HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050608ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 8, 2005
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NONE
I. Roll call
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 No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #20)
VIII.
OLD BUSINESS
A. 435 W. Main St. - Historic Landmark Designation, Major
Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, and
Variances, continued Public Hearing from April 27, 2005.
(40 min.)
B. Aspen Meadows Conference Hall - review of materials
(20 min.)
IX.
NEW BUSINESS
A. "Dwell Architects" improvements to downtown malls -
Minor Development (30 min.)
WORKSESSION
A. 308 E. Hopkins Avenue
XI. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
435 W. Main Street, Aspen Jewish Community Center Historic Designation,
Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, and Variances- Public
Hearing Continued from April 13, 2005
DATE:
June 8, 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 board seven 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 number 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 last meeting, staff 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 two schemes for HPC review. Scheme A continues to pursue a
single new structure to accommodate the Aspen Jewish Community Center. Staff finds the
continuous length of this building to be entirely out of character with the Victorian era scale of
Main Street, which is the pattern to be respected by new development. (A number of larger
lodge buildings in the district pre-date the historic preservation regulations.) Scheme B does
address the staff and board feedback from April 13th in terms of breaking the program into two
buildings and reducing height to one story near the cabins. The amount of open space buffer
next to the cabins is less successful in staff's opinion as is some of the building massing, which
is not being broken up into a scale that addresses typical historic building widths on Main
Street. For example, the long ridge lines running parallel to the front property line are
problematic.
Staff is supportive of HPC granting Historic Designation, Off-Site Relocation for the two
westernmost original cabins, and Demolition of the more recent construction, in addition to
-. approval of setback variances to legalize the existing location of the original cabins. Staff finds
...... that the site plan still needs work to restore some of the visual connection of the cabins to the
I
"'"'"
.....~'..."
. street, and that the massing and roof forms for the new buildings do not yet meet the design
guidelines. More specific suggestions for how this might be addressed are included in the staff
review, below.
Staff continues to have reservations about the on-going effort to re-design this proj ect to meet HPC
goals absent the input of P&Z and Council on issues such as the limited parking spaces being
provided. HPC staff is interested in supporting the applicant's only significant landmark benefit
request, which is a parking waiver. HPC has the authority to waive all on-site parking required for
the redevelopment of a landmark property (along with cash-in-lieu fees), however, in this case, the
number of spaces not being provided is larger than HPC typically deals with. Up until the recent
adoption of new zoning for Main Street, the proposed civic and daycare uses on this site would
have required Planning and Zoning Commission review for neighborhood impacts. Since they have
become uses by right on a site where HPC can also waive parking mitigation, staff has some
concerns that HPC is in a position of determining the "carrying capacity" for the property. We feel
strongly that HPC's ability to vary parking requirements in the best interests of historic preservation
is important and valid, but believe that this project should be sent forward through the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council hearings that are required as soon as possible in order to
have a sense that the intensity of use on this site is acceptable under the Special Review criteria for
parking. P&Z and Council will also review the project for Growth Management exemptions and
will be asked to give it status as an "Essential Public Facility." An Essential Public Facility
involving a non-profit will likely receive relief from affordable housing mitigation, but there may
be debate about the size or impacts of the proposed development. It is possible that the comments
from the other boards could have significant repercussions on issues of mass, scale, and height.
"'"
"""
The project has been in front of HPC for an extended period of time. Staff looks to the applicant
for their preference as to whether they would like to continue to restudy design issues with HPC in
pursuit of Conceptual approval, or schedule an initial hearing with P&Z. There is also the
possibility of a joint HPC/P&Z worksession. HPC should express their support for landmark
designation clearly, and be as specific as possible about any additional design direction.
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- __.
2
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 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 12,2005 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 wen~ 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 9, 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 13, 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.
APPLICANT: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman
Planning Services and Arthur Chabon, architect.
PARCELID: 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 27, 2005, new zoning, called "MU, Mixed Use," will go 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.
"
~
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030B. Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures,
an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or
objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance.
"'"'"
The significance of the property located at 435 W. Main Street will be evaluated
according to the following criteria:
1. The property was constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which
the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity
of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to one
or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and can be identified and
documented,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
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 still
in its infancy. The Waterman Cabins,
built in 1937, and once located at the
corner of 7th 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."
