HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050525
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
May 25, 2005
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NONE
I. Roll call c<"f,,",,'
II. Approval of minutes - March 9, 2005 and May 3, 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 NoN egative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #18)
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A. 314 E. Hyman Ave. - Major Development (Final) and
Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing (30 min.) r<v-.J/J /l
Il/U~ . .-
IX. OLD BUSINESS
A. 529 W. Francis Street - Major Development (Conceptual) /
and Residential Design Standards Variance, (30min,) ~d ~ /s
X. NEW BUSINESS
B. 701 W. Main Street - Major Development (Final) and
Parking Variance (30 min.) tf/?
C. 426 E. Main Street - Major Development (Final) (30 min.) u~(, .",
/ ('1
I
);, Ii
XI. ADJOURN 7:00 p.m.
u___~_~~ L_ __ _~,
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
UA;A
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
TO:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
529 W, Francis Street, Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variance-
Public Hearing
DATE:
May 25, 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." HPC has
discussed this project in worksessions and public hearings and continued it for restudy of issues
such as the scale ofthe rear section ofthe building and the character or the front entry.
Staff finds that there has been relatively little progress over the course of the previous meetings
towards meaningful amendments that bring this project into compliance with the design
guidelines. We recommend denial, finding that the guidelines are not met.
APPLICANT: Christopher Hewett, represented by Stan Mathis Architecture and Planning.
PARCEL ID: 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
1
with the design guidelines imd other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendatio,n 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 iriformation necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
-
....l'<..'~
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: 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 mav be an
appropriate direction, but has a number of concerns related to the massing and site plan for the
project at this time.
""'"
'1Ii'i<"/
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.
[J The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
[J A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
[J 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.
[J 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.
[J The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
[J 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.
[J They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
-
,..,~ ,J
2
'~
As already stated, the architect has voluntarily created a one story mass at the front of the site.
After earlier comments about the plate and ridge heights of this element, it has been lowered.
Staff finds that it is still not consistent with the adjacent architectural landmarks, in particular
because of the limited transparency of the entry area. The 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.
~'
Another area of repeated discussion on this project has been the dominant east-west ridgeline on
the second story of this new home. While it is towards the rear of the site, the scale of this
element is out of character with the historic Stapleton house to the west. The same is true of the
large chimney masses at the front of the structure. These elements conflict with guidelines 11.3,
11.4, and 1l.5.
The detailed roof eave is not consistent with the adjacent Victorian structures as addressed
below:
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
[J Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roofforms.
[J Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
[J On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in
the context.
[J Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the
street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
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 proj ect 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.
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 application does not appear to be fully meeting this requirement.
Earlier in this review process, staff determined that the proposed house is over its allowed floor
area by approximately 144 square feet, which would have to be corrected before a building
permit could be received.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project requires variances to the Residential Design Standards related to garages and
"secondary masses." All residential development must comply with the following review
standards or receive a variance based on a finding that:
3
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 offairness 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 connecting 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.
A variance might be supportable, but the proposal is not meeting the HPC guidelines.
-
.~,wI'
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 deny Major Development (Conceptual) for 529
W. Francis finding that the relevant design guidelines are not met. HPC motions must be in the
affirmative, therefore the attached resolution is worded to approve the project, however the board
is advised to vote no on the motion.
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Minutes of January 26,2005 and March 9, 2005.
C. Application
-
,.,,,",
4
r
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 529 W. Francis, Conceptual Review"
""..
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
[J The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.2 In II residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
[J The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
[J A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
[J 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.
[J 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.
[J The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
[J 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.
[J They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
[J Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
[J Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
[J On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
[J 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
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 529 W. FRANCIS STREET,
LOT 2, HISTORIC LOT SPLIT AT 533 W. FRANCIS, BLOCK 28, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
-
"'-,.....,,,
RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2005
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-25-102
WHEREAS, the applicant, Christopher Hewett, represented by Stan Mathis Architecture and
Planning, has requested Major Development (Conceptual) and Variances for the property located
at 529 W. Francis Street, Lot 2, Historic Lot Split at 533 W. Francis, Block 28, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.4l5.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
-
,,,,,',,";'
WHEREAS, for approval of a variance from the Residential Design Standards, HPC must
review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to
determine, per Section 26.41 0.020.C of the Municipal Code, that the variance would;
1. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting,
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints;
and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 25, 2005, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended denial; and
-
....",<fI"
'_'N.",~..,.....~___j.,,, _~.._..~_
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
--.j M
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
701 W. Main Street- Major Development (Final) and Parking Variance- Public
Hearing
DATE:
May 25,2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures and contains two structures, a cabin and an outbuilding. Neither building exists
on the 1904 Sanborne map. The year of construction for the cabin is 1935 according to the
Assessor's office.
This project has been discussed over the course of several meetings. The following approvals
have been granted:
. Demolition of the existing alley structure.
· Relocation of the historic cabin towards the northeast corner of the site.
. A Historic Landmark Lot Split that created an eastern lot of 2,565 square feet, and a
western lot of 3 ,200 square feet.
