HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080423ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGUALR MEETING
Apri123, 2008
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON -
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - March 26th and Apri19, 2008 minutes
HI. 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. 707 N. Third, Craig -Major Development (Conceptual),
Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing (lhr.)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 210 S. Galena, Elks Lodge -Minor Development and
Variances, Public Hearing (30 min.)
X. WORK SESSIONS
A. None
IX. ADJOURN 6:30 p.m.
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.
PROJECT MONITORING
Jeffrey Halferty 314 E. Hyman, Motherlode
930 Matchless
134 W. Hopkins
920 W. Hallam
114 Neale Ave.
LaCo
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 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)
Main Street sidewallc
Brian McNellis 629 Smuggler
Hotel Jerome
Jewish Community Center
Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows
233 W. Main (hu~sbruck)
212 W. Hopkins
980 Gibson Avenue
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)
Red Onion
28 Smuggler Grove Road
Lift I task force
Ann Mullins 135 West Main Street
980 Gibson Avenue
300 W. Main
Jay Maytin Red Onion
Firestation
28 Smuggler Grove Road
Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Road
CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS THAT HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL REVIEW:
508 E. Cooper (Cooper St. Pier Redevelopment)- (July 12, 2006) extended 6 months
Lift 1/ Willoughby Park- (August 8, 2006)- 2 years approved before final submittal
604 West Main Street- December 12, 2007
a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE; 707 N. Third Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation,
Variances, Special Review -Public Hearing
DATE: Apri123, 2008
SUMMARY: 707 North Third Street is a circa
1890 miner's cabin situated in its original location
on the corner of Gillespie Street and North Third
Street in Aspen's West End neighborhood. The
residence has been altered over time including the
addition of a wrap azound porch and a dormer on
the south elevation that obscures the original
hipped roof form. A few small scale additions
were added to the north, west and the south sides
of the resource. The image above right depicts the
resource before many of the alterations illustrated
below.
The applicant proposes to relocate the residence
east on the property towazd North Third Street
atop a full basement. Existing non-historic
additions at the north and south of the residence
are proposed to be reduced and the wrap azound
porch will be removed and replaced with a more
modest simple porch. The applicant proposes to
enlazge the existing one story addition at the reaz
of the residence (west elevation). The majority of
squaze footage improvements aze proposed
subgrade to mitigate an adverse impact on the
historic resource.
On March 12, 2008, HPC continued the application for a restudy of the project. Minutes
from the meeting and the staff memo aze attached. The applicant submitted the following
changes to the project: eliminated the subgrade ADU, removed the 1970s kitchen
addition along the north elevation of the historic home, and moved the lightwell from
beneath the front porch to the rear of the historic home (west elevation).
P1
P2
Staff finds that the proposed changes bring the project into closer alignment with the
Design Guidelines. The restoration of the north elevation of the historic resource clearly
delineates the historic proportion of the 1890 residence, which helps maintain some
integrity and balance within the overall proposal that includes relocation, a lazge
subgrade terrace along the historic home and a modest one story addition at the rear of
the property. Relocating the lightwell to a subordinate fapade is also an improvement to
the project and meets Guideline 9.7.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
^ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential
Design Standards).
^ The size of a lightwell should be .r+~*>irni zed.
^ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations
and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it
should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail.
Staff remains concerned with the lazge subgrade ten•ace proposed for the south elevation.
It jeopazdizes the integrity of the historic resource by eroding the ground beside the
resource. The proposed subgrade terrace is not very visible from the street, which is
positive; however Staff is more concerned with future development on this lot. The City
of Aspen only includes a portion of the subgrade space in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
calculation. About 700 squaze feet of FAR plus the potential to gain the 500 squaze feet
floor azea bonus remain on the property for future development. Staff finds that the
subgrade space reduces adverse impacts on the historic resource at this time; however,
future development on this property combined with the lazge subgrade terrace may
compromise the authenticity and integrity of this resource in the future.
The elimination of the subgrade ADU reduces the requested variances to one setback
vaziance for the south elevation subgrade terrace.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.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, an adjoining designated historic
property or historic district.
Staff Response: The applicant requests a three feet eight inch (3' 8") south side yard
setback for the subgrade terrace and retaining wall where five feet (5') aze required. The
subgrade terrace compromises the relationship of the historic home to grade; however,
P3
the majority of the proposed development is subgrade, which mitigates an adverse impact
on the historic resource. Staff finds that the setback variance is appropriate and
recommends approval.
During the Mazch 12, 2008 meeting, HPC moved to approve the project with conditions.
The motion was later withdrawn at the request of the applicant. Staff finds that the
revised project satisfies HPC's initial concerns, and while Staff maintains reservations
about this project- specifically the large subgrade terrace- we recommend approval with
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 approve Major Development
(Conceptual), relocation, a setback vaziance for the property located at 707 North Third
Street, Lot Lot 6 and''/z of Lot 7, Block 100, Hallam's Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado.
with the following conditions;
1. Relocation is granted for the historic home.
2. A setback variance for the south sideyazd setback of three feet eight inches (3' 8")
where five feet (5') is required, as illustrated in Exhibit A, is hereby granted.
3. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted
within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan.
Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and
void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation
Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-
time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval
for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no
less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated Mazch 12, 2008.
B. HPC Minutes from March 12, 2008.
C. Revised Application.
D. Original Application.
P4
~.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 707 N. Third Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Vaziances,
Special Review -Public Hearing
DATE: Mazch 12, 2008
SUMMARY: 707 North Third Street is a circa
1890 miner's cabin situated in its original location
on the corner of Gillespie Street and North Third
Street in Aspen's West End neighborhood. The
residence has been altered over time including the
addition of a wrap around porch and a dormer on
the south elevation that obscures the original
hipped roof form. A few small scale additions
were added to the north, west and the south sides
of the resource. The image above right depicts the
resource before many of the alterations illustrated
below.
The applicant proposes to relocate the residence
east on the property toward North Third Street atop
a full basement. Existing non-historic, additions at
the north and south of the residence are proposed
to be reduced and the wrap aoound porch will be
removed and replaced with a more modest simple
porch. The applicant proposes to enlarge the
existing one story addition at the reaz of the
residence (west elevation). The majority of squaze
footage improvements are proposed subgrade to
mitigate an adverse impact on the historic
resource.
The applicant requests a vaziance for a subgrade accessory dwelling unit (ADU) through Special
Review and variances for both south and north side yazd setbacks.
Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for further restudy of the project.
1
P5
APPLICANT: Cazol Craig, 707 N. Third Street, Aspen, CO represented by Al Bayer Design Inc.
410 N. Mill Street, Aspen, CO.
PARCEL ID:2735-121-09-004.
ADDRESS: 707 North Third Street, Lot 6 and '/z of Lot 7, Block 100, Hallam's Addition, City
of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the stafjanalysis 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 are likely to be
the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project
(note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
1. Why is the property significant? This structure represents a typical residence for an
average family or individual during Aspen's Silver Mining Era. The construction
techniques, materials and form of the building contribute to Aspen's inventory of Mining
Era residences throughout the West End neighborhood.
2. What are the key features of the property? The hipped roof, scalloped shingles and
gable end aze characteristic features of this property. The design of the structure is less
typical than the cross-gabled miner's cottages that aze more numerous in town.
2
P6
3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? The
map below illustrates historic resources (hatched) in the neighborhood. The arrow
indicates the subject property. Many of these landmazks have somewhat recent additions.
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? The
historic resource is in its original location; therefore relocating the cabin will adversely
affect the integrity score. The proposed subgrade terrace and window well will also
reduce the integrity score. The applicant proposes to remove the wrapazound porch along
the east and north elevation and reduce two of the additions that were added sometime in
1980/90, which will slightly increase the integrity score.
