Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080514ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL AND REGULLR MEETING May 14, 2008 NOON -SPECIAL MEETING -Elks Bldg. 510 E. Hyman 5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISIT: NOON -Special Meeting I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - Apri19`h and Apri123~d minutes. III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #6) Lift I discussion of task force goals -Travis (10 mi.) VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. 707 N. Third -Major Development Final Review (45 min.) IX. OLD BUSINESS A. 627 W. Main -Major Conceptual - cont'd from 4-9- (30 min.) B. Isis -Minor Development - cont'd from 3/26 - (45 min.) X. WORK SESSIONS A. None IX. ADJOURN 7:15 p.m. 0.. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer __ - g RE: 707 N. Third Street- Majof Development (Final) =Public earrn DATE: May 14, 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. On April 23, 2008, HPC adopted Resolution 5, which granted conceptual approval, relocation approval and a side yard setback vaziance for the subgrade terrace. As a condition of approval, HPC required line drawings to be submitted for Final Review of the project. The applicant requests Major Development Final Review approval for the proposed project. Staff finds that the Design Guidelines aze met and recommends that HPC grant Final Review approval with conditions. APPLICANT: Cazol Craig, 707 N. Third Street, Aspen, CO represented by A] 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 (FINAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of P1 1 P2 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) andlor addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application incrding iZs height; scale; massin~a-tdproportions: 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: Landscape Plan: The applicant proposes to maintain the existing wooden picket fence and most of the existing mature landscape on the site. A walkway from the street to the entry porch is proposed. Staff recommends that the material for the walkway be approved by Staff and monitor. A small hedgerow is proposed to obscure the subgrade terrace. Staff finds that this is appropriate. A walkway to the subgrade terrace from the street is not proposed on the site plan. A new fence and gate is indicated on the site plan in front of the sunken terrace. Staff requests more information regazding the style, material and type of fence and gate proposed for review and approval by Staff and monitor. Staff finds that the Design Guidelines below aze met: 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. ^ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. ^ Provide a walkway running perpendiculaz from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. ^ Use paving materials that aze similaz to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. ^ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Pazks Department. ^ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the eazly yeazs of the project. Staff recommends that a mock up in the field of the style and color of the retaining wall proposed for the sunken terrace be approved by Staff and monitor. Parking: No variance is need for the pre-existing non-conformity that there is no pazking onsite. However, an encroachment license is necessary to maintain City owned Right of Way as gravel pazking for the property owner. The existing gravel is inappropriate in the streetscape. Staff recommends that sod be re-established with pazallel on-street parking. The Engineering and Pazks Departments have authority over this issue; however the HPC may make a recommendation. 2 P3 Lighting: The applicant proposes a wall mount light fixture beside the entry door on both the main and reaz porches. Recessed can lights aze also proposed for the ceilings of both porches. HPC has approved one recessed can light on the primary porch so as not to flood the porch with light. Design Guideline 14.6 emphasizes an intensity similaz to that used traditionally. Staff finds that there is more flexibility with lighting on the reaz porch, for that reason the recessed cans aze appropriate on the secondary facade, as long as the lighting meets the Land Use Code. A specific light fixture is not proposed; therefore Staff recommends that Staff and monitor approve the light fixtures. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. ^ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. ^ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. Fenestration: The proposed fenestration for the new additions are simple and compatible with the historic resource. The applicant proposes double hung windows to replace the north addition on the historic resource. Staff finds that the style and proportions are appropriate and meet Guideline 11.9 below: 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ^ These include windows, doors and porches. ^ Overall, details should be modest in character. Flat skylights aze proposed for the flat portion of the historic resource. Staff finds that the ., - proposed configuration of three skylights mat aze uusn uii «~~ ,.a~ .~~~ ~~==r=~•~~ ~_~~ ~•-•~•---a skylights; and therefore is appropriate in this case. The applicant mentions a transom window above the front door that is not illustrated in the drawings. Staff recommends that Staff. and monitor review the transom if it is included in the design. Materials: The applicant proposes to reuse the wooden roof shingles from the historic resource as siding on the contemporary additions. Reusing materials meets many community goals and distinguishes the historic resource from the new additions. An asphalt roof is proposed for the historic resource and a standing seam metal roof is proposed for the rear bedroom addition, both of which aze appropriate. Staff recommends that Staff and monitor approve the color of the asphalt roof. The applicant also proposes solaz panels on the south side of rear bedroom addition. The solaz panels aze represented as laying flush with the gable roof pitch and do not distract from the historic resource. Staff commends the applicant for proposing an alternate form of energy and recommends approval. 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 similaz or subordinate to the original materials. 3 P4 The existing home contains some gingerbread details that aze not illustrated in the line drawings. It is unknown whether the details are original or a later addition. Staff recommends a site visit with Staff and monitor during construction to determine whether the details are original. Entry Porch: The applicant proposes to reconstruct the front porch in a style similaz to a typical Victorian era modest porch, which meets Guideline 5.5 below. A metal standing seam roof is proposed for the front porch and simple columns. Staff recommends asphalt siding for the porch roof to maintain consistency with the rest of the historic home. 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 appeazance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similaz in chazacter to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that aze 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 similaz to that of the trimwork. ^ The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appeaz similar to those used historically as well. The applicant proposes to reuse the existing southern entry door for the primary front door. Staff recommends that Staff and monitor approve the door on site. Open risers aze proposed for the steps leading up to the front porch. Staff recommends that the stairs maintain a closed configuration with wooden riser planks. A railing is not illustrated in the drawings. Staff requests more information as to whether a railing is required for the entry porch. A mud scraper/grate is proposed in the center of the front porch floor to provide light to a subgrade window well beneath the front porch. The ]ightwell proposed during Conceptual review in this location was denied by HPC. At this time, the applicant proposes a window well beneath the front porch. Three windows are proposed for the subgrade level to access the light from the mud scraper/grate. As mentioned during the Mazch 12, 2008, Staff finds that a light well or window well beneath the historic front porch is inappropriate. The applicant proposes to recreate a historic style front porch for the primary fagade, while at the same time adding a window well beneath the front porch that is distracting from the historic resource and unnecessary in terms of egress. HPC held a lengthy discussion during the Mazch 12, 2008 Conceptual review that concluded in a lightwell beneath the front porch being inappropriate. 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. ^ The size of the lightwell should be minimized. Foundation: HPC approved the relocation of this house onto a new foundation. The applicant indicates that the stone will match the existing stone foundation. Staff recommends that the applicant salvage the existing stone for the historic home and propose a different foundation 4 P5 material for the new addition. Staff requests that the applicant provide a mock up in the field of the style and color of stone proposed for the foundation for approval by staff and monitor. A profile detail of the foundation to ensure that the foundation wall does not project beyond the wall of the home is recommended. The applicant represents that the structure will be located slightly above the existing elevation. Staff requests more information about exactly how high above the existing elevation the house is proposed. _ _- __ 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 grant Major Development final approval for the property located at 707 North Third Street, Lot 6 and''/z of Lot 7, Block 100, Hallam's Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions; 1. The material of the walkway will be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 2. The style and color of the retaining wall proposed for the sunken terrace will be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. A mock up of the color and style will be provided the field prior to approval. 3. The light fixtures will be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 4. The new fence and gate will be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 5. The color of the asphalt roof will be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 6. The porch roof will be asphalt. 7. The front entry door on the front porch will be approved by Staff and monitor. 8. The window well beneath the front porch is not approved. 