Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080813P1 ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 13, 2008 5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISIT: Please visit the sites on your own. 334 W. Hallam an 216 W. Hyman. I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes -July 9th and July 23rd 2008 minutes ffi. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring A. 334 W. Hallam Street -Fence and landscaping (30 min.) VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Nest resolution will be #18) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 406 E. Hopkins -Isis notch -Minor Development - cont'd public hearing from July 9th, 2008 (30 min.) IX. NEW BUSINESS A. 604 W. Main Street, Major Development (45 min.) B. 216 W. Hyman, Minor Development (45 min.) J~ X. WORK SESSIONS A. NONE --- XI. Other Items: A. 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiations, continued to Sept.l0th XII. ADJOURN 7:20 P.M. P2 Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board questions and clarifications Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed Applicant rebuttal (comments) Motion No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. P5 ~• MEMORANDUM. TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 334 W. Hallam Street- Project monitoring/Landscape Design DATE: August 13, 2008 SUMMARY: This property is a designated landmazk and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The site contains a 19a' century house, and an outbuilding that was reconstructed in 1990. HPC granted Final approval for a rehab of the primary building in 2004. The project has been completed, except for landscape installation. There have been some issues in the interim with regazd to regulaz watering of the street trees, and the invasion of noxious weeds on the site. It is important to resolve the landscape for this property as soon as possible. At the time of HPC's Final approval for 334 W. Hallam, the board accepted a landscape plan, with two conditions: 1) Clarify that there are no alterations proposed for the historic ditch on the City right-of--way. 2) Eliminate the proposed wrought iron fence from the proposal or restudy it with staff and monitor to determine where enclosure is actually needed or whether a wood picket fence is acceptable. The HPC resolution, minutes, and approved plan aze attached. The property owrier would like to go forwazd with landscaping, but approached staff in late spring with amendments that we did not find were appropriate. Insubstantial Amendments to an approved plan can be authorized by the Community Development Director, or by staff and the project monitor. Previous monitors for this project aze no longer members of the HPC. That circumstance, and staff's concern with the proposed changes, led us to determine that input from the full boazd was needed. HPC is asked to review changes which include a wood privacy fence facing Hallam Street, construction of a 30" tall planter bed on the inside of the fence, and installation of a hedgerow of approximately 30-40 norway spruces in the planter. Staff has already permitted two aspects of sitework to go forwazd on this property, namely improvements to the previously existing driveway apron on the west side of the house, installation of a hot tub and new fencing in that azea, and reconstruction of a privacy fence that existed along the south and east property lines. We felt that this work P6 was consistent with I-IPC's approvals. What we disagree with aze the stockade fence facing south, and the heavy row of trees. Relevant guidelines aze: 1.2 Anew replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. ^ Any fence which is visible from a public right-of--way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. ^ A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similaz to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. ^ Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences aze only allowed in side and reaz yazds. 1.3 Anew replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. ^ A fence that defines a front yazd is usually low to the ground and "transpazent" in nature. ^ On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standazds".) ^ A privacy fence may be used in back yazds and along alleys, but not forwazd of the front facade of a building. ^ Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. ^ Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. ^ Aside yazd fence is usually taller than its front yazd counterpart. It also is less transpazent. A side yazd fence may reach heights taller than front yazd fences (up to six feet), but should incorporate transpazent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. ^ Consider staggering the fence boazds on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. ^ Also consider using lattice, or other transpazent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. ^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. ^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small azeas for accent. ^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. ^ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. ^ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant azchitectural features or block views to the building. ^ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yazd. P7 Staff finds that a 6 foot tall stockade fence in alignment with the front facades of the house is out of chazacter with the Victorian and does not meet guidelines 1.2, 1.3, and 1.6. It blocks views of the east elevation of the historic house, has none of the thoughtful detail of the house, and does not offer an aspect of transpazency required by the guidelines. Staff finds that the hedgerow of trees, and their installation in an elevated planting bed, does not meet guidelines 1.13 and 1:14. The Pazks Department has indicated that the plan does not accommodate the mature size of the trees. Tn addition, historic preservation staff finds that this number of trees is very out of character with planting patterns of the period when the house was built and therefore detazacts from the historic landscape. The arrangement of the trees in a row creates a barricade that is not supported by the guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: HPC has the following options: 1) Accept the proposal as designed; 2) Accept the proposal with amendments; 3) Direct the applicant to restudy the design; or 4) Reject the amendments: If the board, acting in a "project monitoring" capacity, is unwilling to approve the design, the applicant has the right to file a formal application for a Substantial Amendment. Staff recommends HPC reject the proposed amendments to the approved landscape plan and provide direction for the applicant to work with staff and a new project monitor on fence design and tree placement. InlllIIIIIII~II~IIIII~IIIII~IIII~III~(III IIII 49Biz®D3i eti.ssa SIIVIP DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 18.00 D 0.00 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING.AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 334 W. HALLAM STREET, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 42, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel IDtk:2I35-124-23-0OS RESOLUTION NO. 13, SERIES OF 2004 WHEREAS, the applicants, Hayden and Louise Connor, represented by Poss Architecture and Planning, have requested Significant- Development (Final) for the property located at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and the National Register of Historic Places;" and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmazk must meet all fow Development Review Standazds of Section 26.415.O10.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code and be in accordance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines in order for HPC to grant approval. The review standards aze below and the guidelines are on file in the Planning Office: Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on fire parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to' an historic landmark. For historic landmazks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmazk and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. A floor.azea bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resowce and new construction. Lots which are lazger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. P9 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent pazcels. P 10 I~ NI 'II uN I ~i~ NUI (III ~ IU~I IIII ~IIII II~ I~I I~~~ III) 0 98 ioo efi : fisp 51lVIP DpVI6 PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.60 D 0.66 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the azchitectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated April 14, 2004, performed an analysis of the application based on the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," and recommended that it be approved on the fmding that the review standards for Significant Development {Final) are met; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 14, 2004, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and found that the review standards for Significant Development (Final) were met by a vofe of4 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Significant Development (Final) for the property located at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado is approved with the following conditions: 1. HPC grants the following variances: an FAR bonus bringing the total allowable floor area for the site to 4,580 square feet, a waiver of the Residential Design Standard related to the west lightwell, and a variance to the method of calculating height related to the west lightwell. 