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property? About 700 squaze feet of allowable FAR will remain on the property;
furthermore this property has never applied for the 500 square foot FAR bonus.
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."
Site olannin~
Staff is concerned with the interaction between the subgrade spaces and the historic resource. The
lazge walkout ten•ace proposed for the south elevation erodes the building's relationship to grade
and creates a moat azound the historic residence that jeopazdizes its azchitectural integrity. The
window well positioned beneath the front porch with an egress hatch in the porch floor further
compromises the authenticity and integrity of this landmazk. HPC has allowed lattice and other
transparent features beneath a front porch and the proposal is an innovative solution to a lightwell,
however Staff is concerned that the front porch will be glowing from light in the subgrade space
during the night. The window well may be more appropriate if it was not on the primary fapade
and beneath a chazacter defining front porch. Often subgrade spaces alleviate above grade mass,
but there is an appropriate balance between above and below grade development that does not
impinge on the reading of the historic resource. Staff finds that Guideline 9.7 below is not met.
3
P7
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
^ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards).
^ The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
^ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded
by a simple fence or rail.
Pazking: Currently, the property owner pazks in the City Right of Way. Unless there is an
encroachment license, Staff recommends that the applicant meet City requirements by pazking
within property Boundaries. The R-6 zone district requires two parking spaces for the primary unit
and one parking space for the ADU. HPC has the authority to waive pazking requirements.
Mass/Scale:
The modest one story mass and scale of the reaz bedroom addition is significantly set back from the
historic resource and the gable end roof form proposed for this space is appropriate. A one story
connector piece is proposed between the historic residence and the bedroom addition that meet
ilecian ('.n;deline 10.8 and is successful in breaking up the development.
10.8 Place an addition at the reaz of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and chazacter to
remain prominent.
^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
^ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A m;n;mum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
Staff is concerned with the additions to the historic resource on the south and north elevations. The
applicant proposes to reduce the existing additions, but the reduced size still obstructs the form and
scale of the historic resource. Reducing the existing additions and changing materials will improve
the landmark and bring the existing conditions into closer compliance with the Design Guidelines.
There may be an opportunity, given the major development proposed, to remove the existing
additions to restore the form of the historic resource and incorporate the squaze footage into the
new addition. Guideline 10.3 below states "an addition that covers historically significant features
is inappropriate" and Guideline 10.8 emphasizes the importance of original proportions and
chazacter of the historic home remaining prominent.
4
P8
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate vaziation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
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 character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for aoaroval to relocate all of the followin¢ criteria must be met:
1. It bas been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to shift the building twenty-three feet (23') east to the
front yazd setback and two feet (2') to the south. Relocating a historic resource often requires a
delicate balance within a preservation project. The historic resource is currently in its original
location and the front yazd setback along Third Street is somewhat aligned with the adjacent
historic landmazk to the south, as illustrated in the GIS map on the following page.
5
P9
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on acase-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.
^ Iri general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN STANDARDS
26.520.OSO.D. Special Review. An application requesting a variance from the ADU and Carnage
House design standazds, or an appeal of a determination made by the Community
Development Director, shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the
Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review
shall be considered at a public heazing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant
to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a)(b and c).
Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark,
on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and
the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic
Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review.
A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
6
P10
I. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which promotes the
purpose of the ADU and Carriage House program, promotes the purpose of the zone
district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability.
2. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed to be compatible with, and
subordinate in chazacter to, the primazy residence considering all dimensions, site
configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property.
3. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which is compatible
with or enhances the chazacter of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density,
designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking,
availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational
26.520.050. Design Standards. All ADUs and carriage houses shall conform to the following
design standards unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special
Review. The proposal requires the vaziances from the following Design Standazds:
3. One (1) pazking space for the ADU or carriage house shall be provided on-site and shall
remain available for the benefit of the ADU or carriage house resident. The pazking space shall
not be stacked with a space for the primary residence.
4. The finished floor heights of the ADU or carriage house shall be entirely above the natural or
finished grade, whichever is higher, on all sides of the structure.
5. The ADU or carriage house shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or carnage
house located above a detached gazage or storage azea shall qualify as a detached ADU or
carriage house. No other connections to the primary residence or portions thereof, shall qualify
the ADU or carnage house as detached.
6. An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the Zone
District in which the property is located.
7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU or
carriage house. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing snow and ice
from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided.
Staff Response: The applicant is not required to have an ADU on site, and the project is not
benefitting from any of the floor azea bonuses associated with ADUs. Variances from the Design
Standazds listed above (numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) aze required for this project. HPC is
authorized to grant a vaziance from this Standazd by finding conformance with criteria 1 thru 3
listed in the box above.
Design Standard 4/Subgrade space for the ADU:
Criterion 1: Staff finds that a subgrade unit does not promote the purpose of the ADU program
or the unit's livability; and therefore criterion 1 is not met. The ADU program purpose statement
7
P11
(Exhibit B) emphasizes "viable and livable housing opportunities to local working residents." In
Staff's opinion a subgrade space does not meet the intent of the ADU program.
Criterion 2: Staff finds that the entrance to the ADU, in the form of a large walkout subgrade
terrace, negatively impacts the historic resource by eroding the site. Criterion 2 is not met.
Criterion 3: The proposed subgrade space is compatible with the neighborhood because it does
not greatly impact density, viewplanes, or any of the other items listed above. ,
Staff finds that the subgrade space does not meet the criteria to grant a variance.
Design Standards 3, S, 6 and 7:
Staff recommends that pazking for the ADU be included onsite. The West End already has
inadequate parking and there does not appeaz to be a site constraint on this lot. Staff is less
concerned with the attachment of the ADU to the primary residence (Standazd 5), as long as the
door between the ADU and the lower level of the free market unit is removed. Design Standazd
6 relates to the requested setback vaziances addressed in this memo, and Design Standard 7
requires a roof or similaz element over the stairway that accesses the ADU entrance. Staff is
opposed to a roof over the stairway because it will likely be visible from the street and distract
from the historic resource.
Staff commends the applicant for voluntazily proposing an ADU, unfortunately the criteria to grant
design standazd variances for the ADU aze not met. Staff recommends that HPC deny the variance
requests. The 5,000 squaze foot lot is too small to contain a duplex; therefore the subgrade kitchen
must be removed if the ADU is not approved by HPC.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.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, an adjoining designated historic properly or historic
district.
Staff Response: The applicant requests two setback variances for this project: three feet (3')
north side yazd setback for the addition where six feet eight inches (6' 8") aze required, and three
feet (3') south side yard setback for the subgrade terrace and retaining wall where five feet (5')
aze required. Staff finds that the requested setback vaziances do not mitigate an adverse impact
to the historic resource. Both the north elevation addition and the lazge subgrade terrace do not
meet the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Staff finds that the criteria aze not met and
recommends that the applicant restudy the proposal to comply with the Design Guidelines and
enhance the original form and chazacter of the historic resource.
8
P12
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.
Exhibits:
A. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
B. Land Use Code Section 26.520 Affordable Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses
C. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 707 North Third Street
Maior Development Conceptual Review
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 may be considered.
^ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be
considered that is similar 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 appear similar to those used
historically as well.
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.
9
P13
^ 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.
^ h1 general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
^ 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.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similaz to its historic orientation.
^ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
^ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building
in front of it.
9.5 Anew foundation should appear similaz 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 mortaz 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.
9.7 A lightwell maybe used to permit light into below-grade living space.
^ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards).
