HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20041027ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 27, 2004 5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: Noon-
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Roll call
Approval of minutes -
Public Comments
Commissioner member comments
Disclosure of conflict of int¢rest (actual and apparent)
Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate_of~NoNegative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be#29)
12:00 Site Visit- Aspen Institute Conference and Meeting Hall, meet at
the site
VIII. Old Business:
A. Aspen Institute Conference and Meeting Hall- Referral
Comment (30 minutes)
B. 114 Neale Avenue- Major Development (Conceptual),
Continued Public Hearing (30 minutes)
C. 435 W. Main- Major Development (Conceptual), Designation
and Demolition, Continued Public Hearing (45 minutes)
D. 701 W. Main-Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS
Exemption, Demolition, Relocation and Variances, Continued
Public Hearing (30 minutes)
IX. ADJOURN- 7:15
OC-e> ·
MEMORANDUM
,
-
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
~AA
Joyce Allgaier, Interim Community Development Director
.
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
114 Neale Avenue- Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Residential
Design Standard Variance- Continued Public Hearing
DATE:
October 27, 2004
SUMMARY: The subject property is a vacant parcel that was created through a Historic
Landmark Lot Split. Because the land was included in the original designation of the adjacent
Victorian era miner's cottage, HPC has review authority over any proposed development.
Conceptual approval is requested for a new single family residence and accessory dwelling unit,
along with a variance from a "Residential Design Standard" related to windows. The variance
will be dealt with at final review because it is not a topic that is appropriate for this level of the
discussion.
HPC reviewed and commented on this project on July 28, 2004 and September 1,2004. At the
September meeting, the architect presented an in-progress proposal for revised massing, which
was generally favorably received. This concept has been further refined and re-submitted for
board approval.
Staff finds that the project has moved a great deal closer to creating a compatible relationship
between this new house and the Victorian miner's cottage. We recommend HPC grant
Conceptual approval finding that the guidelines related to height, scale, massing and
proportions are met with the condition that soine restudy, as specified in the attached ~
resolution, be undertaken related.to the southern end of the parcel.
.
APPLICANT: Alice Brien, represented by John Muir Architects.
PARCEL In: 2737-073-83-002.
ADDRESS: 114 Neale Avenue, Lot 2 of the 114 Neale/17 Queen Street Historic Landmark Lot
Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-15A.
'~\
I
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 pr'oject 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.
Desi!!n 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 8." -'.
This property is 15,160 square feet in size. The maximum allowable floor area that was
established through the lot split is 3,945 square feet. Much of the square footage that could have
been added onto the adjacent Victorian era home was transferred onto this lot The floor area
allotment may be reduced subject to a calculation of slopes over 20%. The architect will need to
confirm this issue with the Zoning Officer, along with the methodology for calculating the area
of building that is only partially below grade. As stated in the application, the property is subject
to a reduced height limit through a private agreement with the neighbor.
.-
The proposed new building is approximately 3 times larger than the Victorian that it is meant to
relate to. Some of the potentially negative impact on the historic resource is mitigated by the fact
that the subject parcel is at a lower elevation, ensuring that views towards the miner's cottage at
the top of the hill will be protected. In addition, the new house is 57 feet away from the
landmark house.
The area of the new house that is closest to the old one is low in height for a distance of 52 feet,
also helping to create a sympathetic arrangement. The architect has divided off a portion of the
house into a distinct mass which is linked to the main body of the building in order to break
down the massing, and he has also designed a detached accessory dwelling unit. These choices
all help the project to meet the following guideline:
""'"
2
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
.
The architect is faced with a difficult design challenge because there is such a large difference in
the size of the homes involved in this lot split. The board and staff have previously stated a
desire that the project move towards being a "compound" of masses that are more related to the
Victorian. The size of the central element of the building has been cited as problematic. Over
the last two meetings the architect has lowered plate heights and floor elevations, and has revised
the roof plan in a manner that has been very effective. There has been significant improvement
in terms of using building forms and roofforms that are compatible with the Victorian.
In staff s opinion, the only problematic areas that remain are the scale of the great room over the
garage, and the linear character of the house. Staff has two proposals for how this may be
mitigated. The first, which we find would be the most effective, is the idea of flipping the
location of the great room and the ADU. Moving the great room and balcony towards the east
property line, and bringing the ADU towards the west would allow the entry gable to appear as a
much smaller element and would remove the guest parking area from such a prominent location.
The ADU would be a small building on the street.
Our second suggestion is to move the garage under the ADU. This would give the ADU some
more "weight" to balance out the much larger mass of the primary house, and would decrease the
length of the west fayade somewhat. If this option were taken, staff recommends some revisit of
the ridge height over the great room, more in keeping with what is indicated for the dormer. The
intent again would be to allow the entry gable to be a more individual mass. Staff invites the
architect to bring studies that show revisions to the HPC hearing for comment. If they are
acceptable to the board under the applicable guidelines, Conceptual approval is recommended.
