Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.19940427
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE April 27, 1994 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITY MEETING ROOM SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Committee and Staff Comments Approval of March 23rd minutes. II. Conflict of Interest- Comments by City Attorney's Office III. Public Comments - 0-¢60© 2-£, hi- 82 9(0 6,4. IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:20 A. 706 W. Main Street, Conceptual Development (Public hearing continued from March 23, 1994)Log- 9014 04 V. NEW BUSINESS 6:05 A. 132 W. Main Street, Asia- Landmark Designation (Public Hearing) L-45, J-Able. 6:20 B. 132 W. Main Street, Asia- Amendment to Final Development approval (Public Hearing) To c 1 1-orn 6:40 C. 132 W. Main Street, Asia- Minor development-1864 L 7:00 D. 939 E. Cooper Avenue-Landmark Designation (Continue to May 18, 1994) 939 E. Cooper Avenue-Worksession 7:30 VI. A. Project Monitoring B. Neighborhood Character Guidelines- ongoing C. Red Brick update- ongoing 7:45 VII. ADJOURN HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Proiect/Committee Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 617 W. Main 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) Highway Entrance Design Committee Donnelley Erdman The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley Wheeler-Stallard House 624 E. Hopkins 304 E. Hopkins 234 W. Francis 204 S. Mill - Collins Block 220 W. Main - European Flower Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) City Shop - 1080 Power Plant Road 506 E. Main - elevator Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 205 S. Mill Larry Yaw 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) 232 E. Hallam ACES City Shop 1080 Power Plant Road St. Mary's Church windows Roger Moyer CCLC Liaison 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 409 E. Hopkins 303 E. Main 311 W. North Farfalla lights outside 210 Lake Avenue (alternate) Marolt Museum Karen Day Rubey Transit Center 334 W. Hallam (alternate) Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North 304 E. Hopkins 121 S. Galena Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 132 W. Main 520 E. Cooper Unit 406 Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Tom Williams 130 S. Galena - City Hall 300 W. Main - fence McDonalds Scott Samborski 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 706 W. Main- Conceptual Development, Partial Demolition and On-Site Relocation, PUBLIC HEARING- (continued from March 23, 1994) DATE: April 27, 1994 SUMMARY : The applicants request HPC approval for a Conceptual Development plan which includes partial demolition and on-site relocation of the historic resource. This structure, the "Celestine Bourquin house", was built in 1894. It is an Aspen Landmark and is located in the Main Street Historic District. On March 23, HPC approved some elements of the Conceptual development proposal, namely, the partial demolition and on-site relocation of the historic house and the massing and flat roof on the proposed addition. All other elements of the proposal have no approval at this time. In response to HPC comments, the applicants have submitted a slightly revised design, in which the connection between the historic house and the new office is made of glass. Most ornament has been deleted from the new structure, and a porch is now shown on the historic house. The applicants have indicated that this design was driven by HPC's input and is not their preferred solution. They would like to present other studies at the meeting and continue the conversation. Rather than provide a full evaluation of a design which is not favored, staff has made few revisions to the March 23 memo. There are still serious concerns about the relationship between the new and old buildings, especially in the east and west elevations. Although it is conjectural, staff does find that the new front porch gives the project a much more residential feel, and should be considered, in a slightly different form. We know that the porch that once existed ran the entire length of the house and was approximately three feet deep. A new porch should reflect these dimensions and be fairly simple in ornament. APPLICANTS: Joseph and Susan Krabacher, owners. Architect is David Panico of Baker, Fallen Architects. LOCATION: 706 W. Main Street, Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: See attached information, provided by the applicants. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: The designs submitted to HPC show an FAR bonus of 452 sq. ft. The applicant may request an increase in allowable FAR, from .75:1 to 1:1 by Special Review at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sixty percent of the "bonus" FAR must be allocated to affordable housing (above grade). The applicant has located the affordable housing almost completely sub- grade, and may find that it does not meet the standards for approval by P&Z. In lieu of the Special Review route, the applicant may request an FAR bonus from HPC, up to 500 square feet. The applicant has indicated that this is an acceptable alternative. Because this would result in a total FAR which is less than the maximum possible on this property, the amount of affordable housing required would decrease. The applicant is also requesting approval for Condominiumization (Planning Director sign-off) and GMQS exemption for addition of new net leasable space and affordable housing (by City Council.) CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot,or exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: During the worksession HPC held on February 9, 1994, several committee members expressed support for a new structure which was modern, did not have a lot of detail and would provide a quiet backdrop for this small historic building. Other committee members felt that the proposed structure has too much of a "downtown" feeling to it. There did not seem to be a real connection or sense of "kim" between the old and new building. Staff has some reservations about placing a flat roofed structure behind the historic resource. Typically, the Committee has encouraged applicants to create an addition which reflects design elements and forms found on the adjacent historic structure. However, the flat roof design would allow the height of the new structure to be as low as about 24 feet at the highest point. (The historic structure is 19 feet high.) In addition, although Main Street is zoned Office, it has historically been a residential neighborhood. Although staff does support the idea that the new addition could be successful by avoiding historical references, it should not completely ignore the character of the historic structure or its residential nature. Staff finds that in its current design the proposed structure is a better complement to the Stapleton building than to the landmark which is to be the centerpiece of the development. (As a small detail, staff would suggest using a different column on the new Krabacher structure than the proposed ones, which are the same as the Stapleton building's.) An interesting suggestion offered at the