HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050810ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 10, 2005
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON - Please visit 990 Gibson Ave. and 332 W.
Main on your own time.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - June 8, 2005, and July 27, 2005
III. Public Comments
IV. Commissioner member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #29)
VIII.
IX.
OLD BUSINESS
A. 920/930 Matchless Dr. - Major Development (Conceptual)
and Variances, Public Hearing - cont'd from July 27th, 2005
(15 min.)
B. 435 W. Main - Historic Landmark Designation, Major
Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, and
Variances, Public Hearing - cont'd from July 27, 2005
(25 min.)
NEW BUSINESS
A. 990 Gibson - Major Development - (Conceptual), Public
Hearing (15 min.)
B. 332 W. Main - Major Development (Conceptual) and
Variances, Public Hearing (30 min.)
C. 701 W. Main St. - Minor Development, Public Hearing
(25 min.)
X. ADJOURN - 7p.m.
1TU\ A
MEMORANDUM
,,,....
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
920 and 930 Matchless Drive- Major Development Review (Conceptual), On-site
Relocation, Demolition and Variances- Public Hearing
DATE:
August 10,2005 (Public Hearing continued from July 27,2005)
SUMMARY: The project before HPC involves a large lot that contains two miner's cottages.
The cottages were moved to Matchless Drive along with two other Victorians (one of which has
been since been demolished) in about the 1960's.
The applicant plans to pursue a lot split through the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council to divide the site approximately in half. The miner's cottage at 920 Matchless and a new
unit built behind it will be free market. 930 Matchless will contain one free market unit in the
Victorian house, and an ADU over a garage at the back of the lot. At this time, the applicant is
only prepared for HPC review of the 930 Matchless side of the property.
This neighborhood, which is zoned R-6, like the West End, was down-zoned when annexed into
the city some years ago through the designation. of the area as a PUD (Planned Unit
Development). The PUD established that no single dwelling unit in this subdivision can be
larger than 2,486 square feet. The applicant will have to amend the PUD approval if they wish to
incorporate any HPC FAR bonus on the property. In addition, approval will be needed to
increase the number of dwelling units on the site beyond what currently exists. This does not
apply to the proposed ADU on 930 Matchless (ADU's are not considered "units of density), but
the right to construct a new house at the back of 920 Matchless Drive will require approval.
HPC reviewed this project on July 27, 2005 and continued it for restudy of the addition to the
miner's cottage. In particular the board was interested in the linking element tucking under the
eave at the back of the historic cabin, pulling the railing on the new addition away from the
cabin, minimizing the south facing dormer on the addition, and reducing the prominence of the
lightwell next to the front porch.
Staff finds that the areas for restudy have been accomplished, and the design guidelines are
met. Major Development (Conceptual) approval and variances are recommended with
conditions.
APPLICANT: Peter and Chris Dodaro, represented by Kim Raymond Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2737-074-22-001.
ADDRESS: 920/930 Matchless Drive, Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
I
ZONING: R-6 PUD.
"'""'"
",;/
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, amI then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
-'"'.
Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the """
appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be
the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project
(note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
1. Why is the property significant?
2. What are the key features of the property?
3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes?
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score?
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property?
The properties are significant as part of a relatively small group of remaining miner's cottages in
Aspen that have not been significantly expanded. They have been moved to an area that contains
few Victorian buildings. These cabins still retain a small scale and have had a number of
alterations that may be reversed.
Desil!n Guideline review
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A."
-'"'
-
2
..,~~'"
Miner's cottage addition
A one story addition that appears to be non-historic is proposed to be removed from the back of
930 Matchless.
At the previous HPC meeting, feedback was given by staff and HPC that a more distinct
connector piece was needed between the new and old construction, and that the addition was
overwhelming the scale of the miner's cottage. These issues have been resolved successfully
along with an improvement to details of the design such as a prominent dormer and lightwell.
Garal!e/ADU
We have few concerns with the design for the detached new garage/ADU at 930 Matchless. It is
separated from the miner's cottages and does not have a strong relationship to a street.
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to
an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.l10.E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
3
Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to remove a non-historic addition from the cottage
and to make a relatively small new addition, which is commendable. No information is given """'
about restoration work that will take place, although some of the specifics would likely need to ,"";
be delayed until a "demolition and discovery" provided more information about the original
location of window openings, etc. With the condition that staff and monitor work with the
applicant to determine all reasonable exterior restoration opportunities, including placing siding
on all elevations of the cabin, restoring the location and design of original windows and doors,
and reversing minor alterations, staff recommends that the bonus be awarded finding that criteria
a through f are met.