. Change-in-use of the historic cabin from residential to commercial.
· Conceptual approval for the construction of a new detached building along the alley on
the eastern lot, including setback variances and Residential Design Standards variances.
At this time the applicant requests Final approval for the new alley building on the eastern lot,
which staff finds meets the design guidelines. In addition, a variance for the required on-site
parking generated by the conversion of the historic building from residential to commercial
use is requested. Staff finds that this meets the review criteria as well.
APPLICANT: Marshall and Susan Olsen, owners, represented by Dirk Danker, architect.
PARCEL In: 2735-124-46-004.
ADDRESS: 701 W. Main Street, Lots H and I, less the west 2.35 feet of Lot H, Block 19, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use.
I
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is asfollows. Stajfreviews
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 stajf 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 property is significant as part of a relatively small group of remaining rustic style cottages
built in Aspen from just before World War II into the 1960's. There were a number of such
buildings constructed on Main Street in particular, most of which were tourist cabins.
The historic building on this site is very modest in character. It is a simple rectangular building
with one gable roof. There have been some alterations, including the enclosure of a porch at the
front of the cabin. The existing asphalt siding mayor may not be original.
The context is the Main Street Historic District, which is sensitive to change. There are
Victorian era buildings all around this site, as well as other pre-war cabins and ski lodges. It
appears that Main Street has always had a diverse mix of building sizes and heights, evidenced
by the combination of miner's cottages with Victorian mansions. There were 19th century
commercial buildings like Mesa Store, and churches that have been torn down. The ski lodges
obviously introduced larger structures, particularly as one moves closer to the Commercial Core.
2
-
,
.......
,
~
-........,;'
The proposal before HPC is related to a new structure behind the cabin. No work is specified for
the cabin at this time as the applicant is still searching for historic photographs to guide its
restoration.
Desi2n Guideline 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
which staff finds warrant discnssion are included in the memo.
Overall, staff finds this to be an excellent project. Preserving the historic cabin as a detached
structure with no addition made to it is ideal. The cabin will become an. active part of the
streetscape again as an art gallery and studio. The new home proposed along the alley is
sympathetic in height, scale, massing, and proportions with the landmark structure. The
buildings are separated by a distance of 13 feet.
Staff supports the design as submitted, with a few minor exceptions related to the materials
palette. The first concern is some of the obvious Craftsman details on the building. The
following guideline is relevant:
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.
There are no historic buildings in Aspen that are Craftsman, since little to no development was
taking place during the heydey of that style. It is appropriate to the timeframe when the cabin
was built (around 1935) however the new building should avoid being significantly more ornate
than the landmark structure and avoid introducing a style to the historic district that is not
accurate. The particular details which staff finds should be modified are the entry doors
(including the elimination of leaded glass) and the light fixtures. A more simplified solution for
these features can be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor.
The second issue for discussion is the stone species for the base of the building. Particularly
because this is a historic district, staff finds that the selected stone should be more related to
native options from our area, per the following guideline:
12.17 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically.
o When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials
and their placement.
Again, staff and monitor can work with the applicant to resolve this.
3
ON-SITE PARKING
The commercial use of the historic cabin will generate a requirement for 0.68 on-site parking
spaces. The applicant requests a waiver from providing this either on-site or through a cash-in-
lieu payment, which is a benefit available for designated properties.
In order to grant a parking waiver, HPC must find that the review standards of Section
26.415.II0.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 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 $20,520 for the developer.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development (Final) and a
Parking Waiver for 701 W. Main Street, Lots H and I, less the west 2.35 feet of Lot H, Block 19,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
1. Restudy the entry doors and light fixture to be less Craftsman, or period in character, for
review and approval by staff and monitor.
2. Restudy the stone base to select a species that is more native to this area, for review and
approval by staff and monitor.
3. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations or site/landscape plan as
approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full
board.
5. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
6. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
4
.......
""".
-
""",./
.......
'''''"'#'
4-.
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
5
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 701 W. Main Street Major Development (Final)
,
,
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally.
o Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
o Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are
encouraged.
o Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
o These include windows, doors and porches.
o Overall, details should be modest in character.
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.
12.16 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically.
~IH7-Use building materials that are similar to those used historically.
o 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.
o The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
o All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
o Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
o Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
o Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length oftime that exterior lights are in use late at night.
o Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
o Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
o Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
6
-
--
-,
.",-,.'
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
~~
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
,."
TO:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
426 E. Main Street, Galena and Main project- Major Development (Final), Public
Hearing
DATE:
May 25, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is located on the comer of Galena and Main Streets, adjacent
to the Pitkin County Courthouse. The site is partly occupied by a non-historic building, and
partly vacant.
The proposal is to remodel and expand the structure as a mixed use development. The building
was previously anticipated to be a new Aspen Visitor's Center, including offices for ACRA, a
commercial/retail space, and apartments. The Visitor's Center use has been eliminated.