^ The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
^ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded
by a simple fence or raft.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic chazacter of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an eazlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10
P14
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
^ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic
alignments that may exist on the street.
^ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at
approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these
relationships would be altered or obscured.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
^ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
^ A 1-story connector is preferred.
^ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
^ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the reaz of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to
remain prominent.
^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
^ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similaz to those of the historic building.
^ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
^ Flat roofs aze generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ 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.
11
P15
Exhibit B Land Use Code Section 26 520 "Affordable Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses"
26.520.010 Purpose
The purpose of the Accessory Dwelling Umt (ADU) and Carriage House Prograzn is to promote
the long-standing community goal of socially, economically, and environmentally responsible
development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values
balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working residents and part-time
residents. ADUs and Carriage Houses represent viable housing opportunities for working
residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing
being easily identifiable as "employee housing." ADUs and Carnage Houses also help to address
the affects of existing homes, which have provided workforce housing, being significantly
redeveloped, often as second homes.
ADUs and Carriage Houses support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base
within the town and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's
chazacter. ADUs and Carriage Houses allow second homeowners the opportunity to hire an on-
site cazetaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing
opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally
preferred land use pattern, which reduces automobile reliance.
Detached ADUs and Carriage Houses emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the
privacy and livability of both the ADU or Carriage Houses and the primary unit. Detached ADUs
and Carnage Houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a
com-munity goal of housing the workforce.
To the extent Aspen desires detached ADUs and Carriage Houses which provide viable and
livable housing opportunities to local working residents, detached ADUs and Carriage Houses
qualify ex-fisting vacant lots of record and significant redevelopment of existing homes for an
exemption from the Growth Management Quota System. In addition, detached ADUs and
Carriage Houses deed restricted as "For Sale" units, according to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guide-lines, as amended, and sold according to the procedures established in
the Guidelines provide for certain Floor Area incentives.
26.520.050 Design Standards
All ADUs and Carriage Houses shall conform to the following design standazds unless otherwise
approved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review:
1. An ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of which
must be a closet or storage azea. An Carriage House must contain between 800 and 1,200
net livable square feet, 10% of which must be closet or storage azea.
2. An ADU or Carriage House must be able to function as a sepazate dwelling unit. This
includes the following:
a) An ADU or Carriage House must be separately accessible from the exterior. An
interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to Special Review;
b) An ADU or Carriage House must have sepazately accessible utilities. This does not
preclude shared services;
12
P16
c) An ADU or Carriage House shall contain a kitchen containing, at a minimum, an oven,
a stove with two burners, a sink, and a refrigerator with a minimum of 6 cubic feet of
capacity and a freezer; and,
d) An ADU or Carriage House shall contain a bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink,
a toilet, and a shower.
3. One parking space for the ADU or Carriage House shall be provided on-site and shall
remain available for the benefit of the ADU or Carnage House resident. The pazking
space shall not be stacked with a space for the primary residence.
4. The finished floor height(s) of the ADU or Carnage House shall be entirely above the
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, on all sides of the structure.
5. The ADU or Carriage House shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or
Carriage House located above a detached gazage or storage azea shall qualify as a
detached ADU or Carriage House. No other connections to the primary residence, or
portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or Carriage House as detached.
6. An ADU or Carriage House shall be located within the dimensional requirements of
the zone district in which the property is located.
7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU
or Carriage House. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing
snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided.
8. ADUs and Carriage Houses shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of
this title which apply to residential development in genera]. These include, but aze not
limited to, the Uniform Building Code requirements related to adequate natural light,
ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression, and sound attenuation between living units. This
standazd may not be vaned.
9. All ADUs and Carriage Houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the
property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070 Deed
Restrictions. This standazd may not be vaned.
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2008
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Jay Maytin and Nora Berko,
Sarah Broughton, Brian McNellis and Ann Mullins, were excused.
Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Jim True, Special Counsel
MOTION.• Alison moved to approve the minutes of Feb. 13`~ and Feb. 27`x`;
second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried.
202 N. Monarch Street -Major Development -Conceptual, Variances
and Residential Design Standards
MOTION: Alison made the motion to continue the public hearing and
conceptual development, variances for 202 N. Monarch Street until March
26, 2008; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried.
707 N. Third Street -Conceptual, Relocation and Variances
Public notice -Exhibit I
Sara presented the board with some background information. 707 N. Third
was built around 1890 and the cabin is on the corner of Gillespie and North
Third Street. It has a few alterations. It was originally a hipped roof and a
dormer was bumped out. A wrap around porch was added and a few small
additions were added. The applicant proposes to relocate the residence east
of the property toward North Third Street all the way up to the ten foot
setback and a little bit to the south. There is also a proposal to excavate a
large basement and reduce the size of the non-historic additions and enlarge
the one-story addition at the rear for a bedroom. The majority of these
improvements are sub-grade. Keeping the mass below grade and away from
the resource is great.
Site planning:
Staff is a little concerned about the walkout terrace which is along the south
elevation. The reason for our concern is we feel that the relationship of the
historic home to grade is jeopardized. It is almost like a huge trench even
though it is not visible from the street. Another concern is the window well
that is proposed beneath the front porch. At night time if there is light
P17
P18
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2008
coming from the sub-grade it would make the front porch kind off glow
from underneath. It is a good innovative solution to hide a window well
under a porch but not necessarily the front porch.
Parking:
There is no parking proposed and the City does require two parking spaces
for the primary unit and one space for the ADU. There needs to be some
parking proposed on-site or they need to ask for a waiver from HPC.
Mass and scale:
We think that the one-story mass proposed for the rear bedroom addition is
very modest and meets our design guidelines. There is a linking element
that connects the gabled roof bedroom with the historic home. It is
successful in breaking up the development. The two additions that exist are
proposed to be reduced a little. Reducing the size and changing the
materials is great as it meets our guidelines a little closer. As a suggestion
maybe there is a way to keep reducing the additions or omit them and
incorporate that space into the new addition to increase the integrity of the
new home. They are going to be picking up the house and this might be a
good opportunity to restore some of the historic form.
Relocation:
The applicant proposes to shift the building 23 feet to the east to the front
yard setback. Staff is not opposed to relocation but we cannot support it
right now because the overall proposal does not meet our design guidelines.
Overall the applicant should restudy the sub-grade space, the large terrace,
light well and restudy the relationship of this home to the home to the south
which is also historic. Possibly the house could be shifted forward to the
setback instead of bringing it all the way up to the ten foot setback that is
required in the R-6 zone district.
Affordable Housing:
HPC has the authority to grant variances from design standards for ADU's
through special review if the property is an historic landmark. Regarding the
ADU staff is not in favor ofhaving asub-grade ADU space especially with
the large terrace that would be jeopardizing the historic resource. The sub-
grade space does not promote the unit's livability. The entrance to the ADU
negatively impacts the historic resource with the large walkout sub-grade
terrace. Criterion #3 is met because it is compatible with the neighborhood
but criterion ]and 2 are not met. Staff feels there should be parking for the
z
P19
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008
ADU on-site as there is no parking on the West End. We're not concerned
about the attachment of the ADU to the primary residence. There is a door
that joins the ADU to the primary residence and we recommend that door be
taken out and making it a wall so that there is specific ADU space with its
own entrance. Design standard #6 relates to the setback variances and #7
discusses roof designs. There is a roof design over the entrance of the ADU
and staff is opposed as it adds more mass and is a weird feature that sticks
out from grade of the historic resource. Staff is opposed to that variance.
We commend the applicant for proposing the ADU and it is great that the
voluntarily propose to have the ADU.