Circa Mid_20th Century photo
of 435 W. Main Street
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." """
4
"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 oflocally 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 number 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.
Only four of these properties, 308 Park Avenue, 300 W. Main Street, 50 I 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.
Staff's 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 successfulaspect 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.
5
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 aml the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
........
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses 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 number 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 structure or parking.
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. Both of the applicant's plans comply. There is precedent on
Main Street for large buildings, including 7th 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. In staff's
6
opinion, the site plans whi.ch placed a new structure on Third Street have significant impacts on
the ability to call this one of Aspen's historically important properties and should not be pursued
any further. By contrast, the schemes which are currently on the table retain 7 of 9 historic
buildings in their original locations with no additions. Some of the open area courtyard that used
to exist facing Main Street is re-established. The architectural integrity of the cabins themselves
is preserved. Staff finds that compromising and allowing the applicant additional parking area by
removing the two westernmost cabins along the alley is acceptable.
Staff has a number of concerns with the design of the new building as it is represented in
"Scheme A" The primary concern is the large footprint of the building relative to the structures
on the site and surrounding blocks. This is in conflict with the following guidelines:
12.1 Respect historic settlement patterns.
o Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes
consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space.
12.15 On larger structures, subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are
similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era commercial buildings seen
traditionally on Main Street.
o Other, subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form.
n F~(';h lr1p.ntifi::lhlp m:l."" "holllcl h::lvP: it..:;: Clwn pntnmr.p
"Scheme BOO does a better job with these issues, but still doesn't meet the cited guidelines.
Neither building expresses the kind of tall and narrow building widths that were re-created in the
new affordable housing development at 7'h and Main Streets. Staff also recommends that the
size of the central plaza be narrowed in favor of more courtyard in front of the cabins. It is
typical on Main Street to have no more than 10 feet between two structures, so the new
constmction can be closer together.
The actual design of the new construction has varied quite a bit in each revision shown to the
board. At this level materials and fenestration are not relevant. What is important is to undulate
the building footprint and roof forms in a way that breaks up scale per the following:
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on
the parcel.
o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
12.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the
district during the mining era.
o Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height.
12.15 On larger structures, subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are
similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era commercial buildings seen
traditionally on Main Street.
o Other, subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form.
o Each identifiable mass should have its own entrance.
7
It should be understood that staff's comments on this topic are related as much to fitting into the
context of Main Street as they are to the impacts on the original cabins.
"'"'"
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 he 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.
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. Staff supports their
removal.
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
.,,",
8
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
'0,4./
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.
Their potential to serve the needs of the Hebrew School program, which is an after-school use
that does not occur on a daily basis seems entirely possible, as is their potential to serve in some
way as functional spaces for the coffee shop/gift shop (which mayor may not be an allowed
accessory use on the property), employee housing, office space, or pre-school functions. 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 VARIANCES
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 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 Finding: The cabins are historic buildings in 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 6 spaces
9
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 6 parking spaces.
.......,
",'
In order to grant a parking waiver, HPC must find that the review standards of Section
26.415.110.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, as stated above, 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 not yet been met with regard to the height, scale, massing
and proportions of the proposed Aspen Jewish Community Center and that further discussion
between the applicant and board is needed. We recommend that HPC give its support to
"Scheme BOO as the appropriate direction, with clear and specific direction provided on the
importance of more open space next to the cabins, massing, roof forms, and a better relationship
to traditional building widths in the area, as well as the issue of landmark designation.
""""
.,.~",'
Staff continues to suggest that the project be sent to Planning and Zoning Commission at least for
initial feedback on the parking issue. Historic Designation, Relocation, Demolition, and Setback
variances are appropriate as proposed, although the HPC may wish to grant all approvals for the
project at one time. The case should be continued to a date certain.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue Historic Designation, Major Development
(Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, and Variances to a date certain."
Exhibits:
A. Relevant guidelines
B. Current application
-
10
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.
o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a
historic district.
o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and
materials.
o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
o If a historic building 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.
o The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
o The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
o The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
o They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
o Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
o Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
o On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
12.1 Respect historic settlement patterns.
o Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes
consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space.