HPC conducted a work session in 2003, and Derek Skalko participated in the development of the
project as HPC's representative on a COWOP committee. In 2004, the board granted Conceptual
Major Development approval, which expired. HPC granted Conceptual approval again on March
23,2005, however questions regarding the adequacy of the public notice resulted in the board re-
hearing the application when it was approved for the third time on May 3, 2005.
The applicant now reqnests Final approval, which staff recommends, finding that the
project meets the applicable review criteria.
APPLICANT: Millenium Plaza LLC, represented by Poss Architecture and Planning.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-22-015.
ADDRESS: 426 E. Main Street, Unit I-A of the Galena Plaza Condominiums as described in
book 49, page 82 at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office 426 E. Main Street, Unit I-A
of the Galena Plaza Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff reviews
the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the
1
--
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(~") 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: 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."
The property is located at the edge of the Commercial Core Historic District, on a block that has
no historic resources. The Courthouse is the only landmark structure that will be in any way
impacted. The site is currently developed with a one story office building. _
Staff finds that the architects have done an excellent job of meeting the design guidelines. The
structure has all of the important qualities that we have indicated are desired in a downtown infill
structure, and manages to be very respectful of typical characteristics of the 19th century
architecture in town, but also new and innovative.
There is no on-site landscape to review. The proposed improvements within the right-of-way are
modest and appropriate. In terms of lighting and fenestration, staff has not identified any
conflicts with the guidelines. The material selections appear to be appropriate and samples
should be reviewed by staff and monitor, if not at the HPC meeting. Staff does not find that there
will be any diminishment of the visibility or character of the Courthouse. The applicant has
provided a thorough explanation of how they have met the guidelines within their application and
staff agrees with their assessment. Staff recommends Final approval be granted to the project as
proposed.
The Planning and Zoning Commission previously granted approval to waive some of the parking
required by this project in exchange for a cash-in-lieu payment. P&Z also exempted the project
from the "Residential Design Standards," which are not relevant for upper floor residential units.
A recent letter from an adjacent property owner, and a response from the City Attorney's office,
are attached to this memo as "Exhibit 8."
-
2
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continne the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
Staff recommends the project be granted ~ approval with the
RECOMMENDATION:
following conditions:
1. Samples of the brick, stone, and metal panels must be reviewed and approved by staff and
monitor prior to construction.
2. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of
exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the
fixtures.
3. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
5. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
6. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Letter from adjacent property owners, Sharon Engel Ruhnau and David Ruhnau, dated May
11,2005 and response from City Attorney John Worcester, dated May 16, 2005
C. Application
3
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 426 E. Main, Final Review"
1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
D Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on
walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features.
D This includes the arrangement of trees, shmbs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks
in the public right-of-way.
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.
13.5 Retain the character ofthe alley as a part of the original town grid.
D Maintain an alley as an open space.
D Alleys also may be used as pedestrian ways.
13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
D Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
D The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and
projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form.
13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged.
D 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.
D The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
D 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.
D 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.
D Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are
visible from the street, are particularly encouraged.
D The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" entrances are
inappropriate.
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
D The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass.
D Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story
windows should have a vertical emphasis.
D Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.
D Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels
through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an
important feature in this relationship.
13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block.
4
'-
.-.
.-.
~---"~._,,.-,,<.,~ -'''''
o Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as
tall as they are wide.
o Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement
relative to cornices and belt courses.
13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a
block.
o Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to
establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians.
o Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by
the upper floor(s).
o Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront.
13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be
maintained.
o Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices,
copings and parapets at the tops of buildings.
o When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some
slight variation in alignments between the facade elements.
13.21 Special features that highlight buildings on corner lots may be considered.
o Develop both street elevations to provide visual interest to pedestrians.
o Corner entrances, bay windows and towers are examples of elements that may be
considered to emphasize corner locations.
o Storefront windows, display cases and other elements that provide visual interest to facades
along side streets are also appropriate.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
o The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
o All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
o Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
o Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
o Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
o Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
o A void placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
o A void duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
14.8 Minimize the visnal impact of light spill from a building.
o 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.
o 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.
5
o When it is feasible, screen service areas from View, especially those associated with
commercial and multifamily developments.
o This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks.
o Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists.
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way.
o Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not
create a negative visual impact.
o Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are
compatible with those of the building itself.
o Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges.
o A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does
not create a negative visual impact.
o Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so tlley 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.
.0 Paint teleconununications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize
their appearance by blending with their backgrounds.
14.25 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design.
o Signs should not obscure historic building details.
o Small scale signs, mounted on the building, are encouraged.
o Free-standing signs should not be so large as to obscure the patterns of front facades and
yards.
14.26 Sign materials should be similar to those nsed historically.
o Painted wood and metal are appropriate.
o Plastic and highly reflective materials are inappropriate.
14.27 Use signs to relate to other buildings on the street and to emphasize architectural
features.
o Position signs to emphasize established architectural elements. It is best to mount signs so
they fit within "frames" created by components of the facade design.
o Pay particular attention to placing new signs on existing buildings when renovating. The
signs should not obscure existing details.
14.28 Pictographic symbols are encouraged on signs.
o These add visual interest to the street.
