Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20071212ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGUALR MEETING December 12, 2007 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISIT: NOON - I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes -November 14`h and November 28`h 2007 III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #43) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 604 W. Main Street -Major Develop ent cont'd from 11/142007 (20 min.) ~'~ ~ So ~~ 3 ~ ~ ! IX. NEW BUSINESS A. 311 ~'7~~~7. Main/- Mino/r Develop ent (45 min.) ~ + )~ `~~ ~'~-~ ~ `~~ h- 11--v~ i "J Gwt-c.u d B. 980 Gibson -Final -Public Hearing (1 hr.) ~' d~ ~" ~ ~ ~ a- 3 r ~., X. WORKSESSIONS A. None IX. ADJOURN 7:10 p.m. 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) 507 Gillespie 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 Q Meadows 233 W. Main (Innsbruck) Alison Agley 529 W. Francis 214 East Bleeker Street (historic house) 205 S. Mill Street (Bruno's Deck) 710 N. Third Boomerang 501 W. Main Street (Christiana) 214 East Bleeker (new house) 520 E. Durant (Ajax Bldg) P4 CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS THAT HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL REVIEW: 508 E. Cooper (Cooper St. Pier Redevelopment)- (July 12, 2006) extended 6 months ~a. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: 604 West Main Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Commercial Design Standards Review, Variances continued public heazing DATE: December 12, 2007 SUMMARY: The subject property is a 9,000 square foot lot located within the Main Street Historic District. There are currently five buildings on the property: a circa 1880s historic miner's cabin that fronts Main Street (the Rebecca Wylie house) and 1880s outbuilding/bazn located along the alley and Fifth Street, a 19~' century shed straddling the property line between 604 and 612 West Main Street, and two 1950s structures located in the northwestern portion of the pazcel. The applicant is interested in developing the property to include Commercial and Affordable Housing uses- no free market residential units are proposed. The applicant requests the following: ^ Major Development Conceptual Review ^ Commercial Design Standazd Review ^ Demolition of two 1950s buildings ^ Relocation of the primary historic residence and a 19`h century shed ^ Dimensional Vaziances On November 14, 2007, HPC continued the application for a restudy of the height and massing of the Fifth Street building design. Overall, the relocation, variances and demolition requests seemed appropriate to HPC, as well as, maintaining the pazking space adjacent to the art barn. The Staff memo only discusses the Fifth Street building design because it was the only unresolved issue at the November 14`h meeting. Staff included the memo from November 14`h as an exhibit for reference. Staff appreciates the compromises that the applicant has made to comply with the HP Design Guidelines and finds that this proposal meets the goals of the Main Street Historic District. Staff recommends approval. APPLICANT: 604 West LLC, c/o Neil Karbank, Manager, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services. P5 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-44-008. P6 ADDRESS: 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: MU, Mixed Use MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual fevel, is as jo[[ows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidefines 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 Ciry of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW HPC Conceptual review focuses on the height, sca]e, 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, aze included in the memo. The following review encompasses both HPC Conceptual Review for Major Development and Commercial Design Objective and Guidelines at a Conceptual level. Please refer to the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines booklet- Chapter 7, Main Street Historic District. Height: The applicant has varied the height of the Fifth Street building by raising the flat roof to 22' for the section adjacent to the one story Wylie Building and 25' for the section closest to the Art Barn. Staff finds that stepping the height, as viewed from Main Street, successfully reduces the massing of the new commercial Fifth Street building. The proposal is under the maximum height limit of 28' for the Main Street Historic District. Staff finds that the proposed heights aze appropriate for the site and meet guideline 7.13 below: 2 P7 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and vaziation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • A minimum second story floor to ceiling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is respectful to historic buildings. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another azea may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. Scale/Massing: The new building proposed for Fifth Street is in a challenging location between two small historic resources, and is visible from Main Street behind the primary Wylie building. The applicant considered HPC's comments at the November 14, 2007 meeting and simplified the front fagade design to two planes rather than three, which cleazly breaks the building into two rectangulaz modules. Staff finds that the criteria below are met. 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era. • Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. 7.15 On lazger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller "modules" that aze similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. • Other subordinate modules may be attached to the. primary building form. Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development Conceptual Review, Commercial Design Standazd Review, Demolition, Relocation and Dimensional Variances for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. The following setbacks aze granted for the Wylie House: 5 foot setback along Fifth Street, where 1 foot is provided and 6 feet is required for a corner ]ot with two front yards. 2. The following setbacks are granted for the Historic Barn: 6 feet sideyazd and 5 feet rearyazd setback along Fifth Street and the alley for the existing condition, where 0 feet is provided. 