worksession was to sheath the upper story of the new building with the same shingles as are used on the roof of the historic structure. This might give the illusion that the second story is contained within the roof form. Also, it would provide some visual connection between the two structures. The applicant should study this idea. Along with the siding material, the applicant should restudy the cornice detail. Staff finds that it is a particularly non-residential element. The site plan is well designed and does allow the historic structure to Sit apart from the new construction. The proposed courtyard is very important to the quality of the below grade employee housing units. The applicant has responded to HPC's concerns that the connection between the historic building and new structure be reduced to one story. Staff suggests that this break should relate better to the design of the historic structure (perhaps using the same siding or even shutters), or be more playful, as in the project at 134 E. Bleeker. Although it is generally not appropriate to reconstruct building elements which are long gone, staff feels that the applicant and HPC should consider the idea of placing a porch on the historic structure. Examining the Sanborne Fire Insurance Maps of 1904 (attached) one can see that there was at one time a porch which ran the full length of the house. The exact size of this porch can be determined from these maps, however the pitch of the roof and details on posts and balustrades would all be conjectural. Staff does find though that a porch would add even more visual emphasis on this structure. The historic building has been placed at the edge of the setback line, so are definitely some other issues involved in constructing a porch. If a porch is not appropriate, staff suggests that a fence be maintained around the front of the historic building. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Fewer and fewer people are choosing to live on Main Street, for a variety of reasons. The future of the neighborhood will be continued expansion of office space as the Commercial Core is no longer able to handle the demand and its rents are unaffordable for many businesses. Main Street is the entrance to Aspen, and HPC should encourage new development in this area to be residential in nature and to distinguish itself from the Core. By highlighting the historic residential building, this project does attempt to maintain the character of Main Street. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not distract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The best way to protect the cultural value of this structure as a record of Victorian development is to reduce the visibility of the new addition from the street. This can be accomplished partly by decreasing the height by up to two feet (by awarding the applicant up to a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus through HPC rather than leaving them to apply to P&Z for a 1250 sq. ft. FAR increase.) 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Most issues related to preserving the architectural integrity of this structure were covered through HPC's review of relocation and partial demolition. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the development proposal as submitted. 2) Approve the development with conditions to be satisfied for Final HPC consideration. 3) Table the Conceptual Review with conditions. 4) Deny the Conceptual Plan. PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC table the application to allow the applicant to restudy the siding, cornice, columns on the new structure and the treatment of the connection between the new and old buildings. In addition, the applicant should consider adding a porch to the historic building and retaining a fence at the front of that structure. Staff recommends HPC approve the request for partial demolition and relocation of the historic structure and an FAR bonus of up to 500 sq. ft. RECOMMENDATION FOR APRIL 27, 1994: Staff recommends HPC review the applicants' alternate proposals. Conceptual Development approval should not be given unless HPC feels the information (details) submitted are sufficient. Additional comments: SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear.=fulk labeld drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11'x17-, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11'x17 formal APPLICANT: D. -10568+ 4 SUEU·le, KBA546.MEZ- ADDRESS: <20 I hi · M ILL er: €U iTs 201 ,%*reN ZONE DISmiCT: H - N fer-c*AC- LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): t*©04 .... EXISTING FAR: , 11'29 41 ALLOWABLE FAR: 3180 *(-let ~ j Oit 900CIA (1: tb WAFEL. ZEYE,4 /. PROPOSED FAR: =242204@ ~ 9/93 EXISTING NET UEASABLE (commercial): 1 1 10 * PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commerciao: 3,149 ~ EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: . 419,3 PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 51 % EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commemia!): 36¢70 PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): , 2-39/D EXISTING MAXIMUM HBGHT: ~ Prh®al Bl®.: M ~- 0 'ft /Accessory 81®: KIA PROPOSED MAXHUM HEIGHT: P~Icioal Bldg.: 2 e>' - 0 " JAccessory Bldg: MA PROPOSED % Of DEMOUTION: 141% EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4 EXISTING ONSITE PARKING SPACES: ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: d~ SEIBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: F,ort: 2\.3,1 Front: 10.O' Front -Ic>.ot Rear: 26.6 Rear. 187.04 Rew: 11·O' Side: 12/)'/e ·11 Side: e.o'/6.0 1 Side: . S: d/G.o' Combined Front/Rear: - ie, 59 Combined Frt/Rr: 26. D' Combined Front/Rear: . -9120' EXISnNG NONCONFORMITIES/ . 1.2*LE ENCROACHMENTS: , Eker-I NE, TUNs fO21•182.-2.D fc=g azleah LT 1-01- -TO 14 67 VARIATIONS REQUESTED felicible for Landmarks Onk character comoa#bilitv Ending must be made by HPC): FAR: 462* Mimum Distance Between Buikings: -I-- SETBACKS: Front: - , Parldng Spaces: ¥20/ 1 Pt NA F Rear: - Open Space (Commerdal): ././-./ Sider - Height (Collage Inm Only): Combined FrUFIr: - Site Coverage (Conage Infill Only): TOTAL P. 01 4 Fax Note 7671 ~Baie# Post-It. To ~ED@*t==31.---__f~F;=-ftya...12*:t----7 ~ *m#-le==2.e_a --1 1 Fii:7-J;E---mr--_Lf----1%@wi~-1 4:22-Lf -7.--Mawl -~ ~~ '. I ... L /4 2 1 . n . - r-------=====4 - - 2 ¥ : 4.'. .21 21 A r-,tr--11 h--11 1 JELLtLE'11-1 '1Eb-·04[ Il[ IHI. '*-4' 1.'0 1 12=' I 1==*».9===*EF=-E=~ ILI 101 9 -1 -U· 1 . I. -1--IL-IliFI-153 i I .-1 - -, , I - --.---i--+ -*.--I.I-~ - . 1*i@~~:~~ 1 - fal IR-#El EnFzt Ellrflwarimu f==1 ;¢1-44=1 kiLLIE} Flu=jwm .-- 1 .. 21_1 ~il]*=4- . IFFi#Eg t=a ' · ,]El Bel...uM F=1==M lili I Ill lk-=1 ' IMirrt nl I 11==1 r===1 t=i [-1 IEEI --=MI 1231 -*.I.Il ./ - ~- ~ hu'NL-WAU I . 1 1 1 1 , 1 . - Il- - _ ........2-15¢>UTW #CE,VATIOK] r....._. . - 1. : · ir p,/AL*/"w/*, .+,*r*',41, ·-~ i.... ---4--=-21.-AFFAIL I 32-1 -7.-dFIE)4.0 81 ·, ·.#de'li~ - ·~ '. · 2 1 1 , 11 /1 5 ' , . A'.- 1 ..4 -'c :7 - . 1.1. - 1 1 1 B El APR-21-1994 13:50 FROM BAKER FALLIN ASSOC. TO Post-1,1 Fax Note . 170=--I- ~phone# L--£2.=.2-15. r , ..25, IR - . 4.'. .. -1< d. It mmn,- i - 11;-- .1 T \ 4X . t-• 0 •-r -- p , 3 -; mt=flfTIrnly - - t== 0 --74¤-111-Ilti ---i-'I.