HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20070214
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. REGULAR MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
5:00 pm
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 SOUTH GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: Please visit the sites on your own.
5:00 MEETING
I. Roll Call
II. Minutes Approval
III. Public
IV. Commission Comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual & apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff Comments (5 minutes)
rv~v g - Cfv\,b
~\)
7f,
Jlu So b
VIII. Old Business:
A. None.
IX. New Business:
hllV\y-A. 640 N. Third- Parking Variance and encroachment license,
PUBLIC HEARING (30 minutes) refsiiG
QJ,:tv<IB. 202 N. Monarch- Major Development Final Review, PUBLIC
HEARING (30 minutes) *1M"'-f ,1~7
Snn~~ ---C. 434 E. Cooper- (Bidwell Building/ Mountain Plaza) Major
Development Conceptual Review and Commercial Design Standards-
PUBLIC HEARING (60 minutes)
X. Worksessions:
A. None.
XI. Annual HPC awards- information will be given to HPC at the end of the
meeting.
XII. Adjourn at 7:15
i!~A~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Connnission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
640 N. Third Street- Parking Variance, Public Hearing
DATE:
February 14, 2007
SUMMARY: The subject property contains a Victorian era home currently under construction
as part of an HPC approved rehab. It has been determined that the intention to provide three on-
site parking spaces (two for the residence and one for a voluntary ADD) via a wide curb cut off
of Third Avenue is in conflict with design standards established by the Engineering Department.
The applicant requests a waiver of one on-site space in order to meet the regulation and to
minimize impacts to the historic property and neighborhood.
Staffrecommends that the parking variance be granted finding that the HPC review criteria are
met.
APPLICANT: Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by B1uegreen.
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-08-002
ADDRESS: 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block
102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado. The property has
been subdivided through a Historic Landmark Lot Split.
ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential)
PARKING VARIANCE
Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the
number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Connnercial designated
historic properties may receive waivers of payment- in-lieu fees for parking reductions.
In order to grant a parking waiver, HPC must find that the review standard of Section
26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code is met. It requires that:
1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding
by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance
or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated
property or a historic district.
1
STAFF RESPONSE: The parking space cannot be acconnnodated on the site in a manner that
meets the Engineering standards for maximum curb cut. Additionally, a wide curb cut on a
primary street is out of character with the West End. The curb cut for the ADU parking spot
actually displaces a usable on-street parking area. Staff reconnnends that the parking waiver be
granted.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the parking waiver criterion is met and reconnnends
waiver of the ADU parking space for 640 N. Third Street.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #_, Series of2007.
Exhibit:
Resolution #_, Series of2007
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE THE ON-SITE PARKING SPACE
RELATED TO THE ADU AT 640 N. THIRD STREET, LOTS 4,5, AND 6 (LESS THE
SOUTHERLY 3.2 FEET OF LOT 6), BLOCK 102, HALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-08-002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by B1uegreen, has requested a
parking variance for the property located at 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the
southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, for approval of a parking variance, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.C of
the Municipal Code, is met; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated February 14, 2007, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found that the review standards were met, and
recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 14, 2007, the Historic Preservation
Connnission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards and approved the application by a vote of _ to _'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants a wavier for the elimination of one on-site parking space related to the
ADU at 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102,
Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meetiug ou the 14th day of February,
2007.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
~
~'~ _.J
December 5, 2006
'0"
Amy Guthrie - Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Via hand delivery -
RE: Daggs Residence, 640 North 3rd Street in Aspen, Colorado
ADU Parking Variance
Dear Amy:
Please find attached eight (8) sets of application forms and 11x17 drawings (listed
on page two of this letter) being provided for a Historic Preservation Commission
Minor Development submission. As proposed, we are requesting your approval of
a parking variance to relieve the property of one Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
parking space.