14.29 Illuminate a sign such that it complements the overall composition of the site.
o If signs are to be illuminated, use external sources. Light sources should be placed close to,
and directed onto, the sign and shielded to minimize glare into the street or onto adjacent
properties, and shall be very low wattage. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign
bracket.
6
~
........,,
~
-.
"<;",,'.J
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
RECOMMENDING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 426 E. MAIN STREET, UNIT I-A OF THE GALENA
PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2005
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-22-015
WHEREAS, the applicant, Millenium Plaza LLC, represented by Poss Architecture and
Planning, has requested Major Development (Final) for the property located at 426 E. Main
Street, Unit I-A of the Galena Plaza Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
"'~
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 25, 2005, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 25, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote
of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants approval for Major Development (Final) for 426 E.. Main Street, the
Galena and Main Building, with the following conditions:
I. Samples of the brick, stone, and metal panels must be reviewed and approved by staff and
monitor prior to constmction.
2. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of
exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the
fixtures.
3. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
5. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building penuit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of constmction.
6. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating "that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
......
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25th day of May, 2005.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION
-,
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
-
",",..V
~Lt~ ~ \ t.. t2..i
.. ,.- .-:, ,> :r'w. \ ':;.',~~'
.....
Oavid F. and Sharon Engel Ruhnau
Post Office Box 7209
Rancho Santa Fe, California
92067
L,' {>....1 "1 ,,-, r "n
\'j'i;'U .1 >J LU1j5
i\:,n c.:. ~ 't
nU1i.DJ~,w;~
Phone 858.759.7826
horseatty@sbcglobal.net
May 11, 2005
Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Proposed Development at Galena and Main
Dear Commissioners.
Pursuant to the written direction of City Attorney, John Worcester, I raised
certain issues related to the above-referenced project at the hearing of May 3,
2005. My questions/comments were not well received and were not adequately
addressed. In particular I questioned how this project could be reconsidered so
soon. Attorney Worcester deferred and asked Gideon Kaufman, legal counsel for
the applicant, to respond. Mr. Kaufman responded that the project didn't seek
rezoning and was not a resubmission. Unfortunately, the Historic Preservation
Commissioners still think they are evaluating the original submission.
",",..'
The Historic Preservation Commission states "[t]his application does not
request a PUD overlay and is therefore not bound by this resubmission limitation. In
any event the resubmission stay will have expired... " It is true that this application
does not request a PUD overlay; however, the overlay is relevant with respect to
whether a zoning ordinance could be reenacted within 6 months after the date of
the election at which it was repealed. It does not bear on the issue of
resubmission.
After a final decision that results in a denial of a development application
an applicant may not re-submit the same development application, or one
substantially the same, for 1 year. Despite the absence of the PUD overlay in the
original submission, there can be no argument that this project is substantially the
same as the one that resulted in the denial of a development application on
November 2. 2004. The Historic Preservation Commission treats the two
development applications as the same. In its hearing of March 23, 2005,
Commissioner Amy Guthrie stated that the Commission recommended the project
for approval as originally submitted, that it had met all guidelines at that time, and
that it should be approved at present. The Commissioners, even those absent
when the project was originally considered, stated that based on prior approval of
the project they would recommend approving it again.' In fact, the Commission's
t Memorandum from Amy Guthrie, Hisloric Preservalion Officer to Aspen Historic Preservation
Commission reo Public Hearing March 23, 2005 "the building was previously anticipated to be a new Aspen
Visitor's Center ...the Visitor's Center has been eliminated from the project." "HPC conducted a work
session in 2003 ..., in 2004, the Board granted Conceptual Major Development approval..."
Historic Preservation Commission
May 11, 2005
Page two
.-,
-,--,,,
Memorandum of March 23, 2005, quotes verbatim from its memorandum of
January 14, 2004, when the proposal was to remodel and expand the structure for
use as a Visitor's Center:
Again, at the most recent hearing of May 3, 2005, at least three of the
Historic Preservation Commissioners expressed annoyance and even "disgusf at
having to revisit this project because it had been reviewed and approved in the
past.
The Commissioners themselves are merely ratifying approval to the
project as originally submitted: there can be no argument that this is the same or
substantially the same project and is therefore. barred from resubmission for 1
year.
Either resubmission of the project is premature or the Historic
Preservation Commissioners must recuse themselves from this project, due to their
inability to objectively view this project as a new submission and treat public query
and comment with respectful consideration, and empanel new Commissioners to
review the submission.
Sincerely,
~~~
Sharon Engel Ruhnau
David Ruhnau
-
Cc: Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
John Worcester, City Attorney
.-,
'-'-""
May 16, 2005
..
THE CITY OF ASPEN
OFFlCE OF THE"Cm ATTORNEY
,David F. and Sharon Engel Ruhnau
P.O. Box 7209
Rahcho Santa Fe, California 92067
Re: Proposed Development at MaiD. and Galena
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ruhnau:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 11, 2005, in which you ql\estion the recent
actions of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission with respect to the above referenced .
development proposal. .'
