HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20070523
=.,~-~<~-'-
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 23, 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 - April 11 th, 2007
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
(Next resolution will be #21 )
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Caribou Alley- Minor Development review, continued
public hearing from 3/28 - To be continued 1-(yM 13
B. 408 E. Cooper Ave., Aspen Sports - Minor Developmel!t 1
review, continued public hearing (30 min.) (;/I'./\f!i -t! ()uJiLrl.r1-h
C. ~ W. Main Street - Major Development, Final, continued
)~Bhc hearing from 5/9 - To be continued ~ 1.3
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 202 N. Monarch, Substantial Amendment, public hearing
(30 min.) Jl-t SO'). /
B. Conner Cabins, Mondry Loft view plane review, public
hearing (30 min.) ~~ n.dc..
X. WORKSESSIONS
A. NONE
IX. ADJOURN 6:45 p.m.
Provide proof oflegal 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.
PROJECT MONITORING
555/557 Walnut
701 W. Main
640 N. Third
314 E. Hyman, Motherlode
930 Matchless
205 S. Galena- Brand deck
134 W. Hopkins
212 W. Hopkins
920 W. Hallam
114 Neale Ave.
Jeffrey Halferty
Mike Hoffman
308/310 Park
640 N. Third
Jewish Community Center
202 N. Monarch
320 W. Hallam Ave.
426 E. Main (Main and Galena)
Sarah Broughton
811/819 E. Hopkins
110 E. Bleeker
530,532,534 E. Hopkins (Connor Cabins)
100 East Bleeker
Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows
406 E. Hopkins (Isis)
304 E. Hopkins (Elevation Restaurant)
Brian McNellis
629 Smuggler
Hotel Jerome
Jewish Community Center
Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows
233 W. Main (Innsbruck)
Alison Agley
529 W. Francis
214 East Bleeker Street
205 S. Mill Street (Bruno's Deck)
710 N. Third
Boomerang
501 W. Main Street (Christiana)
520 E. Durant (Ajax Bldg)
CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS THAT HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL REVIEW:
Firestation- (February 8, 2006)
332 W. Main- (May 10, 2006)
508 E. Cooper (Cooper St. Pier Redevelopment)- (July 12, 2006)
308 E. Hopkins (LaCo Redevelopment) - (July 12, 2006)
135 W. Hopkins- (August 9, 2006)
Lift 1/ Willoughby Park- (August 8, 2006)
202 N. Monarch Street- (October 25, 2006)
507 Gillespie- (March 28, 2007)
tII[ b~
MEMORANDUM
RE:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer~
408 E. Cooper Avenue, Aspen Sports- Minor Review and Commercial Design
Review, PUBLIC HEARING
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
May 23, 2007 (Continued from February 28, 2007 due to weather)
SUMMARY: Aspen Sports has operated in their current location for 50 years. In 1968, the
local architecture firm Caudill and Associates redesigned and added onto the one story shop,
creating the masonry favade and arches that exist today. A few years later, an upper story was
added to a portion of the building.
Aspen Sports proposes to replace materials and features on the front favade of the store, and to
add new signage, lighting, and awnings. The building is located in the Commercial Core
Historic District, but has not been designated a landmark.
HPC reviewed a proposed remodel of this building on August 30, 2006 and continued the
application for restudy. A restudy was provided, but not discussed at length by the board on
September 13, 2006. For this hearing the applicant has returned with the two previously drawn
options, along with a new third proposal. Minutes of August 30, 2006 are attached.
Staff finds that none of the fat;ade options meets the design guidelines, as discussed below.
We recommend that HPC deny this Minor Development application.
APPLICANT: Barnett- Fyrwald Holdings, represented by Joe Larken. The architect is Todd
Architecture.
PARCEL In: 2737-182-16-009.
ADDRESS: 408 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot PT L and M, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Pitkin County, 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
I
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: The proposed remodel does not amount to the City's definition of "demolition"
based on calculations provided by the architect. It does amount to a Minor Development
Review, and also requires compliance with the Commercial Design Review standards. This
application was filed after the first moratorium was adopted, and is permitted to be reviewed only
to the extent that the plans do not create any new FAR.
The applicant has completed an interior remodel. For HPC's information, an elevator has not
been provided, therefore some of the rooftop work discussed previously has not taken place. The
subj ect of this discussion is proposed changes to the building favade. The applicant has
submitted three options.
Option A
This option removes the arches from the ground floor of both bays of the building, replaces the
storefront system on the west bay, and applies various new details to the fayade, such as trim on
the second floor stucco wall, new awnings and new cornices.
Staff finds that Option A does not comply with the design guidelines in several respects. Chapter
13 of the guidelines talks at some length about the traditional building character involving a
"transparent" and glassy ground floor treatment as compared to noticeably more opaque
treatment of the second floor. Option A is identical on the ground floor and upper floor in terms
of window to wall relationship and conflicts with guideline 13.17
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
o The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass.
o Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper
story windows should have a vertical emphasis.
o Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.
o Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels
through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an
important feature in this relationship.
In addition, details such as the cornice, which is perched at the top of the building rather than
applied to the favade, are not consistent with the way these features were handled historically and
seem unauthentic and unrelated to the character ofthe building.
2
Option B
Option B involves cladding the building with new materials. Some areas of the favade are
already over the property line, a condition that cannot be extended without the City allowing a
new encroachment license.
This option presents some of the same issues of Option A, although there is more of an opaque
treatment of the upper floor. However, alignment of horizontal features is also expressed as an
important aspect of compatibility with the downtown environment. The metal cladding creates a
very thick horizontal element that overstates the belt course the guidelines suggest should occur
between the first and second floors. In addition it cuts across the glazing so that there is no
expression of a sill on the upper floor windows and they no longer appear to be vertical in
character as the guidelines discuss. It seems that the upper floor fenestration will be a dark
recess, which is not in character with the rest of downtown.
The use of metal and wood as primary building materials is also unlike most of downtown,
although they can be said to reflect the horizontal coursing of brick and metal siding has been
used for new structures such as the Wagner field bathrooms.
Option B is in conflict with the following guidelines:
13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
o The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of the
downtown.
o Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular, the
windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen traditionally.
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
o The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass.
o Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story
windows should have a vertical emphasis.
o Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.
o Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels
through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important
feature in this relationship.
13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block.
o Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall
as they are wide.
o Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement
relative to cornices and belt courses.
13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be maintained.
o Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices,
copings and parapets at the tops of buildings.
When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight
variation in alignments between the facade elements.
3
Option C
Option C addresses many of the design guideline goals, but goes too far towards replicating a
historic building, at least on the ground floor, which is not desired. The guidelines state that new
designs should not copy older styles but instead should seek creative new solutions that convey
the community's continuing interest in exploring innovations. At the same time, the fundamental
principles of traditional design must be respected. This requires striking a balance in the design
variables that are presented in the guidelines.
Option C also appears to be un-approvable because the current moratorium does not allow for the
review of any projects in the Commercial Core where FAR is increased. Moving the location of
the walls will increase square footage. To the extent that this option constructs a whole new
storefront, Commercial Design Review standards require the creation of an internal airlock
(Guideline C.4), for the applicant's reference.
Option C creates a transparent first floor but replicates Victorian storefront detailing too closely.
The group of four windows punched into the upper floor masonry does not seem to create the
vertical emphasis, or solid to void relationship that is promoted for new work. In particular, the
following are not met:
13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged.
o A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among historic
buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as
products of their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors.
o The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
o In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design.
13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block.
o Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice
as tall as they are wide.
o Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional
placement relative to cornices and belt courses.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied based on conformance with 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
4
Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the favade 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.
Staff Response: The Commercial Design Standards are attached to this memo as "Exhibit B."
This proposal represents a replacement of existing malerials, not an alteration to the footprint or
massing of the building, therefore most of the Commercial Design Standards are not relevant.
Staff does not find that the proposal creates any conflicts with the Standards. To the extent that
current features may not entirely comply with the Standards, they may remain in place.
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 deny Minor Development approval for the
proposed favade changes finding that they do not meet the design guidelines.
All motions must be made in the affirmative, therefore staff has prepared a resolution approving the
project. The recommendation is to make a motion to approve, but then to vote against passage of
the motion.
Exhibits:
Resolution #_, Series of2007
A. Minutes of August 30, 2006
B. Application
5
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
o The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of
the downtown.
o Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular,
the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen
traditionally.
13.15 Contemporary interpretations oftraditional building styles are encouraged.
o A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among historic
"
buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products
of their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors.
o The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
o In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design.
13.16 Develop the ground floor level of aU projects to encourage pedestrian activity.
o Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts should
maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows and transoms.
o Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are
visible from the street, are particularly encouraged.
o The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" entrances are
inappropriate.
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
o The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass.
o Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story
windows should have a vertical emphasis.
o Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.
o Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels
through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an
important feature in this relationship.
13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block.
o Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as
tall as they are wide.
o Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement
relative to cornices and belt courses.
13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a
block.
o Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to
establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians.
o Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by
the upper floor(s).
o Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront.
13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be
maintained.
o Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices,
copings and parapets at the tops of buildings.
o When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some
slight variation in alignments between the facade elements.
6
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
o The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
o All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts ofsite and architectural lighting.
o Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
o Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
o Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
o Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
o A'Void placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
o Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street.
o When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with
commercial and multifamily developments.
o This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks.
o Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists.
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way.
o Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not
create a negative visual impact.
o Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are
compatible with those ofthe building itself.
o Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges.
o A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does
not create a negative visual impact.
o Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or
alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use
smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards,
significant building facades or highly visible roof planes.
o Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize
their appearance by blending with their backgrounds.
14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not
damage historic facade materials.
o Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is
inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade.
o If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall.
7
Exhibit B: Commercial Design Standards.
The following design standards shall apply to commercial, lodging, and mixed-use development:
A. Building Relationship to Primary Street.
A street wall is comprised of buildings facing principal streets and public pedestrian spaces.
Consistent street walls provide a sense of a coherent district and frame an outdoor room.
Interruptions in this enclosure can lessen the quality of a 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:
I. Building facades shall be parallel to the adjoining primary streets. Minor elements of the
building favade 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 favade 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 ofthe
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.
8
2. The pedestrian amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this
characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade
trees, solar access, view orientation, and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent
rights-of-way are encouraged.
3. The pedestrian amenity, and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent
structures, rights-of-way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks, or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
5. Any variation to the Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section
26.575.030(F) promote the purpose of the pedestrian amenity requirements.
6. Tbe 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.
C. Street-Level Building Elements.
The "storefront," or street-level portion of a commercial building is perhaps the single most
important element of a commercial district building. Effective storefront design can make an
entire district inviting and pedestrian friendly. Unappealing storefront design can become a
detriment to the vitality of a commercial district. In order to be an effective facility for the sale
of goods and services, the storefront has traditionally been used as a tool to present those goods
and services to the passing pedestrian (potential customer). Because of this function, the
storefront has traditionally been as transparent as possible to allow maximum visibility to the
interior. The following standards shall apply:
I. Unarticulated, blank walls are prohibited. Fenestration, or an alternate means of favade
articulation, is required on all exterior walls.
