HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080625ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 25, 2008
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
• ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON -
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes -May 28`" and June 11, 2008
HI. Public Comments
TV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VH. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #12)
VHI. OLD BUSINESS
A. 204 N. Monarch -Major Development -Conceptual,
continued from 5/28/2008 (30 min.)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
__
A. 406 E. Hopkins -Isis -open and continue to July 9, 20
B. 612 W. Francis St. -Historic Designation - (45 min.)
C. 541 and 5411/z Race Street -Major Development ,
Conceptual and Variance (45 min.)
X. WORK SESSIONS -none
OTHER -Holden Marolt Shed and Sli Club Building -
demokition referral (ZO min.)
IX. ADJOURN 7:30 P.M.
0.)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE; 204 N. Monazch Street, Unit B of the Blue Vic Condominiums- Major
Development (Conceptual), Variances- Public Hearing
DATE: June 25, 2008
SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval to construct a new single family residence located
on the 9,000 squaze foot lot (Lot 1) that contains the lazge two story Victorian ]mown as "Blue
Vic." The property borders East Bleeker Street and North Monazch Street, the outer portion of
Aspen's West End Neighborhood, and is zoned R-6 (Medium Density Residential). To the north
of the property is an unused alley; the subject lot is accessed via a curb cut off of Bleeker Street.
HPC is asked to grant Major Development Conceptual approval and variances for setbacks.
On March 26, 2008, HPC continued the public hearing for a restudy of the project and it's
relationship to the historic context. On May 28, 2008, HPC continued the public hearing to
allow the applicant more time to bring forward a complete drawing of the restudy (see Exhibit C)
presented to HPC during the meeting.
Staff finds that the project meets the applicable Design Guidelines and recommends approval
with conditions.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS: Tn 2006, HPC granted development approvals for relocation,
rehabilitation and a new addition to the existing Victorian. The 500 squaze foot FAR Bonus was
awazded for the project and allocated to a future detached residential dwelling on the property.
The subject lot (Lot 1) was condominiumized into Unit A and Unit B. Unit A contains the Blue
Vic and Unit B is the subject of this application.' The total. FAR of the 9,000 squaze foot property
is 4,580 squaze feet of FAR (including the FAR Bonus): 2,053 squaze feet of FAR is available to
Unit B, the new house, and 2,527 square feet of FAR is allocated to the existing Victorian and
the approved addition.
APPLICANT: Semrau Family, LLC, 68 Trainor's Landing Road, Aspen CO 81611, represented
by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., 412 North Mill Street, Aspen.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-17-033
P1
ADDRESS: 204 N. Monarch Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 78 aka Lot 1, Unit B, 202 N.
Monazch Street Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
P2
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review for this project focuses on the height, scale, massing and
proportions of the proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is
attached as "Exhibit A."
The applicant has provided HPC with three different scenarios, A, B and C, in the packet. Staff
finds that scenario C is most sensitive to the historic Blue Vic, while remaining a product of its
own time. The steep pitched gable is reminiscent to the Blue Vic and meets Guidelines 11.3,
11.5 and 11.9. The front facade has been broken up into modules that reduce the perceived size
of the home and the building forms aze similaz to the historic context of the lot.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
^ Subdivide lazger masses into smaller "modules" that aze similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
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 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.
2
P3
The proposed height of the new home is twenty-two feet six inches (22'6"). Sheet A3.3
illustrates the proposed height in comparison with the other resources on the block. The cross
gable of the proposed home appeazs to be the same height as the Blue Vic and the ridge of the
proposed street facing gable looks a little higher than that of the Blue Vic. While this may be a
product of changing the roof pitch on the street facing gable, Staff recommends that HPC discuss
the proposed height in comparison with the Blue Vic. It may be more sensitive to slightly drop
the height of the proposed home.
Staff is concerned about the proposed one story roof element and bump out proposed on the
south elevation in context with the Blue Vic. We have recently become awaze that the historic
Blue Vic originally had a wrap azound front porch (see image below left) that the current
property owners aze committed to recreating based on oral history from previous residents of the
home and historic photographs. Below aze photographs of the proposed wrap azound porch for
the Blue Vic.
Staff is concerned that the proposed one story element on the south elevation of the new home
will compete with and distract from the restoration efforts of the Blue Vic. Staff recommends
that the applicant simplify the south elevation by removing the one story roof element and bump
out to create one plane, similaz to the eazlier renditions for this project of the south elevation.
Staff also recommends that the deep eave proposed for the south elevation be reduced to a
proportion that is similaz to its historic context.
Staff recommends that the applicant continue to restudy the front porch as a condition of
approval to be addressed at Final Review. The proposed bulky proportions of the columns and
eave lines aze out of scale with the surrounding historic context and do not meet Guideline 11.4.
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.
Site nlannine: The applicant has moved the proposed home forwazd on the lot and proposes a ten
feet five and a half inches (10' S ''/z") front yard setback, where ten (10) feet is required. The Blue
Vic has a ten feet nine inches(10' 9") front yazd setback, as measured to the front porch. Staff
3
Northwest Corner of Blue Vic 1 Southwest corner o(Blue Vic 1
P4
recommends that the applicant push the proposed front porch back to prevent the new home from
extending out further than the historic Blue Vic.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
^ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of
the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a
front porch.
^ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
^ Anew porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
^ Tn some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the
entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code aze
as follows:
In granting a variance, the IIPC must make a fording that such a.variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: The applicant requests the following setbacks: a north side yazd setback
variance where ten (10) feet aze required and three (3) feet aze proposed, and a reaz yazd setback
variance where five (5) feet aze required and three (3) feet aze proposed.
North Side Yazd Setback: Staff fords that criterion b is met and supports the north side yard
setback variance requested in this application. The proposed residence is pushed north, away
from the Blue Vic, towazd an unused alleyway. This mitigates an adverse impact on the
azchitectural chazacter of the landmazk and creates more visibility than required by Code (ten feet
is the minimum distance between buildings required and the proposal is for thirteen feet). The
applicant has moved the gazage and the residence off of the north side setback by one (1) foot,
providing three (3) feet, where ten (10) feet aze required. Questions were raised during the HPC
meeting on Mazch 26`s regazding historic alley patterns throughout town. Staff will provide an
historic map at the HPC hearing to illustrate these patterns.
East Reaz Yazd Setback: A reaz yazd setback is requested for the gazage. The applicant shifted
the home forwazd on the lot towazds Monazch Street creating more space at the reaz for the reaz
yazd setback. Staff fords that the rear yazd setback is appropriate considering the location of the
driveway/fire access and recommends approval.
4
P5
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 HPG grant Major Development c;onceptuai
approval and variances for the property located at 204 North Mdnazch Street, Lots K, L, and M,
Block 78 aka Lot 1, Unit B, 202 N. Monazch Street Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will restudy the front porch for Final Review.
2. The applicant will push the development back from the west lot line to be in line with the
adjacent Blue Vic for Final Review.
3. The applicant will reduce the depth of the eaves to be more proportionate with the
historic context for Final Review.
4. The applicant will remove the one story roof element and bump out on the south
elevation for Final Review.
5. The following setback variances are granted: a north side yazd setback vaziance of seven
feet, where ten (10) feet aze required and three (3) feet aze proposed, and a rear yazd
setback variance of two feet, where five (5) feet aze required and three (3) feet aze
proposed.
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) yeaz of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
A draft HPC Resolution will be provided at the HPC meeting
Exhibits:
A. Design Guidelines
B. Mazch 26, 2008 and May 28, 2008 HPC Minutes
C. Design presented to HPC on May 28, 2008 (Exhibit III)
D: Application
I. June 25, 2008
II. May 15, 2008
III. January 31, 2008
P6
Exhibit A: Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 204 North Monarch, Major
Development Conceptual Review
Building Orientation
11.1 Orieut the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
^ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of
the site.
11.2 In a residential contest, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a
front porch.
^ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
^ Anew porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
^ in some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendiculaz to the street; nonetheless, the
entry should still be cleazly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street.
Mass and Scale
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel.
^ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on
the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primary plane of the front should not appeaz taller than the historic structure.
D The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
Building & Roof Forms
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context.
^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally.
^ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
Materials
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
^ Materials that appeaz similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site aze encouraged.
^ Use of highly reflective materials is discowaged.
Architectural Details
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are
especially discouraged on historic sites.
P7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 ,~
-_--~
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin,
Brian McNellis, and Sarah Broughton. Nora Berko was excused.
Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Commissioner comments:
Sarah commented on the Bidwell building. A lot of the final comments
made from council aze critical. It was stated by our Mayor that Planning and
Zoning and not HPC should be the ones in charge of scale and mass in
reviewing projects and HPC should be in charge of determining if something
is historic or not. There is still not a good understanding of what HPC does.
We need to discuss how we can bring the commissions together.
Amy pointed out that a couple of buildings over the winter collapsed. The
open air shed at the Holden Marolt Ranch and the building at the Lift I site.
The Ski Club was in the building and part of that building was the original
historic ticket office. The building was discussed being preserved in the
museum plan.
204 N. Monarch Street -Major Development -Conceptual
Jeffrey Halferty, Halferiy Design
Stan Clauson, Clauson & Associates
Exhibit I and II -elevations
Saza stated at the last meeting the project was continued for restudy of the
relationship of the proposed home to the historic context, some proportions
and mass and scale. Staff is still concerned about the relationship of the
residence to the neighborhood. Staff suggested that the new home have a
better relationship to the Blue Vic and possibly the new design could reflect
some of the proportions. Other issues are the two story element proposed,
the gable and the little shed dormer. The new plan does not have a strong
horizontal element as does the Blue Vic. Staff is also concerned about the
recessed planes. The design is a product of its time and we appreciate all the
work that has.gone into this project. The street elevation is great. They are
1
P8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28.2008
requesting a 10.5 front yard setback and two variances. The north side-yazd
setback variance and the reaz yard setback variance. Staff is recommending
continuation to better relate the proposed home to the historic content.
Stan Clauson said this project developed with the relocation of the historic
residence. The location of the garage is dictated by requirements imposed
on by site planning and that resulted in a 3 foot rear yard setback to the east.