In your letter you question the HPC's ability to consid~r the development application as it is, according
to you, a tesubrnission of a development proposal that "is the same or silbstantiidly the same project" '.
rej ected by the voters of Aspen in a referendum election.
, ,
>"
At .tlle HPC hearing, it was e!cplaine~ that the new development proposal was not the same or
substantiallty the same proposal rej ected by the voters. A critical difference waii the fact that the
portion of the ordinance repealed 'by the voters was the rezoning of tlle property in question. The
cu:rent development proposal does not seek a rezoning: '
In addition to the above, the prohibition against adopting a repealed ordinance is not one year as you
state in your letter; but six months. Section 5.4 of the, Aspen City Charter reads as follows:
Secnan 5.4. Amendments or repe.ai o! adopted 01" repealedorilinauces.
An ordi!lanCe adopted by" the dectorzte may not be. amended or repe<,led for a period of si.x (6)
months after the date of the election at whiclI it ',,'a~ adapted, and 3Jl ordinance repealed by 'the
. electnrzte In2Y!lOt be re-enacted for a perind of si., (5) mootllS after the dare of the election at which it
was repealed; pr\lvirlecl,. li8wever, that allY orrnmnce may be adopted, "mended or repealed at 2ny time
by appropriate referendum .or initiator}' pro>::edtire in accordance lvith the foregoing" provi5ionr;; or this.
article, or it'submitted to tlIe electorzte by the coullcil n1l its OWll finUoll.
The date of the election at wIllch the voters repealed Section 1 of Ordinance No.4, Series of2004, was
November 2, 2004. Six months from November 2, 2004, was May 2,2005; and this item will not be
considered by the City Council until May 23,2005. Thus, as you can see, even if the proposed
development is the same as that rejected by the voters, there is no legal impediment for Council" to
approve the new development proposal at this time.
130 SoUTH GALENA STREET' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611.1975 . PHONE 970.920.5055 . FAX 97.0.920.5119
Pril\(ed Oil Recycled Paper
If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to I~t me know.
Sincerely,
L-7~/?~
John P. Worcester
City Attorney
cc: Community Development Director
lPW- saved: 51l6/200S-310-G;\john\word\letters\ruhnau2.doc
,
,
,-
~
\
-
.-.
'~<
Land Use Application
~ILE
,""
.
THE C!TV OF ASPEN
PROJECT:
Name: The Main and Galena Buildinn
Location: 426 East Main Street. Aspen. Colorado
Unit 1-A Galena Plaza Condominiums' Book 49 at Paae 82
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds descrintion of property)
APPLICANT:
Name: Millennium Plaza L.L.C~ c/o Lowell Mever
Address: P.O. Box 1247 Asnen Colorado 81612
Phone #: (970\ 920-2377 Fax#:
E-mail:
REPRESENTATIVE:
'""...,
Name: Poss Architecture + Plannin
Address: 605 East Main Street As en
Phone #: 970 925-4755
E-mail: sholle@billoss.com
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (olease check all that apply):
o Historic Designation
o Certificate of No Negative Effect
o Certificate of Appropriateness
o -Minor Historic Development
[Z] -Major Historic Development
o -Conceptual Historic Development
[Z] -Final Historic Development
o -Substantial Amendment
o Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
o Demolition (total demolition)
o Historic Landmark Lot Split
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (descri tion of existin buildings, uses,
rovals, etc.)
One two level commercial building. The structure appears as a single stOry from Main Street. However. a garden
level opens out onto a sunken courtyard not visible from the street.
One four level mixed use (commercial & residential) building. The structure appears as a three story building from
Main Street. However, a garden level opens out onto a sunken courtyard not visible from the street.
FEES DUE: $
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will
YES NO
Ix! U
'----'
~ U
I I IXi
~
U I xl
,.....' ~
'-.'0,",
l_J U
uU
help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved.
Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new
construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or
restoration?
Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect
and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualifY
for state or federal tax credits?
If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this
project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-
occupied residential properties are not.)
If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
nRehabilitation Loan Fund nConservation Easement Program I'lDimensional Variances 'lIncreased
Density 'iHistoric Landmark Lot Split DWaiver of Park Dedication Fees 'lConditional Uses
...JExemption from Growth Management Quota System DTax Credits
<~.
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
Dimensional Requirement Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
The Main and Galena Buildinq
Millennium Plaza. L.L.C.. c/o Lowell Mever
426 East Main Street. Aspen. Colorado
CC
100.00' x 90.02'
5,002 S.t.
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Existing: 2,604
Existing: 0
Existing: 0
Commercial net leasable:
Number of residential units:
Number of bedrooms:
Proposed: 1 ,997
Proposed: 4
Proposed: 8
Proposed % of demolition: 0% (Structure at Existing Building to Remain, Brick to Be
Salvaged)
DIMENSIONS: (write nla where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area: Existing: 1,976 s.f Allowable: 15,017 s.f Proposed: 8,235 s.t.