Setback variances:
Staff finds that criteria B is not met. 1'he setbacks do not enhance the
historic property. They are asking for three feet on the north side and three
feet on the south side. Staff is concerned about the retaining wall distance to
the historic resource.
Al Beyer, architect; Scott Slogan, associate.
Doug Throm, contractor; Carol Craig, owner.
Al Beyer said they reviewed the plans and feel they can pull the setback
back so that they do not need a variance on the Gillespie Street side. In
doing so the light well on the other side gets reduced. Al pointed out that
they are leaving 700 square feet on the table and no maxing out their FAR.
The owner loves her yard and intends to keep it. Most of the houses in the
West End are maximized with additions to the back. What we are arguing is
it is a better thing for HPC to take livable space and put it subterranean. The
light well will make the space decent to live in. We can take off the ADU if
that becomes an issue. Isn't this a better preservation of an historic resource
than the chunk of building right beside and behind it? Right now we have a
small one-story space in the back and the house when people drive by will
look like the same old house. The owner would like to keep her existing
parking space on the side where she walks through the gate and go to house
that way as opposed to putting the parking in the yard. HPC has the ability
to waive parking. This is an historic lot that has never had parking on-site
and it is not accessed by an alley. In terms of moving the building, the pipes
freeze and we have a radon issue and there is no insulation and the heat
system is shot. We have to pick the building up, dig out a basement and put
it on an actual foundation. We only want to move the house once. The
dormer was added in the 60's. We will move the light well from the front
3
P20
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2008
porch to the covered walkway on the west side that faces the back yard. We
aze willing to pull things off the table to make everything work well. We
can get rid of the setback on the Gillespie side and the light well gets
reduced. We can take the ADU away which gets rid of the extra parking
space that we have to provide on site. The only variance we are requesting
is for the light well on the south side for the sunken terrace.
Nora inquired about the additions. The bump out was in the 60's. The back
bedroom was late 60's. If the ADU is not provided the space becomes part
of the primary residence. Saza explained that the lot is about 5,000 square
feet and you cannot have two dwelling units on it. You have to have a 6,000
square foot lot in order to have two dwelling unit.
Al Beyer said the idea was down the line if we wanted live in care-giving we
might as well have a legal place for them to live. Amy said this ADU is a
little different because it is voluntary. If an ADU was required to be
provided the City wants the kind of unit that we think is livable above grade,
detached or give us the money and we will build one ourselves.
Michael asked if the applicant has to meet all of the ADU requirements.
Sara said she interprets that the three conditions need to be met. Amy
pointed out that there are several design standards that need waived in order
to build this ADU.
Nora said the applicant is providing housing within walking distance to town
and you are reducing density.
Michael asked Jim if the HPC had the authority to be innovative. Jim said
HPC has flexibility but you need to be in compliance with the criteria.
Al said what is key to the space whether it is an ADU or livable space is the
light well. That light well allows the space to be livable and keeps it from
being in the back yard. Every project is allowed 2,400 square feet of FAR
and if the basement is 100% below grade it doesn't count against your FAR.
Whatever percentage of wall is above grade then that percentage of your
basement space counts as floor azea. By making the light well as big as
possible I'm taking up FAR that aren't going to go in the back Yazd in the
future.
4
P21
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2008
Michael said one of staffs issues is the walk out terrace. Al said it was 7 '/z
feet by around 24 feet without the slope and that has been reduced to 5 feet.
Nora said if the terrace is landscaped in a certain way it could become a
terrace garden bringing in light. Could that mitigate some of the problems?
Sara said our main issue is that you are taking away the relationship of the
historic resource to the ground in a huge way. It is the length of the historic
resource. That is something that we feel is going to compromise the
architectural integrity. It is great that the mass is below grade but the reality
is there is 700 square feet that remain above grade and the possibility of a
500 square foot bonus that this property would be eligible for. In the future
they could be putting that mass in the back yard and still have the sunken
terrace.
Nora said the applicant is not maximizing the property and she is trying to
figure a way to keep the ADU sub-grade. Jay said what you are asking is
can we count that FAR as part of the project which would alleviate the
ability to build another structure on the property in the future.
Al said putting a project out there that has a light well to make sub-grade
space livable is a good solution. In the code you would have to change how
FAR is calculated on the lot.
Jay asked if any trees would be removed. Al said there is a good size Aspen
tree in the front that will have to be removed. The rest can remain.
Amy pointed out that she would argue for the light well if there wasn't all
this pressure that is going to come to us again ten years down the road
requesting 700 square feet of FAR and possibly a FAR bonus. You need to
look at the light well and decide if it is appropriate for the historic building
not trying to think you are protecting the building from other development
because that development is still out there.
Amy said there are ideas to tweak the light well, whether it is moving the
staircase so that it is oriented a different way so the ground doesn't slope
right-away. Jay said he would like to see a restudy of attaching the light
wells to the addition rather than attaching them to the historic structure. You
are putting a light well on two sides of the historic structure. Possibly a light
well can be moved to the master bedroom or where the hallway is. Jay said
a very prominent part of the historic house is also facing Gillespie Street.
P22
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2008
Al said the light well that we are talking about is on the south side of the
building and you can't see it at all. It is on the south side between the two
buildings. Alison said pulling the office addition back off the comer of the
historic resource is helpful for positioning it.
Michael outlined the issues:
Walkout terrace or rather the extended light well.
Alison said it is back off the corner of the historic resource. I understand
what AI is trying to do but it is a 32 foot light well. Nora said this is a
project that keeps the scale where it belongs and addresses a need that the
applicant has. The light well is not even seen and is discrete.
Michael pointed out that density in the West End is a huge problem. Staff's
concern is that the light well or rather the sunken terrace degrades from the
historic resource. Does HPC agree with staff's assessment? Jay agrees with
staff. Nora, Alison, Michael did not agree with staff.
Michael said the next issue is the window well that the applicant is moving
to the west side which is under the deck. Sara said it is not on the primary
fagade but it is against the historic resource. Jay said he would like to do a
site-visit.
Michael said another issue is the parking. An encroachment license needs to
be applied for. Sara said typically the Engineering Dept. doesn't allow
pazking in the right-of--way especially in the West End. They would either
have to have on-site parking on the property or ask for a waiver of two
pazking spaces from HPC.
A] said Engineering wants to put in curb and gutter everywhere. HPC has
the right to waive the parking and that is what we are requesting. Al said
this house has always had head in parking on the side and it is an historic
part of this house.
Amy explained that they do not have on-site pazking and except for the
ADU, I don't think this project triggers to provide parking. They have a pre-
existing condition; however they don't have approval to park head in on the
city right-of--way. HPC may not need to grant a parking variance.
6
P23
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008
Michael addressed the next issue which is the bump out on the kitchen and
the office. They have reduced the sizes and are they acceptable. Jay said if
alternations occur it is his feeling that they should go back to the original
state, at least that is the way the guidelines are interpreted. If they alter the
1970's addition the way he interprets it, it would be appropriate to have the
applicant restore the building. Alison said on Gillespie if the addition was
removed you could read the historic resource more clearly. Jay said the
design proposed is more complimentary to the historic building but reading
the guidelines if you alter the existing addition then it should be put back to
the original.
Michael said the ultimate goal is to restore the original.
Alison pointed out that the addition on the south side is fine. It is difficult
with guideline 10.3 because the upper addition of the dormer was from a
different time, although this is not a primary fagade.
Amy said on the south side Al isn't changing anything except some
windows. On the north side they are changing things. AI said if we are
penalized for reducing the kitchen and the office we will just keep it.