ON-SITE RELOCA nON
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; QI
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; QI
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated properties; and
.-,
'..,,,""
Additionally, for approval to relocate all ofthe followinl! criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to lift 930 Matchless to construct a basement and then
to put it back in the same place. Staff finds the review standards are met.
"'"
"......
4
DEMOLITION
The applicant proposes to remove non-historic additions from the miner's cottages as part of
their Conceptual Development. 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: It is unclear where these buildings were moved from, therefore we cannot use
Sanborn maps to determine their exact original size. From a site visit, it appears that the areas
proposed to be removed are non-historic. Some limited removal of siding or interior finishes
might be appropriate to confirm those assumptions.
ON-SITE PARKING
The application originally requested a parking waiver for the anticipated redevelopment of the
whole 920/930 Matchless site. The applicant has removed 920 Matchless from the table at this
time. The proposal for 930 Matchless generates a requirement for three parking spaces, which
are being provided. Therefore no waiver is necessary at this time.
SETBACK V ARlANCES
The application includes the following variance requests: a 4' front yard setback variance
because of the existing location of the front porch, and a west sideyard setback variance of up to
5' to accommodate the proximity of lightwell on the west side of 930 Matchless Drive to the
proposed new lot line.
HPC must make a finding that the setback variance:
'..".'.'
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
5
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: The front setback variance simply allows an existing condition to remain. The
sideyard variance is internal to the property and only permits a lightwell. Staff supports the
vanances.
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 (Conceptual),
Demolition, Relocation, Setback variances, and an FAR bonus with the following conditions:
I. A 500 square foot FAR bonus is granted with the condition that staff and monitor work
with the applicant to determine all reasonable exterior restoration opportunities, including
placing siding on all elevations of the cabin, restoring the location and design of original
windows and doors, and reversing minor alterations.
2. A 4' front yard setback variance is granted to legalize the existing location of the front
porch, and a west sideyard setback variance of up to 5' is granted to accommodate the
proximity of lightwell on the west side of 930 Matchless Drive to the proposed new lot
line.
3. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC
within one year of August 10,2005 or the Conceptual approval shall be considered null
and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
6
~
...,~
-
....,,,..'
"'"'"
....",~,.
Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines Conceptual Review
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
D In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in
a historic district.
D It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
D Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
D A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
D Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a
new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
D The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
D In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
10.1 Preserve an 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 addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
lOA Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may
be considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
D An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
D A I-story connector is preferred.
D The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
7
D Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
D For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
D If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
D Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
D The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
D The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
D A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
D In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that
orients to the street.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
D Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
D The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
D The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
D They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
D Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
D Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
D On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
D Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
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.
8
:)
"""'
"'..,-,,..'
-
1]:4-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer~
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director.jA'A-
THRU:
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Intern
RE:
990 Gibson Avenue- Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Public
Hearing
DATE:
August 10,2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is defined as Unit Two of the Alpine Acres Condomiums. It
is located between Gibson Avenue to the west and Matchless Drive to the east. The primary
fa<;ade faces Gibson Avenue. Unit One and Unit Two of the condominiumized lot were moved
to this location and are currently linked together by a car port that services Unit One. The subject
house, 990 Gibson Avenue, comprises a designated one story Victorian cottage that has two 1979
non-historic additions: a two story addition located on the east elevation and a single story two
car detached garage. The applicant is proposing a modest expansion. There are no variances
created by the proposed addition.
Staff finds that the proposed addition is in compliance with the Design Guidelines regarding
scale, proportion, massing, and height. The proposed single story addition mimics the scale and
proportion of the historic resource; emphasizing the Victorian house and reducing the perceived
mass of the two story 1979 addition. The applicant does not propose to alter the historic
resource.
APPLICANT: Steven and Sharon Van Meter, owners, represented by Warren Palmer Architect.
PARCEL ID: 2737-074-10-002.
ADDRESS: 990 Gibson Avenue, Unit 2 of the Alpine Acres Condominium, City and Townsite
of Aspen.
ZONING: R-6.
CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residence.
~-
I
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed 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.
'"""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 structllre(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 important as an example of a late Victorian era cottage, built in the 1880s.
Consistent with other modest Victorian cottages in Aspen, it is a wood frame structure with gable
roofs and an L-shape, representative of Aspen's mining history.
The property has undergone significant alterations over the years: window alterations,
reconstruction of porch roof, and a two story addition and detached garage. Key features of the
property are that the characteristic gable, bay, and porch relationships are intact.
We are unable to conclude the original location of the historic resource: the adjacent house that
shares the condominiumized lot appears to have been moved to its location and we do not have
Sanborn maps of this specific area of Aspen. It currently stands in a residential neighborhood
that includes other late Victorian homes moved there in the 1960s.