2. A structwal report demonstrating that the Victorian can be moved and information about how it will be stabilized must be submitted fmm the housemover prior to building permit application. 3. The applicant must provide HPC staff and monitor with a plan For how the housemover proposes to lift the building, for review prior to submittal of a building permit. The approach chosen, whether it be to move the house with its original floor system, or without, must be demonstrated to result in the removal of the least amount of historic exterior materials, and the least damage to the building possible. 4. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 5. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 6. Create a storyboazd describing the history of the building and the rehabilitation project that will be undertaken, to be displayed in a location viewable to the public during the construction process, 7. Relocate the fireplace flue that is proposed to be neaz the south gable end of the house back as faz as possible, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Clarify that there are not alterations proposed for the historic ditch on the CiTy right- of-way. 9. Eliminate the fence from the proposal or restudy it with staff and monitor to determine where enclosure is actually needed or whether a wood picket fence is acceptable. I~~II~111111~I~II~IIII~~VIII~IIN s w8 Z53 e6.ssa fiiLVIR DAVI6 PITKIN COUNTY CO. R 16.00 D 0.00 10. A sample of the roof materials must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 11. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what original materials appeaz to still exist on the structure, and what treatments will be used to retain them. 12. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the. fixtures. ] 3. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff' and monitor when the information is available. 14. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house aze to be removed as part of the renovation. 15. No elements are to be added. to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 16. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 17. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building pemtit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 18. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 19. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit, 20. The storage cabinet that exists on the west porch can be retained, however staff and monitor must review and approve the siding material prior to building permit. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of April, 2004. Approved as to F1rm: Davrd~, Assistan City Attorney Approved as to ATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Ha~ferty;, Chair A P11 Chief Deputy Clerk P12 enclosing a porch and it is enclosing the southern end of the porch. Areal clear differentiation ofmaterials should be incorporated. A suggestion would be to recess the storage shed back from the facade of the porch in order to get a shadow line so it doesn't feel like a closure on the end of the porch. The landscape plan works well with its simplicity. Michael said he supports the resolution with the changes the applicant has agreed to which are to move the southern most chimneystack farther from the frpnt of the building and delete condition #8. He also feels the fence should be redesign to be a wooden fence and to be approved by staff and monitor. . Jeffrey also supported the changes that Michael stated. The material palates are consistent with our guidelines. M0770N: Valerie moved to approve Resolution #13, 2004 for 334 W. Hallam for final approval with the following revisions: Omitting condition #8. Modem condition #7 to state that the vent will be moved back. Adding condition #21 that allows the applicant to keep the storage shed and the materials to be approved by staff and monitor Motion second by Dere1G Discussion: Michael stated he would like the board to make a decision whether the fence should be wood. Jeffrey said he would not want to limit the design. Michael said the fence should be more consistent with the pattern from the 1800's. He would not want a high style fence. Valerie said we could look at the design and determine if the fence design is appropriate. Motion carried 4-0. VOTE: Yes, Michael, Derek Valerie, Jeffrey 4 P13 Stephen explained the porch/shed situation. The porch is historic and attached to the porch is' a shed that has been abutted to it. Amy said the porch has columns as comer boards that can be pulled off: Michael asked for clarification what was approved at conceptual. Bill said the porch is on the Sanborn map and when they inspected the porch/shed azea they found old siding and new studs on the shed area. It appeazed that they dismantled what was there and rebuilt it with old siding and new studs. They agreed to rebuild the porch and keep the old siding. At conceptual the storage element was not proposed. In reviewing the application the owner decided he needed the storage area so they are requesting to keep the storage area. The porch and shed will be rebuilt as it is now. Valerie stated that HPC also talked about removing the porch column at conceptual. Bill said they would agree to remove the column. Stephen addressed the materials.. Right now there is afour-inch lap siding. They intend to keep the four-inch profile but go to a lap siding with a shadow line so that when you look at the house from the street you will be able to differentiate from the two time periods. Jeffrey asked if the fireplace stack on the south elevation could be moved back further. Stephen said he would-look into that request. Jeffrey also asked if there was any site lighting for the sidewalk or pathway illumination? Bill said they are only keeping the existing lighting. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: Derek said he is excited about the amount of effort that is going into this restoration. He also thanked the applicant for the clarity in their drawings and detailing. Valerie said she is comfortable with going through some of the smaller revisions with Staff and monitor. She would have preferred that the addition for the storage not been kept. Our guidelines talk about not 3 ".. ~ •. .. -sc-a,.x3::+e.~xn.~a,zYeitia~....aNVm•~.wta:o-~.-~,er.:.:k::x...csm. ,..,t, ...... P14 The overall project is great. Bill said the tree is probably a crab apple and is located on the west elevation right in front of the blank space on the wall. It does not block any windows and they will make sure they leave enough room for the canopy. The landscape plans is very simple. With regard to the fence the intent is to have a transparent fence. It needs to be high enough to keep the dogs in, The fence can be worked out with staff and monitor. A picket fence would be more maintenance. Bill stated that he would present some samples to the stafl'and monitor. Bill said the existing lighting will be used and they will have to frost some of the globes in order to comply with the existing lighting code. A structural report, storyboard and demolition plan will be submitted to staff before the building pemvt is submitted. There is one majoY change; the storage shed that is en part of the back porch. It is existing and the request is to restore the old part of the addition with the old materials and restore and keep the newer added addition. The final drawings do not indicate retaining the shed but the model does. Stephen Holly said the roof vent on the south elevation will be a simple stack and painted out so that it blends and it can be moved back. Questions: Derek asked if the crabapple would have any degradation to the foundation if it gets too close. Valerie explained if it is a crabapple that particular tree does not have aggressive roots. Michael asked Amy if she was comfortable with the fence design. Amy's concern is that metal fences whether they are simple or not, do sorriething to the character of the property that doesn't fit in a very simple environment. The historic fences that we see in pictures were wood, a very skinny picket. Metal fences were not common at all historically and this is such a pristine property and on the national register. Bill said they are comfortable to work with staff and monitor on the fence. 2 ._. , .:..,_ s,.~.,.::. P15 Chairperson, 7effrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance:. Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander and Michael Hoffinan. Sarah Broughton was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Certificate of No Negative Effect issued for the Conundrum space, which is being taken over by a bank. Disclosure; Derek and Jeffrey will recuse themselves on 233 W. Main Valerie will recuse herself on 8l 1 - 819 E. Hopkins MOTION.• Derek moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 2004; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. 