On the alley we are requiring a 2.6 variance to allow for a window area. In
general the mass is being kept three feet from the property line. There is a
13 foot separation between the Blue Vic residence and the proposed
residence and a 33 foot separation between the proposed residence and the
adjacent historic residence on the other side.
Jeffrey Halferty, architect said they have responded to the issues from the
last meeting and pulled the mass forward to give it more of a street presence.
One of our suggestions was to create a gable form that comes out and have a
recess in part of the gable that allows for a small porch. We feel we have
achieved pulling the mass and scale to the street presence. We tried to
address the guidelines and have the gable respect the two Victorians. We
also tried not to create or use foreign materials.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing. There where no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
Alison said the question is having the front gable split in half and does that
meet our guideline 11.4; design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the
historic building. Possibly more or a horizontal element could be added.
Saza said for unit B, this house, the allowable FAR is 2053 square feet.
Michael said bringing the mass forward toward the street works well and
addressed the streetscape that was brought up at the last meeting. Michael
said staff suggested that the proposed new home reflect more toward the
proportions of the Blue Vic since they share a lot.
Sarah said her concern is addressing guideline 11.4 and 11.3. In particular
the two story seemingly open deck and the eclectic conglomeration of
masses going on to the north. Sarah said she had no concerns with the side
yard setback. The material selection, red barn wood is a detriment to the
historic resource. It seems that these materials are coarse and less refined
2
ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008
than what is seen on the adjacent historic resource. The height of the gable
is higher than the gable of the historic resource.
Stan Clauson clarified that the gable is not any higherthan the historic
resource.
Michael said he supports staff s position. The proposed design is not
sympathetic enough to the Blue Vic or the building to the north. Guidelines
11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.9 are not met.
Jay pointed out that the project has much improved. From the mass and
scale it is equal in mass and scale of the Blue Vic and they compliment each
other. On the gable it would be interesting to see how it would be re-worked
without mimicking what is next door. Jay said he can support the design if
the horizontal element was incorporated.
Brian also agreed that the designs are an improvement. It has a much better
street presence. Brian said he still has the same conflict, how do you make it
a product of its own time and be sensitive to the other two historic houses..
The concern is the void element under the gable and possibly it should be
filled in. Brian said he has no concern about the horizontality.
Sarah said the front wall of A, Blue Vic is back from the front wall of unit B.
Tim Semrau said the Blue Vic is 15.9 feet from the front and the new house
is 14.4 feet.
Michael said it is less than a foot to Monarch Street. Sara said in the
guidelines it talks about maintaining the visual continuity. Amy said on the
635 W. Bleeker house, the green Victorian is back from the historic house.
Tim said if the big stumbling block is the overhang and it is more important
to have the roof and the section to be in one plane I can do that.
Brian said filling in the gable end over the deck is preferable. Alison and
Sarah agreed.
Exhibit III gable replication elevation
Exhibit IV elevation of the three houses.
P9
Sarah said Exhibit III seems well centered and the symmetry is correct.
P10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008
Brian, said the rhythmic standpoint Exhibit III makes more sense. Alison
and Sarah agreed.
MOTION: Brian made the motion to continue the public hearing and
conceptual development of 204 N. Monarch until June 25`h; second by
Sarah. Motion carried 4-1.
Michael said the commission is in favor of seeing an application that reflects
the design of Exhibit III.
Sarah said she would like to see a model.
Tim said for clarification the board would like to see the mimicking of the
Blue Vic gable flushed out and the recess gable filled in.
Alison asked if the board wanted the gable higher than the Blue Vic. Jeffery
said they can lower it and flush the roofs.
Sarah said there are a lot of merits to scheme II.
VOTE: Jay, no; Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes.
Paepcke Auditorium
Ann was seated.
Amy said the main purpose of the project is to provide some mechanical
upgrades to the building for presentations and also to potentially expand
some of the seating by approximately 50 seats which is about a 540 foot
expansion. Paepcke Auditorium was built in 1961. Staff's memo refers to
the SPA plan that was adopted in 1990 and 1991 which talks about future
expansion. We did not find anything about expansion of the auditorium in
the document. HPC's purpose is to discuss design review issues and the
historic preservation guidelines. Herbert Bayer was a respective artist in
many fields and this is where his architecture career began. He was brought
to the Aspen Institute to develop the campus. He used such simple materials
such as concrete block. This building built by Herbert Bayer is significant
and we need to be sensitive to any changes. A lot of the work will be on the
interior. In terms of the auditorium itself staff has a strong objection to the
notion of demolishing a portion of the auditorium walls. Staff estimates that
45% of the wall planes would be demolished in order to create new wings to
P11
ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ~o
MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008
Brad ICrevoy said this entire project for the past 12 years 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
fafade and not just push. You can pull on certain parts and still have 500
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 3112)
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 off Bleeker 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.
10
P12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCA 26, 2008
Sara said the site is very challenging and surrounded by historic landmarks.
Staff feels the design is moving in the correct direction in terms of
referencing proportions that are found in the surrounding buildings but the
massing is not yet resolved. There are three main points of concern.
Context: This new building needs to have some street presence. There are
two Victorians on either side of this building. It needs to fit into the context
with street presence. The proposal maximumizes the FAR and the majority
of the mass is toward the rear. We are not sure that is the best solution.
Staff is recommending re-configuration of the mass; maybe not spread it out
so much and condensing it a little more on the site, guideline 11.3 and 11.4.
(Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic
buildings on the parcel and also design a front elevation to be similar in
scale to the historic building).
Proposed proportions: There are two concerns; the street facing gable that is
a tall skinny element and the roof that extends down and covers the entire
second level. The skinny proportion of the gable seems awkward in
comparison to the Blue Vic. Guideline 11.9 talks about using building
components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property. We are not saying it needs to replicate a mini Blue Vic. In pulling
the references from the other historic structures it could be done in a better
way. We encourage the applicant to restudy the references. Staff supports
the site plan because they have moved the building forward on the lot and it
is closer in alignment with the Blue Vic and the historic residence at 212. N.
Monarch. Staff also finds that the distance between the Blue Vic and the
new construction is appropriate. They are proposing three feet more than
what is required which is ten feet. It is appropriate to get some of the new
construction away from the Blue Vic.
Residential Design Standards: The standards require that the front door face
the street and it does.
Setback variances: Sara explained that there are two setback variances being
requested. The first is for the north side yard setback. This is the side yard
that abuts the alley that is unused. They are proposing two feet when ten
feet is required. Staff finds that this is appropriate although we are
recommending restudy of the mass which might change the request. On the
east rear yard they are proposing three feet when five feet is required.
Overall staff is recommending continuation for restudy.
11
--.... ________-_-- P 13
Stan Clausen, Clausen & Associates: Ors oan d R 60and the reaz portionsion
of a larger parcel. The front property
zoned mixed use or office at the time. At the time the alley was platted but
un-opened. At the time the applicant looked at Ordinance 2 and proposed
that the alley be open for access to the development and to serve the
neighbors as well. That received favorable review from staff; however, it
was opposed by the neighbor to the north. In the final ordinance it was
determined that a portion of the alley would not be open but the alley as it
was accessed from Mill Street would be open to eventually serve
development. The fire department weighed in that there be a fire access lane
so that this building could be serviced with a fire engine if need be. That
largely dictated the location of the driveway. It was also determined that a
curb cut will be installed. The neighbor to the north has paved a portion of
the alley throat and used it as a private parking area. It was determined by
Council that the parking area be eliminated as part of the settlement. They
determined the appropriate access for the blue Victorian in its relocation and
HPC approved the Blue Victorian reso 30, 2006 then final reso 7, 2007.
When you approved that the alley was already in place. It determined the
ability to access parking. I point that out because the three foot setback for
the driveway itself really dictated the two foot setback to access a garage.
There is very little swing room to come into a garage.
Stan said there is a 13 foot separation between the two structures, the blue
Victorian and the proposed house. From the street the 13 feet provides an
enhanced separation and showcasing of the blue Vic. For both units it
allows for a little bit more screened landscaping to be introduced to the site.
There is a 20 foot swath for open space to the alley. In effect there becomes
22 feet open between the edge of the building and the neighbor's lot line,
and another 11 feet from that property line to neighbor's house. We are 33
feet between the two buildings. After it was determined that the alley would
not be open we prepared a draft vacation ordinance for the alley having in
mind that it would always be an unopened area and that under the terms of
vacation ten feet of the right-a-way would accrue to the property on the
north and ten feet would accrue to Mr. Semrau. With a vacation there is
veto power and the owner to the north refused to do that. Stan said the
applicant is proposing a two foot setback from the alley right-of-way the
owner to the north who is objecting to the two foot setback has a two foot
encroachment into the alley. That is a shed that is encroaching into the
alley. Stan said they came in with an application with the banel vault roofs
t2
P14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008
and some other issues and based on that we provided a revision. We
provided a design for anon-vaulted roof although we would like the HPC to
review the barrel roof for approval. As was requested we provided a more
dramatic front gable.
Jeff Halferty, consulting designer:
Jeff said he helped Tim initially with the conceptual of the lbt split for the
Blue Vic. Jeff said he worked on the simple addition for the Blue Vic. This
is Tim's and Heidi's home and they are trying to make a design that works
for everyone. I thought the design met the guidelines of new construction as
faz as mimicking mass and scale. The FAR is challenging because of the
turning radius and parking. The gable feels more of a genuflection of the
historic resource. Moving the house forward and greeting Monazch Street is
a commendable effort by the planners. The fire and egress and life safety
aspects of the mixed use lot because of the no alley access has dictated the
site planning of the historic resource. We have tried to preserve the
landscaping and the historic lilacs. The two foot setback off the alley as
Sara indicated does comply because of its separation from the historic
resource. Jeffrey commended the commission and staff for a great job.
Tim Semrau said it has taken him three yeazs to get here. The variance on
the east is specifically dictated by council's decision where to put the fire
access. The two feet is really functional. C+ur neighbor directly to the east
doesn't object to it. The first design was two feet lower and the dormer was
set back to create a less presence on the Hodgson's to give them more
exposure. Ironically staff was not in favor of that so we raised the roof and
brought the house forward to address staff's concern. What Heidi and I feel
needs to be here is a modest classy home that genuflects to the historic
resource.