"'"
2
-~
The proposal before HPC is to create an new addition that will be connected to an existing non-
historic addition. The historic structure is not being altered in this proposal. Very little of the
existing building fabric will be removed (I 'Yo) of the 1979 addition. There is 482.4 square feet of
allowable FAR remaining after the proposed addition.
--
Desil!n Guideline review
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed,
are included in the memo. Staff finds the design project to be well designed, compliant with the
design guidelines, and in character with the Victorian home. The addition will provide one
bedroom, closet, bath, and a basement level.
The proposed addition is located off of the east elevation of the non-historic two story addition,
opposite of the primary west elevation along Gibson Street and in compliance with section 10.8
of the design guidelines:
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original
proportions and character to remain prominent.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will
not alter the exterior mass of a building.
The addition will be visible from Matchless Drive. Staff finds that the small scale and proportion
of the one story addition positively contributes to the property, by minimizing the appearance of
the two story addition that currently faces Matchless Drive and drawing a connection to the scale
of the historic resource. The character of the proposed new addition positively enhances the
historic resource by representing a design that was inspired by the nature of the Victorian in an
appropriate way, as per section 10.3 of the design guidelines:
~
......
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of
the primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
D An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on
the parcel.
D Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
Staff finds that the gable roof forms are reminiscent of the historic resource and contribute to the
success of the proposed addition. .-,
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
Final Review will address the details of the proposed expansion. HPC will be looking for
elements that will distinguish the addition as a product of its own time, as per section 10.3 of the
design guidelines. In this regard, the 1979 addition is already somewhat confusing; the proposed
addition should reference the miner's cottage, yet represent the contemporary era through
materials and/or other architectural elements.
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. _
-'><,v"
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development approval
(Conceptual) for 990 Gibson Avenue as proposed with the following conditions:
I. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(I) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
2. 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.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #_Series of2005."
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
-
4
Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 990 Gibson Avenue, Conceptual Review
""........
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of
the primary building is maintained.
. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
1004 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
. A change in s.etbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques
that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
Ii An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize
the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
, . Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
. Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow tile original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on
the parcel.
. Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
. They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
. Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
5
. On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
. Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used
traditionally.
. Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
6
.-,
".,_~;i
~
~~
-
1:L s.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
-S\~
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
THRU:
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Intern
RE:
332 West Main Street, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Demolition,
and Variances- Public Hearing
DATE:
August 10, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is a large two and a half story Queen Anne Style house
located on the northeast corner of Third and Main Streets, a contributing resource in the Main
Street Historic District. The historic structure was built in 1889 as a residence for J. W. Taylor
and his family and was considered one of the more prestigious buildings in Aspen with it's
decorative barge board and exterior shingles. The building has undergone various alterations
since the 19th century including a 537 square foot rear addition, a flat roof carport, and \vindow
alterations on the main street fayade. The dates of the alterations are unknown and considered
non-historic. The proposed addition is for a living area, kitchen, powder room and bedrooms that
_.. comprise a single family house.
The application before HPC is for the demolition of the non-historic addition and carport and the
construction of a new addition and garage. The applicant proposes to remove the curb cut and
the parking space along Third Street, and relocate it to the alley accessed single-car garage. The
property is short one onsite parking space and will remain so with the new proposal. The Zoning
Officer will determine whether HPC needs to grant a parking waver for the nonconformity
which, if required, will be discussed at Final Review. The applicant requests setback variances
and a 500 square foot FAR bonus in light of rehabilitation work recently completed or agreed to
on the historic stmcture. The proposed addition requires 190 square feet of the FAR bonus to
comply with code.
Staff recommends that HPC grant the 0' rear yard and 3' east side yard setback variances and a
parking waiver. Staff recommends that HPC grant 190 square feet of FAR, rather than the full
500 square foot FAR bonus. Staff has concerns with the proportion ofthe west elevation of the
proposed addition and recommends restudy. Because only minor alterations need to be made
to bring the proposed west elevation into compliance with the design guidelines, the applicant
is encouraged to bring a restudy of the proportion to the Conceptual Review on August lOth
for review and possible approval by the HPC.
"-
I
APPLICANT: Alice Brien, represented by L. John Muir of John Muir Architects, Inc.
-.,
...""
PARCELID: 2735-124-41-007.
ADDRESS: 332 West Main Street, Lot K & the west Y, of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
/'"'ll.
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 large Queen Anne style house represents the residence of J. W. Taylor; an influential
businessman during Aspen's mining days. Taylor was a partner in the prominent Taylor and
Bruton Sampling Works, a company that dealt with handling and marketing ores and occupied a
.."..~
2
full city block in Aspen. The property is locally significant in its association with an individual
person and its contribution to the Main Street Historic District.