ADU Parking Variance
The property contains a preexisting one-bedroom living unit that was officially
registered as an ADU with the City of Aspen in 2005. This unit was habited for
decades though never had a designated on-site parking space. At the time of ADU
registration, Charles Cunniffe Architects (CCA) proposed an on-site parking space
as seen on the Architectural Site Plan sheet No. Al (enclosed).
This property is unique in that it has no adjacent alley and instead is located
between Lake Avenue and North Third Street. As a result, parking is unable to be
kept to the "rear," or alley side of the property. As was presented in the original
development application, the site can best accommodate an ADU parking space
adjacent to the garage and accessed from North Third Street. Unfortunately,
providing this parki'1g space would require a curb-cut in excess of 18 feet and the
loss of 1 on-street parking space. The required 36-foot curb cut is not a historic
pattern of this neighborhood and we find the extent of hardscape to be a
deterioration to the historic street character as discussed in Chapter One,
Guideline 1.13 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
In accordance with the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.415.110.C
granting this variance will:
Relieve a site unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces
required by the underlying zoning as well as mitigate an adverse impact
on the historic character of the designated property by keeping the curb
cut to a minimum and continuing the neighborhood pattern of parallel
street parking.
Daggs Minor Development Application
640 North Third Street
In addition, with the approval of this variance, a second "design standard" conflict
will also be resolved. To access both the ADU parking space and the garage, a
driveway curb cut over 18 feet is necessary (Refer: 18-foot maximum curb cut per
the City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 21.16.060(e)(1) and ADU off-street
parking required per the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.515.030). With
the relief of the ADU parking space a curb cut of 18 feet or less, and the historic
pattern, will be maintained.
Thank you for your consideration of this application and we look forward to
discussing it with you further at our hearing scheduled for early 2007.
Sincerely,
v~~
Valerie Alexander, ASLA
Enclosures:
Letter of Authorization for Representation
Disclosure of Ownership
Vicinity Map
Neighborhood Site Plan
Site Improvements Survey
Land Use Application
Fees Agreement
Fees Due (check)
General Information Checklist
Dimensional Requirements Ft;Jrm (information copied from previous application
prepared by Charles Cunniffe Architects)
Photographs (Item #16 not included per Historic Preservation Department)
Building Materials and Finishes (Item #17 not included per Historic Preservation
Department)
Proposed Landscape/Site Plan (scaled)
Lighting Plan (Item #37 not included per Historic Preservation Department)
Attachment 7 Affidavit of Public Notice
Resolution #43, Series of 2002 Major Development Approval
Architectural Site Plan sheet No. A1.1 (for architecture only - not landscape)
Daggs Minor Development Application
2
640 North Third Street
~
"
"
..
~
'"
"
:0
'"
'"
..
on
'"
N
..
0
~
on
'"
on
'"
"-
'"
'"
..
0
,-
'"
.'
E ;;;
0 &i
"
" 0
'" -0
0. "
~ is
~ 0
ID "
'" c
i5> '"
W 0.
~ "
:n ro
j
3
$ ;:!
Oi
;!l
'5
~
-
'"
~
t;
0>
oS
a.
"
.c
:;
"
"
0
"
'"
November 20, 2006.
Amy Guthrie - Historic Preservation
City of Aspen Planning Department
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Via hand delivery-
To Whom It May Concern:
As owner of 640 North Third Street in Aspen, Colorado, I authorize Biuegreen to act on my behalf for
the submission and presentation of the property's Minor Development application.
SIncerely,
/1
/.
/
.'
~~~
es K. Daggs
Owner
Ellen G. Daggs
Owner
File No: PC05001898
Attorneys Title Guaranty Fund, Inc.
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
1. Commitment Date: August 30, 2005, 05:00 pm
Commitment Issued: September 02,2005, 05:00 pm
2.
