HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080326P5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGUALR MEETING
March 26, 2008
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON -Isis, 406 E. Hopkins Ave.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes -
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #5)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. NONE
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 406 E. Hopkins Avenue (Isis), Minor Development and
View plane Review (45 min.)
B. 202 North Monarch Street -Major Development
Conceptual, Variances and Residential Design Standards -
(continued from 3/12)
X. WORK SESSIONS
A. None
IX. ADJOURN 7:00 p.m.
P6
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
A P9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis- Minor Review and Mountain View Plane Review
DATE: March 26, 2008
SUMMARY: The Isis Theater has three residential units on the roof. The unit closest to the
front of the structure is currently a 2,000 square foot home, with a proposed expansion of 500
square feet.
As part of the City's effort to retain the Isis as a viable theater, a commitment was made to
facilitate the applicant's desire to expand the subject unit (although the project must be found to
meet the historic preservation guidelines.) A code amendment was passed, allowing TDR's to
expand downtown residential unit sizes. The expansion does not add more allowable floor area
to the site, but rather allows individual units to go beyond the 2,000 square foot limitation that
currently exists. During review of this project it was recognized that another code amendment is
necessary, so that TDRs can be allowed to land on designated buildings (to expand unit size, not
FAR), which has not been the case.
Because of the rooftop location of this expansion, staff has determined that Minor Review is the
appropriate process. The board is also asked to evaluate a deck expansion and new railing, as
well as to make a determination as to whether the project negatively affects a protected view
plane which originates from the Hotel Jerome.
A site visit is planned for the day of the meeting in order to view story poles and amock-up
of the railing. In terms of the graphic information available at the time of staff review, we
find the addition to be appropriate in placement, however a restudy of it's height is
necessary to reduce impacts on the historic structure. In addition, we have concerns with
the possible visibility of the proposed deck railing, as well as the extent that use of the deck
may bring additional visual impacts along the front parapet wall. Restudy is
recommended, with the understanding that the site visit is likely to be very valuable in
understanding the degree of the concerns.
APPLICANT: Susanne Krevoy Separate Property Trust, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum
Phi.
PARCEL ID: 2737-07-330-010.
ADDRESS: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis Theater Condo Unit B, Block 87, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado.
P10
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the 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. 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 fnal unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: The proposed addition infills an open azea between the east side of the subject
unit and the stair tower. It is held back from the wall perimeter. The roof on the addition is
designed to align with the form and height already established by adjacent construction.
Materials and fenestration are similaz to existing.
At the time that the redevelopment of the Isis occurred, HPC spent substantial time focusing on
the rooftop development, and the need to make it secondary to the historic theater. Pulling the
unit in from the parapet walls was very important. Staff has some concern that this addition
diminishes the sense that there are minor spaces on the roof, and instead creates a long wall
across the Hopkins fagade. This is mitigated by the fact that the space is significantly recessed
from the street. We find that the project would better comply with the guidelines if the addition
was minimized in height, reducing it's visibility and the wall effect. Although the barrel roof
form is established, a flat section on the new construction would not be inappropriate. Relevant
guidelines aze:
10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that
of a historic building.
^ An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the
side.
^ Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic
ones on similar historic structures.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
^ If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similaz.
^ Eave lines on the addition should be similaz to those of the historic building or structure.
2
P11
13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form.
^ A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof
form.
^ Pazapets on side facades should step down towazds the reaz of the building.
^ False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
The project also includes a proposal to convert an existing raised planter into a deck surface,
right behind the historic parapet wall. The deck requires a 3'6" rail, which will be mostly hidden
by the parapet itself across the south, but not along the east and west sides. The application does
not contain enough information to evaluate the visual impact of this rail, but amock-up at the
site will be helpful. Staff is concerned with the rail (intended to be a cable rail) being a visible
modern element that conflicts with the historic chazacter of the building. In addition, we have
some concerns with the "furnishings" that might be used on the expanded deck. Again, when the
theater was redeveloped, holding back the rooftop construction was important to HPC. The
installation of the railing should not result in additional snow piling against the back of the
pazapet wall and deteriorating the masonry. Guidelines to note are:
2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition.