----- F --- I - Il.- .-- 1 _4 Ir-------------------- , · 1 1- 1 i mzurtiE©T.IM-,Pw'NEION _1_,_„_.. * -44,44*t-4381(*1*Llitt?'1I:lo ~214 9 224/135Filifilly , rilill¥T 2-/:/*Mf/NIM#Fn,4.4,904:11160*1%2-tttl-,93: -;i kt':1.N·:1 •Lr, , I · ' : 8 £ 1 ' . . L - lw 7 - P - . -- I v I T~=~I j_I]~~~~~1&1Arij Rmummm~Hrr=El . *. I V I I , r- · 11 F . 1 -- -· sgo iwir Au:„---1 51 1 Ii-- ' -- ---I 22-221------I.*--* -* 1 FT~ ' i i - Ljj~-4 0 L -~m~~emr~r'14 IL_11 p:=k!=i==·,=t .·r--- _i r==9/./1 ~ 4 7 tt - Il.- 11 - , 1- P' r---7 r- 11 - 11. 11.--41 - 11 f-==71 ! 1 ---1; -0 r, . . .0 1 L , '11 .2'. .... ... 2 · Nif.<26&.;: 4., .,4,~jildfu.ik.. - 44.444..f..,.Ii.p>I· -1.-~-11:> :r . d ift j :.1.....!Oil'.131. - f. + 1.~i...,f.59.......~..ij::.f i*46-*i,IAi~~'Ij~ ~+I ~f 1-/ Al . .. .... 0 ' ...1.bi 9.-,~; AVE#0/B-y·'4-?19 I :C. . . . 9•-1 1 . .- I . .1 AF'RH- * 1 91~444: 1 ' ' F . 90 ., / f 1 - . .4 . P ·: Ir . .. -I -/%. :2, : APR-21-1994 2 FROM BAKER FALLIN ASSOC. 9205197 P.02 - «7 » j / r--1 / 1- 4 ------=621-92fy- L /4 h -/a 11 1.2 -7/ 1 U - -- A i,Al Pi I §1 4 0, L '4=*=4 ibia/t, Xii 3 1 - l - ~,«\.\4.f.1 0 11-11=111~0.-;[~ \ 1 : -* i' 11. -ILL_ i -I-- - / -3RS>' - - \ .-1 -I-;==~*-l . 1.. L-2 .- i .1 1 '-tte 3 37 & -- 7 2 -- 1 a up,-4=3 1 ~-I»j- 31®= ~ p Wi-- ~ ~ 1 ' 1. M {31!' : , 1 1- i 1 1 L--2 1 + I 'li Il i z=~1 lf=zzu f 1 'P~~- I i 1.-11 . = Inf : 111 .- 1 '1 - firk-' -~- U I I «, r--1 11 -~------ 1-nd i 1 - '2 7 '. __1I ~ ; ;: 1 !11 h / --i-% 3==r-+-I.=*1 7=~ =r . r-Jil . --i - - -7.- . bu--1- - __»Aff 1 2 -3 - 4_ U C .gr:I _ . 4=.--13=ILL- --/. -1-1- ·-j- .- i#' i l -1 7 1_4·t .~ , , - r: - L ./---, l:rg ------- ----- /1. -»- ---- - *KIKA-D-11»K-2---tl--0-F FEC S-NES-LI--EL Pi[-N-6772-J»- R Ni p F M 1 14, G- -- - --- --- - =r-- 36<F'fU LE---SCEI Lft,iz - 16_--70- _ 2 1417.-1I %1-17 ' ~~~1 1-02--i-02_lt- T~-Tti--11 TT - 1 1 2 /=1 111 06/ j 1 '1,657.--4 1 , [22.-11 [24 1 44#'' .1-*=*f/'t----* I ! 1 3--·-e J Elf]Ed , 1 , ~;,1 #--t~ C,j~ \1 r ]LIJ 1 j '1]JI'LE'~1---i--{--t~ tj,~11 - 1 1,/'il . 1.- U '14- .11,1 1.1-1-0 _ J~ , ~'t f 1-Ti-t -t· t-·r,-·· 3 49111 L.LLL-LINO 'h~i FIED•.111.1*! 1 · .4 1:. 1.--I.*- I 11 L 1 11 . ~i- L---~ * - 112* Tr~ni_i}_f_j-1 11 ~ 1 12.,9 .1 f -f[137[TUI inglITn. i.jII-!JIR .i - / 1 4 1&--11 C j , 4% 1, Olb i I Jut-frillf 81 E J ir -- I flit.-ICE I r 4 v ELi[-24 11 ; 3 1 32- 7.1 nip- 0 f40 ji 1 _ILN]H. .... ' 1.11 _r 1 ' 1 2 1Trrh_ , A ' \1 /7 .'-/3 1 \ 19 l. U . 4 1- 11 -4 i ; 1 I r- , . 1 1 *1 ~~ i E ,p-=_=7401 ~ r 0/AN i ti-Fl,79' : 31\1 -T---15-Tj ~ 1 11 111 1: 'i, 1' .!1 f --1 1 1.-=.-. 1 {j~ fp-4 i - -- ---- ---- - - - ---1 1 '0 iz i- / 4 p /5/ 1--il] 1 111 P 6 - .1- - - U 2-1 9--3 - .w.' 4 41 #T - 21 9 142-u 911-1-Bl]111 1 - 11]11[liI-_-f] , 47 f . i -1 Alli--2il 11.' ~ Nwitul » -21 j j lif 0 4 1 110 M D i -111111114. I ~[Off 4 -1-1 i > Trmir-90 - rr-~Tl~-t.... 4; 1 Ill ' 4-2 fiFT-F-I_-[F[- I ~- 11-1-- -]1-1_- I - 4 13[22-1 1 : 11.~Cti i Sli L tEl=4 1 1 a. «yu lu fEEY 11 3-1 I 1 I--7/0 h 01.lvAg -1 3 317 661'.92,-1 1 21=1 V - . I ., 1.0¢5.40\ . ' /CapM=54/41'414 -·000,055*Lit~i-~<512.0#---- U - -- .. T¥~ SA:JF:F izE]%111 2-Ir]%1'41 "VIET== 16--4Ii i Ip u *Lul.025:2 --~ ;b==:pE»-----·-~!F~il % nli #1 111---11 t--1-11 1% it 1 it 10 ut.-1,1 i , h--11 ~ 1 0911 li n' 1 11 i B .-4= 11-El 11 1 -1 1 .4 , i ----1.-1-.-# 1 . t. - R+=fl---41¥~Mit~ irrlir-nli·Elltal i«[It_IlL_11 *=3 I ziwwl IL_"ILI K ig liEI - ILE ; hi E-4 mi- 0/22*Jjt====11 .111 1 111;-411 III==E=Z=ZE=Z=:1 --=!1 1,1 U--=11 11 1 14 6----Il ti.,..1)1 11 tEll 1 Lit ~W#H .4.-. -L----1=-.....1.- -< --- ,- . -- ~--=tz _al -~6=~=•,-· ---4- _ --4===E- - =14-_-r i 11 H Ill i 111 - ,-I r-1 1 2 1 --7 ----1 r- 1 1 1--4 · 1 4 ... ,/ - ,>1 ·?:.{. ~4.t'·-~2~~tf t~, 2 j.-·.'~' 2-0 f )~. - . :~ · ~il'a, .. c ...~9--,t·/.~31 ·-~~11~9',~~j..14 4 7, . If-,~~.V'- * 4.-· k. g~ .... I . ... . I _IN_CEKILMOEXCLEVAT. 1 0--Er.„ . fliA *I.LICLE) ATrON ..4 . - - . 4 I. I-- - i e - -4 -- rijsA»*«4259*-O-FILE- a:96 UllipmgfCE-3 22 -1 --1 ilri.n_=-411-in..4 29222.1 21JI-_.2~21»n===».ruAT-' 1KI -L-zoil *4-1-9 9 9371- 4.,2 2-3-E-»Elo-10-------345 - I ': ... '.I ./. I I I - ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 132 W. Main Street, Landmark Designation DATE: April 27, 1994 SUMMARY: In 1976, the George H. Moser house (Lots K and L, Block 58), built in 1888, was designated a local landmark. Four years later the adjacent house, the Jason Freeman house of 1889 (not a designated landmark), was moved to the west and connected to the Moser house in order to expand the restaurant space. This was, in fact the second time the Freeman house was moved, as its original location was in the 400's block of West Main Street. In the 1940's and 50's the Freeman house was used as one of the Paepke's ski houses (Flora Dora). At this time, the applicants would like to landmark designate the Freeman house, Lots M and the west four feet of N, in order to take advantage of some of the benefits of Landmarking, namely expansion of net leasable space below grade without employee mitigation. Landmark designation for Lots M-0 (including the vacant parcel on which the new office building is being constructed) was requested in 1990 and denied, because although HPC found the Freeman house has historic significance, they would not support landmark designation of an empty parcel. The request before HPC tonight would mean that only the Victorian structures and the land the land --- -on which they now sit would be landmarked. APPLICANT: Steve and Lily Ko, represented by Brian Busch and Dennis Green. LOCATION: 132 W. Main Street, Lot M and the west four feet of Lot N, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearings), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: 1 A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The Freeman house has undergone a number of alterations, including an addition on the east side of the building and construction of a wraparound porch. The building still retains typical Victorian features such as a front gable, fishscale shingles, original windows and other details. C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The architect or builder is unknown. E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: A number of the buildings which surround the Asia restaurant are modern and disrupt the original scale of Main Street somewhat. It is especially important therefore that the remaining historic structures in this area be preserved. Because the property owner is required to maintain these buildings according to HPC review, it is important that they be given any benefits available to historic landmarks. F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other 2 structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The Freeman house, though moved and altered is important to preservation of the scale and historic residential character of Main Street and Aspen in general. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation of Lot M and the west four feet of Lot N, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Additional Comments: 3 Arna-IMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICZATION FUEN 1) PrOj eCt Name Asia Restaurant Proj ect I.ocation 132 W. Main, Lots K, L, M, N and the west half of Lot 0, - City and Townsite Of Aspen (irxiicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning ) - Office 4) Lot Size 13,500 sq. ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Steve and Lily Ko, 132 W. Main, Aspen, CO, 81611 303-925-5433 6) Representativels Name, Address & Phone # Dennis B. Green, 715 W. Main, Suite K, Aspen, CO 925-1885: Brian Busch 24505 Highway 82, Basalt, CO, 927-9800 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Oonditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline conceptual rUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final FUD Historic Demolition M¤untain View Plane Subdivision X Historic Designation Ccxxkniniumization . ™ct/Map Amenchant (24@S Allotment Lat Split/Lot Line QUS Exempticn Alj Ust:ment 8) Descriptian of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft. ; number of bedroans; any previous approval q grarrted to the property). Restaurant and offices; conditional use for Restaurant granted in 19 76; historic designation of part of building in 1976; approval for renovations in 1990. 9) Description of DevelogIErt Application Historic designation of the remaining portion of the atructure, i.e. the portion which was not designated by the prior owner in 1976. 10) Have ycu attached the following? X Response to Attadmerrt 2, Mininlm Suhnission Corrtents x Respanse to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Corrtents X Respanse to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application ll1llll ATTACHMENT 4 Analysis Of Review Standards Section 7-702 of the City's Land Use Regulations sets forth the standards for designation. This application meets the standards for the following reasons. In 1976, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1976-56 the prior owners of the property obtained historic designation for what was then known as Arthur's Restaurant. A portion of the building (the west half) was designated as a historic structure and Lots K and L were designated as an historic site. This application seeks historic designation for the remainder of the building. The building is of significant historic importance. The existing building consists of two structures, which have been joined together. The portion of the existing structure on the western-most side (i.e. at the corner of Main and First Street) was one of the earliest buildings along Main Street. It has been in place at that same location for over 100 years. One of the architects involved in earlier approvals reports pulling old newspapers from the walls dating from the mining era. Thus , the site is manifestly identified with and was part of the history of Aspen as a mining town. The portion of the structure on the eastern side also dates from the same period and is part of this history. It was located on another spot on Main Street before being moved to its present location and being merged into the present structure. Thus, both the structure and the site have significant historic value and importance. The structure is an important component of an historically significant neighborhood. The site sits squarely in the middle of the Main Street Historic Overlay District and thus is crucial to the City's efforts to preserve the character of this District. The structure consists of two buildings dating from the mining era both of which have been located along Main Street for over 100 years. For the same reasons, the structure is important to the preservation of the Aspen community as a whole. The fact that the City has, to this point, designated only two Historic Districts, and that this location is right in the middle of the Main Street District, illustrates the importance of the location to the character of the entire community. The structures involved are similar and appropriate to others along Main Street in terms of size and architecture. Indeed, they are some of the earliest examples of the miners' cottage style from that era. As such, the structure reflects a unique and distinct part of the Aspen tradition. As other buildings from the era are . lost, moved, or destroyed, the importance of preserving such buildings increase. April 16, 1994 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, Aspen Planning Commission, and City of Aspen c/o City of Aspen Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 We, Steve Ko and Lily Ko, the owners of the property at 132 W. Main, Aspen, Colorado hereby authorize Dennis Green and Brian Busch to act as our agents, and to present submissions to the Historic Preservation Committee on our behalf. Mr. Green is our legal counsel for the pro ject, and Mr. Busch is coordinating the planning and renovation for our application. Steve=RE Lily Ko Asia Restaurant 132 W. Main Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-5433 Exhibit "A" L 4 11 >-~1~ e. 8 VICINITY MA~ - 0 - ©4 .,be) \\. \,7..C< ' 8 fk -0 > \ \4\ 6 >0 CL~~ W. 9 2 -m Z .-3 - \Ntt ' Ili,ji 4 ,O _ASIA ~A <f PR:Va of e dii·,i 0 - - PEACE I CHAPtl 2 :"l--'- ----- -- - Q . Cat I J. .1,1 .100 64 AIN· STAff. 1 - 14 9 --4 Carl-5 -------Ir P _11: 1-0-Tl *15 - 2_1011_i-·]Ini,m- - . ,„Cl-tv'•AY 82 -%' 30 \\46 -:-- TO BUTTE A •.i i [ p 0 SNO U 1 h GLENY,OOD ' , Al j AIRPOIAT 1 t 't 7-7-7. . - A .- 0 1 r l rn 1 ; >JITE / 7 i i N,\ 41 0 »94> =TR,3 4/ 44\~,(Al t A MRA - iii - 7 #t~< 4*~ti l_ AK £ i < filli_~1 ' -·lij-~VizzIL _20- 4/«44 k i /-- r V Boundary Description For Historic Designation Lots K and L were previously designated. This request for designation is for the remainder of the building described as follows: Lot M and that portion of Lot N extending from the boundary between Lots M and N to a line drawn parallel to said lot line at a point located four feet from said boundary line, i.e. the eastern four feet of Lot N, Block 58, City and Townsite Of Aspen. Exhibit "D" / e.-3 *sli~Illi-i 4 . 4. - ·: ·.Ri . i. te 0- r ' 11* - r il- 9, R. .. _ .. .. .. #, i,1 I . - . - 0<0433.2 :~ -:ft¢*70& . *~. €'· -* 934-:1 4 Jil . . 2 -+ - - 2 il .- . I. .- t 2 =1. I - I ./ .. ' 4 -,144 *14 , 4 LE==t - e..9 - ...1; ,? .4 c I £' - /ir: _ -22' 4.1 4 · :,+ £93.' - I , r·: j 2.t ' i.. 2»t ". *1-a i i yi i 1 Il 1 --1 u IiI .t,·. , · f - - .. ~1111111'lly!1~ 1 .11111.11"ir~ . t. . 0 l\L.......%1 -/ f 4% : .. 11 1 --- - 2 4 -37- I - , .4 .... ... I * I:... 1 7.t ·L ..~:// r • · I ./'. E. ·r ... . 4 1- .. I I ,- 0 • L " 1 1--6'AL k 4-- =P.J.11.ilfw, 'F' 4 I . 0 - e:- - .. 09 LY ' ., ,». - - 0 1 Ill . - . 4. \ - f .. 1 f. . •i , --· f.2.3'.4' 3::~ fr~ '.79'-'·1 -7. / '. '- f'·*- - - i.,r· ' ... . I ....4 -r'=--·- *c :-41. 