HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20051214
'~.:--- .-
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
December 14, 2005
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: Please visit all properties on the agenda on your
own.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - Oct. li\ Nov. 9th
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 #46)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 332 W. Main Street, Conceptual, Demolition and Variances,
Open and continue the public hearing to January 11th.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 522 W. Francis St. - De-listing from the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, Public Hearing
(15 min.) #<(6. u/(
B. 520 E. Durant St. - Major Development", C:onc~Ptual, Public I
Hearing (20 min.) V)-!Jt I ~fl;t- m"JI?1,d rCI~\e \J,.lf (,o', PuL,Lv () 1\1-U)_
C. 307 S. Mill St. - Minor Development, Public Hearing
(15min.) L/!-.
X. PROJECT MONITORINGS
A. 311 S. First St. - (15 min.)
XI. WORKSESSIONS
A. 100 W. Bleeker St. (30 min.)
B. 434 E. Cooper Ave. (30 min.)
XII. Adjourn 7:30 p.m.
PROJECT MONITORING
. "~ -
631 W. Bleeker \
334 W. Hallam ( (l~ )
Doerr-Hosier Center - conference center
Meadows
Alison Agley
529 W. Francis Street
CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL:
530/532/534 E. Hopkins
314E.Hyman
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Board comments
.. Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at leastfour (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
'-
Aspen Historic Preservation Commmission
-.JAA
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
',.--- ---
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
7XA,'
MEMORANDUM
""'"
.....,..
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
522 W. Francis Street- De-listing from the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures
DATE:
December 14,2005
SUMMARY: 522 W. Francis Street was listed on the original Aspen Inventory, which
was created in 1980. In 1990 the building underwent a significant remodel. At the time
HPC only had complete purview over properties that had been declared Aspen
Landmarks. Inventoried, but not landmarked properties only underwent review if more
than 50% of the structure was to be demolished. It is staffs assumption that the project at
522 W. Francis did not trigger that standard and this is the reason that the work
undertaken at 522 W. Francis did not receive HPC approval.
The addition that was constructed was very damaging to the architectural integrity of this
miner's cabin. The new ownerhas requested de-listing.
,-
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this property should be de-listed from
the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" finding it does not have
sufficient architectural integrity to be designated.
APPLICANT: Michelle Lawson,
represented by Lisa Purdy
Consulting and Preston Fox.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-10-005.
ADDRESS: 522 W. Francis
Street, Lots M and N, Block 27,
City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density
Residential.
522 W. Francis Street
_.
I
,~
REOUEST TO RESCIND DESIGNATION ON THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES
26.415.030 Designation of Historic Properties
The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City of Aspen, is
intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and
features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation
provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or
conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect.
A. Establishment of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmarks Sites and Structures has been established by
City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and objects
located in Aspen that have special significance to the United States, Colorado or Aspen
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. The location of properties listed
on the Inventory are indicated on maps on file with the Community Development
Department.
B. 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 properties will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
I. A property is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it is:
a. More than 100 years old; and
b. It possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design,
materials, workmanship and association, given its age or
2. A property constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which the
application for designation is being made that 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 contribution 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.
3. A property that was constructed less than forty (40) years prior to the year in which the
application for designation is being made may be considered under subsection 2, above, if
the application has been filed by the owner of the property at the time of designation or,
2
when designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the
district meet the forty (40) year age criterion described above.
4. The Commission shall adopt, maintain, and make available to the public guidelines,
score sheets, and other devices to apply the criteria set forth in this Section to potentially
eligible buildings, sites, structures or objects, or collections thereof.
Staff Response: The goal of this process is to evaluate the property to determine if
sufficient evidence exists that it no longer meets the criteria for designation. If that is the
case, the property shall be removed from the Inventory, otherwise it shall be retained on
the list. HPC makes a recommendation to Council, and Council will make the final
decision.
---
According to the Pitkin County Assessor's office 522 W. Francis Street was built in 1885.
It clearly meets the first standard for designation, Section 26.415.030.B.l.a, related to
demonstration of antiquity by virtue of being over 100 years old.
Staff has completed site visits and an initial assessment of all 19'h century miner's
cottages in Aspen to address the second standard for designation, Section
26.415.030.B.l.b, demonstration of integrity. This assessment is made using a scoring
system that was adopted by HPC. While the Land Use Code does not state a specific
threshold score that must be attained, it was generally understood when the scoring forms
were created that a minimum of 50 points out of 100 was required. A sample scoring
form is attached. Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment that 522 W. Francis Street
.warrants 20 out of 100 points. Community Development staff. has the benefit of
understanding the status of the remaining miner's cottages as a whole and finds that this
property does not measure up to the architectural integrity of the other examples.
.......
HPC may recommend approval or denial of the request to de-list 522 W. Francis from the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and ,Structures, or continue the application to
request additional information necessary to make a decision. HPC may choose to accept
the integrity analysis provided by staff and the applicant, or may formulate its own rating
for the property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that 522 W. Francis Street, Lots M and N,
Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen be de-listed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Sites and Structures.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #~, Series of 2005, de-
listing 522 W. Francis Street, Lots M and N, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen from
the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures."
EXHIBITS:
Resolution #~, Series of2005
A. Application
B. Survey indicating remaining portion of historic building.
~
3
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO DE-LIST THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 522
W. FRANCIS STRET, LOTS M AND N, BLOCK 27, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO FROM THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK
SITES AND STRUCTURES
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2005
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-10-005
WHEREAS, the applicant, Michelle Lawson, represented by Lisa Purdy Consulting and Preston
Fox, has requested that 522 W. Francis Street, Lots M and N, Block 27, City and Townsite of
Aspen be de-listed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code establishes the criteria for designation
to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and Section 26.415.050
identifies the process for de-listing; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 14,2005, performed an analysis
of the application based on the relevant review criteria and recommended de-listing; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 14, 2005, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
criteria for de-listing, and recommended Council approval of de-listing 522 W. Francis Street by
a vote of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends that City Council de-list 522 W. Francis Street, Lots M and N,
Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of December,
2005.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Lisa Purdy
Consulting
~\lol~A
. . . . . . . . .
"""
121 Pea rl S t r e e t
Denver, CO 80203
Ph (303) 733-7796
Fax (303) 733-7110
Memo to:
Date:
From:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
June 30, 2005
Lisa Purdy, President
Kate Taylor Randall, Research Assistant
Lisa Purdy Consulting
Request for Removal from the Historic Inventory
522 W. Francis Street
Re:
Michelle Lawson, the owner of 522 W. Francis St., has retained our services to evaluate
the historical significance of her property. After some research it is our opinion that the
property has been so significantly modified that it fails to meet the City of Aspen's
requirement that the property possess "an appropriate degree of integrity of location,
setting, design, material[ s], workmanship and association."
The property at issue was built in I 885 and was once an L-type miner's cottage. Sadly,
the historical integrity of this simple house was significantly comprised when the front
porch was filled-in to add interior space and when an insensitive two-story addition was
added directly onto the west and north sides of the house. The addition was modeled on
the original Victorian era house and is difficult to distinguish from the original portion of
the house. As a result, the house no longer meets its preservation objective to convey
what life was like for an average citizen in ASpe1!.\Iuring the silver mining era.
