HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050223 REGULAR MEETING
February 23, 2005
5:00 p.m.
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, ~
SITE VISIT: NoNE
I. Roi1 call
II. Approval of minutes - Jan. 26, 2005
II1. public Comments
IV. Commissioner member comment(Sactual and apparent)
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest
VI. project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No NegativeEffect issued
(Next resolution will be #7)
VIII. OL_D_?~t~NrEaSnSc~s Street- Major Development (Conceptual),
A. 5z~ ~*. ~'~ 9t~
Continue to MarCh Ave. - Major Development
534 E. Hopkins
530,532, l~;:~:~7emoliti°n and parking
Waiver, Pubhc
BUSINESS and Variances, Public
IX. NEW403 W. Hallam. St.~reet~.~,~C~ti°n
A.
Hearing (20 min.) ~ ~ ~ (10 min.)
B. Election of chair and Vice-Chair
WoRKSESSION
NONE
X1. ADJOI.IRN at 6:00
MEMORANDUM
"'h
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
<.Jr.A
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
530,532, and 534 E. Hopkins Avenue- Major Development Review (Conceptual),
On-site relocation, Demolition and Parking Waiver- Continued Public Hearing
DATE:
February 23,2005
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, 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'designed ina 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 held two worksessions on this project, which began as residential development only,
with large additions connected to the Victorians. The project was continued after a January
26'h public hearing, with minor areas for restudy. Staff finds that there has been significant
improvement both in terms of historic preservation goals and downtown revitalization as this
project has evolved. Approval with standard conditions 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 thellesign 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 Guillelines. 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 adllition(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 in
Aspen that have not been expanded. They are anomalies in the downtown 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 cabins are very deteriorated and have been the subject of "demolition by neglect"
concerns for some time. This project will 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 leave some development rights on the table, however it will
be unlikely that additional construction will be approved due to the HPC guidelines, view plane
restrictions. parking requirements. etc.
-
.'""
2
"'V Design 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."
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 II 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 more commercial/urban in character than the cottages, in
that they are essentially square, flat roofed forms, typical of our downtown. In previous
discussions with HPC, this was determined to' be the appropriate direction based on the
guidelines, rather than designing large buildings with gable roof forms.
At the last meeting, staff suggested that the structures take on even more of a commercial design
character and that the applicant work on creating a little more distance between the front and
back buildings. The board took a different position and was generally in favor of the cut out
corners and other massing "nods" to the Victorians. In addition, HPC favored holding the
miner's cottages back slightly more from East Hopkins Avenue than was being proposed, even if
this decreased the open space behind the buildings. The board did agree with staff s suggestion
that the third floor loft units should all have some separation from each other.
The applicant has submitted revised plans which address HPC's concerns. Staff agrees that the
project complies with the design guidelines and that the additional green area in front of the
cabins is beneficial to their integrity. Approval with standard conditions is recommended.
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; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
,
J
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservatiou method
given the character and integrity of the buildiug, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated properties; and
~
Additionallv, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or' object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
Staff Response: The buildings currently 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. They are also moving a small degree to the side
of their current siting, to allow for the development of pathways between the structures, and
lightwells.
Since the last meeting, the building setback from East Hopkins has been increased from
approximately I 'l2 feet to 4 'l2 feet at the HPC's request. The cottages will be active spaces that
will benefit from a close proximity to the sidewalks. 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.
In staff s 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.
D A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
D Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a
new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
D The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
D In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not
approved.
9.2 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.
D 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 structures in the area.
..-,
It will be important to establish an acceptable plan that either stores the cabins on the site while
.. basement excavation is phased, or temporarily relocates them to a protected off- site location.
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 cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
Staff Response: 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 rear 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. Re-opening the enclosed front porches on 532 and 534 E.
Hopkins is a great restoration opportunity.
The outbuildings also do not appear on the Sanborne Map. A few are known to have been
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:
,,_.
-
5
--
8.1 If an existing secoudary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.....
D When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These
include its primary and roof materials, roofform, windows, doors and architectural details.
D 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.
D An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases.
D 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
26.415.l10.C of the Municipal Code are met. They require that:
1. The parkiug reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a
finding by the HPC that it will euhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic
siguificauce or architectural character of a desiguated historic property, an adjoining
designated property or a historic district.
-,
...,-
Staff Response: The property cannot 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.
MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW
As mentioned in the previous hearing, this property is within a protected view plane that extends
from the Pitkin County Courthouse towards Aspen Mountain. The applicant will apply to P&Z
to allow their development to infringe into this area.