9. Existing foundation stone will be salvaged for use on the historic home foundation. A new foundation material for the additions will be reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor. 10. The foundation color, style and height will be approved by Staff and monitor. A profile of the foundation in relation to the wall frame will be submitted to Staff and monitor for approval A mock up of the color and style will be provided the field prior to approval. 11. Staff and monitor will review and approve the removal of gingerbread details in the field. 12. Any information indicating historic locations of windows or doors discovered during construction will be reported to HPC staff and monitor for review. 13. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. P6 14. The applicant shall document, using photographs and drawings, all historic elements prior to restoration and relocation of the building. 15. A construction plan with detailed phases for the development of this lot shall be submitted with the building permit application for approval by HPC Staff. The historic home shall be secured, stabilized and protected during construction, and rehabilitation of the historic home shall be in the primary phase of development. 16. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the -- building permit application. The app rcan must provide in~'ormatiori as to whe erornot- - - the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con's of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. 17. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 18. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 19. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 20. The conditions of approval, both Conceptual and Final HPC Resolutions, are required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 21. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 22. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 23. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following fins] approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of 6 P7 three (3) yeazs, ptusuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 707 North Third Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Exhibits: A. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines B. Minutes C. Application Exhibit A Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 707 North Third Street, Maior Development Conceptual Review 1.3 Anew replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. ^ A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. ^ On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards" ) ^'A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. ^ Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. ^ Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similaz in scale with those seen traditionally. ^ Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.5 Aside yard fence which extends between two homes should be set back from the street-facing facade. ^ This setback should be significant enough to provide a sense of open space between homes. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yazds and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. ^ A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less transparent. A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six 7 P8 feet), but should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. ^ Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. ^ Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. -- o-'This includes~se~uencE-0f experiences,-beginning with. the "publir~si~iewallc,_proceeding_ _ __ _ along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. ^ Provide a walkway ruiu~ing perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. ^ Use paving materials that aze similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. ^ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. ^ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a lazge enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. ^ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. ^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. ^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small azeas for accent. ^ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. ^ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. ^ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. ^ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. ^ Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. ^ Significantly increasing the amount of glass on acharacter-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. ^ Use materials that appeaz 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 P9 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. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. -- - ^ ReplacemenEmaterials should be-similar--to-those used historically nn comparably_styled buildings. ^ If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. ^ Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. ^ If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. ^ In general a lightwell is prohibited on awall that faces a street. ^ The size of the lightwell should be minimized. 10.11 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. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. ^ The front porch should be functional, in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. ^ Anew porch should be in similar size and shape to those seen traditionally. ^ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendiculaz to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ^ The primary plane of the front should not appeaz taller than the historic structure. • The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.9 Use building components that aze similaz in size and shape to those of the historic property. ^ These include windows, doors and porches. ^ Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in chazacter and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. ^ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. ^ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and azchitectural lighting. P10 ^ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. ^ Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. ^ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. ^ Do not wash an entire building facade in light. ^ Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. ^ -Avoicfduplieating fixtures. For-example,-danoLusetwo fixtures_that light the_same area._ ___ 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. ^ Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. ^ Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of-way: 10 P11 three (3) yeazs, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 707 North Third Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals aze not inconsistent with this approval. __ The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Resolution _ Series of 2008 Exhibits: A. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines B. HPC Minutes from March 12, 2008 C. Application Exhibit A Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 707 North Third Street. Maior Development Conceptual Remew 1.3 Anew replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. ^ A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. ^ On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) ^ A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. ^ Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. ^ Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. ^ Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.5 Aside yard fence which extends between two homes should be set back from the street-facing facade. ^ This setback should be significant enough to provide a sense of open space between homes. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yazds and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. ^ A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yazd counterpart. It also is less transparent. A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six 7 P12 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 707 NORTH THIRD STREET, LOT 6 and Y: of LOT 7, BLOCK 100, HALLAM'S ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: X735-121-09-00 . WHEREAS, the applicant, Carol Craig, 707 N. Third Street, Aspen, CO represented by Al Bayer Design Inc. 410 N. Mill Street, Aspen, CO, requests Major Development (Final) for the property located at 707 North Third Street, Lot 6 and '/z of Lot 7, Block 100, Hallam's Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures;" and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Saza Adams, in her staff report dated May 14, 2008 performed an analysis of the application based on the standazds, and recommended that the project be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution No.~ Series of 2008, by a (_-~ vote, a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the historic home, Relocation and Setback variances located on the property at 707 North Third Street, Lot 6 and''/z of Lot 7, Block 100, Hallam's Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on May 14, 2008 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code and approved the application with conditions by a vote of _ to P13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants approval for Major Development (Final) with the following conditions: 1. The material of the walkway will be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 2. The style and color of the retaining wall proposed for the sunken terrace will be approved __ _ __ by Staff and monitor prior to purchase an~Cc irisfallatiori: A mock up of t rye color acrd-sty e will be provided the field prior to approval. 3. The light fixtures will be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 4. The new fence and gate will be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 5. The color of the asphalt roof will be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 6. The porch roof will be asphalt. 7. The front entry door on the front porch will be approved by Staff and monitor. 8. The window well beneath the front porch is not approved. 9. Existing foundation stone will be salvaged for use on the historic home foundation. A new foundation material for the additions will be reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor. 10. The foundation color, style and height will be approved by Staff and monitor. A profile of the foundation in relation to the wall frame will be submitted to Staff and monitor for approval A mock up of the color and style will be provided the field prior to approval. 11. Staff and monitor will review and approve the removal of gingerbread details in the field. 