.......
'-'-'
It is our professional opinion that this property has been so significantly modified that it
no longer contributes to national or local history and should therefore be removed from
the City of Aspen's Historical Inventory. Please do not hesitate to call us if you have any
questions regarding my attached scoring.
Lisa Purdy
Kate Taylor Randall
~
Land Use Application
,-
~
-
tHE C~'. I. .\ ;'~ \
PROJEcr:
Name: . rrPfVlVi7 e:...\i<?~iVl
Location: \j\J . f' (' VI {, i 0 Y'I
o fVl $N I 0 ~
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or mete and bounds des
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) ')..1- '17 - I 2-1 - I 0 - 00 %7
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
Fax#:
?;t fofl
E-mail:1\'11Chdk
REpRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
"- Phone #:
E-mail:
. COWl
TYPE OF APPLICATION: lease check all that a I :
o Historic Designation
o Certificate of No Negative Effect
o Certificate of Appropriateness
o -Minor Historic Development
o -Major Historic Development
o -Conceptual Historic Development
o -Final Historic Development
o -Substantial Amendment
o Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
o Demolition (total demolition)
o Historic Landmark Lot Split
/I<C%if1at'I1J D-e-?'jnPthon
Vtom-e-
1''7
FEES DUE: $1:210. ~
REl~'FO~~~
ST. <II
R.
s.
o
0(
I ..
ST.
..
~ c.P .. /(
7]~'....
~-~:':~..:.. -':' ~
--:<'~'~"i'
p
s~
4tJ9
I
.
L
~
I
.
~
'"
~
~
lEJ
Q.
t-L If
:...,~" : i.. II.
R
s
K
L
1/1I
I
L!" ~
- ....
~
o
p
..
<
.
.'2.7
1/
1I
c
1 <~~i!
D. v
~
""
.
-
-
u
.
.
u
.
U
U..
d-~
I;~ ~
-_.!!~--
11- -- =-
J1~ -=....~
P
~
U
I
U
U
U
U
U
"
I~
4/1
E
'"
~
.....
i;) ,"'"
F
6.
/I
'"
I
N.4TY'
'==-====== === =-
- = == = ==== ====
400
,.
I
.
II
I ~;~l l" '"'
.., -.
...
II
. "
'"
"--~ . '<I-
B
-5 z.2.. w. FI2ItAJc/:5
'.-::;"
c
\.k;
. 11;:.
~'.~
~~,
"
'.. '-:'
c
o
F~IIJT
~
R.EIV..
<;' ~ f (e/ ~ v lA--,
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT-19TH CENTURY MINER'S COTTAGE
Integrity is the ability ofa property to convey its significance.
---'"
. LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed
or the place where the historic event occurred.
5- The structure is in its original location.
4- The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains
the original alignment and proximity to the street.
3- The structure has been moved to another site, still within the historic
Aspen townsite.
0- The structure has been moved to a location which is dissimilar to the
original site.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of5) =
. DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
:,pace, structure, and style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10- The original plan form, based on Sanborne maps or other authenticating
documentation, is unaltered and there are no recent additions.
8- The structure has been expanded but the original plan form is intact and
the addition(s) would meet the design guidelines.
6- The plan form has been more altered, but the addition would meet the
design guidelines.
4- The structure has been expanded in a less desirable manner, but if the
addition were removed, at least 50% of the building's original walls would
remam.
2- The structure has been expanded and the addition overwhelms the original
structure, destroying more than 50% of the building's original walls.
0- Two historic structures have been linked together and the original
character of the individual structures is significantly affected.
ROOF FORM
10- The original roof form and the original porch roof, if one existed, are
unaltered.
8- The original main roof is intact but the porch roof, if one existed, has been
altered.
6- Dormers have been added to the structure or additions have been made
that alter the roof form, but the changes would meet the design guidelines.
-
,
2- Alterations to the roof have been made in a less sensitive manner, not in
conformance with the design guidelines.
0- Less than 50% of the original roof form remains.
SCALE
5- The original one story scale of the building, and its character as a small
cottage is intact.
4- The building has been expanded, but the ability to perceive the original
size of the 3 or 4 room home, is preserved.
3- The building has been expanded and the scale of the original portion is
discernible.
0- The scale of the building has been negatively affected by a large addition,
whose features do not reflect the scale or proportions of the historic
structure.
FRONT PORCH
10- The front porch is not enclosed and original decorative woodwork
remains, or ifthere was no porch historically, none has been added.
8- The front porch is enclosed but maintains an open character and some
original materials.
6- The front porch is not original, but has been built in an accurate manner,
per the design guidelines.
2- The front porch has been enclosed and most original materials are gone.
0- The front porch is completely gone or replaced with a porch which would
not meet the design guidelines.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10- The typical door and window pattern on the original house is intact- two
doors off the front porch, large double hung windows in gable ends, and
tall, narrow double hung windows placed "sparsely" on building walls.
8- Less than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building
are new and the original door and window openings are intact.
2- More than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building
are new and/or some of the original opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most or all of the original door and window openings have been altered.
SIMPLICITY OF DESIGN
5- The overall sense of "modesty" in design and detailing on the original
structure is intact.
0- New, non-historic trim and other decoration have been added to the
building and have altered its character.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 50) =
2
. SETTING Setting is the physical environment ofa historic property.
-.
PROXIMITY TO SIMILAR STRUCTURES
5- The structure is one of a set (at least three) of buildings from the same
period in the immediate area.
3- The building is part of a neighborhood that has numerous remaining
buildings from the same period.
0- The building is an isolated example from the period.
"
HISTORIC LANDSCAPE FEATURES
5- A number of elements of the original landscape are in place, including
historic fences, walkways, plant materials and trees, and ditches.
3- Few or no elements of the original landscape are present, but the current
landscape supports the historic character of the home.
0- The current landscape significantly obscures views of the structure.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 10) =
. MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or
deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or
configuration to form a historic property.
EXTERIOR WOODWORK
IO-Most of the original woodwork, including clapboard siding, decorative
shingles in gable ends, trim, fascia boards, etc. remain.
6- Original siding has been replaced, but trim and other elements remain.
6- Original siding is intact but trim or other elements have been replaced.
0- All exterior materials have been removed and replaced.
-.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10- All or most of the original door and window units are intact.
8- Some window and door units have been replaced, but with generally
accurate reconstmctions of the originals.
6- Most of the original windows have been replaced, but with generally
accurate reconstructions of the originals.
0- Windows and/or doors units have been replaced with inappropriate
patterns or styles.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of20) =
-.
,
J
· WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a
particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION
5- The original detailing is intact.
3- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its
stylistic category.
0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original
structure.
0- The detailing is gone.
FINISHES
5- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry unpainted.
4- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry is painted.
3 - Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance but masonry is
unpainted.
2- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance and the masonry is
painted.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 10) =
. ASSOCIATION Association is the direct link between an important historic
event or person and a historic property.
