HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20070627
P1
ASPEN mSTORlC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 27, 2007
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON - Meet at the Red Onion to review the
interior.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #26)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 110 E. Bleeker - Variance, Open and continue the public
hearing to -m5. 0' is -
B. 508 E. Cooper Ave, Cooper Street Pier - Extension of
Conceptual Approval (5 min.) (# 111.<';'#;5 -/1.)7
C. 411 E. Hopkins Ave, Caribou Alley - Minor Development,
Continued Public Hearing (15 min.) J(l5CJ--!d?:,
D.-214 E. Bleeker -Major Development (Conceptual)
Continued public hearing (45 min.) 1/ J,1
E. 980 Gibson Ave. - Major Development (Conceptual)
Continued public hearing (10 min.)f...l f
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 420 E. Cooper Ave. Red Onion - Recommendation on
Interior Alterations (45 min.) '30/1(/...50
X. WORKSESSIONS
A. AJCC Cabins (20min.)
IX. ADJOURN 7:30 p.m.
P2
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comri:1ent portion of hearing)
Board comments
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting ofthe HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (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.
P3
PROJECT MONITORING
Jeffrey Halferty
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.
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:
P4
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)
1m
P5
...
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
508 E. Cooper Avenue- Extension of Major Development (Conceptual)
approval
DATE:
June 27, 2007
SUMMARY: 508 E. Cooper Avenue, formerly Cooper Street Pier, received Conceptual
development approval from HPC on July 12, 2006. Section 26.4l5.070(D)(3)(c)(3) of
the Land Use Code provides that an application for Final development review shall be
filed within one year of the date of approval of a Conceptual development plan. Unless
HPC grants an extension, failure to file the Final development application shall make the
approval null and void. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion
and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a
Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
508 E. Cooper has been in a review process with the Planning and Zoning Commission,
and is now in front of City Council. The applicant has been actively working on this
project and a 6 month extension is requested in order to avoid losing their approval status.
APPLICANT: Joshua Saslove, represented by Poss Architecture + Planning and Haas
Land Planning.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the HPC grant the 6 month extension of
Conceptual approval for this proj ect
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a one-time, 6 month extension of the
Major Development approval (Conceptual) granted to 508 E. Cooper Avenue, a portion
of Lots L, Lot M and N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado."
Exhibit:
Resolution #_, Series of2007
P6
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
EXTENDING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 508 E. COOPER AVENUE, A PORTION OF LOTS L, LOT
M AND N, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FOR A SIX
(6) MONTH TIME PERIOD
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-24-007
WHEREAS, the applicant, Joshua Saslove, represented by Poss Architecture + Planning and
Haas Land Planning has requested a six (6) month extension of the Major Development
(Conceptual) approval granted through HPC Resolution # 17, Series of 2006, dated July 12, 2006,
for the property located at 508 E. Cooper Avenue, a portion of Lots L, Lot M and N, Block 95,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.4l5.070(D)(3)(c)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the
process for granting an extension of Major Development (Conceptual) approval and states that
HPC may do so on a one-time basis, extending the approval for a period of up to six months; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated June 27, 2007, noted that the applicant has
been working diligently on this project and is in the review process with the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council and recommended approval of the requested extension; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on June 27, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered and approved the extension request by a vote of _ to _'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants a six month extension of Conceptual approval as contained in their
Resolution #17, Series of 2006. An application for final review shall be submitted for review
and approval by the HPC within six month of July 12,2007 or the Conceptual approval shall be
considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27th day of June, 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
tII1:
P7
C #
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
411 E. Hopkins Avenue, Caribou AlIey- Minor Review and Commercial
Design Review, Continued Public Hearing
DATE:
June 27, 2007
SUMMARY: Caribou Alley was constructed in 1991 to replace the lumberyard that was
associated with Sardy's Hardware. The building was designed to comply with the "Open
Space" requirement in place at the time, meaning that a portion of the site had to be left
open to the sky. Rather than set the building fayade back from the street, an internal alley
was created. HPC presented an award to the project for successful infill.
A few years later, Harley Baldwin, as owner of the property, installed a canopy to cover
the alley and protect the space from weather. He requested HPC approval to leave the
canopy up on a seasonal basis, which was granted.
The canopy was not removed in the following summers, becoming a permanent fixture
and an enforcement issue. A new application was filed, requesting HPC approval to
allow the canopy to remain up year round, and requesting a waiver of a portion of the
cash-in-lieu fee required to eliminate the Open Space.
HPC reviewed, and generally supported the project in January, but asked for a restudy of
the design to lower the pitch of the roof and minimize its visibility from the street. The
revision has been provided. At the January meeting, the applicant dropped their request
that HPC waive the cash-in-lieu payment, presumably due to lack of staff support for
doing so.
Staff supports approval of Minor Development and Commercial Design Standards
Review for the proposal as designed.
APPLICANT: Billy Stolz, owner's representative.
ADDRESS: 411 E. Hopkins Avenue, which sits on the Collins Block parcel, described
as the north 80 feet of Lots A, B, and C and the south 20 feet of Lots D and E, Block 88,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
I
PB
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the
submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with
the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the
reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The
HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to
obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the
application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the
Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC
decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three
hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth
in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: Relevant HPC design guidelines are attached as "Exhibit A."
Staff finds that covering the alley with a roof will allow the building to have more of a
year round appeal and is appropriate. If doors into Caribou Alley will continue to be
installed in the winter, as has been the case in the past, a design must be reviewed
(perhaps by staff and monitor) to replace the lightweight system that has been used
recently.
The skylight design submitted for this meeting addresses the visibility concerns posed by
the current structure. From the street view, this feature will no longer project above the
parapet wall in any significant way. It will also be constructed of higher quality
materials; the frame will be dark bronze anodized and the glazing will be clear glass.
Staff finds that the increased transparency will improve the quality of the space over the
opaque canopy which is in place now. Note that the "alley" widens at the back of the
building, which is why the skylight is designed in two sections.
The HPC design guidelines are met.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
L 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
2
P9
26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justify
a deviation from the Standards.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060,
Commercial Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to
the fayade of the building may be required to comply with this section.
3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located
within a Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual
Development Plan approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant
to Chapter 26.415. This criterion shall not apply if the development activity does
not require review by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Staff Response: The Commercial Design Standards are attached to this memo as
"Exhibit B," along with more specific detail about the requirements for Open Space,
"Exhibit C." This proposal is a request to waive the requirement to physically provide
Open Space on the site since a roof covering prevents the alley from meeting the
definition for this type of amenity. Staff supports waiving the provision of Open Space
based on criteria I, above.
A cash-in-lieu payment of approximately $35,550 (to be confirmed by the City's Zoning
Officer) will still be required. The reason for staff s recommendation against reduction of
this amount is that, while the permanent skylight may cause the alley to become a more
successful space from a retaiVcustomer perspective, it will not meet the intent of the
standards. The City can make use of the fee to make other public improvements
downtown.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the skylight as designed
and grant the waiver from having to provide any open space/pedestrian amenity on the site.
A cash-in-lieu payment will be required, the final calculation of which will be determined
by the City's Zoning Officer. The following will be conditions of approval:
I. If doors will continue to be installed on the alley, a design must be submitted for
review and approval by staff and monitor.
3
PI0
2. 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.
3. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter
addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all
conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic
Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit.
5. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a
specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Guidelines
B. Relevant Commercial Design Standards
C. Pedestrian Amenity Standards
D. Application.
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roofform.
o A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant
roof form.
o Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building.
o False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
13.16 Develop the gronnd floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian
activity.
o Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts
should maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows
and transoms.
o Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or
services are visible from the street, are particularly encouraged.
o The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" entrances are
inappropriate.
13.19 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 ofthe storefront.
4
PII
Exhibit B: Relevant Commercial Design Review Standards
Pedestrian Amenity Space.
Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting,
and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment
atmosphere. Pedestrian amenity can take the form of physical or operational
improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas.
On parcels required to provide pedestrian amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030 -
Pedestrian Amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity.
Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the Pedestrian
Amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic
Preservation Commission as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according
to the following standards:
I. The dimensions of any proposed on-site pedestrian amenity sufficiently allow
for a variety of uses and activities to occur considering any expected tenant and
future potential tenants and uses.
2. The pedestrian amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish
this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses,
shade trees, solar access, view orientation, and simple at -grade relationships with
adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged.
3. The pedestrian amenity, and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent
structures, rights-of-way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian
environment.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by
malls, sidewalks, or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from
the pedestrian environment.
5. Any variation to the Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity,
Section 26.575.030(F) promote the purpose of the pedestrian amenity
requirements.
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as
applicable, may reduce the pedestrian amenity requirement by any amount, such
that no more than half the requirement is waived, as an incentive for well-
designed projects having a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment.
The resulting requirement may not be less than 10%. On-site provision shall not
be required for a reduction in the requirement. A mix of uses within the proposed
building that enliven the surrounding pedestrian environment may be considered.
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
5
PI2
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:
1. Unarticulated, blank walls are prohibited. Fenestration, or an alternate means of
fayade articulation, is required on all exterior walls.
2. Retail buildings shall incorporate, at a minimum, a 60% fenestration ratio on
exterior street-level walls facing primary streets. (For example: each street-level
wall of a retail building that faces a primary street must be comprised of at least
60% fenestration penetrations and no more than 40% solid materials.) This
provision may be reduced or waived for lodging properties with no, or limited,
street-level retail, office buildings with no retail component, and for
Service/CommerciallIndustrial 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.
6
PI3
Exhibit C: Additional Pedestrian Amenity Regulations
The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to the review procedures and criteria of
Section 26.412 - Commercial Design Review, shall determine the appropriate method or
combination of methods for providing this required amenity. Any combination of the
following methods may be used such that the standard is reached.
1. On-Site Provision of Pedestrian Amenity. A portion of the parcel designed in a
manner meeting the Design and Operational Standards for On-Site Pedestrian
Amenity, Section 26.575.030(C). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall
review the site plan, pursuant to section 26.412, Commercial Design Review.
2. Off-Site Provision of Pedestrian Amenity. Proposed pedestrian amenities and
improvements to the pedestrian environment within proximity of the development
site may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to
Section 26.412 - Commercial Design Review. These may be improvements to
private property, public property, or public rights-of-way. An easement providing
public access over an existing public amenity space for which no easement exists
may be accepted if such easement provides permanent public ac-cess and is
acceptable to the City Attorney. Off-Site improvements shall equal or exceed the
value of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment and be consistent with any
public infrastructure or capital improvement plan for that area.
3. Cash-in-lieu Provision. The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to
Section 26.412 - Commercial Design Review, may accept a cash-in-lieu payment
for any portion of required pedestrian amenity not otherwise physically provided,
according to the procedures and limitations of Section 26.575.030.E, Cash-in-Lieu
Payment.
4. Alternative Method. The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to
Section 26.412 - Commercial Design Review, may accept any method of
providing Pedestrian Amenity not otherwise described herein if the Commission
finds that such method equals or exceeds the value, which may be non-monetary
community value, of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment.
Reduction of Requirement. The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic
Preservation Commission as applicable, pursuant to the procedures and criteria of Section
26.412 - Commercial Design Review - 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%.
The Historic Preservation Commission may reduce by any amount the requirements of
this section for Historic Landmark properties upon one of the following circumstances:
I. When the Historic Preservation Commission approves the on-site relocation of
a Historic Landmark such that the amount of on-site pedestrian space is reduced
below that required by this Chapter.
7
PI4
2. When the manner in which a Historic Landmark building was originally
developed reduces the amount of on-site pedestrian amenity required by this
Chapter.
3. When the redevelopment or expansion of a Historic Landmark constitutes an
exemplary preservation effort deserving of an incentive or reward.
Payment in lieu. When the method of providing pedestrian amenity includes a cash-in-
lieu payment, the following provisions and limitations shall apply:
Formula for determining cash-in-lieu payment:
Payment = [Land Value] x [Pedestrian Amenity Percentage]
Where: Land Value = Value ofthe unimproved land.
Pedestrian Amenity Percentage = Percent of the parcel required to be provided as
a pedestrian amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030(B) lessened by
other methods of providing the amenity.