^ Original mortar that is in good condition should be preserved in place.
^Repoint only those mortar joints where there is evidence of a moisture problem or when
mortaz is missing.
^ Duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint width and profile.
^ Mortar joints should be cleazed with hand tools. Using electric saws and hammers to remove
mortaz can seriously damage the adjacent brick.
^ Do not use mortaz with a high portland cement content, which will be substantially hazder
than the brick and does not allow for expansion and contraction. The result is deterioration
of the brick itself.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building.
^ This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from
the street.
MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW
The building falls within the Main Street View Plane, which originates from the Hotel Jerome.
Because this project requires historic preservation review, evaluation of the impacts on the view
plane is being assigned to HPC rather than P&Z.
3
P12
Sec. 26.435.050. Mountain view plane review.
C. Mountain view plane review standazds. No development shall be permitted within a
mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that
the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below.
1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below.
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the
maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development
shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit
Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special
consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similazly to
permit variations in lot azea, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view
plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from
the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being
processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission
determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane.
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is
located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed
development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that
redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the
event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-
redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this
Section. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §22)
Staff Response: The addition does fall within the view plane, however the housing units across
the back of the Isis already intervene, so there is no new impact. Staff finds that an exemption is
appropriate.
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.
4
P13
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the height of the new addition be reduced, with
further direction to be provided based on the scheduled site visit. Similarly, the impact of the
railing must be discussed after viewing the mock-up.
View plane exemption approval is appropriate as proposed.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant APC Design Guidelines
1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
^ Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on
walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition.
o Original mortar that is in good condition should be preserved in place.
^ Repoint only those mortar joints where there is evidence of a moisture problem or when
mortaz is missing.
^ Duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint width and
profile.
^ Mortar joints should be cleared with hand tools. Using electric saws and hammers to
remove mortaz can seriously damage the adjacent brick.
^ Do not use mortar with a high portland cement content, which will be substantially hazder
than the brick and does not allow for expansion and contraction. The result is
deterioration of the brick itself.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic chazacter of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an eazlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
^ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles aze all techniques that may
be considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
5
P14
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
^ An addition that is lower than or similaz to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
^ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that
of a historic building.
^ An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on
the side.
^ Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic
ones on similar historic structures.
^ Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one
foot.
10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building.
^ This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen
from the street.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
^ If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
^ Eave lines on the addition should be similaz to those of the historic building or structure.
13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form.
^ A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the reaz of a site, should be the dominant roof form.
^ Pazapets on side facades should step down towards the reaz of the building.
^ False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
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 upward will not be
permitted.
^ Shield lighting associated with service azeas, parking lots and pazking structures.
6
P15
^ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
^ Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
o 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 azea.
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 carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off
the property or into public rights-of--way.
7
P16
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VIEW PLANE REVIEW FOR 406 E:
HOPKINS AVENUE, ISIS THEATER CONDO UNIT B, BLOCK 87, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO;
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL ID: 2737-07-330-010
WHEREAS, the applicant, Susanne Krevoy Sepazate Property Trust, represented by Steev
Wilson, Forum Phi, has requested approval for Minor Development and View Plane review in
order to expand the unit at 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis Theater Condo Unit B, Block 87, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a heazing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.4] 5.070.C of the
Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, an exemption can be granted from the View Plane requirements if it is found that
"When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front
of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon
the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-
open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the
view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Plarming
and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section;"
and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated March 26, 2008, performed an analysis of
the application based on the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines, and recommended HPC conduct a site visit to determine whether the review
criteria aze met; and
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on March 26, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, conducted a site visit, and found that the application was consistent
with the review standazds and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and
granted approval with conditions by a vote of _ to
P17
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC approves Minor Development for 406
E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis Theater Condo Unit B, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado with the following conditions:
APPROVED BY THE
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
on the 26th day of March, 2008.