Policy (or Policies) to be issued:
POLICY AMOUNT
(a) AL TA OWNER'S POLICY
Proposed Insured:
(b)
AL T A LOAN POLICY
Proposed Insured: Forum Capital Investments
;~_iIT1
~.." .~
Proposed Borrower: James K. Daggs and Ellen G. Daggs
3. Fee Simple interest in the land described in this Commitment is owned, at the Commitment Date,
by James K. Daggs and Gay Daggs
4. The land referred to in the Commitment is described as follows:
Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 102, Hallams Addition, adjacent to the City and Townsite of Aspen,
except the South 3.2 feet of said Lot 6, Pitkin County, Colorado.
Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC
~-
Bye. ~
Authorized Officer or Agent
ALTA Commilmenl- Schedule A
Page \
lKu'a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Connnission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
202 N. Monarch Street- Major Development (Final)- Public Hearing
DATE:
February 14, 2007
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 9,047 square foot lot which contains a large Victorian
era home built circa 1886. The applicant has received HPC approval for Conceptual design and
approval to relocate the house on the site, to undertake restoration and to construct a new garage.
A landmark FAR bonus and a variance from one aspect of the "Residential Design Standards"
have been granted. HPC will be presented with the design for a detached, condominiumized
home on the north half of the property at an upcoming meeting.
Staff finds that the project meets the applicable HPC design guidelines and reconnnends Final
approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: Semrau Family, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Jeffrey
Halferty Design.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-17-005.
ADDRESS: 202 N. Monarch Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 78 aka Lot I, 202 N. Monarch
Street Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
PROJECT REVIEW
Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals
to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be the center of future
discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the
questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
1. Why is the property significant? The home on this property is significant as one of
Aspen's relatively few remaining examples of a "high style" Victorian residence.
2. What are the key features of the property? Key features of the property are the high
visibility of the historic structure, gracious setbacks, and the fact that there have been very
few modifications to the building massing. Historic details have been removed or
covered over, however, numerous doors, windows, and other features are intact.
3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? The
surrounding context is sensitive to change and at one time was under consideration as the
1
"
"Community 'Church Historic District." There are numerous 19th century structures
remaining in the inllnediate area.
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? The
integrity score will be decreased by a small amount as a result of the on-site relocation. It
will be improved through many restoration actions such as removing the synthetic siding
and re-opening the front porch. The proposed addition is small and, when in full
compliance with the guidelines, will not threaten the integrity score for this property.
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property? Undeveloped FAR will remain available to this site. The applicant intends to
construct a detached new home to the north.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s} and/or addition(s} as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant,
A significant number of the HPC design guidelines apply to this project. Those guidelines are
identified in the application, therefore staff has not reprinted them as an exhibit to this memo.
The applicant proposes to undertake a significant restoration of the subject house, which is very
connnendable. Some historic materials have just been covered up by synthetic materials, but
other features appear to be gone and will be reconstructed using historic photographs. The
application also includes re-opening an enclosed porch on the north side of the house.
The new construction that will affect the building amounts to a new deck on the south side, and a
one story connector and single car garage on the rear. Conceptual approval required a restudy of
the pitch for the roof on the new garage and a restudy to place the southernmost wall of the
garage at least in the same plane as the closest section of the southern wall of the Victorian
house, if not more recessed. The requested restudies have been accomplished. The connector is
appropriate and staff supports the more steeply pitched roof on the garage finding that it better
meets guideline 10.9:
2
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
Staff finds that the proposed addition is modest in size and will result in a successful project,
particularly once the high style Queen Anne features are reconstructed. Based on representations
in the application, rehabilitation of all historic material is expected, with staff and monitor review
of issues as they come up in the field. Detailed drawings of the reconstructed elements will be
needed.
We have only minor concerns to address with regard to lightwells, landscape, lighting, and the
proposed deck railing;.
Staff has a concern with the Iightwell that is proposed directly next to the front porch of the
historic building. All of the Iightwells must use grates, not railings for protection, however we
reconnnend study of a less prominent location for this well, if possible, on the north fal(ade, even
ifit becomes adjacent to the north porch. The guidelines state:
9.7 A Iightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
D In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a str,eet (per the Residential Design
Standards).