Land Value shall be the lesser of fifty (50) dollars per square foot multiplied by
the number of square feet constituting the parcel or the appraised value of the
unimproved property, determined by the submission of a current appraisal
performed by a qualified professional real estate appraiser and verified by the
Community Development Director. An applicant may only waive the current
appraisal requirement by accepting the fifty (50) dollar per square foot standard.
Acceptance of a cash-in-lieu of Pedestrian Amenity shall be at the option of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission as
applicable, pursuant to Section 26.412 - Commercial Design Review. The
payment-in-lieu of pedestrian amenity shall be due and payable at the time of
issuance of a building permit. The City Manager, upon request, may allow the
required payment-in-lieu to be amortized in equal payments over a period of up to
five years, with or without interest.
All funds shall be collected by the Community Development Director and
transferred to the Finance Director for deposit in a separate interest bearing
account. Monies in the account shall be used solely for the purchase,
development, or capital improvement of land or public rights-of-way for open
space, pedestrian amenity, or recreational purposes within or adjacent to the
applicable area in which this requirement applies. Funds may be used to acquire
public use easements.
Fees collected pursuant to this section may be returned to the then present owner
of property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees
have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the
City Council shall have ear-marked the funds for expenditure on a specific
project, in which case the City Council may extend the time period by up to three
(3) more years. To obtain a refund, the present owner must submit a petition to the
Finance Director within one (I) year following the end of the seventh (7th) year
from the date payment was received.
For the purpose of this section, payments shall be spent in the order in which they
are received. Any payment made for a project for which a building permit is
8
PI5
canceled, due to non-commencement of construction, may be refunded if a
petition for refund is submitted to the finance director within three (3) months of
the date of the cancellation of the building permit. All petitions shall be
accompanied by a notarized, sworn statement that the petitioner is the current
owner of the property and by a copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the
fee.
Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity. Pedestrian amenity, on all
privately-owned land in which pedestrian amenity is required, shall comply with
the following provisions and limitations:
1. Open to View. Pedestrian amenity areas shall be open to view from the street at
pedestrian level, which view need not be measured at right angles.
2. Open to Sky. Pedestrian amenity areas shall be open to the sky. Temporary and
seasonal coverings, such as umbrellas and retractable canopies are permitted.
Such non-permanent structures shall not be considered as floor area or a reduction
in pedestrian amenity on the parcel.
Trellis structures shall only be permitted in conjunction with commercial
restaurant uses on a designated Historic Landmark or within (H) Historic overlay
zones and must be approved pursuant to review requirements contained in
Chapter 26.415 - Development Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures or Development within a Historic District. Such
approved structures shall not be considered as floor area or a reduction in
pedestrian space on the parceL
3. No Walls/Enclosures. Pedestrian amenity areas shall not be enclosed. Temporary
structures, tents, air exchange entries, plastic canopy walls, and similar devices
designed to en-close the space are prohibited, unless approved as a temporary use,
pursuant to Section 26.450. Low fences or walls shall only be permitted within or
around the perimeter of pedestrian space if such structures shall permit views
from the street into and throughout the pedestrian space.
4. Prohibited Uses. Pedestrian amenity areas shall not be used as storage areas,
utility/trash service areas, delivery area, parking areas or contain structures of any
type, except as specifically provided for herein. Vacated rights-of-way shall be
excluded from pedestrian amenity calculations.
5. Grade Limitations. Required pedestrian amenity shall not be more than four (4)
feet above or two (2) feet below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which
abuts the pedestrian space, unless the pedestrian amenity space shall follow
undisturbed natural grade, in which case there shall be no limit on the extent to
which it is above or below the existing grade of the street
6. Pedestrian Links. In the event that the City of Aspen shall have adopted a trail plan
incorporating mid-block pedestrian links, any required pedestrian space must, if
the city shall so elect, be applied and dedicated for such use.
9
PI6
7. Landscaping Plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Community
Development Director shall require site plans and drawings of any required
pedestrian amenity area, including a landscaping plan, and a bond in a satisfactory
form and amount to insure compliance with any pedestrian amenity requirements
under this title.
8. Maintenance of Landscaping. Whenever the landscaping required herein is not
maintained, the Chief Building Official, after thirty (30) days written notice to the
owner or occupant of the property, may revoke the certificate of occupancy until
said party complies with the landscaping requirements ofthis section.
9. Commercial Activity. No area of a building site designated as required
pedestrian amenity space under this section shall be used for any commercial
activity, including, but not limited to, the storage, display, and merchandising of
goods and services; provided, however, that the prohibition of this subsection
shall not apply when such use is in conjunction with permitted commercial
activity on an abutting right-of-way or is otherwise permitted by the City. For
outdoor food vending in the Commercial Core District, also see Section
26.470.040(B)(3), Administrative Growth Management Review.
10. Commercial Restaurant Use. The provisions above notwithstanding, required
pedestrian amenity space may be used for commercial restaurant use if adequate
pedestrian and emergency vehicle access is maintained.
10
PI7
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR
411 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, CARIBOU ALLEY, WHICH SITS ON THE COLLINS
BLOCK PARCEL, DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH 80 FEET OF LOTS A, B, AND C AND
THE SOUTH 20 FEET OF LOTS D AND E, BLOCK 88, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-81-001 THROUGH 2737-073-81-015
WHEREAS, the applicant, represented by Billy Stolz, has requested approval for Minor
Development and Commercial Design Review to install a skylight at 411 E. Hopkins Avenue,
which sits on the Collins Block parcel, described as the north 80 feet of Lots A, B, and C and the
south 20 feet of Lots D and E, Block 88, 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 26AI5.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine if the project conforms
to the criteria of Section 26Al2 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated June 27,2007, performed an analysis of the
application based on the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines, and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting of June 27, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
found the application was consistent with the review standards and the "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, and
Commercial Design Review for 411 E. Hopkins Avenue, which sits on the Collins Block parcel,
described as the north 80 feet of Lots A, B, and C and the south 20 feet of Lots D and E, Block
88, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, with the following conditions:
PI8
I. If doors will continue to be installed on the alley, a design must be submitted for review
and approval by staff and monitor.
2. 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.
3. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
5. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at a special meeting on the 27th day of June, 2007.
Approved as to Form:
ATTEST:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
PI9
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 24. 2007
'",~,.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis, Michael
Hoffman and Sarah Broughton.
Staff present
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
MOTION: Michael moved to approve January 1 (jh minutes; second by
Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried.
Disclosure:
Michael disclosed that is working with Martin Horowitz, the principle of
Dream Works who is the contractor of the Brand Building deck. This will
not affect his decision because he is not the principle owner.
411 E. Hopkins - Caribou Alley - Minor Development & Commercial
Design - Public Hearing
Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I
Amy stated that the building was built about 16 years ago. It is an infill
building and on the same parcel as the Collins Block, which is an historic
structure. At the time the building was built 25% was to remain open to the
sky. They didn't quite meet that but were close by creating the open arcade.
Harley Baldwin had an awning approved that was to be a seasonal awning.
That is not the case and the awning is permanent which created an
enforcement issue. Billy Stoltz is here representing the ownership with the
proposal to retain a canopy over the alley. Staff recommends that if this is
permanent we suggest that the awning be something more of a permanent
design instead of a vinyl that is stretched over an aluminum frame. The
design should be compatible with the building. Staff also suggests that the
pitch of the skylight roof not be as steep as it is. In terms of the Commercial
Design Standards we find it acceptable to forgive the open space standards
on the site. They would still have to pay cash in lieu and the applicant is
asking to be forgiven as much as possible for that fee. Staff's
recommendation is to require the fee because the original idea was that there
would be open space on that site and it is being eliminated and we think that
the money should be provided to the City for pedestrian improvements. The
..........
1
P20
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 24. 2007
_ recommendation is to continue the application so that a permanent structure
"- can be designed and presented to the HPC.
Billy Stolz, represented that he discussed the issue with Richard Edward
owner ofthe building and we are in agreement to pay the cash-in-lieu fee
and we are also in agreement to make it a full canopy that fits in with the
building. We can change the canopy and make it substantial and in keeping
with the building. We are concemed about a flat roof and maybe we can just
have a little pitch for snow removal. Amy mentioned opening the canopy
and that is a nice idea for the summer and is in keeping with the idea of
opening it up to the sky.
Sarah asked if the applicant intended to retain their doors.
Billy said they take the doors down for the summer and they can design a
more substantial door. It is a good idea to have the doors open for the
summer.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
MOT/ON: Michael moved to continue 411 E. Hopkins until March 28'\'
second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried.
Rustique - airlock/awning - monitoring issue
Amy indicated that the guidelines talk about awnings being functional and
associated with the building opening. Staffs concem is the length of the
proposed awning. Staff suggested that the awning be broken into two
pIeces.
Rob Ittner, owner said an airlock already exists and the proposed airlock is
wider. The building is set back 5 Yo feet from the actual sidewalk. The
columns are set back 28 inches from the sidewalk. The space is used for
light cocktails and we need shading from the western exposure. The airlock
portion would be removed in the summer and the awning would remain.
Staff said we are not in favor of airlocks of this type and with Asie we had
them build it out of a more permanent material.
2
CD
,
~
1-;'<'
,~
P2I
~nk>"''' 'tf)<ll'1'
J.WOlJ""1W' w.........,n
Ji".n"l~
-Tl'?)~s. j.QfT.J.'7
uso-u.(OI.6l-" Ill"-LU""-'5)
lUU.........o-.
.~""IICI_Pi.
UNI':L'mDlO~~
Pnm1Hl3tl11VJmI1d J If
! ~:
.Y
_......0
1-0'0.)1'"
'CIllnSSI
r ~ <I tl..n
" '
. ~
- i
:"i!
it ., "
n I , 8
1
i: ,
.s: ' ~
it
-
;
iii
'i~
I:$.
)~-:.
.' .
td
~~~III
t or
i "jQ
.
:I
0
H ~
I " ~
I I;' (0 . oJ
.
i I' - i 5;
. -''Ill.
1 'J I
, 0
. . :1.
l-- ..--
,
I.
.
~U3N1l1111 '7V.lIl!IIW.
--~...__.. --
,...' ;..."'~l. ""'" .....
. . I
,.".,~
P22
O"nI<>""~ 'to?<ll";'
J.'I)1lJ~ "1" )lJ.n<o<r ~P7.
Jto."nJd.<7
tl..,J.~? )..Qfl.Y7
t.6m-tu(Ql.6):DiI OI>6'LU(ou)
Itll18_""fO:l"r-lI
,''''n~..-ms'L
s:LNY.L7nSNO;;J 7nUJ.IjnIUS
Pn SU3Nl3N:! 1VJ..H~I'!d 'J S
r r ~ ~ r ~
'"-.i ':'-..,
y
'.......VlIC
l.-"-.7I.,,,
'<I3!lS'S1
, it f
"
~l .. ;- 8 l-
i.. / ..
1'. ~ .
.~~ ., ~
1 '"
. < I ~
! ~r ~
s
i \JQ
.
-z
0
i=-
's ~ . 4
. I I. , ~
~ < . Ii..
.~ I (9 li w
h , '
"'1-4' i " - I i ~~
}.. 'l ~,
:~ .
'! 11 , 1 o.
;0;.-:( , 2.
.. . ;.. --
~yf
. .
,
l. ---..-----
50/1:0 3~d
,NOll\'^na AdON~a.n~:) n08nf.V:l
~,/~
'~
~.' .
~".
,;<:r,"\
.,t"'!7~'
I
:s::
~-.~l
S3H:LLsnaNI 11111
"
-.g
- \
~
'(1')
'z
,~
'=,
,~
'0
'Z,
t5
Ill,
, ;),
...
,y
;)
o
.11I
" ~
5
~
"
~.
z.
~
'=:
Ul
I'l'
...
......
l')
uJ"'
0-
o
...
CIJ'
...
~
o
~
'lJ..
o
9l>t1:961:E0E
P23
. '" '"
U t- ..
U ~
=g~ ..
.,;
_o~ en
",'" ..
. "-;b ..;
0
(,II! <l.. '"
aJ a:~E ~
.- ~8 ~
:... w' ."