5- The property would be generally recognizable to a person who lived in
Aspen in the 19th century.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of5) =
. BONUS POINTS
UNIOUE EXAMPLE
5- The design of the building is unique or one of a small group among the
miner's cottages. (i.e.It has Italianate or Second Empire detailing.)
OUTBUILDINGS
5- There are outbuildings on the property that were built during the same
period as the house.
MASONRY
5-0riginal brick chimneys and/or a stone foundation remains.
PATINA/CHARACTER
5- The materials have been allowed to acquire the character of age and are
obviously weathered.
4
".'--. -
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100 (and up to 20 bonus points)
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNA TION= 50 POINTS
.......
....,"'"-
Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances
that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose
another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific
property.
~
~
,~
5
".-,--- '-
'''~--"'
Scoring Sheet for 522 W. Francis Street
1. Location. (5 points)
The house is in its original location.
~Vfr'V~ k.1 .
~9~Vl~ 'R-~.avLiok1oVJ
~tW
Scored by Lisa Purdy and Kate Taylor Randall
June 30, 2005
2. Building Form (2 points)
The covered front porch of the L-type miner's cottage was filled-in and added to
the interior square footage ofthe house pre-1980. In the early 1990's the former
owners expanded the simple single story structure to a 4,929 square foot two
story home. This was done after prior owners tore down the house next door,
and built the two story plus basement addition onto the western and northern
sides of the original structure. As a result, over 50% of the original walls have
been removed to allow for the addition, which inappropriately abuts the original
structure on two sides without the use of a connector.
The Architectural Inventory Form completed by the City of Aspen in 1998
states: "(slignificance has been severely compromised. Through a large addition
and insensitive alterations. Also detailing has been added and altered which
further confuses the historic character. Remaining altered Miner's Cottage is
readable but now out of context."
3. Roof Forrn (2 points)
Alterations to the original cross-gabled roof where made in an insensitive
manner. Furthermore, the addition with multiple gables and dormers adds
conjectural features that convey a false impression of its age. In May of 2005
with approval from the City of Aspen, the applicant replaced the roof with
shingles of similar composition. The new roof does not alter the form of the roof.
4. Scale (0 points)
The multi-story addition overwhelms the original structure and defeats the
historical preservation objective stated in the 1980 Inventory Record as "(tlhis
modest structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home
environment and life style of the average citizen in Aspen which was then
dominated by the silver mining industry." The early 1990's addition conveys a
Victorian era style, rendering the historical portion of the house
indistinguishable from the new two-story addition. To the casual onlooker the
home appears to be a Victorian era mid-sized mansion not a home
representative of an average citizen during the late 1880's.
5. Front Porch (0 points)
'~,:---~
The original covered front porch of this L-type miner's cottage was filled-in and
added to the interior square footage of the southeastern corner of the house
prior to 1980.
---
.....,",c
6. Doors and Windows (2 points)
An original shallow bay window directly below the front gable of the original
portion of the house is intact. An additional original window faces west on the
front side of the house. All of the other existing windows have been replaced.
The front door was removed and replaced when the front porch was f"illed-in.
7. Simplicity of Design (0 points)
In the early 1990's inappropriate trim was added to the original gable of the
house. The addition inappropriately makes use of Victorian era architectural
details such as turned posts, decorative brackets, and transom windows. These
details obscure the separation between old and new.
8. Proximity to Similar Structures (3 points)
The house is located in Aspen's West End, which features many historic homes
and has retained much of its historic character.
9. Historic Landscape Features (0 points)
Much of the historic landscape was removed when the front porch was filled-in.
The front walkway was moved roughly 8 feet to the west and now curves around
the original structure to the new front entryway in the addition. Original
landscape features unknown and unable to be determined.
~
10. Exterior Woodwork (0 points)
All of the original wood shingle roof and clapboard siding has been removed and
replaced with similar materials.
11. Doors and Windows (2 points. Note: there is no scoring category available between 0
and 6)
The front door to the home was relocated when the front porch was f"illed-in.
The addition onto the back of the house envelops what would have been the rear
entry. All of the original windows have been removed and replaced with
inappropriately styled panes with the exception of two of double hung windows
on the front of the house.
12. Detailing and Ornamentation (0 points)
Victorian era detailing was added to the original house aronnd 1990. The
addition was also modeled after the Victorian era style with turned posts,
decorative brackets, and transom windows. This new detailing confnses the
original modest styling of an average miner's cottage of the late 1800's and
obscures the separation of old and new construction.
13. Finishes (4 points)
-.
'..,-.- .-
All exterior woodwork has been painted and no existing masonry is visible.
14. Association (0 points)
As a result ofthe overwhelming addition that is similar in style and character
and the loss ofthe front porch, this property is no longer recognizable as a
miner's cottage to a person who lived in Aspen during the 19th century.
15. Bonus Points (0 points)
This house does not meet any ofthe criteria in this section.
TOTAL POINTS: 20
",_.-.-.----.-
Written Description of How the Property Does Not Meet the Criteria
for Designation
""'
"-
1. Loss of the Defminl! Architectural Features of a Historic L- TVDe Miner's Cottal!e
The two gabled rooflines of an L-type cottage of the mid- to late-19th Century intersect
to form a letter "L" shaped structure. At the intersection of the two wings a I -story
covered porch was historically featured in this style of house. The defIning feature of this
former L-type cottage, the front porch, was filled-in and added to the interior square
footage of the southeastern comer of the house prior to 1980. The historic front door of
the house was also lost when the porch was fIlled-in and is now located further back on
the property in the two-story addition. Two small modem windows have been added and
siding matching that of the house was added obscuring the old portion of the house from
the newer fIlled-in porch area.
In the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, Treatment of Porches
5.2 the City directs owners of historic properties to "[a ]void enclosing a historic front
porch." Further, the City's Preservation Principles reiterate the importance of preserving
existing site feature such as "original doors, windows, porches, and other architectural
features."
2. The Two-Storv Addition ComDromises the Intel!ritv and SilJ11ificance of the
Oril!inal Structure
.-..
~
Since the property was added to Aspen's Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures, a signifIcant addition that compromises the integrity and significance of this
property has been added. In the early 1990's the former owners expanded the simple
single story structure to a 4,929 square foot two-story home. The addition abuts the
western and northern sides of the original structure and overwhelms the original
structure. One must assume that both the City and the owner were unaware of the
historical status of this property because the City issued permits for all of the addition
without consulting with the Aspen HPC. The design of the addition is thus
inappropriately modeled after the Victorian era style with turned posts, decorative
brackets, and transom windows. The simple cross-gabled roofline of this L-type cottage
is overwhelmed in scale by the multiple gables and dormers in the addition. This new
detailing confuses the original modest styling of an average miner's cottage of the late
1800' s and obscures the separation of old and new construction.
In the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, Building and Roof
Forms 11.5 the subsection states that the addition "should not overwhelm the original in
scale." In Architectural Details 11.9, it states "[t]he imitation of older historic styles is
discouraged. "
.-.