334 W.13ALLAM - FINAI.It~VIEW -~~$)~)~~;~HEARING Affidavit of posting was entered in the land use records as Exhibit I. Sworn in: Bill Poss, Hayden Connor, Stephen Holly "Amy stated at the last meeting HPC approved the revisions to the roofmg so that it tucks back into the building so that there is very little damage to the historic structure.. One of the recommendations is to restudy the gas fireplace vent, which is toward the front of the house. Normally we do not allow direct vents to come out of the~wall surface, we prefer them to go through the roof which is-what they are doing but it is very close to the front edge of the roof line. Regarding the landscape there is a deciduous tree right on the west side of the house in front of a window and staff is concerned that the tree will block the view of the historic house. Staff is asking for a clarification that they do not alter the'historic ditch that runs along the side of the property, which is on the City right-of--way. In the past people of altered the ditch and planted flowers etc. There is a concern about the metal fence that is proposed to go around the property. We will also need to see a sample of the roof material and we need clarification on the light fixtures, some of which might not comply with the City lighting code. TH2R,p sr~z~Er ~7~ s a ~ -' ~ ,s ~~ ~_ ~`~~ P19 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis- Minor Review, Public Hearing DATE: August 13, 2008 SUMMARY: The Isis Theater is a mixed use building containing a movie theater, 2 retail stores and three residential units on the roof. When the property was redeveloped in the 1990's, the City had a requirement that 25% of a property be left as "open space," with nothing obstructing from.the ground to the sky. The Isis provided some of that requirement on the site, in the form of the so called "notch" or setback of the new addition. The balance was mitigated through acash-in-lieu fee. The "notch" currently has no furnishings or vegetation. It is private property, but public access is required since the area provides an exiting path from the building. However, residential owners in particulaz feel that the azea has become an attractive nuisance of sorts. During the City purchase of the Isis, there were discussions of improvements that could be .made to the appeazance and use of the "notch." The term open space has been replaced with public amenity. Some new design standazds have been created through the Commercial Design Review Guidelines, which are requirements for HPC approval in the downtown azea. Staff has attached the current definition of public amenity to help the boazd understand what physical improvements can, and cannot take place on this land. The City hired Studio B Architects to propose a solution that would not only address the subject property, but coordinate with their design for the adjacent Firestation. HPC reviewed a proposal on July 9, 2008 and continued the application for restudy (minutes attached.) Two new scenarios have been submitted for consideration. Staff recommends HPC approve the plan that incorporates a bench facing the Firestation. The material for the planters should be restudied with staff and monitor. APPLICANT: City of Aspen Public Facilities Authority, represented by Studio B Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-07-330-010. ADDRESS: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L, M, and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. P20 MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Cerhfzcate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: The proposed design is intended to provide some definition between the exit from the theater and the entry into the residential units. There appeaz to be some issues with littering and loitering that have not been able to be solved and may be addressed through some greater physical sepazation. The Isis "notch" space could certainly benefit from some landscaping or other more visually pleasing use of the space. There is little historic precedence for how on-site landscaping should be provided in the downtown since that was not part of the Victorian era commercial form. Staff has recommended that HPC pay particulaz attention to the following design guidelines: 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: • Street fiunitute • Public art • Historical/interpretive mazker 13.8 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. ^ Place as much of the facade of the building at the properly line as possible. ^ Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. ^ Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements to define the sidewalk edge. We find that the planters and gate address the separation that HPC indicated was important. The option that includes a bench is consistent with the intent of the public amenity space. Facing the bench towazds the Firestation emphasizes the importance of that facility to the community. There has been a seating wall of sorts in that location for yeazs. In reviewing the rendering of the proposal, staff has come to believe that the material for the planter box should be reconsidered. Wood, for instance, might be a "warmer" material. There is a significant amount of paving and brick in that azea. 2 P21 The drawings indicate a new bike rack and trash container proposed in the right-of--way. This requires review and approval by Engineering and Pazks. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that I-IPC support the proposal that includes a bench facing the Firestation. In addition, staff recommends that the material for the planter boxes be restudied for review and approval by staff and monitor. Exhibits: A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines B. Public amenity requirements C. Minutes of July 9, 2008 D. Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. ^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth.- ^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small azeas for accent. ^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. ' ^ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. ^ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant azchitectural features or block views to the building. ^ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yazd. 13.8 Maintain the aligr-ment of facades at the. sidewalk's edge. ^ Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible. ^ Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. P22 ^ Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements to define the sidewalk edge. Relevaut Commercial Design Review Guideline 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: • Street furniture • Public art • HistoricaUinterpretive mazker 4 ~~ ~ - "1 101 ~ P23 F. Design and Operational Standards for Public Amenity. Public amenity, on all privateIy- owned land in which Public amenity is Rquired, shall comply with the following provisions and limitations+ 1. Open to View. Public amenity areas shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, which view need not be measured at right angles. 2. Open to Skv. Public amenity areas shall be open to the sky: Temporary and seasonal cov- Brings, such as umbrellas and retractable canopies are permitted. Such non-permanent struc- tures shall not be considered as floor area or a reduction in Public amenity on.the parcel. Trellis structures shall only be permitted in conjunction with commercial restaurant uses on a designated Historic Landmark or within (ITj Historic overlay zones and must be approved pur- suant to review requirements contained in Chapter 26.415 -Development Involving the Aspen . Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures or Development within a Historic District. Such approved structures shall not be considered as floor area or a reduction in Public space on the parcel: 3. No Wa1ls/Enclosures. Public amenity areas shall not be enclosed. Temporary structures, tents, air exchange entries, plastic canopy walls, and similar devices designed to enclose the . space are prohibited, unless approved as a temporary use, pursuant to Section 26.450. Low fences or walls shall only be permitted within or around the perimeter of Public space if such structures shall permit views from the street into and throughout the Public space. 4. Prohibited Uses. Public amenity areas shall not be used as storage aeeas, utility/trash ser- vice areas, delivery area, parking areas or contain structures of any type, except as specifically provided for herein. Vacated rights-of--way shall be excluded from Public amenity calculations. 5. Grade Limitations. Required Public amenity shall not be more than four (4) feet above or two (2) feet below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the Public space, unless the Public amenity space shall follow undisturbed natural grade, in which case there shall be no limit on the extent to which it is above or below the existing grade of the street, or if a second level public amenity space is approved by the Commission: 6. Pedestrian Links. In the event that the City of Aspen shall have adopted a trail plan incor- porating mid-block pedestrian links, any required Public space must, if the city shall so elect, be applied and dedicated for such use. 7. Landscaping Plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Community Development Di- rector shall require site plans and drawings of any required Public amenity area, including a landscaping plan, and a bond in a satisfactory form and amount to insure compliance with any Public amenity requirements under this title. 8. Maintenance of Landscapine. Whenever the landscaping required herein is not maintained,. the Chief Building Official, after thirty (30) days written notice to the owner or occupant of the property, may revoke the certificate of occupancy until said parry complies with the landscaping requirements of this section. 