HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20070411
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday - April 11, 2007
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: Please site visit all the properties on your own.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 205 South Mill, Suite 226 (Brunelleschi's) - Minor
Development. Commercial Design - Continued Public
Hearing (20 min.)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 214 East Bleeker Street, Major Development (Final) Review
and Variance (40 min.)
B. 500 West Francis, Historic Landmark Lot Split (30 min.)
C. 300 West Main - Show Cause Hearing (60 min.)
X. ADJOURN 7:30 p.m.
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
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.
lCA.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE:
214 East Bleeker Street, Major Development Review (Final) and Variances
DATE:
April II, 2007
SUMMARY: The subject property, built circa 1893, is a single story Victorian style residence
in its original location. Alterations and additions undertaken in the past include: an extension of
the northeast gable with a bay and the addition of a bay window on the existing living room (date.
unknown, pre-I 990); two exterior chimneys were added; and a small rear addition and an
addition to the rear west elevation both in 1999. A gable outbuilding with vertical siding, built.
sometime between 1904 and 1921, encroaches on the rear alley. A lot split was granted to the
property in 2005.
During Conceptual Review, HPC approved Relocation of the historic home, Demolition of a
severely deteriorated outbuilding, and Conceptual Review approval of a new addition. The
application before HPC is for Final review of the new addition and setback variances that were
changed during the Conceptual Review process and required a new public notice.
Staff finds that the application meets the Design Guidelines and recommends HPC grant Final
Review approval and Setback Variances with conditions.
APPLICANT: 214 East Bleeker, LLC represented by Dave Rybak of Rybak Architecture and
Development, P.e.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-48-002.
ADDRESS: 214 East Bleeker Street, Lots B of the Brumder Lot Split, Block 72, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Residential
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final 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
I
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.
DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection
of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo.
Staff Response:
Site Plan: As mentioned in the Staff memo for Conceptual Review, we are concerned with the
lightwell proposed somewhat prominently along the east elevation of the historic house, and the
proposed site planning along the east elevation, which includes two raised patios (1 foot above
natural grade is proposed for the patio off of the historic resource) and three light wells that
essentially create a poor relationship to grade along the historic resource. The Design Guidelines
do not offer much guidance for considering lightwells, see below:
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
. In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the
Residential Design Standards).
. The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
. A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations
and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it
should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail.
The applicant is maintaining the height of the addition and improvements to one story; however,
Staff finds that the changes in grade, and erosion of the site abutting the historic resource, have
an adverse impact on the historic property. Staff is looking to HPC for direction.
Landscape: The landscape plan incorporates a direct walkway to the front porch from Bleeker
Street, and a parallel stone walkway in front of the historic house. Staff finds that Guidelines 1.9
and 1.1 0 are met below:
2
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public to private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
. 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.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
. The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting
material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example.
Lighting: The lighting fixture proposed for the front porch, east decks, and north wall of the
garage maintains the historic character of the landmark; however, due to lighting code
requirements, the glass must be frosted to obscure the light source. Staff recommends that the
applicant work with Staff and monitor to find a more appropriate light source that does not
necessitate frosted glass, as stated in Guideline 14.6 below:
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
. The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by approved by the HPC.
. All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
Fenestration: The windows proposed for the new addition are vertically oriented double hung
with divided lights. Staff finds that this style is appropriate at the rear of the property because
they incorporate the divided lights of the bay windows along the east elevation, and the historic
double hung style found on the front (south) fayade of the historic resource. Staff has concerns
about the proposed transom windows along the east elevation, which introduces a new "historic"
characteristic to the historic property, and does not comply with guidelines 11.9 and 1l.1 0 below:
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
. These include windows, doors, and porches.
. Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
. This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
. Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of
Aspen's historic are especially discouraged on historic sites.
The applicant proposes to replace a historic double hung window with a French door on the east
elevation, leading out to the patio area between the bay windows. Staff finds that the
replacement of this window does not comply with Guideline 3.2 and 3.3 below and recommends
that the HPC deny this request, as there is another door opening onto the patio off the kitchen.
3
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
. 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.
3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a fa~ade.
. Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining fayade will
negatively affect the integrity of a structure.
Materials: The applicant proposes a wood shingle roof for the east hipped roof addition,
corrugated roof for the garage, and a corrugated roof for the small area beneath the bay window
on the rear elevation. Staff finds that the materials are appropriate for the site, and would like
clarification regarding the corrugated roof material beneath the bay window.
Coursed wood siding and wood lap siding (profiles are found on page A6.1) are proposed for the
addition. Staff finds that the slight differentiation in horizontal wood siding is appropriate and
further breaks up the rear mass into modules.
Porch: HPC granted approval to relocate the historic house, which includes removing and
reattaching the historic front porch. Staff and the applicant have been unsuccessful in locating a
historic photograph that illustrates the front porch, specifically the balusters and railing, which
have been replaced with 2 x 4 wood pieces. The applicant proposes to replace the current
configuration with a simple tapered 2 x 4 top and bottom rail and wood balusters. Staff finds that
Guideline 5.5 is met.
5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and
detail.
. Use materials that appear similar to the original.
. Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch
may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable
buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative
elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it.
. The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to
those used historically as well.
Staff recommends that the stone steps leading onto the porch be reused during reconstruction.
Chimneys: The applicant proposes to demolish two non-historic chimneys and dismantle and
reconstruct, after relocation, the historic chimney located in the flat portion of the original
mansard roof form. Staff is in favor of removing the non-historic chimneys, which currently
confuse the distinction between new and old construction. The applicant proposes a metal flue
on the west side of the master bedroom, on the rear elevation. The flue is not visible from
Bleeker Street and does not impact the historic resource.
4
Foundation: The stone foundation is in disrepair, and because of relocation, the applicant
proposes to use the historic stone as a veneer on a new foundation. Staff proposes, as a condition
of approval, that the new foundation height replicate the historic height as stated in Guideline
9.6:
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
. Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However,
lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
. Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that
it enhances the resource.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The HPC is asked to grant east and west sideyard setbacks for lightwells and a combined
'd d b k
Sl evar set ac .
Required Setback for R-6 zone, Proposed Setbacks
6,000 square foot lot
East sideyard 5 feet I foot (for a 4 foot intrusion)
West sideyard 5 feet I foot (for a 4 foot intrusion)
Combined sideyard 15 feet for a 6,000 square foot lot 7 feet combined
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are
as follows:
In granting a variance, the "PC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or
district; and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic
property or historic district.
Staff Response: The minimum size lightwell required for egress by the IRC is 3' x 3', 9 square
feet in total. The applicant requests I foot variances for the east and west sideyards (5 feet is
required), for an intrusion of 4 feet by lightwells in both sideyards.. A combined sideyard
setback variance is required, regardless of whether the HPC grants the individual sideyard
setbacks. The R-6 zone district, for a 6,000 square foot lot, requires a combined sideyard setback
variance of 15 feet. Staff is in favor of the sideyard setback variances and the combined sideyard
setback variance of 7 feet for the lightwells. The applicant has moved the mass of the addition
away from the rear setback, and is maintaining a one story addition. Staff finds that criteria b is
met and recommends HPC grant the variances.
5
.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The "PC 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 HPC approve Major Development (Final), and
Variances for the property located at 214 East Bleeker Street, Lot B of the Brumder Lot Split,
Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions;
I. A I foot east and I foot west sideyard setback variance is granted for 4 foot intrusions.
2. A combined sideyard setback variance is granted for 7 feet, where 15 feet is required.
3. The replacement of a historic window with a door on the east elevation is not approved.
4. The lightwell at the southeast corner of the historic resource will be pulled back from
Bleeker Street and minimized to the required 9 square feet for egress.
5. The proposed transom windows will be removed.
6. The stone steps will be reused in the reconstruction of the front porch.
7. The foundation height will remain consistent according to historic photographs.
8. The lighting fixtures will be approved by staff and monitor.
9. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what
original materials appear to still exist on the historic front porch, and what treatments will
be used to retain them.
10. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
II. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
12. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
13. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
14. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
15. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
6
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 214 East Bleeker Street.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Exhibits: Resolution # , Series of 2007.
A.) Relevant Design Guidelines
B.) Application
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 214 East Bleeker Street, Final Review"
1.1 Preserve original fences.
o Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Replacement elements
should match the existing fence.
1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the
original.
o Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought
iron. Wire fences also may be considered.
7
o A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or
metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered.
o Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards.
1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the
yard from the street.
o A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature.
o On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may
not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of
Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".)
o A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front
facade of a building.
o Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach.
o Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic
context.
1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally.
o Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
1.5 A side yard fence which extends between two homes should be set back from the
street-facing facade.
o This setback should be significant enough to provide a sense of open space between homes.
1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be
compatible with the historic context.
o A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less transparent.
A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six feet), but should
incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts.
o Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the
appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on.
o Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of the
fence.
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
o 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.
a 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.
o 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.
Private Yard
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
8
o The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and
sod, and not covered with paving, for example.
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
o Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntinsj mullions,
sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows.
o Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit.
o Preserve the original glass, when feasible.
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
o 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.
[J Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls.
o Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it
to receive a larger window on primary facades.
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 integrity of a structure.
3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
o 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 that 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.
3.6 Preserve the 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.
3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the
original window.
o 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.
5.1 Preserve an original porch.
o Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and
spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones.
9
o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style
that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate.
o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate.
5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and
detail.
o Use materials that appear similar to the original.
o While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted
appropriately, alternative materials may be considered.
o Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be
considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the
style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have
been used on the house or others like it.
o When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building.
o The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork.
o The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used
historically as well.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods
that minimize damage to the original material.
o Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of
replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration.
7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to
those used traditionally.
o Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled
buildings.
o If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone
and have a matte, non-reflective finish.
o Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
o If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective
finish.
7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is
compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building.
o A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish.
o A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative.
o Seams should be of a low profile.
o A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate.
9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
o On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation
on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character.
o Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement
should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation
above grade.
10
o Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
o Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it
enhances the resource.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
o In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards).
o The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
o A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded
by a simple fence or rail.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
o The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
II
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) AND
VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 214 EAST BLEEKER STREET,
LOT B OF THE BRUMDER LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _' SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL 10: 2737-073-48-002.
WHEREAS, the applicants, 214 East Bleeker, LLC, represented by Rybak Architecture and
Development, PC, have requested Major Development Review (Final) for the property located at
Lot B of the Brumder Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on
the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" 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 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.4.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, for approval of setback variances, 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, that the setback variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character
of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated April II, 2007 performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, and recommended that the project be approved with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April II, 2007 the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code and
approved the application with conditions by a vote of _ to _'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants approval for Major Development (Final), and Variances for the property
located at 214 East Bleeker Street, Lot B of the Brumder Lot Split, Block 72, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions;
I. A I foot east and I foot west sideyard setback variance is granted for 4 foot intrusions.
2. A combined sideyard setback variance is granted for 7 feet, where 15 feet is required.
3. The replacement of a historic window with a door on the east elevation is not approved.
4. The lightwell at the southeast corner of the historic resource will be pulled back from
Bleeker Street and minimized to the required 9 square feet for egress.
5. The proposed transom windows will be removed.
6. The stone steps will be reused in the reconstruction of the front porch.
7. The foundation height will remain consistent according to historic photographs.
8. The lighting fixtures will be approved by staff and monitor.
9. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what
original materials appear to still exist on the historic front porch, and what treatments will
be used to retain them.
10. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
II. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
12. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints maqe for the purpose of construction.
13. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
14. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
15. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 214 East Bleeker Street.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of April 2007.
Approved as to FlIrm:
Jim True, City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
-~^
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE:
205 South Mill Street, Minor Review and Commercial Design Review- continued
Public Hearing
DATE:
April II, 2007
SUMMARY: The subject property is located at 205 South Mill Street, within the Commercial
Core Historic District, and currently houses Brunelleschi's Pizza half a' story above sidewalk
level. Jimmy's Restaurant and Bar is located above Brunelleschi's with an outdoor balcony
sitting directing on top of Bruno's pizza. The applicant proposes to add a new outdoor (lining
deck that will project over the concrete sidewalk replacing the restaurant's current street level
outdoor seating. New French doors are also proposed for access onto the deck.
This application is two parts: Minor Development review will deal with whether or not the deck
is an appropriate feature within the context of historic downtown; and Commercial Design
Review will address the "Building Relationship to Primary Street" and "Pedestrian Amenity"
requirements of the Commercial Design Standards.
On June 28, 2006, HPC reviewed the proposal for a 170 square foot deck and recommended the
applicant continue to redesign the proposal paying close attention to the stairs and pushing the
deck away from the Grape and Grain storefront to the west. The application has been delayed
since the June meeting while the applicant worked with the Building Department to determine if
the permanent deck would increase the bathroom load and necessitate additional bathrooms for
the restaurant. The Building Department resolved the bathroom quantity issue at Mill Street
Plaza and has instructed Staff to proceed with the application.
HPC continued the application again on December 13. 2006 and instructed the applicant to
restudv the following: tie the posts back into the building; materials. planting; and the west
screen door. HPC favored the proposed Plan I, and did not rule out the possibility of waiving up
to 50% of the Pedestrian Amenity cash-in-lieu requirement.
The application before HPC is for a 211.576 square foot deck.
Staff is still not in favor of a deck in this location; however, staff finds that the applicant has me
the requests made by HPC at the December 13, 2006 meeting and recommends approval.
APPLICANT: Gill Vanderra, represented by Jeffrey Halferty Designs.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-38-004.
I
ADDRESS: 205 S. Mill Street, Suite 226, Lots D-I, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
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
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:
Current condition:
Brunelleschi's Pizza Restaurant sits a half story above the sidewalk, which creates a challenging
setting within the downtown area. Staff finds that the current seating area at the sidewalk level
softens a blank wall and creates the effect of a ground level entrance. According to the Design
Guidelines "the Commercial Core Historic District should continue to develop as a pedestrian-
oriented environment. Streets, sidewalks and pathways should encourage walking, sitting and
other pedestrian activities; buildings should be visually interesting..." The current solution at
Brunelleschi's takes a "pedestrian awkward" fayade and creates the illusion of a ground level
with the outdoor seating area, which complies with the Historic Design Guidelines and the
Commercial Design Standards in the Municipal Code.
Proposal:
The proposed deck is about 5 feet above the sidewalk, which is not conducive to the pedestrian-
oriented goals of the downtown historic district by orienting the lower portion of the deck at eye
level of pedestrians; however the applicant proposes a slate landscape box and a variety of
plantings in front of the deck to soften the facade and create interest at the pedestrian level
during all seasons.
The applicant responded to HPC's concerns regarding the proximity of the deck to Grape and
Grain by cutting off the corner of the deck, introducing a 135 degree angle at the corner, and
pulling the entire west side of the deck 2 feet from the property line, as required by the Building
Code. The deck is tied back into the building with 18+ feet tall brick and metal columns and
curved wooden beams, as recommended by HPC. Staff was originally concerned with the
overall height of the deck columns and the vertical emphasis, but finds that this is necessary for
the half story storefront. Staff finds that the shorter brick columns help ground the structure and
create a "human scale" that is necessary along the sidewalk.
2
The applicant reduced the size of the west metal screen door to a width of about 2 feet 8 inches,
and proposes wood trellis at the base of the deck behind the planting.
Relevant Design Guidelines are:
13.8 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge.
. Place as much ofthe fayade of the building at the property line as possible.
. Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
. Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscaping
elements to define the sidewalk edge.
13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
. Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
13.16 Develop the ground Door level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity.
. 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.
. Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are
visible from the street, are particularly encouraged.
. The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" entrances are
inappropriate.