Tim said there are three issues that HPC needs to give guidance to:
Barrel vault roof vs. the gabled roof in back.
Tim said there are several historic homes around town that have barrel roofs.
Tim showed photographs of historic homes around town. This is a stand
alone new home and a barrel vault roof is not inappropriate.
Movement of the second story mass to the front of the house.
Tim said staff said the other historic houses have secondary story mass. Tim
pointed out the similarity of the Blue Vic and his house. It dcesn't have a
second story mass; it basically has a gable area that is quite similar to the
proposed new house. Tim said he feels it is still appropriate to have the
]3
P15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH- 26, 2008
second story mass in the back because it is their goal to make their house
complimentary.
Bigger dormer presence in the front.
Tim said we have done that by extending the dormer out. We have looked at
many iterations. We like the simplicity of the small dormer and it does
relate to the historic structures and it does have its own integrity.
Recessed skylights in the roof.
Tim said the skylights are recessed and they are for functional reasons.
Heidi said when she was on HPC and working on the rules the two words
that they always used was complimentary but subsidiary. We felt that the
Blue Vic had verticality and feel the new building needs verticality also in
its own way. Our desire is to have people walk up and down the street
looking at the two landmarks.
Stan said the proposed house is 2,050 square feet and modest in size. The
Blue Vic is 2,527 square feet. If possible we would like suggestions from
conceptual to final.
Michael commended Jeffrey Halferty for his past presence on the HPC
boazd. The board is trying to achieve a high standard in terms of courtesy
and respect to our applicants.
Sarah said we have an historical pattern of growth when we have an alley.
We typically have lots that have the back of the lot on the alley. Now all of
a sudden we are splitting the lot a different way. Whete in the West End
have we had conditions like this and have there been variances. Where has
this happened before historically and what are the set backs? It is a different
situation because we have rotated our lot.
Sara said this is a unique situation and it is a comer lot. In the West End
access is typically off the alley. Sara said she can't think of any projects that
either ask for a setback or need a variance. Sarah said we are talking about
historic patterns.
Stan said the grid breaks down and there aze very few examples deep into
the West End. They tend to occur where the land form just did not allow for
the expression of the grid. Had we been allowed to open the alley then it
would require that the garage access off the alley. Sarah said since we have
to
P16
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008
been asked to look at setbacks we need to know how it affects the adjacent
property to the East.
Brian asked if the tum table in the back was required to access the garage.
Tim said the tum table is the only way to turn around or you could back into
Bleeker Street which he doesn't want to do. Michael explained that it is the
same turn table that was approved with the Blue Vic application.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Phi Hodgson said the brick parking space was recommended by Michael
Gassman and council said do not pave the space due to the utilities that are
under it. It has been there since 1990 and was approved by Raymond Elder.
As far as the shed is concerned it was there when I purchased the property in
1972. Every house had a barn and it was tom down and I believe the siding
was used to build that shed at one point. As faz as the vacation of the alley
Tim and I discussed it and I discussed it with my attorney Tom Smith at the
time who said have Tim's attomey send a proposal to him and he would
look it over.. Tim's response was to have the Bleeker Street access for his
driveway and that was the last I had heard.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Sarah said she has concerns about the massing as it relates to our guidelines.
Moving the front door to address the street is appropriate. The mass and
scale as it is detracts from the historic buildings on both sides. I am
particularly distracted by the two-story gable element and that it is on thin
elements that traditionally you would not see. Both historic buildings have
more of a solid mass coming out to fill that gable volume.
Michael asked what the HPC though about the gable that was recommended
by staff. Sara said we where trying to convey the issue of street presence
and we didn't mean literally to bring the gable out. Staff tries not to design a
project but to give macro interpretations of the guidelines.
Sarah said if this design where to come back with a mass and scale that tried
less to replicate what is happening with the historic resource and instead to
take the subordinate role as a secondary house on this lot it would help the
overall project.
15
P17
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008
Ann said you are saying a smaller house with lesser street presence? Sarah
said she is not talking square footage and her comment is from the
guidelines not staff's.
Michel asked if the original application better met our guidelines than what
is presented today. Sarah said no. We are dealing with a two story thin
element coming out that is light at the top with a deck and I do not see that at
all historically on historic forms. Guideline 11.5 talks about forms not
overwhelming the historic resource.
Jay said guideline 11.3 is contradictory to guidelines 11.5. Alison agreed.
Sarah said the proportions on this house are nowhere the proportions of the
historic resource.
Ann said one of the failures is that you have two significant houses that are
dominating and part of the reason they are so dominant is their verticality.
They azen't skinny houses and very vertical as you are coming down the
street. Abetter solution rather than the gable that goes down two stories and
the dominant skylight and the two story porch becomes a horizontal design
between the two vertical designs. It would work better if you had some of
the vertical elements of the other two homes and sizes. It should be similar
in mass and scale and then add the vertical element.
Brian talked about roof lines. Guideline 11.10 confuses the issues. Brian
said Tim talked about elements that make this building a modem building
and that is OK but then on the other hand how do you use roof lines that aze
similar in tradition to the neighborhood and make it a product of its own era.
Alison and Sarah also agreed that some of the guidelines are going against
each other.
Ann said these aze not standards they are guidelines to help us get through
issues and sometimes they are contradictory because every situation is
unique.
Brian said we need to determine which guidelines are predominant.
16
P18 ------..._
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008
Michael said in his opinion the design doesn't work between the two historic
structures. We need something that looks alittle more like what is already
on the street in terms of mass and scale.
Sarah said if you go around the block there are miner's cabins that are
proportioned and that speak to the Victorian structures and there is a
dialogue. This house has missed the fundamental queue.
Ann said remember these houses where on large lots. Because of the lot
split you have this problem if you go to San Francisco you see these scale
of houses are close together and what makes it work it is the same scale as
you go down the street.
Jay asked the board if they thought the house was too small.
Brian and Sarah said from a verticality standpoint it is. Jay said that is
where staff's comment came from to bring the mass to the front of the
house. Jay also pointed out that they can't add square footage to it.
Michael said some of the thoughts tossed out during the discussion where
context and street presence. The issues that Tim asked in terms of massing
where the gable roof vs. the barrel vault and the second story mass whether
it should be moved forward. 'The second question about the second story
mass moving forward, the answer is yes.
Michael asked the board if they had an opinion about the barrel vault roof.
Sarah said if you look at our guidelines for the use of roof forms 11.6 would
lead us in the direction of not allowing the barrel. In the context of an
historic neighborhood they are foreign looking. Ann also agreed with Sarah
that the barrel roof form detracts. Ann pointed out that she has not seen a
successful barrel roof. Brian said there is the argument that this is a modem
structure.
Michael said the mass and scale of the front dormer doesn't work.
Michael asked the board about the recessed skylights. Ann said they seem
to detract from the fagade and she would rather see some other way to get
light. Possibly a skylight could go on the back. Alison said if you brought
the second floor mass forward you might not need the sky light.
Brian and Alison said their issue is differentiating in the design.
t~
_ ._ P19
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008
Michael addressed the setback variances.
Stan said the variance with respect to the garage on the eastern side is really
dictated by the driveway placement. On the north side it is probably not
likely that the building is going to get a whole lot thinner. The question on
the variance is would that enhance the separation between the Victorian to
the south and the new residence bearing in mind that there are 33 feet in the
current design between the proposed residence and the Hodgson's house.
Michael said he recognizes that this is an important issue to the applicant
and to the neighbor. With the recommendation of a re-design we don't
know what the final application will be and especially when there is an
opportunity to perhaps not come to the HPC seeking the north side variance.
East side variance.
Ann said we need to look at the larger pictwe. In the guidelines there is
discussion about preserving the historic grid of town. We have seen places
in town where the grid has been changed and it changes the character of the
neighborhood dramatically. For instance, in the alley secondary structwes
are up to the edge of the alley. The alley isn't used currently but it is an
open space corridor. If you stand at one end or the other you can see all the
way down, uninterrupted except for small structures. What happens now is
that you will have a fairly large structure at the end of it. In terms of
setbacks the Residential Design Standards dictate what the setbacks should
be and I am not convinced here, except maybe the garage argument, why we
need a variance. Once we start making variances on the first property all of
a sudden you will completely loose the pattern as other buildings are built.
Unless I can see that there is no other solution I think we need to adhere to
the standards. The setback should be ten feet.
Tim said if the alley continuum was open the setback would be five feet.
Ann pointed out that the five feet would be for the garage not the building.
You are asking for a variance of two feet for the building.
Jay said because this is such a strange lot is it better to make Tim move the
house closer to the Blue Victorian. If HPC doesn't give him the variance on
the one side he will just move the house over which he is allowed to do.
With respect to the historical resowce is granting a variance providing more
integrity for that resowce? Ann said she is looking at the resowces adjacent
to the building also.
18
P20
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008
Michael pointed out that the grid doesn't really hold up in this section of
town. Brian said the natural landscape dictates where the houses are located
Brian said we need to situate this proposed house in rhythm with the two
very significant Victorian resources on either side. Brian and Sarah said
they are in support of the variances.
Sarah said if we did an inventory in the West end we would find more
people not complying with setbacks in terms of the alley and how close they
are. There is already push and pull going on and in this case it is appropriate
to have push and pull.
Alison said the only way it may have worked to keep the setbacks the same
would be if they had'the alley go through, which they didn't. If Aspen
wanted to preserve the grid they would have put the alley through.
Stan said in general there is support for the variances. We have heard a
number of ideas on the actual physical design of the house and will try to
pull through those as best we can.
MOTION.• Jay moved to continue the public hearing, conceptual
development for 202 N. Monarch Street until May 28, 2008; second by
Sarah. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION.• Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor,
motion carried.
Meetingadjoumed at 8:10 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
19
N
~ ~
?~ i4
R~
.6
0~
4
b
r
m
Z
_~
~-
}
lU
tL1
H
tl.!