3. The following setbacks aze granted for the Historic Shed: 5 feet reaz yazd setback to relocate the historic shed onto 612 West Main Street. 0 feet is provided for the reaz yazd setback. 3 P8 4. Demolition is granted for the two 1950s structures. 5. Relocation is granted for the historic shed. 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. 9. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) yeaz 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 aone-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: Design Standards and Guidelines and Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines B: Staff memo dated November 14, 2007 C: HPC minutes dated November 14, 2007 D: Application Exhibit A• Relevant Design Standards and Guidelines Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: 9.5 Anew 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 the 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 ground level is inappropriate. ^ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines: Street Grid 7.1 Preserve the historic district's street plan. 4 P9 • Three distinct street grids intersect in the neighborhood (Main Street, side streets and alleys). This layout should be retained. Alleys 7.2 Maintain the traditional character and function of an alley where it exists. • Locate buildings and fences along the alley's edge to maintain its narrow width. • Paving alleys is strongly discouraged. • Closing an alley is inappropriate. Parking 7.3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the street. Visual impacts shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways: • Pazking shall be placed underground or in a structure wherever possible. • Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the property, behind the stmcture. • Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and landscaped to soften parking areas. 7.4 Underground parking access shall not have a negative impact on the character of the street. Underground pazking access shall be: • Located on a secondary street where feasible -except where alley access is feasible. • Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building facade. • Integrated into the building design. Setbacks & Building Alignment The pattern of principal and side street, as well as the alley, should be retained and enhanced. The predominant pattern and scale of development is varied but well defined. Building alignment varies along the street, but in larger buildings perpendicular ridge lines and street facing gables predominate. The slightly varying setbacks create an orchestrated visual vitality which, along with building scale, should be respected in further development. Mature trees also should be safeguazded. Comer sites present the scale of the building in a very public three dimensions. Particular attention to design and building configuration to accord with this scale and presence will be required. Site design features • Residential buildings have relatively uniform front-setbacks. Although front setbacks are not identical, the minimal variation creates a sense of rhythm along the street. • Lazger homes along Main Street generally have lazger front-setbacks, while the smaller miner cottages have smaller front-setbacks. • Larger residential units are generally located on multiple lots, and centered within the lots. • Side-setbacks of larger homes are often half-or full lot width. • Smaller homes have m;n;mal side-setbacks and fill most of the lot width. • Despite the vaziety in setback patterns between house sizes, houses generally are oriented towards the street, with their primary entrance facing the street. • Secondary structures are set towards the rear and sides of the lots along the alleys. 5 P10 Commercial units were historically located on corner lots and fronted the sidewalk. More recent commercial buildings are sited similazly to residential patterns. 7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns. • Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space. 7.6 Where a sidewalk exists, maintain its historic material and position. • Historically, sidewallcs were detached from the curb, and separated by a planting strip. 7.7 M;n;m;~.e the use of curb cuts along the street. • Provide auto access along an alley wherever possible. • New curb cuts are not permitted. • Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut. Site 7.8 Provide a walk to the primary building entry, perpendicular from the public sidewallc. Orientation 7.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. • The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. • A structure, or each street-facing unit in the case of a multifamily structure, should have a primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street. Building Alignment 7.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block historically during the mining era. • These include front yard ,side yard and reaz yazd setbacks. • Setbacks vary in some areas, but generally fall within an established range. A greater vaziety in setbacks is inappropriate in this context. • Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block. Secondary Structures 7.11 Locate a new secondary structure in a manner that is similar to those seen historically in the district. • Secondary structures should be placed along the alley edge. Building Form A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity along Main Street. In order to maintain this feature, a new building should have basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Overall facade proportions also should be in harmony with the context. 6 P11 The character of the roof is a major feature of historic buildings in the Main Street District. The similar roof forms contribute to the sense of visual continuity when repeated along the street. In each case, the roof pitch, its materials, size and orientation are all important to the overall character of the building. New construction should not break from this continuity. New structures and their roofs should be similar in character to their historic neighbors. Building Height, Mass & Scale The well-defined pattern of building height, mass and scale on Main Street should be preserved. Here the building spacing, scale, height and roof profiles create a design discipline for the form of future development. Larger buildings within the area should step down in scale next to residential units. 