The proposal references existing materials on the north fayade of the Mill Street Plaza Building:
the proposed brick will match existing brick on the Bruno's fayade, and the proposed slate tile
imitates Jimmy's fayade. The proposed railing is metal and simple. Staff finds that the proposed
materials are appropriate for the context and will help integrate the deck into the existing built
fabric.
Staff is concerned about future additions to the deck, specifically the potential for plastic
screening to protect diners in the wintertime. Condition of approval # I below addresses this
concern by requiring the applicant to submit a proposal to HPC in the event that they desire to
use the space in the wintertime and need plastic "walls".
Staff finds that the guidelines are generally met in this proposal.
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 commercial 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.
3
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 Commission, 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- the relevant Commercial Standards are
A4 and AS regarding the "Building Relationship to Primary Street." Adding a deck to the Mill
Street Plaza building will accentuate the, less than desirable relationship of this section of the
building to grade. The goal of bot!) HPC and Commercial Design Guidelines is to focus activity
and features at the street level.
A4. Commercial 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 ifno sidewalk exists. "Split-level"
retail frontage is prohibited.
AS. Commercial buildings incorporating a setback from a primary street shall not
incorporate a substantial grade change between the building fayade and the public right-of-
way. "Moats" surrounding buildings are prohibited.
The Mill Street Plaza building is required to provide an area equal to 25% of the site as a
pedestrian amenity. This amenity can be provided on the site, or can be addressed through a
comparable improvement made in the downtown area, or a cash in lieu payment. The concrete
area between Brunelleschi building fayade and the property line along East Hopkins A venue is
considered to contribute to the requirement that 25% of the footprint of the entire Mill Street
Plaza must provide a pedestrian amenity. The proposed deck will reduce the amount of
pedestrian amenity that exists at Mill Street Plaza. The maximum height for a pedestrian feature
located above finished grade to still qualify as a pedestrian amenity is 4 feet.
Up to half of the obligation can be waived by P&Z or HPC as described below:
Reduction of Requirement. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation
Commission, 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
proiects 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.
During the December 13,2006 HPC meeting, the Commission seemed amenable to granting up
to a 50% waiver in Pedestrian Amenity cash in lieu fees for good quality design that have a
positive contribution to the pedestrian environment, which equals $5,289.40 [105.788 square feet
(50% of the proposed deck) * $50]. The cash payment is used for important pedestrian
improvements downtown and would be a loss to the City.
4
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 approve the application for Minor
Development of the property at 205 S. Mill Street, Suite 226, Lots D-I, Block 81, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions;
I. Plastic screening will not be used in the winter season to enclose the deck area. Any
screening will require HPC approval before installation and purchase.
2. A waiver of 50% of the Pedestrian Amenity cash in lieu fee is waived; the applicant will
pay $5,289.40 for Pedestrian Amenity cash in lieu to the City for pedestrian improvements
downtown.
3. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
4. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
5. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project.
6. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 205 Sonth MiD Street,
Snite 226
5
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances
or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with
this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Exhibits: Resolution # of 2007
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Commercial Design Standards
C. Minutes from June 28, 2006 and December 13, 2006 HPC Meeting
D. Application
Exhibit A- Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for Brunelleschi's Pizza
13.8 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge.
. Place as much of the fayade of the building at the property line as possible.
. Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
. Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscaping
elements to define the sidewalk edge.
13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
. Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
. The fayade should appear as predominantly flat, with decorative elements and projecting
or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form.
13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity.
. 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.
. Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are
visible from the street, are particularly encouraged.
. The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" entrances are
inappropriate.
Exhibit B: Commercial Design Standards.
The following design standards shall apply to commercial, lodging, and mixed-use development:
A. Building Relationship to Primary Street.
6
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 commercial street. Corner 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 fayade 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. Commercial 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. Commercial buildings incorporating a setback from a primary street shall not incorporate
a substantial grade change between the building fayade 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.
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 Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission 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.
7
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 of the pedestrian amenity requirements.
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, 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.
F. Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity.
Pedestrian amenity, on all privately-owned land in which pedestrian amenity is required, shall
comply with the following provisions and limitations:
I. Open to View. Pedestrian amenity areas shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian
level, which view need not be measured at right angles.
2. Open to Sky. Pedestrian amenity areas shall be open to the sky. Temporary and seasonal
coverings, such as umbrellas and retractable canopies are permitted. Such non-permanent
structures shall not be considered as floor area or a reduction in pedestrian amenity on the
parce I.
Trellis structures shall only be permitted in conjunction with commercial restaurant uses
on a designated Historic Landmark or within (H) Historic overlay zones and must be
approved pursuant to review requirements contained in Chapter 26.415 - Development
Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or
Development within a Historic District. Such approved structures shall not be considered
as floor area or a reduction in pedestrian space on the parcel.
3. No Walls/Enclosures. Pedestrian amenity areas shall not be enclosed. Temporary
structures, tents, air exchange entries, plastic canopy walls, and similar devices designed
to en-close the space are prohibited, unless approved as a temporary use, pursuant to
Section 26.450. Low fences or walls shall only be permitted within or around the
perimeter of pedestrian space if such structures shall permit views from the street into and
throughout the pedestrian space.
4. Prohibited Uses, Pedestrian amenity areas shall not be used as storage areas, utility/trash
service areas, delivery area, parking areas or contain structures of any type, except as
specifically provided for herein. Vacated rights-of-way shall be excluded from pedestrian
amenity calculations.
5. Grade Limitations. Required pedestrian amenity shall not be more than four (4) feet above
or two (2) feet below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the
pedestrian space, unless the pedestrian amenity space shall follow undisturbed natural
grade, in which case there shall be no limit on the extent to which it is above or below the
existing grade of the street.
8
6. Pedestrian Links. In the event that the City of Aspen shall have adopted a trail plan
incorporating mid-block pedestrian links, any required pedestrian space must, if the city
shall so elect, be applied and dedicated for such use.
7. Landscaping Plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Community Development
Director shall require site plans and drawings of any required pedestrian amenity area,
including a landscaping plan, and a bond in a satisfactory form and amount to insure
compliance with any pedestrian amenity requirements under this title.
8. Maintenance of Landscaping. Whenever the landscaping required herein is not maintained,
the Chief Building Official, after thirty (30) days written notice to the owner or occupant
of the property, may revoke the certificate of occupancy until said party complies with
the landscaping requirements ofthis section.
9. Commercial Activity. No area of a building site designated as required pedestrian amenity
space under this section shall be used for any commercial activity, including, but not
limited to, the storage, display, and merchandising of goods and services; provided,
however, that the prohibition of this subsection shall not apply when such use is in
conjunction with permitted commercial activity on an abutting right-of-way or is
otherwise permitted by the City. For outdoor food vending in the Commercial Core
District, also see Section 26.470.040(B)(3), Administrative Growth Management Review.
10. Commercial Restaurant Use. The provisions above notwithstanding, required pedestrian
amenity space may be used for commercial restaurant use if adequate pedestrian and
emergency vehicle access is maintained.
9
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 205 SOUTH
MILL STREET, SUITE 226, LOTS D - I, BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-38-004.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Gil Vanderra, represented by Jeffrey Halferty Designs, has requested
Minor Development and Commercial Design Review for the property located at 205 S. Mill
Street, Suite 226, Lots D-I, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
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, 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
reviews 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; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.412 of
the Municipal Code, that the project conforms to the following criteria:
1. 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 commercial 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.
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 Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This
criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the
Historic Preservation Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission is authorized pursuant to Aspen Municipal
Code Section 26.575.030.D to 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%.
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated April II, 2007 performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines and Commercial Design Standards have been met; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 11,2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application for Minor Development and Commercial
Design Review met the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the Aspen
Municipal Code Commercial Design Standards review criteria, and approved the application by a
vote of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC approves the application for Minor Development of the property at 205 S. Mill Street,
Suite 226: Lots D-I, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following
conditions;
I. Plastic screening will not be used in the winter season to enclose the deck area. Any
screening will require HPC approval before installation and purchase.