R~CEIwED
To whom it may concern:
MAR 21 2008
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
March 18, 2008
This letter concerns the extensive redevelopment of 202 North Monarch St. in Aspen.
The developer, Mr. Semraw, who is an ex-city councilman of Aspen, is basically in the
last throes of destroying what was only a year or so ago, a vintage pristine example
of an old Aspen Victorian neighborhood. Now after the reopening of a non-used
alley, approved by the previous city council for their "buddy', we will have a new office
building which he has already sold off to another developer. The existing Victorian house
was allowed to be moved closer to Sleeker St. for some reason and it has been sold
off to someone else and is currently being remodeled.
Now Mr. Semraw has the remaining lot split he developed and can rake in some more
high profits. It has come to our attention that he is now applying for sefbadc variances,
which we understand are 10 ft. on the north side as well as 5 ft. on the east side of his final
building site. He request that the 10 ft should be only 2 ft. instead and the 5 ft. be 3 ft.
He says he needs extra room to build on because his remaining lot is too small to
satisfy his vision for the new structure he plans to build there. Give us all a break!
Variances are not intended in anyway for this kind of situation, there is no hardship for the
developer, other than the mess he has already created. The real hardship is for all his
neighbors, who have been negatively impacted by this over development of a
rare jewel of an old Aspen neighborhood corner. He was not forced to buy this property!
Please do your job, inform Mr. Semraw that he needs to simply abide by all existing
codes and regulations. They are in place for numerous reasons but mainly to protect
the rest of us from such an unconscious developer's greed. Please deny any more
favors concerning the ongoing pillaging of 202 North Monarch St.
Respectfully,
RECEIVED Robert and Crispen Limacher
MAR 21 2D08
CITY OF ASPEN
P23
P24
Sara Adams
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bert Myrin [Bert@Myrin.com]
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:26 AM
Michael Hoffman
Page 1 of 1
Sara Adams; J.E. DeVilbiss; Jack Johnson; Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Steve Skadron
Project requires the following variances
Attachments: 20080312 HPC Side Rear Window Entrance Variance Required.pdf
Never before do I recall receiving a public notice with the "requirement" of variances. Public
notices more often identify "requests" for variances. (see attached)
The change of attitude from the Historic Preservation Chair, the city Staff, the hired gun (stan
clauson) and the applicant (tim semrau) from what once were public notices requesting
variances to the current "requirement" of variances set's a clear tone that this public notice is a
done deal from all those involved.
Such an attitude of stating a request as if it were a "requirement" is a despicable but
accurate reflection on all those involved. It is also reflection of the tone changing in Aspen
from one of cooperation to one of demands and entitlement by developers and some city staff
and appointed board members.
Please make this email part of the public record for the public hearing at which the
"requirement" of variances will be reviewed in the tone it was announced to the public - as
done deal.
Thank you. -Bert
Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr.
e-mail: BertCa~Myrin.com
PO Box 12365
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(970) 925-8645 Landline
(970) 925-2691 Mobile
(815) 361-9123 Fax
In politics it's what people believe is true, not what actually is true that really matters.
P25
Mazch 20, 2008
Deaz Mr. Hoffman:
I am writing this letter to oppose the request for variances at 202 N. Monazch St. I grew
up and still reside part-time at 212 N. Monazch, just north of the "Blue Vic"
development. With the recent construction and the uprooting of the Blue Victorian
house, I have watched my childhood home and surrounding azea turn into a congested
neighborhood. When I looked out the window, I could no longer see Aspen Mountain, as
the Blue Vic, while temporarily on blocks, nearly sat on top of us.
If the proposed variances are granted, I can only imagine the devastation to the character
of not only my home, but the complete historic chazacter of the neighborhood as well.
This block of Monazch Street used to be a populaz site on the historical walking tour but
will become more of an eye sore than a historical point of Aspen if the variances aze
approved. The Blue Vic has been moved and is part of a condominium designation;
therefore the proposed structure should be required to abide by the current zoning laws
within the city of Aspen. The property surrounding 212 N. Monarch St should not be
compromised by a vaziance from the zoning laws. We need to preserve the historic
charm and character of this neighborhood and prevent it from being impacted any further
than it already has been.
I hope you will take these concerns into consideration. Thank you for yow time
Sincerely,
Drew Hodgson
P 2 6 ' e ~d~Rc4L '~~, o`~Lf~&'
- _ .~_1D ~ ~/l\L~ ~?:1E'c' ~ t~!~.2.f_ Cif\~ _. - _ _ _._.__ .. _ _ . _ _ ., -
__ _._
__ __ lTs.~s.~~-P(~`iyw_~._~(~._~f~/._._-~'~?v.i~tc~~.gin-._y~t.~,~w~.~i~...~/_~_~~ ~[~~i~fJ
.__. -.._.-._-_. __. Y.~. ^-. T._L.- ,Y> ~~~_AJ~'.^---~'.'~~...._.4v/.~-_..J~._.~1E-~~L?\.J-V-LT......_ 4..r+~J~~_-, f0
_ __ __,
__ _ ...
'ARV c~~5__..U.?EY~E_. ?E1(si?. - ~~
~."CE~ T~
- --- - • - -. "t~EQI..~~ s ~~L.e~A~-are n~
P27
µ4" ~ttSZE7~\~ "~~c'~~~ ~ f . S. ~~ ~t~
j.''~~.ti'R'~ `E~ E'Sl? l.T O'F ~~ ~€~oC-~T' t 13C~-
~~
4i ~~ Utz; ~~ '~.~ ~.,~~~# ~~ ~~1Ct'E~LZ'~
,:
~,
_. +?._ iN _~i~l.~x'..€~-~t.~G-.-~t~ ~?i_U l1lC~~j _~CGoFJ~i~G-
,i
;;
,;
_ _ __ <<N~shi,\NE~"'ROEJ>_.'~4~~--.}~~!..`).~- ~5~^~L~i_'~_~\S"R~~~C ~Q_
l~-~5~'Etv~~ts~'_ i~ ~~~ ~~- ~ ~ctvbfl Mtty - .
';
,;
u
l i ~_ RAG'] .~~ _L`~~~.t_ _ L ~..?~ °~_ t:~~ ltv .
:~
{,
~~~,1'tC~~~,.N~~ {~~. ~,MPC~`~{~'ZT~_~vi ~t2 ~>MQC~II~R~~S
_1i
~~
_ ~';~'-t~ _ 4-.~5-~LC . c~ta~ ~t~vti~ o~ #~i ut~cots~~-:
P28
P29
Michael Hoffman
Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Attention: Sara Adams
City of Aspen Community Development Dept
130 South$alena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
March 18, 2008
Deaz Mr. Hoffman,
I am writing you in regazds to latest chapter of the development plans for the "Blue Vic" property (now
properties) on North Monarch Street in Aspen. It has come to my attention that the developer (Mr. Tim
Settuau) has asked for variance as to the placement structure that be plans to build in the neaz furore. As a
long term resident (32 years) I ask you to whole-heaztedly deny this request for the following reasons.
1. Moving the allowable building envelope 8 feet (not inches!!) to the North would encroach on
the city owned alleyway. Those of us who attended the City Council meetings know how
much time and energy was spent on making sure that the alley was protected and stayed in
City ownership and control.
2. While the developer would like his new house placed at a further distance from the
neighboring home to the South, this is hardly fair to ask the neighbor to the North (Mr.
Hodgson) to take on the burden having the Semrau house placed 8 feet closer than originally
agrced upon by City Council. While I have no doubt that such a move would enhance the
desirability and therefore the monetary value of the house to be built, it seems that it would
have opposite impact on Mr. Hodgson's property. To me, this sounds like a classic example
of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
3. I am smaned to think that this experienced developer and former City Council member did
not know exactly, perhaps I should say precisely, what be agreed to with the splitting of, and
condotniniumizing of the "Blue Vic" property.
4. Too many times in both the Ciry and the Couary, we have all seen developers ask for faz more
than what they need and then agree to "compromise" to get what they really wanted all along.
And just like that, the zoning and/or the carefully crafted covenants of a neighborhood go "out
the window", gone forever, because a new precedent bas been set If this variance is granted,
I believe that this would be such a case.
5. While I do not know if the developer plans to live in this new house or ff it is being built on
"spec", the fact of the matter is that it does not mattes A legal decision was made as m the
size and shape of the property and the building envelope was set within those parameters.
This is where the house should be placed.
I ask you and all members of the HPC to please carefully censider these points as I believe that keeping the
new structure inside the presently designated building envelope will be best for the neighborhood.
Since ly,
~~~~ ~~
c. ?~
Christopher Faison
0143 Fast Lupine Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P30
Mazch 19, 2008
Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Lisa Markalunas
15 Williams Ranch Court
Mailing: P.O. Box 8253
Aspen, CO 81612
(970)925-8623
RE: 202 N. Monazch Street, Aspen, CO
Blue Vic Condominiums, Lot 1, Unit B
HPC Meeting - 3/26/08
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to express my concern about the variances being requested for the potential new
development to be located between 202 N. Monazch and 212 N. Monarch, both very historic properties in
Aspen's West End.
I believe that anytime additional development is allowed on a historic pazcel, especially in the cases of
historic lot splits where the HPC is granting additional development rights that aze of great value to the
developer, that any new constructions proposed on the site should be compatible and respectful of the
adjacent properties. In these cases, I believe variances should be awazded in only the most dire of
circumstances. If you aze willing to allow new construction at all, as is the case here, it should be
subservient to the historic properties on either side.
Just because there is an alleyway along the north property line, and which also occur behind almost all
other West End locations and which contribute to the historic town layout, they should not be a condition
that is conducive to allowing additional variances by property owners just by nature of their existence.
I encourage you to deny the proposed vaziances that will adversely impact the historic properties on this
block of North Monarch Street. The developer should be able to design a structure that sits within the
existing buildable azea on the site. A lot split has already been awarded. Please do not further
compromise these historic treasures by allowing new construction to impose on what little setting they
have left.