",.".-.-' '-
3. The Sil!llificance ofthe former Miner's Cottal!:e is no Lonl!:er Readable
As stated above, the addition was modeled after the original Victorian era house and is
difficult to distinguish from the original portion of the house. As a result, the house no
longer meets its preservation objective stated in the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Inventory Record, dated September 30,1980, which states:
The significance of the residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived
in it, nor of its architecture, although the structure is representative of Aspen's
Mining Era. This modest structure is of historical importance by illustrating the
farnilylhome environment and life style of the average citizen in Aspen, which
was then dominated by the silver mining industry.
The Architectural Inventory Form completed by the City of Aspen in 1998 corroborates
our conclusion that this property no longer meets its preservation objective and the Aspen
standards for preservation in the following statement:
Significance has been severely compromised. Through a large addition and
insensitive alterations. Also detailing has been added and altered which further
confuses the historic character. Remaining altered Miner's Cottage is readable
but now out of context.
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Official eligibility determination
(OAHP use only)
Date Initials
Determined Eliglble- NR
Determined Not Eligible- NR
Determined Eligible- SR
Determined Not Eligible- SR
Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
~
OAHP1403
Rev. 9/98
...~,,.
Architectural Inventory Form
1 of 4
I. Identification
1. Resource number:
5PT.272
2. Temporary resource number: 522.WFR (522.WF)
3. County:
4. City:
5. Historic building name:
6. Current building name:
7. Building address:
8. Owner name and address:
Pitkin
Asoen
522 West Francis Street. Asoen Colorado 81611
Charles Isreal
PO Box 11689 Asoen. CO 81612
II. Geographic Information
9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West
SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 of SE 114 of Section 12
10. UTM reference
Zone -L..L...; -3-..A...- --L-..l..- ~ ~mE -L.....L -3- ~.JL ~ ~mN
11. USGS quad name: Asoen Quadranale
Year: 1960. Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5'~ 15'_ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section.
12. Lotls): M & N Block: 27
,-..
Addition:
Year of Addition:
13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comorised of Lot M & N Block 27 of the
City and Townsite of Aspen. Assessors office Record Number: 2735-124-10-005
This descriotion was chosen as the most soecific and customary descriotion of the site.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irreaular
15. Dimensions in feet; Length x Width
16. Number of stories; One story. Two story Addition
17. Primary external wall materiallsllenter no more than two): Horizontal Wood Sidino
18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable Roof
19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than onel; Wood Shinale Roof
20. Special features (enter all that apply): Porch
"'"
...,.,.
R~source Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.272
522WFR
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 2 of 4)
21. General architectural description: A tvoical sinale storv. wood frame Miner's Cottaae
form fronts the street. A small aable end faces the street with a sinale larae double huna.
in a shallow bav. as the orincioal window. The bav has a hiD roof suooorted bv brackets
on a detailed cornice. the base has a simole sill. A cross aable runs oarallel to the street.
the eave continuina to the face of the front aable wall. Two small sauare-ish double
hunas sit under the eave. A larae two storv addition sits back from the street with a
contemoorarv entrv confiauration. under a Dorch and a second floor balconv. The facade
has turned oosts. brackets. oval window and transom windows over bath windows and
doors.
22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian
23. Landscaping or special setting features: Three cottonwood street trees. verv larae.
Honevsuckle hedae at east side. Two mature fir at north side.
24. Associated buildi~gs, features, or objects: none
IV. Architectural History
25. Date of Construction: Estimate
Actual 1885
-"",-
Source af information: Pitkin Countv Assessor
26. Architect: Unknown
Source of information:
27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown
Source of information:
28. Original owner: W. H. Gilstrao
Source af informatian: Pitkin Cauntv Assessor
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or
demolitions): Addition of a two storv structure. alteration of the oriainal structure
addition of Victorian era detailina. 1990. 1980 ohoto shows Dorch had been filled in and
sidina altered ore 1980.
30. Original location ~ Moved Date of movels):
V. Historical Associations
31. Original usels): Domestic
32. Intermediate usels):
33. Current usels): Domestic
34. Site typels):
Residential Neiahborhood
'~.'.--' .-
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.272
522WFR
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 3 of 4)
~
---"
35. Historical background: This structure is reoresentative of Asoen's minina era character.
The buildino reoresents a tvoical tvoe known locallv as the "Miner's CottaGe".
characterized bv the size. simole olan. and front oable I oorch relationshio
36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance
Maos: 1990 and 1980 City of Asoen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures
VI. Significance
37. Local landmark designation: Ves
Designating authority:
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
No ---X... Date of designation:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of our history;
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
..x... C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield. information important in history or
prehistory.
-,
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G Isee Manual)
Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Areals) of significance: Architecture
40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Minino Era
41. Level of significance: National ~ State ~ Local X
42. Statement of significance: This structure is sianificant for its Dosition in the context of
ASDen's minina era. It describes the nature of the life of an averaae family or individual
durina that Deriod. as well as the construction techniaues. materials available and the
fashion of the time.
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: SiGnificance has been
severelv comoromised. Throuah a lame addition and insensitive alterations. Also
detailino has been added and altered which further confuses the historic character.
RemaininG altered Miner's CottaGe is readable but now out of context.
VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment
44. National Register eligibility field assessment:
Eligible ~ Not Eligible --.lL. Need Data
45. Is there National Register district potential? Ves
No ~ Discuss:
'"'"
....,...
",.,',--" -
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.272
522.wFR
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 4 of 4)
If there is National Register district potential. is this building:
Contributing
Noncontributing
Contributing
Noncontributing
46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it:
VIII. Recording Information
47. Photograph numbers: R6: F32. 33
Negatives filed at: AsoenlPitkin Communitv Develooment Deot.
48. Report title: Citv of Asoen Uodate of Survev of Historic Sites and Structures. 2000
49. Datels): 6/2912000 50. Recorderls): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield
51. Organization: Reid Architects
52. Address: 412 North Mill Street. PO Box 1303. Asoen CO 81612
53. Phone numberls): 970 920 9225
NOTE: Please attach a sketch map. a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource
location. and photographs.
Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395
~
6.
MANHOl~
A! i f-f~ if! tJ t~1'
,/7
L f
UTiliTIES
1612.9 ctp
5E.T 25"147 S 75009' II "E
S 7500B 09 E
:!::
V'
~
l-
:1"
~
tJ.
I-
AREA 6,005 SQ.
~ .
L M V) N
0: 0) 0)
<( ()) '<t
l-
V) N
UTiliTIES
())
r-- '.()
r<'l D~
u.1)L
~(,;:
o..~
Z.ND.sTO~Y D~K ~6.0
N
15.0
LL
- -
Ol 0
0 '0.,
0 0
0 0
3.2
2.3
GAS
())
w w
. . ...J
N Ol
N V' ...J
- w 1.4
Ol 0 ~
,..., lJ) 0
0 0
'<t V' ~. l-'
0 <{
z: z 0 CL
z 1.4
3:
'<t
N
,.'_-l"_
2 STORY H OUS E
CRAWL SPACE
ACCESS -~"
\
u..
'"""-~~~,,'-".,,....
-
Ul;......Oo
o
o 0
o 0
<;t
V'
3= 3=
r<1 Ol
19.1 l.ll '<t
-
BAlCONEY t:O 0
<:t l.ll
r<'l 0 0
0 '<t '<t
~
I
..r BA Y WINDOW (j)
'C 21
26. I ....
'>
CITY MONUMENT
SE COR. BlK. 2\
/
N 75009'11"W
BASIS OF
(\j . '7
r--
hvvo1- I tMOYle
\ . ~~V'lJ-11r rk.