Height
Principal Bldg.: Existing: 24'-6" Allowable: 42'/46' Proposed: 41'-71/2"
Accessory Bldg.: Existing: n/a Allowable: n/a Proposed: n/a
On-Site parking: Existing: 2 Required: 9 Proposed: 2
% Site coverage: Existing: 29.66% Required: 0% Proposed: 63.4%
% Open Space: Existing: 53.5% Required: 0% Proposed: 24.5%
Front Setback: Existing: 0' Required: 0' Proposed: 0'
Rear Setback: Existing: 0' Required: 0' Proposed: 0'
Combined
Front/Rear: Existing: 0' Required: 0' Proposed: 0'
Indicate N. S. E. W
Side Setback: (east) Existing: 0' Required: 0' Proposed: 0'
Side Setback: (west) Existing: 0' Required: 0' Proposed: 0'
Combined Sides: Existing: 0' Required: 0' Proposed: 0'
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
Variations requested (identifY the exact variances needed): 26410040 Residential Design Standards-
Secttions B. C. D. E
poss
."",,-
605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(1) 970/915,4755 (f) 970/920,2950
VICINITY MAP
Application Keys 1 - 10,17,22,23,37
Application Key 1-3
Included as a part of the Conceptual Application Package
Application Key 4
0<"""'
"""'"
Application Key 5 - 6
Included in Application Key 23, Drawing Submittal
Application Key 7 - 10
Enclosed
Application Key 17
Material and finish samples and representations shall be presented to the committee at the hearing.
Application Key 22
The conceptual development plan was approved with the following conditions,
I. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC
within one year of March 23, 2005 or the conceptual opprovolshall be considered null and
void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code.
2. An elevation representing the carport is required to be submitted as part of final review.
Condition 1 is being met. Condition 2, an elevation representing the carport, will be submitted
prior to the hearing for distribution to the committee members.
Application Key 23
Enclosed
....
Application Key 37
Included in Application Key 23, Drawing Submittal
poss
605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(t) 970/925,4755 (1) 970/920,2950
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
Application Key 7
PrOject Overview
Existing:
The existing development on the property consists of a two level commercial building. The structure
appears as a single srory from Main Street. However, a garden level opens out onto a sunken courtyard not
visible from the street. The total building size is approximately 3,000 gross square feet. All of the exterior
walls are faced wim brick. The building has a flat roof and is connected to the adjacent US Bank building
by a bridge. The eastern third of the property is undeveloped and contains a lawn area of approximately
1,200 square feet.
Proposed:
The proposed development is shown on the enclosed conceptual plans. The structure of the existing
building will be retained with two additional stories constrUcted above. The development proposes to
utilize the remaining undeveloped portion of the site to reallocate the existing commercial space from the
garden level to me Main Street level. The existing office space on this level will be modified to include
more windows facing Main Street. Above the street level will be two levels of residential space. The second
level contains three affordable housing units, 2 two bedrooms and 1 studio. The third level contains 1 free
market three bedroom unit. The garden level of the project will include dedicated storage space for all of
the residential units plus additional storage for the commercial spaces. All levels of the building are
accessible via an elevator.
~..
The principal building materials include a palette of brick, native stone, weathered metal panels, and
contemporary iron detailing. The massing has been designed to compliment without detracting from the
Pitkin County courthouse, the neighborhood's significant historic resource. When vie\:ving the project
from Main Street, the western section of the project has a strong two level base to carry the line of the
existing US Bank building. The third level will be constructed of iron and glass and appear much lighter.
The massing at the corner of Main and Galena is given its own identity and contains a roof shape that not
only acts as a marker but also directs the viewer's attention to the much taller courthouse, The two
sections of the building are separated by a lower hyphen element giving each a separate identity.
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Per the chart of page iv of the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" this project is
subject to the guidelines contained in the introduction as well as chapters 11, 13, and 14. This section will
address this proposed project with respect to each of these standards.
Chapter 11: New Buiidings on Landmark Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits
Policy: In some cases a new primary structure may be constructed on a parcd that includes a landmark structure. In
such cases, it is important that the new building be compatible with the historic structure such that its integrity
is maintained.
This chapter deals with new construction on historic properties. However, since the proposed Main and
Galena project is not located on a landmark lot and does not involve a hisroric lot split, the standards
contained in mis chapter do not apply.
poss
.....'
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
Application Key 7
Chapter 13: Design in the Commercial Core Historic District
Policy: Improvements in the CommerciaL Core Historic District should maintain the integrity of historic resources in
thJ:' arM" At the some time, compatible and creatit.!e design solutioru: should be encouraged.
13.1 Respect the established town grid in an pTOjects. The Main and Galena project respects the alignment of and
is parallel to both Main and Galena Streets.
13.2 Orient a new building parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. The front of the
proposed project is oriented towards Main Street. All of the building lines are parallel with the lot lines.
13.3
Orient a primLlry entrance toward the street. The primary entrance for the commercial space to the west will
face Main Street. The eastern commercial space and the residential spaces will have secondary entrances
along the sides. The main entrance to the commercial addition is recessed back from the building line.
