HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050126
c
J-...
'..,,-,
c
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 26, 2005
5:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: Please all sites on your own.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - Jan. 12, 2005
III. Public Comments
IV. Commissioner member comments
V.Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #4)
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
Qkb':f A. 233 W. Main St, Innsbruck Lodge - Major Developme~t - . fit.
'5'T% Final and.PUD amendment, Public Hearing (20 min.) r<<-fa ~ 1h f4A
L {B. 530,532 & 534 E.,~opkins Ave~ - Major Developme~t-
$1/ Conceptual, On-Site Relocation, Demolition of 0ltn f d,
Outbuildings, and Parking Waiver, Public Hearing (1 hr.)
"i.i.htf t C" 529 W. Francis St. - Major Development - Conceptual and
90/1 Residential Design Standards Variance, Public Hearing (40
min.)
IX. OLD BUSINESS
A. NONE
X. WORKSESSION
A. Hotel Jerome courtyard (20 min.)
B. Motherlode (20 min.)
XI. ADJOURN at 7:45
I
I
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
TO:
FROM:
RE:
233 W. Main, Innsbruck Inn- Major Development (Final) and PUD
Amendment, Public Hearing
DATE:
January 26, 2005
SUMMARY: The Innsbruck Inn is a non-
designated building within the Main Street Historic
District.
The Applicant has received Conceptual approval and
PUD approval to construct an addition on the west
end of the building, to reconfigure the interior, and
to complete an overall "facelift."
As part of this project, parking access will be
removed from Main Street. The applicant is no
longer seeking to create parking in the Second Street
right-of-way, a concept that was not supported by HPC during their previous review.
Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and
selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as
"Exhibit A." Only those guidelines which staff finds the project does not meet, or where
discussion is needed, are included in the memo. In addition to Final review, HPC is
asked to approve a PUD amendment for this project as a result of a surveying error that
was recently discovered. The existing building is closer to the front lot line than was
represented in earlier submittals.
The Historic Preservation Commission has the authority to review a PUD amendment
when addressed in combination with another land use request which the Commission has
the authority to review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26304.060(B)(1), Combined
reviews. In this case, the Community Development Director has determined that the
PUD amendment request should be combined with the Final HPC review to ensure
economy of time, expense, and clarity. The public notice for this HPC meeting included
mention of the PUD issue.
Staff finds that the project complies with the review criteria for a PUD Amendment
but requires minor amendments in order to meet the "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines," and therefore continuation is recommended.
I
APPLICANT: Innsbruck Suites Development Company, LLC. Represented by Mitch
Haas, Haas Land Planning, and Berardi Partners, architects.
~
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-54-001.
ADDRESS: 233 West Main Street, Lots A-E, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: Office (0) with a Lodge Preservation Overlay, Main Street Historic District
CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE: Lodge. .
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
Tlte procedure for a Major Development Review, at tlte Final level, is as follows. Staff
reviews tlte submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes tlte project's
conformance witlt tlte design guidelines and otlter applicable Land Use Code Sections.
Tltis report is transmitted to tlte HPC witlt relevant information on tlte proposed
project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve witlt
conditions and tlte reasons for tlte recommendation. Tlte HPC will review tlte
application, tlte staff analysis report and tlte evidence presented at tlte Itearing to
determine tlte project's conformance witlt tlte City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. Tlte HPC may approve, disapprove, approve witlt conditions, or
continue tlte application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision
to approve or deny.
-
Major Development is a two-step process requlrlng approval by tlte HPC of a
Conceptual Development Plan, and tlten a Final Development Plan. Approval of a
Conceptual Development Plan sit all be binding upon HPC in regards to tlte location
and form of tlte envelope of tlte structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in tlte
Conceptual Plan application including its Iteight, scale, massing and proportions. No
cltanges will be made to tltis aspect oftlte proposed development by tlte HPC as part of
tlteir review oftlte Final Development Plan unless agreed to by tlte applicant.
Staff Response: As was discussed at the Conceptual hearing, this building, although
Chalet in character, has not been identified as eligible for landmark designation. Built in
1967, it was constructed just after the end of the period of significance that has been
defined for this style in Aspen. It is not strongly connected to the classic character-
defining features of Chalet architecture in that the decoration is toned down considerably
and the upper floors are not clad in wood siding.
The building is, however, located in the Main Street Historic District, and is expected to
address the key characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood to the greatest extent
possible. The project before HPC involves retaining the existing building and making an
addition on it's west end. The roofline remains in its current condition running from east
to west, but steeper cross gables are added to the north and south sides of the building.
Exterior staircases are reconfigured to some extent, and all exterior materials are being
replaced.
_.
2
HPC's guidelines state that the primary character that is to be preserved in the Main
Street Historic District is that established by the 19th century residential structures. As
Main Street has become more commercially oriented over the years, a number of other
types of structures have been developed, lodges in particular. Most of these buildings are
quite different from the Victorians in terms of massing, scale, and site plan, as is the case
with the Innsbruck. The application is making a number of improvements in terms of
relationship to context, including the elimination of the front parking lot, and an emphasis
on wood, rather than stucco siding on the building.
Staff has two comments related to the material palette. The first is that it might be more
in keeping with Main Street to emphasize horizontal wood siding more than shingles as a
wall material. The second is that the stone, and the way that it is applied, should reflect
the traditional use of this material in the historic district. The relevant guideline is:
12.17 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically.
D When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials.
and their placement.
HPC will require further information about the design of the fence, and a cut sheet of the
lighting fixtures in order to approve their installation.
Staff recommends HPC discuss two issues related to setting. The first is that HPC should
note the appearance of a large lightweIl across the front of the building that has been
included since Conceptual approval. The applicant is adding a basement in the project
now, and has limited options for locating egress wells given the existing footprint of the
Innsbruck, and the location of parking directly on the back side of the structure.
In general, staff finds the lightweIl somewhat in conflict with guideline 1.13, and the
desire expressed in the guidelines to maintain some of the traditional front yard
characteristics exhibited by the Victorians. The applicant is going a long way towards
that goal though just by eliminating the front parking lot. Guideline 1.13 reads:
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic
context of the site.
D Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
D Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
D Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
Staff recommends that the lightweIl be accepted. Staff has more concern with some of
the landscaping that is proposed at the front of the property. Some screening of the pool
and spa area is appropriate, however there are quite a few spruce trees proposed within
the right-of-way. These are in conflict with guideline 1.16.
1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features.
3
D This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and
sidewalks in the public right-of-way.