Key features of the property include the unconventional use of shingles instead of the typical
horizontal clapboard siding, decorative barge board, halftimber in attic and gable ends, corbelled
chimneys with flared tops and the original wrap around porch with square posts on flared tops.
The house is located within the Main Street historic district among modest miner's cottages and
adjacent to large buildings. It is a distinct landmark along Main Street which contributes to a
positive relationship between the low scale of the miner's cottages and that of new construction.
The proposed work includes rehabilitation measures to the historic house including removing the
non-historic window in the gable end along Main Street and material restoration, which will
increase the property's integrity assessment score.
The proposed addition will require an FAR bonus, as it is deficit 190 square feet of allowable
floor area. Staff recommends that HPC grant only 190 square feet of the 500 square foot FAR
bonus, limiting any future d(;:velopment.
Desil!n Guideline review
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
_>" of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
~, guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed,
are included in the memo.
Staff Response: Staff is primarily concerned with the west elevation that faces Third Street, as
the addition will not be visible on the Main Street facade. The character of the proposed west
elevation of the historic resource is broken into a few different modules that are interesting and
unique.
As recommended in the design guidelines, the height of the addition is significantly lower than
the large two and a half story historic resource.
The proposed addition is setback from the historic resource only 3 feet and does not have a
connector piece that HPC typically requires for a new addition. Staff finds that with the
constraints of the property, a connector piece is not a viable option. Shifting the addition to the
east is not a recommended option, as the applicant is already requesting an east side yard setback
variance of 3 feet from the required 5 feet.
3
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it
back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the
historic building.
D A I-story connector is preferred.
D The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize
the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
D Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
"""'\
"
Staff finds that the wide proportion of the west elevation of the addition does not positively
reflect the proportions of the historic building. Staff recommends a restudy of the west elevation
of the addition to make it more narrow and maybe taller; similar to that accomplished on the
south and east elevations of the proposed addition.
Staff is concerned with the complicated gable roof form on the proposed west elevation ofthe
addition and its impact on the massing and proportion of the addition in relationship to the -
historic resource. The proposed gable roof on the west elevation has a double ridge element on
the side closest to the historic resource. This element complicates the roof form and widens the
appearance of the addition. The extreme slope of the historic resource presents a challenge to the
roof form of the new addition, especially without a one story connector piece. Staff recommends
that the applicant simplifY the roofform of the west gable end.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those ofthe historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
D Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
D Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
D On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in
the context.
D Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the
street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
Staff finds that the new addition is recognizable as a contemporary addition. The covered porch
element incorporates negative space into the proposed west elevation, breaking up the mass of
the addition and referencing the nature of the historic porch.
--.
4
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary
building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier features.
D A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a
differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
Staff is concerned with the design of the proposed chimney and finds the triangular cap
inconsistent with the Queen Anne style. Staff feels that a chimney on the addition is acceptable
and recommends a restudy orremoval of the cap element.
"..""'-'
There is a proposed window well off of the west elevation of the new addition, located close to
the historic resource, and extending out almost as far as the historic resource. As per Section
9.7, a lightwell is generally not permitted on a wall that faces the street. As long as the lightwell
is located behind the frontrnost wall of the historic resource, it is in compliance with the
Residential Design Standards. Staff finds that the lightwell will not be readily visible from Third
Street and will not distract from the architecture. The application does not specify whether the
lightwell will be covered with a grate or surrounded by a fence. Staff finds that the location of
the lightwell is acceptable and recommends that a grate cover be used given its intended location.
-
9.7 A Iightwell may be used to permit light into helow-grade living space.
D . In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards ).
D The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
D A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a
simple fence or rail.
DEMOLITION
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing addition on the historic Victorian era home.
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,
5
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 stmcture 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: Staff finds that the non-historic addition proposed for demolition meets criteria
d. Staff finds that all of the criteria are met for approval to demolish: the addition does not
contribute to the historic resource or district. Staff feels that the proposed addition and
rehabilitation efforts improve the historic resource and Main Street Historic District.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
.....""~,
SETBACK V ARlANCES
Staff recommends that HPC grant the requested setback variances for the new addition. This
entails allowing a 3 foot east sideyard setback, where a 5 foot setback is required and a 0 foot
rear yard setback variance, where a 5 foot setback is required. Staff finds that the requested
variances are acceptable considering the constraints of the lot size, and in light of the
rehabilitation efforts and removal of the carport and curb cut.