..... t: ffi-!
CfJ :Z:>'li
uffi~
::J ~o 11
"0" ..
...JwOj to
= ~?i! en
"'i' to
-Ii; en
. s~ . to
a: z.u en
-",
. o~ C'I!
..... !:! C'\l
. ...J ('?
="- 0
, !i ('?
~
:s
".
o
Ei~
, ~,~~
::!:Z::!:
~n=:s
~lilUl
UlN:C
."oD!
';:0<
:i::Iz~
:s<u
l:I~,~
.:..z'"
<oa;-
a: a: "
j:llll\i .
EP':'z, .
i~~
lii<l:I '
T-i N
{
L1:: H L001: /f:_I('l@
P24
~~i
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
214 E. Bleeker Street (New House)- Major Development (Conceptual) and
Variance- Continued Public Hearing
DATE:
June 27, 2007
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 6,000 square foot vacant lot which was created through
a subdivision of the landmark designated parcel at 214 E. Bleeker. There are no historic
resources on the site. HPC has full purview over the project.
The project was reviewed by HPC on March 28th, and continued for restudy to better comply
with the "Inflection" standard of the Residential Design Standards, as well as to pull the front
fayade back into alignment with adjacent buildings, and address the composition of the front
fayade in general. A lightwell which appeared to require a setback variance has been revised so
that no waiver is necessary.
Staff finds that the architect has successfully addressed HPC's recommendations and supports
Conceptual approval.
APPLICANT: 214 E. Bleeker LLC (Kristeen Church), represented by Rybak Architecture and
Development, P.c.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-48-001.
ADDRESS: 214 E. Bleeker, Lot A, Brumder Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
I
P25
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
This project is located on a block that is mostly comprised of Victorian era buildings. The
subject house will be the only non-Victorian structure on this block-face and it sits between two
one story miner's cottages, each of which is a 6,000 square foot lot with an allowable FAR of
3,240 square feet, just like the new building. The project must comply with the HPC Design
Guidelines and the City's Residential Design Standards.
The architect has provided a block plan and streetscape elevations which are very helpful in
reviewing the project. He has clearly worked to reflect some of the proportions of adjacent
structures and the pattern of small scale secondary buildings along the alley.
HPC has recently reviewed rehabilitation plans for the landmark to the west. It was developed
entirely as a one story building, and the block plan indicates that this was achieved through
considerably more site coverage at the back of the lot via setback variances. The house which is
the subject of this review is eligible for setback variances (due to landmark status), but does not
require any.
Based on feedback from Staff and HPC in March, the building has been reconfigured to pull the
staircase more into the center of the structure, leaving more open space and/or one story forms
along the eastern side of the site. This creates "inflection," as required by the Code. The
Victorian home to the west is tall enough that more mass can be handled on that side, which is
the direction that the architect took.
The proposed new home is in alignment with the front setback of the adjacent residences, and the
front porch has been modified to reinforce horizontal alignments with those buildings as well.
The material palette, fenestration, lighting, and landscaping will be the focus. of Final Review.
Staff finds that, at a Conceptual level, the project meets the design guidelines.
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 n'ecessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
2
P26
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual approval for 214 E.
Bleeker, Lot A, Brumder Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following
condition of approval:
I. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(I) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
D The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
D The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
D A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
D In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that
orients to the street.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
D Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
D The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
D The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
D They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roofforms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
D Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
D Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
D On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
3
P27
o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
o These include windows, doors and porches.
o Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
o This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
o Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
4
P28
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 214 EAST BLEEKER STREET, LOT A,
BRUMDER LOT SPLIT, BLOCK 72, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-48-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, 214 East Bleeker, LLC represented by Dave Rybak of Rybak
Architecture and Development, P.C. requests Major Development (Conceptual) for the property
located at 214 East Bleeker Street, Lot A, Brumder Lot Split, Block 72, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.4l5.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated June 27, 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 been met, and recommended approval; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants approval for Major Development (Conceptual) for the property located
at 214 East Bleeker Street, Lot A of the Brurnder Lot Split, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado with the following conditions;
I. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
P29
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27th day of June, 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
P30
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERYATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OFM:ARClI 28. 20'07
Sara pointed out that most of the original doors and windows ate intact.
Sarah said when she looks at this property the orientation to the mountain
and how the house is sited is important
Alison said she feels criteria A for designation are met. The orientation to
the mountain is historic.
Michael said it clearly is an example of a chalet style and the characteristics .
have not been destroyed.
Brian felt that more than one criteria are addressed for designation. The
most important thing is that the Chalet style is intact and the orientation of
the property. Brian said he feels orientation of buildings should be included
in the criteria for designation.
MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #11 for 827 E. Dean Street
to be included in our inventory of landmark buildings; second by Brian.
Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Motion
carried 4-0.
214 E. Bleeker - Conceptual Development and Variances, Public
Hearing
Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I
Jason Lasser explained that theteare no historic resources on this site and
HPC has full purview over the project. The subject house will be the only
non-Victorian structure on the block. It sits between two one-story miner's
cottages. The allowable FAR is 3,240 square feet. No other variances are
requested other than for a light well that is not technically required by the.
building code because it is proposed for a den. Staff finds that the project
does not meet the inflection standard which requires new development to
step down in height toward the one story structure.
Ja,son pointed out that changes have occurred and David Rybak can go over
them. The dimensional requirements for light wells are 3 x 3. Staff is
recommending continuation.
8
P3I
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 28. 2007
David Rybak, architect. David said he made small revisions to demonstrate
that the design meets the guidelines. The vacant lot has a series of
cottonwood trees and spruce trees at the south end of the property and the
east frontage which tend to restrict the site and we are trying to make
everything fit within the context. The proposal submitted tonight eliminates
any needs for variances and the light well sits within the setback. The
proposal is for a two story residence with a partially detached garage and a
small connecting link from the garage to the main house. There is a one
story gable element to the west side and a two story gable form along the
east. We chose a hipped roof cross gable to bring down the wall planes and
not have gable elements on the western side. The guidelines state that
hipped roofs are OK. The garage has a 12 x 12 gable roof.
Sara said because the property is sandwiched between two one story
resources the property owner gets to decide which side to inflect on. They
have to inflect on the length of the lot line as far back as the historic resource
goes.
Jason said staff is concerned about the two story element that is set back
where the stairs go back to the second floor. We do not know if that is
included in the inflection idea and we have not had a chance to review this
with other planners in our office. The code says if a one story building sits
directly adjacent to the subject site new construction must step down to one
story along the common lot line.
David said the inflection has to be a minimum of 12 feet along the street
frontage.
Vice-chair Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Mirto Malory thanks the architect for including them in the process. On a
whole this is a unique place in the West End. Mirto suggested that the front
fayade be broken up so that the church is clearly the dominant structure on
the street. This is a neighborhood with gingerbread houses and
unfortunately stone is not part of the gingerbread look on that street. One
other question is the chimney. The mass seems large. The lilacs have been
there for all long time and hopefully they will be preserved on the alley. If
some of them have to be removed hopefully they will be replaced.
Vice-chair Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing.
9
P32
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 28.2007
Sarah thanked the architect for a complete packet. One concern is the
alignment of the front wall in that it aligns with the front porches and not the
front walls of the historic resources which make it more imposing on the
street. The entry two story gable might be able to come down a little and be
minimized. The bay window on the second story seems heavy and
imposing. The inflection is definitely on the right side. The chimney is
imposing and adding to the overall height of the house from the front.
The one story garage fits in well with our guidelines and it is a nice nod that
fits in with the character of our alleys in that neighborhood. Sarah
recommended continuation to look at the massing of the fayade in the front.
Brian also agreed that the massing on the front is a concem. Another
concem is the fayade of the building extending to the end of the porches and
that might cause a problem. Possibly that could be brought back a little so
that it is not one solid mass.
Alison pointed out that David has done a good job bringing the front
elevation down to the one story. This building could be a lot more
imposing. If the church elevation was there it would actually make this
building look smaller. The point about the front fa<;ade being all the way to
the porches might be the reason it has mass and scale problems. She also
agreed that the chimney needs to be less imposing. The roof forms read very
nicely.
MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 214 E. Bleeker until June 21h; second
by Brian. Roll call vote: Sarah. yes; Michael, yes; Brian, yes; Alison, no.
MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All infavor,
motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
10
P33
g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc
02/01/06
Land Use AlPplicllltiml
THE CiTY OF ASPEN
PROJECT:
Name:
Location: t T E!u.~u. \1>]'114.1\.1"
(Indicate street address, lot & block nnmber or metes and bounds description of property)
ParcelID# (REQUIRED) '7..1'1>7 01~tj.tlOl>1
APPLICANT:
Name:
IJ.\+ 1[...
Address: ~
Phone #:
~T.
~
!f4, vJ U blll'l
Fax#:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
6~
.1
Address: 1>ID
Phone #:
", - 1111
Fax#:
"'-1/71
E-mail: 0/11I" Ii!. {)I>~
, f(..~
l'YPEOF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
o Historic Designation
o Certificate of No Negative Effect
l8.1 Certificate of Appropriateness
o -Minor Historic Development
fS] -Major Historic Development
~ -COI}l'.,eptual Historic Development
o -Final Historic Development
o -Substantial Amendment
o Relocation (temponny, on or off-site)
o Demolition (total demolition)
o Historic Landmmk Lot Split
ExISTINGCONDmONS: d
ovals, eic.)
I..D'f' I~ """~'. li-lCl'-lIoJl. flw''''...... r'o..,.. ~fL Ilel'l'''c.o.
PRoPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
P34
~It."" <01"'1>44 ~''1 j2...1l;~'OIloJt-lL,
lFEES!I)UE: $ ~\ ")'0
Genera! Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information
will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved.
YES NO
~
o
Does 1he work you are planning include exterior worlc; including additions, demolitions, new
construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
.ill
o
Does 1he worlc you are planning include interior worlc; including remodeling, .rebabilitariol1, or
restoration?
o
~
Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at 1lris time?
o
lll.
In addition to Ci1y of Aspen approval fur a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a
building pennit, are you seeking to meet the'Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federnl
tax credits?
o
o
If yes, are you seeking federal rebabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction wi1h 1lris
project? (Only income producing properties listed on 1he National Register are eligible.
Owner-occupied residential properties are not)
o
o
If yes, are you seeking 1he Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation?
Please check all Ci1y of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
o Rebabilitation Loan Fund 0 Conservation Easement Program 0 Dimensional Variances
o Historic Landmark Lot Split 0 Waiver ofParlc Dedication Fees 0 Conditional Uses
from Grow1h Management Quota System 0 Tax Credits
o Increased Density
o Exemption
Commercial net leasable:
Number of residentialllilits:
Number of bedrooms:
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
P35
Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on tbe submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
.Jr."" I!..L'>II>"'U~
'1-14 !.. III/Ui<4il. 1..\.-'-.
fA 1" A I !7 R.~ /Hu..
I../>f
I
~f~'1
l'--'-
{,.,6/}/j $.'1"
~,ooo ~r
(For the purposes of calculating Boor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within
the high water mark, easemeots, and steep slopes. Please refer to the defInition of Lot
Area io the Mllilicipal Code)
Existing:
Existing:
Existing:
o Proposed:
() Proposed:
o Proposed:
,
'is"
Proposed % of demolition: 0
DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists io the zone district)
Floor Area: Existing: D Allowable: ">, z.,jO Proposed: ~.'I.'1D
. .
Height
Principal Bldg.: Existing: 0 Allowable: '1S' Proposed: '1.5'
Accessory Bldg.: Existing: 0 Allowable: 'U>' Proposed: IS'
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: "1- Proposed: 1-
% Site coverage: Existing: Required: .,;0% Proposed: ~ilJo '1.;l-U>. s.'F.
% Open Space: Existing: Required: ~J~ Proposed: "If),.
.
Front Setback: ~ Existing: Required: Ib Proposed: '"7.
Rear Setback: f.l Existing: Required: 6 -ID Proposed: :s fO" .6."..........