9. Commercial Activity. No azea of a building site designated as required Public amenity space under this section shall be used for any commercial activity, including, but not limited to, City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 68 P24 ~~l~~G ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2008 Ann said the drawings are commendable and the triangle window is clear glass. Michael pointed out that the triangle window is an existing element. Brian said he doesn't feel strongly about removing the window. Alison said with the FAR bonus we should remove the triangle window. Alison supports the proposed railing and it meets guideline 10.4. What we do with additions is to make them a product of their own time. To do a more traditional balustrade on the addition would not read well. Michael commented that the narrower materials allow a better interpretation of the historic resource. Michael said he can support the modern railing. Jay said he supports the railing as presented. Less mass would be more sympathetic to the neighbor and since it is an addition it is a product of it sown time which meets guideline 10.4. If we where requiring the dormer to be removed then the triangle window should be removed but that is not the case so I am in support of the first recommendation to leave the window as is. MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve resolution #16 for 627 W. Main with the condition that staff and monitor review the brick patches. All of HPC's standard conditions apply, second by.7ay. Discussion: Amy said the applicant desires to use the front door elsewhere on the building. Steev said it would be used in the rear of one of the bedrooms. Michael said he feels the triangular glass is a further intrusion into the historic resource. Roll call vote: Ann, yes; Jay, yes; Brian, yes; Alison, no; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-1. Isis Notch - 406 E. Hopkins Amy said the Isis Theatre is a designated landmark and in an historic district. The property came through in the mid 1990's from a simple theatre to a five screen theatre with residential on the roof. At the time the City had a requirement that 25% of any lot be left as open space. 25% of this lot P25 would have been the entire pazcel running along the west side of the building. It was decided that it wasn't in the best interest to leave that area open so a portion of it was developed and a portion of the front was left open and the City received money as cash-in-lieu for the open space not provided " on the site. Over the years the front has been used as'a waiting azea for movies etc. The city has become the owner of the Isis Theatre and the owners of the residence on the roof have concerns with the use of the area. Skate boazders are hanging out etc. and they would like to see some improvements, some streetscape friendliness. The City hired Studio B. The concern of the proposed plan is that the idea of engaging the public is not presented in the plan. The Pazks Dept. is concerned about benches in the planting strip because they could be hit by snow plows, car doors etc. We need to figure out how to make this more pedestrian friendly. There is also a bike rack proposed in the plan. Susie Crovoy, residential owner above the Isis. The concern is the safety of our family. It tends to be a hangout azea for skate boarders. The theater staff uses it as their smoking, drinking area. It is a party area and there is trash everywhere. Besides making it more visually beautiful we would like some kind of separation where we can walk into our home. It is the entrance to a home and the exit of the theater. It is really unclear where the theater entrance is. Joseph Spheers, Studio B architects said they where hired by the City to work with everyone and come up with a compromise. We tried to create the separation and we also created plantings and organizations that people won't be able to hang out too much. There is a bike rack between the street trees. We identified a better exit for the theater. The planters are raised off the ground due to the snow melt about 18 inches and then it is raised to 36 inches which will have smaller flowers and grasses. The planters aze brick and line up with the break between the doors. The planters aze brick and will tie in well with the fire station when built. Ann said she sympathizes with the homeowner and that azea is intimidating. It is not the place for a bench. The. plan needs some work and you might want to involve a landscape architect. You need to distinguish the public place so that people go through quickly. The entrance to the residence should be a much more detailed scale. Maybe there could be a turnaround and a gate. The public space should relate more to the other public space 4 P 2 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2008 near the fire station. The plantings should be reworked by the entrance. The Isis exit should be treated as utilitarian. A trash can is a good idea. Jay also said he sympathizes with Susie. Jay asked staff if it is appropriate to differentiate the space as private or public or is it all public. Amy said in has to be open in view from the street and open from the sky so you can't have any permanent roofing. In terms of enclosures or gates you can have low walls or fences as long as the public can see over the space. Amy said in the commercial guidelines it says a street facing amenity space like this has to be accessible to the public but the other standards indicate that there can be some kind of enclosure. Ann said this could be a nicely designed private space that is not accessible physically to the public. Alison also agreed that there is an opportunity for a gate that closes and to do something to signify that the area is different than the exit from the Isis Theater. Brian said his idea is to have a step down and a step back up in the elevation between the two planters. Jeff Pendarvis who works for Asset Management relayed that there are times when the theater is closed and you can't use the doors but you still need accessibility to the elevator to the residerice. Brian said there is some work that can be done to differentiate the two spaces. This is an area that gives an opportunity for creativity. Bentley Henderson, assistant City Manager asked about differentiating the theater access from the residential access points are you referencing something other than the planters. Brian said you have the two elements that mirror each other and basically it makes one space look just like the other. You should start with the planters. Ann said you also can work with the pavement. The exit out of the Isis could be the same pavement as the fire station and do a different kind of pavement for the residential. Alison said she thought the same thing as Ann but they are trying to save the snow melt. Alison said you could also create an L shape at the end of the planters to give a courtyard type of feel. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P27 MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2008 Ann also pointed out that there is the issue of the amount of detail in each space. In the residential area you want to enjoy that space. Joseph Spheers said we would try to create the corridor to get into and out of the residences and not have any screening from the street. We thought screening might invite loitering. The goal was to get in and out of the residence entrance and not have people congregate there. Alison said you could flip the one planter between the exit door and the residence because right now both say this is ari entrance. Jay suggested the applicant look at the Elks building space as it works well. The spaces should not look the same. Brian said you need to create asemi-private feel in the residence space. Jeff Pendarvis asked about the gate. Michael said the idea of something that imitates a gate would be welcomed by the commission. Amy said there are probably exiting paths that have to be maintained through the double doors out of the residence and they probably can't do too much of a return as the board was suggesting. Ann pointed out that the commission likes the idea of a gate and. a return but the issues is can they do it. It is important to identify this space because once the fire station is completed that entire front would somewhat of'a public plaza. MOTION: Alison moved to continue 406 E. Hopkins until August 13`''; second by .lay. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION.• Brian moved to adjourn, second by .lay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk /~~ P29 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 604 West Main Street- Major Development (Final) and Variances DATE: August 13, 2008 SUMMARY: The subject property is a 9,000 squaze foot lot located within the Main Street Historic District. There aze currently five buildings on the property: a circa 1880s historic miner's cabin that fronts Main Street (the Rebecca Wylie house) and an 1880s outbuilding/batn located along the alley and Fifth Street, a 19a' century shed straddling the property line between 604 and 612 West Main Street, and two 1950s structures located in the norihwestem portion of the pazcel. The applicant is interested in developing the property to include Commercial and Affordable Housing uses- no free mazket residential units aze proposed. The proposed design is approximately .85:1, where 1:1 is the maximum cumulative FAR for the Mixed Use zone district. HPC adopted Resolution 43 Series of 2007 which grants Major Development Conceptual approval, Commercial Design Standazd approval, demolition of two non-historic buildings and relocation approval of the historic Wylie house (moving to the south) and a historic outbuilding (moving onto the adjacent property.) Setback variances were granted for the project. The application requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Final. Additional variances aze requested for distance between buildings that were overlooked during Conceptual review. A few minor changes have been made to the project to meet Building Code and City departrnental requirements, and the applicant has responded