60.05' ~T .'
59.99' FV'~II\.Ld .
I...' I I I
422.12'\IVIIV\..bV<:;' 1<:11V/
BEARINGS
LJ@VAlVE
1
(/
,~
:::
i.
S 750
.. --5750
.. E-BAR
S7so09'1!"E 1"36.29'
N 75006'26"W-136.52' F
SET
2.5<14,
N 750 Og' II "w
N 750 10' 13 'w
/
t
~ROC\'
;
\~'l'---IV"t'1 .>
--,,,,--,"-,,.,-,~--~------,--~-----,-'"'--'-_.'" --_.._._.,,~,-_'''--- -..-...-.--.--.--..' .,-..---.-
If:
;-;? /l1lI elL) S /.
~
___.____...__1 S-
~
V
-r
\fJ
\
.- j
GRAVEL PARKING
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE A~EaAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY. DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY
WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH~EFECT, IN NO EVENT. MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON
..,~ ~___~T .., TU'C c,,~,,~v ".. r.OMlllFNCED MORE THAN liEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION
[i
8.
MEMORANDUM
~-
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
--JAA-
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
520 E. Durant Street, Ajax Mountain Building- Major Development (Conceptual),
Public Hearing
DATE:
December 14,2005
SUMMARY: The Ajax Mountain Building was constructed in 1980 and sits at the edge of the
Commercial Core Historic District. The building occupies an 18,000 square foot property and is
well below existing maximum floor area or height limits.
The proposal is to add a free market residential unit on the roof, along with an affordable housing
unit that is required mitigation for the free market development right. Following the HPC
review, the Planning and Zoning Commission will address whether or not the project complies
with the protected Cooper Street View Plane.
Staff recommends approval of the application finding that the design guidelines for
Conceptual review are met.
APPLICANT: Aspen Mountain Associates, Stephen Marcus, represented by Jeffrey Halferty
Design.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-22-006.
ADDRESS: 520 E. Durant Street, Lots N-S, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING:. CC, Commercial Core.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
-.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) amI/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 design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit
A,"
There are no historic buildings on either side of the street surrounding this structure. HPC's
primary interest in this block is the creation of a sensitive transition into the area of downtown
that contains a concentration of historic buildings. The Ajax Mountain Building itself is
lillcharacteristic of the historic development forms in town as a result of the sunken courtyard,
however the new apartments do not aggravate any relationship to a nearby historic building.
The existing building is primarily two stories, with the ground floor well below street level. A
portion of the building has a third floor now. The parapet height for the new apartments will be
slightly higher than the existing third floor. All roof forms will be flat, as is typical of
downtown. Materials and fenestration will be discussed at Final.
--.
Staff finds that the design guidelines are met and recommends that Conceptual approval be
granted as proposed.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends approval of the application as proposed.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #
Conceptual approval for new rooftop units at 520 E. Durant Street."
Series of 2005,
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
-....
2
Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines Conceptual Review
13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
D Use varied building setbacks and changes m materials to create interest and
reduce perceived scale.
D Balconies, court yards and decks are also encouraged.
D Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These
should be covered or protected and clearly intended for public use, but
subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance.
13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
D The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story
character of the downtown.
D Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In
particular, the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to
those seen traditionally.
13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
D In general, a proposed three-story building must demonstrate that it has no
negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby.
D The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale
with nearby historic buildings.
13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
D Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
" D The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and
- projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant
form.
13.13 Use flat roofIines as the dominant roofform.
D A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant
roof form.
D Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building.
D False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
13.14 Along a rear facade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is
encouraged.
D Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the
perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary
structure.
D Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate
utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian
activity.
3
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 520 E. DURANT STREET, LOTS N-S, BLOCK
96, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
~
-
RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2005
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-22-006
WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen Mountain Associates, Stephen Marcus, represented by Jeffrey
Halferty Design, has requested Major Development (Conceptual) for the property located at 520
E. Durant Street, Lots N-S, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
_.
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 14, 2005, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 14, 2005, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was ~onsistent with the review
standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the
application by a vote of ~ to ~.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Conceptual) for the property located at 520 E.
Durant Street, Lots N-S, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as proposed.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of December,
2005.
Approved as to Form:
~
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
-,
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Michael Hoffman, Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
o
r-
,
c
,I .
o
I
..
I
I
I V\
I t.
I
M
I 0 lY I~
I s:: ./
I -
)' 0-
f -=+
-+
.~
c
1
\ t.,. '''t.-'
'l~~~\ ''i~~j ..'~,,\;
;." ,,~ ;.
-! J" t"
'lh,'l'\\'"",w
... .' -.., \ ..;.\'i
.; ~~.....,;.,...",
,.
~j;
.~
.t.i
~l
..~. 'J
, ,
,
o
o
I.
c
I,
e'
;,'
.iJ
III
""
o
(-
{?.....-.-;
c
()
.~
J
'I' .,;.r~
. ..
. ,.
I
.., ~.
TI-
c,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
307 S. Mill Street, Minor Review- Public Hearing
DATE:
December 14,2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is a non-historic building within the Commercial Core
Historic District. Formerly the Colony Restaurant, the space will open shortly as the new
restaurant, D 19.
The owner wishes to construct a seasonal airlock at the entry. Staff was unable to make a finding
that this action met the design guidelines in order to issue a "Certificate of No Negative Effect,"
therefore HPC must conduct a Minor Development Review.
In addition to the HPC guidelines, the application is subject to review under the recently adopted
criteria for "Commercial Design Review" which apply to all commercial, lodging, and mixed-use
development in the City that requires a building permit. Review c~iteria related to "Street-Level
Building Elements" apply.
Staff recommends that HPC grant approval for the airlock as proposed.
APPLICANT: Craig Cordtes-Pearce, owner, represented by Jeffrey Halferty Design.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-17-003.
ADDRESS: 307 S. Mill Street, Aspen Commercial Unit A, Block 83, City and Townsite of
Aspen.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
I
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures setforth in Chapter 26.316.
~
.......<
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to add a seasonal airlock on the outside of the entry to
D19. The entry to the restaurant is at the end of a courtyard and is therefore not directly on Mill
Street. The restaurant is located on the Mill Street mall.
The existing building bears little design relationship to the surrounding Victorian development.
Bringing the entry closer to the sidewalk would in general, be beneficial to the streetscape. Staff
did not feel that issuance of a "Certificate of No Negative Effect" was appropriate because of
prior board discussion that temporary entries detract from the character of the historic district.
The design guidelines do not speak directly to this topic. In general, the guidelines describe the
desired character of downtown buildings as having traditional storefronts on the ground floor
with large windows, essentially flat facades and roofs, and clearly defined entries. The
predominant building material is masonry. Objections brought up about temporary airlocks in
the past include their lack of integration with building design and low quality/non-permanent
materials.