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are
as follows:
HPC must make a finding that the setback variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: The requested variances are located on the alley and the rear of the east lot line.
Both locations are fairly inconspicuous and do not appear to negatively impact the historic
-.
"-"",.
6
historic structure or the historic district. Staff recommends HPC discuss the adjacent structure to
the east to determine whether the 3 foot setback will have an adverse impact.
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to
an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
,1-.
__ 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26A15.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
Staff Response: The applicant is proposing or has already performed the following
improvements to the historic Victorian: most of existing roof and roof underlayment replaced;
portions of rotting fascia replaced; sagging front porch stabilized structurally, portions of shingle
and brick repaired or replaced; window in upper gable, Main Street side to be restored to original
configuration; and the entire structure repainted. Staff finds that the proposed rehabilitation of
the historic resource qualifies this project for an FAR bonus. The proposed addition is deficient
190 square feet of FAR. Staffrecommends that HPC grant 190 square feet of the maximum 500
square foot bonus to allow the proposed addition to be built.
7
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
"""'
,,~,;
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
· continue the application to Ii date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant approval for Major Development
(Conceptual), Demolition, Variances, and an FAR bonus for 322 West Main Street, Lot K & the
west Y, of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the
following conditions;
I. Restudy the proposed chimney cap element for HPC Final Review.
2. Restudy the proportion of the proposed west elevation.
3. Restudy and simplify the double ridge roof form of the west elevation of the new
addition.
4. The following setback variances are granted: 3 foot east sideyard setback and 0 foot rear
yard setback
5. A 190 square foot FAR bonus is granted in light of rehabilitation to the historic resource.
6. The non-historic addition is approved for demolition.
7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
-,
Exhibits:
Resolution # ---' Series of 2005
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
-
8
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 322 West Main Street, Conceptual Review"
9.7 A Iightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
. In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential
Design Standards).
. The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
. A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be
surrounded by a simple fence or rail.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of
the primary building is maintained.
. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be ayoided.
. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
1004 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
""., . A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
...... material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques
that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
. An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it
back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
. A I-story connector is preferred.
. The connector should be a minimum of I 0 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
. The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize
the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
. Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roofforms should be similar to those of the historic building.
-
9
. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
12.3 Where one exists, maintain the traditional character of an alley.
. Locate buildings and fences along the alley's edge to maintain its narrow width.
. Paving alleys is strongly discouraged.
12.6 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street.
. Provide auto access along an alley when feasible.
. New curb cuts are not permitted.
. Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
. Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb
cuts are not permitted.
. If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, iffeasible.
. Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be
placed on the alley.
10
--.
,.......
~""'
-
-,
8.
MEMORANDUM
"""0'._
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Joyce Allga~ Community Development Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Ofllcer
RE:
435 W. Main Street, Aspen Jewish Community Center Historic Designation,
Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, and Variances- Public
Hearing Continued from July 27, 2005
DATE:
August 10,2005
SUMMARY: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen requests approval to construct a
Community Center on the property that is currently occupied by L' Auberge.
......~~
The applicant has been before the bo~rd eight times in the last year to discuss this project. The
meetings have involved an on-going evaluation of the appropriate treatment of the 1940's era
cabins, and a nLUnber of different schemes for redevelopment of the site. HPC's concerns in
general have been preserving as many of the original cabins in place as possible and finding a
balance between the floor area that is allowable for the property, and the scale of the cabins and
other designated buildings in the district.
".-..
At the most recent meetings, staff and HPC emphasized our interest in seeing the new
construction broken down into at least two buildings. Restoring some of the historic open space
in the foreground of the cabins was prioritized, as was reducing the height of the new construction
directly adjacent to the cabins.
The applicant has submitted a revised plan for HPC review. The project now meets the
applicable design guidelines and in staffs opinion, will be in character with the Main Street
Historic District. Staff recommends that HPC support Historic Designation, Major Development
(Conceptual), Demolition of the more recent construction, and setback variances to legalize the
existing location of the original cabins. Off-Site Relocation for the two westernmost original
cabins should be delayed until a location is determined. It has been discussed previously that the
proposal is under-parked which will need to be discussed during the upcoming P&Z and Council
reviews, so HPC parking waiver will be handled at Final.
As the project has evolved, additional encroachments into the setbacks have developed. The
proposal needs front yard setback variances for the auditorium portion of the new building, and
variances on the minimum distance between buildings in areas along the back of the auditorium
and the front of the historic cabins. The building appears to meet the height limit. FAR must be
confirmed. Staff recommends that Conceptual be granted so that progress can be made and
resolution of remaining dimensional variances be left for Final.