P&Z can either exempt this proposal from view plane review based on a finding that the view
plane "does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the
view plane may be otherwise accommodated," or they can require the applicant to seek approval
for their project through a PUD process. The applicant intends to argue for exemption based on
the fact that their proj ect is some 15 feet below the height limit that is allowed on this site, and at
about half of the potential floor area. In addition, as evidenced by the image that the applicant
has created to show the completed project as viewed from the Courthouse, one can see that it is --
somewhat out of the view towards the face of the mountain. The applicants request a referral
comment from HPC in support of this position.
6
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
· disapprove the application, or
. coutinue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decisiou to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development Review
(Conceptual), On-site relocation, Demolition and Parking Waiver with the following conditions:
I. The project will generate a requirement for 7 parking spaces for the office/commercial
use. The applicant cannot provide any more than the 6 spaces needed for the
residences, therefore HPC has waived the office/commercial on-site parking and cash-
in-lieu payment.
2. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information
about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with
the building permit application.
3. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of$30,000 per cabin must be submitted with
the building permit application to insure the safe relocation of the structures.
4. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected
during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
5. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC
within one year of February 23, 2005 or the conceptual approval shall be considered
null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code.
6. A landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new materials, and
technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all be addressed
at Final Review.
7. HPC supports the P&Z granting an exemption from reviewing the encroachment into
the Courthouse View Plane through a PUD process. The project is approximately 15
feet below the maximum height limit, at half of the allowed floor area, and is on the
edge of the view plane's eastern boundary.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
.....
7
Exhibit B: Relevaut Design Guidelines for 530, 532 and 534 E. Hopkins Avenue,
Conceptual Review
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
D Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation
of the roof as seen from the street.
D Retain and repair roof detailing.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
D 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.
D 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.
,D If a secondary stmcture is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged.
D An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases.
D 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.
D In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in
a historic district.
D It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
D Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
D A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
D Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a
new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
D The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
D In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not
approved.
9.2 Moving an existing buildiug 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.
D 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 structures in the area.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
D If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the
lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
D It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
D It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building
in front of it.
8
~..I~
-
',,"c'
10.1 Preserve au older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
D Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of
materials, finishes and design.
10.2 A more recent additiou that is not historically significaut may be removed.
11.1 Orient the primary eutrance of a uew building to the street.
D The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.3 Coustruct 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 Desigu a front elevation to he 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.
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.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
D This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
D 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.
D The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street.
13.3 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
D 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.
D Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger
buildings.
13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
D Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce
perceived scale.
D Balconies, court yards and decks are also encouraged.
D 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.
D Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible.
D Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
9
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),
ON-SITE RELOCATION, DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCA TED AT 530,532 AND 534 EAST 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
'"
RESOLllJlON NO. -=::f"~ES OF 2005
,
/
PA CEL ID: 2737-073-31-003/ 4/005
WHEREAS; the applicant, A stin Lawrence Partners, LLC, re esented by Greg Hills, along
with Mitch Haas, Haas Land Ping, and Michael Noda, Oz Arc itecture, has requested Major
Development Review (Concep al), On-site relocation, Demolitio and Parking Waiver for the
property located at 530, 532 and 34 E. Hopkins Avenue, the east 7..6 feet of Lot P, and all of Lots
Q, R, and S, Block 93, City and wnsite of Aspen, Colorado;
WHEREAS, based on theOctobe 8, 2004 submittal date f this application, which predated
amendments to the Commercial Co Zone District ado ed through Ordinance 28a, Series of
2004, permitted uses for this redevelo ent include 0 Ice space in a ground floor location, as
well as detached residential. While t applicati is protected from those newly adopted
Commercial Core Zoning provisions that ould a ersely affect the proposal, it is permitted to
benefit from any provisions of Ordinance a, eries of 2004 that help to accommodate the
proposal; and
F_'~
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the IClp Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, tered, re 'red, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district un I plans or s ficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Dire or and approv in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for, Conceptual Major velopment Review, the C must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the ev' ence presented at a heari to determine the project's
conformance with the City of As en Historic Preservation Desl Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the M nicipal Code and other applicable de Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, appro e with conditions or continue the app Ication to obtain
additional information necessary t make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of R ,location of a Designated Property, the HPC must review the
application, a staff analysis repprt and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per
Section 26.415.090.C of the Mu~icipal Code, that:
1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will
not affect the character of the historic district; or