In addition, to the HPC guidelines, the following standard from Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards, applies:
C. Street-Level Building Elements.
The "storefront," or street-level portion of a commercial building is perhaps the single most
important element of a commercial district building. Effective storefront design can make an
entire district inviting and pedestrian friendly. Unappealing storefront design can become a
detriment to the vitality of a commercial district. In order to be an effective facility for the sale of
goods and services, the storefront has traditionally been used as a tool to present those goods and
services to the passing pedestrian (potential customer). Because of this function, the storefront
has traditionally been as transparent as possible to allow maximum visibility to the interior. The
following standards shall apply:
""""
I. Unarticulated, blank walls are prohibited. Fenestration, or an alternate means of fayade
articulation, is required on all exterior walls.
2. Retail buildings shall incorporate, at a minimum, a 60% fenestration ratio on exterior street-
level walls facing primary streets. (For example: each street-level wall of a retail building that
faces a primary street must be comprised of at least 60% fenestration penetrations and no more
than 40% solid materials.) This provision may be reduced or waived for lodging properties with
no, or limited, street-level retail, office buildings with no retail component, and for
Service/Commercial/Industrial buildings.
3. Building entrances shall be well-defined and apparent.
4. Building entrances shall be designed to accommodate an internal airlock such that
temporary seasonal airlocks on the exterior of the building are unnecessary.
5. Non-traditional storefronts, such as along an alleyway, are encouraged.
""
This airlock is being applied to an existing building, however the Commercial Design Standards _"
clearly discourage such features.
2
There are a number of airlocks in Aspen that were installed in the past with no review, and others
that have been approved more recently. Community Development feels that if these structures
are considered problematic, consistent regulation should be applied to all of them. Before next
winter season, it is our intention to bring forward more specific requirements for any airlocks that
will be allowed in the future. Those in existence may have to be removed or modified in order to
comply.
The subject airlock is to be installed on a non-historic building and is setback from the sidewalk.
Staff recommends that it be approved.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Minor Development approval for an
airlock at D-19 as proposed.
Exhibits:
Resolution #~, Series of2005
A. Application
1
.J
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 307 S. MILL STREET, ASPEN
COMMERCIAL UNIT A, BLOCK 83, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
""'"
RESOLUTION NO.~, SERIES OF 2005
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-17-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, Craig Cordtes-Pearce, represented by Jeffrey Halferty Design, has
requested approval for Minor Development in order to install an airlock at 307 S. Mill Street,
Aspen Commercial Unit A, Block 83, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constmcted, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information __
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 14, 2005, performed an analysis
of the application based on the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines, and recommended approval withconditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting of December 14, 2005, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the
application with conditions by a vote of ~ to ~.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC approvess Minor Development at 307
S. Mill Street, Aspen Commercial Unit A, Block 83, City and Townsite of Aspen as proposed.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at their regular meeting on the 14th day of
December, 2005.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Michael Hoffman, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
~
""",,,
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
)(,4
c
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
311 S. First Street
DATE:
December 14,2005
SUMMARY: An HPC approved project is currently underway at 311 S. First Street.
This property contains a brick Victorian house that was linked to a much larger
residential structure in the 1970's. The property owners have demolished the link and are
completing an update to materials on the 1970's structure.
During the construction process, staff and monitor (Sarah Broughton) were asked to
consider window replacement on the Victorian. We agreed that the full board should
review this matter. The Design Guidelines chapter on Windows is attached, along with a
detailed inventory of the windows provided by the project architect. HPC members
should visit the site to view the windows.
o
c
..
;jI
iI
~
..
.-
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
(I
"
..
..
"
..
"
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I:
I'
I,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
'.;-." --
Windows
Chapter 3
Windows
o
~: ~ ;~~ "~~~:~;,sw4!:'~~~.v~ ~:r~. ,~~ 1;~it:ii:~~ 2~:: l~;;, .:~~.~ .:~: ~ ~t~ Pc ~., ..,. .~ .~. ~~~~~~{q,7~~! 'l~t:~~~j~~"; ;~~
,!l.'PohcY".".;<O>iC'" ,...." ,,, "'..:k'~" <&~:"n;"',"'f!, "'Pi ,," .,......,.~,.,,'~ 0, ,!l~C"~. """" "~~."'."'
.. .;.;. ,l '!;;:!.;.;l,; ..".~,l-lt,l-"~'~ ..q",. "'1:;" ,.).",,,. C_,':" ....'~,~~.~ :t'",.~.,(,',. .... '~""R'''' "Cr" '~".' "f:~it~..~. _,'~ ..~ :"i~'.!iff>1i"1C
:~-r:,~~ ::~.~ta.Ftelde.f!~1Qg fe~!,U res;91,pj.5\qr~i~\YJf!9?~~~~:R? t~wlr:, ~istiQctiye""i)
;~~J~n.g~,~e~l"pn a w,~!1 s~,~#I~" b~. pr~S~L"~d~,;~hl~;:ls.,e~p~c.l,aIlY,JlIl80~P,pt .
.onpnmary facades. In addition, newwmdows should be In character,-wlth co'
~(~h"~:"'h. do.' ~. :.,.'-r,,:,,. ":;:.- .:~,* ~,;i::~ 1 .:: '7 .,~ ,~,':;'.~";' ,:;. ~ 1.....t,". .~. ,';~ . .,~'-~
ct,t e Istonc bUlldmg."'f, ',,'. . ~~^,",;:", ~., ~.1;; f))'" ;",i' ."4; >1"~ .
:.~~ ~: -:~-- ~ >>,,p ,;. - ~"~~~.~~ ~,~.~' '~~~~tt;~~~p:,''',( ;:i~%J~~.~J~~~:~~ ~1ij'"
Background
Windows are some of the most important
character-defining features of most historic
structures. They give scale to buildings and
provide visual interest to the composition of
individual facades. In fact, distinct window
designs help define many historic building styles.
Windows often are inset into relatively deep
openings or they have surrounding casings and
sash components which have a substantial
dimension that casts shadows and contributes to
the character of the historic style. Because
windows so significantly affect the character of a
historic structure, the treatment of a historic
window and the design of a new one to be added
to a historic structure are therefore very important
considerations.
Key Features of Windows
Window construction
The size, shape and proportions of a historic
window are among its essential features. Many
early residential windows in Aspen were
vertically-proportioned, for example. Another
important feature is the number of "lights," or
panes, into which a window is divided. Typical
windows for many late nineteenth century houses
were of a "one-over-one" type, in which one large
pane of glass was hung above another single
pane. The design of surrounding window casings,
the depth and profile of window sash elements
and the materials of which they were constructed
are also important features. Most historic
windows were made of wood although some
o
Windows are important character-defining features of historic
structures in Aspen. Their size and proportions, the number of
divisions and the design of their trim elements all contribute to
their character.
o
[Clt;y''bi'AspeJJ iiistOncPr"Cservation De$,vn'G;;fJeilnes!'1t":'\ir14~E~~1~;"~~1'f"~~~gtt~ge45'1
...........~~..".'-"...".....,...u,~"~._,.~'- ,....<,r'-'~'lll'n("lIWI".','_.' 'O:::~"" " '." """.' -1 ......:::..ill......i<i
~.~~.'