to HPC's conditions of Conceptual approval. The alterations aze outlined in the application. Staff finds that the Design Guidelines aze met in this proposal and recommends Major Development Final approval and approval of setback variances. APPLICANT: 604 West LLC, c/o Neil Kazbank, Manager, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Stryker Brown Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-44-008. ~ Exhibit B. 1 P30 ADDRESS: 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: MU, Mixed Use MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINALI The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of 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. **Note: The referenced guidelines are a combination of the Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (Main Street Historic District Chapter) and the Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Landscape plan: The applicant submitted a landscape plan that includes maintaining the cottonwood tree along Main Street. Rose and lilac bushes aze, proposed for the Main Street buildings, which aze consistent with historic landscapes throughout Aspen; however the Parks Department has indicated hand planting only along Main Street to not disturb the roots of the huge Cottonwood tree in front of the property: The applicant proposes Colorado Rose sandstone for the pathways and a decorative gravel (similaz to that used at the Connor Cabins) for azeas of drainage. Staff finds that the proposed planting and "handscape" enhance the street scene and the historic resources, and meet the guidelines below: 7.22 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: • Enhance the street scene • Integrate the development with its setting • Reflect the quality of the azchitectural materials 7.23 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk. 2 P31 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic contest of the site. ^ Select plant and tree material according to its matuie size, to allow for the long-term impact of future growth. ^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small azeas for accent. ^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials. The Engineering Department requires a sidewalk along Fifth Street that will not obstruct the historic irrigation ditch, as per Design Guideline 1.17 below. Condition #3 of HPC Resolution 43, Series of 2007, states that "if the City requires a sidewalk, then the site plan, pedestrian paths and pazking space along Fifth Street shall be readdressed by HPC," so HPC has authority to discuss these elements during Final Review. Staff maintains that the proposed site plan, pazking space and pedestrian paths are appropriate. Other changes include the removal of the curb cut in front of the Art Bam, as per Engineering Department requirements. 1.17 Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an integral component of the streetscape. ^ The chazacter of an irrigation ditch should be maintained. ^ It is inappropriate to use an irrigation ditch as a planting bed, or to fill it with another material. ^ Ditches cannot be culverted except where crossed by a walkway or driveway, and a culvert must be approved by the Parks Department. Li tin :Sheets A402 and 403 depict the proposed lighting plan. Cut sheets of proposed fixtures are included in the application. Overall, Staff fords that the proposed fixture styles aze appropriate for the project; however the lazge varietyof styles may appeaz overworked. Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the variety of fixtures by possibly eliminating L4 and L5. Staff is concerned with the landscape lighting labeled L7. Staff finds a 25 inch tall lamp along the walkways interrupts the space created between the buildings by adding clutter, which is not typical or ideal for the Main Street Historic District. Staff is also concerned that the fixture does not meet Design Guideline 1.15 below. Staff recommends a simplified approach to the landscape lighting with discrete fixtures incorporated into the landscape. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. • Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glaze onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto fagade planes. Fenestration: The fenestration proposed for the project is a combination of double hung windows on the historic resource and the gable ends of the new Main Street building and more contemporary glazing for the new construction. The similarity of rectangular proportions contributes to a visual continuity within the project on Main Street, yet there is a cleaz distinction between the historic resource and new construction: Staff finds that the rectangulaz proportions and style of the windows aze appropriate and guideline 7.16 is met. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. • These include windows, doors and porches. • Overall. details should be modest in chazacter. P32 The applicant proposes wood clad windows for the historic Wylie house. Staff recommends entirely wood windows for the historic home. A small double hung window is proposed in the street facing gable end of the Wylie house. Staff recommends that Staff and monitor inspect the wall framing during construction to determine whether a lazge double hung window was originally in that location. Materials: Wood is proposed as the primary material throughout the project. The applicant proposes to maintain horizontal wood siding on the historic Wylie house. A combination of wooden siding and shingles aze proposed for the new Main Street building, which successfully breaks up the mass. The new Fifth Street building incorporates horizontal wood siding to maintain a relationship with the adjacent historic resources. Staff finds that Guideline 7.20 is met. 7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. • When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest chazacter of historic materials and .their placement. i A standing seam zinc roof is proposed for the new Main Street building. Staff finds that this material is appropriate for new construction on Main Street and requests more information as to the proposed finish of the zinc material. A screen is proposed to shield pazked cazs from the surrounding buildings on the property and Main Street. Staff fmds that this element is consistent with the goals of the Main Street corridor and recommends that the HPC monitor review and approve the material when it is selected. Architectural Details: The applicant proposes simple zinc details and projections on the front facades of the new construction. Metal Cable railings are proposed for the Main Street and Fifth Street buildings and a glass railing is proposed for the deck at the entrance of the affordable housing on the second floor. A slight step down was added to the front porch element on the new Main Street building, as per HPC's request during Conceptual Review. Staff finds that these features add one story elements and interest to the new construction. The applicant proposes to replace the existing gazage doors with wooden panel doors. Staff has been unable to locate a historic photograph of the historic resource to provide direction and finds that the proposed wooden doors are an improvement as compared to the existing gazage doors. Staff recommends that the applicant provide more detail of the front porch reconstruction, especially a column detail and roof detail, for approval by Staff and monitor. 4 P33 SETBACK VARIANCES The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code aze as follows: In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: HPC granted dimensional setback variances during Conceptual approval? The project requests two more variances that were overlooked during Conceptual review and partially result from bringing the building into Building Code compliance regazding circulation and egress. The proposed distance between the Fifth Street building and the Art Barn is approximately seven feet three inches, where ten feet aze required. A variance of two feet nine inches is requested. The proposed distance permits more space between the Fifth Street building and the Wylie House, which mitigates an adverse impact on the historic chazacter of the property. Staff finds that it is appropriate to shift the new development towazd the secondary historic building and away from the primary historic resource. Staff finds that criterion b is met and recommends approval of the variance. The proposed distance between the west elevation of the Fifth Street building and the east elevation of the Main Street building is about seven feet, where ten feet are required. A variance of three feet is requested. The project incorporates new detached buildings onto the site as opposed to constructing additions to the two historic resources. Staff finds that constructing detached buildings enhance the historic resources by preserving scale and proportion; however adding new detached buildings renders the requirement of ten feet between buildings difficult to maintain on this size lot. Staff finds that criterion b is met and recommends approval of the variance. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. a HPC Resolution 43 Series of 2007, Exhibit B. 5 P34 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the application for Major Development (Final Review) for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, .Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions: 1. The material for the caz screen shall be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 2. A revised lighting plan and a reduced variety of fixtures shall be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 3. The following vaziances are granted: A distance between buildings vaziance of three is granted where approximately seven feet aze provided between the Fifth Street (East Office) building and the Main Street (West Office) building and ten feet are required; a distance between buildings variance of two feet nine inches is granted where approximately seven feet three inches aze provided between the Fifth Street (East Office) building and the Art Barn and ten feet aze required. 4. Wooden windows will be used on the Wylie house. 5. During construction, staff and monitor will inspect the front gable end wall framing to determine an appropriate size for the proposed double hung window. 6. A detailed description of the Wylie porch restoration will be submitted for review and approval by Staff and monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. If available, historic photographs of the Wylie House shall be used for the restoration. 7. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 8. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full boazd. 9. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, 6 P35 pwsuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 604 West Main Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals aze not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Exhibits: A. Design Guidelines and Objectives. B. HPC Resolution 43, Series of 2007. C. Application. Exhibit A • Final Review DesiQtt Guidelines for the Main Street Historic District Relevant Design Objectives aze listed below: 4. Maintain the character of traditional materials. The predominant -use of wood siding is another important featwe in the district. Building materials of new structwes and additions to existing structwes should contribute to this visual continuity of the neighborhood by reflecting the scale and textwe of traditional materials. While new materials may be considered, they should appeaz similaz to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity. 5. Incorporate architectural details that are in character with the district. Entries are cleazly defined on most structwes in the neighborhood. Porches, porticos and stoops aze elements that typically define entries. These featwes add aone-story element to the fronts of buildings, helping to establish a uniform sense of human scale along the block. They aze essential elements of the neighborhood that should be maintained. Other azchitectwal details also contribute to the sense of chazacter of the street, adding visual interest for pedestrians. Their continued use is strongly encowaged. 6. Maintain the characteristics of traditional windows and doors. The similarity of window and door size and location contributes to a sense of visual continuity along the street. In order to maintain this sense of visual continuity, a new building should maintain the basic window and door proportions and placement patterns seen traditionally in the district. Building Design & Articulation Entries aze cleazly defined on most structwes in the neighborhood. Porches, porticos and stoops are elements that typically define entries. These featwes add aone-story element to the fronts of buildings, helping to establish a uniform sense of human scale along the block. They are essential elements of the neighborhood that should be maintained. Other azchitectwal details also 7 P36 contribute to the chazacter of the street, adding visual interest for pedestrians. Their continued use is strongly encouraged. Architectural features • The Main Street District has developed into a mixture of commercial and residential forms. • The Main Street District is composed of varying azchitectural styles reflecting the development phases of Aspen. • The historic mining era is responsible for the majority of small miner's cottages and lazger high style homes, although considerable infill has occurred due to the ski industry. • Infill buildings include samples of Chalet style and Rustic style buildings. • Residential buildings aze primazily vernaculaz designs, with highlights of Queen Anne buildings. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. • These include windows, doors and porches. • Overall, details should be modest in chazacter. 7.17 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 aze especially discouraged. Windows & Doors The similarity of window and door size and location contributes to a sense of visual continuity along the street. In order to maintain this sense of visual continuity, a new building should maintain the basic window and door proportions and placement patterns seen traditionally in the district. 7.18 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. • All entrances shall be ADA compliant. • On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible. 7.19 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. • An airlock entry that projects forwazd of the primary fagade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. • Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the chazacter of the historic district. • Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. Architectural Materials The existing palette of building materials within the Main Street Historic District is an essential part of the sense of evolution of the azea and its current chazacter. Primarily wood and masonry define the majority of the azea and express both human scale, structure, detail and a sense of historical continuity. These materials have been used in recent lodge development within the P37 azea. The predominant use of wood siding is another important feature in the district. Building materials of new structures and additions to existing structures should contribute to this visual continuity of the neighborhood by reflecting the scale and texture of traditional materials. While new materials may be considered, they should appeaz similaz to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity. Materials • Historically, masonry and wood buildings chazacterized the district. • Stucco and manufactured logs aze seen among the inlill buildings from the eazly ski-era. 7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. • When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest chazacter of historic materials and their placement. Roofing Materials 7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. Paving & Landscaping Certain settings and buildings within the city aze associated with the quality of design and materials in paving and/or landscaping. It is important that this be recognized and retained where it exists, is of historic relevance, or otherwise successful. The site and setting of all development shall be enhanced by design of both paving and landscaping within any proposal. Proposed enhancements within the public right of way shall form part of a comprehensive improvement proposal for the street or azea, and approval will be required. Landscaae design features • Some historic houses still retain their front yard original fence patterns that create a distinct residential chazacter. These fences aze low and transpazent in nature. • Landscaping is dominated by shade trees along the right-of--way, although lilacs aze common plantings adjacent to houses. 7.22 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: • Enhance the street scene • Integrate the development with its setting • Reflect the quality of the azchitectural materials 7.23 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk. 9 P38 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 604 WEST MAIN STEET, LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 24, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-44-008. WHEREAS, the applicant, 604 West LLC, c/o Neil Kazbank, Manager, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Stryker Brown Architects for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or confinue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the setback vaziance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and chazacter of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural chazacter of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated August 13; 2008, performed an analysis of the application based on the standazds, found that the review standazds and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on August 13, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standazds and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and "City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of _ to _ P39 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: -That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Final) for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions; 1. The material for the caz screen shall be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 2. A revised lighting plan and a reduced variety of fixtures shall be approved by Staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 3. The following variances are granted: A distance between buildings variance of three is granted where approximately seven feet are provided between the Fifth Street (East Office) building and the Main Street (West Office) building and ten feet are required; a distance between buildings variance of two -feet nine inches is granted where approximately seven feet three inches are provided between the Fifth Street (East Office) building and the Art Bam and ten feet aze required. 4. Wooden windows will be used on the Wylie house. 5. During construction, staff and monitor will inspect the front gable end wall framing to determine an appropriate size for the proposed double hung window. 