Amy said if they keep the addition on the north they need a variance to do
so. One way or another the board has to "bless" the north addition. Al
pointed out that the guidelines say place an addition and we are not dealing
with placing an addition, we are dealing with something that is already there.
Michael said as it relates to the south addition that it is six feet and we
applaud you pulling it back and we are asking you to pull it back four more
feet.
Sara said guideline 10.2 has to do with existing conditions: Amore recent
addition that is not historically significant maybe removed.
Al said he is opposed to pulling the south addition back four more feet
because there is a dormer addition and this piece parks below it in a
symmetrical manor and if you pull it back it doesn't work. Alison said she
has no problem with the addition being six feet back. Michael agreed.
P24
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2008
Michael asked how the HPC felt about the north side. Amy said when they
cut down the north side it will be a new addition and it is not the thing that is
grandfathered in.
Michael said on the Red Mountain side we would not approve the project
with that addition.
Michael said relocation is the next issue. Staff said we might agree to that
but the rest of the plan doesn't work and even if we did we don't think it .
should go to the setback line. It should be even with the other structures on
the street. Sara said she didn't mean exactly in line but to have a better
relationship with the adjacent historic resource. Alison said ten feet is
required and she has no problem moving it to the ten foot line. Jay agreed.
Michael said the ADU request is off the table. Al said the bump out is very
important as it effects the variance request. There is a 3'4" bump out and we
will keep it the way it is and ask for the variance. The vaziance on the south
side is to add space for asub-grade light well.
Jay said you could propose acceptance with the following conditions:
No setbacks. Bump out on Gillespie be kept in the same foot print that it is
now or gone completely. Approve the light wells or not approve them.
Approve the gazden terrace or not and you can approve the other additions
based on the information given tonight. Relocation, approve or not approve.
Parking not on site.
Michael asked our attorney if they can take action tonight. Jim said yes but
there was no public notice for the pazking and that can be handled at final.
Nora said what if we approved the project with the condition of a variance
on the south side being tweaked to the garden level and a variance on the
north side. Jay said his concern is that the structure will be 3' 8" away from
the neighboring historic structure.
MOTION: Jay moved to continue 707 N. Third with a site visit to be
scheduled until Apri123'~. Motion dies for lack of a second.
Nora said there are only two things that she is not clear about. One is how
you access to the garden level going to be handled and the northern bump
out. I am having issues with guideline 10.3 and 10.8. We have a real
P25
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONIIIHSSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2008
opportunity here to act on something that we believe in which is reduction of
density, restoration of an historic resource, housing people who work and
live in town and improving the livability of a space. Those are my Aspen
Area Cornmunity Guidelines that I am thinking about. Alison said she
agreed. Jay commented that you have to go with the integrity of the
guidelines and some are very clear i.e. 10.3.
Michael said we already discussed this and came to the conclusion that they
met the guidelines on the south side with the long light well.
Nora said she would propose an approval with the condition to talk about the
north side.
Alison said what is difficult is the kitchen bump out on the north side and to
put a condition on it is hard because it is part of the mass and scale.
Carol Craig, owner said removing the addition is a big mistake because the
kitchen is so little anyway. She appreciates every speck of space in the
kitchen.
MOTION: Alison moved to approve 707 N. Third Street, major development
conceptual with the condition of removing the addition to the north side of
the house and restoring the historic side. When the light well is moved to
the west side of the house to make sure it complies with the code. New
location can 6e reviewed at f nal. Setback variance for the south is being
granted and relocation is being approved. The ADU is being removed from
the program. Motion second by Jay.
Nora said the space is small and the variance should be granted.
Jay said with the preservation of the structure the north should go back to the
way it was, guideline 10.3. If we are altering the north it should be returned
to the original state.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Carol Craig said has been very interesting to listen to but I think you are
crazy. You are making so much out of nothing. To me this isn't even a
major project. This has been a 2 '/:hour meeting and as far as I can see you
haven't gotten anywhere. If worse comes to worse I will leave everything
9
P26
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008
the way it is and put a roof on. You can do whatever you want, I am
leaving.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Michael said the architect does not like the requirement for the restoration of
the north wall. Alison said we let them move the house to where they
wanted; we are allowing the terrace to the other side. The only issue is the
kitchen. Jay said we have bent our guidelines to make this work. Alison
also pointed out if the house wasn't on a corner it would be a different
discussion.
Nora said the only other solution is to give a variance on the north side.
Alison said Al is pushing the envelope with our guidelines and he wants us
to look at them differently which will cause more discussion.
Yote: Jay, yes, Nora, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-D.
Al asked for clarification. Alison said you got everything except the little
bump out on the kitchen. Al asked if the HPC had the legal authority to
remove the bump out. Jim said absolutely.
Jim said the applicant has the right to file a 106 action to court if you don't
think the HPC has the authority. Amy said this is a major project and we al]
appreciate that she isn't coaxing it out. You are picking up the house,
digging a basement, moving the house. The board decided allowing the
addition on the north wasn't appropriate.
Al said he is upset for Carol. She has this and she took something that was
falling apart and she is trying to make it better. She is trying to all the right
things and the one thing that she wanted was the space that existed. If HPC
has the authority why didn't ask for all the dormers to come off instead of
just the north side.
Amy said if that was the one thing she wanted then give up the light well
and get the house out of the setback.
Jim said anybody who made the motion in favor of the project can make a
motion to reconsider the decision.
]0
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2008
MOTION.• Jay made the motion to reconsider the decision of the previous
motion; second by Nora. Al[ in favor, motion carried.
MOTION.• Jay made the motion to continue the public hearing for 707 N.
Third until April 23; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION.• Michael moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion
carried.
Mee mg a ~oum at 5 p.m.
athleen J. Stri "land, Chief Deputy City Clerk
P27
it
~~~upport\forma\agrpayae.doc
1/06
PROJECT:
Name:
Location:
Land Use Application
m
THE CITY OF ASPEN
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REOUIREDI 79zn ~ ~ no,~...,1
APPLICANT:
Name: GAIZ~~ (~~ r+lr
Address: ~~ ~~ ~tz° ~iT
Phone #: q2 , 4~}q Fa
REPRESENTATIVE;
Name: __ /-`L Y~ {~ ~Z ~~ /, hr
Address: ~}{ p N orznl Mi ~
Phone #: 925- w3?ci ~__.
_TYPE of APPLICATION: (please check all that apply
^ Historic Designation
^ Certificate of No Negafive Effect
^ Certificate of Appropriateness
^ -Minor Historic Development
-Major Historic Development
-Conceptual Historic Development
^ -Final Historic Development
Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
^ Demolition (total demolition)
^ Historic Landmark Lot Split
EATSTING CONDITIONS: (description of
CITY C~ ASPEN
COtRMUi~ITV acVEi OPI~ENT
PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) ~ '~ `~' ` `~ '~~'~
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information
will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved.
YES NO
~~ Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new
construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
~~~ Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or
restoration?
NO Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
N o In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a
building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal
tax credits?
If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in wnjunction with this
project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible.
Owner-occupied residential properties are not.)
