
~x
OlC
DC
rn:;s
Z (1)
Q..r-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
u{1l;~
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
435 W, Main Street, Aspen Jewish Community Center Historic Designation and
Major Development (Conceptual)- Public Hearing
DATE:
July 14, 2004
,SUMMARY: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen requests approval to construct a
Community Center on the property that is currently occupied by L'auberge, The proposal is to
retain all of the existing original cabins, and some of those constructed in the mid-1990's, but to
demolish non-historic structures located at the western end of the site in order to accommodate a
new building. The applicant plans to formalize designation of the site, which has generally been
considered significant as a post-World War II rustic style lodge,
HPC held a worksession on this project in February 2004. Discussion centered on the size of the
new structure and its relationship to the small cabins, The applicant has made some adjustments
to their plans in order to respond to board feedback, however staff finds that the project is still in
conflict with some of the design guidelines and should be continued for restudy.
APPLICANT: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman
Planning Services and Civic Forum,
PARCEL In: 2735-124-81-001,
ADDRESS: 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: 0, Office,
CURRENT LAND USE: A 27,000 square foot lot containing 13 lodge units, an office, and a
manager's house,
HISTORIC DESIGNATION'
26.415.030B. Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites,
structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance,
1
The significance of the property located at 435 W. Main Street will be evaluated
according to the following criteria:
1. The property was constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which
the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity
of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is reIated to one
or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and can be identified and
documented,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff Response: According to the Assessor's office, the cabins on this site were built in 1940,
Quoting from the white paper that has been prepared by the Community Development
Department titled "Aspen's 20th Century Architecture: Rustic Style Buildings,"
"In Aspen, Colorado, Rustic Style cabins
used as lodges and residences, began to
be built in the 1930's, though the tourism
industry was still in its infancy, The
Waterman Cabins, built in 1937, and
once located at the corner of 7th and
Hallam Streets, have since been
demolished, but were one of Aspen's first
group of small tourist cottages. The
Swiss Chalets (now L' Auberge, and
suffering from the "chalet" misnomer- as
they are indeed, in the rustic style) are located at 435 W,
Main Street, and were built during roughly the same
period, Prescient, and perhaps with a nod to the
automobile's growing influence in American society, a
motor court configuration at the Chalets allowed guests to drive right up to the individual
units."
Circa Mid_20th Century photo
of 435 W. Main Street
Staff finds that 435 W, Main Street helps to illustrate the trends related to early development of
tourism in Aspen and therefore meets "Criterion A"
, "Criterion B" can be difficult to apply for recent past properties because for the most part they
are associated with persons who are living and who's contributions to history carmot be
evaluated without bias. At present, staff does not have information that would support a finding
that "Criterion B" is met.
2
.--,"
,-
The Rustic Style paper defines the distinctive characteristics that must be present in order to meet
..' "Criterion C." They are:
.
Hand built structures that are constructed out of locally available materials, usually log;
stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney, Later
examples include machine cut logs,
The buildings are usually single story, with a low-pitched gable roof.
True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be
dressed and flattened for stacking or may be in rough form. Chinking infills the
irregularities between the logs either way, Machine made buildings mimic these
details, though without the chinking,
Window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used to
finish out the window openings.
Building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements,
The roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends are often infilled with standard
framing, This may be a small triangle or a second level ofliving space.
The emphasis is on hand-made materials and the details stem from the use of the
materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Staff finds that 435 W, Main Street exhibits all of these fundamental characteristics and meets
"Criterion C." These small cabins are handcbuiIt, rectangular frame structures with board and
batten siding, which was a common material for the style along with log, Each building has a
chimney and a limited number of small windows,
The property meets two of the three designation criteria, which leaves the question of integrity to
be evaluated, Integrity can be measured through the scoring system that HPC has developed.
Over the last few months, Staff has completed site visits and an initial assessment for all of the
remaining Rustic style buildings constructed during the local period of significance, which has
been identified as pre-World War II until the early 1970's, At least 20 buildings exist in town
that might be considered important within the Rustic style, including residences and lodges.