BACKGROUND: HPC held a work session on this project in February 2004. Discussion
centered on the size of a proposed new structure and its relationship to the small cabins.
Following the work session, the applicant made some adjustments to the plan and had a formal
Conceptual hearing on July 14, 2004. The staff recommendation at that meeting was a
continuance and removal of all of the non-historic cabins on the site in order to restore the
setting. HPC expressed continued reservations about the proposed massing. At the time, all nine
historic cabins were being retained, in their original locations.
For an October 27th, 2004 meeting, the applicant revisited the entire design, and brought on a
new architect. The plan evolved into two detached structures. A new pre-school building
proposed for the east end of the site displaced three original cabins, which were discussed for off-
site relocation. The concept received positive feedback in terms of improved relationship to the
scale and architectural character of the Main Street District, but there were concerns expressed
about the loss of cabins and obstructing views of the remaining units with new construction. In
addition, a pull in/drop off access from Main Street was debated.
The applicant returned to HPC on November 17th, 2004 with a plan that did not include a staff
memo due to their late submission. This plan removed another cabin off of the alley, and placed
it, and one of the Third Street cabins, at the front of the site. Two Third Street cabins were still
slated for off-site relocation, two cabins were relocated, and five cabins were preserved in their
historic locations. HPC continued to show some enthusiasm for the overall concept, although
staff expressed regret that the board was discussing further compromises to the historic cabins
without the applicable review criteria before them.
The January 12th, 2005 meeting saw another revision that built upon the November 17th scheme.
A staff evaluation was presented, along with referral comments from Debbie Abele, author of
Aspen's Historic Preservation Ordinance and a consultant who has a lot of experience dealing
with post-war resources not dissimilar to 435 W. Main Street. Ms. Abele's evaluation of the plan
was that it would no longer allow for the historic designation of the property. Most of the cabins
(7 of 9) were retained, however, all were moved from their original locations. The five cabins
that had been retained along the alley were moved forward to accommodate parking. Four of
these five cabins were joined together to create affordable housing units. The two cabins that
were being relocated to the front of the property are linked to the significantly larger new
buildings proposed for the site.
On February 9th, 2005, additional discussion led to an HPC determination that one of two site
plans would be acceptable, either retaining the cabins in place along Third Street, and as much of
the alley as possible, or retaining only the alley cabins in place. Cabins were not to be moved or
linked together in an obvious manner.
On April 13th, 2005, the applicant submitted two plans as directed by HPC. The majority of the
board preferred detached buildings for the new construction and there was some additional
discussion about the intensity of the program.
-
~.,~",,'
~.......
, On June 8"1, 2005 the board responded to two schemes and gave specific direction about
remaining threshold concerns. The application was continued to August 10th, 2005. -
2
.~... APPLICANT: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman
"'- Planning Services and Arthur Chabon, architect.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-001.
ADDRESS: 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: "0, Office." As of April 2005, new zoning, called "MU, Mixed Use," went into effect
on Main Street.
CURRENT LAND USE: A 27,000 square foot lot containing 13 lodge units, an office, and a
manager's house.
HISTORlC DESIGNATION
26A15.030B. Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures,
an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or
objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance.
The significance of the property located at 435 W. Main Street will be evaluated
according to the following criteria:
1. The property was constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which
the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity
of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to one
or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and can be identified and
documented,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
"~,"'''L
.......
Staff Response: According to the Assessor's
office, the cabins on this site were built in 1940.
Quoting from the white paper that has been
prepared by the Community Development
Department titled, "Aspen's 20th Century
Architecture: Rustic Style Buildings,"
-.""-
"In Aspen, Colorado, Rustic Style cabins used
as lodges and residences, began to be built in
the 1930's, though the tourism industry was
-
3
Circa Mid_20th Century photo
of 435 W. Main Street
still in its infancy. The Waterman Cabins, built in 1937, and once located at the corner of7'h
and Hallam Streets, have since been demolished, but were one of Aspen's first group of small
tourist cottages. The Swiss Chalets (now L' Auberge, and suffering from the "chalet"
misnomer- as they are indeed, in the rustic style) are located at 435 W. Main Street, and were
built during roughly the same period. Prescient, and perhaps with a nod to the automobile's
growing influence in American society, a motor court configuration at the Chalets allowed
guests to drive right up to the individual units."
Staff finds that 435 W. Main Street helps to illustrate the trends related to early development of
tourism in Aspen and therefore meets "Criterion A."
"Criterion B" can be difficult to apply for recent past properties because for the most part they
are associated with persons who are living and whose contributions to history cannot be
evaluated without bias. At present, staff does not have information that would support a finding
that "Criterion B" is met.