If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances Increased Density
Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Pazk Dedication Fees Conditional Uses Exemption
from Growth Management Quota System Tax Credits
P30`
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
~'x im'
Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
G At - Kam- r~tvc E
C~tRc~~ C.2p1 AL F't'Y~K i":~s! n( Ilan, `'L
-10- ~ ~~ ~Tb+IiLD ST< AS'FEt.I JFY ~d~'~' bt.IL I ~y~~a'Lx ~~,`n
(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: O Proposed: (}
Number of residential units: Existing: 1 Proposed:- {
Number of bedrooms: ,,{~ Existing: 3 Proposed: 3
Proposed % of demolition: '!- 2p ~o
DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area: Existing:l~5`5 Allowable: ~
AGO Proposed: Z- ~`L-
Hei t
Principal Bldg.:
Accessory Bldg.:
On-Site pazking:
Site coverage:
Open Space:
Front Setback:
Reaz Setback:
Combined FronUReaz:
Indicate N. S E W
Side Setback: ~tt1
Side Setback: Noat14
Combined Sides:
Distance between
buildings:
Existin ~}~ a !~3pr' ! a
S~l~} ~c~Allowable: 2~ Proposed: ~l~`-0 y3 ~ a= r~toFt
Existing:~_Allowable: Pro osed:
P
Existing.• Required: ro osed:
gllnwq 5~E 23 ,S P
Existing: ~ ' I ~FZ4goRequired.•~, 67 ~ Proposed: ~~-Jfj ~ ~ ~o
Existing:. nl ~ Required.• Pro osed:
P
Existing: 33~-10~+/_ Required: lal (o~-$ Proposed: "10~ (p~$
Existing: ~S~- 'Required: T{ Proposed: 2~t-L~
~, Z.,
3J''- Id'
Existing: Required: Pro osed:
P
Existing: ~ Required: ~ ~ Proposed: 'J
Existin ~ `
g~ 8-a~
Required: 6=8~
Proposed: 3~
Existing: 13~-4N Required: ~1=17a Proposed: toy
Existing: Nf A Required: Pro osed
P
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
G'tk2~,~'N ~G wCtklltV 12.~a~RVArzp tzgclC 'Zfo ~EMkw
Vanahons requested (tdenhfy the exact vanances neededl• 4~`'~' ~,~,~, ~ ~ ...r... ~.._ _ _
°~.>1.LF,
P31
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO RESIDENCE AT
707 NORTH THIRD STREET ASPEN, COLORADO
This application is for Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, 3' South Side Yard
Setback for asub-grade retaining wall, 3' North Side Yard Setback fora 14' bay and approval to
place an ADU in a sub-grade space.
The scope of work includes relocation, remodel, and an addition to the existing structure on the
property legally know as Lot 6 and the North''/z of Lot 7, Block 100, Hallam Addition. The
parcel ID # is 273512109004. The lot contains 5,000 square feet of area and is zoned R-6. The
attached location map shows the property at the corner of South Third Street and Gillespie
Avenue just South of the Music Tent parking lot. The property is listed on Aspen's Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. This application is being submitted for Carol Craig, the
Owner of the property. AI Beyer Design Inc. is the authorized Owner's Representative. Proof of
Ownership and Authorization to represent aze attached.
Al Beyer met with Amy Guthrie in January '08 after sending preliminary design ideas in order to
explain the project and get feedback. The project was subsequently altered in a number of
iterations to achieve a design that would be more fitting to the HPC guidelines. This tweaking
process resulted in the current design, which meets the design guidelines and the Owner's needs.
The procedure to accomplish this project includes 1.) Major Development/Conceptual and 2.)
Major Development Final.
The proposed improvements include moving the original house to the East portion of the lot and
placing it on a new basement foundation. Existing additions to the house will be improved but
not expanded except at BR wing. Existing additions along the South, East and North sides will
be partially stripped away to expose more of the original structure. An existing bedroom addition
to the rear will be replaced with a slightly bigger version over a basement below. The idea is to
place much of the allowable area below grade and keep above grade improvements subordinate
to the small-scale original architecture.~8~wide sunken terrace along the southern side brings
needed light to the basement level. This area, hidden behind a low hedge, is indiscernible from
the street. A well, hidden below the entry porch, provides minimal extra light, but egress and
ventilation. From-the exterior.S;•ri~ n w r~h,avil4appear~asran•exact=replica=of an~historic~Ych
with~a included mud=scraping-grate-whieh=doubles asan{accessFhatchs Anew door and windows
have been added to the original structure in the presumed original locations based on similaz
historic homes of this character. A re-roof of the existing structure is included in the scope of
work, which includes replacing bubble style skylights on the upper flat roof with larger size but
smaller profile units hidden from view. An ADU is requested for part of the basement space.
The existing FAR on the property is 1,755sf, all of it above grade. The new plans contain f
1,780 sf total above existing grade and 1,489 sf (446 sf FAR) on Basement level. Total FAR for
the new project is 2,229 sf, versus 2,960 sf of allowable FAR leaving 731 sf of allowed but un-
built FAR.
Conceptual plans, elevations and views aze included in this application to more cleazly represent
the proposed improvements and existing conditions.
P32
HPC CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
From the introduction to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
"Note that not every guideline will apply to each project, and that some balancing of the
guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The HPC must determine that a suj~cient number
of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met to approve a project proposal. We
emphasize that these are only guidelines, are not applicable in all cases, and need to be weighed
with the practicality of the measure. "
Following is a reference to each of the applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and a
response to them for this project.
Chapter 1 FENCES
1.1 The existing fence will be maintained
1.9 The established progression of public-to-private spaces will be maintained
1.11 Most of the mature landscaping will be maintained on site. The project will impact a few
relatively new aspen trees on site.
1.15 Site lighting will be shielded and will not impact adjacent properties.
Chapter 2 MATERIALS
2.1 Original building materials will be preserved and protected from deterioration.
2.5-2.8 Portions of the building newly exposed will be patched where existing siding exists or
repaired with siding to match the original materials and shapes. At this time it is unclear whether
some of the decorative scroll/corbel at the roof eave work is original or part of a later faux
addition. If found to be original, they will be maintained. If not the Owner will decide whether to
keep or remove these elements.
Chapter 3 WINDOWS
3.1 Existing original windows (there aze 3 known total) will be preserved.
3.3-3.7 New windows within the original structure will match the historic ratio of wall to
window openings, will be similar in design using similar materials, and will honor historic
proportions.
Chapter 4 DOORS
4.5 A new door will be installed in the presumed original location. This is based on evidence that
the existing northern front door (on East Fagade) replaced an original window (compare 1980
photo to present). The new entry doorway will reuse the current southern entry door, which
appears to be quite old with possibly a transom unit above. The call will be made during
construction when the original framing (hopefully intact) can be exposed to see what was there
initially. The North wall of the Living Room space has a window shown with the presumption of
one there originally. If it is found to have been an original door instead, an appropriate replica
door will replace that window.
P33
Chapter 5 PORCHES
5.1,5.5 A probable Original porch was removed prior to 1980 and the existing porch is a later
addition not completely in chazacter with original vintage. The proposed front porch will be
rebuilt in a smaller footprint that does not extend northward of the facade and will be a better
replica of what an original porch would have looked like. This new porch will discretely cover a
light, ventilation, and egress well below. From the exterior there will be no evidence of the well,
which gains light and air via small spaces in the deck boazds and lattice surround. (The well will
be well, willfully indiscernible.) Access from the well is via a mud scraper/ grate set flush in the
porch deck. The new porch will use materials, scale, & details similaz to what the original may
have been.
5.3 The new porch will remain open.
Chapter 7 ROOFS
7.1 The currently unaltered forms of the original roof will be maintained including the eaves.
Later dormer additions also remain but are not increased in stature. The original roof form is
better seen because of the reductions of lower additions.
7.2 Original eave depth is preserved and enhanced by the reduction of lower level additions.
7.3 The current skylights aze domed bubbles visible from the curb. Replacement skylights will be
low profile and unnoticeable.
7.4 The Original chimney was replaced in the past by a large metal vent. A new smaller metal
vent will replace the older cousin.