4," A . .. - ,. le,( 2 ~61 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 132 W. Main Street, Asia- Amendment to Final Development (Public Hearing) Date: April 27, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for an amendment to the Final development approval given to the new office building being constructed adjacent to 132 W. Main. The proposal involves an interior staircase which is required for egress to the outside of the building (thus freeing up more interior net leasable space), addition of two new windows on the west side of the building and construction of a window well to the rear of the west side of the building. APPLICANT: Steve and Lily Ko, represented by Brian Busch and Dennis Green. LOCATION: 132 W. Main Street, Lots K-0, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: None of the proposed changes will be easily visible from the street. The new windows and new window well will presumably improve the quality of the interior space by providing additional light and will provide access to basement space. Staff finds it difficult to recommend approval of the relocated staircase, in light of the Resolution recently adopted by HPC and City Council (attached), which amends the design guidelines. The resolution says that all equipment and apurtenances required for a new building should be included in the overall design of the structure and incorporated into the interior as much as possible. This is the route which was originally taken by the applicant and which was represented to HPC and any interested members of the public. Although staff does not find the appearance of this staircase to be objectionable, it does violate a guideline. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed windows and window well will not impact the character of Main Street. The proposed staircase might impact the character and efficiency of the alley if it displaces any parking or utility areas. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal does not impact the cultural value of any historic resource. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal does not impact the architectural integrity of any historic resource. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Amendment to the Final Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Amendment to the Final Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny the Amendment finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the request for new windows and a window well. Staff also recommends that the committee evaluate any concerns they may have about relocating the staircase and consider whether the new guideline should or should not be adhered to in this case. II. Changes For New Building: 1. Window Wells: The Applicant is requesting one window well for the new building - on the West wall between the two buildings and near to the back of the new building. This window well would be visible only to individuals walking between the two buildings. 2. Windows On Stairway Wall: The Applicants are requesting approval of the addition of two windows to the stairway wall on the West Elevation of the new building. The original plans were to have one window on each floor, and the current proposal is to add one window to each level. This proposal would improve the appearance of the building by making it appear more balanced. 3. Moving Back Stairway: The Applicant requests permission to slightly relocate the stairway at the back of the building by placing it on the outside of the structure instead of within the building as currently approved. That stairway is a secondary or emergency access stairway with the main access to the second floor being provided by the elevators and stairways located in the middle of the structure. This alteration would not be visible from Main Street or the front of the building and would not increase the width of the building as viewed from the back. There would be minimal effect on views from either side of the building as the overall depth of the structure on the lot would still be within the sight line set by the back wall of the existing restaurant building. 1 1 1 - . ' t 1 7»424<INA 1 1 1 j _SINK...1~6«nob-1 f 11 1. . \ 1 : //1 1 , I 11 ! 1 \ \j ji ll 1«1\ 1 , 1 1 1: V 1 1 If , ' 1 1, . 11 1 1 1 li i I ill 1 i \ 1 zill '111' , -1-, 1 1 1 1.- / 9/11 1 / 11 i ; li:'jilililliN I li NDE 'lin"i 1 ! 1,111 lEi 1 11 1 1111 r 1 i 1... -· 1 ... 11 .1 SITLELAbLE...22€LE.21____21 111 =lot-01 ~ ASIA office- CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ,- RELCEATE ©>< IT STAI R. 520 E. HYM41 SUITE 301 · ASPEN, CO 81611 · TEE 303/925-5590 · FAX: 303/925-5076 300 W COLORADO NE 80( 2863 TELLU€E (081435 TELE 303/728-3738·FK303/728-6722 *43 © COPrWREE 1992. C>·,e.ES Cl.NMFFE AROITECTS -1 0===f ], 7 - 41311 --~ - 191-9" m t OF i E V --Ii - - ----, 2 7'li @le€-, Ii? .FAL,4 - --- 4 ----- 11 11------ 11----- 1. -IE-ya .--9IJAIR .- 11 j 1- - ---1- 8AgicIN@ 1 -77 ---- 1 1 \I« \ 1- - - - - .---f-+ ---1.- 1-W-. /2 11 -- A It. -- ---Ii- 1 1 --- 7- 1 1 O - r 0 - ~GAOLIK]P LEVEL PLANI 1/411=11- 011 0 - _AGA OFF](15 - --- -CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ~ .IR-EUXLAf~ .STAL ALL-- -- - 520 E. HYMAN · SUrE 301 · ASPEN. CO 81611 - TELE. 303/925-5590 · FAX 303/925-5076 300 W COLORADO•£ 80(2863 - Tal.LWOE 0081435·TELE 303/728-3738 ·FAX: 38/728-6722 © COF'AMKF !992. CH,RLES CL,-FFE ARO,TECTS T 1 /,lilli lilli UF Cist=Al®_IE©C,EE- 09.-r -231-,11 -- -9, EKIE# Dl-111-PI HA 11 41 1 11 / 11 / ------11 1-1 -- - --11 -- - -- -14A&'RE#,lfAL.JA-LUL_- - 11----- - i 1- ---- 1 1204 11-- 11---- ---- 2%03- 6-2~12. -11 2-14»I SAl FE I[Ki--12 1- - J Il-CCATI Oh·4 -- - - APEAWELW- - - - _-- Ill --- 11- -- - .- -- 11 - 2/42\-3- 5-324 11--- 11 -- i' 1 5014512_ - LEVEL- PL->44 3(+Ili'1.2011 ----- 0 *6\A o E-E-\Ca _ CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS I. -.Al-5.- EX IT STA112 -- . - - 520 E. HYMAN ·SUITE 301 - APEN, CO 81611 - TELE: 303/925-5590 FAX: 303/925-5076 300 W COLORADO AL ED( 2863 · Tal.LATEE (081435·TELE 38/728-3738 FAX. 303/728-6m *43 © COF•rWRITE 1992. C•·6•.M.ES CU-FFE ARC}·rrECTS r ---- - 1\\\«\4~ 1--0«€€-I 1 -_41 1 11---- i - 11- - - ..x--73£294<4-,viub\_- -_. 8%46441@9-* L-_22 - 22_35 -1~ATION-27.- 1 1- - - - &--Ii- -Il-- A 10222 ---- --- fl 1-- 1-I- -- PU 1 1 1-_--1---- 11 11 .11 1 11 [1 UPPE}2- 1-_EXEL- PLAN 1/4.1'~1'-011 0 ASLA CEPLCE _ CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS /4. 2- _BELOCATB- -6!Al !2..1 -- I_ 520 E. HYMAN · SUTE 301 ·ASPEN, CO 81611 · TEU: 303/925-5590 FAX: 303/925-5076 300 W. COLORADO* 80(2863 TELLL,¤)E 0081435·1Ei.E 303/728-3738·FAX 303/728-6m *43 © COPYWRITE 1992. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHfTECTJ - - 2 - 22=- - / - 1 - \ l- ,v , \1\1 --d I rjb. - , - 1-- - 12'tty-- 4,1~4,1 - --39 1 02 1 . a 2 il --51 <PSE 11 1 -1 --1-'P~ 1 r- 1- 11 f>:4 \ 1 - 11 1 - -1. lili 1 - - =- t' 11 1 121 -IdE Lin=JIJ«4-1- 1--22 T £_ i # -~ -- 1 ! I li- *.2 JOLL f ~ ~222~ III 1_ -- - T --<----_-2 4.~FF. F -~~%91 i ti 1-- 111 -- - E - -3--- ---_c ~~________»4 J~t-2*- ''- --- N !11 1- ¥VIi I \.I k#%\ 1 lilli, 1 .1- , 1 -1 1 -1 --- -4»1 ~lit . -3 -IML t. 11 0 1 4 1 Id 1 1 1 1 11.' 11.4 1 1 lf·$7 9. 1 1 2-7 1 i <41. 1 - - 7 1 --1 A 1 1 \\ --1 6 A ===1 1 -a 1 . 