The remodeled commercial space entry will not be recessed since the foundation walls are already in
place. The ability to recess this entry, waterproof the lower level, and maintain an accessible entry at
grade is almost impossible because of the existing foundation walls.
-'"
',,,.
13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. The subject propetry has very little alley frontage. The
principal construction activity does not impact the alley. However, a one-story open carport is proposed
for the small section of the property that does front the alley. This carport is proposed to be
approximately 18' wide and 24' feet deep. In order to accommodate windows and vents from the existing
apartment building, the structure will consist of simple columns and a flat roof.
13.5 Retain the character of the alleys as part of the original town grid. Ai mentioned above, this property has very
little alley frontage and will not alter the character of the existing alley. The only change proposed related
to the alley would be the carport described above which would be located over the existing two parking
spaces.
13.6 Reserved
13.7 Reserved
13.8 Maintain the alignment of the facades at the sidewalk edge. The existing building is located at the sidewalk
edge. The proposed Main and Galena project keeps this alignment in place.
13.9
Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buitdings at the sidewalk. Though the proposed building is
three stories high above main street, the !ower two levels provide a strong base that relates to the US
Bank building to the west. The corner element is taller and relates to the much taller courthouse
building to the east. It should be noted that the height limit in this zone district is forty-two feet. We are
not requesting any variances and in fact are under the height limit for the entite project.
'.
poss
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDElINE REVIEW
Application Key 7
13.10
True three,story buildings witt be considered on a case-by.case basis. Since this project is located in a transitional
location between the two-story US Bank Building and the much taller Pitkin County Courthouse. We
request consideration under this standard. As mentioned above, we are under the allowed height limit.
In addition, the architecture has been designed with a strong two-story base so as to relate to the two-story
US Bank Building to the west. The third level appears much lighter with its iron and glass detailing. The
lightness allows the third level to appear secondary to the two-story base.
13.11
Consider dividing larger buildings into "modu/.es" that are similar in width to buildings seen historicaUy. The project
has been designed so that when viewed from Main Street there is a "hyphen" between the existing
building and the south-east addition,
13.12
Rectangular forms SMuld be dominant on commercial core facades, The western portion of this building has
been designed with this standard in mind. The south east portion of the structure is designed to take
advantage of its comer location and create a transitional element between the US Bank Building and the
courthouse.
~"",.
13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. While this standard is appropriate for the vast majority of the
Commercial Core Historic District, this property lies on the extreme northern edge of the district and
neighbors such as the courthouse, Catholic Church rectory, and the recently remodeled apartment just to
the north do not adhere to this standard, The Main and Galena project is proposing a series of varied
roof shapes designed minimize the bulk of anyone element and create interest. When viewed from Main
Street, however, the building will appear to have a flat roof.
........
13.14 Along the rear fa,ade, using building forms tMt step down towards the allq is encouraged. As mentioned earlier,
no portion of the principal structure will front the alley. Only a small, one-story, carport is proposed.
13 .15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged. The architecture of the Main and
Galena project will in no way imitate traditional architecture. The materials take their cue from the
traditional palette, but their use, mossing, ond detailing should be considered contemporary.
13.16 Develop ground floor Level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity. The existing building will be
remodeled to include storefronts at the lower level. Presently, there are only a few windows in a mostly
brick wall. This remodel should allow this space to be more attractive to a variety of commercial uses.
The additional development to the east is designed for commercial retail on the Main Street level. The
primary entrances to both spaces are at the Main Street Level.
13 .17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor. The Main and Galena project has been
designed with storefront windows facing all streets. The existing commercial space will be remodeled to
include storefront glass. The windows on the second level draw their vertical proportions and spacing
from traditional architecture. Banding and belt course details will be used to express the traditional
distinctions in floor heights. No highly reflective or darkly tinted glass will be used in the project.
13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. Both the US Bank BUlldmQ end the
Pitkin Counry Courthouse contain vertically proportioned windows on the second levels. The proposed
pass
"
1"",
.......
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDElINE REVIEW
Application Key 7
Main and Galena project will utilize similarly proportioned windows on the second level. Contemporary
interpretations of headers, sills, and cornice details are also proposed.
13.19 Maintain the pattern of recessed entryways that are repeated along the block. AB stated previously, the main
entry to the south-east addition is recessed from the building edge and the majority of the building
including the second level is at the sidewalk edge.
13.20 The geneTal alignment of /wrizonta1 features on building fronts should be maintained. The horizontal features of
the Main and Galena building will be in alignment. These features include the storefronts, window
headers and sills, belt coursings, and cornices.
13.21 Special features that highlight buildings on corner lots may be considered. Since this property is a corner lot we
are proposing a corner element that relates to both Main Street and Galena Street. This corner element
also acts as an anchor and a draw to an extremely prominent corner within the town grid. To set this
element apart from the remainder of the building, there is hyphen visible from Main Street. In addition,
the material and detailing of the corner element becomes more contemporary on the upper levels.
Chapter 14: General Guidelines
..."......