7.7 No new upper roof dormers are planned. Lower roofs remain subordinate to upper roofs.
7.8-7.10 The current roof is in need of repairs so will be stripped and re-roofed with materials
similar to original. It is assumed the roof was wood shingle originally so new cedar shingles or
asphalt shingles that match the same texture and color aze proposed. If evidence exists that a
metal roof may have been original that could become an option. Lower roofs will be low profile
metal in an earth tone finish. The upper flat roof will be replace with an unseen from the street,
membrane material.
Chapter 9 ...LOCATIONS-FOUNDATIONS
9.1 The existing structure is shifted approx. 24' East and 6' North to the proposed location
setback 10' from the Third Street property line. This places the house in a more visible location
in compliance with the Residential design Standards (the existing location does not comply).
Currently the house has no real foundation or crawl space. The floor has sagged some 10" in the
center and the pipes freeze every winter. Moving the structure onto a real foundation will help
preserve it, offer the chance of a level floor and allow for properly functioning utilities.
9.4 The new location maintains an historic orientation.
9.5 The new foundation will be modest to match the original modest structure.
9.6 The structure will be located slightly above the existing elevation to keep it out of the dirt.
9.7 The front porch covers a well, which is set back from the front fagade of the house and is
allowed by the Residential Design Standazds. Since the well is hidden this should be a non-
issue. The sunken Terrace on the South side is set further back from the front fagade and is
hidden from street view by a low hedge setback behind the street facing fagade of the original
structure. This low hedge is similaz to other historic plantings in the neighborhood. The sunken
P34
Terrace area has been greatly minimized from eazlier designs (and reduced again in this final
form). It is an important feature of the project. Without the extra feeling of light and space
created by the terrace, the basement areas would end up above grade in the back yard, which
faces Gillespie. Allowing a larger light well in this case is a small price to trade for a larger yard.
This concept also keeps new development from becoming 2 stories, which further preserves the
historic feel of the property. It would be easy to azgue that such a light well is not the
standardized norm but difficult to convince that the result of this tactic does not enhance the
overall historic feel and scale in this location. It is worth noting also that a reduction in the light
well would result in more available FAR which is what a typical developer may desire. In this
case Carol Craig would prefer a nicer back yard to enjoy her retirement and have a separate
apartment (for a future caregiver), which does not intrude on her personal space.
Chapter 10 BUILDING ADDITIONS
10.1,10.2 The existing additions are perhaps 40 years old but are not significant. This proposal
reduces the extent of those additions and renders them more modestly than the current form. By
reducing the footprint of the existing SE porch area, the original building form is more
pronounced. A similaz result occurs to the NE corner when that porch is replaced with a smaller
more appropriate version. The existing bump out on the NW side is reduced but maintained in a
form that relates to other historic additions in the azea.
10.3 The new addition employs a gable roof above lower shed forms, which is consistent with
the original structure. No historic features are covered by the new project that is not already
covered by previous additions.
10.4 The new addition is a very traditional form but stands as a new structure separate from the
original structure.
10.6 The new structure is respectfully subordinate to the modest scale of the original structure.
10.7 The new addition is connected by a one story element at least 10' long.
10.8 The Addition is placed to rear portion of the property behind the original structure.
10.11 All materials employed on the new addition will be refrained from insubordination.
10.14 Eave lines and roof forms of existing and new additions aze in character with the original
structure.
Chapter 14 GENERAL GUIDELINES
14.7 At this time the only exterior lighting planned is recessed in the porch soffits to minimize
visual impacts. If it is deemed more appropriate a simple wall mounted fixture may be installed
by the front door.
14.14 Service areas will remain screened from the street.
14.17 At this time a driveway is not planned for the project, as the Ownet is content with the
existing historic parking situation. The addition of a driveway is feasible (and provisions have
been considered in this design) but would require the undesired removal of some large trees. The
property has no record of off-street parking so it is historically appropriate to maintain the
existing conditions in this circumstance.
P35
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW
Following are references to and Applicant responses to the relevant Residential Design
Standards:
A. SITE DESIGN
1. Front Facade faces and is pazallel to North Third Street
2. Per RDS at least 60% of the front fagade shall be within 5' of the minimum front yard
setback. Placing the East gable facade and setback 10' from the East property line achieves
this standazd. In the current location the existing house location does not meet the Standards.
B. BUILDING FORM
1. At least 10% of the total square footage is located in the secondary mass, which is linked by
a subordinate element.
D. BUILDING ELEMENTS
1. The building has a street oriented entrance and principal window and includes a porch of 50 or
more square feet.
2. The covered entry porch is a street facing one-story element, which is greater than 20% of the
building width.
4. All light wells are entirely recessed behind the street facing facades.
E. CONTEXT
1. Materials will be consistently applied on all sides and used true to their nature. Exterior
sheathing and roofing will not be highly reflective.
RELOCATION NOTES
The existing structure does not have a serviceable foundation. It makes good sense to place the
structure over a new foundation that meets the Residential Design Standards and anticipates
impacts of future development on the adjacent property. This configuration allows space for an
accessible bedroom addition to the reaz of the lot and leaves room for a future carport or garage.
The side yard setback vaziance requests facilitate the success of the project and are minor in
nature. Shifting the house north a bit provides better solar access. The structure has been
inspected by ABD Inc., Throm Const. and Bailey Movers. It is sufficiently sound for the move.
CONCLUSION
The applicant has submitted all of the requested materials and responded to all applicable
standards of the Aspen Land Use Code pursuant to direction given by City Staff. Sufficient
evidence has been provided to demonstrate the project's compliance with those standards.
Additional information can be provided if required by contacting Al Beyer Design Inc.
abd a)spris.net 925-8339
Thanks you for your time and kind consideration of this project!
P36
Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer January 28a', 2008
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Development Review for 707 North Third Street
Dear Amy,
I hereby authorize AI Beyer Design Inc. to act as my designated representative with
respect to the land use application being submitted to your office for my property at 707
North Third Street. The property is described legally as Lot 6 and the North'/2 of Lot 7
Block 100 Hallam Addition, Aspen. It is parcel I.D. # 273512109004.
Al Beyer and Scott Slogan of Al Beyer Design Inc. are also authorized to represent me in
meetings with the City staff and the City's review bodies.
Their address and phone number:
AI Beyer Design Inc
410 N. Mill B-11
Aspen, Colorado
925-8339
Sincerely,
r
Cazol Craig
707 North Third Street
Aspen, Colorado
925-4549
SteWal''t
title of Colorado
WRITTEN OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
Order No. 10719 Date: 2/5/2008
Customer Ref.: 707 North Third Street
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 6 and the North ~/z of Lot 7,
Block 100,
HALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITI{IN, STATE OF COLORADO
APPARENT OWNER OF RECORD:
CAROL G. CRAIG
Deeds of Trust, Liens and other Encumbrances which auruort to affect the above
described aronerty. as disclosed by the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin
Countv. Colorado:
1. *Deleted
2. No liens of record.
3. This is an amended report
The liability of Stewart Title of Colorado, Inc. for any errors or omissions in the information
provided is limited to the amount paid for this report. Maximum liability is further limited to our
customer. There is no expressed or implied warranties that this report is reliable for title
information and, therefore should be verified by a Commitment for Title Insurance.
No representation is made to the completeness, validity, or the legal sufficiency of such
documents, nor have any of such documents been examined to determine whether or not there are
any Exceptions, Reservations, Encumbrances or other matters which might be detrimental to
Title.
No search has been made for any prior Restrictions, Covenants, Easements, Rights of Way, if
any, recorded prior to the commencement of this search.