7.12 A new structure should step down in scale where it abuts a single story historic structure. 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • A minimum second story floor to cieling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is respectful to historic buildings. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. Building Scale 7.14 Design a new building to appeaz similar in scale to those in the district during the m;n;ng era. • Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. 7.15 On lazger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller "modules' that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. • Other subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form. 26.412.060 Commercial Design Standards. The following design standazds, in addition to the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging, and mixed-use development: A. Public 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 P12 entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of--way or private property within commercial azeas. On pazcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030 -Public Amenity, the following standazds shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the Public 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: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a vaziety of uses and activities to occur considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solaz access, view orientation, and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of--way aze encouraged. 3. The public amenity, and the design and operating chazacteristics 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. B. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building aze well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one building can detract from the. quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash azeas aze important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash, and recycle service azea shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standazds established by Section 26.575.060 Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Areas, unless otherwise established according to said section. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as a historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 3. Delivery service azeas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shazed facilities aze highly encouraged. 8 P13 4. Mechanical exhaust, including pazking gazage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as faz away from the Street as practical. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shal] be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a pazapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of--way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 9 P14 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, VARIANCES AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 604 WEST MAIN STREET, LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 24, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-44-008. WHEREAS, the applicant 604 West LLC, c/o Neil Karbank, Manager, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, has requested Major bevelopment (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, Variances, and Commercial Design Standazd Review for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, 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 any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazazd 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, a 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, azchitectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally for approval to demolish all of the followine criteria must be met: P15 a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the pazcel 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 of the area; and WHEREAS, for approval of relocation, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 1. It is considered anon-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 chaaacter of the historic district or pazcel 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 chaaacter 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, azchitectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally for approval to relocate all of the followin¢ 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 fmancial security. WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Standazds, according to Section 26.412.050 Review Criteria, an application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standazds or any deviation from the Standazds provides amore- appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particulaz standazd. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standazds. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but maybe used to justify a deviation from the Standazds. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial P16 Design standazds, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this section. . C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standazds and guidelines that aze to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standazds and guidelines. Although these criteria, standazds and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback vaziances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.1 10.C of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance: a. Is similaz 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 azchitectural chazacter of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated December 12, 2007, performed an analysis of the application based on the standazds, 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 regulaz meeting on December ]2, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standazds 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 Commercial Design Standazd Review (Conceptual) for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions; 1. The following setbacks aze granted for the Wylie House: 5 foot setback along Fifh Street, where 1 foot is provided and 6 feet is required for a comer lot with two front yazds. 2. The following setbacks aze granted for the Historic Barn: 6 feet sideyazd and 5 feet rearyazd setback along Fifth Street and the alley for the existing condition, where 0 feet is provided. P17 3. The following setbacks aze granted for the Historic Shed: 5 feet rear yard setback to relocate the historic shed onto 612 West Main Street. 