Chapter 3
introduced. Condensation during winter months
also can cause problems. Damage occurs when
the painted layer is cracked or peeling. Decay can
result that may make operation of the window
difficult, and if left untreated can lead to
significant deterioration of window components.
In most cases, windows are protected if a good
coat of paint is maintained.
c
styles, such as modernist buildings, have metal
casement windows. In either case, the elements
themselves had distinct dimensions, profiles and
finishes that should be respected.
Window types
Windows types typically found in historic
structures of Aspen include:
. Casement - Hinged windows that swing
open, typically to the outside.
Double hung - Two sash elements, one
above the other; both upper and lower sashes
slide within tracks on the window jambs.
Fixed - The sash does not move.
Single hung - Two sash elements, one above
the other; only the lower sash moves.
.
.
.
c
Deterioration of historic windows
Properly maintained, original windows will
provide excellent service for centuries. Most
problems that occur result from a lack of proper
maintenance. For example, the accumulation of
layers of paint on a wood sash may _make
operation difficult. Using proper painting
techniques, such as removing the upper paint
layers and preparing a proper substrate, can solve
this problem.
,
Water d~mage and the ultra-violet degradation
caused by sunlight also are major concerns. If
surfaces fail to drain properly, water may be
Double-hung
Casement
Appropriate for:
. All styles except
Intenultional Style
Appropriate for:
. International Style (with
steel muntins)
c
Typical windOUJ types on historic buildings in Aspen.
~e.46 3~' 1.-l'.,.,..,~,<<_:.' 1
--", ~-.,,~;-:' "-,,,, ';;~"c:_li! ..
Repair of historic windows
Whenever possible, repair a historic window,
rather than replace it. In most cases it is in fact
more economical to repair the existing frame and
glass rather than to replace them. Another benefit
to. repair is that the original 'materials contribute
to the historic character of the building. Even
when replaced with an exact duplicate window,
a portion of the historic building fabric is lost and
therefore such treatment should be avoided.
When deciding whether to repair or replace a
historic window, consider the following:
First, determine the window's architectural
significance. Is it a key character-defining element
of the building? Typically, windows on the front
of the building and on sides that are visible from
the street are key character-defining elements.
Windows which are located on other facades
,which are not character-defining-such as at the
rear of the building or in an obscure location-
and are less visible from public right-of-way, are
typically less significant. Greater flexibility in the
~
~
.' I
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
fI!Id-
~
~
o
Diamond pattern
Geometric
Appropriate for:
. Tudor Revival
. Dutch Colonial Revival
Appropriate for.
. Queen Anne
. Italianate
. Second Empire
. Art Moderne
~~~
. ~~"'"
-.,-."
.' criyp!1f~.Jlist'ohc Preservatl;mr;es1g!!<r:;utdel~
"
"
"
"
"
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
~
...
...
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
!If)
Windows
Sill
Rail
Wall
Head
Glazing
Mullion/
Muntin
Stile
Stops
Sash
Jamb
Casing
Typical double-hung window components.
treatment' or replacement of such secondary
windows may be considered.
A second step is to inspect the window to
determine its condition. Distinguish superficial
signs of deterioration from actual failure of
window components. Peeling paint and dried
. wood, for example, are serious problems, but
often do not indicate that a window is beyond
repair. What constitutes a deteriorated window?
A rotted sill may dictate its replacement, but it
does not indicate the need for an entirely new
window. Determining window condition must
occur on a case-by-case basis; however, as a
general rule, a window merits preservation, with
perhaps selective replacement of components,
when more than fifty percent of the window
components can be repaired.
Third, determine the appropriate treatment for
the window. Surfaces may require cleaning and
patching. Some components may be deteriorated
beyond repair. Patching and splicing in new
material for only those portions that are decayed
should be considered in such a case, rather than
replacing the entire window. If, however, the
entire window must be replaced, the new one
should match the original in appearance.
o
Energy conservation
In some cases, owners may be concerned that an
older window is less efficient in terms of energy
conservation. In winter, for example, heat loss
associated with an older window may make a
room uncomfortable and increase heating costs.
In fact, most heat loss is associated with air leakage
though gaps in an older window that are the
result of a lack of maintenance, rather than loss
of energy through the single pane of glass found
in historic windows. Glazing compound may be
cracked or missing, allowing air to move around
the glass. Sash members also may have shifted,
leaving a gap for heat loss.
The most cost-effective energy conservation
measures for most historic windows are to replace
the glazing compound, repair wood members and
install weather stripping. These steps will
dramatically reduce heat loss while preserving
historic features.
o
If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash
design of the original window (as this one does).
o
re,' I-ty.o[Aspm'1HStoncPreservatton'1J~cuj"Jerrnes r.:;~~~~~.i.~~;:"'~rn~i".d~:~~'k!~4~J
......'~. _~n' '~~...~ ,. '.," _'~~~_"."',(}'""_'_'~"'''''' '. <:;.~...., .",'}- ..>.:.;. ",..."':'t'. .' ..... '''''''''"'''''.;u..i;.l:
...
-.'~.' -
Chapter 3
A frequent concern is the material of the
replacement window. While wood was most often
used historically, metal and vinyl clad windows
are common on the market today and sometimes
are suggested as replacement options by window
suppliers. In general, using the same material as
the original is preferred. If the historic window
was wood, for example, then using a wood
replacement is the best approa~h.
o
c
The most cost-effective rnergy conservation measures for most
historic windows are to replace the glazing compound, repair wood
members and install weather stripping.
If additional energy savings are a concern,
consider installing a storm window. This may be
applied to the interior or the exterior of the
window. It should be designed to match the
historic window divisions such that the exterior
appearance of the original window is not
obscured.
o
Replacement windows
While replacing an entire window assembly is
discouraged, it may be necessary in some cases.
When a window is to be replaced, the new one
should match the appearance of the original to
the greatest extent possible. To do so, the size and
proportion of window elements, including glass
and sash components, should match the original.
In most cases, the original profile, or outline of
the sash components, should be the same as the
original. At a minimum, the replacement
components should match the original in
dimension and profile and the original depth of
the window opening should be maintained.
age 48' ';J ,.,~...,~;~ ,_:c..
'. "":'.,~":,,.;;>.V\"_;
However, it is possible to consider alternative
materials in some special.cases, if the resulting
appearance will match that of the original, in
terms of the finish of the material, its proportions
and profile of sash members. For example, if a
metal window is to be used as a substitute for a
wood one, the sash components should be similar
in size and design to those of the original. The
substitute material also should have a
demonstrated durability in similar applications
in this climate.
Finally, when replacing a historic window, it is
important to preserve the original casing when
feasible. This trim element often conveys
distinctive stylistic features associated with the
historic building style and may be costly to
reproduce. Many good window manufacturers
today provide replacement windows that will fit
exactly within historic window casings.
:<..,..~-, ~:;
~~~7.j.I') w:~ :-
~;.~~~I.,....::!-._~=rD Q. Q 1':-
. '~ - ~ - ~ .,.....,j ", -...- - -
-~ " ~ -~--.