2. Retail buildings shall incorporate, at a minimum, a 60% fenestration ratio on exterior
street-level walls facing primary streets. (For example: each street-level wall of a retail
building that faces a primary street must be comprised of at least 60% fenestration
penetrations and no more than 40% solid materials.) This provision may be reduced or
waived for lodging properties with no, or limited, street-level retail, office buildings with
no retail component, and for Service/Commercial/Industrial buildings.
3. Building entrances shall be well-defined and apparent.
4. Building entrances shall be designed to accommodate an internal airlock such that
temporary seasonal airlocks on the exterior of the building are unnecessary.
5. Non-traditional storefronts, such as along an alleyway, are encouraged.
9
D. Parking.
Parking is a necessary component of a successful commercial district. The manner in which
parking is physically accommodated has a larger impact upon the quality of the district that the
amount of parking. Surface parking separating storefronts from the street creates a cluttered,
inhospitable pedestrian environment. A downtown retail district shaped by buildings, well-
designed storefronts, and a continuous street wall is highly preferred over a district shaped by
parking lots. Well-placed and well-designed access points to parking garages can allow
convenient parking without disrupting the retail district. The following standards shall apply:
I. Parking shall only be accessed from alleyways, unless such access is unavailable or an
unreasonable design solution in which case access from a primary street shall be designed
in a manner that minimizes disruption of the pedestrian environment.
2. Surface parking shall not be located between the Street right-of-way and the building
favade.
3. Above grade parking garages in commercial districts shall incorporate ground-floor
commercial uses and be designed in a manner compatible with surrounding buildings and
uses.
4. Above grade parking garages shall not reveal internal ramping on the exterior favade of
the building.
E. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision.
When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building
can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one building can
detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are
important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply:
1. A utility, trash, and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting
the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060 UtilitylTrashlRecycle Service
Areas, unless otherwise established according to said section.
2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley.
Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall
be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site
conditions, such as a historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments
shall be properly licensed.
3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility
shall be an integral component ofthe building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the
roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the Street as practical.
5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs.
10
Suggested Design Elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the
City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not
produce the most-desired development and project designers should use their best judgment.
A. Sifmaee:
Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage
areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc. may minimize new tenant
signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public wayfinding
function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building
on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory.
B. Disvlav windows:
Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail
space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian
interest.
C. Lif!htinf!:
Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create
pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch
attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain
important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass
should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the
City's Outdoor Lighting code, Section 26.575.050, is mandatory.
D. Orif!inal Townsite Articulation:
Buildings spanning more than one Original Townsite Lot should incorporate favade
expressions coincidental with these original parcel boundaries to reinforce historic scale.
This may be inappropriate in some circumstances, such as on large corner lots.
E Architectural Features:
Parapet walls should be used to shield mechanical equipment from pedestrian views. Aligning
cornices and other architectural features with adjacent buildings can relate new buildings to
their historical surroundings. Awnings and canopies can be used to provide architectural
interest and shield windows and entryways from the elements.
11
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR ASPEN SPORTS, 408 E. COOPER
A VENUE, LOTS PT L AND M, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL In: 2737-182-16-009
WHEREAS, the applicant, Barnett-Fyrwald Holdings, represented by Joe Larken and Todd
Architecture, has requested approval for Minor Development in order to remodel their store at
408 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots PT L and M, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.C of the
Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staffreport dated May 23, 2007, performed an analysis of the
application based on the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines, and recommended denial finding that the review criteria were not met; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 23, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found that .the application was consistent with the review standards
and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and granted approval with
conditions by a vote of _ to _'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC approves Minor Development for 408
E. Cooper Avenue, Lots PT L and M, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado based on Option _'
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 23rd day of May, 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
10 August 2006
Amy Guthrie
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen Community Development Department
City Hall, 3n1 Floor
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Aspen Sports Historic Preservation Application
Dear Ms. Guthrie,
Please accept the attached documentation as our Historic Preservation Application for the exterior
modifications to the Aspen Sports store. We have been part of Aspen's retail community since 1953,
and, with Historic Preservation Commission approval, look forward to continuing this tradition with
an improved presence in our community for many more year> to come.
I am employed by Specialty Sports Venture, and have primary management responsibility for the
Aspen Sports store. My contact information is:
Joe Larkin
Regional Manager
408 East Cooper Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 970-429-3711
Facsimile: 970-925-2755
I have been authorized by the building's owner, Mr. Ernie Fyrwald to act on his behalf regarding
decisions rendered regarding this application. His contact infonnation is:
Ernie Fyrwald
Barnett- Fyrwald Holdings Inc.
cI 0 Becker Business Services
630 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-6060
The property's location is:
Property address:
408 East Cooper Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 80611
Parcel identification number. 273718216009
Legal description:
Block 89, Lot PT L and M, City and Town site of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado.
I trust that the anached information and supporting documentation satisfies the requirements for the
Historic Preservation Application. If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
~jL
Joe Larkin
Regional Manager
Specialty SportS Venture
ene.
~?~ S-;~
Ernie Fyrwald '0
Owner
Barnett- Fyrwald Holdings Inc.
Vicinity Plan
~..
0f.~'
f
,.....\
.-\~~.,.
"'...<\11-'\~~
,....\ \
l1 \~!
1. ' -..j
() ,. i
...t-- --
I ~: '\
~ Ii ,'~
'.r~" ~Q .-"t)~{~"
?"i~ ~\ .....;,;!.. i......'"
~~r- , !_c~~ ~tk~~- ~/{rr ,i'
I r "" ! :
'/'1'\ #...\\ ~_~..f'-.Qr".J 1/
~.c:<l,. . I~ t
_#~"';' 110';/ ~:>
"'." i.~_"',
."......~._ ii,
PROJECTjbCATION
..l'
,
;-.....
i\, '"
.., 1 \ < _1.y~R~i;Ii._Rd t. tJI
\ '\v - ~r'4---""_-.. '\
~\ '~"-'r;, '~-' l1~ontJ M-. 1- -._-._'~.' _~ --~
7~~:'\\ \~: ~:::;;~,,:'~~~~R'"
</;:~~Ct\ '., \S~~~~n>~:~B' -',~'~~L/'/'
I' /~",....~..,.\i~\-~ .s~1 .~- '._~ ~
4:.1 - :,:~(--,::;:,:_,<-,-:,;- '< \\ ,Ii .~~~ '\ ~
I!:"}}C(,;;:;! ~ \f~~~ \(, _",,'
, ~....'-J~,.>~.j ~'''''~-'.'<<.~L-.!l:''.
.- I r." "1-.~td..... -,__ , -', .......... ~----.!fW.., ,:1&
.,yot ._../. I:' 'f~Sli snft'5\-- ) "~/) I \.
, r":f."f--.J..L1-:t-,........ -'~\'\J.o:;?,. ~~ '..Q
l._ ,t;;-16L...~"',~-,~<< - - -><,.1!:t -....f' ,I
A. /"~..#i Z-1' z' :;./'1::;'i,.1]!: ',) \~,-.:..1~i i;4 ·
.-~: ..,." ( ~Sti ~,'-..! " '-'- .:. \ ~,
"Y '-1"1'"",. / IE&! '-'~"","\,(<. ..ti"
",~\f' '-..L_I "~. Z./. J ,a"St~.~- -lii....:.,r' '-.f
.. ' k.~~r-.,_ ......._; 'vl
I l.,(iJiL " ,q...." r"T"1JJ- -....~RI...:Ll---._
li<J ~, L~t~~'-- ~.T~T--i f~ !F~~~.Rd
$"\_;:<'" sr .!f/rIt" I...r~' ...f......-<-.:,..'~ 1--..
(!Jl ~ "", '-rl~... f l ~\flo .1 :;to! .' / ~
. 'el/ ,i ~ rj;,....~. I l . .. _ .$/,J\ I
!L_flf//,' ...-"'--.l!fl' [~~~~,,~, r _ (\ V~:;, \ ::" -J. ~~.:.-
\ (\, ~)'-\II 1. "', I I' )"'L--';';::,.'." \ "" ;:,
\. ,~' (~ (J,i'o ..,k!l''''r r'\<!''- '12'';' '\
t.. ~., ,.q(r "~"";';"R....~~i.....
. "u~ ..- -,,,..,:,' Q
. ' 00'(1\
'. ....., '\ ~
~", '12', i[
,:. ",. 9
r
.
1
-'~
._c;~~'f
.;..v.__
,"~.'
~... I
"'~S'''Cir-~DrI
t~
I
Address:
Aspen Sports
408 East Cooper Avenue
Aspen, CO 80611
Parcel ID Number:
273718216009
Legal Description:
Sub City & Townsite of Aspen, Block 89, Lot Pt Lots L & M
Site Plan
ALLEY
I
I
I
I
,
PROPERlY LINE
,I
II
'I
II
\1
II
I
o
,
I
d
,
I
o
~I
o
~I
ONE STORY
MASONRY AND
WOOD
STRUCTURE
TWO STORY
MASONRY,
CONCRETE, AND
WOOD
STRUCTURE
o
60.1B'
EXISTING BRICK COBBLES
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
North
EB
Written Description
Aspen Sports
408 East Cooper Avenue
Aspen, CO 80611
Existing Conditions
The Aspen Sports Cooper Avenue facade is composed brick veneer, stucco, exposed
concrete, metal railings, painted wood windows, and wood doors in a natural fmish. The
west portion is a single story structure setback approximately three feet from the front lot
line, is 23' wide by 15' high, and has a partial masonry arch that contains a small window and
an entry door. The east portion is a two story structure located cfuectly on the front lot line,
is 37' wide by 25' high, and has a segmented arch that rises 9' at center span, forming an
opening to a recessed wood and glass storefront; the upper level has a recessed balcony and
painted metal railing.
Old construction documents indicate that sometime after July 1968, the west favade was
stripped off and rebuilt to match a new, one story building under construction on the eastern
portion of the lot. Sometime after August 1976, a second floor was added above the east
building. The architect for both remodel projects was Caudill Associates. The building is
not included in the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
The existing storefront is causing several functional issues for Aspen Sports. The existing
brick arches restrict the amount of natural light entering the store, and interfere with the
view into the store from the Cooper Avenue Mall. Compared to current standards, the ratio
of wall mass to transparency does not satisfy the City of Aspen Histon"c Preservation Design
Guidelines or meet the minimum 60% fenestration ratio required in the Commercial Design
Standards in the City of Aspen Land Use Code.