0 feet is provided for the reaz yazd setback. 4. Commercial Design Standard Review is granted regazding Pedestrian Amenity Space and Trash and Utility azeas. 5. Demolition is granted for the two 1950s structures. 6. Relocation is granted for the historic shed. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 10. 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 aone-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 12th day of December 2007. Approved as to Form: James R. True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P18 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: 604 West Main Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Commercial Design Standazds Review, Variances DATE: November 14, 2007 SUMMARY: The subject property is a 9,000 square foot lot located within the Main Street Historic District. There are currently five buildings on the property: a circa 1880s historic miner's cabin that fronts Main Street (the Rebecca Wylie house) and 1880s outbuilding/barn located along the alley and Fifth Street, a 19`h century shed straddling the property line between 604 and 612 West Main Street, and two 1950s structures located in the northwestern portion of the pazcel. The applicant is interested in developing the property to include Commercial and Affordable Housing uses- no free market residential units aze proposed. The proposed design is approximately .85:1, where l:l is the maximum cumulative FAR for the Mixed Use zone district. The applicant requests the following: • Major Development Conceptual Review • Commercial Design Standazd Review ^ Demolition of two 1950s buildings • Relocation of the primary historic residence and a 19`h century shed ^ Dimensional Variances On October 10, 2007, HPC continued the application for a restudy of the Fifth Street building design in relation to the historic resources; remove the roof deck; and restudy the distance proposed between the buildings onsite. Overall, the relocation and demolition requests seemed appropriate to HPC, as well as, maintaining the pazking space adjacent to the art barn. Staff finds that the project has greatly improved by removing the roof deck. Staff recommends that that applicant continue to restudy the relationship of the new Fifth Street building with the historic resources to create better continuity along the block face. APPLICANT: 604 West LLC, c/o Neil Kazbank, Manager, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-44-008. 1 Exhibit B Staff Memo November 14, 2007 P19 ADDRESS: 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: MU, Mixed Use 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. Thu 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: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions aze likely to be the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time): 1. Why is the property significant? This property features a typical Victorian era miner's cottage built for Rebecca Wylie and two 19~' century accessory structures- a bazn structure located at the corner of Fifth Street and the alley, and a shed straddling the west property line. The main distinction of this property from other historic landmazks in Aspen, especially along the Main Street corridor, is the collection of three historic structures from the same era in their original locations. See Exhibit B for a copy of this block from a 1904 Sanbome map. 2. What are the key features of the property? The Wylie residence conveys the typical form of the era with a gable end facing the street and a front porch across the front fapade. The barn along the alley and Fifth Street represents a common one and a half story gable roof accessory building, and the shed that straddles the property line is a deteriorated small wood shed. The historic resources have been altered over time, but rehabilitation and restoration are feasible. 3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? 2 Exhibit B Staff Memo November 14, 2007 P20 The property is located in Aspen's Main Street Historic District, which is under the purview of HPC. Adjacent to 604 West Main aze two designated miner's cottages, and directly across the alley to the north aze two designated miner's cottages. 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? The applicant proposes to rehabilitate and restore all three historic structures on the property, which will greatly increase the integrity assessment score. Moving the historic residence and the shed will decrease the property's integrity score. 4. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? The applicant proposes a total floor azea of 7,600 squaze feet where 9,000 square feet is allowed by Code. In terms of future development potential, 1,400 square feet of unbuilt floor area will remain on the property and the property is still eligible for the 500 square foot FAR Bonus incentive offered to historic landmarks. DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW HPC 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, aze included in the memo. The following review encompasses both HPC Conceptual Review for Major Development and Commercial Design Objective and Guidelines at a Conceptual level. Please refer to the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines booklet- Chapter 7. Main Street Historic District. Site planning: In order to increase the distance between buildings onsite and highlight the historic resources, the applicant proposes to move the Wylie house within one foot of the east lot line. The Art Barn is located on the east and north lot lines, with zero setbacks. Staff finds that increasing the distance between buildings breaks up the development on the 9,000 squaze foot lot. The applicant proposes to retain the parking space adjacent to the historic Art Bam, accessed off of Fifth Street. Staff is concerned that the pazking space off of Fifth Street does not meet Guideline 7.3 below. The remainder of the parking spaces is accessed off of the alley, as recommended in the Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the applicant provide at ]east one ADA accessible pazking space on the site. 7.3 Pazking shall not be positioned between the building and the street. Visual impacts shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways: • Parking shall be placed underground or in a structure wherever possible. • Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the property, behind the structure. • Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and Height: The applicant has removed the rooftop deck and the elevator shafts, which bring the project into compliance with the height regulations. In fact, the proposed roof heights aze well 3 Exhibit B Staff Memo November 14, 2007 P21 under the 28 foot height maximum in the Mixed Use zone district. Staff finds that the proposed heights are annronriate for the site and meet guideline 7.13 below: 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • A minimum second story floor to ceiling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is respectful to historic buildings. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Depaztment) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. Scale/Massing: The proposed scale and massing of the new development fronting Main Street strikes a balance that is reminiscent of Main Street chazacter and contemporary architecture. At the request of HPC, the applicant removed the angular forms originally proposed for the new Main Street building. Staff finds that the one story element is sensitive to the context, and complies with Guideline 7.12: 7.12 A new structure should step down in scale where it abuts a single story historic structure The new building proposed for Fifth Street is in a challenging location between two small historic resources, and is visible from Main Street behind the primary Wylie building. During the October 10`h meeting, HPC directed the applicant to restudy the Fifth Street building to better relate to the adjacent historic architecture and play a subordinate role to the historic resources. HPC felt that the proposed contemporary azchitecture overshadowed the historic buildings and did not meet the Design Guidelines. The applicant changed the flat roof to a gable style roof to create a stronger relationship to the Mining era buildings. Staff is in favor of the gable roof form for this building, but recommends that the applicant restudy the pediment-like application of the gable. The scale and proportions of the Fifth Street building aze moving in the right direction with proposed horizontal and vertical modules, but Staff recommends that the design is pushed further to refine the modulation and proportions. The relevant guidelines are below: 4 Exhibit B Staff Memo November 14, 2007 P22 7.14 Design a new building to appeaz similaz in scale to those in the district during the mining era. • Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. 7.15 On larger structures; subdivide the mass into smaller "modules" that are similaz in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. • Other subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form. The proposed alley elevation is broken up in the center to minimize the visual impact of the second story mass. Staff finds that the flat roof and modulation proposed for the affordable housing units successfully breaks up the mass of the project by introducing a new roof form along the alley and maintaining a low height. Overall, Staff finds that the design proposal with a combination of flat and gable roof forms is moving in a positive direction. DEMOLITION The applicant proposes to demolish an existing detached structure located along the alley and South First Street. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazazd 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, azchaeological, 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 pazcel 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 of the area. Staff Response: The applicant requests approval to demolish two buildings built circa 1950, illustrated below. Staff finds that criterion d "no documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, azchitectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance" is met. The two subject buildings 5 Exhibit B Staff Memo November 14, 2007 P23 do not contribute to the significance of the pazcel or the Historic District, both of which represent Aspen's mining era. The loss of these buildings will not adversely affect the integrity of the district, the historic property, or the preservation needs of the area. Staff finds that the criteria aze met for demolition and recommends approval. RELOCATION The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 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 any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered anon-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 chazacter of the historic district or pazcel 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 Additionally for approval to relocate all of the followine criteria must be met: L 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: Shed: The historic 19ei century shed proposed for relocation currently straddles a lot line- between 604 and 612 West Main Street. Shoring and bracing aze in place to prevent the shed from collapse. The applicant owns both 604 and 612, and requests approval to relocate the shed to the 612 West Main Street property. Staff finds that the proposal to relocate the shed to the adjacent property is an Exhibit B Staff Memo November 14, 2007 P24 appropriate preservation method, which meets criterion 4. The shed is in its original location; however, it straddles a property line, which could create a complex issue regazding ownership and maintenance. Staff finds that it is appropriate to avoid this by relocating the shed entirely onto the 612 West Main property. Historic Preservation Design Guideline 9.3 states: 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic pazcel. ^ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. It will remain a contributing structure in the district and after it is relocated, and it will be rehabilitated as suggested in guideline 9.1 below. Staff recommends that the applicant produce an engineer assessment determining that the shed can be successfully relocated, and that the shed maintain its current orientation when it is moved. Staff finds that the criteria above aze met and recommends HPC approve relocation. 