""'"'
"~
Particularly in a historic district, maintaining the right-of-way with little but the
traditional features of deciduous street trees, sidewalks and irrigation ditches, seems
particularly important. The proposed screen of conifers against the front lot line, whether
it will be limited in height to 5 feet or not, is out of character. Also out of character is the
fact that there does not appear to be an entrance point expressed either architecturally or
in the landscape plan from Main Street into the property. This conflicts with the
guidelines below:
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when
considering a rehabilitation project.
D This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk,
proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature
and ending in the "private" spaces beyond.
D Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry.
Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
D Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
12.5 Provide a walk to the primary building entry from the public sidewalk.
-
This is a very important aspect of the building's character, and for this reason, combined
with the other elements that have been brought up as topics for restudy, staff recommends
a continuance so that the full board can review the final solutions.
Proposed PUD Amendment:
The front yard setback was established at twelve (12) feet for the building in the Minor
PUD for the expansion and timeshare of tile Innsbruck Inn that was approved by City
Council several months ago pursuant to Ordinance No. 32, Series of2004. The Applicant
has subsequently requested a PUD amendment to establish the front yard setback at nine
(9) feet for the building, five (5) feet for the area well in front of the west wing, and one
foot for the hot tub/swim spa. According to the Applicant, the need for the proposed
PUD amendment has come about because of a surveying error that occurred in
preparation of the site plan and survey that was submitted as part of the original PUD
application. The survey and site plan showed the existing building being located three (3)
feet to the south of where it actually is. Therefore, the minimum front yard setback
required by Ordinance No. 32 is three (3) feet more than it can be and needs to be
corrected prior to filing PUD plans with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
In evaluating the PUD amendment request to correct the front yard setback that is
referenced in Ordinance No. 32, Staff does not believe that there is any negative impact to
the design or the building's relationship with the street. The proposed new west wing
will still be an equal distance from the front property line as the existing east wing that it
mirrors. The proposed expansion is not any larger than was originally proposed and
-
",-"",.j
4
approved by HPC, P&Z, and City Council. The building is not getting any closer to the
street than was proposed originally, and the front yard setback referenced in the original
application was simply shown incorrectly on the original site plan. Staff would typically
review and approve a PUD amendment request of this minor magnitude at an
administrative level, but Staff cannot do so in this case because the request requires
changing an approved dimensional requirement which cannot be completed at an
administrative level. Staff recommends that, at the time when Final Major Development
approval is granted, the Historic Preservation Commission should approve the requested
PUD amendment to establish the correct front yard setback.
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 continue 233 W. Main Street, Final Review, to a date
certain.
EXHIBITS:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Staff findings, PUD Amendment
C. Application
5
Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 233 W. Main Street, Final
""'"'
,.......".
1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of
the original.
D Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or
wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered.
D A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire
or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered.
D Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear
yards.
1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views
into the yard from the street.
D A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in
nature.
D On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building
facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see
the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".)
D A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the
front facade of a building.
D Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach.
D Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the
historic context.
-
1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally.
D Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when
considering a rehabilitation project.
D This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk,
proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature
and ending in the "private" spaces beyond.
D Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry.
Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
D Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic
context of the site.
D Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
D Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
D Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
-
1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features.
6
D This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and
sidewalks in the public right-of-way.
12.6 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.
12.16 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen
historically.
12.17 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically.
D When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials
and their placement.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity
to that used traditionally.
D The design of a fixture should be simple in fonn and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
D All exterior light sources should have a low level ofluminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
D Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not
be permitted.
D Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
D Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources oflight by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
D Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
D A void placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper
walls of buildings.
D A void duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same
area.
14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building.
D Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that
direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed
within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly
encouraged.
D Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on
or off the property or into public rights-of-way.
14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street.
D When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with
commercial and multifamily developments.
D This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks.
D Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists.
7
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public
way.
D Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does
not create a negative visual impact.
D Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped togetller to minimize their
visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that
are compatible with those of the building itself.
D Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges.
D A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it
does not create a negative visual impact.
D Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the
street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service
boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from
front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes.
D Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will
minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds.
""'"'
,-
-
8
EXHIBIT B
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Minor PUD
Section 26.445.050 of the Regulations provides that development applications for Minor
PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
J. The proposed development shall be consistent witlt tlte Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed request to amend the front yard setback
established in the original PUD due to a surveying error is in conflict with the terms of
the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with tlte character of
existing land uses in tlte surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The proposed PUD amendment does not request to amend the use of the building. Staff
finds this criterion not to be applicable.
3. The proposed development sit all not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed expansion will adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area in any manner. Staff finds this criterion to be met
by the proposed amendment.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is
exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate tlte
proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination witlt,
final PUD development plan review.
Staff Finding
The Applicant received GMQS exemption approval to expand the Innsbruck hm pursuant
to Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2004. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establislt the dimensional requirements
for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate
9
dimensions for tlte PUD. During review of tlte proposed dimensional
requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing
development patterns shall be empltasized.
......
-",""..
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible witlt the following influences on the property:
a) The character of, and compatibility witlt, existing and expected
future land uses in tlte surrounding area.
b) Natural and man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding
area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant
vegetation and landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and
tlte surrounding area suclt as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circulation, parking, and Itistorical resources.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is proposing to amend the PUD to establish the front yard setback as nine
(9) feet rather than twelve (I2) feet as was established in the original PUD due to a
surveying error. Staff believes that the building will still have the same relationship to
the street as was approved in the original PUD in that the west wing expansion will still
be the same distance with the street as the existing east wing is to maintain the symmetry
that was approved in the original PUD. Additionally, the proposed amendment will not
negatively affect any significant vegetation or the approved man-made characteristics of
the site such as parking and pedestrian circulation. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
.......,
2. Tlte proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and
quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the
cltaracter of tlte proposed PUD and of tlte surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment does not impact the scale, massing, or quantity of open space
that was approved in the original PUD. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
,....
10
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment does not change the parking configuration approved by City
Council. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there
exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal,
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment does not propose a reduction in the approved density of lodge
units. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable.
5. The maximum allowable density witltin a PUD may be reduced if there
exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the
maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudjlow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water
pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible witlt the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to criticalnaturalfeatures of the site.
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment does not propose a reduction in the. approved density oflodge
units. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there
exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such
increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding
development patterns and with tlte site's pltysical constraints.
Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified
in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those
characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, tlte surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
II
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment does not include an increase in the approved density of lodge
units. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable.
........
B. Site Design:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces,
is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the
adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. Tlte
proposed development shall comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique,
provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to
the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate
manner.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed amendment will impact natural or man-made
features on the site in that the proposed front yard setback will not actually move the
building from it's existing location and the proposed expansion stilI has the same
relationship to the existing building as was approved in the original PUD. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
2. Structures Itave been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
......