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Michael Hoffman, Chair
P18
ATTACHMENT 2 -Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
Name: ISIS THEATER CONDO UNIT:B
Location: 406 E HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611, ISIS THEATER CONDO UNIT:B
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Pazcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273-707-330-010
THE CRY OF ASPEN
APPLICANT'
Name: KREVOY SUSANNE SEPARATE PROP TRST
Address: 2311 LA MESA DR, SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
Phone #: 310 600-2990 Fax#: 310 576-7761 E-mail: susiekrevo aol.com
KEPRESENTATIVE:
Name: Steev Wilson Forum Phi
Address: 174 Midland Ave. Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, CO 81621
Phone #: 970 279-4157 Fax#: (866 770-5585 E-mail: swilson forum hi.com
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that.
Historic Designation ^ Relocation (temporary, on
^ Certificate of No Negative Effect ^ or off-site)
^ Certificate of Appropriateness ^ Demolition (total
® -Minor Historic Development demolition)
^
-Major Historic Development
^ Historic Landmazk Lot
Split
^ -Conceptual Historic Development
^ -Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
Existing Condo is a 2 000 SF square foot residential portion of an MU building containing:
3 Bedroom 3.5 Bath
PROPOSAL' (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
We propose to add 500 SF through the use of a TDR containing: 1 Bedroom and 1 Bath
General Information
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
ATTACHMENT3 plg
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: ISIS THEATER CONDO UNIT:B (FM)
Applicant: SUSANNE KRRVY
Location: 406 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO 81611
Zone District: CC
Lot Size: 9000 Squaze feet
Lot Area: 9000 Souaze feet
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for azeas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: No Change Proposed.• No Change
Number of residential units: Existing: l Free Market 2 AH Proposed.• No Change
Number of bedrooms: Existing:3Free Market Proposed.• 4 Free Market
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): 0%
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: 2, 000 sq. ft. (FM only)
Free Market Allowable: 2, 000 sq. ft. (FM only)
Unit Only Proposed: 2,500 sq. ft. (FM only)
Principal bldg. height: Existing.• No Change Allowable: No Change Proposed.• Lower
Access. bldg. height: Existing.• none Allowable: none Proposed.• none
On-Site parking: Existing: No Change Required.• No Change Proposed: No Change
Site coverage: Existing.• No Change Required.• No Change Proposed.• No Change
Open Space: Existing: No Change Required.• No Chance Proposed: No Change
Front Setback: Existing.• No Change Required.• No Change Proposed: No Change
Reaz Setback: Existing.• No Change Required: No Change Proposed.• No Change
Combined F/R: Existing: No Change Reguired: No Change Proposed: No Change
West Side Setback: Existing.• No Chance Required: No Change Proposed.• No Change
East Side Setback: Existing.• No Change Required.• No Change Proposed: No Change
Combined Sides: Existing.• No Change Required: No Change Proposed: No Change
Distance Between Existing: No Change Required: No Change Proposed: No Change
Buildings
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: We will not be affecting any of the existing non-
conformities concerning the height or foot print of the existing structure.
Variations requested: Maintain existing encroachments if any. FAR addition of 500 SF via the
extinguishing of 1 TDR.
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
P20
~~ B .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: 204 N. Monazch Street, Unit B of the Blue Vic Condominiums- Major
Development (Conceptual), Vaziances-Public Hearing
DATE: Mazch 26, 2008
SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval to construct a new single family residence located
on the 9,000 squaze foot lot (Lot 1) that contains the lazge two story Victorian known as "Blue
Vic." The property borders East Bleeker Street and North Monarch Street, the outer portion of
Aspen's West End Neighborhood, and is zoned R-6 (Medium Density Residential). To the north
of the property is an unused alley; the subject lot is accessed via a curb cut off of Bleeker Street.