D The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
D A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by
a simple fence or rail.
Limited information is provided about the landscape, other than to state that historic elements
will be retained to the greatest extent possible. The front walkway must meet this design
guideline:
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
D This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the
"private" spaces beyond.
D Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
D Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete,
wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
The material for the walkway, and the south patio, must be identified. Staff reconnnends that the
south patio be orthogonal in shape, consistent with the character of the historic house.
3
On the upper floor deck, staff questions the contemporary glass railing abutting this very
decorative Victorian home. The railing design should be restudied for staff and monitor approval
in order to be a simple reflection of other similar elements on the rest of the house.
Finally, staff reconnnends restudy of the proposed new light fixture to be more residential, rather
than connnercia1 in appearance. The guidelines state:
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to
that used traditionally.
o The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
o All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
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 reconnnends that HPC grant Major Development (Final)
approval for the Victorian house at 202 N. Monarch Street with the following conditions:
1. The roof design on the garage shall be as reflected on Sheet A3.l.
2. All historic materials are to be preserved and restored, or otherwise reviewed by staff and
monitor.
3. Details of all reconstructed elements must be submitted for review and approval by staff
and monitor.
4. Restudy the lightwell on the west fayade, moving to the north if possible, for review by
staff and monitor.
5. Design walkways on the site to meet guidelines 1.9. Provide the design for review and
.
approval by staff and monitor. Include the proposed material.
6. Identify the material for the south patio, and redesign it to be orthogonal in form.
7. The railing design must be restudied for staff and monitor approval in order to be a
simple reflection of other similar elements on the rest of the house.
8. Select a different light fixture that is more residential, rather than connnercial in
appearance.
9. There shall be no deviations from the approved plans without prior review and approval.
10. The contractor shall have a specialty license in historic preservation.
4
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE
VICTORIAN HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 202 N. MONARCH
STREET, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 78 AKA LOT 1, 202 N. MONARCH STREET
SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-17-005
WHEREAS, the applicant, Semrau Family, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, has
requested Major Development (Final) for 202 N. Monarch Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 78 aka
Lot 1, 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, 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 Connnunity Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated February 14, 2007, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were met, and reconnnended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 14, 2007, the Historic Preservation
Connnission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the
application by a vote of _ to _'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC grants approval for Major Development (Final) for the Victorian house at 202 N. Monarch
Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 78 aka Lot 1, 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as proposed, with the following conditions:
~
I. The roof design on the garage shall be as reflected on Sheet A3.1.
2. All historic materials are to be preserved and restored, or otherwise reviewed by staff and
monitor.
3. Details of all reconstructed elements must be submitted for review and approval by staff
and monitor.
c-
4. Restudy the lightwell on the west fa<;ade, moving to the north if possible, for review by
staff and monitor.
5. Design walkways on the site to meet guidelines 1.9. Provide the design for review and
approval by staff and monitor. Include the proposed material.
6. Identify the material for the south patio, and redesign it to be orthogonal in form.
7. The railing design must be restudied for staff and monitor approval in order. to be a
simple reflection of other similar elements on the rest of the house.
8. Select a different light fixture that is more residential, rather than connnercial in
appearance.
9. There shall be no deviations from the approved plans without prior review and approval.
10. The contractor shall have a specialty license in historic preservation.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of February,
2007.
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
1Z ~e ·
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE:
434 East Cooper Avenue, Major Development Review (Conceptual) and
Commercial Design Review- Public Hearing
DATE:
February 14,2007
SUMMARY: The applicant requests Conceptual Major Development approval and Connnercial
Design approval to redevelop the site located on the comer of Galena and Cooper Streets. HPC
granted demolition approval for the extant two story Bidwell Building on May 24, 2006 by a vote
of 3 -2; and voted 4-1 to reconnnend against landmark designation on September 27, 2006. The
designation hearing before City Council is scheduled for February 12,2007- Staff will relay the
outcome at the February 14, 2007 HPC meeting.