Sincerely,
Lisa Markalunas
P31
Mr. and Mrs. Mathew P. Pace
1125 North Institute Street
Colorado Springs, CO
80903
March 20, 2008
Michael Hoffman
Chairperson
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
We are writing this letter in opposition to the request for variances that Mr. Tim Semrau has requested in
regards to his proposed development located at 202 N. Monarch Street. Our concern lies mostly with the
variance request for the north side setback of the proposed development. It is our understanding that Mr.
Semrau is requesting a reduction of the 10-foot setback to only atwo-foot setback. We feel this is unnecessary
and fail to see the hardship that would require such a vaziance. We feel that Mr. Semrau should position his
development accordingly with no deviations from the land-use codes.
According to the City's Land Use Regulations, "A vaziance is the only reasonable method by which to afford
the applicant relief, and to deny a variance would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship such that the
property would be rendered practically undevelopable, as distinguished from mere inconvenience." Mr. Semrau
does not need a variance to make his property "developable" and should not be granted special privileges. Mr.
Semrau's property can be developed within the set guidelines. Granting him this variance is needless and
excessive. He should abide by the land-use codes and not be able to create affliction for his neighbor to the
north by being able to situate his development within spitting distance.
On a recent visit to Aspen, we noticed that the blue Victorian house (at 202 N. Monazch) had been moved closer
to the house to the north. Luckily this move was only temporary. I can't imagine how devastating it would be
to live with a house permanently located in this spot. This neighbor to the north of the proposed development
will be the one suffering a hazdship. Any southern view he has now, including a view of Aspen Mountain, will
be completely lost upon the completion of Mr. Semrau's new development.. Upholding the City's land-use
codes and not granting this variance will at least make things feel less claustrophobic. Mr. Semrau needs to
build his development using the set codes and not impact the people living on this street anymore than he will
be with the construction of this new house. Mr. Semrau chose to split this historic lot and has now chosen to
build a development on it. He needs to work with what he's got and not make others pay the price. Mr. Semrau
is not obligated to build his development to the fullest extent. He can reduce the size of his proposed
development and sell the remainder of the property as TDRs. He has other options.
Mr. Semrau has already destroyed the integrity and chazacter of one of the most historic neighborhoods in
Aspen with his development of the Blu Vic property. He is now going to permanently alter the look of this
street with his new development, a big eyesore stuck between two of the most significant houses in Aspen. I
urge you to help preserve what's left of this historic street by not granting him these variances and lessening the
negative impact he is creating.
Please take these concerns into consideration. Thank you
Mr. & Mrs. Mathew Pace
P32
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o sazaa(a~ci.aspen.co.us
Re: last week's HPC hearing
Mazch 31, 2008
Dear Members of the Historic Preservation Commission,
I attended the HPC meeting on March 26th and have some additional comments.
Last Wednesday night, several HPC commissioners expressed dismay at the fact that after HPC's
recommendation to both P&Z and the Aspen City Council a few yeazs ago, the alley was not opened between
the Blue Vic and 212 N. Monazch. I found the reaction of some members to be particulazly ironic because
after the HPC recommended opening the alley, the P&Z unanimously supported the historical precedent of
not opening the alley. After all, the alley has never been a thoroughfaze because it ends in a huge drop off.
The houses on the lots surrounding the alley do not back on to the alley as they typically do in the platted
alleyways of Aspen. The alley has never been open because of its unusual setting. Opening the alley as a
dead end commercial alley would have been highly disruptive to the middle of this historic block.
I bring up the alley for two reasons: I still think the original recommendation from HPC regazding the alley
was not in the interests of historic preservation, and because the alley is a key aspect of the ongoing
discussion of the requested variances.
My second concern is why, when the developer bought this important historic lot, sold off the historic house,
sold off the commercial building site, and then requested variances to maximize the square footage of a new
house, is the underlying zoning so summarily dismissed? Except for the astute comments by one HPC
member about the impact of the variances, no other member even commented on why the variances were not
automatic and should be cazefully considered for their impacts. Isn't the HPC there to protect history, to
preserve the historical references?
Thank you for considering these comments. I appreciate the time and effort that all of you put into these
hearings.
Sincerely,
Bazbaza Reid
Page 1 of 1
Sara Adams
From: Johnson, J. Bart [bart~ottenjohnson.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:01 AM
To: Sara Adams
Cc: Tim Semrau; Sean P. Byrne
Subject: Semrau HPC review and setback variance request
Sara,
I represent the neighbor to the east of Tim Semrau's pending application that is coming up this
afternoon. The neighbor is Garret Gulch, LLC. I am writing to let you know that we do not oppose Tim's variance
request for his rear setback and generally support his application. Please make this email part of the record in
this matter and make it available to the HPC members.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
--Bart Johnson
]. BART JOHNSON
ATTORNEY
OTTEN)OHNSON
ROBINSON NEFF + RAGONETTI PC
420 EAST MAIN STREET
SUITE 21D
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
D 970.544.4636
F 970.544-4632
BARTCdtOTTEN]OHNSON COM
htto~llwww ottenjohnson.com
The information contained in this email is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. It may contain
confidential information subject to attorney-client privilege orwork-product privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication
is strictly prohibited. We do not guarantee that any attached files are virus free, therefore, the files should be virus
scanned before opening them. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by
telephone 970.544.4637 or a-mail, and delete this a-mail message. Thank you.
P33
TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure wmpliance with requirements imposed by the Treasury Department, we
inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice wntained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be usetl, for the purpose of (i) avoiding Penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any transaction or matter adtlressed herein.
P34
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o sazaana,ci.aspen.co.us
RE: HPC Public Hearing , Mazch 26, 2008
Deaz Members of the Commission,
We are writing to oppose granting of a variance to the existing setback requirements for
202 North Monazch and encowage you to honor the intent of the existing zoning.
The Aspen Area Community Plan states : "We must continue to build on what we have
by authentically preserving historic structwes and creating thoughtfixl new buildings that
encowage and shape the feeling of historic continuity." Less of a setback on this
property at this location would not "encowage and shape the feeling of historic
continuity", indeed it would negatively impact the feeling of historic continuity.
The Historic Preservation Commission can re-enforce and maintain the residential quality
and historic value of this important block of North Monazch by supporting the parameters
that aze in place. The legal boundary on one side of the proposed building is a 10 foot set
back and the legal boundary on the other side is 10 feet from the alley.
The AACP's sentiment that "The spaces between buildings, particularly in the public
realm, i.e. streets, plazas, pazks, and yards, aze often more important than the buildings
themselves" is an appropriate dictate for the preservation of this historically important
block and the open space that remains after the lot split.
Please respect the zoning that is in place and take this opportunity to protect thoughtful,
reasonable and intended setbacks, and let the developer work within the prescribed
pazameters.
Thank you for yow consideration,
Barbara Reid & David Hyman
Page 1 of 1
P35
Sara Adams
From: David Fleisher [d.fleisher~comcast.netl
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:25 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: Re: 202 North Monarch St. variance request. Please include in 3126/08 HPC meeting packet
As an owner of a neighboring property at 223 East Hallam I want to express my disagreement with the
application for the variances for the new house to be built as part of the Blue Vic Condominium.
Without repeating al] of the astute points enumerated by Blue Vic neighbor Phil Hodgson in his letter to
Michael Hoffman, Chair of HPC (copied to Saza Adams), I am in complete agreement with his position
and azguments. Retaining the chazacter of the historic neighborhood is of prime importance as well as
protecting the underlying, already minimal setbacks that provide neighbors with some sense of privacy
and adequate view planes . It is not the the city's responsibility to bail out developers attempting to
maximize squaze footage when it is counter to these community values and zoning regulations. This is
the developer's risk and responsibility.
I hope you take these observations into consideration when reviewing this variance request.
Sincerely,
Gina Berko
P36
March 25, 2008
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
City Hall
130 S. Galena Street
3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 204 N. Monarch St proposed development
To the Historical Preservation Committee,
I write to express comment on the proposed development at 204 N. Monarch Street
and the subsequent Community Development staff comments. I grew up in the
Kobey House, the adjacent Victorian located at 212 N. Monarch Street, and our
family continues to live there today. Therefore, I have a vested interest in what the
end product of our new neighboring house will become. I would like to address the
overall size of the home and consequently the effects on the property's setbacks.
Additionally, I would like to propose an option for HPC to consider when debating
the concerns expressed by both staff and public comment.
House Proportion and Mass:
The mass of the proposed development by the Semrau Family, LLC has been called
into question by staff. From the memo sent to HPC, it is staff's opinion that the new
"home needs to respond to the two story height and mass of th_e historic resources
in the block."' Staff's rationale is that this will improve the street presence by making
the new building consistent in size to the two Victorians on either side of it. While I
agree with staff that there needs to be a consistency along this block that currently
holds three historic landmark buildings, I feel the overall size of the proposed house
of 2,053 square feet is drastically inconsistent within this historic neighborhood. As
can be seen on page 2 of the staff memo, the historic city planning generally
depicts 9000 square foot lots with one home, and in some instances, with an
accessory dwelling, e.g. Blue Vic, Parzybock, Pace houses. In an analogous case to
the one currently being discussed, the lot of the Kobey house (212 N. Monarch St)
appeared to be split in the 19th century and a second home built on the smaller
section of the lot. To fit the proportions of the split lot and to obey the setbacks, the
resulting "Half House" of approximately 1500 square feet was built (this does not
include the new addition that was added after Hallam Street was recently
vacated). I do not suggest that the current house being proposed become another
Half House; however, to maintain the historic integrity of the block and surrounding
neighborhood, the new house should reflect the same philosophy. Like the Half
House, the new house should reach a similar height to its neighbors but should not
be of equal girth. Because it is being placed in a lot originally planned for one
' Staff memorandum to HPC, 3/26/08, p. 2
P37
house, it should be visibly smaller than its neighbors. Rather than creating the visual
effect that Aspen historically built large homes close together, it will help create the
desired effect that homes traditionally had a large portion of land around them
and newer homes on the same lot were built smaller to preserve the open space.