HPC is asked to grant Major Development Conceptual approval and vaziances for setbacks and
the Residential Design Standazds regarding a front entrance door facing the street. There are two
proposals included in your packet because the applicant restudied the initial design to address
some of staff s concerns about street presence and compatibility with the Blue Vic. The original
proposal is found in the bound notebook and the second iteration is the attached 11 x 17
drawings.
Staff finds that the project is moving in a positive direction, but the massing and proportions are
still unresolved. Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for restudy.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS: In 2006, HPC granted development approvals for relocation,
rehabilitation and a new addition to the existing Victorian. The 500 square foot FAR Bonus was
awarded for the project and allocated to a future detached residential dwelling on the property.
The subject lot (Lot 1) was condominiumized into Unit A and Unit B. Unit A contains the Blue
Vic and Unit B is the subject of this application. The total FAR of the 9,000 squaze foot property
is 4,580 square feet of FAR (including the FAR Bonus): 2,053 square feet of FAR is available to
Unit B, the new house, and 2,527 squaze feet of FAR is allocated to the existing Victorian and
the approved addition.
APPLICANT: Semrau Family, LLC, 68 Trainor's Landing Road, Aspen CO 81611, represented
by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., 412 North Mill Street, Aspen.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-17-033
ADDRESS: 204 N. Monarch Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 78 aka Lot 1, Unit B, 202 N.
Monazch Street Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
1
P21
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
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 slrall 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: Conceptual review for this project focuses on the height, scale, massing and
proportions of the proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is
attached as "Exhibit A."
Massing: This is a complex site to propose a new building that fits into the historic context of the
block and also represents a product of its own time. The proposed floor plan and extended gable
end off of the street elevation pull obvious reference from the plan and form of the adjacent Blue
Vic. Utilizing historic references in a contemporary fashion is moving the project in the right
direction.
Staff is concerned about the street presence of the new building that is sandwiched between two
large two story Queen Anne Style Victorians located to the north and south. In Staff s opinion the
new 2,053 square foot home needs to respond to the two story height and mass of the historic
resources in the block. The map below depicts the historic context of the neighborhood. The
diagonal hatching indicates landmark properties and the arrow points to the subject property. The
image below right is 212 North Monarch, the designated landmazk located just north of the
proposed new home.
P22
The proposed residence maximizes the allowed FAR on the property by spreading the mass
toward the reaz of the property. A two story residence is proposed, but the building reads from
the street as a one and a half story residence because the majority of the mass is set back from the
front facade and is hidden behind the gable roof. The applicant raised the proposed height in the
second iteration, but Staff recommends a restudy of the mass to better relate to the surrounding
resources. Relevant Design Guidelines aze:
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel.
^ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on
the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
^ The front should include cone-story element, such as a porch.
The applicant originally proposed a barrel vaulted roof that was hidden behind the ridge of the
gable roof. Staff is concerned about the complexity of the roof forms in relationship to the
_ historic resources and the introduction of a semi-circulaz form to this important historic block.
The second iteration addresses this concern by substituting a gable roof form and is consistent
with Design Guidelines 11.5 and 11.6. In Staffs opinion, the mass and roof form behind the
crrePr facinE gable form need to be reconfigured to better relate the historic resources.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context.
^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
Proportions: Staff is concerned about the proportions on the street facing elevation. The tall
skinny gable end that extends towazd the street and the proportions of the roof that require
skylights to allow light into the second story living azea do not successfully relate to the
proportions of the adjacent historic homes. Design Guideline 11.10 emphasizes that a new
building represent its own time and not imitate a historic style. Staff does not suggest that the
applicant replicate the historic landmarks; rather, the applicant could interpret the historic
proportions in the new residence to create better continuity in the block face as implied in
Guideline 11.9. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to incorporate the context of the
site into the new residence paying close attention to proportion and massing of the adjacent
historic resources.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
P23
Site nlannin~ The proposed new home is sited between two lazge residences and therefore, needs a
strong street presence to fit into the context of the block. In the second iteration, the proposed front
porch of the development is set back approximately one foot (1') from the front porch of the Blue
Vic residence. Staff finds that it is important to generally align the buildings in this block and a
one foot setback from the Blue Vic front porch is appropriate.