12.3 Where one exists, maintain the traditional character of an alley.
o Locate buildings and fences along the alley's edge to maintain its narrow width.
o Paving alleys is strongly discouraged.
12.4 Where a sidewalk exists, maintain its historic material and position.
".",,",,'
II
o Historically, sidewalks were detached from the curb, and separated by a planting strip.
12.5 Provide a walk to the primary building entry from the public sidewalk.
12.6 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street.
o Provide auto access along an alley when feasible.
o New curb cuts are not permitted.
o Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut.
12.8 Provide a front yard that is similar in depth to its neighbors.
See the guidelines chapter: Lot and Streetscape Features.
12.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings
during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street.
o The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the block.
o A structure should appear to have one primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to
the structure should be at an 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.
o These include front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks.
o In some areas, setbacks vary, but generally fall within an established range. A greater variety
in setbacks is inappropriate in this context.
o Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block.
12.11 Keep the front setback of a new structure in line with the range of setbacks on the
block seen historically during the mining era.
12.12 Maintain similar side yard setbacks of a new structure or an addition to those seen
traditionally in the block during the mining era.
12.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the
district during the mining era.
o Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height.
12.15 On larger structures, subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are
similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era commercial buildings seen
traditionally on Main Street.
o Other, subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form.
o Each identifiable mass should have its own entrance.
14,17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts
are not permitted.
o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, iffeasible.
o Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be
placed on the alley. .
14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
o Large parking areas should be screened from view from the street.
o Divide large parking lots with planting areas. (Large parking areas are those with more than
five cars.)
o Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature.
o Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas should be screened from adjacent lots
and the street.
12
........
........
...&./
"'"
,,"~'""
.....-
.~_...
14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses, should
not be visually obtrusive.
o Locate parking areas to the rear of the property, when physical conditions permit.
o An alley should serve as the primary access to parking, when physical conditions permit.
o Parking should not be located in the front yard, except in the driveway, if it exists.
13
......."
"'"
.-.,
...-
--
c
F
v
c
o
R
u
M
ARCHITECTURE
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING
COmmunity PLANNING
MEMO
TO:
Amy Guthrie/City of Aspen
HPC Board Members
Joede Schoeberlein
June 1, 2005
Aspen Institute Doerr-Hosier Center
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - ---
Enclosed is an illustration showing the exterior color finish scheme for the proposed
Doerr-Hosier Center:
Our objective in selecting exterior materials for the New Doerr-Hosier Center is to
compliment the existing buildings on the campus while creating a building
composition that is clearly "of our time."
The composition is basically a very simple grey and white. The two dominant
materials on the outside include pre-cast concrete panels and painted metal panels.
The pre-cast panels will be white with both a smooth and rough finish. The metal
-- panels will be a grey (non-shiny) paint finish.
'-
r
~
The windows, doors and window walls will be a grey aluminum "storefront" system.
The walking surfaces will be a grey concrete. The roofs will be either white or grey
depending on the location.
We plan to bring some representative samples of some of the materials to the
hearing for your review.
430 W. Main,
970920-0221 FAX 970 920-7833
P.O. Box 550. Aspen, CO 81612
e-mail cvcforum@sopris.net
~
:>
:)
c
EXTERIOR CLADDING
. CONCRETE PANElS
. METAL PANEl SYSTEM.
. PAINTED STEEl CHANNElS.
DOORS & WINDOW ASSEMBLIES
. PAINTED METAL FRAMES.
. SOLAR GRAY GLASS
* BEqJAMIN MOO~E RM PLATINUM GRAY
ROOFING MATERIALS
. PYRAMID - OFF.WHITE PORCElAIN TILE
. FLAT - WHITE SINGLE PLY MEMBRANE
. TERRACES - GRAY STAINED CONCRETE
The Aspen Institute
Doerr - Hosier Center
VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST
JEFFREY BERKUS . ARCHTECTS, INC.
JOEDE SCHOEBERLEIN, ASSOCIATE ARCHITECT
SHAW CONSTRUCTION. SUItDER
c
EXTERIOR MATERIALS INFORMATION
~
o
~