Because they spring from the ground and have less than the required 80" clearance, the
existing arches also do not satisfy the current ANSI Al17 .1-2003 accessibility code without
the addition of cane detection barriers; the store's door thresholds and metal entry grate do
not comply as well.
Proposed Modification
The modification to the existing east storefront involves the partial removal of the upper
portion of the brick arch and the infill of the lower arch with salvaged brick to create a pair
of vertical brick piers. The existing rowlock and soldier course brick patterns will be
recreated at the base. A new structural steel lintel will be added to support the existing
concrete bond beam, the existing wood storefront be repainted, and the existing doors
replaced with an automatic entrance that meets accessibility standards. At the roofline of the
second story, a simplified cornice is proposed to improve the fa<;:ade's proportions and
create a top to the second floor.
The west portion work requires the complete removal of the existing brick wall and arch.
New exposed structural steel columns will support the existing concrete bond beam, which
acts as a belt course and visually unifies the two halves of the storefront. Within the
columns, a new storefront will be constructed with a kick plate at the bottom and a row of
ttansom lites above the door that align with those of the east storefront. A new automatic
door will be added, maintaining the same asy=etricallocation of the existing entry, aligned
with the internal stairway. A simplified cornice provides a top and unifies the east and west
halves of the storefront.
The existing exposed flood lights will be removed and replaced with more appropriate
fixtures. Existing signage will be replaced by two directly-illuminated double-sided
projecting signs located above the two exterior entries and lettering on portions of new
awnmgs.
Some modifications, such as the cornice, rooftop-mounted mechanical equipment, and a lift
shaft, protrude slightly into the Wheeler Opera House MountaID View plane. The proposed
awnings project into the Cooper Avenue right of way.
Land Use Application
.
THE CITY OF ASPEN
PROJECT:
Name: Asoen Sports
Location: 408 East Cooper Avenue, Asoen, Colorado 80611
Block 89, Lot PT Land M, City and Town site of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado.
Parcel ill # 273718216009
APPLICANT:
Name:
Mr. Ernie F ald, Barnett-F
Address: 630 East Hyman Avenue, As n, Colorado 81611
Phone #: 970-925-6060
Fax#:
E-mail:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: Mr. Joe Larkin
Address: 408 East Coo r Avenue, As n, Colorado 80611
Phone #: 970-429-3711 Fax#: 970-925-2755 E-mail: 'larkin
TYPE OF APPLICATION: lease check all that a I :
o Historic Designation
o Certificate of No Negative Effect
o Certificate of Appropriateness
X -Minor Historic Development
o -Major Historic Development
o -Conceptual Historic Development
o -Final Historic Development
o -Substantial Amendment
o Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
D Demolition (total demolition)
o Historic Landmark Lot Split
buildin s, uses,
One story and two story buildings with basement used as Aspen Sports retail store and administrative offices
PROPOSAL:
Modification of existing storefronts, signage and lighting, and addition of rooftop mechanical equipment
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for aU projects.)
Aspen Sports
Mr. Ernie FyrwaldJJoe Larkin, Authorized Representative
408 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 80611
Commercial Core
60.18' x 100'
6,018 square feet
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas witlrin
the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot
Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable:
Number of residential units:
Number of bedrooms:
Existing:
Existing:
Existing:
12.728
o
o
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
12,728
o
o
Proposed % of demolition:
DIMENSIONS: (write nla where no requirement exists in the rone district)
Floor Area: Existing.'_ 8.834_ Allowable: 12. 000 Proposed: 8.834
Height
Principal Bldg.: Existing: 15' & 25' Allowable: 42' Proposed: 18'&28'
Accessory Bldg.: Existing: nla Allowable: nla Proposed: nla
On-Site parking: Existing: 0 Required: 0 Proposed: 0
% Site coverage: Existing: 99% Required: nla Proposed: 99%
% Open Space: Existing: 1% Required: nla Proposed: 1%
Front Setback: Existing: 0' & 3.5' Required: 0 Proposed: 0' & 3.5'
Rear Setback: Existing: o to l' Required: 0 Proposed: o to l'
Combined FrontIRear:
Indicate N. S. E. W Existing: nla Required: nla Proposed: nla
Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 0 Proposed: 0
Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 0 Proposed: 0
Combined Sides: Existing: 0 Required: 0 Proposed: 0
Distance between Existing: 0 Required: 0 Proposed:~_
buildings:
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
Rear wall encroachment along portion of allev. front belt course encroachment along portion of Cooper Street
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): Possible encroachment into the Wheeler House
Mountain View Plane bv proposed rooftop mechanical equipment. lift shaft. and cornice
Photographs
.....:.
i1'
j
~'- ,
i' ',~~
--~
-~'~.
-
View from Cooper Avenue
View from Alley
View from Alley
Photographs
View from Wheeler Opera House Third Floor
rr
!: ].
I
~'.~: '.
'I
i
L
t~ .
l-
Cooper Avenue Partial Facade
Photographs
Neighbor Aspen Fur to the West
"
,
,
\
l\
Neighbor Aspen Style to the East
Measurement of Demolition
311 SF REMOVAL OF
EXISTING STOREFRONT
C\
II."
I;
'\
!
'. ----j
I
I
SOUTH ELEVATION
1,073 SF EXISTI NG SURFACE AREA
156 SF REMOVAL OF PORTION OF
EXISTING BRICK WALL
NO REMOVAL OF EXISTING AREAS
p>----''Il
. ^
J=-'---''! i=-~'~
F-'~
,
j i
NORTH ELEVATION
1,147 SF EXISTING SURFACE AREA
r....
,-;-"'------- -. .
. : '
,:-
21 SF REMOVAL OF PORTION OF
....-...7r_...~.-.........~--,_.. -'J';~~c'E~1W~..~.!U9Pi.."" ALL
. ..:.
:;; ."
". .....
". ..,. .
WEST ELEVATION
1,744 SF EXISTING SURFACE
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/1 6" = 1'-0"
TOTAL SURFACE AREA: 3,964 SF
REMOVED AREA: 488 SF
SUMMARY
TOTAL ROOF AND WALL SURFACE AREA:
TOTAL REMOVED WALL AND ROOF AREA:
% OF SURFACE AREA REMOVED:
9,911 SF
693 SF
7%
Improvement/Mountain View Plane Survey
ALL e y
/
/
/
/
,
'3-:-~O'1'lj-e.. w.e
'7.:r:.'l.~rev.I~:rJL7'~J..ev. ....""
7"!~J'{...J- ~t.....", r+.-f.v. f"ER /' ~
',~~C'F'er<AI.~..-e'J.P.
l' ' -'
/
r/
/
I
./
;/
./
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ .'
,
/
,
/
I-'
I\)
/
/
/.
/' ..
/
d~/
=~A'
/X,~;"'I
//. '/,:.
/' .... .. ~
,/C
,,/
/
/
..J
..J
,
/ lDT/K. +
GQt:eN H:Jt'N.,
// //
/ /
/
"
L
/
/
/
"
/
//
/
,/
-:'-l':DA E.,)(J<?ITi~/~LE.\i /
-n"2f4- rv\A)( EL~ F-~r..:: .
\'r1:ElO-:: Cf~~U~ VF
/ ~N HS~.4. C.27~
/.' // ./7
: N7'::>~O"i'II"W
'"
~'ULnNf' l::."",CR::Y"O-l!'"'e:NT
o"?' ta:?~e-' .. , ,,'"
(.'OF?NER t-.e.rt..'~ cue -p.;:
~U:1N:5 e:t~~
~.': ~:-.>
..:....-.
. :"~4:: .
COOPE.R
A V E:
" ::. ;;;,
<0CAL.-e JII", cF
~ (.f" ~../'....RI!~16~ C'C'. O:f~N~F".-0",'CC'Qr',ir-F ~.cc.;~ eo::. :,!-.-r.:C,'1;
[A"7lt-' r>LA!'lE: E'_'l'-~_ eN 'N1i..L ::.1 ,?''fJ, a:::'l<Nep. Cf' r03:::l' i J:"'( _-;">~ -,~ 'n~.c'
-r.
""
~'
'SlJi<Ve,'{ORC, . CERTIFK::ATE.
I, ~1E'? r;~", HeR.Ee..y CER11FY"'J1..-<f~T -T'...~16 ~-'AP
X.CL-'i?.TELY ~CT<6 A <{"~-'R'veY t-~>-'\L"'e UNC1CR ;-r'{
~....'PEP,:v~a-~ Ct--I,J...,.LY '2<1..I<<1-A, CF'lDTSl t...A!'-lDM,
et.Q:K 00, s:rry.c:r Jl.2;:t;.-eN, mkl~-J CG...l."-~1; CCt.G'v'...,C"n.
"
o
'';:
:;;
"
o
U
Cl
"
-.;:
..
.)(
W
"
::>
,,-
"e
~~
~ "
" 0
a.'1: '"
0-:;;0 ~
o mo ='
U-cNti
.. " "-"
t D.. L,-_
OEo:E
a..o2~
V)~..c-c(
,,- "
"~u..-c
a- .~ '''It -g
<>,....F
<(
<:
.2
a.
o
;;
:J
<:-
"0
~~
~ <:
" c
0.0 Oi: r--..
-0 "
o ~ 0 :;
U"'CN-
tl ~!
o 0.-
o.E:J..l:
U') 0 .... ~
c~...a<
,,~.f-c
~.!!!-.r]
..q;>r-~
...
I:
o
.';::
Q.
o
CD
"
1:-
"0
<~
... I:
., 0
Q.Q"C '"
-0 e
0; 0 :)
U"'CN-
-e,f~.e
o D.-
Q.E"..c:
VI 0 '- l::!
c:~..a<
.,~.f-o
5j-.!!ht -g
.q;,,>-~
U
c
o
-.;:
c.
o
Qj
"
c-
alc
~~
~ C
al 0
g.'C r-.. CD
01;;0...
alO"
U-al'lti
ta!~.!
o D'-
a.E::)~
V) 0 ... l-
I: J:..c-o(
al~.f-a
~.!!!"<t]
~>r-I-="
11 ~.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
202 N. Monarch Street- Substantial Amendment to Approved Development
Order- Public Hearing
DATE:
May 23, 2007
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 9,047 square foot lot which contains a large Victorian
era home built circa 1886. HPC granted Final approval for Major Development on February 14,
2007 (Resolution 7, Series 2007), which included relocation, restoration, and a rear addition
along Bleeker Street (See Exhibit B for previous approvals). A landmark FAR bonus and a
variance from the "Residential Design Standards" regarding the distance of the garage from the
main house have been granted.
HPC is asked to approve a Substantial Amendment that shifts the garage doors from the south
elevation (facing Bleeker Street) to the east elevation. The form, height, materials and
fenestration of the connector piece and rear addition are altered, and the installation of a fence is
proposed.