Staff Finding
There is only one building proposed for the site and the proposed amendment will not
increase the height of the existing structure to block any significant vistas. Additionally,
there are no significant open spaces on the site. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion not to
be applicable to this proposal.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the
urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest
and engagement of vehicular and pedestriim movement.
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment does not change the approved orientation of the building.
Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow
emergency and service vehicle access.
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment does not change the approved emergency and service vehicle
access. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable.
....';to~
12
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has consented in the application to meeting all pedestrian and accessibility
requirements that exist. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a
practical and reasonable manner and sit all not negatively impact
su"ounmngpropertie~
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposal does not represent a significant change in the amount of
impervious land on the site given that the site is currently improved with a large existing
structure. The Applicant is required to submit a site drainage plan that has been prepared
by a licensed engineer. The drainage plan shall be designed in a manner that ensures that
historic drainage rates will not be increased as a result of the proposed lodge. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are
appropriately de-signed to accommodate any programmatic functions
associated with the use.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is not proposing to construct more than one structure on tile site. In
addition, tile property is proposed to be close to covered with the structure or it's
associated parking. However, adequate space is to be maintained between the lImsbruck
and the neighboring single-family residence located to the east. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
C. Landscape Plan:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed
landscape with the . visual character of the city, witlt surrounding parcels,
and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. Tlte
proposed development shall comply with tltefollowing:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces,
preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides all ample
quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen
area climate.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has proposed to remove only the vegetation that is required for the
building expansion, which appears to be minimal. Additionally, the Applicant has
proposed to enhance the streetscape with additional street trees that meet the requirements
and approval of the City of Aspen Parks Department. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
13
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in
an appropriate manner.
""'"'
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment does not impact any significant natural or man-made site
features. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other
landscape features is appropriate.
Staff Findiog
The Applicant has proposed and is required to provide tree protection fencing around tI1e
drip line of any tree that is to be preserved on-site. Additionally, no construction activity
or storage of construction materials shall be allowed within the drip line of any trees on
the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Arcltitectural Character:
It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety,
character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the
City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural cltaracter is
based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the
building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale,
orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and otlter
attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed
development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan
and architectural cltaracter plan, whiclt adequately depicts the character of
the proposed development. The proposed arcltitecture of the development
shall:
~ ""......
J. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city,
appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the
property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, tlte
intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and
cultural resources.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed amendment impacts the architectural character of
the project in that the proposed amendment simply changes the approved front yard
setback due to a surveying error. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by
taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vege(ation
and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems.
~.~
Staff Finding
14
The proposed amendment does not impact the natural heating and cooling of the design.
Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable.
3. Accommodate tlte storage and sllielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe
an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment does not impact the ability of the site to store or shield snow in
a safe and appropriate manner. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable,
E. Lighting:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure tlte exterior of tlte development
will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering botlt public safety and
general aesthetic concerlls. Tlte following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or Itazardous
interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site
features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate
manner.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is required to, and has consented to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code
for any exterior lighting that is proposed. Therefore, the proposed development will be
lighted in a manner that will not provide direct glare on adjoining streets or property. The
Applicant will be required to submit a detailed exterior lighting plan to the City Zoning
Officer prior to building permit issuance. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. All exterior lighting sit all be in compliance witlt the Outdoor Lighting
Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD
documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements,
and lighting to call inordinate attention to tlte property is prohibited for
residential development.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has committed to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code on the proposed
development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area:
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or
recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in tlte proposed
PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open
space, or recreation area enhances the cltaracter of the proposed
development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural
landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the
property's built form, and is available to tlte mutual benefit of the
various land uses and property users of the PUD.
Staff Finding
15
The Applicant is not proposing any common park or open space on the site. Staff finds
that this criterion is not applicable to this proposal.
-..,
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation
areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or
dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownersltip is proposed in a
similar manner.
,,~.,-,,<
Staff Finding
The Applicant is not proposing any amendment to common park or open space on the
site. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for
the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas,
and sltared facilities together with a deed restriction against future
residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment does not impact the maintenance of open spaces. Staff finds
this criterion not to be applicable.
H. Utilities and Public Facilities:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose
any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and tltat the
public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed
utilities and public facilities associated with the development sltall comply
with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
-
Staff Finding
Staff believes that adequate public facilities exist to accommodate the proposal. Staff
finds t1lis criterion to be met.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at tlte sole cost of the
developer.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed amendment will not impact public infrastructure. Staff
finds this criterion not to be applicable.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and wltere the developer is reimbursed proportionately for
the adllitional improvement.
Staff Finding
-
16
The Applicant is not proposing to install oversized utilities or public facilities and it is not
anticipated that the Applicant will be required by the City to provide oversized utilities.
Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable to this application.
J. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD
applications):
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily
accessible, does not unduly burden tlte surrounding road network, provides
adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use
of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development
sltall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate
access to a public street either directly or tltrough and approved private
road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment will not impact the site's access and circulation. Staff finds
this criterion not to be applicable.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding
the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment will not impact the site's vehicular access points or parking
arrangement. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable.
J. Phasing of Development Plan.
The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not
create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners
and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of
the development plan is proposed, each phase sltall be defined in the
adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with
the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a
complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The pltasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent
practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later
phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-
lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the
PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any
mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective
impacts associated with the phase.
"'"...
17
Staff Finding
The Applicant is not proposing to phase the construction. Therefore, Staff finds this
criterion not to be applicable.
""'"
-.
",....,
18
...~.,. "-~.'-'''''''''''''''-.''''''''---'''--,,~ ~.-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director eM
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
530,532, and 534 E. Hopkins Avenue- Major Development Review (Conceptual),
On-site relocation, Demolition and Parking Waiver- Public Hearing
DATE:
January 26, 2005
SUMMARY: The project before HPC involves three landmarked lots, each of which contain a
Victorian era miner's cottage and outbuildings. Each cottage has remained in residential use,
although there have been long periods of vacancy.
The applicant requests HPC Conceptual approval to rehab the historically significant portions of
the cottages, and to demolish additions which would be considered non-contributing. The
cottages are to be moved forward on the site (but not laterally), placed on new foundations, and
converted to use as office/commercial space. Existing outbuildings along the alley are proposed
to be demolished and replaced with residential units in traditional urban configuration.
The applicant does not request any setback variances or FAR bonuses. HPC is asked to waive all
of the parking generated by the office/commercial use. Two spaces per residence will be
provided as required by code.
HPC has held two worksessions on this project, which began as residential development only,
with large additions connected to the Victorians. We find that there has been significant
improvement both in terms of historic preservation goals and downtown revitalization.. The
applicant has submitted the required plans and elevations, along with a number of perspective
views to represent the project. During staff preparation of the memo, we provided feedback
requesting a restudy of some of the proportions of the new residential buildings, which are
supplied in the packet. At this time, we are not prepared to find that all of the design
guidelines are met, but we are encouraged by the progress seen to date. Continuation to a date
certain is recommended.