In speaking with the architect during the preparation of this memo, it is likely that the height of
the great room roof will be revisited, as well as the possibility of shortening the length of the
master bedroom wing.
Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of
materials. The relevant guidelines will emphasize the preference for a simple material palette
that is used in a manner that strengthens the relationship between the scale of the new house with
the Victorian.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
"'~-"',
3
· 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 Conceptual approval for 114 Neale
.
Avenue with the following conditions:
1. Restudy the configuration of the southern end of the project in one of the two following
ways. Either move the great room and garage area towards the east property line and the
ADU towards the west, or place the garage under the ADU and study a lower height for the
ridge of the great room.
2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(I) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
3. A landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new materials, and
technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all be addressed at
Final Review. Discussion of the "Residential Design Standards" variance for windows
will be addressed at that hearing.
.-.
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated October 27, 2004
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Application
,...",
4
.'
"-
"Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 114 Neale Avenue, Conceptual Review"
-.,,,/
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
o The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
.
pattern of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
o The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
o A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
o In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that
orients to the street.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
o The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
o The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
o They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
o Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
o Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
o On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
o This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
o Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
'1,,_,
5
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) '""-,
FOR 114 NEALE AVENUE, LOT 2 OF THE 114 NEALE/17 QUEEN STREET
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
.
RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2004
PARCEL In: 2737-073-83-002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Alice Brien, represented by John Muir Architects, has requested
Major Development (Conceptual) for the property located at 114 Neale Avenue, Lot 2 of the 114
Nealell7 Queen Street Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen; 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
26.4l5.070.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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated October 27,2004, 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 October 27, 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:
That HPC hereby grants approval for Major Development (Conceptual) with the following
conditions:
I. Restudy the configuration of the southern end of the project in one of the two following
ways. Either move the great room and garage area towards the east property line and the
ADU towards the west, or place the garage under the ADU and study a lower height for the
ridge of the great room.
2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(I) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
"""
',.",,'
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the eXJ?iration date.
3. A landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new materials, and
technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all be addressed at
Final Review. Discussion of the "Residential Design Standards" variance for windows
will be addressed at that hearing.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 2ih day of October,
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
"-'
---
.-..
---
,
'---'
r"
."""
~
'-
--
-'
,
"-_."_..~"',--~
MEMORANDUM
-vm c.
-
r
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
,,-..""'"
THRU:
Joyce Allgaier, Interim Community Development Director
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
..
RE:
435 W. Main Street, Aspen Jewish Community Center Historic Designation and
Major Development (Conceptual) and Demolition- Public Hearing continued
from July 14th
DATE:
October 27,2004
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.
HPC held a work session on this project in February 2004. Discussion centered on the size of the
new structure and its relationship to the small cabins. Following the work session, the applicant
made some adjustments to the plan and had a formal Conceptual hearing on July 14,2004. The
staff recommendation was a continuance on the project and removal of all of the non-historic
cabins in order to restore the setting. HPC expressed continued reservations about the proposed
massing.
For the October 27th meeting, the applicant has revisited the entire design, and is working with a
different architect. The new design has a lower height and larger footprint than was previously
proposed, and separates the school function of the community center into a detached building on
the east end of the property. There appear to be a number of positive effects in terms of meeting
the guidelines related to height and bulk and the architectural character of Main Street, however
the new revision results in the demolition or relocation of four historic cabins, the complete
obstruction of the two most western cabins (from the Main Street view), and the screening of the
remaining four units by a covered breezeway. (The application includes an alternative design
with no breezeway.)
Staff finds that the new proposal is making some very positive advances in terms of the
design of the new construction; however the removal of historic cabins that currently have
high visibility along Third Street is not acceptable. The property is clearly worthy of
landmark status, and the applicant needs the designation in order to apply for a
conditional use as a religious facility. It is not appropriate to turn the benefit of flexible
zoning into something that drives the demolition of the historic resource. The cabins must
be maintained as a focal point of the property.
Staff recommends that the project be restudied. Some elements of the program need to be
re-distributed in order to maintain the historic bUildings. . HPC should continue the
nublic hearing on this nroject.
APPLICANT: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman
Plamling Services and Arthur Chabon, architect.
-...-
PARCEL ID: 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.
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 related 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.
,"'"" \
I
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 20'h 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 7'h 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 tq,drive right up
to the individual units."
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 whose contributions to history cannot be
evaluated without bias. At present, staff does not have information that would support a finding
that "Criterion B" is met.
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 constmcted out oflocaily 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 smail triangle or a second level of living space.