Staff finds that the proj ect meets the applicable HPC design guidelines and recommends
approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: Sallie Golden and Carlie Siemel, 1278 Snowbunny Lane, Aspen Colorado.
PARCELID: 2737-073-17-005.
ADDRESS: 202 N. Monarch Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 78 aka Lot 1, 202 N. Monarch
Street Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
PROJECT REVIEW
Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals
to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be the center of future
discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the
questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
I. Why is the property significant? The home on this property is significant as one of
Aspen's relatively few remaining examples of a "high style" Victorian residence.
I
2. What are the key features of the property? Key features of the property are the high
visibility ofthe historic structure, gracious setbacks, and the fact that there have been very
few modifications to the building massing. Historic details have been removed or
covered over, however, numerous doors, windows, and other features are intact.
3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? The
surrounding context is sensitive to change and at one time was under consideration as the
"Community Church Historic District." There are numerous 19th century structures
remaining in the immediate area.
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? The
integrity score will be decreased by a small amount as a result of the on-site relocation. It
will be improved through many restoration actions such as removing the synthetic siding
and re-opening the front porch. The proposed addition is small and, when in full
compliance with the guidelines, will not threaten the integrity score for this property.
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property? Undeveloped FAR will remain available to this site. The applicant intends to
construct a detached new home to the north.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT- SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
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. (Ord. No. 1-20029 7 (part), 2002).
Fence:
The applicant proposes to reconstruct the historic fence illustrated in an 1892 photograph of the
residence. Staff finds that this proposal meets Guidelines 1.1 and 1.2 below:
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.
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.
Addition:
The south elevation of the connector piece is primarily glazing, which successfully creates a
distinction between new and old construction. During Final Review in February, HPC was
concerned with the glass railing above the connector piece that was proposed. The applicant
proposes a subtle shed roof that originates just above the fenestration on the south elevation to
hide the deck on top of the connector piece. Staff finds that this is a creative solution with a
2
minimal visual impact on the historic home (the applicant will bring a 3-D model to the HPC
hearing).
A one and a half story rear addition with a sharp gable roof form is proposed that mimics the
pitch of the historic home, and strikes a balance between the clean lines of new construction and
the utilitarian barn structures (many of which are one and a half stories) found throughout the
West End neighborhood. The one and half story height shall act as a gradual step between the
historic house and the redevelopment of the Jerome Professional Building to the east.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
D An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
D A 1-story connector is preferred.
D The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to
remain prominent.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under tile building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
D Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
Material Palette:
The applicant proposes two scenarios regarding materials:
When the Amendment was first submitted, the applicant proposed a matte slate material for the
addition. Staff found that the slate material was an appropriate feature to distinguish the rear
addition as contemporary; and the metal represents the utilitarian, and subordinate, function of
barn structures.
During the primary construction phase, the applicant found an abundance of historic brick
beneath the historic house. A portion of the brick may be used, where needed, for the historic
brick foundation after the house is relocated. The applicant proposes to use the remainder on the
new addition. Staff expressed some concern to the applicant that the historic brick could
potentially blur the line between new and old construction. The applicant responded by using
cast concrete lintels over the windows and an exposed I-beam support spanning the length of the
3
garage door. A typical barn structure in Aspen is wood; however, the brick would tie into the
Hotel Jerome addition across Bleeker Street and possibly the redevelopment of the Jerome
Professional Building to the east. Staff is in favor of re-using the brick onsite, but is concerned
about the impact of the brick on the historic home.
HPC does not have purview over color selection; however, the applicant has expressed an
interest in restoring the historic home to its original green color.
Staff looks to HPC for direction regarding materials and compliance with the Guidelines below:
10,3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
D The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
D This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
D Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
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.
4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Substantial Amendment to
Resolution #7, Series of 2007 for the Victorian house at 202 N. Monarch Street with the
following conditions:
1. The HPC will determine which material scheme is appropriate for the addition.
2. Lighting fixtures will be approved by Staff and monitor.
3. A landscape plan will be approved by Staff and monitor.
4. All approvals and conditions granted during Conceptual (Resolution 30, Series of 2006)
and Final (Resolution 7 Series of 2007) Review are valid, with the exception of the
approvals specified herein.
5. 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.
Resolution # _, Series of 2007.
Exhibits:
A. Design Guidelines
B. Approval granted by HPC February 14,2007
C. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 202 North Monarch, Substantial
Amendment.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
D An addition that covers historicalJy significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are alJ techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic
alignments that may exist on the street.
D Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at
approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these
relationships would be altered or obscured.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
D An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
5
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
D A 1-story connector is preferred.
D The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to
remain prominent.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
D Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
D For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
D The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
D Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are
encouraged.
D Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
D These include windows, doors and porches.
D Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
D This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
D Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
6
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FOR
THE VICTORIAN HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 202 N. MONARCH
STREET, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 78 AKA LOT 1,202 N. MONARCH STREET
SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-17-005
WHEREAS, the applicant, Sallie Golden and Carlie Siemel, of 1278 Snowbunny Lane, Aspen,
CO requested a Substantial Amendment to HPC Resolution #30, Series of 2006 and HPC
Resolution #7, Series of 2007, for Major Development for 202 N. Monarch Street, Lots K, L, and
M, Block 78 aka Lot I, 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado; 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, at their regular meeting on October 25,2006, the HPC considered the application,
found the application was consistent with the review standards and the City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, and approved Resolution #30 of 2006 granting Conceptual
Approval for Major Development, Relocation, Demolition and Variances by a vote of 3 - 0; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 14,2007 the HPC considered the application,
found the application was consistent with the review staridards and the City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, and approved Resolution #7 of 2007 granting Final Approval for
Major Development by a vote of 3 - 0; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070.E.2 ofthe Municipal Code states that" all changes to approved
plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance
of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial
amendment; and
WHEREAS, 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. (Ord. No. 1-2002 9 7 (part), 2002); and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated May 23, 2007, .performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 23, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote
of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC grants approval for a Substantial Am~ndment to Resolution #30, Series of 2006 and
Resolution #7, Series of 2007 for the Victorian house at 202 N. Monarch Street with the
following conditions:
I. The HPC will determine which material scheme is appropriate for the addition.
2. Lighting fixtures will be approved by Staff and monitor.
3. A landscape plan will be approved by Staff and monitor.
4. All approvals and conditions granted during Conceptual (Resolution 30, Series of 2006)
and Final (Resolution 7 Series of 2007) Review are valid, with the exception of the
approvals specified herein.
5. 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.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of May, 2007.
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Michael Hoffman, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
(/ .~""
~
o .
O!!~
.~ ,:
CO ~.~
EO
'. en ~
~"'-
OOlflJOlO::l 'N3dSIf
N 'v' I tlO .18 I ^ 3 n l 8
-'l
-".
"\il
M.
_ S
u,
M
~
';,:
_><t1< ...,""""",,",.,~..
~
!;
~
~i
. i
~ !
.~"..t<<<..""_...,,,,,",,,__,.....,,
...-I
'-.
..~
i
i
. .
< "
~ ~
I
~
~
;:;
.
~
~
g
~
.
--:::;r
~
-
~
'"
lC.
~.
~
~
.
"
~
.~
~
>
x
"
B~
.~~ p;
... l~ :r::.
I,c ~-=
"~~"
;; If P- ~ --.l
.g:3 p-"J
~~'M'f> ~
~'~ !!!,., ~
0"10:1:111 I"
.<I3iijCl. _
~ ;~~ ,1;
.J,J oV' ""-1..:1
,
-----------j
I
,
I
,
,
,
.},
L
4
_nn_n____,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ lnnj
Z I
() I
1= :
-<: ,
> ,
IU ,
-' :
IU I
I- I
<fl ,
IU ,
~ ----- (
--- "l
1'1 :
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
--------i
,
I
,
------------1
,
I
,
I
I
I
--!
I ~I
I ~
Z
()
i=
-<:
>
UI -----
-'
IU
I
l-
=>
()
<fl
~ w
" ~ .
~~~~ 0
.
~ltkQ. g '" "
r~'~ 0 ~
"; ~''1 J
;;'~_rd~ <, <
,., ~ Y. ~y'
'0 ~
" . -" ~O " "
< ~ V1e'i. <;l n ,<)
Ii ~ . > l ~,"
I ~UlQ~ . - ,
. ~ ~ , tC.~2.
< . <no N ,
S 0 ~
w .
~ t. 0
.' <(Ill '~
o- f?, ,al-\u,<<;
;t~
'" ~} ~~d!6'-
"",,'.lJ
~, -. .It<l..~rL
>" o '
,< .
~~ .<
1
I
.
,
.
,
I
ILJD
Ii
; JI
Z _
() -
i=
-<:
>
IUI
..J
IU
I
l-
=>
()
<fl
I!l
Z
i=
<fl
X
UJ
I
c ~
II'"'
I .. ~ . . ~f-
, ", ." l~
! _ x_ " : I~
~< . - ~
. :; 8
..." == -
="",,," *"'< m<....""''',:''''x.....,.."''<x~_..L<<-
~ (0 f~ ) I 00VlJ0100 'NadSV
CO "g> M
"if) p/ I N'v'ltlOlJI^ 3nlB
------ ~
._.....<,-"'~_..."".~""""""""'-,-""'....._----_I<<_'"
< "
, g "
It "
I~ ,.
~
'" ....J_'- "
!N
~
lii
db
I~
U
.-<,
,~ r
.~ :,'
5 I~ ~' SJ
~ will lL ~ ~
o h ~ '
:::i: "~ (I) <:( ~
.....J. ,..."...,....,jL.."'.."',""_~....,.,.~"
\.--
$oL\,.
.
r- - ~ - -- - - - + --
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, fl '.I:/L l>-,I.L
095
,
,
------~--,
.,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~J '.1>'/.1.7-,
i ,,01:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
~.
r---"-------------------~----------------_,
: ~N I ~N:
I II N I II ~ I
I ,j) " I -0 " I
I ~- . ~-l
I U" I 11'" )
! .' .' I
I r- I S I
~N :
.,
<:l N I
. ' ,
. - ,
"
.' ,
- ,
____~J
N
'fl~
. ,
. -
.~
~1
N
'fl~
. ,
. -
.
.'
,
,
'-------
>,
Cla
c
"
"
w
D
.
o
o
.
,
~O
c
m,~~~,,"'''~~:~:r'-'"':::'.-~~::n '!
\I" " N
.' <ll " .
r- lJ'\ - ,
. '
"
, '
OB~ :
. ' ,
. -
.
'.' ,
,
,
. ,
o '
o
.
I-
<
J
,
-- - ~ - - - - - - - - ~
,
: "I
,
,
,
',1:/L b~.L l
09S
!:L '.en b-'I;l
095
L_______
--------..---1
" " /C .,l>'L
N
oOS
c
" '0 ;0
.