The applicant proposes to increase the required distance between buildings from ten feet (10') to
thirteen feet (13') to provide more space between the new home and the Blue Vic. The proposed
site plan requires setback variances, which will be discussed firrther in the Staff memo; however
Staff is supportive of shifting the new house away from the Blue Vic and towazd the unused
alleyway to the north. Design Guidelines 11.1 and 11.2 are met in the proposed site plan.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
^ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of
the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a
front porch.
^ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
^ Anew porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
^ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the
entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project requires vaziances to the Residential Design Standards for the "Street Oriented
Entrance" requirement. All residential development must comply with the following review
standards or receive a variance based on a finding that:
A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen azea Community
Plan (AACP); or,
B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or,
C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Standard:STREET ORIENTED ENTRANCE. The intent of the following building elements
is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing azchitectural details and elements,
which provide human scale to the fagade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local
building traditions.
On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a
greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions
aze met:
a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet back from
the frontmost wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight
feet.
4
P24
b. A covered entry porch of fifty or more square feet, with a minimum depth of
six feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not
be more than one story in height.
c. Astreet-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group
of windows face the street.
Staff Response: In the original submittal, the applicant proposed a front door that is
perpendiculaz to the street and does not meet Residential Design Standazd criterion l.a cited
above. Staff finds that this vacant building envelope provides a clean slate for the design of a
building that meets the Residential Design Standards. Therefore, Staff finds that the criteria to
grant a vaziance from this Standard aze not met. The most recent iteration submitted by the
applicant proposes a front door that is compliant with the Residential Design Standards.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback vaziances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are
as follows:
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
andlor
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 requests the following setbacks: a north side yard setback
vaziance where ten (10) feet are required and two (2) feet are proposed, and a rear yard setback
variance where five (5) feet are required and three (3) feet aze proposed.
North Side Yard Setback: Staff finds that criterion b is met and supports the north side yazd
setback variance requested in this application. The proposed residence is pushed north, away
from the Blue Vic, toward an unused alleyway. This mitigates an adverse impact on the
azchitectural character of the landmark and creates more visibility than required by Code (ten feet
is the minimum distance between buildings required and the proposal is for thirteen feet).
East Reaz Yazd Setback: A reaz yazd setback is requested for the gazage. The proposal includes
a generous front yazd setback (14' S" in the first iteration and 11' 9" in the second iteration,
where 10' is required) that causes the mass to shift towazd the reaz of the property. The front
yard setback in the second iteration seems more appropriate in terms of street frontage and
alignment with the historic resources; however shifting the new home towazd the street in the
second iteration did not reduce the reaz yard setback. In this memo, Staff recommends that the
applicant restudy the mass and proportion of the proposal to comply with the noted Design
Guidelines, which may change the reaz yard setback request. Staff looks to HPC for guidance
regarding the reaz yard setback vaziance.
5
P25
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 a restudy.
Exhibits:
A. Design Guidelines
B. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 202 North Monarch, Major
Development Conceptual Review
Building Orientation
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
^ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of
the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a
front porch.
^ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
^ Anew porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
^ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the
entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street.
Mass and Scale
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel.
^ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on
the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
^ The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
Building & Roof Forms
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context.
^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
P26
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally.
^ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
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.
Architectural Details
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are
especially discouraged on historic sites.