APPLICANT: Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC, represented by Greg Hills, along with Mitch
Haas, Haas Land Planning, and Michael Noda, Oz Architecture.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-31-003/004/005.
ADDRESS: 530, 532 and 534 E. Hopkins Avenue, the east 7.6 feet of Lot P, and all of Lots Q,
."'" R, and S, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
..-.
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 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 cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property?
The properties are significant as part of a relatively small group of remaining miner's cottages
that have not been expanded significantly. They are anomalies in the downtown development
and provide an interesting change in scale from surrounding development. The cabins are
located on a block which retains nearly all of the structures that existed on it in the 1800's.
These three subject cabins are very deteriorated and have been the subject of "demolition by
neglect" concerns for some time. This project were certainly improve their integrity and the
applicant has undertaken research to try to determine any original features that can be restored or
reconstructed.
_.
Because of recent increases in the allowed height and square footage in the Commercial Core
Zone District. this application will still leave some development rights on the table. however it
2
will be wllikely tllat additional construction will be approved due to the HPC guidelines, view
plane restrictions, parking requirements, etc.
Desien 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 A." Only those
guidelines which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo.
No additions are proposed for the Victorians. The details of their restoration should be reserved
for final review. The requested demolition of non-historic additions and restoration of the open
front porches will be discussed below.
With regard to the new buildings, the guidelines located in Chapter I I, for new buildings on
landmark lots, and Chapter 13, the Commercial Core Historic District, are relevant. In general,
staff finds that detached structures located along the alley are an appropriate way to redevelop
this property. The new structures are generally more commercial/urban in character, in that they
are essentially square, flat roofed forms, typical of our downtown.
Staffs perspective in terms of bringing this project into compliance with the guidelines is that
the distance between the new and old buildings is important and may need furilier refinemant, as
is true of the height relationship. Also, we support restudy of the proportions of the residential
structure to make them even more in keeping with 19th century commercial architecture, in terms
of expressing a tall first floor. The loft space, in our opinion, can be acceptable but should be as
low in profile as possible. The guidelines which HPC should consider are:
13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
o Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
o The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and
projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form.
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
o The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass.
o Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper
story windows should have a vertical emphasis.
o Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.
o Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels
tlrrough detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an
important feature in this relationship.
.
The board will notice that several of the relevant guidelines are in conflict with each other. For
instance, the guidelines from Chapter I I are clearly more influenced by residential design
relationships than the mixed-use development that is happening on this site. In staffs opinion,
the guidelines will be addressed most successfully if the new building responds to the Victorian
commercial context of downtown, and the cabins are continued to stand as unique and
interesting.
3
Specific amendments to the design that staff would continue to recommend are a possible revisit
of the inset decks on the new building, in favor of a more uniformly square fayade along Spring
Street. The action of infilling these, and other corners, might allow for a slightly more compact
footprint and more separation from the cottages.
-
Secondly, staff is in favor of even more efforts to reduce the visibility of the lofts. The fact that
they form a continuous band across the south view of the three buildings may be contributing to
the difficl,llty in seeing them as a subordinate element of the facades.
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 of the 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; Q!: -
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parccl on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; Q!:
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; Q!:
4. The relocation activity is dcmonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the 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 buildings have a front yard setback that is typical of residential
development, but they are located downtown. Staff supports moving the cabins forward because
it allows separation of new and old construction. The cottages will be active spaces that will
benefit from a close proximity to the sidewalk. They are a complete. departure from the
surrounding pattern of zero lot-line development, therefore staff does not find that their
relocation detracts from the consistency of the historic district.
4
....."'"
In staffs opinion, the review criteria, and guidelines below, are met.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a
historic district.
o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
o 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.
o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not
approved.
9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district
should be avoided.
o The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered.
o In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than
moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects
patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate
to other historic sh'uctures in the area.
DEMOLITION
The applicant proposes to remove non-historic additions from the miner's cottages as part of
their Conceptual Development. In addition, the outbuildings along the alley are to be removed.
Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the
following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure camlOt 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
5
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
..-.
'>., .",.1
Staff Response: In terms of the rear additions to the cabins, it is clear from the 1904 Sanborne
Maps that the small lean-to additions on the back of 532 and 534 E. Hopkins are not original to
the buildings. Staff cannot provide a specific construction date for them. Similarly, there have
been alterations to the back of 530 E. Hopkins Avenue, and some original additions appear to
have been demolished. The enclosed entry that the applicant proposes to remove now does not
appear to have any significance and is not original. Staff supports the demolition of these non-
historic additions to the cottages.
The outbuildings also do not appear on the Sanborne Map. A few are known to be constructed in
the somewhat recent past, but limited information is available. Because HPC generally relies on
the historic maps when determining what elements add to the understanding of a Victorian era
property, staff finds that these sheds are non-contributing and can be removed. The guidelines
state:
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
o When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These
include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details.
o If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged.
o An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases.
o The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary
structure, while accommodating new uses.
.......
Replacement of the secondary structures in this context is not particularly feasible, nor are
outbuildings a typical element of downtown today.
ON-SITE PARKING
The office/commercial aspect of the project will generate a requirement for 7 parking spaces. All
are requested to be waived, along with cash-in-lieu fees.
In order to grant a parking waiver, HPC must find that the review standards of Section
26.4l5.1l0.C of the Municipal Code are met. They require that:
1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-Iieu fees may be approved upon a
finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic
significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining
designated property or a historic district.
Staff Response: The property cmmot physically accommodate any more legal parking off of the
alley. Staff supports HPC granting the parking waiver, as well as waiver of the cash-in-lieu
payment. which will generate a cost savings of$105.000 for the developer.
6
--
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. appro:ve 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 continue the application for restudy as
discussed above.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
7
Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 530, 532 and 534 E. Hopkins Avenue,
Conceptual Review
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
o Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation
of the roof as seen from the street.
o Retain and repair roof detailing.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
o The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the
building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved.
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
o When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These
include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural
details.
o If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged.
o An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases.
o The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary
structure, while accommodating new uses.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in
a historic district.
o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
o 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.
o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not
approved. .
9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district
should be avoided.
o The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered.
o In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than
moving an individually-listed sh'ucture because the relative positioning of it reflects
patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate
to other historic sh'uctures in the area.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
o If a historic building sh'addles 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.
o It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
o It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building
in front of it.
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
8
-
-
-
o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of
materials, finishes and design.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
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.
11.3 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 roofforms 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.
13.2 Orient a new building parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building
orientations.
o The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street.