Typically, an application of this nature would include Parking requirements and Wheeler Opera
House Viewplane review; however, the applicant has specifically requested that HPC only
review the proposed design at this meeting.
Staff finds that the guidelines are not met and recommends that HPC continue the application to
restudy the mass, scale, and relationship to context.
APPLICANT: Bidwell Investment Corporation, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land
Planning, LLC; Klein, Cote & Edwards, P.C.; and Rowland + Broughton Architecture and Urban
Design.
PARCELID: 2737-182-16-001.
ADDRESS: 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, 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
I
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response:
Context
The property is part of the Connnercial Core Historic District and sits on a prominent comer
location downtown. It is in close proximity to important landmarks: Aspen Block Building is
directly across the alleyway to the north; the Independence Square building is located diagonally
across the street; and the Red Onion is located to the west. Directly across Cooper Street is the
old Guido's building, which exhibits a chalet style form. 434 East Cooper borders the Cooper
Pedestrian mall and the Galena Street thoroughfare and the east fa9ade faces the popular open
space in front of Paradise Bakery. (See Exhibit C for images)
DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed,
are included in the memo.
Staff Response: The general preservation philosophy for the Connnercial Core Historic District
is for improvements, specifically 3-story proposals, to "strike a balance in the design variables"
suggested in the Guidelines; and the basic goal for infill is to combine creative and contemporary
design and historic context. This prominent and popular comer in downtown Aspen embodies
the potential for exciting new construction that has both a clear dialogue with its historic context
and stands on its own as an important contemporary building.
The applicant proposes one building to cover three lots downtown and to fill the sunken
courtyard that currently exists. This will align the building with the city grid and configuration, as
stated in Guidelines 13.1 and 13.2:
2
13.1 Respect the established town grid in all projects.
. Maintain the alignment of streets and alleys whenever feasible.
13.2 Orient a new building parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building
orientations.
. The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street.
Staff is concerned about the relationship of public spaces- the public space in front of Paradise
Bakery and the Cooper Street pedestrian ~mall space. Design goals for the Connnercial Core are
to "reinforce the retail-oriented function of the street and enhance its pedestrian character." The
retail goal is clearly fulfilled in the proposal, but staff is concerned about the negative impact of
the proposed architecture on pedestrian character and activity on the corner. One of the main
problems raised during the demolition review at HPC was the existing nonfunctional sunken
courtyard. Staff is concerned that the proposal will just fill the void with an uninviting solid that
perpetuates, rather than solves, the existing problem. Below is a comparison of open space at the
intersection of Galena and Cooper Streets:
":;5
~
.~
~
~.
I
I
Building proposed by applicant at center.
f
Illustration of building with a much more
exaggerated corner element to relate to the
Paradise Bakery, the old Guido's building,
and Independence Square open spaces.
Staff is not opposed to having a strong corner presence, but wants to ensure that pedestrian
activity is enhanced. Maybe eroding the corner piece more, as illustrated above, is not the
answer- Staff would like HPC to weigh in on this issue.
The applicant proposes to build portions of the building to the maximum 42' height limit in the
Commercial Core along the property line, and proposes a 46' high elevator shaft at the center of
the roof. The project falls into the Wheeler Opera House viewplane to some extent, but the
applicant has chosen not to include an analysis in this review.
The first aspect regarding height that Staff will address is the proposed floor plates. The
introductory section of the Connnercial Core Historic District chapter in the Design Guidelines
describe storefront character (pageI03):
"First floors are predominantly fixed plate glass with a small percentage of
opaque materials. Upper floorS are the reverse... The street level is generally taller
3
than the upper floors. . Storefronts of 12 to 14 feet high are typical, whereas
second floors of 10 to 12 feet are typical."