Setback Variance:
While it is admirable to surpass the required setback from the Blue Vic by three feet,
this should not come at the expense of the north end setback along the unused
alley. It was the Council's decision that this alley remain closed and not used for the
development of this property for either the residential or mixed use lots. The setback
is part of the alley and is reserved for public needed access. After wrestling with the
topic for multiple months before concluding that the alley should remain open
space, it is completely inappropriate to begin chipping away at that protection
imposed by the Council by allowing variances for development. Rather, the
proposed project should fit within the space it has been allocated. By raising the
height of the front of the house, I believe the girth of the house can and should be
reduced.
TDR Option:
Lastly, as staff has identified problems with the design of the proposal due in part to
its size and distribution of mass, I would like to suggest the option of employing TDRs
to address this issue. TDRs serve as a mechanism to remove development pressure
from historical sites and allow development costs to be recovered. This has proven
to be a viable option as was seen in the case of 403 West Hallam Street in which
Stan Gibbs successfully converted unused FAR mote: the TDRs generated were NOT
from bonus FAR) to TDRs and thereby recovered the rehabilitation costs and
sustained the historical integrity of his home and surrounding neighborhood. The
current development is a prime case to leverage the use of TDRs:
Nearly all the bonus FAR sits with the Blue Vic property, hence the TDRs would be
generated from actual historically designated FAR
The overall size of the house can be reduced and thereby respect both the
north and south setbacks
More open space will be created and help define the historic homes on the
block
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Wyley Hodgson
P38
P39
.~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 600/612 W. Francis Street- Landmazk Designation, Public Hearing
DATE: June 25, 2008
SUMMARY: The subject properly is two adjacent 6,000 squaze foot lots; 600 and 612 W.
Francis Street. 600 W. Francis contains a Pan Abode home constructed starting in 1956. 612 W.
Francis contains a home built in 1996. The pazcels aze in the same ownership and the owner is
voluntazily applying for landmazk designation of the entire 12,000 square foot area in order to
take advantage of the ability to reconfigure the property so that the more recent house is on a
3,000 squaze foot lot and the Pan Abode is on a 9,000 squaze foot lot. The platting that they
desire was the state of the properly prior to a subdivision approval requested in 2000.
HPC is asked to make a recommendation to City Council on the Landmazk Designation. Re-
establishment of the Lot Line will be determined by Council, although HPC may certainly
comment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the application meets the criteria for designation of
a property to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures, and
recommends HPC make such a finding to City Council
1
612 W. Francis Street
600 W. Francis Street
P40
APPLICANT: Jack and Marisa Silverman, owners, represented by Haas Land Planning LLC.
PARCEL ID: The Pazcel ID for 600 W. Francis is 2735-124-09-009. The Pazcel ID for
612 W. Francis is 2735-124-09-007.
ADDRESS: 600 W. Francis Street, Lots R and S, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City
and Townsite of Aspen. 612 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot
Split, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030B. Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures,
an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or
objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance.
1. The property was constructed at least forty (30) years prior to the year in which
the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity
of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to one
or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and can be identified and
documented,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff Response: The application describes the house at 600 W. Francis as a Pan Abode that was
owned for approximately 40 yeazs by the Jones family; Whipple Van Ness Jones having been the
creator of Aspen Highlands Ski Area. It has been used throughout it's history (even now) as a
rental for tourists and "ski bums." This is typical of the Pan Abode building type as it was quick
to build, affordable, and appropriate to the scale of the community when small vacation homes
and worker housing began to be needed. Pan Abodes appeaz to have been quite common in
Aspen from the 1950's to early 1970's an are an important illustration of how the community
first handled some of the housing and lodging pressures that aze still challenging today. Staff
finds that criteria A is met.
In addition, we find that criteria C is met because the house is a physically a classic example of
the Rustic Style. Within the historic context paper that has been developed for Aspen's Rustic
azchitecture, there aze specific physical features that a property must possess in order for it to
reflect significance. Typical chazacteristics of the Rustic Style aze "log construction, stone
foundation, small paned windows, overhanging roof, stone chimney, and battered walls." To be
2
P41
eligible for historic designation, Aspen's examples of Rustic Style azchitecture should have the
following distinctive chazacteristics:
• Hand built structures that aze constructed out of locally available materials, usually
log; stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney.
Later examples include machine cut logs.
• The buildings aze usually single story, with aloes-pitched gable roof.
• True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be
dressed and flattened for stacking or may be in rough form. Chinking infills the
irregularities between the logs either way. Machine made buildings mimic these
details, though without the chinking.
• Window openings aze spaze and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used
to finish out the window openings.
• Building plans aze simple rectangulaz forms, with smaller additive elements.
• The roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends aze often infilled with standazd
framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space.
• The emphasis is on hand-made materials and the details stem from the use of the
materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal.
600 W. Francis Street has a central element that was built fast, and two wings on each end, also
of Pan Abode manufacture and built in 1957 and 1969. The Pan Abode material is unaltered,
inside and outside, and original window forms aze intact. A stone chimney is present. There has
been a modification to the entry, and the building has been painted. Staff did not include this
building on Ordinance #48 because of our initial misconception about the history of the,bookend
additions. The building is somewhat difficult to view because of heavy vegetation, however it is
on a comer lot, allowing three sides of the structure to have some public visibility. The paint can
easily be removed in the future, as has been done with several other Pan Abodes in town. In
terms of the azchitectural integrity scoring that is part of the landmazk designation process, staff
scores this house at 86 out of 100 points, which exceeds the required threshold.
We support landmazk designation and the reconfiguration of the lot to its original condition, with
the Pan Abode on 9,000 squaze feet and the new house on 3,000 squaze feet. The designation
will apply to the entire site, so HPC will have purview over all of the development, new and old.
As a landmazk, the Pan Abode lot will have the potential to develop a second unit in the future,
using the FAR that might otherwise be added on to the historic structure. Even if this applicant
only designated the Pan Abode on it's current 6,000 squaze foot azea, a second unit would be
allowed. It is preferable to have more sepazation and breathing room that will be afforded by the
new lot configuration, should someone decide to add new living space in the future. The
designation does not create any new FAR, other than the potential for an HPC bonus.
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
3
P42
• 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 fmds that designation "Criterion A" and "Criterion C" aze met
and that the property meets the azchitectural integrity requirements.
Staff recommends that HPC support landmazk designation for 600 W. Francis Street, Lots R and
S, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen and 612 W. Francis
Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen.
Exhibits:
A. Integrity Assessment
B. Aspen's 20a' Century Architecture: Rustic Style- a paper written by the Community
Development Department.
C. Application
P43
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- RUSTIC, 600 W. Francis Street
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
• LOCATION LOCATION IS THE PLACE WHERE THE HISTORIC PROPERTY WAS CONSTR UCTED OR
THE PLACE WHERE THE HISTORIC EVENT OCCURRED.
5 -The structure is in its original location.
3 -The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the
original alignment and proximity to the street.
0 -The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilaz to its original
site.
TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM of 5)
STAFF SCORE: 5
• DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,
structure, and style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10 -The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still intact.
6 -The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design
guidelines.
0 -Alterations and/or additions to the building aze such that the original form
of the structure is obscured.
STAFF SCORE: 8. There aze two early, intact additions to the building, by the original
manufacturer. Staff finds that these occurred during the "period of significance" for this type of
rustic azchitecture. There appeazs to be a new entry room added, therefore some points have been
deducted.
ROOF FORM
10 -The original roof form is unaltered.
6 -Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the
current design guidelines.
0 -Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form.
STAFF SCORE: 8. There are two eazly, intact additions to the building, by the original
manufacturer. Staff finds that these occurred during the "period of significance" for this type of
rustic architecture. The entry addition does de-emphasize the long horizontal emphasis of the
roof line somewhat, therefore some points were deducted. The entry is however easily
reversible.
P44
SCALE
5 -The original scale and proportions of the building aze intact.
3 -The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is
intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines.
0 -The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or
alterations.
STAFF SCORE: 5.
DOORSAND WINDOWS
10-The original door and window pattern aze intact.
8- Some of the doors and windows aze new but the original openings aze intact.
4- More than 50% of the doors or windows have been added and/or the original
opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most of the original door and window openings have been altered.
STAFF SCORE: 8. The only appazent alteration is at the front door.
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES/SPARE QUALITY OF THE DESIGN
10-The form and features that define the Rustic style aze intact. There is an overall
sense of simplicity. Window and door openings and decorative features aze spaze.
5- There are minor alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic
style.
0- There have been major alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic
style.
STAFF SCORE: 10. The simple nature of the Pan Abode style is intact.
TOTAL POINTS (raAxrntum of 45) = 39
• SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
5-The physical sun•oundings aze similaz to that found when the structure was originally
constructed.
3-There aze minor modifications to the physical surroundings.
0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic chazacter of the building.
STAFF SCORE: 5. There is heavy, mature vegetation on the site, some of which was probably
installed azound the time the house was built. An irrigation ditch runs along the 6u' Street side.
TOTAL POINTS (mtnxiMUM of 5) = 5
P45
MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited
during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a
historic property.
EXTERIOR SURFACES
15-The original exterior wall materials (log, wood siding, and stone) and the
decorative trim materials aze intact
10- There have been minor changes to the original combination of exterior wall
materials and the decorative trim materials, but the changes have been made in a
manner that conforms with the design guidelines.
5-There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall
materials and the decorative trim materials.
0- All exterior materials have been removed or replaced.
STAFF SCORE: 15. There aze no appazent alterations.
DOORSAND WINDOWS
10-All or most of the original doors and windows units aze intact.
5- Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units
would meet the design guidelines.
0- Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units that
would not meet design guidelines.
STAFF SCORE: 5. The front door, and possibly some window units have been replaced, but
opening sizes appeaz to be original.
TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 25) = 20
WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular
culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION/fIAND-BUILT CHARACTER OR IMITATION
OF HAND-BUILT CHARACTER
15-The original detailing is intact. The building is built from locally available
materials and exhibits evidence of handwork, or is attempting to do so if mass
produced.
10-There have been some alterations of loss of the original detailing or handwork
character.
5- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its stylistic
category.