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. ^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ^ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not Residence: The applicant proposes to shift the primary residence towazd Main Street about 13 feet, which allows a ten foot (10') front yazd setback, and to the east about 14 feet, which allows a 1 foot setback. Staff finds that relocating the residence forwazd on the lot, towazd Main Street, is an acceptable preservation method that is consistent with the Design Guidelines that refer to minimal variation in front yazd setbacks on Main Street that create a sense of rhythm. While the best preservation method is to leave the historic resource in its original location, the criteria reference an "acceptable preservation method" that is compatible with the integrity of the Historic District while allowing for changes. The central location of the historic resource on the 9,000 squaze foot lot makes it difficult to construct new buildings that aze sensitive to the historic resources. Staff finds that relocation is appropriate in this case, and recommends that the applicant produce a document ensuring the ability to pick up and move the house. Staff also recommends that the 7 Exhibit B Staff Memo November 14, 2007 P25 current foundation height be documented prior to relocation, and replicated for both the shed and the residence. 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 setbacks, that relate to other historic structures in the area. 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. SETBACK VARIANCES The criteria for granting setback vaziances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code aze as follows: In granting a variance, the HPC must make a Ending 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 has reduced the original number of setback requests to the following: Wylie house: 5 foot setback along Fifth Street, where 1 foot is provided and 6 feet is required for a comer lot with two front yazds. Staff finds that this vaziance is necessary to provide ample space between buildings, which mitigates an adverse impact.on the historic district. Decreasing the Fifth Street setback emphasizes the subordinate role of the new Fifth Street building and brings the Wylie house into closer alignment with the Historic Art Barn, which has a 0 foot setback along Fifth Street. Historic bam: 6 feet sideyazd and 5 feet rearyazd setback along Fifth Street and the alley for the existing condition, where 0 feet is provided. The barn is in its original location- Staff finds that granting this vaziance meets both criteria above. g Exhibit B Staff Memo November 14, 2007 P26 Historic shed: 5 feet rear yazd setback to relocate the historic shed onto 612 West Main Street. 0 feet is provided for the reaz yard setback. Staff finds that the proposed location for the shed moves the resource the minimal amount required, and recommends approval of the variance. Distance between buildings: A distance of 10 feet is required between buildings on this site. A variance of approximately 4 and '/z feet (measured from the exterior wall of the stairwell to the exterior wall of the art barn) is requested for the distance between the historic bam and the new Fifth Street building. Staff finds that the vaziances mitigate an adverse impact on the historic district, which could result from a contemporary addition to the historic resources rather than a free standing new building. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 26.412.050 Review Criteria A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standazds or any deviation from the Standazds provides amore- appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standazd. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standazds. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standazds, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this section. . C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standazds and guidelines that aze to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standazds and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines aze relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where altemative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Response: The criteria aze listed in Exhibit A. Pedestrian Amenity Space: The applicant proposes 28% pedestrian amenity space onsite, where 25% is required. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Trash/Recycle/Utility Space: The applicant proposes trash and utility azeas that are accessible from the alleyway. The dumpster and recycling aze setback from the alleyway to minimize visual impacts. Staff finds that the standazd is met. Exhibit B Staff Memo November 14, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: 604 West Main Street- Setback clarification DATE: December 12, 2007 The following setbacks were not included in the HPC packet: SETBACK VARIANCES The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.I10.B of the Municipal Code aze 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, au adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: The applicant has reduced the original number of setback requests to the following: Fifth Street Building: The second floor deck extends three feet into the side yard setback. The Land Use Code permits the balcony to extend 2.2 feet into the setback. A var 0.8 feet is required. Staff finds that the balcony helps break up the mass of the new building, which mitigates an adverse impact on the historic resources. Criterion b is met. Affordable Housing Unit: The second floor affordable housing unit along the alley extends 2 feet into the required 5 feet rear yazd setback. Staff finds that the variance is appropriate for the site and meets criterion b. ***Conditions #2 and #3 of the updated Resolution address these setback vaziances. ~. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer 311 W. Main Street, Aspen Mountain Lodge- Minor Review December 10, 2007 SUMMARY: Aspen Mountain Lodge is anon-contributing building within the Main Street Historic District. The owner proposes limited new materials on the front facade of the building, new light fixtures and paint, and reconfiguration of the existing pool area with a hot tub and paving. Staff finds that the scope of work only warrants HPC confirmation that relevant guidelines for Minor Development are met, and the City's Commercial Design Standards aze not applicable. Staff recommends continuation, finding that the guidelines are not yet met. ~ APPLICANT: Robert Moms, Aspen Group, represented by Reno Smith Architects. ADDRESS: 311 W. Main Street, Lots E-I and the east half of Lot D, Block 45, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. 