HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.hpc.043-2007RESOLUTION 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. 43, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-44-008.
WHEREAS, the applicant 604 West LLC, c/o Neil Kazbank, Manager, represented by Alan
Richman Planning Services, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation,
Demolition, Vaziances, and Commercial Design Standard 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, enlazged, 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 heazing 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 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 followine criteria must be met:
RECEPTION#: 545190, 12126!2007 at
10:15:16 AM,
1 OF 6, R $31.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
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 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 heazing 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 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 Hazdship; 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:
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.
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Standards, 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 Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-
appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is
proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a
deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design
Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standazds.
B. 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. 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, standards and guidelines that
are 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 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 heazing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 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 azchitectural
character 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 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 regulaz meeting on December 12, 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 6 to 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition,
Relocation, Vaziances, and Commercial Design Standrsd 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 applicant shall reduce the overall maximum height of the Affordable Housing unit
and the Fifth Street new building by at least 1 foot.
2. A step shall be added to the roof of the porch element located on the south elevation of
the new building fronting Main Street.
3. HPC recommends against a sidewalk along the Fifth Street side of the pazcel to the Parks
and Engineering Departments. If the City requires a sidewalk, then the site plan,
pedestrian paths and parking space along Fifth Street shall be readdressed by HPC.
4. The following setbacks are granted for the historic Wylie House: 5 foot setback along
Fifth Street, where 1 foot is provided and 6 feet are required for a comer lot with two
front yazds, as attached in Exhibit A.
5. The following setback is granted for the second floor Affordable Housing Unit on the
alley: 5 feet setback along the alley, where 0 feet are provided and 5 feet are required, as
attached in Exhibit A.
6. The following setback is granted for the Fifth Street Building: a minimum setback from
the Fifth Street property line for the second story deck is 3 feet, as attached in Exhibit A.
7. The following setbacks are granted for the Historic Barn: 6 feet sideyard and 5 feet
rearyazd setback along Fifth Street and the alley for the existing condition, where 0 feet is
provided, as attached in Exhibit A.
8. The following setbacks are 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 rear yazd
setback, as attached in Exhibit A.
9. Commercial Design Standard Review is granted regarding Pedestrian Amenity Space
and Trash and Utility areas.
10. Demolition is granted for the two 1950s structures.
1 I .Relocation is granted for the historic shed.
12. The historic shed is permitted to be thoroughly documented, dismantled, and
reconstructed in its new location on the adjacent lot.
13. 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.
14. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the
structure must be submitted with the building permit application.
15. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected
during constmction must be submitted with the building permit application.
16. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such
an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date
for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
[signatures on following page]
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of December
2007.
Approved as to Form:
/~r.~------- ~.. -
~mes R. True, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTO P SF,RVATION COMMISSION
,I
~~
Michael Hoffman, hair
ATTEST:
Kathy Str'ckland, Chief Deputy Clerk
I1
e~~ ~g
_ _
4- -~ ~~ ~i~ ~~ ~~~~ ~
1.
~ rti
~
~' ~~
~' ~ i
I{
9
~ 11
90 ~ ~ ~
T'
_~ 2
~~
~
~- _i ~ ~
Cs ~
~
~ Q ~
~~ }
Ly
ry
i
~
~^IJ
Y
~ l
~
'-
s
~
~~ _
Y~ --
--- - -..._ 3 ~-`- ---~ ---..
~~ ~ 9 .~~ s.A~, ~
~v' ~
~.~
/~$~
&~
~~
3'
''- ~JI
1
it
"~ 3
~ ~'as ~~ ~~tE~ ii9a a Drn ~:; ~~
~ ~ i 3 ~ ~S ~ ~ g Uf ~ it
- I~ ~°1 ~ ~ mm 30 -
3=qj y
q m 'i i
I