13.3 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
o Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial
buildings, this should be a recessed entry way.
o Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
o Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger
buildings.
13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
o Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce
perceived scale.
o Balconies, court yards and decks are also encouraged.
o Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be
covered or protected and clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the
primary street-side entrance.
13.8 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge.
o Place as much of tile facade of the building at the property line as possible.
o Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
o Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements
to define the sidewalk edge.
9
13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
o The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of
the downtown.
o Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular,
the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen
traditionally.
13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to
buildings seen historically.
o Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to
suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design,
facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered.
These val'iations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the
composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings.
13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
o Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
o The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and
projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form.
13.13 Use flat roof Jines as the dominant roof form.
o A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form.
o Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building.
o False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
13.14 Along a rear facade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is
encouraged.
o Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived
scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure.
o Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility
structures in order to establish a human scale tl1at invites pedesh'ian activity.
13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged.
o A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among historic
buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products
of their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors.
o The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
o In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design.
13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity.
o Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts should
maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows and transoms.
o Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are
visible from the street, are particularly encouraged.
o The primary building enh'ance should be at street level. "Garden level" enh'ances are
inappropriate.
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
o The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass.
o Upper t100rs should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story
windows should have a vertical emphasis.
o Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.
10
~.
".~L .,;.
-.
'"
o Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels
tlrrough detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an
important feature in this relationship.
,,'
11
.~
'"'"
"".- ~.'
EXHIBIT 1
Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms
.--.....,
.......
-
PLANNER:
PROJE<;'T:
REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
DESCRJPTION:
ClCESS:
Land Use Code Section(s)
Major Development'
Demolition'
On-site relocation'
Residential Design Standards'
Variances'
Review by:
l'ublic Hearing:
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Amy Guthrie DATE: 09.24.04
530,532, and 534 E. Hopkins Avenue
Mitch Haas and Michael Noda
Conner Family with authorization for Greg Hills to make an application.
Major Development, On-site Relocation, Demolition, Variances, Residential Design
Standards
This project affects three adjacent properties, all of which are historic landmarks within the
Commercial Core Historic District. All three lots have been in residential use for over 100
years. The houses have had minor alterations, and are somewhat deteriorated.
An application will be filed to restore and expand the buildings. The buildings will be
lifted in order to construct basements. Setback variances and FAR bonuses are likely to be
requested. Existing outbuildings will be proposed for demolition. The project must meet
the HPC's criteria and the City's "Residential Design Standards" or receive variances.
City Council adopted an ordinance on September 13, 2004 that affects this proposal.
Ordinance #28a, Series of 2004 eliminates single family residential as a permitted or
conditional use in the zone district. The application for this project must be filed before the
ordinance goes into effect (30 days after its approval) or this development will not be
possible.
Step I:
Step 2:
Attend a worksession with the HPC to discuss the FAR bonus request
Public hearing at HPC for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition,
On-site relocation, and Variances
Public hearing at HPC for Major Development (Final)
Step 3:
Section 26.415.070(D)
Section 26.415.080
Section 26.415.090
Section 26.410
Section 26.415.110(B) and (E)
'Historic Preservation Commission, . Planning and Zoning Commission, "City Council
Yes, at both HPC meetings. Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 15 days prior
to hearing to land owners within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. Applicant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing with a
affidavit at the public hearing.
none
$2,620.00
none
$2,620.00 deposit
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
Referral Agency Fees:
Total Fees:
To apply, submit 10 copies of a complete application on the forms provided by the Community
.D.evelopment Department, an application fee, and a signed fee agreement.
....
EXHIBIT 5
Architectural Inventory Forms & Sanborne Map
~',
-
OAHP1403
Rev. 9/98
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Official eligibility determination
(OAHP use only)
Date Initials
Determined 'Eligible- NR
Determined Not Eligible- NR
Determined Eligible- SR
Determined Not Eligible~ SR
Need Data
Contributes to eUgible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
Architectural Inventory Form
1 of 4
I. Identification
1. Resource number:
2. Temporary resource number:
3. County:
4. City:
5. Historic building name:
6. Current building name:
7. Building address:
8. Owner name and address:
5PT.11327
530.EHO 1530.EHI
Pitkin
As Den
530 East Hookins
Warren J Conner 110/20)
Maroaret Conner 534 E. Hopkins Aspen CO 81611
II. Geographic Information
9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 84 West
NW 1/4 of ....5.L1/4 of ~1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 7
10. UTM reference
Zone ~ -L; ~ -L.~..JL.. -L- -5-mE -L. ~ ~....L. ~..JL ..JL..mN
11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadranole
Year: 1960. Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5'-X- 15'_ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section.
12. Lotls): East 7.5' of P & Lot Q Block: 93
Addition: Year of Addition:
13. Boundary De~cription and Justification: Site is comorised of the East 7 5' of
Lot P & Lot O. Block 93 of the Citv and Townsite of Aspen Assessors office Record
Numher' 2737-073-31.003 Commercial Core Historic District.
This description was ch~sen as the most snecific and customarv descriotion of the site
III. Architectural Description
14. Buiiding plan (footprint, shape): Rectanoular alan
15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width
16. Number of stories: One storY
17. Primary external wall materia1ls) (enter no more than two): Wood Horizontal Sidino: Wood
VerticAl Siding
18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Cross Gable
19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Asphalt
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.113.27
530.EHO
-
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 2 of 4)
20. Special features Center all that apply): Porch
21. General architectural description: A tvoical sinole storY wood frame Miner's CoUaoe with
a oable end facino the street and a cross oable toward the back. The cross oable
~ransi~ions to a shallower slcned shed roof alono the back. The Dorch runs oeroendicular
to the street. The buildino aooears to be set on the around with no foundation. No
chi~~ev remains. The Daif of double hunn windows on the front are oriainal thouah all
the sidina and trim are aone or covered un by new vertical wood sidinn The oriainal
sidino winnows and trim exist on the east end of the cross oable The two front doors
~Y~ical of this tvne are intact Other wise the Dorch roof Dorch nostS. and front aable are
all replaced of concealed bv new materials
22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian
23. Landscaping or special setting features: One of three similar cottaaes in a row Laroe
cottonwood ~treet tree Orioinal wire fence with wood casts Owner has Added some
metal oosts OriDinal wood oat,e.