12. Any information indicating historic locations of windows or doors discovered during construction will be reported to HPC staff and monitor for review. 13. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 14. The applicant shall document, using photographs and drawings, all historic elements prior to restoration and relocation of the building. 15. A construction plan with detailed phases for the development of this lot shall be submitted with the building permit application for approval by HPC Staff. The historic home shall be secured, stabilized and protected during construction, and rehabilitation of the historic home shall be in the primary phase of development. 16. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con's of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. 17. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 18. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. P14 19. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 20. The conditions of approval, both Conceptual and Final HPC Resolutions, are required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 21. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval-are known and enders-food and mus~tneet with th~Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 22. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 23. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) yeazs, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 707 North Third Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of P15 referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of May 2008. Approved as to Form: James R. True, Special Counsel Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P16 -~Hr,~r8 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`h and Feb. 27`h; 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 comer 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 concem 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 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 pnmary unit and one space 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 enlxance 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 1 and 2 are not met. Staff feels there should be parking for the 2 P18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2U08 ADU on-site as there is no parking on the West End. We're not concemed 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 stick: 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. The 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 P19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2008 porch to the covered walkway on the west side that faces the back yard. We are 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. Sara 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 al] 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 yard in the future. P20 Michael said one of staff s issues is the walk out terrace. Al said it was 7 '/: 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 gazden 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. Tt 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 squaze foot bonus that this property would be eligible for. In the fixture 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 aze 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. P21 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 staffs 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. Saza said it is not on the primary fapade 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 parking 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 parking spaces from HPC. Al said Engineering wants to put in curb and gutter everywhere. HPC has the right to waive the parking and that is what we aze 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. ---- --- P22 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 cleazly, 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 facade. Amy said on the south side Al isn't changing anything except some windows. On the north side they aze changing things. Al said if we aze 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 boazd 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 aze asking you to pull it back four more feet. Saza 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. P23 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 variance 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 garden 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 parking 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 Apri123rd. 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 P24 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 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 Community 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 be reviewed at final. 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 P25 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NIINUTES 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 ouse tow ere 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 A] 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 4-0. 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 all 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 al] 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. to P26 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. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION.• Jay made the motion to continue the public hearing for 707 N. Third until Apri123; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. --- _. -- - MOTION.• Michael moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Me ing a joumedjatSJ p.m. l] Kathleen J. S land, Chief Deputy City C rk u O ~ a ~ ~ Z '° $ ~~ ,~ f.. yZ~ uUWr ~m g d ,r/~~ 0 rtb i ~~'m~ 0 2~o~ i ~ ~ $~ ~ l` / a it ~r s: ag C ~ .I.7 a rc LL m~ ~ J J O g J f ~' ~ v M ~ ° a 1'v 0 3'.U ~ `- o x qn c~ °' v ~ ~ ~ SY2 ~ ~ W Y f ry 4 Y ~y {~ N U' N I S U U O S /~~ V ^ J\\~' ~9 .. u'~1 ul 3 t ~ rt iltj ~. it it It 4 ~ 1~ Ii' 141rf' l 1 { X41 ji~i i~ 111=~ 1rv 11 (`l~ ,li{I 1 ~ 1 Ir, ~ - __-___ 1 ~11 rl {'~ 1{ 1 ~ij t'1 +~~ril 1, ~I~' ~IE.'~ -> F 1 ~rul'~ I.~Ifn~.li~fi{{-I{ul}~ 1} ~ ~ ~f~l 4 , 1 .I ~ fir;}, I~i 1 ~ f~ i Ir~lli r }i t' ~tI r1 ~+~~ Niii i j41 Ij ~~ ~Ii"1{ 14y llZl{ {I~r 4 C'1' 1t1{t ;11111 111 j,l ~ ~ ~ lit ) 1 ' ~ Ir l ~ 1 ,~ ~4{ , .Ill ~ r I i~~~{~~r1rj ^ 11 m Ifit ~' ~ I ' 1 ~ 4~Ii I,l~r I~ j1. {1 Il~tl ~ 11 ~ I~' { 1 Ci ' 't~~~'i - 4Si sir '' ii' 1 ii 1i.. 1'~t{111. }. it {i j . II{r r~i J ~(,Ir1Jr{{~Ir ~- ry Via{(} ^ a ~~{}1 ~~i~' 11117 ~ .~~161~'i"1 ~{I h(` o ~{ }~'r} ii ~'r i i t i (I~ ~ it 11 ~ :jt~ ~ 1j}ii; i 11i~1 G ~~I{ I~I ttr{'~ 1f ~~ rt ~ }' ~ ~ ~I~ iFi{' Iijlli' ~~!}r~1~ r{r{~Il{ f r l~t 1 i rt11 I J I t t e r ~~j~jr }{1 ~!'r '{ ^ ~ i, li~;l ; ~i1i11 j~r~ ~':,'1il'f4 ~l :ill l I ~ o f ~ '~ 1i :~I i ir~l 1 4r~ ~ I i r l ~Ff }{ i~t }r}i (l1i 1 itl E ~lir!!j} I' Ir ~i 11 ~~ ~~. 'r)i '>~~ i.'1 I ' i tu. ff~ ft i l~~11 ill 111 Iii,-;- 't ''11 r Ir"{ C}t I'~ ~~''.~ } f ~1 { { Ilil.l~ 1ji11? ~ `~~ C Iti~rlljrr it i.li rlir llikl~ . }I~1~ ~,I {}r SJ Ff }I~1~)111 ~1~i '~ -~-ir~ _ __ 4~`~{i _: {ti411{It}Iyja)IlH ~ - 4 1 1 1. f r~ 1 ! i' I I'illr ~) ill 11 q 1' J}F 't rlir' .i ~E it lrt~a111! ll1~i, II~III 1111( `~)i tli}i (111111r Ifl rill 1'I- t1iit ) 11~. `ila' }}`II I ~ I ~ r: ll rl t~1~ F4'j~ }~11 ~F - -" 1,~{~'f{1i'~II~ "Iit''~rjt'~ - '~'r{' j, Is~1 i ill ~ ;~ I ~ i~1111i1 JGi`J~{i~1ill,?t ~ .~~r11 vljli ~~t{ ~~tjl; j 4'j~ ~f {' ~ li,h II lr,'1114 ~~ it I t t r1 , ~'tiltt,t7 1 j f i~ (j Il,, ;' ~Iw' ~{tI x'1 ~I'tIhih, (}}{; i1. 4 ,~ji~; ~ ~;`~}tl l it'iJi{Ijti itj+ll;«~`}i l'IC f)Fllh{I ~j f1'1'':~III~~,I r, .~ 1 ~ i r}lil ~I Ir i I{I ~ i~ Jtl ~ ' ! ~uri: 'r II t '1' i''' IJ{I 7I f ~L ~ F i,, i.i 111u 411 tl tl 1. l~ t t,j1 t.{!. 1 I 1 I}' It,~i; }l~}I~Ii {! 11111 I ^ r ~ l r 1 ji ~ritlr ^ `~ j 1 ~ i~111. ti~~ 14' Ilrl N i, i 1 11 }1 4., { ( r ^ {{ E i Ijll rl hlr I r{a.. it Iir 11 a j I114r ~1! iii {'~ ~ ~ ! li h @ 14~ir~irri it~il'j ij __ 6 ~~ i~~~ I I~s ~rFil!{, ~ iii II ^' o ~ tl_~~ilrj{!N}a j1 I} f i!4tfl 11~11l~i~1~,r 11 ll' u q JI4.'I I' Itri `I t. -~ F J { j r {Ili {li t '''i I'll li'fj~'Irr 11litfj. ''`~II!~r~ Ijt ~ 1 ~t 1 iqp{{ ,~1 II ~il 11l~~I I~j1~ iil~~~.~'~ ,I i7t i1'r ~il lrrl;. 1 ~ ! I r lilt ar. 1 1 ~, 1 11 Ii~N ni )1j ~I1{ 1 ~ I .„111 ' r~ i{ y r i u l} II ; i, Ili, l11 gal l`''i ri( ! : ')17",~ i- tllFli 1 1 it l i ~i 11 { l 111' t i II 4 I { ~~{I } i41i li{Ili rr r f I~} ^ E- ~ ~ !!r il! r ~'a I~ 'IGI ~~ iil~~~r I .'lllr{ - ---- IIfs1lu~:t,~»~,+`~.:{1'~ 1 _ F rtiii};j ~4 1 11Nj Il.r~.l if ~I }{~lr II ~„ ~I 11{1 .1'!?{~ '~ I~ '.1:h "J I ~, I~ i .L:1 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FINAL REVIEW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO RESIDENCE AT 707 NORTH THIRD STREET ASPEN, COLORADO This application is for Major Development Final, Relocation, and 3' South Side Yard Setback for a sub-grade retaining wall. 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 '/~ 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 Landmazk Sites and Structures. This application is being submitted for Cazol Craig, the Owner of the property. AI Beyer Design Inc. is the authorized Owner's Representative. HPC has granted Major Development Conceptual approval. This 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 and East sides will be partially stripped away to expose more of the original structure. The North 70's era kitchen expansion will be completely removed. 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. An 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, and ventilation. From the exterior this new porch will appear as an exact replica of an historic porch with an included mud- scraping grate. Anew door and windows have been added to the original structure in the presumed original locations based on similar 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 new smaller profile units hidden from view. 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. Final plans, elevations and views are included in this application to more clearly represent the proposed improvements. REDEIVED a"AY ~ 5 2006 CITY OF ASPEN ';OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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 acase-by-case basis. The HPC must determine that a sufficient 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 are 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. 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 character 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 boards 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 similar 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 are 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 are 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 facade of the house and is allowed by the Residential Design Standards. 