The proposed first flooris 13' followed by a 10' high second floor and a 13' high third floor.
Floor to floor height should be generous on the first floor, as proposed, and a smaller consistent
height should be found on the upper floors. Staff finds that matching the fust and third floor
plate heights at 13', with a shorter 10' second floor between, is inconsistent with the goals of
new development in the Connnercial Core and the surrounding historic resources. The upper
floors heights should be designed to be reasonable for livability, but sensitive to an appropriate
overall height for the building given adjacent structures. Staff reconnnends that the applicant
restudy the floor heights to better comply with this tenet.
Staff is not opposed to building the height to the maximum 42' limit in the Connnercial Core and
feels that to a certain degree the infill design needs to hold its own as a contemporary building in
the comer location. Staff finds that proposed design elements emphasize height and verticality
rather than a horizontal emphasis and distinction between storefront and upper floors, which
conflicts with guideline 13.10:
13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
. In general, a proposed three-story building must demonstrate that it has no
negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby.
. The height and proportions of all fayade components must appear to be in scale
with nearby historic buildings.
The design is emphasizing the height of the structure through the creation of three story columns
that are thick and in some areas span the entire height of the building. Recessing the glazing
walls behind the face of the columns only furthers this problem. Overall, the structure is very
complex in terms of recess and projection of wall planes and cornice line. Also, the building
appears to include a wide palette of materials, which perpetuates the problem. Staff recommends
an overall simplification of the design.
An effort is made to break the building into traditional modules with the proposed columns and
the covered decks on each fayade; however, staff finds that the continuous cornice line and the
heavy columns are unsuccessful in breaking up the mass and creating interest at the busy comer.
The comer element is overstated through the use of several three story columns and a projecting
window. Staff finds that Guidelines 13.9 and 13.11 are not entirely met:
4
13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
. The design of a 3-story building should be in character of the downtown.
. 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.
13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to buildings
seen historically.
. Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design
features to suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in fayade material,
window design, fayade height or decorative details are examples of techniques
that may be considered. These variations should be expressed throughout the
depth of the structure such that the composition appears to be a collection of
smaller buildings.
Staff is concerned with the pediment style roof line that the applicant proposes for the section
closest to the Red Onion, and finds that it negatively imitates the historic landmark by confusing
new and old styles.
Staff finds that Guideline 13.12 is met in that the applicant proposes rectangular forms for both
the Galena Street and Cooper Street facades.
13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Connnercial Core facades.
. Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
. The fayade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and
projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant
form.
Overall, Staff reconnnends that the applicant restudy the mass and scale and lean more toward a
simplified and contemporary interpretation of historic downtown styles.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE
An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
I. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides a more-appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not
required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to connnercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the fayade of the
building may be required to comply with this section.
5
3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a
Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan
approval from the Historic Preservation Connnission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This
criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Staff Response: The Commercial Design Standards are attached to this memo as "Exhibit B."
They are in many ways similar to HPC's own guidelines. Staff find that the Connnercial Design
Standards are met.
For redevelopment of parcels on which less than 25% currently exists, the existing percentage
(prior to development) shall be the effective requirement provided no less than 10% is required.
Therefore, the applicant is required to provide an area equal to 10% of the site as a pedestrian
amenity (formerly open space). However, for redevelopment of parcels in which 10% is the
requirement, provision of a cash-in lieu payment shall be automatically permitted with no further
review. In conclusion, the applicant is going to pay cash-in-Iieu for pedestrian amenity space,
which does not require HPC review.
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: Staffreconnnends that HPC continue the application to restudy the
mass, scale, height, and relationship to historic context.
Exhibits:
A. Design Guidelines
B. Connnercial Design Standards
C. Context Images
D. Application
6
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 434 East Cooper Street, Conceptual Review"
13.1 Respect the established town grid in all projects.
D Maintain the aligrunent of streets and alleys whenever feasible.