Page 1 of 1
P27
Sara Adams
From: Bert Myrin [Bert@Myrin.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:26 AM
To: Michael Hoffman
Cc: Sara Adams; J.E. DeVilbiss; Jack Johnson; Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Steve Skadron
Subject: Project requires the following variances
Attachments: 20080312 HPC Side Rear Window Entrance Variance Required.pdf
Never before do I recall receiving a public notice with the "requirement" of variances. Public
notices more often identify "requests" for variances. (see attached)
The change of attitude from the Historic Preservation Chair, the city Staff, the hired gun (stan
clauson) and the applicant (tim semrau) from what once were public notices requesting
variances to the current "requirement" of variances set's a clear tone that this public notice is a
done deal from all those involved.
Such an attitude of stating a request as if it were a "requirement" is a despicable but
accurate reflection on all those involved. It is also reflection of the tone changing in Aspen
from one of cooperation to one of demands and entitlement by developers and some city staff
and appointed board members.
Please make this email part of the public record for the public hearing at which the
"requirement" of variances will be reviewed in the tone it was announced to the public - as a
done deal.
Thank you. -Bert
Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr.
e-mail: Bert a Mvrin.com
PO Box 12365
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(970) 925-8645 Landline
(970) 925-2691 Mobile
(815) 361-9123 Fax
In politics it's what people believe is true, not what actually is true that really matters.
znnnnnu
P28
March 20, 2008
Dear Mr. Hoffman
I am writing this letter to oppose the request for variances at 202 N. Monarch St. I grew
up and still reside part-time at 212 N. Monarch, just north of the "Blue Vic"
development. With the recent construction and the uprooting of the Blue Victorian
house, I have watched my childhood home and surrounding azea turn into a congested
neighborhood. When I looked out the window, I could no longer see Aspen Mountain, as
the Blue Vic, while temporazily on blocks, nearly sat on top of us.
If the proposed variances are granted, I can only imagine the devastation to the character
of not only my home, but the complete historic character of the neighborhood as well.
This block of Monazch Street used to be a populaz site on the historical walking tour but
will become more of an eye sore than a historical point of Aspen if the vaziances are
approved. The Blue Vic has been moved and is part of a condominium designation;
therefore the proposed structure should be required to abide by the cun•ent zoning laws
within the city of Aspen. The property surrounding 212 N. Monazch St should not be
compromised by a variance from the zoning laws. We need to preserve the historic
charm and character of this neighborhood and prevent it from being impacted any further
than it already has been.
I hope you will take these concerns into consideration. Thank you for your time
Sincerely,
Drew Hodgson
~`-'`d~Rc~1, ao, aCOB
P29
Pt~_ k4~SZ-c~~._~~Rvi~c~_ Co~MM+~S tom _-
_ ___.
_ _ _- _ _
--_ ~ L. \~[E_ R ~ __ ,,21 a,___ t~l, `Mt3l.~~P_C tE 5%~ _ t.~oR~4 ~~ _
~, s
_ T~\~_ t..,~"Q. ~t~ _ o`~Pera L-c\o~_ ~'a '~4c ~rc~~1 _
°rFoR v ~(Z\I~~c_~ ~?k' ~~2 -1~1, ~loNf~CN .
u
_ j~/f'.!~.\ A.~ Cam. ~ 5 , _ ~ t.2_ __ C~-t- ~L~~~ "~~.J~..~ ~_ ~Q
1~~~ mot;\~\~tJ ~~ ~ ~1~~~ iAT ~tC...\T" _
E
_ -__ aJ~.. ~_ _ Z.'~T~- __ ~~2_ov ~1i~ ~R~?-c'na~+'cT_~.C_. _ \1-P,2~~c'~~_ _
_ ~'~ ___ ~.GCQ~M MohAC'rL _ T _ _ s:~.l~cC,~s~-~ "~'R t~Q.T E.S.
_ ;~_ #~~~_ `"FR~~E.L i P~QP ~ V vii ..