The Rustic Style paper defines the distinctive characteristics that must be present in order to meet
"Criterion C." They are:
.
Hand built structures that are constructed out of locally available materials, usually log;
stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney. Later
examples include machine cut logs.
The buildings are usually single story, with a low-pitched gable roof.
True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be
dressed and flattened for stacking or may be in rough form. Chinking infills the
irregularities between the logs either way. Machine made buildings mimic these
details, though without the chinking.
Window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used to
finish out the window openings.
Building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements.
The roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends are often infilled with standard
framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space.
The emphasis is on hand-made materials and the details stem from the use of the
materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Staff finds that 435 W. Main Street exhibits all of these fundamental characteristics and meets
"Criterion C." These small cabins are hand-built, rectangular frame structures with board and
batten siding, which was a common material for the style along with log. Each building has a
chimney and a limited nllmber of small windows.
The property meets two of the three designation criteria, which leaves the question of integrity to
be evaluated. Integrity can be measured through the scoring system that HPC has developed.
Over the last few months, Staff has completed site visits and an initial assessment for all of the
remaining Rustic style buildings constructed during the local period of significance, which has
been identified as pre-World War II until the early 1970's. At least 20 buildings exist in town
that might be considered important within the Rustic style, including residences and lodges.
4
---
...,
-'""".-
Only four of these properties, 308 Park Avenue, 300 W. Main Street, 501 W. Main Street, and
__ 304 W. Hallam Street, are currently landmarked.
.~
In general the L' Auberge cabins are well preserved. Two are connected together. It is not clear
if this is an original condition or not. It dates from at least 1969 based on aerial photographs.
Staffs integrity assessment for 435 W. Main is that the property warrants 85 out of 100 points,
which is above the 75 point minimum requirement. The least successful aspect of the property's
integrity is preservation of the setting, which has been greatly impacted.
Staff supports landmark designation for this property. For clarification, designations are always
defined by the entire boundary of the property, and not limited to individual structures on a lot.
HPC may recommend approval or disapproval of the landmark request, or a continuance for
additional information necessary to make a decision. The board may choose to accept the
integrity analysis provided by staff or formulate its own rating for the property.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evil/ence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focllses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
435 W. Main Street clearly faces a nllmber of redevelopment constraints despite its large size.
About % of the site is occupied by small cabins that HPC would not like to see relocated or
obstructed any more than necessary. In addition, according to an agreement made between the
previous property owner and an adjacent neighbor, no development or parking can take place
along the western end of the alley. This restricts an area that would otherwise be a good location
for a stmcture or parking.
"...-...
-
5
The redevelopment schemes being presented to HPC represent approximately 19,000 square feet
of new construction (not including the basement.) The existing cabins account for roughly 7% of
that number. The recent change in zoning on Main Street caused the maximum allowable FAR
to increase from 20,250 square feet to that plus an allowance of up to 6,750 square feet of
affordable or free market housing. There is precedent on Main Street for large buildings,
including 7'h and Main Affordable Housing and the new Christiania Lodge, however this project
is particularly challenged by the fact that it needs to be respectful of historic cabins that are very
small.
""""
.......,
As noted above, the initial concern with this project was an imbalance created by placing one
large building at the western end of the site. The board suggested that the mass be broken up into
more than one building, which led to many studies over the last several months.
The plan that has been submitted for this meeting addresses the concerns previously brought up
by staff and HPC. We find that this design is very appropriate for Main Street and also
sympathetic to the cabins. The new building makes many references to the size, shape, and scale
of the landmark buildings, 7 of 9 of which will be preserved in their original locations with no
additions. Some of the open area courtyard that used to exist facing Main Street is re-
established. Although we would like to see more open space next to the cabins, there is a
balance of many concerns being achieved. We extend thanks to the applicants for continuing to
work towards a very good project.
DEMOLITION
-.....'''"'
The applicant proposes to remove all of the non-historic buildings on this property, including the
1990's cabins along Main Street, and the manager's house at the corner of Main and Fourth
Streets. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any
one 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. "'-,
6
Staff Response: The buildings proposed to be removed are more recent construction than the
''''- cabins and do not contribute to the historic significance of the property.
RELOCATION
The applicant proposes to relocate the two western-most cabins. Relocation shall be approved
if HPC finds the following with regard to the subject structure:
I. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will
not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
.-"'''''
Additionallv. for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
I. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security; and
"-
Staff Response: The best way to preserve the historic cabins is to keep them in active use.
Plans currently show four of the cabins being converted into affordable housing.