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 properly in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. P39 1 P40 Staff Response: Relevant HPC design guidelines aze attached as "Exhibit A." Much of the proposed project is related to the pool azea, which is screened from the street by an existing 6 foot tall solid fence. The pool is to be replaced with a hot tub, and new paving and fountains are proposed. While the guidelines call for front yazds to relate to the street, this azea has already been established as an amenity for the lodge and staff finds that the proposed work does not cause any further conflict with HPC guidelines. With regazd to the lodge building, some of the work is aimed at repair and repainting of existing materials. This is exempt from HPC review. HPC discussion is needed related to proposed changes to the front facade. The azchitect proposes applying a band of copper along the top of the building, like a cornice. Light fixtures aze to be installed along the length of this feature. The front door is to be replaced, and a new metal awning is to be installed. This building is azchitecturally unrelated to most others within the district and staff appreciates the owner's intent to create more compatibility with the adjacent buildings. The project is very minor in scope and attempts, in a very limited manner, to bring some materials related to adjacent redevelopment at The Innsbruck and Annabelle Inn, onto this facade. Copper, however, is not a typical wall material used in either of those projects, or in the district, so staff is not supportive of that particulaz choice and finds that it conflicts with guideline 12.7. 12.17 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. • When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest chazacter of historic materials and their placement. In addition, installing a row of lights across the cornice line of the building is not typical of the district and conflicts with guideline 14.7. The light fixtures themselves aze Craftsman style in chazacter and aze not particulazly related to the chazacter of this building. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. • Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upwazd will not be permitted. • Shield lighting associated with service azeas, pazking lots and pazking structures. • Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights aze in use late at night. • Do not wash an entire building facade in light. • Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. • Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. P41 We propose that the cornice material be restudied and that lighting, in the form of a different fixture, be restricted to the entry azea. We have no concerns with the replacement of the front door, however, the awning over the door has a barrel shape, which is not present on the existing building and is a foreign roof form within the historic district. We recommend a flat or shed form. Again, we recognize the attempt to make effective improvements to the building, but suggest these be reconsidered to better meet the design guidelines. Continuation is recommended. DECISION MAHING 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 continue the application for restudy. Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines 12.17 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. • When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest chazacter of historic materials and their placement. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. • The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. • All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. • Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upwazd will not be permitted.. • Shield lighting associated with service azeas, pazking lots and pazking structures. • Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights aze in use late at night. 3 P42 • Do not wash an entire building facade in light. • Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. • Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. • Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. • Lighting shall be cazefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-ofway. ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE; 980 Gibson Avenue, Major Development Review (Final) DATE: December 12, 2007 SUMMARY: The subject property is located at 980 Gibson Avenue, neaz 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 1B recently completed a reaz addition to the historic resource. The application before HPC is for Lot IA, which contains a historic 1880s miner's cabin that was moved to its current location from an unknown lot. The front fagade 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 caz port. During Conceptual Review HPC approved the relocation of the cabin, demolition of the non- historic addition and carport, setback vaziances and the Residential Design Standazds for the new addition. A 221 squaze foot FAR Bonus was granted for the new addition. Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for further restudy. APPLICANT: MDI, LLC, 109 ABC, Aspen, CO 91612, representeu by Scott tsarueei ui riun 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 restriction in the Alpine Acres Subdivision Agreement. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the P43 1 P44 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: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project: 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 plan, front gable/ porch relationship. 