I
j"'OO"l:ll't"'"
c ,
'" ,
~
r--+---------______
,
,
,
,
,
1:\.'./1 -, L
oOS
O~:
.'
. -
,
;:
N
.~~
. '
. -
,
liL'T
1.E:-J
~
I
I
z
-(
.J
IL
IL
o
o
II':
T
.q-
c
OJ
.-'"
Vlo
.gJ~
>.t;;
t.<:
ill ~
'+-rn
- c
(1j c
.c:;:;
>-u:
~,ll:
.~ 0:
ill
.~
-:. )
< .
oi~
co !~
(j) iO
. ~
"'-.~.
OO\llJOlO:J 'N3dS\I
o
"
"
;t
'i~'
NVIClOl:)!^ 3 nl8
w
~
u:
ill
o
o
"
~ N
'~ ~ c-n
:,1; ~j -<
il!JJ._..,__._.__
\ -
iIS.~
~
" "
~ " <
.
c , , ,
, ~ ~5 <
. ' ~
. ii 0: 0; \,~
o. . i~ 0
cOO "- ~~Iu
r~ "
Hi ~ 0 ~~ "CO
o. - ~ "<
~~ ~ d > ~ x~oo
~ . "
:::l.1u\u~ .' i \"
<t:c!Cl-<e Ii.-
.
~
.
!
~.
,
"
',.f J~~l~ r
~ lfl e~ijJ-:-, g
\ill_VII- Ji
~ ~ "t~~~j
,
~g
~o ~
ClJu,'\J.l <(
cfY Q ()t
iln~ <1
'n\tl5<t
~ ~~?
u,~ i 1. ~
5, \Lf-:t
~
<:!~8
~ ~ ('L
'0'"
u
~
~ ~'l:
dlil ai.
(:. ~ l-
~~ \::\J1
vl~
---------------1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----------------~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
'I
~
;
~
!
.
z
()
i=
-(
>
111
-'
111
I-
III
-(
111
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---------------;
I
I
I
I
I
I
______________..-1
't
z
()
i=
-<
>
111
-'
0'
I
l-
Ii
()
z
({)
,
0<
, >-
oJ. ,;,lII
ev;~
IJ ...} ~
'" c
~h
, ."
-~~
~~
o:r-
.-'.
.~
rn
.!:: d
O;g..s
, .
w 0
CIJ ,~.w
Cf): ~ Q.
:SNOISIAffi[
9002' l8l\.InT 9T
:nva
\.-- .
~~
f
-UBld a'+ 18
119T9 O~ 'nocJsv
'("nnol'{ ,!pON GOG
aJuap1saa J1A nm
"
~
G.
0;
~::
r:q .~
" :;
~.
~,
>-J"
>-J
'.
":I<
cv
.
l
,
/~'J/'
i
i
I
~, i
o..iJ !
<0:"',1
~~ .I
;loo!,
~~'-------------
. ~
'-.
--
~.
-'.
~[-<!~
0;;
--- .... ~ci'
....... J
'-'---~~OOf~.:~
~. .O~"'I'Ii'_'
~..
J,:g:gyJ,:::;
'''t'O'
l{:) 1I .~6'.{
YVN 011
liJ,YUi{
.
-<
104(=)
u<=o:
-<
.. ---.... -- r:::-
' :s~ ;:'--;......___._._
"G....... !Q4JIJ'''''''''''
~j
a
~gJ:~ .
<:'-r'
;j.';'';'
'r'-O<>lO
r
<Ie
\c
>-
:)
I
'--~
:1 /
"-. t! (
'- .<::- .~.I
p. ~"-.::::::::-
.! a
.
.
c\'"
z"
.;
z~
~r
'~I'
I
/
,
J
/
I
I
I
/
,
~
!
~
,
.
.
z
-.-
, ~ " ,........,
./ '0 . .
Ch. .. D
I c '.('; ~ - s 0
." h 'a:~ z
.
Iii 2J~' ~ ~
~.. .
<3'" ~
m
!
"-
,
;
JI :
[-.,
k;
kJ
9:;'
[-.,
C/J
.cc;
kJ
~
k;
r._ .
,"",
J.......,).'"
J:qJ
[-.,
0)
~'
.
CB~
Z
~J
Hi
A., JI
-
~~
E-di
~
r:/J
Land Use Application
" .
.
f:-H-: en'! (l~' A~F,~~
PROJECT:
Name 2. 0 '2.. N ,Mo\o\.6..vc-l
Location ao'2. N, Y\",,^uc.h. /'" A~p-e........ " "Blbll
t.. t- l, ....0'"1.. fj, l1o~...~c..\... . o;_t~.......'l .;;.,1.... c.:tt 0.;">' ~...~."t.. 0+ ^~fR""
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ill # (REQUIRED) 2. 7 ~., b 7 3 I 7 /:) ., 0
APPLICANT:
Name:
,
S",-U v",-
\'2..78
G c> l.l....." / Cc..or \,I~ S .\...",.c../
.
Address:
Phone #:
l~.....,,-
?\~r.l2."'"
{, 0 E-mail:
c.o
.go( b 1/
-S ",.....b 1;/ ""....7
7. I oS- C> Fax#:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
Fax#:
E-mail:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: lease check all that a I'
o Historic Designation
o Certiticate of No Negative Effect
o ~ertifi~te of App~opriateness
~ -Minor Histonc Development
Gl' -Major Historic Development
o -Conceptual Historic Development
D -Final Historic Development
G21 -Substantial Amendment
D Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
o Demolition (total demolition)
o Historic Landmark Lot Split
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (descri ti on of existin
'2. \q ". . .,. fl. VIC.'iOll.ll'ltJ ~ES \Pe:~Cf" ncf\J A "t:O:'''l7'
1-1 Pc:. ... ..o~...[ J.Q.,,\-A.~ F....'o, \
c;a, PI' Ll,r
..
PROPOSAL: descri tion of ro osed buildin s, uses, modifications, etc.
i) 1?"'l'1vr ~~_\lI-e\..0 t.,..-Mbcl.1 ~.jGA.ti.aDs -to a.p:P-.Y-Q~I;"c>O n~LLl~ a.Jd.t1:L~~
"J.).ne.w \.e.pl~-l:. f~
"
FEES DUE: $
RETMHFORPERMANeHT~ECORO
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
2. () 7.. N \ 1"\ o "'.....c..l.
5""1 \ : ... G., [.II...... I
,
'2..0"- 1'0 \ t-t.."""..c...l..-.,
J
A:<~",
/
Co
<g"L6L \
~(,
901./"7
'l0't7
(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 Mlmicipal Code.)
;J/ft
Existing:
Existing:
Existing:
J
~/J4
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
/Jlf!!
J
;V I.ll
Commerci a111et leasable:
Number of residential units:
Number of bedrooms:
Proposed % of demolition
DIMENSIONS: (write nla where ~o requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area: Existing:~L'!_~Allowable. ~ S' ()., I Proposed:.;2...5 d.. 7
Hei<tht ,.' I
Principal Bldg.: Existing: 7..~ Allowable: 7..\ Proposed: 7..~
ACceSSOlY Bldg.: Existing: /J/A Allowable' PI/Rr Proposed: N/A,
. . .
On-Site parking: Existing: 0 Required: a Proposed: 2-
% Site coverage: Existing: \~"I" Required: 30% Proposed: l'f.~ Y..
% Open Space: Existing: /V Ifr Required: N!h Proposed: ~/A
, .
I "
Front Setback: Existing: :3e Required: II> Proposed: It> - 'I
. , I" ' //:,'
Rear Setback: Existing: II'~ Required: Proposed:
Combined Front/Rear: ,
/.f1.5' , , "
Indicate N. S. E W Existing Required:' 1...1:> Proposed: "2. ". 't
, /1) I I 1/
Side Setback: ~ Existing: '''1,1 Required: Proposed: I 'i t:t.
(If I (I) , ,
Side Setback: Existing: 'f}.1 Required: Proposed: '18
c.'l.,"/ , I "
Combined Sides: Existing: Required:_~O Proposed: 62. ~,
Distance between Existing: tv !It- Required: fIJ /A- proposed:~
buildings: ,
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
fJ .,,~ .
Variations req~ested (identify the exact varian~es needed):
l-<'Sid_,,,.;:ttll tk~",-, ~tC';/\o.~-<J .'
\
l
'7
~------
, ))/"'N~
I---~ ------
~ -----
~ -.
Attachment 4
I
I
I
I
I
i
~~.
g
~
I-
co
~
1
lU
roo-~.
<J)
(5
~ /
________ /1
,
N-
f'v) 0 iD
f1. It} If
"6
~D
8
16 February 2007
JVls. Amy Gutherie
Histolic Presen'ation Officer
City of Aspen, Community Development
] 30 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE. 202 North Monarch Street. Lot 1
Dear Amy.
We are submitting this Application for \Jinor Review for the previously approved
addition and fence element of the 202 North \lonarch Project
While we respect the original approval. we had doubts about the street-facing garage
Our new proposal shifts the garage to the rear elevation. This modification has the
additional benefit of allowing for a reduced curb. more lawn and a more discrete
secondary entry.
A review of the February 14,2007 Resolution No.7. expresses concern about the hyphen
rai I resol uti on
The scale of the addition vvas de lived from carriage houses within the immediate
neighborhood The plate line was raised to receive the hyphen-balustrade; this results in
a cleaner rail resollltion, while further subordinating the hyphen. The new plate height
also mediates the future three story commercial building behind the historic home.
Respectfullv.
~lc~onald' AlA
Attachments:
1:
2
Application packet, maps. and photographs
Signed Fee Agreement
r\~.
(
"/
The John B. Wardell residence, in 1892 AHS
164
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Pavment of City of Aspen Develonment Apnlication Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Sallie Golden and Carlton Siemel
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS
I. APPLICANTS have submitted to CITY an application for
202 Monarch Street Aspen. Colorado
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
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 pemlit 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 bendited 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.
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
~~PL~5~'J' ~~. ~
Carlton Siemel Sallie Golden
Date: 3-1/'-07 Date: ~-J6-C>7
Bill To Mailing Address and Telephone Number:
1278 Snowbunny Lane. Asnen CO 81611
tel. (970) 925-5050
g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc
02/01/06
RETA~ FOR PERMANeNT ~E:CORO
Response to the following Historical Preservation Standards (Residentialj:
New Additions
10.3Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic
character of the primary building is maintained.
The proportions of the new addition relate to the neighborhood's carriage
houses. This imagery reinforces the dominant residential role of the main
structure.
The addition will respect the historic proportions of a Victorian carriage
house, but will be detailed in a taught, refined, 215t Century manner.
While the connector between the historic structure and garage will cover
some of the existing rear portion of the house, the intent is to keep all of the
original fabric intact. (If the addition is removed in the future, the historic
rear elevation should be fully intact).