2. A waiver of 50% of the Pedestrian Amenity cash in lieu fee is waived; the applicant will
pay $5,289.40 for Pedestrian Amenity cash in lieu to the City for pedestrian improvements
downtown.
3. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
4. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
5. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project.
6. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 205 South Mill Street,
Suite 226
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of April 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
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006
~,..,"
......
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Michael Hoffman, Alison Agley, Derek
Skalko. Jason Lasser was seated at 5: 12 p.m. Sarah Broughton, was
excused.
Staff present:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of May 24, 2006; second by
Alison. All infavor, motion carried.
Public Comments:
Les Holst thanked the HPC for the job that they are doing. His group is
trying to get the City to understand that what drives the City is the historic
character. Every time a house is let go you have done major damage to our
community. He handed out binders with comments made from tourists.
Disclosures
Jeffrey will recuse himself on 205 S. Mill Street - Brunelleschi's
Derek will recuse himself on 135 W. Hopkins
WILLOUGHBY P ARKlLIFf 1 P ARKISKIER'S CHALET
STEAKHOUSE - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES
MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual
development of Willoughby Park/Lift 1 Park/Skier's Chalet Steakhouse to
July 1 jh; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual
development of 114 Neale A ve. to July lih; second by Jason. All in favor,
motion carried 5-0.
205 S. MILL STREET, BRUNELLESCHI'S - MINOR REVIEW AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING
Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I
I
I.
~.
~
.
""'::'l
....'
. .~~
.
..
"'-~,
~ .
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006
Letter from Davis Horn - Exhibit II - Summary - The south side of Hopkins
...... Ave. is a dead space and the Hom's support the deck. The deck will be an
excellent pedestrian amenity.
.
.
......
Jeffrey recused himself.
Michael chaired.
John Olson, builder
Travis Terry, represented Jeffrey Halferty designer
Sara said the subject property is in the commercial core and the proposal is
for a 170 square foot outdoor dining deck that would be five feet high and
project out of the half story level. The purpose is for ease of the Waite staff
to access the outdoor area. The application is in two parts, minor
development and commercial design review.
Minor Development Review - Staff found according to our guidelines that
the emphasis should be at the storefront first floor level. Having the deck at
I1ve feet is on in compliance with the guidelines. Staff also pointed out that
the set of steps that leads into the Mill Street plaza will be somewhat
compromised with the deck projecting out. We looked into dropping the
'" deck height but that triggered an accessibility requirement.
Commercial Design Review and Pedestrian Amenity Space - The two
guidelines that staff questioned are A4 A5 regarding the building
relationship to the primary street. The goal is to promote activity at street
level. The space between the fa(fade and the property line counts toward the
Mill Street Plaza's pedestrian amenity and having the deck at five feet does
not qualify. The maximum height is four feet. HPC could allow them to
pay a cash-in-lieu payment which would be $50 per square foot which
equals $8,500. or waive the payment. Staff recommends denial of the
proj ect.
John Olson said he did remodeling work for the previous owner and never
got paid for $250,000. Frank Woods and Tony Maza own the building and
an arrangement was made that the rent would be paid by John and in
exchange he would receive ownership of the restaurant. John said he was
led to believe that a deck was possible. Gill Vanderaa III was interested in
starting up a restaurant. The deck has a huge effect whether or not this
restaurant makes it and it is vital to the success of the space.
2
ASPEN mSTORlC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006
We are not in the same situation as other restaurants that have outside dining
_. on Main Street such as Asie, Gusto or the Hotel Jerome. They are all on
ground level. It is difficult at ground level, the way it is now because
waiters have to negotiate the steps..
John said he feels most ofthe guidelines have been met and he is willing to
work with the HPC to come up with a design that is acceptable to the board.
Travis Terry said with Jimmy's deck and all the other design issues with
flower boxes etc. it the deck is detailed out appropriately it could be its own
vocal point. Another option is that it could be detailed out to be a temporary
structure and only there in the summer.
Michael said the guideline is basic consistency with the Historic District.
Amy pointed out that Sarah mentioned the guideline that first floors should
be store fronts and upper levels have secondary activities.
Vice-chair Michael Hoffinan opened the pubic hearing.
Jay Mason stated that he hopes the HPC would consider working with the
applicant to find a solution to make the restaurant more profitable. The way
it is set up now you have waiters walking up and down with hot food and
glass ware and it is only a matter of time that an accident will happen. A
nice looking deck would add to the streetscape. That north fa9ade as it is
now is very cold.
Vice-chair Michael Hoffinan closed the public hearing portion of the
meeting.
Board comments:
Derek said according to the codes it seems simple to deny the project but he
feels very strongly for supporting this application. Regarding the dual
access of the stairs they might be in violation. The space is a vacant space
and is especially evident in the winter. Derek hoped the board would allow
some kind of deck to actually produce some sort of vitality. This is a
peculiar situation as there is no where else in the City that exists like this.
He would not want to go to a removable deck but would entertain it before
denying the application. Regarding the stairs, possibly they could be utilized
in a better way.
3
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006
"'~.-...
_ Alison said the building already doesn't meet a lot of our guidelines. We are
looking at a space that is already setback from the sidewalk. We have a
condition that the restaurant is at half level. It is hard to address our
,
guidelines with this building because it is oddly shaped. A far as knowing
that space, a deck would be a good addition. Having the windows open with
a deck would give it a good relationship to the street that the building
doesn't have now. Three or four businesses have been in the space that were
not successful due to some of these issues.
Jason said he is thinking of the functionality ofthe space. How many tables
can fit on the deck and how would that increase the restaurant business.
What would be the experience of people walking by and what are the
impacts to Grape & Grain. They would look out at a five foot tall metal
mesh with a railing on top of it. A shadow line would be put in front of the
Grape & Grain. Maybe you could privatize the one section of the stairs that
abuts up against the north end of the building. Jason felt that the deck would
work better if it went all the way across the top of the stairs. Right now
there is solid glass with operating windows above which restricts the
experience outside. Maybe the windows should be changed to doors.
, Functionally you probably won't get more than two or three tables. Maybe
there is a way to use a dumb waiter.
Michael said we are all sympathetic to the business and owners of the
building and the way it contributes or doesn't contribute to the streetscape
and community downtown. Michael summarized by saying that the
proposed design doesn't meet the guidelines. Maybe a different solution
would work. The bigger problem is how does this building relate to the
historic district as a whole. Michael said he is willing to continue the
application to allow the applicant to re-design the proposal.
John said the space is weird and it is an access that is not used. He will re-
design and possibly the deck can be pushed further away from the Grape &
Grain. John also stated that he will get support from his neighbors.
Jason said support from the neighbors would b~ good and going across the
stair would work better. A thought might be that the deck be six feet instead
of five feet tall.
Alison said we need to focus on what could happen below the deck.
4
-
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006
_. John said they are going to implement shifting the deck over away from the
Grape & Grain and incorporate some of Derek's suggestions.
MOTION: Derek moved to continue the minor development review and
public hearing on 205 S. Mill Street until August rjh; second by Jason. Roll
call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried
4-0.
423 N. SECOND STREET - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING
Jeffrey was seated.
David Rybak, architect
Jim & Betty McManus
Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I
Sara said the subject house is 2 Y2 residential Victorian built in the 1880's
and heavily altered from its original form. It is located on the corner of
Smuggler and N. Second St. The original primary entrance is oriented
toward the alley. A variety of windows and a wrap around porch were
added throughout the years and they contribute to the declining integrity of
the building. What is before the HPC are alterations that were denied by
staff based on non-compliance with our guidelines. The applicant is
proposing:
1. New windows in the north and west gables.
2. Three skylights in the northwest side of the cross gable.
3. Metal chinmey along the north gable transition.
4. Arched top window.
Sara said the new casement window proposed in the north attic gable is for
egress for a habitable space. The attic will be opened up. The
recommended minimum opening for an egress window is 5.7 square feet and
they are proposing 8 square feet. Staff recommends that the window be
reduced in size. Staff also recommends that the HPC discuss the alignment
of the door in order achieve a better streetscape alignment. There is also an
arched top window being proposed. Adding a window on top of an historic
window within the west gable would really compromise the integrity ofthe
historic structure. Staff finds that the Y2 circular window does not comply
with guidelines 3.1 and 3.2 of the guidelines. Moving to the roof, the
applicant proposes to add three brown aluminum glad skylights to the
northwest side of the cross gable. They will be visible from the street facing
5
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13. 2006
slides behind it and it also spans the whole width of the fac;ade. There is also
a two tiered brick landscape box in front of the deck to soften the fac;ade.