Combioed FrontlRear
Indicate N. S. E. W Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: t. Existing: Required: OS Proposed: s: '10
Side Setback: \JJ Existing: Required: 5 Proposed: II:;. '""II)
Combioed Sides: Existing: Required: IS Proposed: I~ """"",
Distance betweeo Existing: Required: IIf A- Proposed: "'/.,A.
buildings:
Existing non-confurmities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
~f.A
Variations requested pdentify the exact variances needed):
\.I,IJ..
P36
. ~- {::,~:
'~-"~"O''';,5
0- .....
0.25
0.5 mik,
..,
.;>,
't~ .
'%. r,Mp{+'k
ti! '<i.."
1100'''Gs-\l ''lo-
It. .....:0'
~?~.
''iy .
HDI,?~ t:"''0' l)~ >. 1:;0"d'y,0+ /-
h. " ;t.o... ~
'. ~~, /='" 6!, '0'0:.
\;\> 4-l;,,~~,"^ ~q., "'~"'0-""'I' . ....J~
'.: "'. -""0 q.. "'-"1,. o;<t::~~~,!bn.C/J . ~
'-j'~'$,it" <} R;ld.' q;=~, '~~:P
'~"':::'.-~.,..~,..,. 'flePI ""_A~' '~'...~ -,-II" \&.
E!~i . .- - ~ r',;'i"_~'''-::'-'-'s_:'~_o'{\Y\'\'~ -?~Ia~,
ASP~l'''''':,::, ~f."~.,..<;
'>"'-"1~51".% .
o
,o"':>".;:' r>.,
b.5 kilometer
-e--
. 0...
"'1$0-9,
0'
':::, = !-,'
'"
";!~
~~
\',;:)L;f',; ""'-..
,=<;:,f\iC;....
""""" ToIIRd
l.gQJ
'.22'
'~q,
. . 1%'~1~L_
e
Fork
'" ~~...--"...~
(iE ;g _ ?-~.
'i2: .'
f :6
Jil' ii, "w. n: ~
. " ...." '"'
Gill8SlJle.~~:s.:.. --'\r<" ..~ ",,0:: ~ i3p~\
",t~, _, . ' ""'"
'''. '.,' . ,.. ,.
''''--. , " 0" .
0";, """""';", \ C. \ ".Go,,,, ,I , "" \
< : .... ..." ,~, ''', A,.,. ",' ~~""'$... 0', "".
'" "-, "'fi s b' '.pnc" 'vfu<~um,~ iit t? Iz., ''f..
'''-= ,." ; ,:: 'i!';.. -:IN;,~8U;''er e"s;"'~-,," '" Gib \ ~ ~ .~~ ~'1,;"9
' ,. """ "" "-<".,,,.., '","-, ~ " '.
"'" , , ',,,",-,,'y . '~,,~ ".% ,
," -. "',. ~". <rf~ $ "p'" "'~'i;>
" "'~ ,., ",woC ", ' 'A ,"... '''''''' . .
~"<&~""'>-~St' .~~. -'er ~a 'o/<l4"i. ~.nd~ "":"1#'.
,~;s.---, '~~~. <' P'rKln C,uO'f ", _. '<';l!~S . ~., . ,,'!;>~ d> i
0", " ~, ",=~ ~ , , ,
, 0", . ";"> "" ,'JJt ~~"'-. "'" ';;",' ", ... <" _ .
f'? C/J tJ - "':fi CO~rth (,;rcrrv~c. 'of Que" MldlanQ'",. 1 smug~
" b . .. 1;;'ViSltfl' i';j - . ij (If, "" "'(6)< ~ ~' ''''r 2 Regent ~
'<C';. " ''''IiJt' ~ (' '~,_ i_... l
co. C%l, UJ -O'.~.___"J:).; f? "..,l'vl~A~,h~ __, iii'2'" 1 is, --.6, '3
· ,<..' 'Ie"""''''' ',:1'y:: .:J4'"-~ ".:; ~"-. 'l
'# ~>cf---t Ok~",- ~. 'f" @jJ,
· 000 -,.~. 0 ~ """', L , " 0
00" "'''''k'_OJ,. -...., 9~ . . · ",,"W"
--;:. C," ~~j '... 9'~", ',. ~'
""'. , , "'~, "'...,-- ,
S'~'" r; -n ~1" ...... 15
~~ . -~.'" \ G~ ~" ':'. ~s: .~r,.. .... "~~'ewDl:..~
. ' ,~ ,'~", ....\ . .~- ,
""nit!S! ! ~~' '_~...-;, 9 '%; ?i!
' :a, '. 6\,,~.~. <..; ~9: \ '.' ,~.Q.!'~!:>.;~. i
"', .. '" ''ll'Ute . j' ....,. ", ~o.!!.B2..""___
...... 'Oz,.,.' c,; .' '~el-n'etery c, ". "''''......:;=''<S:n''''2~,.
'''"'<:., t\~. Il 9:"';;.IGi.~';W'''' ."",.,.~, ".
"d ....'\1~ \
.....,-~...>;,..,
-g
't20Ai
;p
r/
0f
~,R~c;"!Off
~
+$'
ii~ I, ,-
"""\:.A';>P.pjfi
" 'r!...,~, _
!nstitui'(o-~
,p
..i
5
o
"
.
-a.
Q',
~
--,
[gli
1::
~
~
"1,
s-\'
2"
..r
,4
'!:-
'/;,
...
'5
>;",
..
~. Q
~,
Q
~}
~
s:
o
~
~.;
10-
~
:"0";~'!~~~~;f;
-3kf Area
@-
-@
5
2
'PS','COM
@2006M.4'1\;
~t200tT.6.NA.lntJGOT.Irv::
%
\
o
8-
9..:
,
'"
._"l~ T', ."
~'-"''''C--
.._t'"'OV. -F
P37
nVJ:)~ If
Architecture &. DeVelopm.....t, P.C.
I" I ..." 'I"
TO:
Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Preservation Officer
FROM:
Dave Rybak
DATE:
June 18, 2007
RE:
Lot A, Brumder Lot Split, New Residence
The subject property was granted a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split via Ordinance No. 54-2005 by
the City of Aspen. Lot A currently contains a swimming pool, while Lot B contains the "Wilbur Wilson
Residence" built in 1893, which was approved for renovation by the H. P. C. via Resolution No. 13-
2007. The owner of the property, 214 E. Bleeker, LLC., requests a Major Development Conceptual
Review for the construction of a New Single Family Residence on Lot A.
The new residence will sit between the Historic Resource on Lot B to the West and the Historic
Resource at 232 East Bleeker Street, on the East. The Resource on Lot B is a one story residence
with a large hipped roof mass, while the Resource to the East is a one and one-half story Gable
structure. The site also has a number of existing large trees along the East Property line which
dictate structure placement outside of the tree drip lines. The large Cottonwood trees at the South
East corner of the site create a visual break between the property and the Resource to the East. The
existing trees and the Historical Resources which bookend the property have been the driving factor
in the design process.
A design was submitted and received a Major Development Conceptual Review Hearing on March
28, 2007, during which the Commission members raised several concerns regarding the relationship
of the proposed residence to the Historic Resources to either side of the property. The Conceptual
Review Hearing was continued to June 27, 2007.
The issues discussed at the March 28th hearing included:
Maintaining a one story inflection for the entire depth of the property.
Prominence of the Two-story Gable form on the South Elevation.
The subtractive forms of the Front Porches on the Existing Resources vs. the Proposed
Massing.
The design of the residence has been revised to address the concerns raised by the Commission
members and meet the requirements of the City of Aspen Design Guidelines.
The revised design is based upon the original concept to address the site constraints with a Two-
story gable form running North to South along the East side of the property, and a One-story gable
mass running West off the primary gable mass, toward the Historic Resource on Lot B. The
composition creates inflection on the west side and allows the taller mass to be softened by the
cottonwood trees to the east.
P38
Lot A, Brumder Lot Split, New Residence
HPC Major Development
Conceptual Review Application
June 18, 2007
The Front Porch has been revised to run the length of the South Elevation. The porch will create the
set back from the South Property Line and align with the "Build-to' line of the adjacent Front Porch
structures. This creates a consistency of the Front Porches being the primary element on the Street
Elevation. The length of the proposed porch will visually tie the subtractive forms of the three
porches together along the streetscape.
The South faQade of the One-story Gable form running to the West, will align with the One-story Gable
form running East on the adjacent 214 E. Bleeker residence. The one-story massing creates the
required inflection per the Design Guidelines, and runs uninterrupted for the depth of the property.
All two story massing has been moved at least 12' from the West Property line.
The prominence of the Two-story gable form has been diminished by breaking the height of the
element with the Front Porch Roof, and moving the South wall back from the "Build-to" line. The
gable form will become secondary to the consistency of the Front Porch "line". The Two-story gable
is extruded down to the porch elevation on the west side of the structure to diminish exposed wall
surfaces and tie the higher roof to the lower elements. .
The main gable form runs north through the mass of the structure. Cross gables with hipped roofs,
and one shed roof work off the primary roof to enclose the other second floor areas. A one story
gabled accessory structure, enclosing a two car garage is located on the North setback, connected to
the main structure by a 6 foot wide, 8 foot long one story gabled roof element.
The proposed residence addresses the Residential Design Standards, and HPC Design Guidelines as
delineated below:
RESIDENTIAL DEISGN STANDARDS AND HPC DESIGN GUIDELINES
NEW BUILDINGS ON HISTORIC LOT SPLITS
The Lot split created by the previous owners created two 6,000 square foot properties; one
containing the Resource on Lot B, and one eXisting as open space. The site constraints of the
existing trees and neighboring Historic resources have generated a design which does not dominate
either neighbor. The massing scheme was developed to compliment the context, while the material
and detailing have been selected to fit into this historic block. The simplicity of materials and
detailing will pay tribute to the historic neighbors, but not confuse the new building as being old.
STREET SCAPE AND LOT FEATURES
The structure is oriented to Bleeker Street on the south end of the parcel. The structure will be set
back 12 feet from the South Property Line to match the setback of the Historic Resource to the East
on the proposed location for the relocated resource to the West.
HISTORIC BUILDING MATERIALS
The material selection for the residence will include a field stone veneer base and painted lap Siding
and trims. The primary mass will have stone veneer up to a wood belt course band at the second
floor height. The one story gable element and secondary elements will have stone bases with lap
siding above.
2
P39
Lot A, Brumder Lot Split, New Residence
HPC Major Development
Conceptual Review Application
June 18, 2007
WINDOWS
The windows will be a combination of vertically proportioned double hungs, with some fixed units
introduced into the larger ganged window assemblies.
DOORS
The exterior doors will be divided-lite, glass paneled doors.
PORCHES
A Front Porch runs the length of the South Facade and includes a cross gable to frame the entrance.
The cross gable extruded from the Two-story gable, which is elongated to the West to bring the main
roof down to the porch elevation. This composition brings the two story massing down in scale and
emphasizes the Main Entrance ofthe residence.
ARCHITECTRUAL DETAILS
The proposed detailing will be simple, complimenting the detailing of the resource on Lot B. 4 1/2"
lap Siding with lx6 corner boards, lx4 window trim with a small crown added to the head trim, and a
1x6 with small crown fascia are the primary elements of detail.
The upper section of the Primary Gable will be bowed out from the vertical wall surface, yet stay
within the depth of the l' overhang, and clad in shingle siding. This gives some distinction to the
gable element, and sets up a soffit for a bowed window bay on the second floor. The bowed gable
element is also used on the North Fagade ofthe Primary Gable.
ROOFS
The Primary Roof will be a 14/12 gable running North to South. This Roof is elongated to the West
from which the cross gable of the porch is created for the Entry. The one-story mass on the west will
have a 12/12 gable to inflect that of the Historic Resource on Lot B. A 4/12 shed roof extends from
this gable to create the Front Porch.
Secondary roofs enclosing the Upper Level are hipped gables to reduce the mass and bring the eye
down. A shed roofed are is also utilized on the North West corner of the Upper Level to minimize the
roof structu re.
All Gable roof forms will have cedar shingles, while the shed roofs will have standing seam metal
roofing.
One Chimney element has been designed on the east side of the primary gable. The Chimney will be
veneered in field stone, and include steps its massing to accommodate fireplace and flue alignments
as it rises. Steps within the stone will also occur at the top of the chimney to develop contextual
detailing.