Because this is such an unusual circumstance, with so many buildings involved in the historic
significance of the site, the board has indicated willingness to allow a small number to be moved
off-site. Staff supports that idea and recommends that approval of the exact location for the
buildings be deferred until Final review. The applicant has additional work to do to find a
suitable home for the cabins.
SETBACK V ARlANCES
As a formality, staff recommends that HPC grant variances for the historic cabins in order to
legalize their location with the required setbacks. This entails allowing a zero setback along the
east and south property lines for the cabins only. The criteria for granting setback variances, per
Section 26A15.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows:
HPC must make a finding that the setback variance:
7
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
-
,--..,,,,.
Staff Finding: The cabins are historic buildings III their original locations and therefore
variances are appropriate.
ON-SITE PARKING
It is not clear how much on-site parking is required by the proposal since the Municipal Code
states that parking requirements for both civic and daycare uses are established through Special
Review at the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant can accommodate 5-6 spaces
along the alley. While three additional spots between the alley cabins are usable, they are not
represented as formal parking areas because of their narrowness. In fact, they will likely be used
as staff parking. The applicant is asking that HPC waive on-site parking and cash-in-lieu
payment for everything in excess of 5-6 parking spaces.
In order to grant a parking waiver, HPC must find that the review standards of Section
26.415.llO.C of the Municipal Code are met. They require that:
1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu 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, however, we would like to defer the variance until input has been received from P&Z
and Council as to the overall appropriateness of the project's impacts.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines" have been met with regard to the height, scale, massing and
proportions of the proposed Aspen Jewish Community Center. We recommend HPC approval for
Historic Designation, Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Setback variances for
the cabins with the following conditions:
I. Final resolution of Relocation should be delayed until a site has been determined.
2. Final resolution of Parking variances should be delayed until after the project has been
reviewed by P&Z and Council.
3. HPC will be asked to approve setback variances for the new building at Final review.
4. HPC hereby grants the required setback variances for the historic cabins.
-,
8
'-'"., ~
............
-
~
5. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC
within one year of August 10,2005 or the Conceptual approval shall be considered null
and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code.
6. HPC may want to consider a recommendation to P&Z and Council that it appears,
preliminarily, that waivinglreducing parking meets the Code standard of enhancing the
integrity of this landmark property, and HPC will be prepared to grant the request at Final
ifP&Z and Council agree from a land use perspective.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #_, Series of2005.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant guidelines
B. Current application
9
Exhibit A
Relevant Design Guidelines for Conceptual Development Review, 435 W. Main
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 entiryly different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
D If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots.
Both lots shall remain landmarked properties.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
D The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
D Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
1104 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
D The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
D The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
D They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
D Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
D Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
D On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
D Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
12.1 Respect historic settlement patterns.
D Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes
consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space.
12.3 Where one exists, maintain the traditional character of an alley.
D Locate buildings and fences along the alley's edge to maintain its narrow width.
D Paving alleys is strongly discouraged.
1204 Where a sidewalk exists, maintain its historic material and position.
10
..-,
"
"""
-
D Historically, sidewalks were detached from the curb, and separated by a planting strip.
12.5 Provide a walk to the primary building entry from the public sidewalk.
>" 12.6 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street.
D Provide auto access along an alley when feasible.
D New curb cuts are not permitted.
D Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut.
12.8 Provide a front yard that is similar in depth to its neighbors.
See the guidelines chapter: Lot and Streetscape Features.
12.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings
during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street.
D The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattem of the block.
D A structure should appear to have one primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to
the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street.
12.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard
dimensions seen in the block.
D These include front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks.
D In some areas, setbacks vary, but generally fall within an established range. A greater variety
in setbacks is inappropriate in this context.
D Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block.
12.11 Keep the front setback of a new structure in line with the range of setbacks on the
block seen historically during the mining era.
12.12 Maintain similar side yard setbacks of a new structure or an addition to those seen
traditionally in the block during the mining era.
12.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the
district during the mining era.
D Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height.
12.15 On larger structures, subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are
similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era commercial buildings seen
traditionally on Main Street.
D Other, subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form.
D Each identifiable mass should have its own entrance.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
D Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts
are not permitted.
D If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, iffeasible.
D Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be
placed on the alley.
14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
D Large parking areas should be screened from view from the street.
D Divide large parking lots with planting areas. (Large parking areas are those with more than
five cars.)
D Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature.
D Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas should be screened from adjacent lots
and the street.
~~....
II
14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses, should
not be visually obtrusive.
D Locate parking areas to the rear of the property, when physical conditions permit.
D An alley should serve as the primary access to parking, when physical conditions permit.
D Parking should not be located in the front yard, except in the driveway, if it exists.
--
-
--.
'..,,-'
12