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Small oable end oaraoe on the alley Wood
and asnhalt sidina. corruoated metal roof
-
IV. Architectural History
25. Date of Construction: Estimate
1887
Actual
Source of information:
26. Architect:
Source of information:
27. Builder/Contractor:
Source of information:
28. Original owner:
Source of information:
Buildina Stvle
Unknown
Unknown
S W. Keene
1974 Asnen Historical Societv Research Committee
29. Construction history (inciude description and dates of major additions, alterations, or
demolitions): New siciina added o?rch reconstructed dates unknown
30. Original location --X- Moved ~ Date of moveCsl:
V. Historical Associations
31. Original use(s): Domestic
32. Intermediate use(s):
33. Current use(sl:
Domestic
-
34. Site type(s):
Commerr:ial Core. Residential PAttern
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.113.27
530.EHO
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 3 of 4)
.,
35. Historical background: This structure is reoresentative of Asoen's minioo era character.
The buildina renresents a tvoical tvoe known locallv as the "Miner's Cotrace".
Characterized bv the size simcle ciano front oable / Dorch relationshic. and double front
doors.
36. Sources of Information: Pitkin County Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance
Man~ 1990 and 1980 City of Asoen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures
VI. Significance
37. Local landmark designation: Yes -L No
1982
Designating authority: Ascen City Council
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
Date of designation: Ordinance 7
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of our history;
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
..1L C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of.a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
_ D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory.
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Areals) of significance: Architecture
40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Minino Era
41. Level of significance: National_ State _ Local X
42. Statement of significance: This structure is siQnificant for its nosition in the context of
Aspen's mini no era. It descrihp.s ~he nature of the life of an averaae family or individual
durina that Defiod as well as the construction techniQues materials available and the
fashion of the time. This house retains its characteristic double entrY which is unicue to
this buildino tvpe
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The house c. unaltered
from its orioinal form. however all the oriGinal sidinG and details are cone or concealed
with new sidina except for a Dortion of the east facade It is in marGinal condition. Alona
with the two adiacent structures this buildina is indicative of the scale and context of the
minina era residential streetsc8De
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.113.27
530.EHO
-
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 4 of 4)
VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment
44. National Register eligibility field assessment:
Eligible _ Not Eligible --X- Need Data
45. Is there National Register district potentiai? Yes --X- No
'..
Discuss: Part of a local
historic district
If there is National Register district potential, is this building:
Contributing X
Noncontributing
Contributing
Noncontributing
46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it:
VIII. Recording Information
47. Photograph numbers: R10. F1S
Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Community Develooment Dent
48. Report title: City of Aspen Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures
49. Date(s): 6/24/2000
50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield
51. Organization: Reid Architects
52. Address: 412 North Mill Street PO Box 1303. Asoen CO 81612
53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225
-
NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource
location, and photographs.
Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1300 Broadway, Denver, CO S0203 (303) 866-3395
.......
OAHP1403
Rev. 9/98
COLORADO CUL rURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Official eligibility determination
(OAHP use oniy)
Date Initials
Detennined Eligible~ NR
Determined Not Eligible- NR
Determined Eligible. SR
Determined Not Eligible- SR
Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
,;
Architectural Inventory Form
1 of 4
I. Identification
1. Resource number: 5PT 113 26
2. Temporary resource number: 532.EHO. 1532.EHI
3. County: Pitkin
4. City: Asoen
5. Historic building name:
.6. Current building name:
7. Building address:
Conner Residence
8. Owner name and address:
532 East Hookins
Maraaret A Conner (12120) Warren J. Conner (4120)
and Claude Conner 14/20)
Mamarat Conner 534 E HODkins Aspen CO 81611
II. Geographic Information
9. P.M. --2.. Township 10 South
NW 1/4 of --.S.E..1/4 of ~1/40f
, O. UTM reference
Zone -L- -L; --L-.--A- --L- ---1- -L- -1LmE --A- --L- --L- ~ -L- -L -1LmN
Range 84 West
SW 1/4 of Section 7
11. USGS quad name: Aspen Ouadranoie
Year: 1960. Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5'---X- 151_ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section.
12. Lot(s): R
Addition:
Block:
93
Year of Addition:
13. Boundary Description and Justification:
Site is comorised of Lot R Block 93 of
the City and Townsite of ASDen Assessors office Record Number. 2737-073-31-004.
This description was chosen as the most specific and cllstomary descriotion of the site.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building plan (footprint. shape): Rectangular clan
15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width
16. Number of stories: One storY
17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Wood Horizontai Siding,
Asohalt
18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable
Resource Number;
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.113.26
532.EHO
-
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 2 of 4)
19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Asohalt: Steel
20. Special features (enter all that apply):
21. General architectural description: A tvoical sinole storv wood frame Miner's Cottaoe with
a oable end facino the street and a oeroendicular oable toward the back. with horizontal
wood sidino and scallooed shinoles in the oable end. Orioinal trim and corner boards
remain The oriainal porch hRs been enclosed with an unsymnathetic door and window
All oriainal Dorch detailina is removed or concealed The aable end faeina the street is
intact however the tvpical windows aonears to have been renlaced with aluminum
windows of a similar nrooortion to the oriainal The Dorch runs naral1el to the street The
buildina anpears to be set on the around with no foundation. No chimney remains.
22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian
23. Landscaping or special setting features: One of three similar cottaaes in a row On a
downtown site containino onlv minimally altered minina era buildinas
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Small shed on the allev Wood and metal
sidIna. Also wood and corruaated metal carport structure
~
IV. Architectural History
25... Date of Construction: Estimate
Actuai 1891
Source of information:
26. Architect:
Source of information:
27. Builder/Contractor:
Source of information:
28. Original owner:
Source of information:
1974 Asoen Historical Society Research Committee
Unknown
Unknown
S. W Keene
1974 Asnen Historical Societv Research Committee
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or
demolitions): Porch enclosed no dates known
30. Original location ..1L. Moved
Date of move(s):
V. Historical Associations
31. Original use(s): Domestic
32. Intermediate use(s):
33. Current use(s): Domestic
34. Site type(s):
Commercial Core Residential Pattern
-
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.113.26
532.EHO
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 3 of 4)
35. Historical 'background: This structure is reoresentatiye of Asoen's minina era character.
The buildina represent a tvbical tyne known locally as the UMiner's CottaaeH.
Characterized bv the size simnle Dlan. and front aable I Dorch relationshin
36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse rec~rds. Sanborn and Sons Insurance
MaDs 1990 and 1980 Citv of Asoen Survev of Historic Sites and Structures
VI. Significance
37.. Local landmark designation: Yes
Designating authority:
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
No ~ Date of designation:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of our history;
B.. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
-X.. C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
_ D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory.