10.4Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
The new addition will set 5'-4" beyond the Bleeker Street elevation of the
main house. The connector is to be glazed to further emphasize a sense of
transparency between the main house and addition.
The proportions of the addition maintain the visual compatibility, while the
restrained detailing echo a contemporary architectural vocabulary.
10.5When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve
historic alignments that may exist on the street.
No historic rooflines are to be affected in this proposal.
1 0.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main
building.
The addition is subordinate to the main house.
10.71f it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic
building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a
"connector" to link it to the historic building. .
The addition will be lower than the main house.
10.8Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front
to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the
original proportions and character to remain prominent.
The connector is a transparent "mud room" that will open onto an existing
window that is being modified into a door. It is our intent to keep original
penetrations intact.
10.9Roof fonns should be similar to those of the historic building.
The roof slope reflects that of the original house. The connector is flat, yet
a sloped sited over the Bleeker Street mud room disguises the fact that a
deck exists.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy
or obscure historically important architectural features.
All important historical architectural details, including the building cornices
are being maintained, restored, or replicated, based on photographic
evidence.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with
the historic materials of the primary building.
The new materials will be subordinate to the original materials.
Fences
1.1 Preserve original fences. N/ A
1.2 A new replacement fences should use materials that appear to that of
the original.
The proposed fence is to replicate the fence in an 1892 photograph.
1.3 A new rep'lacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing
views into the yard from the street.
The fence shown in the 1892 photograph is constructed of wood and has a
"transparent" quality.
1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen
traditionally.
The proposed fence is to replicate the fence in an 1892 photograph.
1.5A side yard fence, which extends two homes, should be set back from
the street facing fagade. N/ A
1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley
should be compatible with the historic context. N/A
~o '2. NO l2-1"1-f M ON A lZ. c.r!
A ~~Doe.. MA-~A.\..S.
I. fS.J<TI=:12..IOl2. c.1-l>. 0 !) ,,...1 <::; :
~. Ifl \p4\) "'" I'f2-I '"' 1- (rl 'i fl /=-J
1. {jPt-ll-f>rc,e ooort.$:
~ . lZoo!"';
S LAl~- ?t?tfO~n-~
It q
APf>'I-' '3/3'1 ttu-NEO SLAtE:. 18 ~:>I..
M.A~I2->Al.- '"f\} (Sf:! SIMI\..A../l.. 'Ib Clj.....L~ !rQI'-LO.
S'~ T" e.e- SE, IN ~"Z.<lNP>-L
~V""""'INc. (16"N.9 f;...~N Th Af'('~It)lI""fu~
rt>sfWl'~ ~(L 1'A..('t!:'IL -:>~Vc.~\E).
-ME- r'I~'~ IAlll. \TNVE" A M,Io,\f'C::" PrNIS1t
/jl'JO vF-1-, 'fiIW6.';-I ?<1l->.>-Jec.\lcr,..\J Be-~
Sl..hril 5' /TNO IT, CO-ILt-l ~S .
?iW'f>~ NMI..S A[l..c P\O..~~ I'<r
Fltl~~r i?~""\,.J)\" ~-.., \A\l.l. 'Je
LeoS} 015 fVl,"SIVC ~+-l C-Al-'J I1>.N I "U:!'O
l,<l~ ,,~t;'O ~ A i\)t~'1"1Y\tE.
.. r=;'f,f?b.""VL r I '" S'f>><-lu-.("\ o-l
. 1.<100"0 $\01100\4 e NtoA...-..J $..010
I
!,u$f-S :
I. C'</'!\\l:.t>,.L.
I
10 C*'NO::.ru-l2-
. r.....t--I\E'O Cl..~ CI>-OAJl. T't'1-IM. S'/:L
. ZINC I'....N~I-.
. WOOp S..j,<J<;LlE" Ib I'V--T"l'>l eASD..:t<:(, etn;1f-.
~ ()\(~4 ~\L.L Nor E')lCc::'e.&> ~"
5'. f<:.0tS"F' V"..LLW{J 1" ~F pe;,..l~~',^^~ ~ o)'C10rz.t.-,o cc>('~-f2-.
B. 2. t=:"~I.t'L- c.t....."'OlN <I opnm--l:
))( l.{ 7'H' \..Af'. ct=PA../L.. P.....".l!..F-"9.
,
i I
/ t
i-~.---..._.~ ; !
I -------.--.--,---!>- , ; / i
' " ~---- '-'-.-- . I I
i ; I --~--~__::.---__..____~_ I !;
( i ! -'----'i<~11
/ '~1 . f-f,('
! f~ _ / !
I '!fjjj/ !/liWC],: II I
/ /L--f3~r lll/
! ~~!f 17 Lr! {II
j (,' /J 5(/:
I -, J,' III
I "C-:'--\..'C?"" "1,' t-,~Jl- t < ;1 ,I .<
I ...\ .'". .{""'\.4!" '.... I t ( .)
p' ',.-"" . --, >'" I
~ . '\.'-"1""-, ~ "::::"'l--J "\"'(.... l .
> ~'----- !. >, /C",';,..\'.r,,_.
: _.._~---~-_._-_._--. - ',,<-.;'--- .
t (:,
~
o
<~~itt;r";~
, "~~~~.~l
',,': '~r}:~'
...-~.- --'-' ......_~-q~-_.... ~
"--.. , '.... 1 l ~" ,
")' 'u" ,
~ '/.;;.'~ .,., 'fl' :~~-~;~ ~~
~~,: : ~~~ ' "
~'<l"i! ~,!~, '''''',
.. ~ "', t li$"'"
~ .t L -=-1 WJl'J F
~ ~~ ~ f:.3tl
' " '\ ',iJ~ ..,.. ,:',,~.
'''~ ~<>fir' ,f'
/~~~/ ~'I 'i'll"- "~
?/ "-:I;J0 1'1 r ~ - __ J.
. JI y ~J Iki:L~;' ~~l- J
" "'> ;,11; r-""-;-"9~",, ~.
:, >.> '"i!"I':I' f. ! '~;cR1 ___ ...0""
'v ~~j~illl ;'~;l,::_ . i~~T- .~
"'., :"" I """" I \~,. '" 1-
"\<j.,;;.' " , I 'tl~ .
'i~R';,... ""'-I III~", . .~,~
I I ...~::;- ~ ~'--'~;;l
{r:~~:i ECl t:
'" I" SG.I!i*, , ,,' i,~.. ;
-- "i. ~---m'-'" ~, : :fcL~"""
.. 11- ~. III ",. ""f-~'
;J .;Jj', ~'_~~
~~~j
~t~J
..1 ; I
~":]
~._---.
\J'--
',1
C;
"
-
o
j'
c::
o
......
ro
>
(])
UJ
.....
(])
.><:
(])
(])
a:l
~
N
o
c
o
.-
.......
~
>
OJ
u.J
.r.
.......
'-
o
z:
.,'
'. ....~
--;:::..
-;...:?
/'; .~
"
.'
", '
.,
r
" 'iill"!
1, .. I
II .
11\\11
,II
" I'
I' I
'11\
I ~ '
li/'!
ill'!.I,
'I \'
. 'I'
i: II
," "11
',,:Il
iJ\1
::11
1'1
:1\1 I
, I' "1/11
'ill~
I I' , '
! 'I"
II'I'1I
ll]ili'i
Illlll'! "
II" I
,\ " , .
I I
,
,1',11"
;i'li:! :
1,'I,i'!I"
"I"". "
,'II!;i;:!,:!!:i II.
il!);:ii,illl'r1'i!i,:'i:!!i;'
!1liU1.UU1iil ,Ii 1,~I,:II,
..-or --....2!" :'
~- ~ \<'\
~ ~ I -'"
J- --- \
~ "~ /r-\'
.. '::'~~~-
_<.1~~_/~/ ._.f"-
, ,.If .~ /<-----
): , i('~:~:~_./;:-/
----/ -," "/ /
cJr..:,,"~--/-....-
~.?i ',).,' ( -.-
(/'--' ,-.."\ "~,I '"
;:: ~_./
,::;::--...---
" ~-.-
~,
,--
\
),
, >
. >
~ ..., .-
i., .-
',,'Z;
"~/- ~---
~
r"' (i>
,j
. -i'
/ ';'-~<'"
"
;;;r:
.. ... ~ ~',
-.
-
".'z. :~ {.( l'
\" J- t'
'-
f\ r_.,
,
.~/
1/;
(i\ ....
\),
"
I I I
'II, ,i I'
"II!I
,ii! III
. il l'li
,I' ,'\
! 1" 11,1,1
. \ '.
, '1'/
: i'll
I,'
I !lli
'"
, '\1
',;~ -s\
, \ '. yl
.'_ ~ r. _.\ \
~\ \ '"\ i
'l.\:'-:'-S' "I
M
o
c:
o
......
CO
>
Q)
UJ
......
'"
CO
UJ
~
I
I
~ ~~L-.
Monarch Garage Addition
General:
Scale:
Material:
Detailing:
The intent is for the new Garage to recede into the fabric of the street, and
allow the existing Victorian house to take center stage.
Because the neighboring structures are three and four story brick
commercial buildings, it was determined that a story and half garage
would best mediate the transition between the delicate wood house and the
adjacent structures. West End Carriage Houses were used as a point
of reference relative to proportion.
The existing brick foundation can be preserved during the course of
construction. The plan is to reuse the brick as a surface veneer on the new
Garage. Because the plinth and chimneys ofthe main house are
constructed of the same brick, a strong texture and color palette will be
maintained.
Though the proportions were derived directly from the neighborhood's
carriage houses, the new detailing will be executed in a more restrained
21st Century manner. The window architrave is a simple 2.25" bed-mould
return, set back from the face of the brick. The fascia and frieze will be
omitted from the painted 4" fir cyma-recta Cornice. Cast concrete lintels
are to be used over the windows in lieu of segmental arches and the long
span garage door will have an exposed (painted) I-beam supporting the
masonry veneer.
\
\
~
\f"
e
p
Ci---
1t.
-J
'~
~
/IJ(lj/ i
L I
\
\
~
62
.0
6-
~
~
's;.l
~
r;-( yo.
~ f" r"G l'
1:'"' ",
l:it- -
//--: rf'
/ "".,,,,. ~
'7 ' \'1-
'::- -. 'l'\q
!'l _ r'- '''-I,
'(I\"~\\ ;t\",\~~ \\
'\. "- .,. I
I
I
I
~LtJt[{I'~~
8-
~
~
.~
"-~:::!J
;,}'l<-P'''i 1\; _
~"-' ') ~>
rJ' ~ .. ,r
-I -
~~ ~ ~'
~ <-jp;'" ~====:J._--
...........!
'-
, ~fr' .
d~ ( .