Staffis also questioning the functioning of the wooden posts that are placed
around the perimeter of the deck. In the drawing they have strings of lights
that are strung along. Guideline 13.16 is not met which is really about
encourage pedestrian activity down in the commercial core.
Commercial Design Standards: The goal is to encourage pedestrian activity
and the deck enhances the awkward half story fac;ade of the building and
doesn't encourage pedestrian activity.
Pedestrian amenity - The applicant will have to pay cash and lieu and HPC
can waive some of the cash in lieu. The cash in lieu is to be used for street
side improvements and staff finds it appropriate for the applicant to pay. We
have tried to work with the applicant to find a solution but it is a very
challenging store front and having a deck emphasizes the half story. Staff
recommends denial.
John Olson
Travis Terry, represented Jeffrey Halferty Designs
John thanked the HPC for the job that they do. He inherited the restaurant
and he and Gill Vanderaa are trying to find ways to improve the spot. At the
last meeting John thought everyone was coming to an agreement for an
approved plan. John presented different drawings of decks to the HPC. If
HPC has a design that will work tell us and we will be happy to do it. If you
want us to pull further away from the Grape and Grain we can do that. Our
preference is the one that takes up part ofthe staircase which will give wheel
chair access to the deck. In terms of the pedestrian activity I disagree with
Sara. What we would like to see happen here is to have the deck be
something that has a lot of energy when people walk by. There is a 14 foot
wide window/door and the energy from inside would flow through the doors
to the outside. With the current seating on the street level there is no ability
to do that. The upper floor does not connect to the street level. Deliveries
come out of the same door that people are trying to enter. Gill has brought a
family place to the restaurant. Ifit was brought outside via the deck on the
north racing wall it would be great.
Gill said he has been running the restaurant for a year and moving food
upstairs and down is a nightmare.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13. 2006
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis and
Sarah Broughton. Michael Hoffman was excused.
Staff present:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Jeffrey will be stepping down for 205 S. Mill Street.
Sara said staff is pursuing demo by neglect on 125 W. Main St.
408 E. COOPER (ASPEN SPORTS) MINOR DEVELOPMENT -
VIEW PLANE, COMMERCIAL DESIGN - PH
MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and minor
development on 408 E. Cooper until Feb. 28, 2007; second by Alison. All in
favor, motion carried.
205 S. MILL (BRUNELLESCHI'S) MINOR DEVELOPMENT -
COMMERCIAL DESIGN - CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING
Jeffrey recused himself.
Sarah chaired.
Sara stated the review is for a deck outside Brunelleschi's and also
Commercial Design Review. In June the applicant proposed a 170 square
foot deck. At that time staff brought up concerns that the Building
Department had; a bathroom load and all of those issues have bcen resolved.
Overall, staff finds that the design guidelines are not met and the commercial
review design standards are not met and recommend denial of the project.
Staff requested that the proximity of the deck to Grape and Grain storefront
be pulled away from that side. Staff interpreted HPC's comments to mean
pulling the whole deck away from that side of Grape and Grain. What is
proposed does not comply with the Intemational Building Code (IBC) which
requires at least two feet of distance from the property line to a deck.
There are two proposals. One proposal cuts off part of the stair and the dcck
has been increased in size and spans across the entire front of the fa9ade.
The other proposal maintains the existing stair configuration and the deck
I
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13. 2006
Sara said HPC is allowed to waive no more than half for well designed
projects that have a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment.
Sarah said she would like more information on the west facing screened
door. The second issue is the materials and we need to see some kind of
resolution on the posts. Alison and Brian also agreed.
John Olson requested a site visit.
Outstanding issues to be addressed at the next meeting.
Plan I OK
Address the west screen door
Material selection
Waive up to 50% OK
Planter plan - plants
Posts
Tie back to the building.
MOTION: Alison moved to continue 205 S. Mill until Feb. 28h; second by
Brian. All in favor, motion carried 3-0.
134 W. HOPKINS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - VARIANCES-
DEMOLITION - FAR BONUS
Jeffrey Halferty was seated.
Sara stated that the main issues really hinged on HPC granting the FAR
bonus. The applicant has been working with staff on a rehabilitation aspect
to grant the bonus which is required to build the rear addition which is 138
square feet. There are two options proposed. There is a 1980's addition to
the rear of the residence that doesn't exactly comply to the guidelines
because you cannot really determine where the historic resource ends and
where the 80's addition begins. The applicant is proposing replacing the
horizontal siding on the 1980's addition with vertical siding that will get tied
into the proposed new rear addition. In option #2 they are proposing a
wainscoting element that is like a horizontal siding on the bottom and
vertical on top to distinguish new from old. Staff is in favor of the vertical
siding option because it is a simpler approach for distinguishing between
new and old construction. The roof height has been dropped on the storage
shed from 14 feet to 10 1/12 feet and changed the form from a shed roof to a
flat roof. Staff finds that appropriate for a functional storage shed.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13. 2006
Alison asked about the pedestrian amenity. Sara said anything over four feet
tall does not qualify as a pedestrian amenity. The deck is about five feet or
so.
Gill said the height is related to wheel chair access.
Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Alison said this is an existing condition that is not great. The stepped
planting could work but it needs a little refinement. What is there now is not
much of a pedestrian amenity. The deck would enhance the sidewalk. In
looking at the options coming in two feet from the Grape & Grain is good.
Plan 2 would be preferable.
Brian said he walks by this establishment all the time and he notices it as a
dead space. The applicant has strange circumstances to work with. Possibly
a stepped down deck would work. Vitality is needed on the south side of the
street and anything that can be done will be better than what is existing.
Brian said he is concerned with the materials and doesn't want it to look like
a foreign object stuck on the wall ofthe building. It should look like a
permanent structure and compliment the existing fa9ade. Planters could
soften the streetscape. Brian said he would be interested in what type of
plantings is recommended because in the winter planting beds can be
nothing more than sinks. Plan I is more open and has a flow to the interior.
Sarah concurred with many of the comments. The space is dead and the
seating is awkward. This is an improvement over what is currently there.
Plan I and the fanning out are successful. The terrace beds are a nice
compromise to the five foot height difference which will also become seat
walls, thus enhancing the pedestrian amenity. The applicant is making the
most of an awkward situation. Possibly the posts should come back and tie
back into the building to help the setback to the Grape & Grain building.
This will be a welcomed addition to the street.
Gill Vanderaa, owner of the business said with the way the space is situation
there is a lot of wasted space. Gill requested that.HPC consider some kind
of relief regarding the cash-in-lieu.
3
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 commercial street. Corner 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 fayade 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. Commercial 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. Commercial buildings incorporating a setback from a primary street shall not incorporate
a substantial grade change between the building fayade 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.
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
ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission 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
structm'es, rights-of-way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment.
7
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 of the pedestrian amenity requirements.
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, 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.
F. Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity.
Pedestrian amenity, on all privately-oWJIed land in which pedestrian amenity is required, shall
comply with the following provisions and limitations:
I. Open to View. Pedestrian amenity areas shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian
level, which view need not be measured at right angles.
2. Open to Sky. Pedestrian amenity areas shall be open to the sky. Temporary and seasonal
coverings, such as umbrellas and retractable canopies are permitted. Such non-permanent
structures shall not be considered as floor area or a reduction in pedestrian amenity on the
parcel.