13.2 Orient a new building parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building
orientations.
D The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street.
13.3 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
D Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial
buildings, this should be a recessed entry way.
D Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
D Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger
buildings.
13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
D Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce
perceived scale.
D Balconies, court yards and decks are also encouraged.
D Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be
covered or protected and clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the
primary street-side entrance.
13.5 Retain the character of the alley as a part of the original town grid.
D Maintain an alley as an open space.
D Alleys also may be used as pedestrian ways.
13.8 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge.
D Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible.
D Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
D Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements
to define the sidewalk edge.
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 F1oor-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.
13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to
buildings seen historically. .
D Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to
suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design, facade
height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered. These
variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the
composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings.
13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
D Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
7
o The facade should appear as predorrrinantly flat, with any decorative elements and
projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dorrrinant form.
13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form.
o A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dorrrinant roof form.
o Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged.
o A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among historic
buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products of
their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors.
o The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
o In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design.
13.16 Develop the ground f1o.?r level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity.
o Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts
should maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows and
transoms.
o Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are
visible from the street, are particularly encouraged.
o The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" entrances are
inappropriate.
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
o The first floor of the primary facade should be predorrrinantly transparent glass. .
o Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story
windows should have a vertical emphasis.
o Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.
o Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels
through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important
feature in this relationship.
13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block.
o Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as
tall as they are wide.
o Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement
relative to cornices and belt courses.
13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a block.
o Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to
establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians.
o Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by
the upper floor(s).
o Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront.
13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be
maintained.
8
o Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices,
copings and parapets at the tops of buildings.
o When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some
slight variation in alignments between the facade elements.
13.21 Special feahrres that highlight buildings on corner lots may be considered.
o Develop both street elevations to provide visual interest to pedestrians.
o Comer entrances, bay windows and towers are examples of elements that may be
considered to emphasize comer locations.
o Storefront windows, display cases and other elements that provide visual interest to facades
along side streets are also appropriate.
Exhibit B: Commercial Design Standards.
The following design standards shall apply to commercial, lodging, and mixed-use development:
A. Building Relationship to Primary Street.
A street wall is comprised of buildings facing principal streets and public pedestrian spaces.
Consistent street walls provide a sense of a coherent district and frame an outdoor room.
Interruptions in this enclosure can lessen the quality of a connnercial street. Comer buildings are
especially important, in that they are more visible and their scale and proportion affects the street
walls of two streets. Well-designed and located pedestrian open spaces can positively affect the
quality of the district, while remnant or leftover spaces can detract from the downtown. A
building's relationship to the street is entirely important to the quality of the downtown
pedestrian environment. Split-level retail and large vertical separations from the sidewalk can
disrupt the coherence of a retail district. The following standards shall apply:
1. Building facades shall be parallel to the adjoining primary streets. Minor elements of the
building fa<(ade may be developed at irregular angles.
2. Building facades along primary streets shall be setback no mOre than the average setback
of the adjoining buildings and no less than the minimum requirement of the particular
zone district. Exempt from this provision are building setbacks accommodating On-Site
Pedestrian Amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
3. Building facades along primary streets shall maintain a consistent setback on the first and
second story.
4. Connnercial buildings shall be developed with the first floor at, or within two (2) feet
above, the level of the adjoining sidewalk, or right-of-way if no sidewalk exists. "Split-
level" retail frontage is prohibited.
5. Connnercial buildings incorporating a setback from a primary street shall not incorporate
a substantial grade change between the building fa<(ade and the public right-of-way.
"Moats" surrounding buildings are prohibited.
B. Pedestrian Amenity Space.
Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting, and vital
downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere.
9
Pedestrian amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-
of-way or private property within commercial areas.