SECONDARY STRUCTURES
A 12/12 gable form is placed on the North setback as a secondary structure. The form is
reminiscent of the alley structures found within Aspen, and addresses the alley with a 16' wide
overhead garage door. The door will have glass lights, and veneer trim to break up the wide door to
look as two side by side doors.
3
P40
Lot A, Brumder Lot Split, New Residence
HPC Major Development
Conceptual Review Application
June 18, 2007
BUILDING RELOCATION & FOUNDATIONS
A stone veneer base will wrap the entire structure to signify the foundation. The secondary structure
will not have the stone base, as is historically typical of these elements.
.
4
'1TTC f.
P4I
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE:
980 Gibson Avenue, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Demolition,
Relocation, Variances- Continued Public Hearing
DATE:
June 27, 2007
SUMMARY: On June 13, 2007, HPC continued the Conceptual Hearing so that the applicant
could clarify/adjust rear yard setback conditions, and address the close proximity of a proposed
lightwell to the historic cabin. Revised drawings are attached.
In addition, the applicant has addressed HPC's concern regarding the blank wall on the upper
east elevation of the proposed garage by incorporating fenestration into this area; however these
details will be discussed during Final Review.
Staff finds that the Design Guidelines are met and recommends HPC approve the application for
Major Development Conceptual, Demolition, Relocation, and Variances.
APPLICANT: MDl, LLC, 109 ABC, Aspen, CO 81612, represented by Scott Bartleet of Flux
Design Studio, P.O. Box 2611, Basalt, CO 81621.
PARCEL ID: 2737-074-10-001.
ADDRESS: 980 Gibson Avenue, Unit #1, Alpine Acres Subdivision, Lot #1, City of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-6 is the underlying zone, and there are zoning restrictions in the Alpine Acres
Subdivision Agreement.
This Staff memo is limited to the issues raised by HPC during the June 13th meeting, however the
previous memo is attached for reference.
DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed,
are included in the memo.
I
P42
Staff Response: The main design issue raised by HPC was the location of the lightwell against the
west fayade of the historic house. The applicant reduced the size of the lightwell, and pulled it
away from the historic home. Staff finds that guideline 9.7 is met and the lightwell is an
appropriate size and distance from the historic home.
9.7 A Iightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
. In general a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street.
. The size of the lightwell should be minimized.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are
as follows:
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or
district; and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic
property or historic district.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to provide a one foot (1 ') north rearyard (in a limited
area) setback for the proposed development where ten feet (10') is required, and a west sideyard
setback often feet (10') where 15 feet (15') is required. Staff finds that granting the variances
allows the development to be pushed farther away from the historic resource, and recommends
approval based on criteria b.
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:
I. Demolition of the non-historic addition and car port is granted.
2. An FAR Bonus of 221 square feet is granted for rehabilitation and high quality design.
3. The following setback variances are granted: ten feet (10') for the west sideyard and nine
feet (9') for the north rearyard.
2
P43
4. Relocation of the historic house is granted, with the condition that the applicant will
present a detail of the foundation, existing and proposed for the historic resource, for
approval at HPC Final Review.
5. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information
about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the
building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not
the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con's of the decision for
review and approval by staff and monitor.
6. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the
structure must be submitted with the building permit application.
7. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected
during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
8. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of2007.
A.) Relevant Design Guidelines
B.) Staff Memo, June 13,2007
C.) Application
3
P44
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 980 Gibson Avenue, Conceptual Review"
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures, than those
in a historic district.
. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative
. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district
should be avoided.
. The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered.
. In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than
moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects
patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front yard setbacks, that
relate to other historic structures in the area.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new
building in front of it.
9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
. On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone
foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of
character.
. Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement
should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of mortar joints.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation
above grade.
. Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the grade level is inappropriate.
9.7 A Iightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
. In general a lightwell is prohibited on awall that faces a street.
. The size of the lightwell should be minimized.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also in
inappropriate.
. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
4
P45
. An addition that covers historically significant features in inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
. 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.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
. 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.
. A 1 story connector is preferred.
. The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the
primary building.
. 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.
. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate
. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
. Set back an addition from primary fayade 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 Roofforms should be similar to those of the historic building.
. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate
. 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 features.
. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be
avoided.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
. They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
. On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
5
P46
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),
DEMOLITION, RELOCA TION, VARIANCES, AND 221 SQUARE FOOT FAR BONUS
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 980 GIBSON AVENUE, UNIT 1, LOT 1, ALPINE
ACRES SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-074-10-001.
WHEREAS, the applicant, MOl, LLC, 109 ABC, Aspen CO 81612, represented by Scott
Bartleet of Flux Design Studio, P.O. Box 2611, Basalt, CO 81621 has requested Major
Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, Variances, and an FAR bonus for the
property located at 980 Gibson Avenue, Unit #1, Alpine Acres Subdivision, Lot #1, City of
Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic. property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, in order to authorize a demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of
designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the
following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionallv. for approval to demolish, all oUhe followinl!: criteria must be met:
P47
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity ofthe historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship
to adjacent designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs ofthe area; and
WHEREAS, for the approval of relocation of a historic resource, the HPC must review the
application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per
Section 26.4l5.090.C of the Municipal Code. Relocation for a building, structure or object will
be approved by HPC if it is determined that it meets anyone of the following standards:
I. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will
not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
Additionallv. for approval to relocate all of the foIlowinl!: criteria must be met:
I. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.4l5.ll0.C of
the Municipal Code, that the setback variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character
of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and
WHEREAS, for approval of an FAR bonus, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.11 O.C of
the Municipal Code, that:
P48
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building
and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's
form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated June 27th, 2007, performed an analysis ofthe
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 with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on June 27, 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:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition,
Relocation, Variances, and a 221 square foot FAR bonus for the property located at 980 Gibson
Avenue, Unit I, Lot I of the Alpine Acres Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed
with the following conditions;
I. Demolition of the non-historic addition and car port is granted.
2. An FAR Bonus of 221 square feet is granted for rehabilitation and high quality design.
3. The following setback variances are granted: ten feet (10') for the west sideyard and nine
feet (9') for the north rearyard.
4. Relocation of the historic house is granted, with the condition that the applicant will
present a detail of the foundation, existing and proposed for the historic resource, for
approval at HPC Final Review.
5. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information
about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the
building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not
the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con's of the decision for
review and approval by staff and monitor.
6. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the
structure must be submitted with the building permit application.
7. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected
during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
8. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(I) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
P49
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27tb of June, 2007.
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P50
Exhibit B
June 13, 2007
Staff Memo
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE:
980 Gibson Avenue, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Demolition,
Relocation, Variances
DATE:
June 13,2007
SUMMARY: The subject property is located at 980 Gibson Avenue, near the base of Smuggler
Mountain. The approximately 13,000 square foot lot is part of the Alpine Acres Subdivision and
contains two historic resources. The lot is condominiumized: Lot lB recently completed a rear
addition to a historic resource. The application before HPC is for Lot lA, which contains a
historic l880s miner's cabin that was moved to its current location from an unknown lot The
front fayade of the cabin is oriented east, away from Gibson Street. As it currently sits, the
rectangular form is difficult to distinguish due to a number of alterations and a car port.
The applicant proposes to relocate the cabin 90 degrees, and orient the front fayade toward the
street. HPC is asked to review Demolition of the non-historic addition and car port; Conceptual
Review of a new addition; the Residential Design Standards and Setback Variances. A 221
square foot FAR bonus is requested for rehabilitation and high quality design. The applicant
presented the design in a worksession with HPC last fall.
Staff finds that the criteria are met and recommends that HPC approve the application with
conditions.
APPLICANT: MOl, LLC, 109 ABC, Aspen, CO 81612, represented by Scott Bartleet of Flux
Design Studio, P.O. Box 2611, Basalt, CO 81621.
PARCEL ID: 2737-074-10-001.
ADDRESS: 980 Gibson Avenue, Unit #1, Alpine Acres Subdivision, Lot #1, City of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-6 is the underlying zone, and there are zoning restrictions in the Alpine Acres
Subdivision Agreement.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
I
Exhibit B P 51
June 13,2007
Staff Memo
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: The following questions provide background context and history about the
property in question, and do not serve as formal criteria.
1. Why is the property significant? The property represents a late Victorian era residence.
2. What are the key features of the property? The structure has the characteristics of
typical mining era structures- size, simple rectangular plan, front gable roof.
3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? A
historic cabin is located to the west. The neighborhood has changed dramatically with
new residential development. Historic cabins are randomly scattered throughout the
Smuggler neighborhood, the majority of which have additions and alterations.
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? The
proposed work will remove existing additions that do not conform with the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, and will add a front porch and an addition that meets the
Guidelines. This work will positively affect the integrity assessment score. The house is
not in its original location, so moving it on the site will not have an adverse impact.
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property? The proposal before HPC will not leave any unbuilt development rights for
980 Gibson. The Alpine Acres Subdivision has a maximum FAR cap per dwelling unit
of 2,486 square feet, which is the amount of countable development before HPC.
DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed,
are included in the memo.
2
P52
Exhibit B
June 13,2007
Staff Memo
Staff Response: The applicant proposes a two story addition to the rear of the historic resource,
with a first floor plate height of 11 feet and a second story plate height of 9 feet. Overall, Staff
finds that the form and massing of the addition meets the Design Guidelines. The proposal
balances the gable roof form of the historic resource with contemporary details that distinguish
the addition as new. Staff finds that Guidelines 10.3, 10.4 and 10.8 are met:
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also in
inappropriate.
. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
. An addition that covers historically significant features in inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
. 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.
10.8 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.
. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate
. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
. Set back an addition from primary fayade in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
Connector piece: Staff is concerned about the second floor corridor that is located above the
linking element. The intent of the connector piece is to spatially separate the old and new
building. Due to site constraints, Staff is in favor of the horizontal connector piece, but
recommends that the second story be removed from the proposal to comply with the intent of
Guideline 10.7 below:
3
Exhibit B
June 13,2007
"LaU
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.
. A I story connector is preferred.
. The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the
primary building.
. The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
P53
Garage: The location of the garage on the north property line does not comply with the
International Residential Code that prohibits openings within three feet (3') of the property line.
Staff is not in favor of moving the garage forward three feet toward the south lot line, and
recommends that the applicant reduce the length of the garage to nineteen feet (19') rather than
the twenty-two feet (22') proposed. Staff is in favor of the curb cut off of Matchless Drive, and
requests more information regarding a surface easement permitting a driveway over the adjacent
parcel to the north.
DEMOLITION
Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the
following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship
to adjacent designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs ofthe area.
Staff Response: The applicant requests approval to demolish the non-historic addition to the
west and the non-historic carport to the east. Both additions are pre-1980 and are not historic.
Staff finds that criteria d and Guideline 10.2 are met, and recommends demolition approval.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
4
P54
Exhibit B
June 13, 2007
Staff Memo
RELOCATION
The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.C of
the Municipal Code:
C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets anyone of the following standards:
1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation
will not affect the character of the historic district; m:
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; m:
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; m:
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated properties; and
Additionallv. for approval to relocate all of the followinl! criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
Staff Response: The historic resource is not in its original location. The applicant requests
approval to rotate the structure 90 degrees, which will orient the historic front fayade toward the
street. Staff finds that the proposal is an acceptable preservation method that will not adversely
affect the integrity of the house, rather the project will clarify the representation of this structure
as part of Aspen's mining heritage. Staff recommends that the applicant present a foundation
detail, existing and proposed for the cabin, for approval at Final Review.
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 221 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to
granting an FAR bonus as per Section 26.415.ll0.E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
5
Exhibit B P55
June 13, 2007
Staff Memo
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the
historic building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the
historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
Staff Response:
Rehabilitation: The applicant proposes to re-orient the front fayade of the house toward Gibson
Avenue, and remove existing additions to the house. The applicant is adding a front porch that is
typical to the mining era. Staff has been unable to locate a historic photograph of this house, as it
was relocated to this site at some point. Staff finds that the proposed rehabilitation of the house
fulfills this portion of the Bonus criteria.
Design: Staff finds that the proposed design accurately distinguishes new from old construction.