The emphasis ison 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 hand-built, 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.
'...,..;,v
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.
3
Only four of these properties, 308 Park Avenue, 300 W. Main Street, 501 W. Main Street, and
304 W. Hallam Street, are currently landmarked.
"""
"'e.F
In general the L'Auberge cabins are well preserved. Two are connected together. It is not clear
if this is an original condition or not. It dates from at least 1969 based on aerial photographs.
Staffs integrity assessment for 435 W. Main as a whole is attached, and the conclu~ion is that the
property warrants 85 out of 100 points, which is above the 75 point minimum requir~ment. 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 ofthe 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 religious
facility, which is a conditional use in the Office Zone District.
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 lfistoricPreservation 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) altlllor 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."
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, tlrrough that process. HPC may comment on these issues
during their review. .....
4
''''"''~...
~,-
y~",-f
This property clearly faces a number of redevelopment constraints despite its large size. About 31.
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. ..
The project has increased in size since the last review, coming within about 2,500 square feet of
the total allowable floor area, which is 20,250 square feet. There is precedent on Main Street for
large buildings, including 7'h 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.
The guidelines that need the most discussion are:
BUILDING SETBACKS AND ORIENTATION
12.1 Respect historic settlement patterns.
o 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.
o The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the block.
o 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 tile street.
12.10 When constructing n new building, locnte it to fit within the range of ynrd
dimensions seen in the block.
o 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.
o Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block.
12.11 Keep the front setbnck of a new structure in line with the range of setbacks on the
block seen historicnlly during the mining ern.
12.12 Maintnin similar side yard setbncks of n new structure or nn nddition to those seen
traditionnlly in the block during the mining era.
The setbacks of tile 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 that the building have
prominence along the street edge, which is appropriate for this public use. A building entry
directly off of Main Street has been added to this proposal, which was a topic of discussion at the
last meeting.
5
Removal of the non-historic cabins in favor of creating a green space in the center of the property
goes a long way towards reflecting some of the 1940's character of this site, as well as tile
historic occurrence of yards and gardens in this area. HPC should be aware that the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council may be concerned with the loss of "pillows," however this
seems to be an idea that could really benefit the historic resources.
""'"\
,..,,.:"
,
MASSING
12.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the
district during the mining era.
o 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.
o Other, subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form.
o Each identifiable mass should have its own entrance.
Height has been decreased in the new proposal. This has been achieved by spreading out the
program. The relationship to the cabins has been improved somewhat, although staff
recommends consideration be given to placing the tallest mass on the corner, as was represented
before, so that the one story auditorium sits next to the cabins. Although from a massing
perspective the detached school building on the east end of the property is successful, its
consequences for the historic resources are not appropriate. This will be discussed in more detail
under the demolition criteria.
"'"
PARKING
12.6 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street.
o Provide auto access along an alley when feasible.
o New curb cuts are not permitted.
o Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts
are not permitted.
o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible.
o Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be
placed on the alley.
14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
o Large parking areas should be screened from view from the street.
o Divide large parking lots with planting areas. (Large parking areas are those with more than
five cars.)
o Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature.
o 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.
o Locate parking areas to the rear of the property, when physical conditions permit. "'"
6
o An alley should serve as the primary access to parking, when physical conditions permit.
o Parking should not be located in the fi'ont yard, except in the driveway, if it exists.
.,"......
Pull-in parking in the Fourth Street right-of-way is no longer on the table (and a similar
configuration was recently denied by City Council for the Innsbruck parcel). The applicant is
proposing a more formal establishment of the curb cuts on Main Street for use as a.driveway and
drop-off area. While staff is definitely in favor of the removal of these features on Main Street in
general, for both" safety reasons and pedestrian streetscape, it should be acknowledged that a 1969
aerial photo of this site clearly shows the curb cuts, and additional study of the historic photo
shown earlier in this memo suggests tllat cars have always pulled in to the cabins from Main
Street and not from the alley. HPC's opinion on this issue is sought.
DEMOLITION
The public notice for this application only included the proposal to demolish non-historic
construction; therefore additional noticing might be needed in order to consider the same for
original cabins.
Although there is not sufficient infonnation presented at this time to make a formal decision on
this topic, staff recommends that HPC provide feedback on the review criteria and what the
applicant would need to provide in order to gain board support. Demolition shall be approved
if it is demonstrated that the application meets anyone ofthe following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b. The stmcture is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure Calillot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area.
\-
In staff's opinion, there is little opportunity to meet the criteria listed above since the structures
do have clear historic value under the designation criteria and their viability as useful buildings is
proved by their current use. If the applicant were to change the request from demolition to
relocation, evidence that the cabins in question had no value where they are currently located
would still be required, and the HPC would have to approve the receiving site.