Only four of these properties, 308 Park Avenue, 300 W. Main Street, 501 W, Main Street, and
304 W, Hallam Street, are currently landmarked,
In general the L'Auberge cabins are well preserved, Two have been connected together, which
detracts from their integrity, Staffs integrity assessment for 435 W, Main as a whole is
attached, and the conclusion is that the property warrants 85 out of 100 points, which is above the
75 point minimum requirement. The least successful aspect of the property's integrity is
preservation of the setting, which has been greatly impacted,
Staff supports landmark designation for this property. For clarification, designations are always
defined by the entire boundary of the property, and not limited to individual structures on a lot, as
is mentioned in the application. HPC may recommend approval or disapproval of the landmark
request, or a continuance for additional information necessary to make a decision, The board may
choose to accept the integrity analysis provided by staff or formulate its own rating for the
property, The property must receive designation in order to be eligible to build a church, which
is a conditional use in the Office Zone District.
-
-
3
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
-
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
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 design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit B," ~
,.....w1
After HPC approval, this project will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council as a PUD. The applicant plans to discuss any variances that are needed, including'
setback variances and height variances, through that process, HPC may comment on these issues
during their review,
This property clearly faces a number of redevelopment constraints despite its large size. About 'f.
of the site is occupied by small cabins that HPC would probably not like to see relocated or
obstructed any more than necessary, In addition, according to an agreement made between the
previous property owner and an adjacent neighbor, no development or parking can take place in
that portion of the property along the alley that is not occupied by historic cabins. This restricts
an area that would otherwise be a good location for structure or parking,
While this project will leave approximately 6,000 square feet of allowable FAR on the table, the
new building is undeniably large, There is precedent on Main Street for buildings of this
volume, including 7th and Main Affordable Housing and the new Christiania Lodge, however this
project is particularly challenged by the fact that it needs to be respectful of historic cabins that
are very small.
-
4
The guidelines that need the most discussion are:
BUILDING SETBACKS AND ORIENTATION
12.1 Respect historic settlement patterns.
D 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,
12.5 Provide a walk to the primary building entry from the public sidewalk.
12.8 Provide a front yard that is similar in depth to its neighbors.
See the guidelines chapter: Lot and Streetscape Features.
12.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings
during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street.
D The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the block,
D A structure should appear to have one primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to
the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street.
12.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard
dimensions seen in the block.
D These include front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks,
D In some areas, setbacks vary, but generally fall within an established range, A greater variety
in setbacks is inappropriate in this context.
D Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block,
12.11 Keep the front setback of a new structure in line with the range of setbacks on the
bIock seen historically during the mining era.
12.12 Maintain similar side yard setbacks of a new structure or an addition to those seen
traditionally in the block during the mining era.
The setbacks of the proposed new building are more consistent with recent development on Main
Street, particularly the lodges, than they are with the Victorian era character that is to be
preserved through the historic district. The applicant clearly desires for the building to have
prominence along the street edge, which is appropriate for this public use, however as much
green space buffer as possible around the base of the building is important to respect the Main
Street context. In addition, it is very important that a primary entrance into the structure be
included on Main Street and that be treated as the front of the building,
MASSING
12.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the
district during the mining era.
D Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height.
12.15 On larger structures, subdivide larger masses into .smaller "modules" that are
similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era commercial buildings seen
traditionally on Main Street.
D Other, subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form,
D Each identifiable mass should have its own entrance,
'~
5
During the worksession, HPC members asked whether it would be possible to break up the
proposed new buildings into a few forms that would be more sympathetic to the historic cabins. __
The applicant feels that this is not possible within their desired program.
The architect has provided a one-story edge to the building so that the tallest mass is moved away
from the cabins, Staff finds that this is not entirely effective and recommends additional study,
for instance pushing the two-story element further west and increasing the amount of area that is
no taller than one story next to the cabins,
Although materials are an issue for Final review, it seems as though reconsideration of the palette
to be in keeping with the tradition of wood buildings on Main Street would also help to soften
the perceived scale of this building,
PARKING
12.6 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street.