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 facade and is hidden from street view by a low hedge setback behind the street facing facade of the original structure. This low hedge is similar to other historic plantings in the neighborhood. The sunken Terrace area has been greatly minimized from earlier 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 lazger 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 argue 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 sepazate apartment (for a future cazegiver), 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 similar 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 area. 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 ] 0' 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 are 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 Owner 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. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW Following aze 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 yazd setback. Placing the East gable fapade and setback 10' from the East property line achieves this standard. In the current location the existing house location does not meet the Standards. B. BUILDING FORM At least 10% of the total squaze 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 aze 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 Standazds and anticipates impacts of future development on the adjacent property. This configuration allows space for an accessible bedroom addition to the rear 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 solaz 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 standazds. Additional information can be provided if required by contacting Al Beyer Design Inc. abd(c~ris.net 925-8339 Thanks you for your time and kind consideration of this project! U ~~ ~ C ~ ce%~V~~aa, ~ goo C ~m a`vd~6z~g~ C7~mo n~~~s~~~a=` OLL Eg,fi'~~~ ~N~ d •. T ohm ~ `~~5"i~fi~E F;,~,`. a~ ~~ ~a~=ass"s"=€~ _m ~ ~as~~x€s~~E Q e€ ~ro`4n"~~a d`T°~ ~ v ~ ~o ~U ~~ (~/ ~+c- ~ mW Z d v~ ~/ r d1 o< r W w J H W W F N Q ~_ ~Z 0 H d w J W z O Q o > -~ w J ;~ W ~ 2 H 0 ~ ~i z 0 .~ o w ~~ w~ ~ w wQ ~ ~ ~~ B n O a eon ~~@ °u °u a '~ r z ~ w o a c U m O E I F d U a 4 °~ m ''~ z o w ~ ~ a v W ~ w m,oW 000 ~ F YpQ G z ~ a ~ \ C n w O Q ~ r H mv o ~ P27 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE; 627 W. Main Street, Major Development (Conceptual) and Variance- (Public Hearing continued from Apri19, 2008) DATE: May 14, 2008 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to make an addition to this Victorian era home, which is located in the Main Street Historic District. The addition is to the rear of the property and includes living space and a one stall garage. A 500 squaze foot FAR bonus is requested (a sideyazd setback variance which was originally desired has been removed from the project). Restoration work is proposed for the Victorian, including removing paint from the masonry. Staff recommends approval. 627 W. Main `=-~~ ~/~ ( p . s~ ' r t ~ ~~" ~ ~ ~ 1 a'+ "s '~ ~'". +J p $ ~~ ~ ~ -~~ ~, / -, APPLICANT: Douglas Kelso, owner, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum Phi. LOCATION: 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: "MU, Mixed Use: ' MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. 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 1 P28 for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual eve apt~ettt-Platfshull-be binding-upan~IPCzn~egards to~he-locatime-and farm-of~hz- envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." The property is located at the western end of the Main Street Historic District, where 19`s century residential structures aze prevalent. This house is constructed of masonry, which is unusual among the Victorians le8 in Aspen. Although the zone district is mixed use, this property remains a single family home. Previous alterations to the structure include painting the masonry, replacing doors and windows, and adding a dormer on the roof. There is an existing addition at the back of the house, part of which is demolished and replaced in this project. HPC held a worksession to discuss the design and the requested FAR bonus. At the time, the boazd was concerned with the height of the linking element (concerned with there being a discernable smaller, linking element). HPC wanted the roof form of the addition to be simplified, hoped to see removal of the glass block in the dormer and installation of a stylistically appropriate front door on the Victorian. Amassing model was suggested. The azchitect was asked to contact the Aspen Historical Society to see if there aze any old pictures available. The project was restudied and discussed at a public heazing on Mazch 26th. At that point the addition was set on center with the ridgeline of the historic house, the roof pitch was made steeper, and the azchitect had created a flat roofed connector piece to link the new and old construction on the second floor. HPC found many improvements in the project but continued it for further refinement of the roof height and donner placement. Those changes have been made and staff finds the project is now in conformance with the guidelines. FAR BONUS The applicant is requesting a 500 squaze foot floor azea bonus. The following standards apply to an FAR bonus. per Section 26.415.110.E: 2 P29 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction rs r~ec rve of a propor-ho`nal pattern"s ound-rn`t~e hrs orr`c building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Staff Response: The applicant met with the HPC in a worksession, as required. To earn the FAR bonus, the proposal is to remove the paint from the historic masonry, remove glass block from a dormer added to the historic house, and replace the front door on the house with one that is more stylistically appropriate. Staff finds these restoration efforts to be worthy of the FAR bonus. Removing the paint from the brick will be a significant improvement to the historic integrity of the house, and will highlight the uniqueness of this building. 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. 3 P30 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Major Development (Conceptual) and a 500 squaze foot FAR bonus for the property located at 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as proposed. Exhibits: Resolution # ,Series of 2008 A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. April9ei minutes C. Application "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 627 W. Main Street, Conceptual Review" 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 appeazance inconsistent with the historic chazacter of the primary building is inappropriate. ^ An addition that seeks to imply an eazlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these eazlier 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. 10.5 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 azea 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. 4 P31 ^ The connector should be a minimum of 10 Feet long between the addition and the primary building. ^ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. ^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional~loor area may a sortie located" under t1-ie b~dmg iri ~asemen~which wiil-n~t alter the exterior mass of a building. ^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and chazacter to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primazy structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. ^ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs aze 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 similaz or subordinate to the original materials. 5 P32 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND AN FAR BONUS FOR 627 W. MAIN STREET, LOT B, BLOCK 25, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO; RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: 2737-07-330-010 WHEREAS, the applicant, Doug Kelso, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, has requested approval for Major Development (Conceptual) and an FAR bonus in order to make an addition to his residence at 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of an FAR bonus, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a heazing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appeazance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials aze of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features aze retained; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 14, 2008, performed an analysis of the application based on the review standazds and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and recommended HPC approve the project; and P33 WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on May 14, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found that it was consistent with the review standazds and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and granted approval by a vote of _ to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grants Major Development (Conceptual) and a 500 square foot FAR bonus for the property located at 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as proposed. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 14th day of May, 2008. Approved as to Form: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Michael Hoffman, Chair P34 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 Michael inquired about the color. Adam said the pavers can match the concrete. Ann asked how it is installed. Adam said it is in crusher fines to level it and then there is two inches of crushed stone. Micfiael-an3~ara s~h aid-they had-a df~eren~ recol~cti~l~ourthe worl~ session and the use of grates. Adam replied, to have it as a grated system we would be causing more damage then preserving. Amy said we are sure this is what was agreed upon. Michael said the board would like to see the pavers be consistent throughout the block. The color of the recycled pavers should match as close as to the concrete color. The board said they are fine with the wall being dry stack. Adam said on the south side of Main the concrete would be in front of the 7`n and Main affordable housing project unti1709 W. Main and the next block pavers. Adam said the company can adjust the paver to whatever color. Sarah said the paver should be gray to match regular concrete. Ann inquired about the paver weathering. Adam said there will be some weathering. Adam said the stone for the wall will be similar to the bike path at Burlingame. Sarah said she thinks that stone is Colorado buff. 627 W. Main Street -Major Development -Conceptual - PH Steev Wilson, Forum Phi Doug Kelso, owner Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I Amy explained that the house is a brick Victorian home on the far west end of Main Street. It is a landmark structure and in the historic district which is zoned mixed use. Doug plans to keep the house as a single family residence. The proposal is for an addition to the back of the house. There is already an addition and they basically want to expand on top of that element and move toward the alley with a master bedroom and a new single car garage. There has been progress made but we are not sure this is exactly the right solution. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P35 MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 We have suggested that guideline 10.7 is not being met. The guidelines says if you are going to design an addition that is taller than the Victorian of the historic building you need to have a one story connector and we don't have that here and the addition is taller than the original house. Similarly we are concerned how the new construction attaches to the back gable end of the house. From looking at the design there is a deck at the bac~f Elie houses meeting the rear ga a en an ere ore a rai ng -- might be cutting into the rear eave line. Photographs where provided with the addition super imposed. Staff feels that the addition has not been minimized sufficiently. HPC in the past has asked that the roof forms be simplified. Staff is suggesting that the entire profile of the addition needs to be altered. Possibly the plate heights could be lowered so that the entire thing drops down or lower the plate heights and increase the pitch of the addition so that it matches the historic house. It might not really become lower but it might become more visually compatible with the historic building. There is an overhang eave proposed for the west side of some of the existing construction and it is too far into the setback. The other issue is a zoning issue as there is a space labeled office and that needs to be for personal use. You can't have a sign indicating that it is an office. Staff is in support of the bonus in terms of what is being offered for that bonus. They are stripping the paint from the masonry and they are removing the glass block that is in anon-historic dormer and replacing the front door that is more appropriate. Staff feels the bonus is justified. The new construction continues the pattern that exists of being two feet from the property line on the east side. To grant this variance would have an impact on the adjacent building. Steev said on A2.4 we propose to keep the eaves as they exist now and then do a small mansard connector to minimize the connector portion on the second story. The connector gets you from one side to the other. It is basically a walk through closet. The plate heights are as low as code allows us. Steev also said they will eliminate the variance for the columns and will work within the setbacks. In this way we can theoretically park another car. The plate heights have been lowered to 8.5 from ten feet and we would like to keep the dormers in order to get light into the rooms. Jay asked if the 2000 addition is being altered. Steev said they would like to raise the roof on half of it. We desire to make flat roofs off the back half over the master bedroom essentially. 6 P36 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9.2008 Ann asked why the addition has to so much higher than the original house. Steev said the original house is 1 '/z story and the lower floor is 24 feet wide and the upper floor is only 16.8 feet wide because it is part of an attic space. The ceiling heights are 8 feet and the ceiling heights in the addition are 9.9 feet. We are trying not to impact what exists and just build on top of it. - - riari~e-d i~ the o~the wes st- ide by~he ktcren require a varia Steev said we have a dormer off the previous addition and we are within our setback. We are not pursuing a variance. Nora said we understands the need for light but wondered if there where any other solutions to get light. Steev said they could try and do one longer shed dormer but that didn't seem to be in character with the building. The building already has a dormer that is of a similar style. We could do skylights but with the low plate heights we desire the dormer. Doug Kelso, owner said if they lower the height we will end up with interior space that is not hardly usable or attractive. Amy explained that there are other ways to get light. It could be skylights or more glazing in the gable ends. Doug said it is his opinion that sky lights leak and he loathes the maintenance they entail. Brian asked staff to respond to the guidelines that says the design must meet all applicable design guidelines. Amy said there is still something questionable about the connector piece that could be resolved. On the addition, increasing the pitch is better; the shape is more sensitive to the historic house. Amy said her only issue is how to deal with the dormers. Sarah suggested cutting back the overhang on the dormers because they are quite deep right now; possibly have a six inch over hang. As a suggestion maybe you could eliminate two of the four dormers and make two large ones on either side. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There where no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. 7 P37 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 Michael said the issues are the plate heights, the design of the dormer and the connector as everything else has been taken off the table. We don't have a one story connector so that needs discussed. The overhang proposed for the west entry is not a setback issue anymore. If the board has a problem with the design over the entry we need to discuss it. Michael asked the board to address the height of the addition, the dormers _- __ and the visual impact of the a rtion o~7iistoric mouse. Alison said what came to her mind was if there could be one dormer on each side that would be larger. Ann inquired about the outdoor staircase. Steev said the back bedroom only has access through the bedroom in front so the staircase gives the person in the back bedroom the ability to exit the building without having to go through another bedroom. Ann said she doesn't have a problem with the dormers as much as the height of the building and all the exterior things going on, windows, doors, staircases. Jay said the historic structure is simple and the addition is not .simple, it is overwhelming the historic structure with all the different roof lines. The mass is an issue because of the connector. Nora commented that the entire street is very lovely. The front of the house is very simplistic and the back has so much going on. It would be great if the simplistic front could be brought into value rather than having dormers, decks, stairs and excessive height. Brian said at the street level the only thing you really see are the dormers. Sarah said she feels the eaves of the dormers are too deep. Sarah thanked the owner and architect for the model and the revisions that where made from the previous meeting. Sarah said she feels this is a good project and it does comply with our guidelines. There are some detailing and material issues that need to be dealt with at final. We are much further along. Michael said he realizes that it is frustrating for the landowner but we are making progress. Michael said he would like to see the prospective along Main Street and the dormers re-designed. The suggestion was to consolidate and make one dormer on each side. 8 P38 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 Connector: Jay commented that the connector is more than aone-story and are we willing to make a variance for that because the addition is above the height of the historic structure. Jay pointed out that the west side entrance cover sticks out too far as it detracts from the historic structure. Steev said in the new proposa~we ave cu~oot off- eth en~rice cover. - - - Amy commented on the outside staircase. Normally when people want to do a two story connector they only have one staircase in the house. You are actually creating a second staircase and maybe there is some way you an actually internalize that but let it have its own private doorway to get out. Then you wouldn't need the second floor closet space connector. Brian said he can understand the architect doing it this way because they have the view out the window that they want to retain. Keeping it as an exterior stairway is acceptable as long as we compromise with the dormers.. Michael said he is perplexed about the suggestion of getting rid of the external stairway. Brian said the site has minimal side yard setbacks and it will not be that visible. Jay said if there was an internal staircase and they didn't have the connector increase then it would be more in compliance with 10.7. Amy said it would be more compliant if we didn't have the second story element touching the back of the house but then there is an impact of some sort by internalizing the staircase. It is bumping out somewhere. Michael said the external staircase and the story and 1/2 connector is a choice being made by the property owner and I do not see a compelling reason not to accept it. Sarah commented that what has been presented is in compliance with guideline 10.7. We have a connector and it has been minimized and the link away from the historic resource helps to push the higher addition further back. 9 P39 Sarah asked what the total height of the back of the addition to the ridge was. Steev said he didn't have those figures but it is 18.5 to the plate. Sarah said you are probably 28 to 33 feet. Ann said the sketches of the photo shop would help because the elevations ,look like the addition has a big impact to the house. Steev said the addition is far back. Amy suggests the HPC make it clear what the remaining issues are so that when they are on the agenda May 14`h it can go quickly. Michael identified the outstanding issues: Height Dormers Connector Jay said he likes the trade off of the staircase and the smaller mass in the back. He can probably agree to the connector. The concern is to minimize the connector so that you do have a better separation between the historic resource and the proposed addition. Steev said the connector comes in 4 or 5 feet and catches the slop. The use is a closet. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 627 W. Main until May 14`"with the following directions: Look at the plate height and ridge height. Look at the room in section as it is awkward and it is narrow and you really have a high plate height even at 8 %z feet. It probably could come down more especially if we are putting in dormers. There could be details that could happen to the dormers if they are going to remain. There is concern about the connector but the Commission is divided about that as to whether it is an appropriate solution or not. Brian said there is give and take with the plate height vs. the dormer. Leave the plate height higher or get rid of the dormers vs. lowering the plate height and keeping the dormers. Brian suggested the applicant bring two possible solutions to the board at the next meeting. Motion second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried 10 P40 Jim True, Special Counsel reviewed the public notices and they are all appropriate. 541 Race Street -work session - no minutes MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by.7ay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned a 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11 Historic Preservation Application Package Cover Letter TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COUNCIL APPLICANT: Steev Wilson, Representing Brad and Susan Krevoy DATE: May 14, 2008 ~; 406 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE (ISIS BUILDING)- MINOR HPC APPLICATION AND VIEWPLANE REVIEW Proposed Projects Amendments by HPC on March 26th of 2008 • Maintain the symmetrical appearance of the historic facade. • Maintain the Character by keeping the masses sepazate. • Break up the massing to prevent a long wall effect. Response: In the current design we have attempted to address all of the issues from the previous meeting. Symmetrical Historic Facade: The Addition has been modified by creating a linking element between the existing building and the proposed roof top addition. The linking element over the mud room azea is held to 8'-6" tall and has been setback an additional 1'-6" from the front of the building. Massing Separation: The massing of the Addition has been modified by the insertion of the connector piece. The connector will be glass with a standing seam roof; it will bridge between the copper shingle of the original structure and the now brick of the proposed. It is our intention to have the Addition's character respond more to that of the stair tower and prevent it's competing with the existing elements. Wall Effect: The wall effect has been attempted to be mitigated by the varying of heights setbacks and materials. It is our hope that you find this a successful variation. We have also included two design options to further lower the height. Option 1 maintains the vaulted roof proposed in the original scheme, Option 2 depicts a flat roof which has reduces the total height of the building and further varies the character of the elements. ~~~ ~ P41 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis- Minor Review and Mountain View Plane Review (Public Hearing continued from Mazch 26, 2008) DATE: May 14, 2008 SUMMARY: The Isis Theater has three residential units on the roof. The unit closest to the front of the structure is currently a 2,000 square foot home, with a proposed bedroom expansion of 500 squaze feet. As part of the City's effort to retain the Isis as a viable theater, a commitment was made to facilitate the applicant's desire to expand their home (although the project must be found to meet the historic preservation guidelines.) A code amendment was passed, allowing TDR's to increase downtown residential unit sizes. This does not add more allowable floor azea to a site, buYrather allows individual units to go beyond the square footage limitations that currently exist in some zone districts (in the Commercial Core the limit is 2,000 squaze feet.) After this application was submitted, it was recognized that another code amendment is necessary, allowing TDRs to land on designated buildings for this limited purpose. The code amendment is expected to be decided at City Council on June 9~'. Staff supports the amendment because it does not increase the overall size of a project on a landmazk site, and we believe that creating a wide mazket for the TDR's will help to make them a successful preservation tool. The amendment must ultimately be passed in order for the project to be constructed. It is not unusual for HPC to approve projects which rely on determinations that will be made by other boazds. For instance, HPC reviewed the Aspen Jewish Community Center at length before it moved on to P&Z and Council. Because of the rooftop location of the Isis expansion, staff has determined that Minor Review is the appropriate process. The boazd is also asked to evaluate a deck expansion and new railing, as well as to make a determination whether the project negatively affects a protected view plane which originates from the Hotel Jerome. HPC discussed the project on Mazch 26, 2008. Minutes aze attached. At the time the board appeazed to have no objections to the new railing or to the View Plane exemption, but the group agreed with staff that the bedroom design required restudy. The azchitect has revised the addition so that it appeazs to be associated with the new construction on the east side of the historic Isis in terms of its placement, form, and materiality. A recessed connector is used to minimize the appeazance of a long plane across the Hopkins elevation of the rooftop. Staff supports the project as revised. The applicant has requested that, if there aze additional concerns with the addition, the railing and deck be allowed to go forwazd now. P42 APPLICANT: Susanne Krevoy Separate Property Trust, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum Phi. PARCEL ID: 2737-07-330-010. ADDRESS: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis eater onto Unit ~D1ocIc 87, City~an owns to of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. MINOR DEVELOPMENT The.procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the IjPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: The proposed addition infills an open azea between the east side of the subject unit and the stair tower. It is held back from the wall perimeter. The roof on the addition is designed to align with the form and height already established by adjacent construction. Materials and fenestration aze similaz to existing within the project. At the time that the redevelopment of the Isis occurred, HPC spent substantial time focusing on the rooftop development, and the need to make it secondary to the historic theater. Pulling the unit in from the pazapet walls was very important. This was the source of some concern with the previous design. Staff fmds that creating a connector and tying the materials into the elevator addition aze improvements. From the streetscape view, the addition does appeaz to be distinct from the main portion of the Krevoy unit, which is copper clad. The boazd is presented with two options for the roof design. The first option follows the curve of the existing main roof of the unit. The plate height is 12'3" in the front and 9'3" in the back. The second option provides a flat roof of 12'3". In staff's opinion, the rationale for pursuing a P43 flat roof would be to reduce the overall height to something closer to 9'. There is no benefit to the streetscape, or to the units at the back of the building, from raising the reaz plate height. With the proposed new design, we aze not convinced that dropping the height of the addition and eliminating the band of transoms at the front really serves the project and lets the new bedroom hold up to the stature of the elevator tower. Staff supports Option 1. HPC previously endorsed the railing, and we have no further objections to it. Detailed drawings aze provided in the packet MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW The building falls within the Main Street View Plane, which originates from the Hotel Jerome. Because this project requires historic preservation review, evaluation of the impacts on the view plane is being assigned to HPC rather than P&Z. Sec. 26.435.OSO.Mountain view plane review. C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similazly to permit variations in lot azea, lot width, yazd and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structwe will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re- redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §22) Staff Response: The addition does fall within the view plane, however the housing units across the back of the Isis already intervene, so there is no new impact. Staff finds that an exemption is appropriate. 3 P44 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 Minor Development and View Plane Exemption for 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis Theater Condo Unit B, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, as represented in Option 1. In order for the addition to be constructed, a code amendment allowing TDR's to land on a designated property must be passed. Exhibits: Resolution # ,Series of 2008 A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines B. March 26, 2008 minutes C. Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. ^ Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glaze onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition. ^ Original mortar that is in good condition should be preserved in place. ^Repoint only those mortaz joints where there is evidence of a moisture problem or when mortaz is missing. ^ Duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint width and profile. ^ Mortaz joints should be cleazed with hand tools. Using electric saws and hammers to remove mortaz can seriously damage the adjacent brick. 4 P45 ^ Do not use mortaz with a high portland cement content, which will be substantially hazder than the brick and does not allow for expansion and contraction. The result is deterioration of the brick itself. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ^ A new addition that creates an appeazance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o a rtion t a seeks o imp y an e iaz er per~o~ than~h-a~of the primary buiY in ai~si~ inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ^ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles aze all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ^ An addition that is lower than or similaz to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. ^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ^ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. ^ An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the side. ^ Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic ones on similaz historic structures. ^ Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one foot. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. ^ This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street. 5 P46 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. ^ If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similaz. ^ Eave lines on the addition should be similaz to those of the historic building or structure. 