The historic home is prominently featured at the front of the property with the addition toward
the rear. Staff finds that with a reduction in height of the linking element, the design meets the
Design Guidelines.
SETBACK V ARlANCES
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.1l0.B of the Municipal Code are
as follows:
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or
district; and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
6
,
P56
Exhibit B
June 13, 2007
Staff Memo
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic.
property or historic district.
Staff Response: The applicant requests a zero foot (0') north rearyard setback for the proposed
development where ten feet (10') is required. A west sideyard setback of ten feet (10') is
required, where 15 feet (15') is required. Staff finds that granting the variances allows the
development to be pushed farther away from the historic resource.
The proposed garage openings that are located on the northern property line, and the windows in
the stairwell, are in violation of the International Residential Code, which prohibits openings
within 3 feet of the property line. Staff recommends that the applicant resolve these issues by
removing the window openings in the stairwell and reducing the size of the garage by three feet
(3 '). A rearyard variance of three feet (3') is required, should the applicant decide to reduce the
garage length.
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:
I. The second story on top of the linking element will be removed.
2. Demolition of the non-historic addition and car port is granted.
3. An FAR Bonus of 221 square feet is granted for rehabilitation and high quality design.
4. The following setback variances are granted: ten feet (10') for the west sideyard and three
feet (3') for the north rearyard.
5. Relocation of the historic house is granted, with the condition that the applicant will
present a detail of the foundation, existing and proposed for the historic resource, for
approval at HPC Final Review.
6. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information
about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the
building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not
the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con's of the decision for
review and approval by staff and monitor.
7. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the
structure must be submitted with the building permit application.
8. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected
during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
7
Exhibit B P 5 7
June 13,2007
Staff Memo
9. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(I) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of2007.
A.) Relevant Design Guidelines
B.) Application
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 980 Gibson Avenue, Conceptual Review"
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures, than those
in a historic district.
. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative
. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district
should be avoided.
. The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered.
. In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than
moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects
patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front yard setbacks, that
relate to other historic structures in the area.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new
building in front of it.
9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
. On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone
foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of
character.
. Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement
should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of mortar joints.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation
above grade.
8
P 5 8 Exhibit B
June 13,2007
Staff Memo
. Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the grade level is inappropriate.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
. In general a lightwell is prohibited on awall that faces a street.
. The size of the lightwell should be minimized.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also in
inappropriate.
. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
. An addition that covers historically significant features in inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
. 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.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
. 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.
. A 1 story connector is preferred.
. The connector should be a minimum .of 10 feet long between the addition and the
primary building.
. 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.
. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate
. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
. Set back an addition from primary fayade 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 ofthe historic building.
. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate
. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs
9
Exhibit B P 59
June 13,2007
Staff Memo
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important features.
. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be
avoided.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
. They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
. On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
10
Page I of 3
P60
scott bartleet
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"scott bartleet" <bartleet@comcast.net>
"Sara Adams" <saraa@ci.aspen.co.us>
"David Daniels" <David.Daniels@escusa.com>; "Mike Peppers" <mike@mikaconstruction.com>
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 1 :23 PM
revhpcdrawings.pdf
Re: 980 gibson avenue
Sara,
Please find attached the revised drawings to reflect the following changes as requested at our conceptual HPC
hearing:
1. Reposition the building on the site so that the rear glazing of the building is no more than 3' away from the
boundary.
(Please note however that the roof overhang to the garage extends to the zero lot line as indicated in the siteplan)
2. Amend the massing of the upper level link to continue the glazing around the facade
We have included an additional 3D drawings (dwg #08) to reflect our design proposal with respect to this item
3. Address the proximity of the Iightwell to the historical cottage west wall.
We have pulled this back from the cottage by 3' to allow the stone base to the cottage to be expressed.
Please note the drawings 05,06 + 07 did not change and were therefore not reprinted.
We have arranged for 8 copies to be delivered to yoru office today.
We look forward to presenting these changes at the next HPC meeting - if you could send us an email to indicate
which agenda item we are, that would be appreciated.
Please dont hesitate to contact me on 928 0693 if you have pny question in relation to any of the above items.
With thanks,
Scott Bartleet.
__m Original Message _m_
From: Sara Adams
To: scott bartleet
Cc: David Daniels; Mike Pepoers
Sent: Monday, June 18,20075:15 PM
Subject: RE: 980 gibson avenue
Hi Scott: The next meeting is a week from Wednesday- June 27th I think. You do not need to repost. I will need info this
week, by tomorrow night at the latest- I have to write a staff memo and get the info to the clerk by Thursday am. All you
need to do is address the issues that HPC raised last week. Thanks! Sara
-m-Original Message-----
From: scott bartleet [mailto:bartleet@comcast.net)
Sent: Mon 6/18/2007 3:03 PM
6/20/2007
~
- C
D X
,
"
D
.
>
n
o
o
>
D
o
G)
to
en
V> 0
::;: Z
(])
-0 )>
Q
::l <
m
z
c
m
~ n
fl- 0
.. z
'On
'" m
11- ""'0
_ -i
. c
<1)>
r-
N
00
~m
" on
o -
NG)
8z
~
o
"
"
,
'"
,
'"
,
,
'"
41-</
1'0
1y~t2
Ss
D
I?/v
t2
r
o
-l
'''.
".
.....
)>
-'---
""',.,
'-',,-
"
\
\8
----
".
,
".
\
\\
\
\
I
I
I
i
\
\
\
I
01
I
&--/
I
I
I
I
"
r
o
-l
.....
to
'"
" /
,(
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
,
"
"
".
".
",
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
"
".
'.
'.
".
".
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
980 GIBSON AVENUE
-.,
c
><
~
<
"
~
>
"
o
o
o
>
o
o
~ n
~ ~
~()
II~
-l
Ii c
)>
r
~
00
~ m
'5 '"
~0
8z
~
o
... "
-"Gl OJ
r;u )>
00
Oen CIl
;Uen m
>> s::
;u;u m
~~ z
\I \I -l
~~ r
"'0>
0l0l m
1Il 0 <
_1Il
_-!> m
~ r
0
CD
X
U
0
1Il
CD
c.
:E
!11,
"
....
~
0
@
\
\
\
6V
\
\
,.,,/"
/
,,-t.....
./" I
@-,.
\
"
c
I)l
~
5
c
z
"
m
~
I
~ ()
0
~
~ ~
N- O
~ ~"
. :> 0
~s: ~
~I)l
~
0
0
s:
:>
<
~
0
0
s:
G
J;.
,
.t,
r;:;-.,
\~y
f-
"
~~
~~
xo
~o
~s:
~
~
I~'-~.
lr-2"
,.
980 GIBSON AVENUE
A \:-L)L~! r'(''\! {'^\D A r-\(~
-.,
c
x
.
>
.~
n
o
o
>
o
o
~ ()
~ 0
.. z
~()
II: CH
-e -l
Q C
')>
,
"
00
~ m
5 V>
m -
" Gl
8z
~
o
~ .
-n G'l :s::
5el)>
O(fJ Z
;U(fJ
)>)> -n
;u;ur
mm 0
)>)>
"" 0
;U
"U
~
'#-Z
~ ~
"'00
........
Nw
~ Jq,
Cl>
X
"
o
lJ>
Cl>
C.
:;;
!g,
"
00
to
?f'.
(~\
\...:/
--
-
- --\
\
"
'.
""'"
"
"
\
-
r-
.-...-"-
8-
G-}
(0}-.
\
(~<
\
,
"
\
\
./
,
\
,
,
,
I
,
! -'
,.
.,,'1
~
c
a
81
~
i:
c
z
a
'1
,
a
m
"'
"
w~
. ~
~n
~m
()
r
o
"'
"I
I,
::@
,
,
~
r
m
'1
::@
i
!
~a
~-
. ,.;
~Z
WGl
::@
,
.1'"
I
i
"",.. ......1.....
"",,-,
"".
...
-"-
\
@:: '\
\
@::
c
"
a
z
~r
~$
~z
mOO
--'"
""'.
.
".
-:)
{~
\
\
\1
r
iO
I
~
,
I I l I
! I
~~ I
'~'.4. IT-14- ,
, (;:.,\ (,L
(~, ~\
".
.,
",-,,,,-
-"-
\~
\
~
"
\
\
980 GIBSON AVENUE
A Z'(1C~L; r-'rll i~C1 A r-,('"\
-n
C
><
>
~
n
o
o
>
o
o
n n
0 0
!if Z
- n
"l m
" -0
Ii -l
C
)>
,
"
" 0
~ m
c
, V>
m G)
"
8 z
~ 0
(0
f>
r:".''j
\.<
~\
,
\
\"".
~
\
\
\
\
/
...
,
\
\
\
\
,
\
\
\
r
m
~
~;
~
~
~
"'
~
~'"
w;o
x m
~'"
m"
;u
"
"
"
~
I
I
j I
.t
r .' ~.
1 l
\~'-I' !
~\ ;
r.L, fA'\
-}-
....n___}_.._~J---..---H
6'.1~. ~ 6'-\1'.
>li
,
~
Ir-11"
;
(,.j."
,
~
J:-
I
IJ
.. 1
,
"
q
,
I
---------'i<-
980 GIBSON AVENUE
~ -.,
:c
o
oX
;
"
"
<
;
>
-0
m
'"
V>
-0
m
()
-i
<:
m
n
o
o
>
"
o
('; ()
~o
.. z
So
o,m
u- """U
_ -i
-c
q )>
,
l:l 0
~ m
'5 V>
m -
g'" G)
~z
o
ex>
980 GIBSON AVENUE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:.
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE:
420 East Cooper Avenue- Rehabilitation of The Red Onion interior
DATE:
June 27, 2007
BACKGROUND HISTORY: The Red Onion, originally known as the "New Brick" or "The
Brick" and owned by T. Latta, was built in 1892. The name Latta is reflected in blue tile on the
floor as one enters the building (see photograph enclosed). Latta is reported to have furnished
the saloon with elegant fixtures, the most prominent feature being the wood bar and back bar
area, and the interior of "The Brick" was described by the Aspen Times as "the handsomest in
the west." Early patrons were men interested primarily in sports- hanging on the bar room walls
are photographs of sports figures from this time that are claimed to be acquaintances of Latta and
subsequent owner Tim Kelleher. Kelleher owned the building from the 1920s to the 1940s
during prohibition, operating it as a restaurant. In 1946 the restaurant was purchased and
renamed the Red Onion by John Litchfield who returned it to a bar/restaurant, and sold it in
1951. Since Litchfield there have been several owners: John Seiler, Sr., Werner Kuster and
partner Arnold Senn and later partner James Perry. Today the building is owned by Red Onion
Investors, LLC, represented by Garfield and Hecht.
ADDRESS: 420 East Cooper Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core
SUMMARY: In December of 2006, Aspen City Council placed a moratorium on obtaining a
building permit for interior work within the Commercial Core (Ordinance 51, Series of 2006).
City Council adopted an amendment to Ordinance 51 the following month to exempt historic
interiors from the moratorium under the condition that they preserve historic elements within the
interior, as identified by HPC Staff. I The HPC has an advisory role in the review process, and
shall make a recommendation to the Community Development Director regarding the
preservation of the interior elements identified below. Please note that there shall be no
restriction on interior demolition or improvements to the inside of the Red Onion except related
to the elements noted below. The space must remain a restaurant/bar in order to be exempt from
the current moratorium.
The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines do not address interior preservation, mainly because
the Aspen Municipal Code does not currently authorize local interior designations. The
I Exhibit A- Red Onion Building Agreement listing the historic elements identified for preservation.
I
preservation philosophy for interiors is similar, if not identical, to that for exterior landmarks.
The main area to focus a more strict view of preservation is the bar area. The bar, back bar and
tile flooring are intact in their original 19th century locations; and the three booth opposite the bar
(against the east wall) were constructed at least by the 1950's, as documented in photographs.
The rear and the front (near the window facing the pedestrian mall) of the Red Onion have been
heavily altered, which allows for an appropriate contemporary design in these areas.
Following are the specific agreements that have been made to date, and areas where staff
must make an administrative decision as to whether or not the issues have been resolved in
keeping with historic preservation policies so that a building permit can be issued. HPC
should be aware of these agreements and may comment if desired.