D Provide auto access along an alley when feasible,
D New curb cuts are not permitted,
D Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
D Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts, New curb cuts
are not permitted.
D If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, iffeasible.
D Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be "'"
placed on the alley, c""
14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
D Large parking areas should be screened from view from the street.
D Divide large parking lots with planting areas, (Large parking areas are those with more than
five cars,)
D Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature,
D Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas should be screened from adjacent
lots and the street.
14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses,
should not be visually obtrusive.
D Locate parking areas to the rear of the property, when physical conditions permit,
D An alley should serve as the primary access to parking, when physical conditions permit.
D Parking should not be located in the front yard, except in the driveway, if it exists.
The project includes a plan to create head-in parking in the city-owned Fifth Street right-of-way,
Hf'C was firmly against this concept in their recent review of the Innsbruck Lodge, citing all of
the guidelines above, along with 12,1 as reasons why this trend on Main Street has been very
destructive to the tradition of a green planting area along the edges of each block, often occupied
by irrigation ditches and large trees, Staff recommends that HPC require the parking be removed
from the right-of-way,
In addition, staff recommends that the board and applicant discuss the possibility of a new
strategy for helping to improve the integrity of the original cabins, As can be seen in the picture
6
provided in this memo, the cabins used to have nothing but grass in front of them, Over time,
that developed into a gravel parking lot and then additional buildings, Staff recommends that
there be consideration given to the idea of removing the four 1990's cabins along the front of the
site (allowing them to be salvaged for another use if possible) and then returning this land to
grass, The curb cuts, which are not desirable along Main Street, could be removed and the area
could serve as open space for the benefit of either the Community Center or the lodge units.
HPC should be aware that the Planning and Zoning Commission may be concerned with the loss
of "pillows," however this seems to be an idea that could really benefit the historic resources,
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines" have not been sufficiently met with regard to the height, scale,
massing and proportions of the proposed Aspen Jewish Community Center and that further
discussion between the applicant and board is needed,
Among the issues that staff recomrriends be addressed at a continued hearing are that the project
must provide a primary entrance facing Main Street, the applicant should study shifting the two
story mass entirely over towards Fifth Street, the parking in the Fifth Street right-of-way should
be dropped, and the idea of restoring the open space in front of the original cabins should be
explored,
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue Historic Designation and Major
Development (Conceptual) review for 435 W, Main Street to a date certain,"
Exhibits:
A. Staff Memo Dated July 14,2004
B. Relevant guidelines
C, Application
7
Exhibit B
Relevant Design Guidelines for Conceptual Development Review, 435 W. Main
12.1 Respect historic settlement patterns.
D 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.
12.3 Where one exists, maintain the traditional character of an alley.
D Locate buildings and fences along the alley's edge to maintain its narrow width,
D Paving alleys is strongly discouraged,
12.4 Where a sidewalk exists, maintain its historic material and position.
D Historically, sidewalks were detached from the curb, and separated by a planting strip,
12.5 Provide a walk to the primary building entry from the public sidewalk.
12.6 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street.
D Provide auto access along an alley when feasible.
D New curb cuts are not permitted,
D Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut.
12.8 Provide a front yard that is similar in depth to its neighbors.
See the guidelines chapter.' Lot and Streetscape Features.
12.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings
during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street.
D The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the block,
D A structure should appear to have one primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to
the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street.
12.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard
dimensions seen in the block.
D These include front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks.
D In some areas, setbacks vary, but generally fall within an established range. A greater variety
in setbacks is inappropriate in this context.
D Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block.
12.11 Keep the front setback of a new structure in line with the range of setbacks on the
block seen historically during the mining era.
12.12 Maintain similar side yard setbacks of a new structure or an addition to those seen
traditionally in the block during the mining era.
12.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the
district during the mining era. '
D Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height.
12.15 On larger structures, subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are
similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era commercial buildings seen
traditionally on Main Street.
D Other, subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form,
D Each identifiable mass should have its own entrance,
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
D Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts, New curb cuts
are not permitted.
D If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
8
-
-