",-,,,,
Policy: This chapteT discusses design toPics that may be associated with many types of projects, induding those
affecting inventoried properties as weLL as work in the historic districts
14.1 These standards should not p-revent or inhibit compliance with accessibiiity laws. The owners of the Main and
Galena building intend to conform to all codes and regulations.
14.2 GeneTaHy, a s01ution that is independent from the historic buiiding and does not aiteT its historic characteT is
encouraged. As there is no existing historic resource on site, the conformance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act regulations will not involve a historic building.
14.3 Keep colDY schemes simple, Our color scheme: will be .5impl~, Natural masonry with a mixture of similar
metals will call attention to the massing and details in a quiet and subtle way.
14.4 Coordinating the entire building in one co/.or scheme is usuaLLy more successful than working in a variety of palettes.
The Main and Galena project will use a single coordinated color scheme. Color will not be used to create
interest among the different building elements. Rather, massing is used to create interest.
14.5 Develop a color scheme for the entire building front that coordinates all the fa,ade elements. The color scheme for
this project has been developed as a coordinated scheme. No highlighting of fa~ade elements through
the use of an uncoordinated color is planned.
14.6 Ext""ior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditiona1Ly. Exterior
light fixtures will be contemporary in nature and compliment the exterior architecture. They will all
have shielded light sources. The level of light win be the minimum anowed by the building code.
14.7 Minimize the visuaL impacts of the site and architectumllighting. All site and exterior lighring win conform to
the city's lighting guidelines. All light sources will be shielded. Light sources will be located just above
poss
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
Applicati.on Key 7
the first level to minimize excessive off site light spill. We are not proposing to wash the fa<;:ade with
light.
14.8 Minimize the visual impact of tight spill from a building. All exterior lighting will have shielded sources and be
located and directed to not shine off the property or onto public right-ot-ways.
14.9 Use the gentlest means possible to clean the surface of materia/.-; and features. This project does not involve the
cleaning any existing materials or features.
14.10 Repair deteriorating p-rimary building materia/.-; by patching, Piecing-in, consotidating or otherwise reinforcing the
material. This project does not involve the repair of any deteriorating building materials.
14.11 Plan repainting carefully. This project does not involve repainting.
14.12 Provide weather,p-rotective finish to wood surfaces. All wood surfaces will have a weather-protective finish
applied as part of the construction process.
'\",..
14.13 Leave natural masonry colo1'S unpainted where feasible. We are not proposing to paint any masonry on the
Main and Galena Building.
14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. The Main and Gatena Building will have
no service areas visible from the street. Trash is currently off the alley and will remain unchanged,
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equiPment as seen from the pubtic way. Given the small size of this
structure, there will not be a great deal of roof top equipment. Any roof top equipment that is required
will be screened from street view by parapet walls. No thru wall equipment is proposed.
14.16 Locate standpipes, meters, and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic fa,ade materia/.-;.
There are no existing historic facade materials in the project. The standpipes will be located in
coordination with the fire marshal. All other service equipment will be locared on the north elevation.
Where allowed, remote reads will be utilized if they will rninirllize the vltiual impact of the service
equipment.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. This project does not involve a driveway.
14.18 Garages should dominate the s"eet. This project does not involve a garage. However, there is proposed, a
small carport that is accessed from the alley and is not visible from either Main Street or Galena Street.
14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. This project does not involve a
driveway.
14.20 Offstreet driveways should be removed, if feasible. There is no driveway currently on the property.
poss
."..0
,.....
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDElINE REVIEW
Application Key 7
14.21
For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area rather than pa'Jing an entire
driveway. There is no driveway currently on the property.
14.22
Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. The only parking
area is the existing two-space lot off the alley. No change is proposed to this arrangement.
14.23
Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. The only existing parking area, the two spots off the alley
cannot be seen from the street. No new parking areas are planed.
14.24
Large parking areas, especially those for large commercial and muLtifamily uses, should not be visually obtrusive. The
only existing parking area, the two spots off the alley cannot be seen from the street. No new parking
areas are planed.
14.25
Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. The commercial tenants will have signage visible from
Main Street. All signs will be attached directly to the building. All signs will conform to the city's signage
code.
r-
~
14.26 Sign materials should be similar to those used historically. The materials used for the signage will compliment
the materials used on the building. Principal materials will be metal brackets and metal letters, While
highlighted for visibility, the color of all signage will compliment the building.
14.27 Use signs to relate to other buildings on the street and to emplwsize architecturaL features. A survey of the
immediate neighborhood shows that all but one business utilizes signage affixed directly to the building
or graphics on an awning. It is anticipated that the Main and Galena Building will follow this lead.
14.28 Pictographic symbols are encouraged on signs. The design of the sign content will be up to the individual
tenants. The building covenants will dictate the location size, style and general color of all signage.
14.29 ILLuminate a sign such that it compliments the overall composition of the site. All signage on the project will be
illuminated in such way so that the light source is shielded. In addition, any illumination of the signage
will be designed to illuminate only the signage.
.....;