6. A detailed description of the Wylie porch restoration will be submitted for review and approval by Staff and monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. If available, historic photographs of the Wylie House shall be used for the restoration. 7. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 8. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 9. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) yeazs, P40 pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 604 West Main Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the genera] rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of August 2008. Michael Hoffman, Chair Attest: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel f ~ ... RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, VARIANCES AND: COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 604 WEST MAIN STREET, LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 24, CITY. AND TOWN5ITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION N0.43, SERIES OF 2007 PARCEL H): 2735-124-44-008. WHEREAS, the applicant 604 West LLC, c/o Neil ICarbank, Manager, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, Variances, and Commercial Design Standard Review for the property located'at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Secrion 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the' Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City. of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26,415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal, Code and other. applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazazd to public safety and the. owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The siructwe is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or - d: No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, azchaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for anuroval to demolish, all of the followine criteria must be met• P42 ,~ 3 •': a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the pazcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The toss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, azchitectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, for approval of relocation, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 1. It is considered anon-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will- not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or pazcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, azchitectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for aanroval to relocate all of the followin¢ criteria must be met• 1. It has been determined that the builduzg, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Standards, according to Section 26.412.050 Review Criteria, an application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standazds or any deviation from the Standards provides amore- appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standazd. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standazds. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standazds. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial P43 Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this section. . C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and I-llstoric District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines: Although these criteria, standazds and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through. alternative means; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and chazacter of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or azchitectural character of the historic ,property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS; Saza Adams, in her staff report dated December 12, 2007, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards found that the review standazds and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on December 12, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 6 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Variances, and Commercial Design Standazd Review (Conceptual) for the property . located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q; R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following condifions; 1. The applicant shall reduce the overall maximum height of the Affordable Housing unit and the Fifth Street new building by at least 1 foot. 2. A step shall be added to the roof of the porch element located on the south elevation of the new building fronting Main Street. P44 3. HPC recommends against a sidewalk along the Fifth Street side of the.pazcel to the Pazks and Engineering Departments. If the City requires a sidewalk, then the site plan, pedestrian paths and parking space along Fifth Street shall be readdressed by HPC. 4. The following setbacks are granted for the historic Wylie House: 5 foot setback along Fifth Street, where 1 foot is provided and 6 feet are required for a comer lot with two front yazds, as attached in Exhibit A. 5. The following setback is granted for the second floor Affordable Housing Unit on the alley: 5 feet setback along the alley, where 0 feet are provided and 5 feet aze required, as attached in Exhibit A. 6. The following setback is granted for the Fifth Street Building; a minimum setback from the Fifth Street property line for the second story deck is 3 feet, as attached in Exhibit A. 7. The following setbacks are granted for the Historic Barn: 6 feet sideyazd and 5 feet rearyazd setback along Fifth Street and the alley for the existing condition, where 0 feet is provided, as attached in Exhibit A. 8. The following setbacks are granted fur the Historic Shed: 5 feet rear yard setback to relocate the historic shed onto 612 West Main Street. 0 feet is provided for the rear yazd setback, as attached in Exhibit A. 9. Commercial Design Standard Review is granted regarding Pedestrian Amenity Space and Trash and Utilityazeas. 10. Demolition is granted for the two 1950s structures. 11. Relocation is granted for the historic shed. 12. The historic shed is permitted to be thoroughly documented, dismantled, and reconstructed in its new location on the adjacent lot. 13. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con's of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. 14. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 15. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 16. 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. [signatures on following page] P45 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of December 2007. Approved as to Form: James R True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk A m n~ y b I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I j ~ I 1 1 `x L{ C pCC -SKj 1~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 A z ~ O ~ ~ ~~ ~p ~ ~ iii ' '~~ ~ -yl~ ~: - ~ `' ~ g ~~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ 1 ,f J JR~ $ r I 1 I I ~ i I i I , .~ N € ~ ~ ~f~ ~ ~gg 2a ~ ~ ... ~ A J ~~ ~~ ~~ ~, ~,~j~ P49 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner RE: 216 West Hyman Avenue, Mlnor Development and Variances- Public Hearing DATE: August 13, 2008 SUMMARY: 216 West Hyman Avenue is located on a 6,000 squaze feet lot across from the Ice Gazden. It was built in circa 1885 as a modest miner's cottage. Major alterations have occurred on this property. The front porch was enclosed and enlazged in 1955 and a lazge addition, including a garage, was added in 1960 that significantly obscures the original form of the house. A concrete ramp and driveway were added to the front of the house azound the same time. The historic resource is in its original location. All original windows along the front of the house have been removed and replaced with styles inconsistent with the 19`s century. The applicant requests approval to remove anon-historic addition located at the rear of the property. The applicant proposes to convert the existing garage into living space that includes adding a door and windows to the front fagade of the 1960 addition and removing the concrete ramp that allowed access to the garage. The applicant prefers to retain the concrete pad in the front of the house for pazking and requests approval to change the existing non-historic window in the street facing historic gable end to a contemporary style. A setback variance is required for the existing condition along the west property line. Parking waivers aze requested for the required pazking on the site. Recommendation; Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for further restudy of a few elements to bring the project into compliance with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. APPLICANT: Ann Mullins, represented by Derek Skalko of 1Friday Collaborative. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-63-006. ADDRESS: 216 West Hyman Avenue, Lots O and P, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R6. P50 MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet ojthe subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: The applicant proposes convert the existing gazage to living space by adding a door, window and a short stairway down to anew patio in front of the home. This landmark has undergone major alterations that blend the historic portion of the house and the 1960s addition. Staff finds that adding another door to the front facade detracts from the primary entrance. Staff recommends that the applicant look into possibly moving the proposed door to the east side of the house, where it would be less visible and would not detract from the historic resource. The applicant proposes to replace the existing window in the historic gable end with a contemporary style window. Staff finds that the replacement window should be consistent with the 1880s era. A historic photograph of the front elevation has not be found; however a simple lazge rectangulaz double hung window was typical in the gable end of a miner's cabin, as pictured at the right. This would help distinguish the historic portion of the home from the 1950/60s additions and meet the Design Guidelines 3.4 and 10.3: 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. ^ If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, o at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position o glass panes. ^ Matching the original design is particularly important on key chazacter-defining facades. 