I Bar: The wood bar and the wood bar back are to be preserved.
Proposed treatment and staff recommendation: The permit represents that the bar will be
retained in place and refurbished as needed, which is appropriate. An extension to the bar was
constructed in the past and is proposed to be replaced with a more usable/well designed addition.
Staff has no concerns.
Historic Tile Flooring: The parties recognize that much of the tiling is cracked, otherwise
damaged, or aged beyond the point where it is practicable to save. Tiles that can be salvaged will
be. Other areas will need replacement tile that will be in keeping with the historic tile that is
salvaged. In the event it is determined that any of the historic tile otherwise capable of being
salvaged constitutes an environmental hazard (e.g. asbestos or lead), the parties will develop a
safe plan to utilize such tile in place without releases of hazardous substances or need for
remediation. If no feasible safe plan to utilize such tile in place can reasonably be developed,
there will be no obligation to salvage and such tile will be replaced in keeping with the historic
tile.
Proposed treatment and staff recommendation: The permit represents that the tile will be
salvaged and re-used if conditions permit, throughout the bar area (note that some of the
drawings conflict in terms of how much tile will be retained.) Staff will work with the applicant
to achieve as much rehabilitation as possible, which may include replication of some of the
flooring that is too deteriorated.
Entry Vestibule: The existing entrance vestibule will be renovated and restored and, to the
extent required, shall be brought into compliance with the International Building Code ("Code")
and accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Such compliance will
likely require some alterations to the existing exiting/entrance vestibule, but all alterations shall
be Code compliant and, where required, reviewed (i.e. administrative for the inside and HPC for
exterior) pursuant to the procedure set forth in this Agreement.
Proposed treatment and staff recommendation: The vestibule is to be retained and altered as
necessary to meet Code. The floor in this area will be ramped (with historic tile to be salvaged
and re-used), in order to eliminate the current threshold. Staff will work with the applicant on
any resulting modifications needed to the historic entry doors as a result ofthe ramp.
2
Mirror: The stained-glass mirror currently along the back wall will be retained, either in its
current or a different location.
Proposed treatment and staff recommendation: This element appears to have been moved
previously. Staff will work with the applicant to ensure that it remains a prominent feature of the
restaurant.
Wood doors: The wood doors against the west wall near the stairway to the basement will be
retained in their current or a different location and may be fixed or operable. If the location is
different, such different location shall be reviewed administratively pursuant to the procedures
set forth in this agreement.
Proposed treatment and staff recommendation: The doors are presumably in an original
location. Staff will work with the applicant to urge that they be retained in place.
Booths (end wall): The north booth historic wood end will be retained in its current or a
different location. If the location is different, such different location shall be reviewed
administratively pursuant to the procedures set forth in this agreement.
Proposed treatment and staff recommendation: It is not clear in the drawings whether this
existing wall is being retained. Staff will urge the applicant to do so.
Following are areas of the project where staff must seek an HPC recommendation to
determine whether or not the issues have been resolved in keeping with historic
preservation policies so that a building permit can be issued.
Party wall: The existing common wall between Units I and 2 (assumed to be brick) shall be
preserved with the exception of openings required by the restaurant. The openings will require
an engineered solution to maintain the structural integrity of the existing wall. The detailing of
any new structural solution shall be Code compliant. The disagreement of the parties relates
solely to the size of such openings. Both parties agree that openings are appropriate. Investors
proposes larger openings which are considered to be vital to the operation of the restaurant and to
the establishment of a visual as well as a circulatory connection between the units. The City
proposes small openings so as to preserve the small-size feeling of the original bar.
Proposed treatment and staff recommendation: Staff believes that openings required for
circulation are adequate and that opening up the wall by the current booths diminishes the sense
of scale provided by the current building width. We do not support this aspect of the proposal
and seek HPC's input.
Booths: The parties are unable to agree as to the preservation of the three (3) booths (but not the
tables) along the east wall of the bar area. There is no requirement to preserve the tables. The
parties agree the booths are not part of the original bar; the precise dating of their installation
does not appear possible, but they have been in place for a long period of time. Investors
3
proposes that the booths be replaced by banquettes which provide the restaurant operator with
needed flexibility for table seating in the bar area. The City maintains that the booths themselves
were important to the evolution of the interior. Investors maintains that, whatever importance
there may be to the booths, their preservation must give away to the needs of the restaurant
operation.
Proposed treatment and staff recommendation: Staff finds that the booths contribute to the
historic character of the bar and finds that they should be retained. The drawings indicate that
they will be placed in storage, however the new banquettes would clearly replace the booths for
the foreseeable future. There is flexibility to create banquettes or other seating configurations
throughout the remainder of the restaurant. The wainscoting, benches, trim, etc. associated with
the current booths all retain character that we believe is important to the history of this interior.
HPC input is needed.
Exterior
There are exterior changes proposed to doors and windows. Staff intends to handle this work as
a "Certificate of No Negative Effect," urging the owner to reverse previous alterations/undertake
restoration, to the greatest extent possible. This will include re-installing a transom over the
front door, and discussing the possibility of re-creating a secondary entry door that once existed
to the right of the main entry (even if this secondary door is not operable.) Numerous historic
photos are available to guide this restoration.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
. The HPC is asked to make recommendations to the Community Development
Department on the interior preservation areas described above.
. The HPC may continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional
information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.
Exhibits:
A.) Red Onion Building Agreement
B.) Photographs and information compiled by Staff in January, 2007
C.) Proposed Building Permit Plans
4
~\J(f"" Pt.
RED ONION BUILDING PERMIT AGREEMENT
This Agreement dated May \"*, 2007 is between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Colorado
municipal corporation ("City") whose address is 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 and Red
Onion Investors, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Investors") whose address is c/o
Garfield & Hecht, P.C., 601 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611.
RECITALS
A. Investors is the owner of the Red Onion Buildiog (the "Buildin!!") at 420 East Cooper,
Aspen, Colorado 81611, which is located io the CC Zone District.
B. The Buildiog exterior is historically designated pursuant to Ordinance No. 61, Series of 1992.
C. The Buildiog ioterior constitutes Unit 2 of the Red Onion Condominiums ("Unit 2").
D. The tenant currently occupying Unit 2 operates a bar and restaurant under the name "Red
Onion",
E. Ordinance No. 51, Series of2006: (i) imposes a moratorium on the acceptance by the City of
building pennit applications io the CC Zone District and (ii) sets forth certaio exemptions from the
moratorium.
F. . Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006 was amended by Ordinance No. z.-, , Series of 2007, on
12-11 Up, 2007. -
G. In accordance with exemption (n) of said Ordioance No. 51, as amended, Investors intends or
has applied (the "Application") to the City for a building permit to make improvements to the interior
of Unit 2 that will provide for the continued use thereof as a bar and restaurant by a new operator.
H. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the improvements that the City will allow
Investors to make: (i) to the interior of the Buildiog in connection with the granting of exemption (n),
(ii) to the Buildiog exterior which is historically designated, provided that exterior changes shall
require Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") approval unless the changes have no adverse
impact on the exterior (e.g., maiotenance and repairs) and (iii) to adjacent Unit 1 of the Red Onion
Condominiums ("Unit 1") as such improvements affect the Building (all collectively, the
"Imorovements").
WITNESSETH
1. REVIEW PROCESS. Any Application Investors shall submit to the City for interior
improvements to Unit 2 will provide for the continued use thereof as a bar and restaurant. The HPC
will have an advisory role regarding the Application and may make recommendations to the
Community Development Department. The Community Development Department will review the
Application and, subject to the appeal procedures set forth io Paragraph 8 below, make a final
determioation as to whether or not the Application (as supplemented by this Agreement) meets the
criteria of exemption (n).
2. AGREED BUlLDING IMPROVEMENTS. INTERIOR. The parties agree that the following
interior elements of the Building shall be preserved as set forth herein to the extent owned by
Investors:
a. The wood bar and the wood bar back; and
b. The historic tile flooring. The parties recognize that much of the tiling is
cracked, otherwise damaged or aged beyond the point where it is practicable
to save. Tiles that can be salvaged will be. Other areas will need
replacement tile that will be in keeping with the historic tile that is salvaged.
In the event it is determined that any of the historic tile otherwise capable of
being salvaged constitutes an environmental hazard (e.g., asbestos or lead),
the parties will develop a safe plan. to utilize such tile in place without
releases of hazardous substances or need for remediation. If no feasible safe
plan to utilize such tile in place can reasonably be developed, there will be
no obligation to salvage and such tile will be replaced in keeping with the
historic tile.
c. The existing entrance vestibule will be renovated and restored and, to the
extent required, shall be brought into compliance with the International
Building Code ("Code") and accessibility requirements of the Americans
With Disabilities Act. Such compliance will likely require some alterations
to the existing exiting entrance vestibule, but all alterations shall be Code
compliant and, where required, reviewed (i.e., administrative for the inside
and HPC for exterior) pursuant to the procedure set forth in this Agreement;
d. The stained-glass mirror currently along the back wall will be retained,
either in its current or a different location;
e. The wood doors against the west wall near the stairway to the basement will
be retained in their current or a different location and may be fixed or
operable. If the location is different, such different location shall be
reviewed administratively pursuant to the procedures set forth in this
Agreement; and
f. The north booth historic wood end will be retained in its current or a
different location. If the location is different, such different location shall be
reviewed administratively pursuant to the procedures set forth in this
Agreement.
3. UNRESOLVED BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS. INTERIOR. The parties are unable to agree
as to the preservation of certain interior elements described below and agree to submit such items to
the review process set forth in Paragraph 1 above.
a. The existing common wall between Units I and 2 (assumed to be brick)
shall be preserved with the exception of openings required by the
restaurant. The openings will require an engineered solution to maintain
the structural integrity of the existing wall. The detailing of any new
structural solution shall be Code compliant. The disagreement of the
parties relates solely to the size of such openings. Both parties agree that
openings are appropriate. Investors proposes larger openings which are
considered to be vital to the operation of the restaurant and to the
establishment a visual as well as circulatory connection between the units.
The City proposes smaller openings so as to preserve the small-size
feeling of the original bar.
b. The parties are unable to agree as to the preservation of the three (3)
booths (but not the tables) along the east wall of the bar area. There is no
requirement to preserve the tables. The parties agree the booths are not
part of the original bar; the precise dating of their installation does not
2
142361 9
appear possible, but they have been in place for a long period of time.
Investors proposes that the booths be replaced by banquettes which
provide the restaurant operator with needed flexibility for table seating in
the bar area. The City maintains that the booths themselves were
important to the evolution of the interior. Investors maintains that,
whatever importance there may be to the booths, their preservation must
give away to the needs of the restaurant operation.
4. PRESERVATION. Preservation of the interior elements identified in Paragraph 2 above
shall be documented by pre-construction photographs on file with the City and initialed by the parties.
In the course of any preservation and one or more of the elements identified in Paragraph 2 above may
be temporarily removed to make way for the interior demolition, improvements and/or to be repaired
or restored.
5. OWNERSHIP OF INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS. With respect to the interior elements of
the Building described in Paragraphs 2a. through 2f. above, Investors agrees that it shall, at Investors'
expense, assert and vigorously defend Investors' ownership thereof. Investors obligation hereunder
shall extend to defending its ownership through any trial. If, following said trial, any of said interior
elements are removed by an adverse third party that prevails in said litigation, Inventors shall not be in
default under this Agreement. Investors agrees that, prior to or during said trial, Investors will not
settle any third party claims except with the written consent of the City. Investors' obligation to
defend its ownership of said interior elements shall: (i) extend to defending any appeals where
Investors is the prevailing party in any trial and (ii) not extend to appealing any trial court judgment or
verdict where Investors is not the prevailing party.
6. OrnER INTERIOR ELEMENTS. Except as set forth in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 above and
subject to compliance with the Code, there shall be no restriction on interior demolition or
improvements to the inside of the Unit 2 provided such work is consistent with the use of the interior
space as a bar and restaurant.
7. BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS. EXTERIOR. The following exterior elements of the
Building shall be treated as set forth herein:
a. The existing awning in front of the Building is not historical and may be
removed;
b. The words "Red Onion" painted on the exterior of the east side of the
Building and the words "Red Onion" painted on the storefront of the
Building, while not original to structure, is considered historically significant
and will require HPC approval to change, remove or replace; and
c. Such minimal intrusions into the Building exterior as may be needed to
bring the interior into compliance with the Code, including a water line for
an interior sprink1er system for fire protection and for utility upgrades, air
handling and the like. Aoy such proposed intrusions shall be first submitted
to the City's Historic Preservation Officer who may issue a Certificate Of
No Negative Effect to allow the work or may refer the proposed work to
HPC for approval.
8. COMPLETION DATE. Subject to the existing tenant in the Building timely vacating at
the expiration of its lease on or before March 30. 2007 and subject further to any unanticipated delays
resulting from the City processing and/or issuing building pennits in accordance with this Agreement,
conducting inspections, approving change orders consistent with this Agreement or the City's refusal
to issue or transfer the existing liquor license or delays in obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy,
3
142361 9
Investors shall, with respect to Unit 2, make all reasonable efforts to the complete construction
described herein and cause the new tenant restaurant operator to complete its leasehold improvements
and open for business on or before December 20, 2007.
9. UNIT I RED ONION CONDOMINIUMS. Unit I of Red Onion Condominiums which
historically had been part of the Red Onion Restaurant is currently occupied by the Omnibus Gallery
whose lease expires October I, 2007. The City and Investors agree that: (i) the building which
comprises said Unit I is not historic or of historic significance, either inside or outside and (ii) interior
changes from its present use as a gallery to a bar and restaurant operation directly involves and is
physically connected to preservation efforts regarding the historically designated Red Onion Building.
Investors has leased this gallery space to the new restaurant operator to be included as part of the bar
and restaurant. Subject to existing tenant in Unit I timely vacating and the other contingencies
described in Paragraph 8 above, Investors will make all reasonable efforts to complete construction
and cause the new restaurant operator to complete its leasehold improvements and open for business
in both of Units 1 and 2 on or before December 20, 2007.
10. INVESTORS' OBLIGATIONS NOT CONDITIONAL ON OPERATOR. Investors has
disclosed to the City that, at time of the execution of this Agreement by the parties, Investors has not
obtained a new operator for the Red Onion bar and restaurant. Investors agrees that its obligations
under this Agreement, with respect to the improvements to be made to the interior of Unit 2 to provide
for the continued use thereof as a bar and restaurant, shall not be conditioned on whether or not (or
when) said operator is obtained. In other words, no failure by Investors to obtain an operator shall
excuse Investors from performing its obligations under this Agreement with respect to Unit 2 except
for opening for business by December 20, 2007. The parties agree that the inclusion of Unit 1
(currently occupied by the Omnibus Gallery) as part of the Red Onion bar and restaurant is not a
requirement of this Agreement, and such inclusion shall be solely at the option of Investors. However,
if Investors does include said Unit I, such inclusion must occur in accordance with and subject to this
Agreement.
11. DISPUTE REsOLUTION. In the course of the construction described herein, the parties
recognize that compliance with this Agreement by Investors may require subjective or aesthetic
determinations. by the City regarding the preservation of the historical elements of the inside of Unit 2.
It is in the mutual interest of the parties to establish a procedure where any disagreements regarding
such compliance will be promptly resolved by a disinterested third party. The parties hereby agree
that the City Manager shall be appointed to arbitrate and provide in writing a decision binding on the
parties with respect to any disputes that may arise regarding the preservation of the historical elements
of the inside of Unit 2 in accordance with this Agreement. The arbitrator shall render its written
decision within four (4) business days after receipt of a written request by either party for the issue(s)
in dispute to be arbitrated. Any request for arbitration shall be in writing setting forth the issue(s) in
dispute and a copy of such request shall be provided to other party via fax. Within two (2) business
days thereafter the other party may submit, via fax, to the arbitrator (and the party first requesting the
arbitration) any responses it shall desire to make to the request for arbitration. The decision of the
arbitrator shall be binding on the parties, and the non-prevailing party shall pay all costs of the
arbitration. The arbitration decision shall be in writing with copies provided to all parties.
12. No ADMISSION REGARDING ORDINANCE No. 51. ETC The fact that Investors has
entered into (or shall subsequently perform under) this Agreement shall not be construed as any
admission on the part of Investors as to legality of the said Ordinance No. 51. Investors' actions under
this Agreement shall be without prejudice to its rights now or in the future with respect to said
Ordinance No. 51. Except for purposes of the Application, and the building permit to be issued
thereunder, nothing herein shall permanently bind Investors to any particular use of Unit I and/or Unit
2. Nothing in this Agreement shall require Investors to make any of the Improvements; but, in the
event Investors desires to proceed with such Improvements, all work thereon shall be performed in
accordance with this Agreement. Whenever this Agreement refers to any official action to be taken by
4
142361 9
HPC (i.e., Paragraphs 7.b. and 7.c.), Investors reserves all rights of appeal as allowed under applicable
laws. Whenever this Agreement refers to only an advisory role on the part of HPC (i.e., Paragraph 1),
Investors agrees that its remedy shall be limited to review by the Community Development
Department and subsequent arbitration by the City Manager as set forth above.
13. MISCELLANEOUS.
a. Entire AlITeement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among
the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all other
prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.
b. Amendments. This Agreement may not be modified, amended, altered or
supplemented, except upon the execution and delivery of a written
agreement executed by the parties hereto and Lender.
c. Notices. All notices, requests, claims, demands and other communications
hereunder shall be in writing and shall be given (and shall be deemed to
have been duly received if so be given) by hand delivery or telecopy, or by
mail (registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested)
or by any courier service, such as Federal Express, providing proof of
delivery.
d. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
e. Counteroarts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, any of
which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which shall constitute one
and the same Agreement, and shall become effective when one or more
counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the
other parties, including by facsimile, it being understood that all parties need
not sign the same counterpart.
f. Descriptive Headings. The descriptive headings used herein are inserted for
convenience or reference only and are not intended to be part of or to affect
the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.
g. Force Maieure. Any prevention, delay or stoppage due to strikes, lockouts,
labor disputes, acts of god, acts of war or terrorism, inability to obtain
services, labor, or materials or reasonable substitutes therefore,
governmental actions, civil commotions, fire or other casualty, in each case
if due to a cause beyond the reasonable control of the party obligated to
perform shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
Agreement, excuse the performance of such party for a period equal to any
such prevention, delay or stoppage and, therefore, if this Agreement
specifies a time period for performance of an obligation of either party, that
time period shall be extended by the period of any delay in such party's
performance caused by force majeure.
h. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding on the parties hereto, their
successors and assigns. This Agreement is intended to supplement the
Application and is not intended to be a lien, cloud or encumbrance on
Investors' title to said Units 1 or 2 and shall not be recorded in the real estate
records as a document affecting title.
5
142361_9
I. Attornevs' Fees. 10 the event of any litigation arising out of this Agreement,
the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs incurred in such litigation.
10 Witness Whereof, the parties have agreed to this Agreement the day and year first written
above.
City:
The City of Aspen, Colorado
a Colorado municipal corporation
Red Onion lovestors, LLC
a Colorado limited liability company
BY: RED ONION MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, a Colorado corporation
Its Managing Partoer
By: ~ I/~/
Title: ~ f-i:f "'te\ /j v
J A~ST: / .'
o ~. f(il&~,.- c;;,.k:/c4~"y{ (/v-
<tf/!.;JNl Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
By~
7-_
~
Aodrew V. Hecht, President
6
142361 9
BAR AND BACK BAR DETAILS:
~}(H1P,IT 1?
...... jj.ll;.. ~-- . .
. . ...... .:~ .;.;).
,<~~
._, ""- WOOD DETAILS OF THE BAR ANQ
"' BACKBAR IN GOOD CONDITION
,-.:Ii
..;;-. -,,~ ..;.--
" ..,____:..,:..t~-:':'c-'
RED ONION INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS
1/9/07
BAR EXTENSION:
RED ONION INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS
1/9/07
THIS PHOTOGRAPH
DEPICTS THE ORiGI-
NAL LENGTH OF THE
BAR BUILDING
PERMIT RECORDS
STATE THAT iT WAS
EXTENDED IN 1980.
THE IMAGE BELOW
. SHOWS THE DIVISION
OF NEW AND OLD
BAR
THREE SIDE BOOTHS:
. IMAGES OF THE BOOTHS ALONG
THE EAST WALL IN THE BAR
AREA
THE WAINSCOTTING AND TILE
MATCH THE REST OF THE BAR
AREA A BUILDING PERMIT
FROM 1981 STATES THAT THEY
WERE REBUILT- HOWEVER, THE
WAINSCOTTING STYLE AND THE
CONFIGURATION MATCH THE
REST OF THE RESTAURANT.
MORE INVASIVE INVESTIGATION
IS NECESSARY FOR A DEFINI-
TIVE ANSWER.
..
THE TILE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE FIRST
TWO BOOTHS CLOSEST TO THE DOOR.
.. THE TABLETOPS ARE NOT HIS-
TORIC.
WAINSCOTTING IN THE BOOTH AND
ON THE WALL BEHIND THE BOOTH
MATCH THE REST OF THE INTERIOR
TILE CARRIES UNDERNEATH THE BOOTH
NEAREST TO THE STAIRWAY.
RED ONION INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS
1/9/07
DOOR AGAINST THE WEST WALL:
DOOR AGAINSTTHE WEST WALL NEAR THE STAIRWAY
TO THE BASEMENT. THIS APPEARS TO BE THE DOOR
THAT LEAD TO THE ADJACENT RED ONION SPACE.
MORE INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED FOR CONFIRMA-
TION.
RED ONION INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS
1/9/07
ENTRANCE:
THE MOLDING IN THE FOYER CARRIES A SIMILAR PATTERN
AS THAT FOUND THROUGHOUTTHE BAR AND RESTAU-
RANT.THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS LOOKING THROUGH THE .
WINDOW TOWARD THE WEST WALL.
THE MIRROR LOCATED IN THE THIRD BOOTH,
CLOSESTTO THE STAIRWAY, IS VERY OLD. WE DO
NOT HAVE ANY OLD PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS AREA
OFTHE BAR- BUTTHE WOOD CARVING STYLE AND
MIRROR ARE INDICATIVE OF A MUCH EARLIER
PERIOD.
RED ONION INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS
1/9/07
MIRROR DETAILS:
THIS MIRROR IS CURRENTLY LOCATED AT
THE REAR OFTHE RESTAURANT ALONG
THE EAST WALL.
AN OLD PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS WHAT
APPEARS TO BE THE SAME MIRROR
AGAINSTTHE WALL THAT USED TO DIVIDE
THE BAR AND RESTAURANT/ NIGHT CLUB
AREA.
RED ONION INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS
1/9/07
TILE FLOOR:
TILE AT THE FRONT DOOR
IS IN GOOD CONDITION,
1/8/07
oj!(,
~J.
1''1, .
_ '''"i "~""
....
....... ',,'
,. -(\:- ..
..
..'.
I
t... .-.
OLD PHOTOGRAPH OF TILE,
COURTESY OF AHS
LOOKING TOWARD THE BOOTHS,
1/8/07
..
LOOKING TOWARD THE DOOR,
1/8/07
RED ONION INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS
1/9/07
WAINSCOTTING:
...
WOOD WAINSCOTTING IS FOUND THROUGHOUT
THE ENTIRE BAR AND RESTAURANT AREA. IT
REMAINS CONSISTENT IN STYLE AND DIMENSION,
WITH THE EXEPTION OFTHE AREA JUST WITHIN
THE ENTRANCE DOOR ON THE EAST, AND POR-
TIONS OF THE BAR AREA TO THE WEST, NEAR THE
STOREFRONT WINDOW- WHERE A LARGE U-
SHAPED BOOTH WAS ONCE LOCATED.
~~,......'
-plt;-I
~ry
. ';, '::::;;;;;;::::
,.;-: .............
...-...,......
..... ........~......
. ....................
....................
.............,....-
..........,............
;;; !lnnWjmflflge
RED ONION INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS
1/9/07