1 --~ - - - - - - - - CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS f. N ORI» BLE\bATIO [4 520 E HYM•N · SUTE 301 · APEN, CO 81611 TEUR 303/925-5590 FAX· 303/925-5076 Vep f_0 it 300 W. COLORADO,UE 80(2863 · TEULRIE (081435 TELE. 303/728-3738·FR: 303/728-6722 ©COPA,mnE 1992. CHARLES CUNI-FE ARCHITECTS *43 RESOLUTION NO. c:U~ (Series of 1994) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES. WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Committee of Aspen, Colorado (hereinafter "HPC") created the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" in 1986-1987; and WHEREAS, City Council adopted the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" through Resolution No. 88-2; and WHEREAS, the guidelines were intended to increase community awareness of the historic character of Aspen and to illustrate concepts of compatibility to owners of historic structures and structures within historic districts; and WHEREAS, the HPC has generally found the guidelines to be effective and of value in carrying out the powers and duties assigned to the committee; and WHEREAS, the HPC has determined that the existing guidelines do not provide sufficient direction for development which occurs on the roofs of commercial buildings, including mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, skylights and other such appurtenances; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan recommended amending the guidelines to encourage compatible roof-top activities in the . commercial districts. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 That the following amendment be adopted, adding new language to the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines:" Chapter IV. Commercial Buildings- Renovation and Restoration HVAC equipment, satellite dishes, skylights, antennae, solar collectors and other such appurtanences should be minimized on historic structures. When installed, these objects should be screened from view at the street level and should also be unobtrusive when viewed from above. Rooftop equipment should not be located on roof slopes which are visible from the streets. Place this equipment behind existing building elements when possible, such as parapet walls, pediments or chimnevs, or, in some cases, consider enclosing the element with a structure of similar color and materials as the rest of the building. All equipment shall be painted so that it will fade out. Historic building materials should not be damaged or obscured by the installation of these objects. Chapter V. Commercial Buildings- New Construction HVAC equipment, satellite dishes, skylights, antennae, fire escapes, solar collectors and other such appurtenances should be anticipated at the start of a project and planned as part of the . 1 overall design of a new building. Their size and number should be minimized. Use architectural elements to screen equipment or, whenever possible, incorporate these objects into the interior spaces of the building. Rooftop elements should not be visible from the street and should also be unobtrusive when viewed from above. Paint all equipment so that it will fade out. RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this oFS' day of/~t- 62/Le-4.i_ 1994, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. 14 9. 23- John S. Bennett, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held 954-tu- c=:75- , 1993. 4OJu;fkjl-44 Kathryn ~0 Koch, city Clerk - -.I- -- --- - 5 Fl .. GUI L-24««i 1 ----- - 1- 1 11 1 i "1 4«20-429 1 00 2-11 1 ' 1 13 *01-231·J' I [lo IN--#-*i--FEN=-3 E-mil | 1 07 1,0 LAST rn- AMMI I'll. COU~'ll S./ 1-=St-- fil·:EMATphi__ --- >01/.5 33•0 F Al MI 30 71 42 - -- -- . ..1.--- -- 4 m lino 1 _Y_ cj MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 132 W. Main Street, Asia- Minor Development Date: April 27, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Minor development approval for construction of a new door on the west side of the Asia restaurant building and new lightwells on the front of the building. This portion of the structure is the George Moser house of 1888 and is an Aspen Landmark. No drawings of the proposed lightwells were provided by the applicant. They are to be presented with full details at the time of HPC review or HPC may table that portion of the application. APPLICANT: Steve and Lily Ko, represented by Brian Busch and Dennis Green. LOCATION: 132 W. Main Street, Lots K-0, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The structures located on this parcel have undergone a number of piecemeal alterations which have impacted their historic integrity. This portion of the structure has been given a hexagonal turret has been connected to the adj acent structure, has had changes made to the front porch and additions on the rear of the structure. Many of these changes have occurred since 1980. Staff finds that the design of the new porch is compatible with the existing structure and creates a new opening rather than eliminating an original opening. However, because this is a historic structure and this change will be visible from the street, staff finds that the applicant must make a better argument for installing a new door than that it is just somewhat more convenient. This is the only historic structure on the north side of Main Street for over 2 blocks and is therefore very important to maintaining the historic character of the historic district. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Many of the historic structures along Main Street have been adapted to office or some other commercial use. Staff recognizes that additional window and door openings and other elements are sometimes necessitated in adaptive re-use. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: In itself, this proposal does not jeopardize the cultural value of the George Moser house, but in combination with previous alterations, the character of the original house may become obscured. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Installation of this door requires removal of a portion of wall and a new connection on the roof. Staff finds that this does not have a significant impact on the architectural integrity of the structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC only approve the request for a new door if the applicant provides convincing evidence that this new opening is necessary for use of the office space. In terms of the window wells, staff recommends that the applicants provide a site plan, elevations and railing details for HPC review. If that is not possible, that portion of the request should be tabled. Additional Comments: MESSAGE DISPLAY Michelle White From: Debbie DuBord Postmark: Apr 25,94 10:52 AM Subject: Reminder Message: I want to remind you again to please give me a copy of the agreement to pay forms when new applications come in. I need these for invoice purposes. Also I noticed that you had a note on a minor 1041 application that there was no agreement to pay form. For obvious reasons we do not ask the applicant for an agreement to pay form on any of our staff approvals. The applicant pays a flat fee. .. ALL'.CAa-IMEZE 1 LAND USE APPLICATION PUN 1) Proj ect Name Asia Restaurant Project Location 132 W. Main, Lots K, L, M, N and the west half of Lot 0, _ City and Townsite Of Aspen ( indicate street address, lot & block nlmber, legal description where appropriate) 3) Preserrt Zoning ) - Office 4) Lot Size 13,500 sq. ft. 5) Applicant' s Name, Arlriress & Phone # Steve and Lily Ko, 132 W. Main, Aspen, CO, 81611 303-925-5433 6) Representativels Name, Address & Phone # Dennis B. Green, 715 w. Main, Suite K, Aspen, CO 925-1885: Brian Busch 24505 Highway 82, Basalt, CO, 927-9800 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply) : Conditional Use Coneeptual SPA - Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA X Final Historic Dev. (Amendment to Dev. Order) 8040 Greenline Conceptl.121 FUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final FUD Historic Demolition bkxlrrtain View Plane - Subdivision Historic Designaticn 020:tniniumization _ 'IEct/Map .AnEXj~Imt GMQS Allot:nErt Ict Split/Int Line (2!