0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original structure.
0- The detailing is gone.
STAFF SCORE: 15. There aze no appazent alterations.
P46
FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME
5- The'riatural finishes and color scheme that defime the Rustic style aze intact
3- There have been minor alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme that
define the Rustic style.
2- There have been substantial alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme
that define the Rustic style.
STAFF SCORE: 2. The building has been painted, which is reversible.
TOTAL POINTS (NtaxrntuM of 20)=17
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS=100
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS
TOTAL STAFF SCORE: 86
Note: Each azea of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might
be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the
point range to more accurately reflect the specific property.
P47
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION FOR 600 W.
FRANCIS STREET, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 21, DOREMUS/SILVERMAN LOT
SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND 612 W. FRANCIS STREET, LOTS P
AND Q, BLOCK 21, DOREMUS/SILVERMAN LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN
RESOLUTION NO. ~ SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-009 AND 2735-124-09-007
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jack and Marisa Silverman, owners, represented by Haas Land
Planning LLC, has requested Historic Designation for the property located at 600 W. Francis
Street, Lots R and S, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen and
612 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of
Aspen.; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for
Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmazk Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from
HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her HPC staff report dated June 25, 2008, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, found that the review standazds had been met, and
recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on June 25, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standazds and
recommended approval by a vote of _ to _.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends Council approve Historic Designation for 600 W. Francis Street,
Lots R and S, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen and 612 W.
Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25th day of June, 2008.
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Assistant City Attorney
P48
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Michael Hoffman, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
~~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
541 Race Street, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Residential Design
Standazds, ADU Design Standazds, and Variances -Public Hearing
June 25, 2008
SUMMARY: Lot 6 of the. Fox Crossing Subdivision is a designated historic landmark, pursuant to
Ordinance 50 Series of 2004, which also granted subdivision approval to the Fox Crossing
development. According to the subdivision approvals, Lot 6 is a 6, 068 square feet lot approved to
contain two historic 1960s log cabins (aka House Kl and House K2). Lot 6 was previously granted
HPC approval for a different preservation project that included the 1960s designated cabins (HPC
Resolutions 29, Series of 2004 and 15, Series of 2005) and was over the allowed FAR.
Subsequently, the applicant submitted a new proposal in March 2008 to combine the cabins into a
duplex, but again the design exceeded the allowable floor area. A work session was held with
HPC, in Apri12008, to discuss another new design concept and a request for the historic floor azea
bonus.
The applicant requests HPC approval to construct an addition on one of the cabins, which will be a
free market residence. The proposal includes converting the other cabin to a deed restricted for sale
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The proposed ADU will remain lazgely unaltered with a
subgrade space and no external addition. As part of a consolidated application, HPC is asked to
grant Residential Design Standazd review and ADU Design Standazd review. Dimensional
variances and the 500 square foot FAR Bonus aze requested for this project.
Staff recommends that HPC grant Conceptual approval and the requested variances with
conditions.
APPLICANT: Fox Crossing Partners, LLC, 601 East Hopkins Avenue, Ste. 202, Aspen, CO,
81611.
PARCEL H): 2737-073-92-006.
ADDRESS: Lot 6, Building Kl and K2, Fox Crossing Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: Medium Density Residential, R-6.
P49
541 Race Street, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 1 of 12
P50
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as jo[lows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the stafjanalysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant
DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed,
aze included in the memo.
Staff Response: Overall, Staff finds that the proposal is sensitive to the historic cabins. Staff
commends the applicant for maintaining one of the cabins without an addition. The proposed
design for the free mazket cabin introduces a contemporary style in terms of clean lines and
fenestration, which when combined with traditional materials and horizontal emphasis is
compatible with the rusticity of the cabins. Differentiation between new and old construction is
cleazly defined with building forms and fenestration. The combination of flat and shed roof
forms aze complimentary to the roof angles and horizontality of the historic cabin. Staff finds that
Guideline 10.3 and 10.4 aze met.
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.
541 Race Street, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 2 of 12
P51
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.
The proposed size and scale of the addition do not overwhelm the two historic cabins, as viewed
from the Pazk (west facing). The applicant proposes a one story connector piece between the
historic cabin and the addition. Staff is concerped that the intersection of the connector piece and
the historic cabin obscures the cabin's gable roof form, and recorrunends if possible that the
applicant drop the height of the connector piece or shorten the length. Relevant Guidelines aze
10.6 and 10.7 below:
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
^ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
^ A 1-story connector is preferred.
^ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
^ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
Staff is concerned about the relationship to grade of the free mazket residence. The northern
cabin proposed for the free mazket residence sits lower on the site as compazed to the ADU
cabin. The height of the roofs are aligned; however, the porch floor of the free mazket cabin is
about two feet lower than the porch floor of the ADU cabin probably to create a taller floor to
ceiling height. Also, the applicant proposes a stone base azound the columns of the front porch
and the base of the free mazket cabin on the front (west) elevation. Staff finds that the proposed
porch for the free mazket cabin does not meet Guidelines 5.1 and 5.2 below and recommends that
the applicant maintain the existing front porch design and relationship to grade.
5.1 Preserve an original porch.
^ Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and
spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones.
^ Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that
emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate.
^ Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch.
^ Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
541 Race Street, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 3 of 12
P52
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 320 squaze foot floor azea bonus. The following standards apply to
an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to £rve 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 is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
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: Staff finds that the proposal earns the 500 square foot FAR Bonus for
exceptional projects with a few conditions. The proposed addition to the free mazket cabin meets
the design guidelines and retaining one cabin intact is commendable in this market. Staff
recommends that HPC grant the S00 square foot FAR Bonus with the conditions that the
applicant drop the height of the connector piece to meet criteria (a) and (f) above and the
applicant maintain the original front porch design and relationship to grade to meet criteria (a),
(b) and (h).
541 Race Street, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 4 of 12
P53
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The applicant is required to provide 2 onsite pazking spaces for the free mazket residence and 1
onsite ADU pazking space. The proposal meets this requirement, and actually provides two
spaces stacked for the ADU (which only count as one space in our Land Use Code.)
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The proposal does not require any variations from the Residential Design Standards.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN STANDARDS
The proposal does not require any variations from the Affordable Housing Design Standazds
(listed in Exhibit A.) The Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority (APCHA) is in favor of the proposed
ADU with specific conditions that aze incorporated into the resolution. Staff altered condition 2
of the recommendation to reflect the Land Use Code that permits the initial developer to select a
qualified purchaser for the ADU as an incentive (see the proposed condition 6 on the following
page.) APCHA prefers that the ADU go through the housing lottery initially and not allow the
developer to select the purchaser. The referral memo is included as Exhibit B.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback vaziances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code aze
as follows:
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: The applicant requests the following variances:
Front Yazd setbacks: The applicant proposes a five foot front yazd setback for the free mazket
residence where ten feet aze required, and a five foot setback for the ADU where fifteen feet aze
required. The front yazd faces the Pazk (west), it does not face Race Street. Staff finds that the
proposed front yard setbacks aze appropriate for this project. The cabins will align with each
other and reducing the required setback creates a more visible location of the resources from the
Pazk.
Side yazd setbacks: The applicant proposes a three foot (north) side yard setback where ten feet
aze required and a five foot (south) side yazd setback where ten feet aze required. Staff fmds that
these setbacks aze appropriate because they allow the buildings to be preserved as detached
structures.
541 Race Street, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 5 of 12
P54
Distance between buildings: The applicant proposes five feet between the cabins where ten feet
is required. Staff finds that this is appropriate in order to keep the buildings detached and
provide a side yazd setbacks.
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.-
1ZECOMII~NDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development Review
(Conceptual) for the property located at 541 Race Street, Lot 6, Fox Crossing Subdivision, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions;
1. The front porch of the free market residence will not be altered.
2. The relationship to grade of the free mazket cabin will match that of the adjacent ADU
cabin.
3. The 500 squaze feet FAR Bonus is granted.
4. The following setbacks aze granted: a variance of five feet for the front yazd (west)
setback for the free mazket residence where ten feet aze required and five feet aze
provided; a variance of ten feet for the front yazd (west) setback of the ADU where five
feet aze provided and fifteen feet aze required; a variance of seven feet for the north side
yazd setback where three feet aze provided where ten feet aze required; and a variance of
five feet for the south side yazd setback where five feet aze provided and ten feet aze
required.
5. The unit shall be a "for sale" unit.
6. It is preferred that the unit be offered for sale through the lottery system with the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. However, the Code stipulates that the initial
developer may select the fast qualified purchaser of the unit. Subsequent conveyances
shall be according to the lottery sales procedures specified in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines as amended.
7. The unit shall be no higher than Category 4 with a preference to Category 3.
8. At least one off-site pazking space per bedroom shall be provided for this unit.
9. The governing documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA.
10. If the unit is part of a Homeowners' Association (HOA), language shall be provided in
the Protective Covenants, or any other appropriate governing documents, covering the
unit's homeowners' assessments. The assessments shall be based on the value of the deed-
restricted sales compazed to the sales price of the free-mazket homes within the same HOA.
This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the
project and shall also allow for the same voting representation as any other unit located
within the HOA. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's
approval.
541 Race Stteet, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 6 of 12
P55
11. The Certificate of Occupancy for the deed-restricted unit shall be in conjunction with the
free-mazket unit (or sooner).
12. Since this unit is an existing unit, Part VII, Section 14, Deed Restricting Existing Dwelling
Units, comes into play. Specific conditions aze required prior to Certificate of Occupancy
of the free-mazket residence.
If accepted by the City or County, existing units must be upgraded in accordance with the
following criteria (unless a variance from these requirements is approved by the applicable
governing body upon the recommendation of the APCHA):
a. The interior walls of all units must be freshly painted.
b. The interior Appliances must be purchased within the last five years and be in good and
working condition.
c. Carpet must be less than five years old and be in good condition and repair, or be replaced.
d. The exterior walls shall be freshly painted within one year of dedication.
e. A general level of upgrade to yards and landscaping shall be provided.