~ r-,,~\
;'~,(- ,~:
I: ~'\lo
' 4\, (_,~r-\
v~",l
,d
,1
1
~
~
"
""
"""
l ,Y} '\ ~<~/Y_J
) , <;" ~ '') O. ,'oJ ./"
'-S', ~;' ~'
t..YJt,' ".-.JV I" .........
../;' ./ . "-4'" ,
~) '-
~i!\! -~.~;,
" l { c-;~lt .
"-<1" v . ,_
~ ~t ...j
~ -~
I'
~
"v
~'-
'"""-.il'''
"/:_
~t
'-
,-
t..{:!
(\t.
.;:,..\
..r~'
'i,-~
,\:~ '-'./"
",-- ;-~\.
~" ',' , ~":S
J '<<-.0 '\. -:-v "
.. .,c~( \ \:-;.
'.~ ,,\"""'.
".."" r , \ \":, ,. <-;.
:r-~", '\ ,\ I
"''''''"".:~:::
1:2:. ~,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
530 y, E. Hopkins Avenue- View Plane Review- Public Hearing
DATE:
May 23, 2007
SUMMARY: During review of the Conner Cabins and Lofts, HPC addressed conformance with
the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and P&Z granted approval for a portion of the
westernmost unit (primarily its third floor loft space) to encroach into the Courthouse View
Planes. (Two separate View Planes originate from the sidewalk in front of the Courthouse.) The
owner would like to modifY their unit to create additional usable deck area, placing a new railing
and hot tub within the View Planes. The attached illustrations depict the "before" and "after"
conditions.
,
The Community Development Director has the authority to approve an insubstantial amendment
such as this one, but determined that HPC discussion would be preferable given the high
visibility of the site and HPC's overall familiarity with the project.
Staff finds that the impact of this proposal is minimal and recommends approval.
APPLICANT: Josh Mondry, owner, represented by John Olson Builders.
PARCEL In: 2737-073-31-006.
ADDRESS: 530 y, E. Hopkins Avenue, Loft Unit 530-A, Conner Cabins and Lofts, a
Condominium Common Interest Community, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
VIEW PLANE
The application requires approval to construct a portion of a building within the Courthouse
View Planes, as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review.
The Planning and Zoning Commission typically handles View Plane reviews, however the
Community Development Director has the right to consolidate reviews when deemed to be the
most efficient and effective process. HPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
requested View Plane approval. If HPC does not believe that the proposal satisfies the criteria
Page I
for construction within a View Plane review, HPC may require the application to go through
the PUD review process as is described in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050(C), Mountain
View Plane review standards.
HPC is to apply the following criteria to this issue:
1. No mountain view plane can be infringed upon except as follows:
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable
building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the
provisions of Chapter 26.455 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum
flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and
pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height
requirements, view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated
requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to
require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated.
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front
of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon
the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-
open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the
view plane, and re-development to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall approve the development.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the railing required to provide protection around the new deck
will have a negligible impact in terms of further obstruction of the View Plane. Please note that
the railing will be predominately glass, and therefore be relatively transparent, as a result of a
recent staff and monitor decision on railings throughout the project.
Staff recommends that HPC grant View Plane approval.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant View Plane approval for the new
railing and hot tub on the property located at 530 Vz E. Hopkins Avenue, Loft Unit 530-A, Conner
Page 2
Cabins and Lofts, a Condominium Common Interest Community, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
Resolution # of2007.
Exhibits:
A. Application
Page 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR VIEW PLANE REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCA TED AT 530 Y, E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOFT UNIT 530-A, CONNER CABINS
AND LOFTS, A CONDOMINIUM COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL In: 2737-073-31-006
WHEREAS, the applicant, Josh Mondry, owner, represented by John Olson Builders,
represented by has requested View Plane Review for the property located at City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(l) of the Municipal Code, the Community
Development Director has approved HPC review of the application, finding that this will
eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity; and
WHEREAS, for View Plane 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 Municipal
Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. 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. The HPC hereby finds that impact on the viewplane is
minimal; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 23,2007, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 23, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines", found a minimal impact on the
Courthouse View Plane, and approved the application by a vote of _ to _'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves View Plane Review for the property located at 530 Y, E. Hopkins
Avenue, Loft Unit 530-A, Conner Cabins and Lofts, a Condominium Common Interest
Community, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of May, 2007.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
. _.~
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Aereement for Payment of City of ASDen DeyeloDment ADDlication Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and JOHN OLSON FOR JOSH MONDRY
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW @ 530-1/2 E HOPKINS AVE / MONDRY RESIDENCE
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
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
ofrecovering 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 $ $705.00 which is for 3 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.
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
APPLICANT
By: ~-_.
Date:
4/30/07
Bill To Mailing Address and Telephone Number:
JOHN OLSON BUILDER
PO BOX 10147
g:\supportlformslagrpayas.doc
02/01106
ASPEN, CO 81612
923.4233
ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION
ApPLICANT:
Name:
JOHN OLSON FOR JOSH MONDRY
530-1/2 E HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
273707331006
Location:
Parcel ill # (REQUIRED)
REpRESENTATIVE:
Name:
JOHN OLSON
PO BOX 10147 ASPEN CO 81612
923.4233
Address:
Phone #:
PROJECT:
Name:
Address:
CONNER LOFTS / MONDRY RESIDENCE
503-1/2 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN CO 81611
Phone #: 923.4233
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
D Conditional Use D Conceptual PUD D Conceptual Historic Devt.
D Special Review D Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) D Final Historic Development
D Design Review Appeal D Conceptual SPA D Minor Historic Devt.
D GMQS Allotment D Pinal SPA (& SPA Amendment) D Historic Demolition
D GMQS Exemption D Subdivision D Historic Designation
129 ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream D Subdivision Exemption (includes D Small Lodge Conversion!
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion
Mountain View Plane
D Lot Split D Temporary Use D Other:
D Lot Line Adiustment D Text/Man Amendment
rovals, etc.)
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE: NEW CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
RELOCATE HOT TUB FROM SOUTHWEST CORNER TO NORTHWEST CORNER ON THIRD FLOOR DECK.
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 705.00
129 Pre-Application Conference Summary
129 Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement
!Xl Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
129 Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
All plans that are larger than 8.5" x II" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written
text (Microsoft Word Fonnat) must be submitted as part of the application.
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project:
Applicant:
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
CONNER LOFTS 1 MONDRY RESIDENCE
JOHN OLSON FOR JOSH MONDRY
503-1/2 E HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611
(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:
Number of residential units:
Number of bedrooms:
Existing:
Existing:
Existing:
N/A
+
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: 3,342 SF Allowable: 3,760 SF Proposed: 3,453 SF
Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: N/A
Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed.
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed
% Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed
% Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed
Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed
Combined FIR: Existing: Required: Proposed
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed ,Ir
Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed:_
Buildings
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: N/A
Variations requested: N/A
4/30/07
View Plane Review for Conner Lofts / Mondry Residence Project
Applicant proposes to relocate hot tub from current permitted southwest location to northwest location. Such a
reconfiguration would make the hot tub more discreet and private for both user and public from the prominent
fronVsouth side of this property. The view plane under review regards the north side via the County
Courthouse and is buffered largely by the alley behind the residence, treelines, and the Catholic Church. The
impact to this view would be minimal, if not unnoticeable.
4/30/07
Josh Mondry
800 E Hopkins Ave, B5
Aspen, CO 81611
248.318.8112
I authorize,
John Olson
PO Box 10147
Aspen, CO 81611
923.4233,
to act on my behalf regarding the View Plane Review for the Conner Lofts / Mondry Residence Project.
~jf"
..L ....0...... ~ v~ -'
Eric Kulberg
From: Amy Guthrie [amyg@ci.aspen.co.us]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 20073:39 PM
To: Eric Kulberg
Subject: RE: Mondry Loft
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Blue
Right, we don't need to have another meeting, just turn in your stuff.
To do the notice, contact our GIS Dept. at 920-5453. They'll research the list and print up the mailing
labels for you for $50 or so. Don't forget to make a copy of the mailing labels as proof of notice before
you peel them off and stick on envelopes.
Amy Guthrie
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(p) 970-429-2758 (f) 970-920-5439
www.aspenpitkin.com
From: Eric Kulberg [mailto:eric@johnolsonbuilder,com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:24 PM
To: Amy Guthrie
Subject: RE: Mondry Loft
Amy, I'm assuming that through our various discussions we have had the 'pre-application conference' and that I
understand what materials need to be submitted. So I am completing 10 copies of the submittal package for you
by 4/30. Ok?
Regarding notification, how do I get a mailing list of property owners within 300 feet?
Thanks for your help,
Eric
From: Amy Guthrie [mailto:amyg@ci.aspen,co.us]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:44 PM
To: Eric Kulberg
Subject: RE: Mondry Loft
W
()
z
W
o
00
W
a:
>-
a:
o
z
o
:200
--W
WI-
>0
<(z
OOz
Zo
::.::-
a. I-
0<(
I()
...J
wa.
C\la.
--<(
~ ,
'W
oa:
fria.
........6................. -'
UJ
U
Z
UJ
OK Eric. The application form is attached. I think Jason gave you a pre-app earlier that summarized the ~
process, right? UJ
a::
>-
a::
o
z
The fee schedule in this application is from last year. The updated fee is a deposit of $675 towards three 0
billable hours. :2; (J)
-"UJ
UJf-
>0
<(z
(J)z
Please let me know any questions. You are applying for Moutain View Plane and it will be reviewed by ~ 0
HPC. Thanks a. f-
0<(
IU
....I
UJa.
(\Ja.
-..<(
~ ,
'UJ
o a::
frio.
Amy Guthrie
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(p) 970-429-2758 (f) 970-920-5439
www.aspenpitkin.com
From: Eric Kulberg [mailto:eric@johnolsonbuilder.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 6:34 PM
To: Amy Guthrie
Subject: RE: Mondry Loft
Looks like I will take care of application; Mitch does not have time.
From: Amy Guthrie [mailto:amyg@ci.aspen.co.usl
Sent: Tue 4/3/2007 10: 10 AM
To: Eric Kulberg
.L ....6"-' -' Vl..-'
Amy Guthrie
w
()
z
w
o
en
w
a:
I have HPC scheduled to review this amendment to the View Plane Exemption on May 23rd, but I don't ~
really have an application from you. I'm copying Mitch Haas on this because he did the paperwork for 0
the project in the first place. Can you guys please coordinate getting a formal application put together? 5
I need it by April 30th at the latest. If you can't make it that fast, please let me know asap so I can put ::a: en
someone else on the agenda, and we'll have to pick a new date for you in June or July. ~ ~
>0
<(z
enz
Zo
~-
Il..I-
0<(
I()
....I
Wll..
Nil..
--<(
~ ,
'W
oa:
f61l..