@S E)omptian Adj UStrEI-It 8) Descripticn of Ebdsting Uses (amber ani type of ecisting structures; approximate sq. ft. ; number of bedroccs; arry previous approvals grarrted to the property). Restaurant and offices; conditional use for Restaurant granted in 1976; historic designation of part of building in 1976; approval for renovations in 1990. 9 ) Description of Development Application Historic designation of the remaining portion of the atructure, i.e. the portion which was not designated by the prior owner in 1976. 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attad'Iment 2, Minimum Sutmission Contents x Response to Attachment 3, Specific Suknissian Contents X Respanse to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Applicatian ATTACHMENT 4 Analysis Of Review Standards Section 7-601 of the City's Land Use Code sets forth the review standards for development in the Historic Overlay District This Application meets those standards because all of the requested changes involve insignificant changes to the prior approvals. The basic character of the buildings will not be changed and all of the amendments Will continue to utilize the same style and materials as previously approved. The proposed development will remain compatible in character with adjacent and nearby buildings, will not detract from the cultural value of the structures or of those on adjacent parcels, and will enhance the architectual integrity of the structures in some respects and will not detract therefrom in any manner. I. Changes For Existing Building: 1. Window Wells: The Applicant requests the addition of two light wells along the front of the existing building. The purpose of the light wells is to provide some natural illumination for the spaces in the basement level of the building. The plans as approved already require landscaping for the front of the building. Thus, the light wells should be effectively shielded from view, certainly from view from those traveling by vehicle on Main Street. Basically, the light wells would be readily visible only by individuals already on the property. 2. Door For West Wing: The Applicant also requests approval of one additional door to provide access to the ground floor space on the West side of the building. This door is needed to provide a more convenient and functional access to the space which is intended for use as office space. There is access at the front of the building, however this access is shared with the Restaurant which is less than ideal. The alternative access, at the rear corner of the building is also not appropriate because that area is used as a loading area for the Restaurant. The location of the door would be along First Street, making it only partially visible from Main Street. At the suggestion of the Planning Office, the proposal is to retain the bay window which is located on the wall involved, towards the front of the building, to maintain the character and design of the building. 1 f--4: O 4 1=5„m '244 , 14421 -0 1 4 1 - - - -======1212-2222222*. 48 1 4 11 -,\ 99 ==2===--- It - i I; l I.... - 1 , 1 1 1 -"44-4 I'li.:I il ~ ~1 1 El - 3-1-11 2 1 8 -- 1 - - [-1 [-1-1 411 'F--11 ~4 L In@ t--3 L @ _ r ' ----I~IZE-Z~m-~EU~IZZI~z~·----------zz~ - 1 --. . ill 1 - - - i-*~i . - i / I. I - 1 - -- - I . / ' 1.-LIU * 1 - #1515-L,-1,4. ' - r ---1 =7 - -- r n Ill lili ---111 1 - 3 Z -2 -IL=J 1-2.1 ~ 2§ IN - . 7 - -- h©-14 FA,2-EAL_ SIC-1-9 ELEWATiC;4 241= l \-0. CHAFLES CLNMFFE ARCHITECTS i. 520 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 /a 303/925-5590 FAX 925-5076 „Chri,Rew,f Tek, d•. Colwodo , Scott.dc#4, ./or.0 1~01©Pe - 1-l --1 . u [1-3, F *ZG'r¢* .4133 - f - 11011« 1 3 1 4 , I 0-0 U 11 111.uk4 9-1/ 00542- - ~- - MEN SH·®( 4-Or 1 1. 9=% [ r-F- 1 r 6 h held F:Ap-T-IAL Ivl AI14 f:LOOX- PLAN f ,&3 1 1- ow•*0)*-9 #,0,rECTS yel -11-011 ~ CAST IrrWM AVOLE ASPC*. COLORADO 0,011 XUal>-55,0 FAX '21·307, 1-j mill MEMORANDUM .) --7 DATE: April 25, 1994 : TO: Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Commission THE CITY OF AspEN CITY ArroRNEY'S OFFICE FROM: David E. Bellack, Assistant City Attorney~~ RE: Opinion on Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest You have asked for an opinion on how to best avoid conflicts of interest by Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") members. The issue arises when HPC members have a direct or indirect interest in matters which come before the HPC for action. I have reviewed Ordinance No. 50 (Series of 1979) ("Ordinance No. 50") which was adopted to define "conflicts of interest" and give guidance to community board members in their dealings with their own boards. Members of the HPC fit within the definition of "city official" used in Ordinance No. 50. Under Ordinance No. 50, a city official may not appear on his or her own behalf or represent another in a transaction before the board of which the official is a member. A city official may be a member of a firm which appears on behalf of another before the city official's board if: 1) The board member declares the nature of the member's interest in the transaction; and, 2) Removes himself or herself from a position of influence over the transaction (i.e. completely refrains from participating in deliberations); and, 3) Abstains from voting on the transaction. If a board member has an interest in a transaction, regardless of who presents the transaction to the board member's board, the board member must also comply with all of the above listed requirements. The penalty for violating the requirements of Ordinance No. 50 is removal from office for the board member. In addition, strict avoidance of even the appearance of c6nflicts of interest is extremely important. It preserves the credibility and integrity of the HPC. It also avoids the creation of potential grounds for challenging HPC decisions. EC LAND USE REGULATIONS § 5-213 3. All other uses: 4 spaces/1,000 square feet of net leasable area. (Ord. No. 47-1988, § 8) Sec. 5-213. Office (O). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (O) zone district is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Office (O) zone district. 1. Detached residential dwellings and multi-family dwellings; 2. Professional business offices; 3. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 4. Home occupations; 5. Group homes; 6. Accessory buildings and uses; 7. Dormitory; and 8. A mixed-use building(s) comprised of a residential dwelling unit and permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional use has been approved subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3 of this chapter. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Office (O) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. 