7
-
The best way to preserve the historic cabins is to keep them in active use. Their potential to
serve the needs of the Hebrew School program, which is an after-school use that does not occur
ona daily basis seems entirely possible, as is their potential to serve in some way as functional
spaces for the coffee shop/gift shop (which mayor may not be an allowed acceSSilrl( use on the
property), employee housing, office space, or pre-school classrooms. The proposed floor plans
show no internal cOilllections between the school classrooms, and to the extent that the children
need to gather as a group, tllis could be accomplished within the main building, for example.
The applicant has selected this property for their project with the understanding that it would not
be able to be developed as a vacant parcel. There will likely have to be some additional"
flexibility in the way that the program is approached in order to make this project approvable.
Although staff is very reluctant to support the removal of any of the historic cabins, HPC input is
sought as to the willingness to allow the two western-most cabins, which will likely be very
obstructed in any case, to be relocated in favor of additional building program in that location.
The reminder of the cabins along the alley and Third Street would need to remain.
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 recommends be addressed at a continued hearing are that the project
must not remove any of the cabins (or at most no others than the two western-most units), and
that alternatives to the continued existence of the curb cut off of Main Street should be discussed.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to continue Historic Designation and Major
Development (Conceptual) review for 435 W. Main Street to a date certain."
Exhibits:
A. Staff Memo Dated October 27, 2004
B. Relevant guidelines
C. Application
'"
8
-
Exhibit B
Relevant Design Guidelines for Conceptual Development Review, 435 W. Main
12.1 Respect historic settlement patterns.
o 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.
o Locate buildings and fences along the alley's edge to maintain its narrow width.
o Paving alleys is strongly discouraged.
12.4 Where a sidewalk exists, maintain its historic material and position.
o 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.
o Provide auto access along an alley when feasible.
o New curb cuts are not permitted.
o 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.
o The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the block.
o A structure should appear to have one primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to
the structure should be at an app'ropriate 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.
o These include front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks.
o In some areas, setbacks vary, but generally fall within an established range. A greater variety
in setbacks is inappropriate in this context.
o 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.
o Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height.
12.15 On largcr structures, subdivide larger masses into smallcr "modules" that are
similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era commercial buildings seen
traditionally on Main Street.
o Other, subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form.
o Each identifiable mass should have its own entrance.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts
are not permitted.
9
D If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible.
D Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be
placed on the alley.
14.23 Parking areas should not be visuaUy 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, especiaUy 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.
,""'
""'"
,......"
10
ViTI .:D.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
,
,
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
701 W. Main Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption,
Demolition, Relocation and Variances- Public Hearing
DATE:
October 27, 2004
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures and contains two buildings, a cabin and a shed. Neither building exists on the
1904 Sanborne map. The year of construction on record with the Assessor's office is 1935.
HPC has held a worksession and a public hearing regarding this property. The applicant is
pursing approval to complete a historic landmark lot split, which will entail relocating the house
on the site, completing restoration work to the extent possible, and making an addition. A
second home is to be constructed and the outbuilding will be demolished. Because this property
is undersized for the zone district, a variance is needed to allow the lot split at all.
At the previous meetings, HPC and the architect have discussed the site plan at length, including
debate about which direction the new lot line should run and which lot the historic house should
be placed on. The applicant has met with the Parks Department who have stated their desire to
retain the existing large tree at the front of the site. The tree has recently been trimmed in order
to explore the extent to which a new building behind it can maintain a visual connection to Main
Street.
For this meeting, which is intended to be an opportunity for the architect to receive further
guidance from the commission, floor plans and basic massing have been developed. The plan is
to place the cabin on the east lot with a modest addition behind it. Although the drawings are
very schematic, the intent appears to be to create a compatible relationship between the height,
scale and massing of the two structures.
HPC input is needed as to whether the site plan appears to be going in the right direction.
Additionally, the architect needs some feedback as to the likelihood of receiving an FAR bonus.
". Incorrect assumptions had been made about the square footage available for two residences on
'~ the site (3,174 square feet), therefore it is felt that the additional 500 square feet is critical to a
'. "feasible project. The architect believes that the bonus will be earned as a result of the decision to
..,IlIIr locate the cabin in the most prominent position on the corner, and to protect it by undertaking a
lot split which diverts square footage away. A high quality design is also one of the goals of the
project. The weakness in the bonus argument is that there is so little factual information about
the historic building to guide its restoration.
I
The architect intends to continue to develop this residential lot split proposal based on HPC's
comments. Otller options, such as a mixed-use development, may be explored to determine the
best plan for the site.
~
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC provide some feedback.b~ed on the
information before them and then continue the hearing to a date certain.
Exhibits:
A. New drawings
B. HPC packet from June 29, 2004
"""
--
2