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 miner's cabins aze 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 proposes to add a front porch and an addition that will meet 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 development before HPC. Design Guideline review Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those which staff finds warrant discussion aze included in the memo. Changes from Conceptual The applicant proposes a different roof form for the gazage structure than that approved during Conceptual Review. The roof form proposed in this application breaks up the side shed roof (southwest comer of the project) and adds a second floor balcony. Staff finds that the changes to 2 P45 the garage form push the mass away from the historic resource, which improves the overall project. The footprint of the garage does not change from that approved at Conceptual Review. Final Review Landscape Plan: The applicant does not propose a landscape plan at this time. A stone clad retaining wall is proposed for the southeast portion of the property. Staff prefers to leave the site more natural and soft without a rock wall, but if the retaining wall is required due to site sloping issues, then it is appropriate. Staff recommends that the landscape plan be approved by staff and monitor. Li htin : Staff finds that the lighting fixtures proposed for the historic residence and new addition aze simple and meet guideline 14.6 below: 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. ^ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. ^ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. Fenestration: The applicant proposes a vaziety of window shapes and glazing for the new addition. While the fenestration conveys a distinction between new and old construction, Staff is concemed that the contemporary glazing blurs the relationship with the simple historic residence. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the windows to simplify and relate, in a subordinate .~,~., r~ the histnric resource. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ^ These include windows, doors and porches. ^ Overall, details should be modest in chazacter. Materials: The applicant proposes primarily wood siding for the addition with a stone chimney on the addition and the historic home. A corrugated metal roof (rusted) is proposed for the new addition and wood shingles aze proposed for historic home. The roof material of the new addition is cleazly visible behind the historic home. Staff is concemed that the style of the corrugated metal is not appropriate in relation to the wood shingle dimensions and the Guidelines below aze not entirely met: 3 P46 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ^ Materials that appeaz similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. ^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ^ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. Architectural Details: Historic Home: The applicant proposes a chimney for the historic home. Staff finds that this is inappropriate, especially since the applicant is restoring the historic home and HPC granted an FAR Bonus for rehabilitation. Unless the applicant can produce an historic photograph that documents a chimney on the historic home in that location, Staff recommends that HPC deny the request for a chimney. The applicant proposes double doors on the east elevation of the historic home. Staff finds that the doors are inappropriate and do not meet Guideline 3.2 below: 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. ^ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is acharacter-defining feature. ^ Greater flexibility in installing new windows maybe considered on rear walls. ^ Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primazy facades. _ Addition: Staff is concerned with the complexity of the double porch/deck element proposed for the front facade of the new addition. The historic front porch on the Victorian is very modest in detail and design. Staff finds that the new porch/deck element needs to be restudied and simplified to create a stronger relationship to the historic home. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • contiuue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for further restudy. 4 P47 Exhibits: A.) Relevant Design Guidelines B.) HPC Resolution #28 Series of 2007 C.) HPC Minutes from June 13, 2007 and June 27, 2007. D.) Approved Conceptual floor plans and elevations E.) Application "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 980 Gibson Avenue, Final Review' 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. ^ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is acharacter-defining feature. ^ Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on reaz walls. ^ Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a lazger window on primary facades. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in asingle-family context is strongly encouraged. ^ This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. ^ Use materials that appear similar to the original. ^ While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials maybe considered. ^ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similaz in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. ^ When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. ^ The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. ^ The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appeaz similar to those used historically as well. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the chazacter of the historic structure. ^ A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. ^ If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. ^ If the existing doors aze hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ^ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ^ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. ^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ^ These include windows, doors and porches. P48 ^ Overall, details should be modest in chazacter. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a pazt of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. ^ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which duect light upward will not be permitted. ^ Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. ^ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessazy sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. ^ Do not wash an entire building facade in light. ^ Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. ^ Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. ^ Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which duect light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. ^ Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of-way. 6