On parcels required to provide pedestrian amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030 - Pedestrian
Amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the
method or combination of methods of providing the Pedestrian Amenity shall be at the option of
the Planning and Zoning Connnission, or the Historic Preservation Connnission as applicable,
according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards:
I. The dimensions of any proposed on-site pedestrian amenity sufficiently allow for a
variety of uses and activities to occur considering any expected tenant and future potential
tenants and uses.
2. The pedestrian amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this
characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade
trees, solar access, view orientation, and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent
rights-of-way are encouraged.
3. The pedestrian amenity, and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent
structures, rights-of-way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks, or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
5. Any variation to the Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section
26.575.030(F) promote the purpose ofthe pedestrian amenity requirements.
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Connnission, as
applicable, may reduce the pedestrian amenity requirement by any amount, such that no
more than half the requirement is waived, as an incentive for well-designed projects
having a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment. The resulting requirement
may not be less than 10%. On-site provision shall not be required for a reduction in the
requirement. A mix of uses within the proposed building that enliven the surrounding
pedestrian environment may be considered.
C. Street-Level Building Elements.
The "storefront," or street-level portion of a connnercial building is perhaps the single most
important element of a connnercial 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.
10
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 maybe reduced or
waived for lodging properties with no, or limited, street-level retail, office buildings with
no retail component, and for Service/Connnercial/Industrial buildings.
3. Building entrances shall be well-defined and apparent.
4. Building entrances shall be designed to acconnnodate 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.
D. Parking.
Parking is a necessary component of a successful connnercial district. The manner in which
parking is physically accommodated has a larger impact upon the quality of the district that the
amount of parking. Surface parking separating storefronts from the street creates a cluttered,
inhospitable pedestrian environment. A downtown retail district shaped by buildings, well-
. designed storefronts, and a continuous street wall is highly preferred over a district shaped by
parking lots. Well-placed and well-designed access points to parking garages can allow
convenient parking without disrupting the retail district. The following standards shall apply:
I. Parking shall only be accessed from alleyways, unless such access is unavailable or an
unreasonable design solution in which case access from a primary street shall be designed
in a manner that minimizes disruption of the pedestrian environment.
2. Surface parking shall not be located between the Street right-of-way and the building
fayade.
3. Above grade parking garages in commercial districts shall incorporate ground-floor
commercial uses and be designed in a manner compatible with surrounding buildings and
uses.
4. Above grade parking garages shall not reveal internal ramping on the exterior fayade of
the building.
E. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision.
When the necessary logistical elements of a connnercial building are well designed, the building
can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one building can
detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are
important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply:
1. A utility, trash, and recycle service area shall be acconnnodated along the alley meeting
the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060 Utility/Trash/Recycle Service
Areas, unless otherwise established according to said section.
2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley.
Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall
be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site
II
conditions, such as a historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments
shall be properly licensed.
3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility
shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the
roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the Street as practical.
5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be acconnnodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs.
Suggested Design Elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the
City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not
produce the most-desired development and project designers should use their best judgment.
A. Silmaf!.e:
Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage
areas already meeting t.~e City's requirements for size, etc. may minimize nevI tenant
signage compliance issues. Connnon tenant listing areas also serves a public wayfinding
function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building
on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory.
B. Disolav windows:
Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail
space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian
interest.
C. Lif!.htinf!.:
Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create
pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch
attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain
important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass
should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the
City's Outdoor Lighting code, Section 26.575.050, is mandatory.
D. Orif!.inal Townsite Articulation:
Buildings spanning more than one Original Townsite Lot should incorporate fayade
expressions coincidental with these original parcel boundaries to reinforce historic scale.
This may be inappropriate in some circumstances, such as on large corner lots.
E. Architectural Features:
Parapet walls should be used to shield mechanical equipment from pedestrian views. Aligning
cornices and other architectural features with adjacent buildings can relate new buildings to
12
their historical surroundings. Awnings and canopies can be used to provide architectural
interest and shield windows and entryways from the elements.
13