Certification Date of Search: January 28, 2008
~~ . t,~o
A rized Coun~ersignadue
P37
LINDA WII.LIAMS
Authorized Representative of Stewart Title of Colorado, Inc.
~~
,~
~~~~_
_ ~~ ~ ~ ,
;~~~
,~ \\ ~ ~
VIANITY MAP
(~
o ~ ~ .~
--~
f'~OJECT LOCATION
~ v~ N~ 3r°~ St,
Crati~ ~zstde~c~
~ A:
~ `~,~,r
~;~~'
~. .
~Y
e
J
~~
bh
"" tj ~y
~:° xw
3~i~
'~-
` ..
iP /*
1.4~ i
°~ ~
c~
Z
r
~'"
.a .' _ ,.
M v
~~tk
ham:
J*~j,
.,r.0.
`~ $8~
~.~`~
„r
~.~
+~ x,
x,
~:
a
~~
~~
~~ ~
N~ ~
.'~`
<:
,,,~
«~
~~ - ~ ~.
r .. i
~ti r
i ~:. P
~ _ ~. _
*., y~
~` /
\ {./"~ -
~~ ~
A / ~ K
I ~ .~
~ --~lh ~ ~ ~~ ; ,,.fit ~ K:.,~~
~'
u.
~.<_,.
.. ,. ~~
':i:.
,~
~ a. L yyl. ~Gf.F ,y ~..
Q, I' / z a r
µµ~~ 'ter ./,e{~/ ~ t~P \ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ r ~. l` O:
.Orr ~ K' +' _ _ _ _- 't - _ _ °
-~i' ' ~ u
0
,. ..t~ a+-`_ J -
YV d J0 3 B~bB ~~' Yb/ NJJM I7I 7N/~ C ~ d
-a
s ~ // I
r .•,/ a
Jae ~ ;f ; ~ x
i ~ i z
`~„:
/F ~ F
~' ~ _ ~c
K 1 V ~ , ~ ~ 'r~~
I ~ a _ 5~ _• R 4` `Ja` OJ
• ~ C w !
At+ Q~, a~ p ~~
-y'+ ^ aaA 7H V7 '~ ! r
wra.. ' ^ ~~~ ~~ ` J 9
4KV ~ a al' ~~---y a
X ~ ._ ` N N-- ~ `' Ii~4 Ian r~ • ~ ~ b t
or, s9 ~T' j' ~- ~I' • ~ v b
aq aa. s9 i oo. !~ • ~\ \ • i
~S OM/Nj a a G a~ 'Y~H tl 4
^T~ ° /•yJ
m ~ ~ Q ~..
~--~~, ~ \
~ ` a ~
a^ ~ 3~
c i,
^~, ~LS NiJI~ 6 ., ••.w at ~
~ r ~.,
YV ' ~rZ ®~\,~
i- ~ ~ - • t!
~ ,-a ,~~ t + _ A + ,
~? _ J• Y
3r ~ 1 ~ d ~ • 0 ~ ~7 . p/4
'J,q~` MAX/9. ~~ 0 >~~ :~zs ~ •a `) !t ~4 ~ ~~
2 ~~ 1~ .t y •s. ~ ~ c ai
i
..~. a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 210 S. Galena, Elks Lodge- Minor Review and Vaziance
DATE: Apri123, 2008
SUMMARY: The Elks Lodge received approval in 2006 to construct a small deck on their roof.
Because the existing building is over the height limit, a variance was needed.
At this time the Elk's would like to expand their deck and therefore request a new approval and
variance from HPC. Two other actions are proposed. First, windows and doors on the existing
staircase feature on the roof aze proposed to be altered. Second, due to the upcoming demolition
of the downtown fire station, a temporary relocation of the fire siren is needed and the Elks
propose to accommodate it on their roof.
Staff has concerns that the visibility of the proposed railing is not in compliance with the
design guidelines, and that the review criteria for a height variance aze not met by the current
proposal.
We recommend that the deck platform be as flat on the roof as possible (with no steps up to
higher sections) and that the applicant provide amock-up of the railing (with the height
modification mentioned above), to be viewed by HPC.
We have no objections to the other work proposed in this application.
APPLICANT: Aspen Elks Lodge, represented by Mike Haman.
ADDRESS: 210 S. Galena Street, Lots K,L, and M (aka Units 1-4, B.P.O.E. Condominiums),
Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen.
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. 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
P45
P46
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 fznal 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 26.376.
Staff Response: The historic preservation guidelines offer limited direction for the proposed
roof deck, other than to minimize it's visibility from the street.
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.
When the previous deck proposal was reviewed in 2006, amock-up was provided and was
helpful in determining the impacts of the project. This should be undertaken again.
In addition, the deck design should be restudied to eliminate the steps up to a higher platform.
The feature should be as low in profile as possible, especially because a height variance is
needed.
There aze no guidelines relevant to the window and door changes in the staircase element, or the
temporary relocation of the fire siren onto this roof. Staff has no objections to the work.
HEIGHT VARIANCE
In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC shall
make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives,
and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title;
2. The grant of variance is the minimum vaziance that will make possible the reasonable
use of the pazcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other pazcels in the same zone
district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hazdship, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board
shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a. There aze special conditions and circumstances which aze unique to the
parcel, building or structure, which aze not applicable to other pazcels, structures
2
P47
or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of
the applicant;
b. Granting the vaziance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege
denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other
parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district.
STAFF RESPONSE: The Elk's Building was constructed long before height limits were
established, therefore there aze special circumstances that are unique to this building (only a
handful of historic structures in the downtown exceed the height limit.). The height limit
downtown is currently 38', and this structure is 48' tall. The proposal is to construct a deck and
railing that further exceed the maximum allowable by 5.'
Use of rooftop space adds vitality to the downtown and has generally been favorably viewed by
HPC, so long as any negative impacts on the historic chazacter of the affected building are
minimized. The height of this building will obscure the deck from view, however, it should be
held in from the edges of the roof as much as possible.
The deck is designed to be two levels, with steps between. Staff finds that this does not meet the
requirement to minimize the vaziance, therefore we recommend that the design be revised so that
the deck is as flat on the roof as possible.
Please note that the fire siren is eligible for an exception from the height limit and does not
require a variance.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the height of the deck be reduced. The impact
of the railing must be discussed after viewing amock-up.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Application
3
P48
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
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.
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.
4
P49
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
s~~E
Date: _ ~~
Billing Address and Telephone Number:
Required
{~Sp~N f-~ SI6 ~1
°ttJ -~tl3o
ATTACHMENT 2 -Historic Preservation Land Use Application
Name: T15P~/~ ~Z ILS t-i%-~G~(_
C3
Location: S I O L' ~~ M A N 3 1
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID (REQUIltED) Z13 7- I K- 2 ~ 3 -o ~ ~~
A lieant: ,
f~-s fe-^~ L-Zip-S t.c~ d ~
Name:
~- ~j-1~h~tN' ~ 3 10
Address: 1 a
Phone #: ~ L Jam' °I D ~ 1 Fax#: E-~"
Re resentative:
Name: E _~ ~ M ~ ~
Address: ~ ~' ~ S ~~ ~ V I L ~~ ~
3 -'-17 3a Fax#: "I Z ~ ~ -1 3 J E-mail./, 1 Ise MT ~.' L i-~y
Phone #: ~ 2 ~
of
check all that
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certjfteete-e€APpmp^ateness
~r Historic Developm~
-Major Hrstoric Development
-Conceptual Historic Development
rtt5 'l. U 71UIH Relocation (temporary, on
CITY OF ASPEN or off-site)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDemolition (total
demolition)
Historic Landmark Lot
Split