Trellis structures shall only be permitted in conjunction with commercial restaurant uses
on a designated Historic Landmark or within (H) Historic overlay zones and must be
approved pursuant to review requirements contained in Chapter 26.415 - Development
Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or
Development within a Historic District. Such approved structures shall not be considered
as floor area or a reduction in pedestrian space on the parcel.
3. No Walls/Enclosures. Pedestrian amenity areas shall not be enclosed. Temporary
structures, tents, air exchange entries, plastic canopy walls, and similar devices designed
to en-close the space are prohibited, unless approved as a temporary use, pursuant to
Section 26.450. Low fences or walls shall only be permitted within or around the
perimeter of pedestrian space if such structures shall permit views from the street into and
throughout the pedestrian space.
4. Prohibited Uses. Pedestrian amenity areas shall not be used as storage areas, utility/trash
service areas, delivery area, parking areas or contain structures of any type, except as
specifically provided for herein. Vacated rights-of-way shall be excluded from pedestrian
amenity calculations.
5. Grade Limitations. Required pedestrian amenity shall not be more than four (4) feet above
or two (2) feet below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the
pedestrian space, unless the pedestrian amenity space shall follow undisturbed natural
grade, in which case there shall be no limit on the extent to which it is above or below the
existing grade of the street.
8
6. Pedestrian Links. In the event that the City of Aspen shall have adopted a trail plan
incorporating mid-block pedestrian links, any required pedestrian space must, if the city
shall so elect, be applied and dedicated for such use.
7. Landscaping Plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Community Development
Director shall require site plans and drawings of any required pedestrian amenity area,
including a landscaping plan, and a bond in a satisfactory form and amount to insure
compliance with any pedestrian amenity requirements under this title.
8. Maintenance of Landscaping. Whenever the landscaping required herein is not maintained,
the Chief Building Official, after thirty (30) days written notice to the owner or occupant
of the property, may revoke the certificate of occupancy until said party complies with
the landscaping requirements of this section.
9. Commercial Activity. No area of a building site designated as required pedestrian amenity
space under this section shall be used for any commercial activity, including, but not
limited to, the storage, display, and merchandising of goods and services; provided,
however, that the prohibition of this subsection shall not apply when such use is in
conjunction with permitted commercial activity on an abutting right-of-way or is
otherwise permitted by the City. For outdoor food vending in the Commercial Core
District, also see Section 26.470.040(B)(3), Administrative Growth Management Review.
10. Commercial Restaurant Use. The provisions above notwithstanding, required pedestrian
amenity space may be used for commercial restaurant use if adequate pedestrian and
emergency vehicle access is maintained.
9
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 205 SOUTH
MILL STREET, SUITE 226, LOTS D - I, BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _' SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-38-004.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Gil Vanderra, represented by Jeffrey Halferty Designs, has requested
Minor Development and Commercial Design Review for the property located at 205 S. Mill
Street, Suite 226, Lots D-I, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
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, 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
reviews 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; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.412 of
the Municipal Code, that the project conforms to the following criteria:
1. 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 justity a deviation from
the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not
required but may be used to justity a deviation from the Standards.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial 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.
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 Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This
criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the
Historic Preservation Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission is authorized pursuant to Aspen Municipal
Code Section 26.575.030.D to 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%.
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated April II, 2007 performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines and Commercial Design Standards have been met; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 11,2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application for Minor Development and Commercial
Design Review met the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the Aspen
Municipal Code Commercial Design Standards review criteria, and approved the application by a
vote of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC approves the application for Minor Development of the property at 205 S. Mill Street,
Suite 226, Lots D-I, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following
conditions;
I. Plastic screening will not be used in the winter season to enclose the deck area. Any
screening will require HPC approval before installation and purchase.
2. A waiver of 50% of the Pedestrian Amenity cash in lieu fee is waived; the applicant will
pay $5,289.40 for Pedestrian Amenity cash in lieu to the City for pedestrian improvements
downtown.
3. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
4. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
5. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project.
6. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 205 South Mill Street,
Suite 226
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of April 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
Land Use Application
.
THE CITY OF ASPEN
PROJECT:
Name:
Location:
'1) Ob I,..>vtl fJ
~,~.
.- _i..-t " -
'H. I .....,.
~u,
i ""''?
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
ParcelID# (REQUIRED) 2- /~ ?).... :~ '
ApPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
Fax#:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
5
tJ; <'~ I
,.(If
E-mail:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: lease check all that a I :
o Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
-Minor Historic Development
-Major Historic Development
-Conceptual Historic Development
-Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
o
~
g
o
o Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
o Demolition (total demolition)
o Historic Landmark Lot Split
WAIN FOR PER.W.l'i-ZH'T RfC()RO
FEES DUE: $
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will
YES NO
~ 0
0 ~
0 ~
0 \
o
help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved.
Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new
construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or
restoration?
Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect
and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualifY
for state or federal tax credits?
"
If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with
this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are
eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) " . ~
o
~
If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit ~r Bistorical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
o Rehabilitation Loan Fund 0 Conservation Easement Program 0 Dimensional Variances 0 Increased
Density 0 Historic Landmark Lot Split 0 Waiver of Park Dedication Fees 0 Conditional Uses
o Exemption from Growth Management Quota System 0 Tax Credits
Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
--n
U1
8'61
~{/;..
fJA.
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within
the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot
Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing:jt.... Proposed:
Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed:
Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed:
ou\v
Proposed % of demolition:
DIMENSIONS: (write nJa where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area: Existing:-N ,A 'Allowable: Proposed:
Height
Principal Bldg.: Existing:J.lI.A Allowable: Proposed:
Accessory Bldg.: Existing:>> ,,, . Allowable: Proposed:
.
On-Site parking: Existing:~ReqUired: Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: \ Required: Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing: , t \. A ' Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: f) .Required: Proposed:
Rear Setback: Existing:~Required: Proposed:
Combined FrontJRear: Existing:LReqUired:
Indicate N. S. E. W Proposed:
Side Setback: &'''",,' ~ """""", Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: I Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Distance between Existing: ~:A Required: Proposed:
buildings: ,
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed):
05/08/2005 10:23
9709255180
DAVIS HORN
PAGE 02/02
DavisI-lom~.
PLANNING &. REAL ESTATE CONSUlTING
June 27, 2006
Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Brunelleschi's Deck
Dear Historic Preservation Commission Members:
Davis Horn Incorporated owns an office condominium unit located in the Park Central Building
across Monarch Street from Drunelleschi's. Restaurant. We have received a public notice for
the hearing addressing a new deck to be constructed on the north side of the Mill Street Plaza
(205 South Mill Street) to serve BrunelleSchi's. We regularly walk by the proposed location of
the deck.
The south side ofHopkiILS Avenue is a dead space without any areas of interest to pedestrians.
The Avenue is dead. We support the request to develop the deck outside the restaurant because it
will add life to the Avenue.
We understand the City staff is recommending denial of the deck application because the deck
will be more than four feet above the existing grade ofthe Hopkins Avenue sidewalk. It does not
make sense to COILStruct a deck which is less than four feet above the sidewalk because it will be
infeasible for the wait person staff to serve the deck. .
Please approve the deck as proposed by Gill Vanderra. We think the deck will be an excellent
pedestrian amenity which will add life to Hopkins Avenue and improve the pedestrian
expenence.
Sincerely,
IS HORN INCORPORATED
GL HORN
~~
ALICE DAVIS
ALICE DAVIS AICP S GLENN HORN AICP
215 SOUTHMONAIlCHSl. SUITE l04'ASPEN,COtORADO 81b 11 .970/925-b587.FAX:970/925-5180
adavi.@rof....' ghorn@rof.net
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Pavrnent of City of ASDen Development ApDlication Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and 4: /!J~ / I I- !k p~~/ Bl"o,J?.!11 ~ f ~4" r
(hereinafter APPLIl;ANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: /
I. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
/5"&'///'''6:''',c .t?..:ck. e 2.,':>. rvv4 ;o-,.'Ir hL -Zz.&
(hereinafter, THE PR JECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000)
establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition
precedent to a determination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it
is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application.
APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of
an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis.
APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT
agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon
notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited
through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect
full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the
amount of $ which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual
recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to
reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a
rate of $220.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days
of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for
suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case
processing have been paid.
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
APPL~C T /'/: /
By: . f//f"(.~115I"VH~/,,,.fc~~'j
,
Date: #/;:v: ~ ( ';;!. n (;
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Bill To Mailing Address and Telephone Number:
20 oj. S'. ,;?'7, /1 ~,tO 1Id'-z.z.~
g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc
02/01/06
4.r )V"1
17tJ-
e-O rl c;. II
)'1'1- "1~ '/'(
RETAIN FOR PERYANENT RECORD
ANTHONY J. MAzzA
FRANK J. WOODS, III
M & W PROPERTIES
SUITE 301A
205 SOUTH MILL STREET
AsPEN. COLORADO 81611
AREA CODE 970
TELEPHONE 925-8032
FAX 925-6995
April 21, 2006
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Please be advised that the undersigned is the owner and landlord of the Mill
Street Plaza Building, Aspen, Colorado.
Mill Street Plaza Associates, LLC hereby grants its approval for the proposed
deck to be built by our tenant, Hootenanny, LLC and Gilbert Vanderaa, d/b/a Brunell's Pizza &
Pasta. Said deck will be attached to tenant's space in the Mill Street Plaza Building, on
Hopkins Avenue.
Thank you.
ony J. Mazza
MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIA TES, LLC
~13.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE:
500 West Francis, Historic Landmark Lot Split and Variances- Public
Hearing
DATE:
April II, 2007.
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 9,000 square foot lot containing a two story Victorian
and a historic Carriage House along the alley. The applicant requests a Historic Landmark Lot
Split, which will divide the lot into a 6,000 square foot lot (Lot 2)containing the Victorian and
the Carriage House, and a vacant 3,000 square foot lot (Lot I). Setback variances and an
encroachment license are required for existing non-conformities.
The applicant does not propose any development at this time, and requests the 500 square foot
FAR Bonus be granted to the fathering parcel and allocated entirely to the newly created 3,000
square foot vacant lot. The FAR allocation proposed is as follows:
Fathering Parcel Lot 1 Lot 2
Lot Size 9,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.
Allowable FAR, as 4,080 sq. ft. (for 2 1,093 sq. ft. 2,987 sq. ft.
requested by detached dwellings)
applicant
FAR Bonus 500 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. o sq. ft.
allocation
Unused FAR after N/A 1,593 sq. ft. o sq. ft.
Lot Split
Staff recommends that recommend approval of the Historic Landmark Lot Split to City
Council, and approval for requested variances and the FAR Bonus.
APPLICANT: Gell-Mann Murdock Partners, LLP, represented by Rick Knezevich and Anne
Marie McPhee of Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, P.C.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-10-007.
ADDRESS: 500 West Francis Street, Lots Q, Rand S, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R6, Medium Density Residential.
I
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following
requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section
26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D.)
26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS. LOT SPLIT
The split ofa lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a
lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following
conditions are met:
a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board
of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes
and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision
regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not
apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures; and
Staff Finding:
The property is part of the original Aspen townsite, is not located in a subdivision approved by
the City or the County. The property is not located within a previously approved subdivision,
and the merged lots predate the City's adoption of subdivision regulation.
b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section
26.IOO.040(A)(I)(c).
Staff Finding:
The applicant proposes to create two lots with this lot split. Both lots conform to the
requirements of lot size and lot area per dwelling unit for and Historic Landmark Properties in
the R-6 (Medium Density Residential) Zone District. This proposal will create one 3,000 square
foot lot and one 6,000 square foot lot, which meets the 3,000 square foot minimum size
requirement for a Historic Landmark Lot Split.
Pursuant to Section 26.420.020 (B)(6)(e) of the Land Use Code, Historic Landmark Lot Split
properties are not required to provide affordable housing mitigation. Staff recommends that HPC
grant GMQS exemption for the Historic Landmark Lot Split.
c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split"
exemption pursuant to Section 26.JOO.040(C)(I)(a); and
Staff Finding:
The land has not received a subdivision exemption or lot split exemption.
2
d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the
requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision
may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of
applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation
pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community
Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action.
e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in
the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the
applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following
approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of
the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval.
f) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is
eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a
lot split.
Staff Finding:
The two historic resources are located on proposed Lot 2, the 6,000 square foot lot, and do not
require demolition.
g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not
exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family
home.
Staff Finding:
Lot 2 contains the two detached historic residences and will not have any available unbuilt FAR
for improvements. Lot I, the vacant lot, is permitted by underlying zoning to develop one single
family home. This criteria is met.
26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption ifit
meets the following standards:
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square
feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or 0 zone district.
Staff Finding:
3
The subject parcel is 9,000 square feet of land and is located in the R-6, Medium Density
Residential, Zone District.
b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of
the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot
shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat.
Staff Finding:
Both properties will be limited to residential uses permitted or conditional, as zoned in the R-6
zone district. The total FAR for the fathering parcel is 4,080 square feet, as determined by the R-
6 zone requirements for a 9,000 square foot lot with two detached dwellings. The applicant is
requesting the 500 square foot FAR Bonus, which is awarded to the fathering parcel, and intends
to allocate the entire Bonus to the vacant lot- this will remove all unbuilt development rights
from the historic resources.
The FAR allocation proposed is: Lot I = 1,593 sq. ft. (this includes the 500 square foot Bonus)
and Lot 2= 2,987 sq. ft.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(I)(a),(b), and (c)
are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR bonus
will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel.
Staff Finding: The applicant does not propose development at this time. As stated in criteria b
above, the applicant is requesting the 500 square foot FAR Bonus to be wholly allocated to the
vacant lot.
Existing nonconformities on the property require setback variances and encroachment license
prior to recordation of the plat. The historic Carriage House encroaches on the alley and the
public Right of Way along North Fourth Street. HPC is asked to grant a 0 foot setback for both
the east sideyard setback and the rearyard setback. The criteria for granting setback variances,
per Section 26.415.IIO.C of the Municipal Code are as follows:
HPC must make a finding that the setback variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Finding: The existing conditions require a variance up to 0 feet for the eastside yard,
where 5 feet is required, and 0 feet for the rear sideyard setback, where 10 feet is required. Staff
finds that both criteria a and b above are met, and according to a 1904 Map (Exhibit A) both
structures are in their original locations. Staff recommends that the variances be approved to
legalize the existing conditions.
4
FAR BONUS
The following standards apply to an FAR bonus. per Section 26.415.11O.E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the
historic building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the
historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
Staff Response:
The applicant intends to place the entire FAR Bonus on the vacant lot, which will remove any
potential from the 6,000 square foot lot that contains the two historic resources. Staff finds that
removing development pressure from the historic resources meets the intent of the Historic
Preservation Program by removing potential development rights from a historic resource and
ensuring the future preservation of the historic home and carriage house in their original
locations. The HPC will have purview over the development of the vacant lot. Staff
recommends that HPC grant the FAR Bonus.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
5
· 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 approve the request for a Historic
Landmark Lot Split and Variances for the property located at 500 West Francis Street, Lots Q, R
and S, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions:
I. Setback variances of 0 feet for the east sideyard and 0 feet for the rear sideyard setbacks are
granted for the existing condition.
2. A 500 square foot FAR Bonus is granted to the fathering parcel.
3. Staff recommends that HPC grant GMQS exemption for the Historic Landmark Lot Split.
4. Staff recommends that the applicant pursue an encroachment license from the
Engineering Department for the historic Carriage House.
5. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved
by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by
City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the
specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City
Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision
plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code;
b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these
lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals
pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of
application;
c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to
the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the variances
approved by the HPC; and
d. Be labeled to indicate that this proposal will create Lot I of 3,000 square feet in
size with 1,593 square feet of floor area, and a Lot 2 of 6,000 square feet in size
with 2,987 square feet of floor area.
6. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development
plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development
order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
6
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 500 West Francis
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Exhibits:
Resolution # , Series of 2007
A. 1904 Sanborn Map
B. Application
7
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A HISTORIC
LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND
GMQS EXEMPTION, AND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR SETBACK
VARIANCES AND A 500 SQUARE FOOT FAR BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 500 WEST FRANCIS LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 27, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. SERIES OF 2007
Parcel ID #:2735-124-10-007
WHEREAS, the applicants, Gell-Mann Murdock Partners, LLP, represented by Rick
Knezevich and Anne Marie McPhee of Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, P.C., have
requested a Historic Landmark Lot Split and Variances for the property located at 500
West Francis Street, Lots Q, Rand S, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet
the following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4),
Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.01O(D.), which are as follows:
26.480.030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemptions, Lot Split
The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family
dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where
all of the following conditions are met:
a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin
County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land
is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided
after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on
March 24, 1969; and
b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to
the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which
development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to
Section 26.100.040(A)(I)(c).
c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the
subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or
a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(I)(a); and
d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to
the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of
the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no
further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units
be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter
and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100.
I
e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be
recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on
the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty
(180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat
invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be
required for a showing of good cause.
t) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which
is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to
application for a lot split.
g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split
shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a
single-family home; and
26.480.030(A)(4). Subdivision Exemptions. Historic Landmark Lot Split
The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a
subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards:
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000)
square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or MU (formerly
0) zone district.
b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the
size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR
for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat.
In the Mixed Use (formerly Office) zone district, the following shall apply to the
calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark
lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption
Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property:
If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use,
the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district.
If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in
commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area
allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel
created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that
parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use
according to the R-6 standards.
If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor
area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements
of tbe underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section
26.415.120(B)(I)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contains a
2
historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on
the original parcel; and
26.470.070(C), GMOS Exemption, Historic Landmark Lot Split
The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and
approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and
competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community
Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development
allotments or from the development ceilings; and
26.415.010(D). Historic Landmark Lot Split
A Historic Landmark Lot Split is a two step review, requiring a public hearing before
HPC and before City Council; and
WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section
26.415.IIO.C of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic
property or historic district; and
WHEREAS, for approval of an FAR Bonus, 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, that:
a. The design ofthe project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the
historic building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the
historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and
3
.
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated April II, 2007, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, and recommended the application be approved
with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on April 11, 2007, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and
approved the application by a vote of _ to _'
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the HPC recommends Council approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, and grants
approval for Variances, for the property located at 500 West Francis Street, Lots Q, R,
and S, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions:
I. Setback variances of 0 feet for the east sideyard and 0 feet for the rear sideyard
setbacks are granted for the existing condition.
2. A 500 square foot FAR Bonus is granted to the fathering parcel.
3. Staff recommends that HPC grant GMQS exemption for the Historic Landmark
Lot Split.
4. Staff recommends that the applicant pursue an encroachment license from the
Engineering Department for the historic Carriage House.
5. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of
final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision
exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid
and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of
good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code;
b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for
these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable
approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the
time of application;
c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will
conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except
the variances approved by the HPC; and
d. Be labeled to indicate that this proposal will create Lot I of 3,000
square feet in size with 1,593 square feet of floor area, and a Lot 2 of
6,000 square feet in size with 2,987 square feet of floor area.
6. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific
development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance
of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested
property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record
all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
4
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order
void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not
part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation
of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City
Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public
of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property
right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of
three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24,
Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described
property: 500 West Francis
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent
reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations
and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are
not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and
judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights
shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final
development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of
referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the
Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of
June, 2005.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to Content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
5
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
6
I 8 , < I'
! ,. l
,
~c "
II '"
II ~ '"
M II
II
:t
...
~
Q.
N.
s.
40'
ST.
.
400
.~
)':l
17
"
N
4
~I S
40/
ST.
QH
e 40"
"
'"
"
i'!
8' c
: ("" N
i : ~'F ~ 55
o
?
II
II
II
I
II
II
II ~
" 0;
"
" ~
"
" ~
,
II
II ., N
II
~'t :
. s
4.
.
,
H
L-.![.
c
f71
U
N.5~H
" "
lI.fJ,/{. 400
,e
,
R , K R
,
,
B .
cb~
c I ~~ il
"
I ~ ,
i ~"
14: ~
14 [E] " c "
P
II
,
~ I ~
I
,
N. ! -
, .
R
c
,
c
/
o
frt: :'i'p;b]
N
([j],
rl'~P
, "
.,
:/]J
E
F[/~
GO
H~
~
F
"
II
II
II
"
~ :'2 ST.
4"W,IIFIfJ.I!- __ -=--.-= '= "",_ __ _ "",...
0= ='==11--=
~n O.N'
~II . 500
I
II
"
II
II
II
,
"
,
u
.,
"
g:
'"
~
~
,
,
"
II
II
II
II
II
II
"
,
,
~
II
,
I
,
,
,
"
II
,
0::"
W~
...JI
C!)I
(!)I
:JI
I
~~
!J),
,
.
,
.,
...
,
.,
...
,
,.
,
01
ST.
!ioo
K
".
:,
~ CJI
- I ." '" N.4'J'
~ 161~~ t-.... ___ __=========__===-==-==--
-1""'===-- -.... --
""
II 400 4/0 4/2..
~ Ii I
II
,
~ ~
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
"
II
II
~ ~
I
II
II
"
II
II N
"
.
"
[
~
p
:J
r
601
s
A
B
c
,
. ~
~ I
,
II EJJ E
~ "
... II . ,
"
. F
II
II
II
II c.
By Certified Mail
Jre.
.
March 9, 2007
Ms. Corrine McGovern
Mittel Europa
300 West Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
rHE CITY OF ASPEN
Re: 300 West Main Street
Dear Ms. McGovern:
This letter is to inform you that a show cause hearing will be held Wednesday, April II,
2007, at 5:00 pm in the Council Chambers meeting room in City Hall. The purpose of
the hearing will be to determine if sufficient evidence exists to find that you violated
Sections 26.415.070 through 26.415.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section
26.415.140 of the Land Use Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to
conduct a public hearing regarding violations of Sections 26.415.070 through 26.415.100
of the Aspen Municipal Code.
The City's Historic Preservation Officer alleges that you have violated the following
sections of the Aspen Municipal Code:
1. Section 26.415.070. Prior to July 2006, you undertook, or employed someone
to undertake, work on the property located at 300 West Main Street, Aspen,
Colo., a locally designated landmark property, without first obtaining a
building permit or a Development Order from the Historic Preservation
Commission.
2. Section 26.415.070. On or about October 31, 2006, you undertook, or
employed someone to undertake, work on the above referenced property
without first obtaining a building permit or a Development Order from the
Historic Preservation Commission, violating a stop work order issued on June
22, 2006.
3. Section 26.415.070. On or about December 12, 2006, you undertook, or
employed someone to undertake work, on the above referenced property
without first obtaining a building permit or a Development Order from the
Historic Preservation Commission, in violation of a stop work order issued on
November 15, 2006.
You are advised to bring legal counsel if you desire. Be advised that the Historic
Preservation Officer will recommend to HPC that they impose a moratorium on issuing
building permits for your property at 300 West Main Street, other than necessary repairs
and maintenance, for up to ten years, as stated in Section 26.415.140 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
This hearing does not take the place of the minor development hearing at HPC regarding
necessary maintenance to the building scheduled on April 25, 2007.
Sincerely,
Sara Adams
Preservation Planner
cc: John Worcester, Aspen City Attorney
Jim True, Attorney
Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director