13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. ^ A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the reaz of a site, should be the dominant roof form. - ohs on s~ a aca es should s--rep d6wri towardrear-ofthe buitding - - ^ False fronts and pazapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. ^ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. ^ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. ^ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upwazd will not be permitted. ^ Shield lighting associated with service azeas, pazking lots and pazking structures. ^ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights aze in use late at night. ^ Do not wash an entire building facade in light. ^ Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. ^ Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same azea. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. ^ Prevent glaze onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. ^ Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of--way. P47 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VIEW PLANE REVIEW FOR 406 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, ISIS THEATER CONDO UNIT B, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO; RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: 2737-07-330-010 WHEREAS, the applicant, Susanne Krevoy Sepazate Property Trust, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, has requested approval for Minor Development and View Plane review in order to expand the unit at 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis Theater Condo Unit B, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.0 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, an exemption can be granted from the View Plane requirements if it is found that "When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re- open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section;" and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 14, 2008, performed an analysis of the application based on the review standazds and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and recommended HPC approve the project with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on May 14, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found that it was consistent with the review standazds and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and granted approval with conditions by a vote of to P48 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC approves Minor Development for 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis Theater Condo Unit B, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado as represented in Option 1, presented to HPC on May 14, 2008. In order for the addition to be constructed, a code amendment allowing TDR's to land on a designated property must be passed. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 14th day of May, 2008. Approved as to Form: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Michael Hoffman, Chair P49 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION Z pMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Sarah Broughton and Brian McNellis. Nora Berko was excused. Staff present: Kathy Stricklanld, Chief Deputy City Clerk Monitors: Main Street sidewalk -Sarah 300 W. Main -.Ann Lift I task force -Alison 406 E. Hoplans Ave. Isis -Minor Development -View Piane Review Proof of legal notice -Exhibit I Elevations -Exhibit II Sara said the application is for the roof top units. There are three residential units on the roof top right now and two affordable housing units at the rear and one free market toward the front parapet. The subject is the free market unit. Right now it is 2,000 squaze feet ~'1 cant seeks to land a TDR to a free market in the commercial core. The app increase the unit size to 2,500 square feet. We are just talking about unit size not the floor area on this parcel. Right now our code says you cannot land a TDR on a landmark but when we did the code amendment in the summer we didn't specifically say you could land a TDR on a landmark; however, we meant to do that. The intent is to increase a unit size not the FAR or mass on the property so we see now conflict with landing a TDR to increase the unit size in the allowable mass. We are going forward to Council that this is allowed. What is before HPC is the minor development application in which you will be discussing mass, height, materials etc. The question is whether the mass is appropriate and does it meet the guidelines. We did not want to hinder the applicant by putting this off until the code amendment goes through. If HPC decides to approve this application it is contingent on the approval of the code amendment. z P50 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008 HPC purview: The proposed addition fills in the space between the current unit and the elevator shaft that is existing. It aligns in form and height with the existing construction and will have a curved roof like the one that is existing right now. The materials will be the same. Staffs main concern is that the proposal diminished the minor spaces at you can m erpreCwhen yvu-look at the Isis and filling in the space will create a wall effect. The architect is very sensitive to that wall effect idea and is setting back the proposed addition from the parapet and railing but staff doesn't find that is enough setback to create a height differentiation. Staff is proposing that possibly the height be dropped on the proposed addition. There are some issues with that because of the curved roof. It is 12 feet towards Hopkins and goes down to 9 feet at the rear. If the height drops in the front and back you will have unusable space in the back. We were suggesting a flat roof for the addition as it would be hidden behind the elevator shaft and visually would not have an impact. We are also unclear as to the impact to the affordable housing units at the rear. In terms of the railing there are minimal impacts on the parapet. The applicant is also proposing to eliminate the flower box. They are required to have a railing because the parapet isn't tall enough to meet code requirements and the railing will pop up about six inches from the height of the historic parapet. Staff is also concerned with excessive deck. elements and snow buildup behind the parapet wall. HPC also has to consider the view plane review. Right now the affordable housing units block the view plane from the Hotel Jerome so there is a negative impact of this addition on the view plane. Steev Wilson, Forum Fhy Susanne and Brad Krevoy Michael said his concern is that he wants the city to go through the process that a private citizen goes through. Sara said this has nothing to do with the City being part of the Isis. This has to do with the Krevoy's owning the property. Steev said we are ten feet back from the front wall and are pulling the massing away from the street. Looking at the view plane review it passes through the ADU's which are at the back of the building. You would never see the addition from the Jerome view plane. We are holding the railing 3 -~ P 51 r,,,a ,,.. _.~.. _ _ _ _ _ 2008 M_ INUTES OF MARCH 26. back from the wall three feet so that the activity isn't up against the wall. As you approach the building the railing disappears relatively quickly. From the ADU view we want to keep the flat mass across it. If the addition where a flat roof we would have to bring the height up two feet in order to ~Pr rPasnnahle height in the bedrooms and it would block out much_ _ of th~~ sun coming into the ADU and that wouia oe ,lllYaV~iu= ~_• ~•~ --- --- building as much as the high portion is on the front. We would match the existing materials and keep itnon-reflective and inconspicuous as possible. Sarah said there are two areas of guardrails. Steev said in terms of snow we will be able to clear it off better and we would be happy to put snow melt in if necessary. Michael asked Steev to explain the fenestration. Steev said there are transom windows over the door to add more light into the area. Michael said one of his concerns is the light reflection at night. Brad Krevoy said the area is a bedroom and they will have block out blinds from ceiling to floor. Chairperson Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Michael said there are three issues: Change in the parapet wall. View plane non-issue. Addition. Michael addressed the view plane. The board had no issue with the view plane. Parapet wall. Alison said she would suggest snow melt. Sarah said snow melt is not that great energy wise. Ann said actually when the sun is out the snow melts quickly. Sarah asked if the parapet wall could be flashed differently so that the water s'de~hrough andtdown the roof drain s the snowlmelt wilgbeo orrectednter P52 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008 The snow can go through the roof drain or conung down on to the lower roof deck which is also drained. The board had no issues with the parapet wall. Addition: Michael said the first question is whether I-IPC should allow the addition. Sazah said this is a done deal by the an mg o a TDR~ran~aid I~PC's- -- purview is to determine if the mass and scale is appropriate. Saza said this is like a regular application, you need to determine if the mass is appropriate. Jay said if council denies the TDR what happens. Saza said the approval of the resolution would be contingent up council approving the code amendment. Michael said there are two issues; is this a good idea and is it legal in the sense that it meets the city's regulations. Michael said the legal right is the code amendment and HPC's issue is should we allow the addition to the roof top residential unit of the Isis. Sara said when the code amendments went through the intention was that within the commercial core historic district on a landmark or on a non- landmark you can increase the unit size from a 2,000 square foot cap to 2,500 square feet by landing a TDR. The intent of the code and what the code says now aze conflicting. HPC needs to consider this application minus the TDR. They have the FAR to do this on the property and you aze just discussing whether the mass and height are appropriate. Brian said if we deny this in its entirety they still have the ability to expand minus the TDR. Sara said no they don't because there is a cap on unit sizes for free markets in the commercial core and that is 2,000 square feet which is the size of their unit. Michael asked the board if the applicant should be allowed to expand that residential unit on the roof of the Isis using our guidelines. Sazah said fundamentally she believes