__ - _ _
~~
~~ ~ ~f~?~\t~\'C'i' C'3'~ . ~1~ C3'C~l~.-- P'~2..?~ `C~l MQ'~1:~-c~ti
c~rrY o~`r
`V~'-R~ a..f.3c~, 't~EC2l.~~c -S "~~ L.cx._P~-n.c~ ~J ion
P30
. ~w\~K "~ ESQ ~'~ E~ "So'~ "tZ-c ~ s.:sG--
'' i V PcR~,~ c~ ~-~ '-~'~~~. ~N\~~ -~« "mow ~,~ ~`
(,~~~c,S C.~....~~~:*~L'~~tt~(~S\C. ~!.~.A Nb \._Gtv`G~^P-~ \l)
!.
i tJ cr-C G-~'~'~ , K`~ v l ~. WS ~ -~.~ bte~~`?~s i~
!{~~i ~ \F:~`~S ~A.b b~st~Q~ ~ Liu ~1vcT-
~'._ i N ~~ \..Cx..#~"f"\tiCG- T~-t~ ~"~ l_.V V lC ` i 1 ?~CGaF~\tiG-
,.\iS . ~~~ c-~~\s._.~-c~' _ t=om t~~cs~.L ~~l~-as~~K
~,
j-RS~PEN~ ~i a ~ ~ S ~ ~~~ ~r ~• Cc~tv~C~ M\ -J -
__ r`~t-~- ~L~1.S\l.~G c-3-t~._~tJ~1:,G~c~~ NCB? `~~CR~T~:tZ~..,
. ~
a
~~
~i 1~~eTFt~ "plc ~'~~~.~ ,~ ~'R.e~MM~J~t.~~~ e~ 3c"~'~1
~~~CT.~\~1~,a ~cQ.~ LMFC3t2TR);~~-} -$~:i "02 12 ~pt~ptsP.~~1S
P31
P32
Michael Hoffman
Chair, Aspen Historic Preservafion Commission
Anention: Sara Adams
City of Aspen Community Development Dept
130 South$alena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
March 18, 2008
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
I am writing you in regazds to latest chapter of Ote development plans for the "Blue V ic" property (now
properties) on North Monazch Street in Aspen. It has come to my attention that the developer (Mr. Tim
Semrau) has asked for variance as to the placement structure that he plans to build in the near furore. As a
long term resident (32 years) I ask you to whole-heartedly deny this request for the following reasons.
1. Moving the allowable building envelope 8 feet (not inches!!) to the North would encroach on
the city owned alleyway. Those of us who attended the City Council meetings know how
much fime and energy was spent on making sure that the alley was protected and stayed in
City ownership and control.
2. While the developer would like his new house placed a[ a further distance from the
neighboring home to the South, this is hardly fair to ask the neighbor to the North (Mr.
Hodgson) to take on the burden having the Semmu house placed 8 feet closer than originally
agreed upon by City Council. While I have no doubt that such a move would enhance the
desirability and therefore the monetary value of the house to be built, it seems that it would
have opposite impact on Mr. Hodgson's properly. To me, this sounds like a classic example
of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
3. I am stunned to think that this experienced developer and former City Council member did
not know exacdy, perhaps I should say precisely, what he agreed to with the splitting of, and
condominiumizing of the"Blue Vic" property.
4. Too many times in both the City and the County, we have all seen developers ask for far more
than what they need and then agree to "compromise" to get what they really wanted all along.
And just like that, the zoning and/or the carefully crafted covenants of a neighborhood go "out
the window', gone forever, because a new precedent has been sec If this variance is granted,
I believe that this would be such a case.
5. While I do not know if the developer plans to live in this new house or if it is being built on
"spec", the fact of the matter is that it does not matter. A legal decision was made as to the
size and shape of the property and the building envelope was set within those parameters.
This is where the house should be placed.
I ask you and all members of the HPC to please carefully consider these points as I believe that keeping the
new structure inside the presendy designated building envelope will be best for the neighborhood.