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Areals) of significance: Architecture
40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Minino Era
41. Level of significance: National _ State _ Local X
42. Statement of significance: This structure is sianificant for its nosition in the context of
Aspen's mining era It describes the nature of the life of an averaoe familv or individual
durina that period as well as the constru~tion techniGues materials available and the
fashion of the time
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The house is in very
aood condition with few alterations The enclosed Dorch is easilv reversible. Windows
roof fascia siding trim are oenerallv oriGinal. Oriainal form. scale and sitina are intact.
it is in Generally aood condition Alona with the two adiacent structures this buildinG is
indicative of the scale and context of the minino era residential streetsc80e
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.113.26
532.EHO
-
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 4 of 4)
~,
VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment
44. National Register eligibility field assessment:
Eligible _ Not Eligible -1L. Need Data
45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes -1L. No
Historic District
If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing X
Discuss: Part of a Local
46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it:
Noncontributing
Contributing
Noncontributing
VIII. Recording Information
47. Photograph numbers: R10 F17
Negatives filed at: Asnen/Pitkin Community Develooment Dent
48. Report title: City of Aspen Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures
49. Date(s): 6/24/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield
51. Organization: Reid Architects
52. Address: 412 North Mill Street. PO Box 1303 Asoen CO 81612
53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225
-
NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource
location, and photographs.
Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1300Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303)' 866-3395
"'--"
OAHP1403
Rev. 9198
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Official eligibiiity determination
(OAHP use only)
Date Initials
Determined Eligible. NR
Determined Not Eligible- NR
Determined Eligible- SR
Determined Not E~gible- SR
Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR Distrid
.- ~#
Architectural Inventory Form
1 of 4
I. Identification
1. Resource number:
2. Temporary resource number:
3. County:
4. City:
5. Historic building name:
6. Current building name:
7. Building address:
8. Owner name and address:
5PT 113 25
534.EHO 1534.EHl
Pitkin
Asoen
Warren Conner Residence
534 East Hookins
Mnraaret A Conner
534 E Hopkins. Asnen CO 81611
II. Geographic Information
9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South
~1/4 of SE 1/4 of ~1/4 of
10. UTM reference
Zone ....1- -L; ~ -L. -3- ~....2.... ~mE -L. -3- -3-..JL....1- --L ~mN
Range 84 West
SW 1/4G of Section
7
11.. USGS quad name: Asoen Quadranole
Year: 1960 Photo Rev 1987 Map scale: 7.51-X..- 15'_ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section.
12. Lot(s): S
Addition:
Block:
93
Year of Addition:
13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comDrised of lot S Block 93 of
the City and Townsite of Asoen. Assessors office Record Number: 2737-073-31-005
This de~crintion was chosen as the most s08cific and customarY description of the sitp..
III. Architectural Description
14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectanoular clan
15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width
16. Number of stories: One storv
17. Primary external wall material Is) (enter no more than two): Wood. Horizontal Siding.
Asohalt
18. Roof configuration: lenter no more than one): Cross Gable
19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Asohalt
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.1 1 3.25
534.EHO
....'"
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 2 of 4)
20. Special features (enter all that apply): Chimnev
21. General architectural description: A tVDical Miner's Cottaoe with horizontal wood siding
and scallooed shinoles in the oable end. The orioinal Dorch has been enclosed with an
unsymoathetic window
22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian
23. Landscaping or special setting features: One of three similar cottaoes in a row. On a
downtown site containina only minimally altered minina era buildinas Part of oriainal
wire fence on east side. Owner has added chicken wire where oriainal wire is missing.
Oriainal foundation olanter box at base of house
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Small aable end aaraae on the allev Wood
and asoha'lt sidinG corruGated metal roof.
IV. Architectural History
25. Date of Construction: Estimate
Actuai 1891
Source of information:
26. Architect:
Source of information:
27. Builder/Contractor:
Source of information:
28. Original owner:
Source of information:
1974 Asoen Historical Society Research Committee
Unknown
--
Unknown
S. W Keene
1974 Aspen Historical Society Research Committee
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or
demolitions): Porch enclosed rear shed added no dates known
30. Original location ---X- Moved _ Date of move(s):
V. Historical Associations
31. Original use(s): Domestic
32. Intermediate use(s):
33. Current use(s): Domestic
34.
35.
Site type(s):
Commerr:ial Core. Residential Pattern
Historical background: This structure is renresentatiye of Asaen's minino era character
The buildinG rearesent a tYDical type known locally as the "Miner's Cottage".
Characterized bv the size simnle nlan. and front aable / Dorch relationshio
36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance
MaDS. 1990 and 1980 City of ASDen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures
-
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.1 13.25
534.EHO
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 3 of 4)
VI. Significance
37. Local landmark designation: Yes
Designating authority:
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
No -K- Date of designation:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of our history;
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
-K. C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
_ D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory.
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(sl of significance: Architecture
40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Minino Era
41. Level of significance: National _ State _ Locai X
42. Statement of significance: This structure is sianificant for its Dosition in the context of
Aspen's minino era It describes the nature of the life of an averaae or individual r:Iurino
that neriod as well as the construction techniques. materials available and the fashion of
the time
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The house is in very
aood condition with few alterations. The enclosed Dorch is easilv reversible. Windows.
roof fascia sidina trim are aenerallv orioinal Oriainal form. scale and sitina are intact.
VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment
44. National Register eligibility field assessment:
Eligible _ Not Eligible ~ Need Data
45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes ---X.. No
Historic District
If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing X
Discuss: Part of a local
Noncontributing
46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing
Noncontributing
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.113.25
534.EHO
.......l
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 4 of 4)
VIII. Recording Information
47. Photograph numbers: R10 F16
Negatives filed at: Asoen/Pitkin Communitv Develocment Decl.
48. Report title: Citv of Ascen Ucdate of Survev of Historic Sites and Structures
49. Date(s): 6/24/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield
51. Organization: Reid Architects
52. Address: .412 North Mill Street. PO Box 1303 Aspen CO 81612
53. Phone number(s}: 970 920 9225
NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource
location, and photographs.
Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395
-..
-
5/.5 317 0/8 SZ/
I". )C.
,:1. TV EH~
l:?
~~
on,
~~"ti
;,n'lij
~~~~
u~"'ii
QOJ:f.:1.:
t.;fl:'l:
~'Ci(jl>
~~~ ~ f:
,I
1)( /
I .
E.
93
z.....:.i1z. !:..,c'.::;.tljt,-y,.::.f~;.}:?_,
j.! ~'i.',""___~",<_,...,. t/EJ. i9 ...:.,.......!If, ,.,~.
~II'J
J!;:~lJ~J.~i~t~;~~~j.0~-'&d
!:." '11 pR..T::.:ED .l?J!RC F;; ;~1r~'
/'. ~~~~~fff,~~t~~~J~'
u ,.S'./f' '!'.fi',"''''Z;5'/!;;'
ltllli
~
"
tl
"
~
"
~
;)')----.