in the code giving TDR's some street value. Sarah said she can't answer the question. Michael said he has the question whether it is appropriate at all. . P53 nom..... ___----- MINUTES OF MARCH 26 2008 Jay said if we make a determination then council doesn't approve the amendment. Michael said in the very beginning is it appropriate for us to deal with this before they have the legal authority to do so. Alison said Sara said the reason we aze otng t is is o not stow the~ts~iowr~ from the permitting process. Ann said it seems more logical that you would get clarification from the code before we start discussing a design. Michael said he agrees with staff, if we don't have to hold them up then lets not. Jay said he is not in favor of doing work that is inconsequential. Ann said she has comments about the design and massing but didn't realize we were supposed to be deciding whether it was an allowable thing or not. Sara said you are discussion the project and applying the guidelines. Michael went through the HPC Design Guidelines, 1.15, 2.6. Alison said guideline 2.6 is fine. Ann commented that the packet is well put together. Her biggest concem is that you cannot tell if the addition is tied to the Isis or the elevator (10.3). Making it lower is not a solution. If you could pull it back a little further you wouldn't perceive such a horizontal line across the top. Another concem is the fenestration and light pollution and reflection which will make that addition much more prominent than what is up there already. Jay said the addition fails at 10.3. By filling the space in you do loose the historic character of which building is the historic building. It is broken up nicely and to connect it from the front fagade can you really distinguish from the addition of the Isis to what the Isis was. Michael said guideline 10.6 is not incompliance. The design of the addition is not compatible in size and scale with the main building. Michael said guideline 10.10 has been met. Michael also said the materials are compatible and he feels guideline 10.11 has been met. P54 Michael said guideline 10.12 talks about the roof top addition and that the mass and scale should be subordinate to that of a historic building. The proposal is not subordinate and it is not set back which is in violation of guideline 10.13. Red out that onl that is something that a minimal portion is on the historic building and uilA hr rnnm erP ~ _. _.- Sarah said she agrees with the comments. Many of the guidelines can be achieved with some tweaks to the massing. The way it is pushed back works well and maybe there is a way to step it down from the transom windows to help. The break that was in the first addition was successful. Alison said she isn't sure if bringing the front line of the addition back would work or perhaps where the mud room is bringing that front door back which would help break up the pieces. The idea is not to read straight across. Alison also said she is worried about light pollution but having glass does make the addition read as its own piece. Jay said there are ways to achieve guideline 10.3. Jay said he would be happy to look at the addition again after some of our concerns are addressed. Brian also agreed with Alison that the mud area could be redesigned and the height could be brought down. Bringing the roof down and pushing the element back would ease some of the concerns. Brian said he has faith in our TDR system and allowing a TDR would allow something beneficial to happen elsewhere in the city. Brian also agreed that the design is in conflict with guideline 10.3 but there are things that can be done to make this work. Michael pointed out that he is not convinced that there are things that can make this addition happen. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and minor development until May 14`~ second by Ann. Steev said he would like to hear a better definition of what guideline 10.3 means to the board. We took the character of the roof top addition and employed a setback which does bring the roof height down. In the packet it does read quite separate from the rest of the building. With one larger element we paid attention to what the building below was doing. 10. 3 is not 7 P55 MINUTES OF MARCH 26 2008 clearly defined. We need to decide how to come to an appropriateness that the board would be comfortable with. Sarah said the appropriateness isnot the roof addition but on the historic structure. In the original addition it came in on both sides and addressed h ~ __~mm~ of the historic resource. Now all of a sudden we are changing character. There are ways to~sen at impact: I needs to relate tothe~Isls~ - Steev said are we keeping the understanding of the historic faga of the Isis. continuous? Brian said adding the addition blurs the symmetry Ann said the original fagade needs to be kept the dominant feature of the entire block. Steev pointed out that you will never see the elevation. Ann said somehow you need to make the new addition recede whether it is in materials, colors or less glazing. It needs to disappear in the background. Michael said he does not know how those impacts can be mitigated. Steev said he is getting the idea. I have heazd materials, height and the lowering of the distinction of the previous roof top addition and keeping with the symmetry of the building and making this perhaps a bridge piece or something much more subordinate. We tried to pull it back and design what was approved in the past. Jay said by building this piece between the two additions you loose the ability to differentiate between the historic structure. It takes away from the integrity of the historic structure. T'he way it is drawn there is very little difference on the upper structure, you are connecting a structure to an elevator shaft. Brad Krevoy asked if this review is happening because we have 4% of the addition that connects to the original Isis structure or is it the jurisdiction of this group over the entire addition. Michael said HPC has review over the entire addition. Brad thanked the HPC. Brad said this project started 30 years ago when he used to work at the Isis in the summertime and when the theatre was going to be retail and no Isis he stepped in and made an investment with that unit so that there can be a theatre in the City. When the P56 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008 city came to me again and said we are going to loose the theatre's again they said they needed a favor from me and we said we would help in whatever way we can. We want to live here with our kids and we need another bedroom for our daughter. I think the confusion is that there is a gap in communication between what we where told and having relied upon in a very serious way before buying the TDR and before agreeing the Isis should remain a eatre an not retai . ey wane o o e retail before the city purchased it. We are in a very uncomfortable position with HPC. You do a great job. We went through this process when we built the Isis brick by brick to get to our unit in the first place. It is very uncomfortable to be in this position here because we are being told one thing by one group of the City and then we come to HPC with the setbacks etc. that would make it work and being told you have to do a lot more. At the end of the day we are going to have something severely unlivable. The more you ask us to setback the more we will be living in a shoe box. That is not why we bought the TDR or why we agreed to consent to the City all those things. Susie Krevoy said they just heard from Sara about the amendment to council for the TDR. We have an agreement with the city that the mayor has signed allowing us to add the 500 square feet if we purchased a TDR and in exchange they could convert the theatres into retail space because they did need our permission for that. There is a signed agreement allowing us if we purchased a TDR to do this. We have purchased the TDR. Steve Barwick has been involved and Paul Menter approving the agreement. Now we really do not know what to do and we don't know how to proceed. Michael suggested the Krevoy bring that issue up with the City attorney. Sara said HPC should be reviewing what they are proposing to see if it meets the guidelines for an addition on top of the historic resource. Jay said it might be important to have some of those people here who created the contract. Sarah said she doesn't want the applicant to leave here with false hope. Aesthetically this is mass and scale. With some modifications that we talked about today I could approve this addition to the roof of the Isis. I am not the only one voting. Brian said the majority sense that there is some design abilities that would allow us to go forward. 9 P57 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008 Brad Krevoy said this entire project for the past 12 yeazs has been to work everything out. I am feeling from the comments that we might have a shoe box or nothing. I am very confused. Alison said she personally feels there are ways to push and pull on that facade and not just push. You can pu on c m pars aesdstill have 508- square feet. I'm not saying it has to be small you just need to keep the symmetry of that original addition over the Isis as somewhat sacred. Jay said does the legal ramifications of this contract over ride? Brad said HPC does a great job. What if we did it exactly in alignment and pushed it out to the street from where it is now because we are thinking about the fire department and what is happening there. Take the addition forward and not have a setback. That would be another way to address this. When the fire department is up you won't see anything on the view plane. Michael said the contract has nothing to do with the Historic Preservation Commission and we can't act as lawyers. The second part is design issues and the majority of the commission would like to see other ideas. Vote on motion: All in favor, motion carried. 202 N. Monarch Street -Major Development -Conceptual, Variances and Residential Design Standards (cont'd from 3/12) Colored Photographs -Exhibit I E-mails and letters -Exhibit II Gena Berko letter -Exhibit III Noticing -Exhibit IV Sara explained that the lot was condominiumized into two lots, Unit A and Unit B. Unit A has the Blue Vic on it. The application is for Unit B, a new single family home. The property is accessed offBleeker Street and there is an unused alley to the north. HPC granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus to the entire property for the addition of the Blue Vic. This subject unit has 2,053 of FAR available. The applicant requests conceptual approve and some variances. The applicant provided two design iterations. Io Z 0 a O .~- a ~~