~~,
Sincergly, `~ e
Christopher Faison
0143 East Lupiue Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Lisa Markalunas
I S Williams Ranch Court
Mailing: P.O. Box 8253
Aspen, CO 81612
(970)925-8623
Mazch 19, 2008
Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 202 N. Monazch Street, Aspen, CO
Blue Vic Condominiums, Lot 1, Unit B
HPC Meeting - 3/26/08
To Whom It May Concern:
P33
I am writing to express my concern about the vaziances being requested for the potential new
development to be located between 202 N. Monarch and 212 N. Monazch, both very historic properties in
Aspen's West End.
I believe that anytime additional development is allowed on a historic pazcel, especially in the cases of
historic lot splits where the HPC is granting additional development rights that aze of great value to the
developer, that any new constructions proposed on the site should be compatible and respectful of the
adjacent properties. In these cases, I believe variances should be awazded in only the most dire of
circumstances. If you aze willing to allow new construction at all, as is the case here, it should be
subservient to the historic properties on either side.
Just because there is an alleyway along the north property line, and which also occur behind almost all
other West End locations and which contribute to the historic town layout, they should not be a condition
that is conducive to allowing additional vaziances by property owners just by nature of their existence.
I encourage you to deny the proposed vaziances that will adversely impact the historic properties on this
block of North Monarch Street. The developer should be able to design a structure that sits within the
existing buildable azea on the site. A lot split has already been awazded. Please do not further
compromise these historic treasures by allowing new construction to impose on what little setting they
have left.
Sincerely,
Lisa Markalunas
Iv$~d Mrs. Mathew P. Pace
1125 North Institute Street
Colorado Springs, CO
80903
March 20, 2008
Michael Hoffman
Chairperson
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
We are writing this letter in opposition to the request for variances that Mr. Tim Semrau has requested in
regards to his proposed development located at 202 N. Monarch Street. Our concern lies mostly with the
variance request for the north side setback of the proposed development. It is our understanding that Mr.
Semrau is requesting a reduction of the 10-foot setback to only atwo-foot setback. We feel this is unnecessary
and fail to see the hardship that would require such a variance. We feel that Mr. Semrau should position his
development accordingly with no deviations from the land-use codes.
According to the City's Land Use Regulations, "A variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford
the applicant relief, and to deny a variance would cause the applicant unnecessazy hardship such that the
property would be rendered practically undevelopable, as distinguished from mere inconvenience." Mr. Semrau
does not need a variance to make his property "developable" and should not be granted special privileges. Mr.
Semrau's property can be developed within the set guidelines. Granting him this variance is needless and
excessive. He should abide by the land-use codes and not be able to create affliction for his neighbor to the
north by being able to situate his development within spitting distance.
On a recent visit to Aspen, we noticed that the blue Victorian house (at 202 N. Monarch) had been moved closer
to the house to the north. Luckily this move was only temporary. I can't imagine how devastating it would be
to live with a house permanently located in this spot. This neighbor to the north of the proposed development
will be the one suffering a hardship. Any southern view he has now, including a view of Aspen Mountain, will
be completely lost upon the completion of Mr. Semrau's new development. Upholding the City's land-use
codes and not granting this variance will at least make things feel less claustrophobic. Mr. Semrau needs to
build his development using the set codes and not impact the people living on this street anymore than he will
be with the construction of this new house. Mr. Semrau chose to split this historic lot and has now chosen to
build a development on it. He needs to work with what he's got and not make others pay the price. Mr. Semrau
is not obligated to build his development to the fullest extent. He can reduce the size of his proposed
development and sell the remainder of the property as TDRs. He has other options.
Mr. Semrau has already destroyed the integrity and character of one of the most historic neighborhoods in
Aspen with his development of the Blu Vic property. He is now going to permanently alter the look of this
street with his new development, a big eyesore stuck between two of the most significant houses in Aspen. I
urge you to help preserve what's left of this historic street by not granting him these variances and lessening the
negative impact he is creating.
Please take these concerns into consideration. Thank you.
Mr. & Mrs. Mathew Pace