~
1(. /.
tl. p
.(
-c.... I'
~ 0/ ,;
/
,
\?I
/ \",
. .J _ _ .:s
~
I
~/I! .578
(ilj
~
']}IS
~-P
L
}-
,-- Ii
'" " / ><
I )('
=v 7J ~
1
)\
I C)
T.CL) '.
"
I (..,
,--...,
Ii'.
~
"
s'
J
I
,
i
J
I
,
I
I
I
f
!
~.
Ul
1+
z
::>
:c
.
U)
Ii-xl
.......... ~
f,-",', . ~
I
..... i
. -"~" .....- f. '.~
" 0
~ "'-
~
:IJ
x .,.
I ~-Q, / /__0 ~
.~
0./1.
j'Zl/ .5Z6' 528 ,j3{) J3 .5.14 .
- - AjJ'.= -
J
f
.1
r'1 3M 6'31 jJ3 5JS
G.,,~
.< . 'JJ I, I:"J
!5f "".
" s:::;
~"
1/ . :~"'~/I/] ~
I ,., E,p
.J 'x ~
,--::-/1_ ~
1
i.
,.
.
,
;
i
.,
;
@
)
-
~ A~ r
. --:J"75'~'r~cl:"-'-
~ L-1 19...
[ :' _,_ L[
'J)
~
~
......,.,""'.'\.Go!."-
5fJ/ 6'(77
[3........><
;7 . 7J
16..
"
6
G
mOLO
,., .
~:D .
If 7J
If.
" .
L
'I )(
\ ,
\l--:.."
(j{J!l (j(}g bfJ4 6(;
~
""',....,
EXHIBIT 6
Agreement for Payment Form
:)
'~
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A!!reement for Payment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Austin Lawrence Partners. LLC clo Gre!! Hills. Mana!!in!!
Partner (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Conceptual Maior
Development and other incidental HPC approvals (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of
2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a determination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the
application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT
make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on
a montWy basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or
approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make
additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY
agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process
APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required [mdings for project consideration,
unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial
deposit in the amount of $2.620.00 which is for twelve ([2) hours of Community Development staff time,
and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to
CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post
approval review at a rate of$21O.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall
be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued
costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all
costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
By'
Community Development Director
Billing Address and Telephone Number:
Reauired
Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC
c/o Greg Hills, Managing Partner
314 South Galena Street, Ste. 200
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920-4988 ext. 214
"........
-
EXHIBIT 7
Mailing List for Property Owners within a 300 Foot Radius
""....
-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Chris Bendon, Community Development Directo~
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
529 W. Francis Street, Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variance-
Public Hearing
DATE:
January 26, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 4,500 square foot lot that was created as a result of a
Historic Landmark Lot Split. The site is vacant except for a portion of an adjacent historically
landmarked home that encroaches onto 529 W. Francis by approximately one foot.
The applicant proposes to construct a new single family house, which is limited to 2,570 square
feet in size per the lot split ordinance. A variance from the "Secondary Mass" requirement
within the "Residential Design Standards" is requested.
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 A." Staff finds
that the proposed new house is not in compliance with the guidelines at this time and requires
restudy. A continuation is recommended.
APPLICANT: Christopher Hewett, represented by Stan Mathis Architecture and Planning.
PARCEL In: 2735-124-25-102.
ADDRESS: 529 W. Francis Street, Lot 2, Historic Lot Split at 533 W. Francis, Block 28, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6. Medium Density Residential.
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
.....,.1
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. rhe 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) a/lll/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: The proposed new house is to be constructed on a lot which is 45' wide and
100' deep, sandwiched between two landmark designated miner's cottages.
HPC held a worksession on this project in late 2004. The board appeared to appreciate the
concept of having a one story mass at the front of the site. Staff agrees that may be an
appropriate direction, but has a number of concerns related to the massing and site plan for the
project at this time.
The first set of guidelines to discuss are:
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a
front porch.
D The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
D A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
D 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.
D 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.
D The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
D The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those ofthe historic property.
D They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
As already stated, the architect has voluntarily created a one story mass at the front of the site.
This element, however, is not entirely in scale with the Victorians with a plate height of almost
12 feet, and a ridge height of 21 feet. The building does not include a porch as defined by the
Land Use Code. A porch must be completely open on at least two sides. In addition, the
2
proposed porch is not as broad across the front of the building as occurs on the adjacent houses,
which may be missing an opportunity to create a clear relationship between the structures.
~~
The project as proposed does not meet a "Residential Design Standard" which requires a new
house to have a primary mass and a secondary mass. A variance is requested, however staff
suggests that it might be preferable for this project to be designed as a two story structure, with a
conservative upper floor plate height at least at the front, in order to meet the "Residential Design
Standard." More information about that standard is provided below.
An additional concern with the proposed design is the roof. Our concern is two part; first that the .
plan is considerably more complicated that what exists at 533 W. Francis, and second that the
flared roof eave.is not consistent with the adjacent Victorian structures as addressed below:
11.6 Use roofforms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
D Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
D Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
D On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in
the context. .
D Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the
street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
Staff has consulted with the Chief Building Official for his opinion on the proximity of the
proposed new structure to the Victorian that encroaches onto the site. From his perspective, and
the Zoning Officer's, a minimum distance of 6 feet is required between buildings on the same
site. The applicant must provide a larger sideyard on the east, while remaining sympathetic to
the building on the west. Because the lot is 45 feet wide, this can be accomplished, even within
the existing design proposal.
,..,"""",
During this review, staff has determined that the proposed house is over its allowed floor area by
approximately 144 square feet, which must be corrected.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The proj ect reqUIres variances to the Residential Design Standards related to garages and
"secondary masses." All residential development must comply with the following review
standards orreceive a variance based on a finding that:
A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area Community
Plan (AACP); or,
B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or,
.....'~~,
,
~
C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Standard: SECONDARY MASS. The intent of the building form standards is to respect the scale
of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing, by
promoting the development of accessory units off of the city alleys, and by preserving solar
access.
1. All new structures shall locate at least ten (10) percent of their total square footage above
grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it
by a subordinate cOlmecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and
accessory dwelling units are appropriate uses for the secondary mass.
A subordinate linking element for the purposes of secondary mass shall be defined as an
element not less than six (6) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length with a plate height of
not more than nine (9) feet.
Response: The idea of this standard is to break down the size of large houses into at least two
pieces. The applicant is finding that to be a challenge if a one story mass at the front is desirable.
Staff will reserve further recommendation on this issue until the board has discussed the massing
comments made under the historic preservation design guidelines.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue Major Development (Conceptual) for
529 W. Francis to a date certain.
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
4
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 529 W. Francis, Conceptual Review"
--
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
D 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.
D The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
D A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
D 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.
D 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.
D The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
D 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.
D They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
~'. .'"""
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those Seen traditionally in the block.
D Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
D Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
D On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
D Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
~.
5