£ Windows, heating, plumbing, electrical systems, fixtures and equipment shall be in good
and working order.
g. The roof must have a remaining useful life of at least ten (10) years.
h. All units shall meet the International Building Code minimum standards, any applicable
housing code. or, in the absence of an adequate code, the housing code acceptable to the
APCHA.
i. All units shall be approved by the APCHA and verified by a qualified Building Inspector
accepted and approved by the APCHA.
j. Applicant shall bear the costs and expenses of any required upgrades to meet the standazds
stated in Part VII, Section 14, a through i, as well as any structuraUengineering reports
required by the APCHA to assess the suitability For occupancy and compliance with the
APCHA standards of the proposed units.
13. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) yeaz of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
A draft resolution will be provided at the HPC meeting.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines and ADU Purpose Statement and Standazds.
B. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Recommendation.
C. Application.
541 Race Street, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 7 of 12
P56
"Ezhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines and ADU Standards for 541 Race Street,
Conceptual Review"
5.1 Preserve an original porch.
^ Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and
spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones.
^ Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that
emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate.
^ Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch.
^ Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in asingle-family context is strongly
encouraged.
^ This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary
entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmazk structures than those in a
historic district.
^ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
^ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
^ A relocated building must be cazefully rehabilitated to retain original azchitectural details and
materials.
^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
^ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.2 Moving an ezisting building that contributes to the character of a historic district
should be avoided.
^ The significance of a building and the chazacter of its setting will be considered.
^ In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than
moving anindividually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns
of development, including spacing of side yazds and front setbacks, that relate to other
historic structures in the azea.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
^ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots.
Both lots shall remain landmazked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
541 Race Street, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 8 of 12
P57
^ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similaz setback.
^ It may not, for example, be moved to the reaz of the pazcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
9.5 Anew foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
^ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on
a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character.
^ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should
be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
^ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
^ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances
the resource.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
^ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standazds).
^ The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
^ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by
a simple fence or rail.
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.
10.6 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.
541 Race Street, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 9 of 12
P58
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
^ A 1-story connector is preferred.
^ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
^ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the 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.
^ Locatirig an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
^ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
chazacter to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary 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 azchitectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
26.520 Affordable Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses
26.520.010 Purpose
The purpose of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Carriage House Program is to promote
the long-standing community goal of socially, economically, and environmentally responsible
development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values
balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working residents and part-time
residents. ADUs and Carriage Houses represent viable housing opportunities for working
residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing
being easily identifiable as "employee housing." ADUs and Carriage Houses also help to address
the affects of existing homes, which have provided workforce housing, being significantly
redeveloped, often as second homes.
ADUs and Carriage Houses support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base
within the town and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's
chazacter. ADUs and Carriage Houses allow second homeowners the oppornuuty to hire an on-
541 Race Street, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 10 of 12
P59
site cazetaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing
opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally
preferred land use pattern, which reduces automobile reliance.
Detached ADUs and Carriage Houses emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the
privacy and livability of both the ADU or Carriage Houses and the primary unit. Detached. ADUs
and Carnage Houses aze more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a
com-munity goal of housing the workforce.
To the extent Aspen desires detached ADUs and Carriage Houses which provide viable and
livable housing opportunities to local working residents, detached ADUs and Carriage Houses
qualify existing vacant lots of record and significant redevelopment of existing homes for an
exemption from the Growth Management Quota System. In addition, detached ADUs and
Carriage Houses deed restricted as "For Sale" units, according to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, and sold according to the procedures established in
the Guidelines provide for certain Floor Area incentives.
26.520.050 Design Standards
All ADUs and Carnage Houses shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise
approved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review:
1. An ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable squaze feet, 10% of which
must be a closet or storage azea. An Carnage House must contain between 800 and 1,200
net livable squaze feet, 10% of which must be closet or storage azea.
2. An ADU or Carriage House must be able to function as a sepazate dwelling unit. This
includes the following:
a) An ADU or Carnage House must be separately accessible from the exterior. An
interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to Special Review;
b) An ADU or Carriage House must have separately accessible utilities. This does not
preclude shared services;
c) An ADU or Carriage House shall contain a kitchen containing, at a minimum, an oven,
a stove with two burners, a sink, and a refrigerator with a muumum of 6 cubic feet of
capacity and a freezer; and,
d) An ADU or Carriage House shall contain a bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink,
a toilet, and a shower.
3. One pazking space for the ADU or Carriage House shall be provided on-site and shall
remain available for the benefit of the ADU or Carriage House resident. The pazking
space shall not be stacked with a space for the primary residence.
4. The finished floor height(s) of the ADU or Carriage House shall be entirely above the
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, on all sides of the structure.
5. The ADU or Carriage House shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or
Carriage House located above a detached gazage or storage azea shall qualify as a
541 Race Street, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 11 of 12
P60
detached ADU or Carriage House. No other connections to the primary residence, or
portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or Carriage House as detached.
6. An ADU or Carriage House shall be located within the dimensional requirements of
the zone district in which the property is located.
7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU
or Carriage House. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient meaz~s of preventing
snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided.
8. ADUs and Carriage Houses shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of
this title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but aze not
limited to, the Uniform Building Code requirements related to adequate natural light,
ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression, and sound attenuation between living units. This
standazd may not be varied.
9. Al] ADUs and Carriage Houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the
property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070 Deed
Restrictions. This standazd may not be varied.
541 Race Street, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 12 of 12
P61
EXHIBIT B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Saza Adams, Community Development
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing
DATE: June 18, 2008
RE: REQUEST TO ADAPT TWO HISTORIC CABINS AS ASINGLE-FAMILY
R ESIDENCE AND AN AD U CARRIA GE HO USE
Pazcel ID No. 2737-073-92-006
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to incorporate both historic log cabins on Lot 6, Fox Crossing
Subdivision, into afree-mazket single-family residence and afully-deed restricted Carriage House
unit.
BAC%GROUND: Previous proposals on Lot 6 exceeded the maximum allow floor area for this
lot. At a work session with the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) on April 9, 2008, the site
development was proposed to incorporate both historic log cabins. One of them is proposed to be
converted to adeed-restricted, for sale, detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)/Carriage House.
The Carriage House will be a "for sale" deed-restricted unit; therefore, the floor azea for this unit
will not count towazds the total floor azea. This unit is proposed to consist of 748 squaze feet, or
665 net livable square feet.
According to Section 26.520.070, a detached and permanently affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit
or Carriage House qualifying for a property for a floor azea exemption shall be deed restricted as a
"for sale" affordable housing unit.
RECOA'11~~NDATION: Staff recommends approval as long as the following conditions aze met
and/or incorporated into the approval:
1. The unit shall be a "for sale" unit.
2. The unit shall be offered for sale through the lottery system with the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority. If the unit is not sold through the lottery system at initial sale, the
household MiJST qualify under the top priority for the unit.
3. The unit shall be no higher than Category 4 with a preference to Category 3.
4. At least one off-site pazking space per bedroom shall be provided for this unit.
5. The governing documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA.
P62
EXHIBIT B
6. If the unit is part of a Homeowners' Association (HOA), language shall be provided in
the Protective Covenants, or any other appropriate governing documents, covering the
unit's homeowners' assessments. The assessments shall be based on the value of the deed-
restricted sales compazed to the sales price of the free-mazket homes within the same HOA.
This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the
project and shall also allow for the same voting representation as any other unit located
within the HOA. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's
approval.
7. The Certificate of Occupancy for the deed-restricted unit shall be in conjunction with the
free-mazket unit (or sooner).
8. Since this unit is an existing unit, Part VII, Section 14, Deed Restricting Existing Dwelling
Unitr, comes into play. Specific conditions aze required prior to Certificate of Occupancy
of the free-market residence.
If accepted by the City or County, existing units must be upgraded in accordance with the
following criteria (unless a variance from these requirements is approved by the applicable
governing body upon the recommendation of the APCHA):
a. The interior walls of all units must be freshly painted.
b. The interior Appliances must be purchased within the last five years and be in good and
working condition.
c. Carpet must be less than five years old and be in good condition and repair, or be replaced.
d. The exterior walls shall be freshly painted within one yeaz of dedication.
e. A general level of upgrade to yards and landscaping shall be provided.
f. Windows, heating, plumbing, electrical systems, fixtures and equipment shall be in good
and working order.
g. The roof must have a remaining useful life of at least ten (] 0) years.
h. All units shall meet the International Building Code minimum standards, any applicable
housing code or, in the absence of an adequate code, the housing code acceptable to the
APCHA.
i. All units shall be approved by the APCHA and verified by a qualified Building Inspector
accepted and approved by the APCIi?..
j. Applicant shall beaz the costs and expenses of any required upgades to meet the standards
stated in Part VII, Section 14, a through i, as well as any structural/engineering reports
required by the APCHA to assess the suitability for occupancy and compliance with the
APCHA standards of the proposed units.
2
P63
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESiNc
landscape architecture. planning. resort design
qiz North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 6~6u t. 97oJ9z5-z3z3 f. q7o/9zo-t6z6
infoGDscaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com
12 June 2008
Ms. Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Fox Crossing Subdivision, Lot 6, Conceptual Approval Application
Withdrawal of Non-conforming lot Variance Request
Dear Sara:
In our application for Conceptual Approval for Major Development proposing a
reconfiguration of the development on Lot 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision a
request was mode for a variance to permit anon-conforming lot for the
proposed for sale Accessory Dwelling Unit. This request occurs under Section
26.415.110 Benefits in our application on page 12.
We have subsequently been given to understand that the HPC lot split implicit in
this request is not available to a previously subdivided property such as Lot 6 of
the Fox Crossing Subdivision. On behalf of our client, Fox Crossing Partners LLC,
we are writing to request that this request for a variance for anon-conforming lot
be withdrawn. Kindly consider the above-referenced paragraph withdrawn and
deleted from the application.
The residence and the for-sale detached ADU, identified as House Kl and House
K2 on Sheet No. A7.3 will be configured as a condominium on Lot 6.
Please let me know if there is additional information which I can provide. Thank
you very much for your assistance with this request.
Very truly yours,
Stan lauson, AICP, ASLA
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC
P64