Cc: mhaas@sopris.net
Subject: RE: Mondry Loft
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(p) 970-429-2758 (f) 970-920-5439
www.aspenpitkin.com
From: Eric Kulberg [mailto:eric@johnolsonbuilder.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:39 PM
To: Amy Guthrie
Subject: RE: Mondry Loft
Amy, will this be the correct forum for the Mondry view plane discussion?
Thanks, Eric
----"-_._-------._"------~,--------------- ------------ "-- ---------------_._-----~
From: Jason Lasser [mailto:jasonl@ci.aspen.co.us]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:29 AM
To: Eric Kulberg
Cc: Amy Guthrie
Subject: RE: Mondry Loft
Eric.
... u6'""' T V.L-'
It is my understanding that HPC will review the viewplane.
The Viewplane review is currently scheduled for HPC on May 23.
Jason
Jason Lasser
City of Aspen 1 Planner
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street I Aspen, CO
970.429.27631 www.aspenpitkin.com
From: Eric Kulberg [mailto:eric@johnolsonbuilder.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:27 AM
To: Jason Lasser
Subject: FW: Mondry Loft
Jason, are we on the schedule; what date/time? My understanding is that we need to present to P&Z, as well as
HPC, since it is a view plane issue.
Thank you, Eric
From: Eric Kulberg
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:13 AM
To: Jason Lasser
Subject: RE: Mondry Loft
We would like to submit to HPC; please schedule us and/or let me know what else is needed in order to do so.
Thank you, Eric
W
()
z
W
o
en
W
a:
>-
a:
o
z
o
::2; en
--W
WI-
>0
<(z
enZ
Zo
~-
0..1-
0<(
I~
Wo..
C\Jo..
--<(
~ ,
'W
oa:
f6o..
.I. "6..... -' "'.1.-'
From: Jason Lasser [mailto:jasonl@ci.aspen.co.us]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:03 AM
To: Eric Kulberg
Subject: Mondry Loft
UJ
o
z
UJ
o
00
UJ
0:
>-
0:
o
Z
o
:200
--UJ
UJI-
>0
<(z
OOz
~O
~-
0..1-
0<(
IO
....I
UJo..
No..
--<(
~ ,
'UJ
00:
~o..
Eric,
Just checking to see where we're headed with the 3rd floor deck review.
As I said In person, staff has reviewed the application and will recommend denial.
If the client wishes to go through HPC, the agenda is booked until June/July.
Otherwise, the application can be withdrawn and the check for $560 will be returned.
Let me know,
Jason
Jason Lasser
City of Aspen I Planner
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street 1 Aspen, CO
970.429.27631 www.asoenpitkin.com
---1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
, I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
$
B3111S ~l1NI1Ii Hinos
o
=
=
=
=
=
\ -!~
. 11
. ri
. .
I
~
~
^
.
;
"
~
1>
.'55><
~~~
^
~
~z
o 0 0 0
"
~
~
!:
w
o
z
w
o
(j)
w
a:
>-
a:
o
z
o
:2:
--
w
~
(j)
z
52
a. a.
0<1:
I:2:
W~
C\I_
~Z
a0
C')-
10>
\
\
I
-t
~
.'
~
l--
.'
~
-
'(~
,.,
..
1:IF1 I
~p ,
I I- ..
I-- ), -
"-
la
I\.
" ~
~r/
I":
I{':--~
, ,^
I
\J I ~ ))
\1
7"\..
~
f\
~ h-- ~:~~ 1&v
~
II'"=n7
II
D
O' II"
\
MASTER
BATH
IOA-J031
4'-8"
'\
"'1D-
~'
I ~I
L 5'-9 1/2"
7
_L...--,
2'-7"
~// 2
0<",
16'-1 1/~
I
, .
k s
~
.'
!!!
\
/
'\
1V
MASTER
EDROOM
I QA-J011
/
rs, ~-== __
: vf0~===fT
@ Vi:
, .
. I
1 0 L,L
o
- I-
-, .
:~ WALK-r~F I-
,-
B .~ CLOSET ~
..'
,~ 10A-J041
,-
,
, =
,
_J\I>
c
=0
~o
~-2
c:;g:)
I'
3'-6"
l'i 1,7\
010.
J
lL
~~
ON ( ,-1.
.+- . 010-1
:!'I (2\1=
_ 00'11-
/.'> T III.L' J
v III~IO 7
III
---i
/"
(liiW
t
Z
I",
- -
-1!
...;
~
"
-
o
"1
-
Wz
()O
z-
wI-
0<(
-()
(f)0
W.....
o:w
>-0:
o:cc
0::::>
ZI-
01-
:::!:O
--J:
Wo:
>.....
<(LL
(f)o
Zo:
~-
a.J:
01-
J:O
W~
~O
~a.
'0
go:
1lJa.
,
,
~= t~~~ j - ,!HHWc ~-h!p:UiJlr
- l - '-'-
i~' ~~j~]i~!:: .
~! IiIl V
<0J - ":' ~ : ~[
~nf7 Ui 1~~
rt:
\.\ .~. 1-0'1
T .~:
r .
. .J/. .
ILl. .
\---^-
w
()
Z
W
o
U)
W
II:
>-
II:
o
Z
01-
:2:U)
___w
w:S:
~@
U){D
ZZ
~:J
0.-
0<(
III:
w~
C\jW
;::II:
'II:
O::::l
~()
ldi
I-
IH
l-
t-
.
IE
=
@
.
==
! il~i
==
== ~
~
==
111f"!
F
.
'm'i"':"
I.I~
~
~
[
~
=c
~~
. I=l H~
I::::
F=
~
F
f-
J??
~
! I
LlJ
o
Z
LlJ
01-
-(/)
(/)LlJ
~:s:
~@
cr:(!)
Oz
z_
O::::!
~~
LlJ~
>co
<(::>
(/)1-
ZI-
~O
a.. I
00
ILlJ
LlJ(/)
C\l0
--a..
';"0
Ocr:
~o...
.
. .
. .
. .
III
~
W
o
z
W
o
(J)
W
cr:
>-
cr:
o
ZI
01-
~cr:
--0
WZ
~@
(J)C)
ZZ
~:J
0.-
O~
II-
WZ
(\JW
;:ocr:
,cr:
g:J
LClO
94.
W
()
Z
WI
01-
-a:
(/)0
~Z
>-@
a:(!)
Oz
Z_
O:::!
~<(
__a:
Wed
>CO
<(::::l
(/)1-
Zl-
~O
a.I
00
IW
W(/)
",0
--a.
"';"0
oa:
fria.
MAX FLOOR AREA: 3,760 SF
CURRENT FLOOR SPACE
BASEMENT
ARST FLOOR
SECOND FLOOR
THIRD FLOOR
SUBTOTAL
111
1,026
1,497
6B6
3,320
MAX DECK AREA (IS% OF MAX FLOOR SPACE): S64 SF
CURRENT DECK SPACE
SECOND FLOOR SOUTH
SECOND FLOOR NORTH
THIRD FLOOR
SUBTOTAL
132
83
371
S86
CURRENT DECK SPACE OVER MAX; ADD TO FLOOR SPACE
22
PROPOSED ADDmONAL DECK SPACE; ADD TO FLOOR SPACE
111
TOTAL FLOOR AREA
3,4S3
(J
0
< ::l
_. -
(1) ""'
< (1)
..,
'"V (J I
- ~
~ 1
:l cr'"
_.
(1) ::l
Cfl '"
,....
c >-
~ '"
(1) '0
'" (1) I
::l I
o~ I
Vl (J I
.
- 0
- -
0 0
..,
---.J ~
0...
0
; ~ Ii't
n n
0 ,; 0 <
c: c:
;u ,.., ;u i"i
~ =E ~ =E
:r: I" :r: '"
0 0
c: \~ c: \~
V1 V1
,.., ,..,
,; ,;
,.., ,.., ,
=E =E \
" " .;---
r- r-
Ot> Ot>
Z Z
,.., --+-- ---,..., ,.., - --1----- -~
I "'" "" \
N
,
I \ \
, I
I e \ e \
< ~
.
"
I ;;, ;;,
. n
I . ,
~ \ ~ \
I n
g ~
ii 2
,
I \ \
,
I
\
- --+- --
~ \ ~
5 5 ~
1--'"'21)'-11/4" (-'
- - -f- ~
(J n~ffit
0 ,,0
::::; ::l TI IIP""I"I
::l pi
(1) EB Ii"
< (1)
.., EB H
'";J (J 0: EB
- II
.' ~
..., 0: 133 - I
:l cr'"
(1) -. . . I
::l ~ .~
I Cfl '" i!l f Ie ~
,.... . ~ ,. e.
C I
c..... >- ~
,;) I
'" \ \
(1) '0
(JJ (1) I
, ::l
0 ~ , 1
Vl (J \ \
- 0
- - I
0 0
..,
---.J ~ -- ~ - - p--
0... ~ I ~
0 . , "'
\ ". \
, I
n 24'-91/2' \ 2)'-1J{4" \
~
~
L I ,
\ \
. 1 1
I \ ~ \ ~
~
. , I
\ \
I
\ \
,
I\) ~ \ ~ $ \
, ~
" <a \; 2'l3/4" " <a f-l"
~ t ~ I~ I
-0 i mO Ii
~ me ~ ~e
~JJ n
" 32"-6" JJ " 32"-6"
~ "'0-; . b: "'0-; .
'I 'I
)>0 )>0
Ze Ze
men men ,
~m ~m
I\) ~
^
,
~ ...~
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
(J I
0 I
< ::l I
(1) ::l
< (1) I
..,
'";J (J
-
~ ~
:l cr'"
(1) -.
Cfl ::l
'"
,....
C >-
"
-
_. (JJ I
(1) '0
(JJ (1) I
0 p
Vl (J
- 0
- -
0 0
..,
---.J ~
0...
0
I
) I
I
1
\'-
.
A
..
.
I
~~ ~
-
I
.
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
.
..
.
'.
'I
il
il I
I
I I
I
(J r I
0 1'1
< ::l
(1) ::l I
(1)
< .., r I
'"V(J
~:,.i I
:::: cr'" I . ..:.,
...J _' I I ./
I (1) ::l
Cfl(J)
,.... . ~
r- I I
6...>-
_. r.IJ
, (1) '0 D
(JJ (1)
::l
o~
Vl(J
. 0
-
- - I
. 0
0..,
---.J~ I
0...
0 I
I
II
I.
I
I, I
I
I I '. .~
_\- ~
I
;.-. ~
::::;
(1)
<
'";J
-
~
:l
(1)
Cfl
,....
r-
r
.......
>-
'"
(1) '0
(JJ (1)
-
""'
~
o
Vl
-
-
o
---.J
~.. ~
(J
o
-
""'
::l
(1)
..,
(J
~
cr'"
-.
::l
'"
(J
o
-
o
..,
~
0...
o
I
.
>
""'il<
J
~
<'
I
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
,
~}