1. Only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), r 1SiC studio, restaurant, shop craft in- dustry, visual arts gallery, and provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in each structure, and (b) off-street parking is pro- vided, with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street; 2. Duplex residential dwelling, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the duplex. In the ' alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 3. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet, of which one unit shall be Supp. No. 3 1649 § 5-213 ASPEN CODE restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the two (2) dwellings. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 4. Day care center; 5. Commercial parking lot or parking structure that is independent of required off-street parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street; 6. Satellite dish antennae; 7. Reserved; and 8. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 5-510. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): Detached residential dwelling: 6,000 Duplex: 3,000 per unit For multi-family dwellings on lot between 6,000 and 9,000 square feet, the fol- lowing square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 1 bedroom; 1,200 2 bedroom: 2,000 3 bedroom: 3,000 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. For multi-family dwellings on lot of more than 9,000 square feet, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 1 bedroom; 1,250 2 bedroom: 2,100 3 bedroom: 3,630 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. - Supp. No. 3 1650 LAND USE REGULATIONS § 5-213 For multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when at least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 500 1 bedroom: 600 2 bedroom: 1,000 3 bedroom: 1,500 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area. For multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when one hun- dred percent (100%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 300 1 bedroom: 400 2 bedroom: 800 3 bedroom: 1,200 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60 4. Minimum front yard (feet): Principal building: 10 Accessory building: 10 5. Minimum side yard (feet): 5 6. Minimum rear yard (feet): Principal building: 15 Accessory building: 15 7. Maximum height (feet): Principal building: 25 Accessory building: 21 on front 2/3's of lot, 25 on rear 1/3 of lot 8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): 10 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement 10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): Supp. No. 3 1651 § 5-213 ASPEN CODE ~~ DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS Lot Size Allowable (Square Feet) Square Feet 0-3,000 80 square feet of floor area for each 100 in lot area, up to a maximum of 2,400 square feet of floor area. 3,000-6,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,240 i square feet of fioor area. 6,000-9,000 3,240 square feet of floor area, pius 14 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,660 square feet of floor area. 9,000-15,000 3,660 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,020 square feet of floor area. 15,000-50,000 4,020 square feet of floor area, plus 5 square feet of floer area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 5,770 square feet of floor area. 50,000+ 5,770 square feet of floor area, plus 2 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area. DUPLEX Lot Size Allowable (Square Feet) Square Feet 0-3,000 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 2,700 square feet of floor area. 3,000-6,000 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,600 square feet of floor area. 6,000-9,000 3,600 square feet of floor area, plus 16 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of floor area. Supp. No. 3 1652 § 5-214 LAND USE REGULATIONS Ikt Size Allowable (Square Feet) Square Feet 9,000-15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,440 square feet of floor area. 15,000-50,000 4,440 square feet of floor area, plus 5 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 6,190 square feet of floor area. 54000+ 6,190 square feet of floor area, plus 3 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area. All uses other than detached residential and duplex dwellings: 0.75:1; however, the 0.75:1 external floor area ratio may be increased to 1:1 by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. 11. Internal floor area ratio: 0.75:1, increasable to 1:1; however, if the external floor area ratio is increased by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4, then sixty (60) percent of the additional fioor area must be approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing. E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be pro- vided for each use in the Office (O) zone district, subject to the provisions of Article 5, Division 3. 1. All residential uses: 1 space/bedroom, fewer spaces may be provided by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4, for historic landmarks only. 2. Lodge uses: N/A 3. AI1 other uses: 3 spaces/1,000 square feet of net leasable area; these spaces may be mitigated via a payment in lieu of off-site parking that is approved by the commission by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. (Ord. No. 47-1988, §§ 2, 5, 7, 16; Ord. No. 6-1989, § 4; Ord. No. 7-1989, § 1; Ord. No. 17-1989, § 2; Ord. No. 35-1992, § 1; Ord. No. 60-1992, § 1) Sec. 5-214. Lodge/tourist Residential (L/TR). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district is to en- courage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist-oriented detached, duplex and multi-family residential dwell- ings. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district. 1. Lodge units; Supp. No. 3 1652.1 § 5-214 ASPEN CODE 2. Boardinghouse; 3. Hotel; 4. Multi-family dwellings; 5. Detached residential or duplex dwellings, only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less; 6. Dining rooms, customary accessory commercial uses, laundry and recreational facil- ities located on the same site of and for guests of lodge units, boardinghouses, hotels and dwelling units; 7. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; and 8. Accesiory buildings and uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Lodge/ Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. 1. Restaurant; 2. Timesharing; 3. Satellite dish antennae; and 4. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provision, of Section 5-510. 5. Commercial parking utilizing excess or vacant spaces on a parcel occupied by a lodge, hotel, or other commercial operation. A commercial parking operation shall include traffic management methods to reduce vehicular congestion and improve air quality in the community. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): Detached residential dwelling: 6,000 Duplex: 3,000 Multi-family dwellings: One (1) bedroom per one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area, provided that a studio shall be considered a one (1) bedroom unit. Lodge units: No requirement. For multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when at least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 500 Supp. No. 3 1652.2