~" 4.1 """
~ ~>- '.ll ~'_;' ~
II. . ~ '. 1 .
. f~~.:-1~' '1;~
;. , ~
~
.- I
~
~
,,-
,-
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
,{;;'
1
.
"-
'\ ,:
;,:tf1f.~~"';5:~~~~i:~~i~;~1iI
When replacing a window, the new one should match theappearance
of ~he original as closely as possible.
,-',;,!, 1 0 As;;;;:Htsto'..;ep'riserv- ttc)1iD.esiS!!.:~!lid.eli,!~
, ,
~
1,=
~
~
4
4
4
4
4
4
-4
4
4
~
c@l
~
..
'.-
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
dl
"
~
~
~
~
~
~
:t
t
t
i
i
;
-"--.------ --...~._--"-~-,- ----'--,-.--,................ ,-----~
---'':':-';''-==-~:;:,,~ -:-:--- ~:--~_ _.:........-:c.;---:-::.-:-::::"-,-~-~-~~--------=-.:-:--.,. -.c,.~
'-,.
Treatment of Windows .
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative
features of a historic window.
. Features important to the character of a
window include its frame, sash, muntins/
mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings,
operation and groupings of windows.
Repair frames and sashes rather than
replacing them, whenever conditions
permit.
Preserve the original glass, when feasible.
.
.
3.2 Preserve the position, number and
arrangement of historic windows in a building
wall.
.
Enclosing a historic window opening in a
key character-defining facade is
inappropriate, as is adding a new window
opening. This is especially important on
primary facades where the historic ratio of
solid-to-void is a character-defining feature.
Greater flexibility in installing new windows
may be considered on rear walls.
Do not reduce an original opening to
accommodate a smaller window or door or
increase it to receive a larger window on
primary facades.
.
.
Original opening has
been blocked dOWl1
"'"
o
DI5COuragea
Windows
o
1- 1-4
01
DJ
Historic
Preserve the size and proportions ola historic window opening. The
new windO'Ul (on the left) is smaller than the historic window and
is inappropriate.
Preserve the position, number, siu and arrangement of historic
windows in a building wall.
(t
o
~OJ~~P,=i1~<s!",a!~~n T!es7gn"'(;~rJeltnesJ;;{_ ~.,' ~;, '~'''''i'.:';i'''''''i~I~'''')''f'r~iiQj:1t~~;~;Ul:fif,'!)!;
Chapter 3 .
Replacement Windows
3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window
openings to solid wall on a facade.
o Significantly increasing the amount of glass
on a character-defining facade will
negatively affect the integri ty of a structure.
c
Appropriate
Inapproprlau
Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a
primary facade.
,~~~f~
.5-~'-,;~lI:_"'
""-- -->~~!
".~
7::t}~
c
On a replacement window, use materials that are the same as Hie
original.
I
c
3.4 Match a replacement window to the
original in its design.
. 0 If the original is double-hung, then the
replacement window should also be double-
hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so.
Match the replacement also in the number
and position of glass panes.
o Matching the original design is particularly
important on key character-defining facades.
3.5 In a replacement window, use materials
thai appear similar to the original.
o Using the same material as the original is
preferred, especially on character-defining
facades. However, a substitute material may
be considered if the appearance of the
window components will match those of
the original in dimension, profile and finish.
..,
~
,
...
...
..,
....
i
..
...
..
..
~
~
~
,.
".
~
r
If'
r
r.
i-
f!!'
~
-
3.6 Preserve Ihe size and proportion of a
historic window opening.
o Reducing an original opening to
accommodate a smaller window or
increasing it to receive a larger window is
inappropriate. .
o Consider reopening and restoring an
original window opening where altered.
.
~q.."\i:;L~~;r;illi~:;1M"'~TJiWi~J"!::::!:il!'.~'~!Y 0 Aspm HiSt9nc i't""viiti;;;;"D$S'!<;u,d,j..e
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
t
.
t
.
.
l
.
"
t
~
~
~
.
.
t
!'
.
l-----
~
Windows
n
3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of
the sash and its components to that of the original
window.
. A historic window often has a complex
profile. Within the window's casing, the
sash steps back to the plane of the glazing
(glass) in several increments. These
increments, which individually only
measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are
important details. They distinguish the
actual window from the surrounding plane
of the wall.
Preferred
"
.
.
u.
os>
~
'"
'5
10
0'
.'
"
u.
os>
~
'"
'5
10
HI.to.., proftle
C)
Do not reduce the size of an original
opening on a significant wall.
.,
DI5coura ed
C)
o
.
"
u.
'"
~
'"
'5
10
Acceptable replacement
proftle
Unacceptable replacement profile
Section Through Window Sill
When replacing a historic window, match, as clearly as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that4 the original window.
This example is primarily fC?T historic wood frame buildings. .
a11i01A;spen.~lst~~~jP;e~at;onD~Jrl 'C[lJeti, s,~--!
C)
Chapter 3
IP:
f1
If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash
design and material of the original window.
Very little energy is
lost through a pane
of glass.
This part of the
window, where
most leakage
occurs, should be
sealed to conserve
energy.
Most hellt los5 is associated with air leakage through gaps in an
older window that are tlle result of a hick of maintenance, mtlia
than loss of mergy through the single pane of glass fOllnd in the
historic window
~Ra.~f! 52
Energy Conservation
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy
conservation rather than to replace a historic
window.
. Install a storm window on the interior, when
feasible. This will allow the character of the
original window to be seen from the public
way.
. If a storm window is to be installed on the
exterior, match the sash design and ma terial
of the original window. It should fit tightly
within the window opening without the
need for sub-frames or panning around the
perimeter.
'~(~iL;fVati~n~beSiift~'9~~!~eline~
'-' I '
~
~'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
l\~,if
_\, J-1~ 1 i<;;,Li::pl(':-_il1dl1
Date: December 8, 2005
To: The City 01 Aspen
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611-1975
Attn: Amy Guthrie, liistoric Preservation Ollicer
Dear Amy: Thank you lor meeting with us and arranging a meeting lor us with the review
committee on December 14 at about 7:00 pm.
Based on our December 5 meeting I have made revisions to the plans lor 100 West Bleeker St. I
am providin8 -you with seven sets of the ori8inall':l discussed concept desi811 development
drawings. I am providing three new drawings rellecting design changes that address concerns you
expressed.
Concept:
. Retain the existin8 historic structure in its current ori8inallocation.
. Maximize the developed new space to provide a home for the new owner
. The new home will contain four bedrooms and support spaces
. Anticipate replacing the existing garaae and accesstng the new garage lrom the alley
instead 01 Garmish Street.
. Adding a two story element to the North end 01 the site (alley side)
. The addition would be separated by a single story connecting element. The Bleeker
Street entnj will be retained in its original (current) state.
. Explore the possibility 01 reconliguring or adding windows to the East elevation 01 the
existing building which does not lace public space.
. Provide a complimentary distinguishable addition to the existing building so that the
historic character 01 the primary building is tqaintained.
. Align the west walls 01 the addition and the original primary building.
Goals:
. Review setbacks lor the addition
. Review general character 01 the addition
. Approval lor the design concept
Best regards
Dick liampleman, Architect
-08,32// Celt