2 P51 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ^ Anew addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ^ An addition that seeks to imply an 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. The applicant requests approval to remove the concrete ramp, which is a positive improvement for the property. The applicant would like to retain the existing concrete pad for pazking. Staff finds that retaining the concrete pad does not meet the Design Guidelines and recommends that it be removed and replaced with sod or planting that is consistent with the Guidelines listed below. A fence is requested for a portion of the front of the property. Staff recommends that the fence match the existing fence azound the perimeter of the property and that the fence extend across the entire length of the front yard. It is difficult to distinguish property lines on the site plan, but the fence must be placed on the subject property. It is not permitted in the right of way. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. ^ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond, ^ Provide a walkway running perpendiculaz from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. ^ Use paving materials that aze similaz to those used historically for-the building style. ~ Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide au appropriate context for historic structures. ^ The front yazd should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. ^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. ^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small azeas for accent. ^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials. The applicant requests approval to remove the reaz non-historic addition. Staff finds that this proposal is appropriate and meets Guideline 10.2. 10.2 Amore recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 3 P52 SETBACK VARIANCES The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code aze as follows: In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic properly or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic signifcance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: The applicant requests a west sideyazd setback variance of zero feet for the existing condition, where five feet aze required and zero feet aze provided. The house is sitting in its original location on the lot line. Staff finds that criterion a is met. ON-SITE PARKING The applicant is requesting two on-site pazking waivers. In order to grant a pazking waiver, HPC must find that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code aze met. They require that 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: The applicant requests the waiver of two pazking spaces, where two spaces aze required and zero aze provided. Staff fords that the pazking waivers aze inappropriate because the property has alley access and adequate space for pazking at the reaz of the property. The Residential Design Standazds require pazking spaces to be accessed off of the alley when possible. Staff also is concerned about the impact of pazking on the neighborhood and recommends that the pazking requirement be satisfied onsite with access off of the alley. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application. P53 Exhibits: A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. 1904 Sanborn Map C. Application Exhibit A- Relevant Design Guidelines 1.1 Preserve original fences. ^ Replace only those portions that aze deteriorated beyond repair. Replacement elements should match the existing fence. 1.2 Anew replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. ^ Any fence which is visible from a public right-of--way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. ^ A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similaz to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. ^ Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yazds. 1.3 Anew replacement fence should Gave a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from. the street. ^ A fence that defines a front yazd is usually low to the ground and "transpazent" in nature. ^ On residential properties, a fence which is located forwazd of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standazds".) ^ A privacy fence may be used in back yazds and along alleys, but not forwazd of the front facade of a building. ^ Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. ^ Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. ^ Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.5 Aside yard fence which extends between two homes should be set back from the street-facing facade. ^ This setback should be significant enough to provide a sense of open space between homes. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. ^ Aside yazd fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less transparent. A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six feet), but should incorporate transpazent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. ^ Consider staggering the fence boazds on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appeazance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. ^ Also consider using lattice, or other transpazent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence. P54 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. ^ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. ^ Provide a walkway running perpendiculaz from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways aze discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. ^ Use paving materials that aze similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. ^ The front yazd should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. ^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. ^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small azeas for accent. ^ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. ^ Features important to the chazacter of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. ^ Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. ^ Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. ^ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key chazacter-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is achazacter-defining feature. ^ Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on reaz walls. ^ Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a ]azger window on primary facades. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. ^ If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung; or at a minimum, appeaz to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. ^ Matching the original design is particulazly important on key chazacter-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. ^ Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on chazacter-defining facades. However; a substitute material may be considered if the appeazance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. P55 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. ^ Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that azchitectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that aze similaz in character to related buildings. ^ Using. overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. ^ It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they aze similaz in style and detailing to other features on the building where they aze to be installed. 10.2 Amore recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 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. 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. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ^ The new materials should be either similaz or subordinate to the original materials. M , O ~~ . Iz ~: L ~ // i M n O P Q H S -:~ ~~ i Ci ~x q M ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ -1 ~ x . -- f ~ , a .~'-~I 3o?-3r,,D ?39-2 230-28 2~6~ ??2~v ~rcr-ab era iz 2/o-rP 2©6-4 ?a?- 2/0 II 30,7-5 3173-1 I ~ Z33,3 c~31-79 22.x-,5' ?e"1~'f 2/9 /,~ 2/x/3 2//-,9 Z07 S ?iJ3-~/ ~ :x ~ I ti. - ~ Q ~ ~ ~ 8 J i~ ~r~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ r f ~ ~ III ~. .~ ~ X: ' '/ X ~ ~~ ~+' ~ raf Y ~ . A I x~ ' xB C /^ r ~ a x- L ~ x E F / G ' oa H r ~-` /x~ N N .N ~I~ _ 53 Ii 'V _ -\~ tl s ~ II ~ 7f' i M h "_ ~ ~ P Q R S n, 1~ ~ ~ - b p ti ;r o - n-~ ` r a ~ ~ ~ ~ n~ r .~ 306-4 .~02.~40 {~ z3a-~ z.~~8 226-4 2~ -~- ~ rJ " r 2~r. ~ 2cn . ll 52 - P57 ATTACHMENT 2 -Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: rxr Crtx a n~a Name: 216 West H an Avenue Residence Location: 216 West H Avenue, Block 53 - Lot O & Lot P Ci and Townsite of As en (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)_2735-124-63-006 APPLICANT: Name: Mar aret Ann Mullins Address: 216 West H an Avenue , As n , CO 81611 Phone #: 720 308-71 I S Fax#: E-mail: mullins.ann ail.com REPRESENTATIVE' Name: Derek Skalko - I Frida Desi Collaborative Address: PO BOX 7928, As n ,Colorado 81612 Phone#: 970 309-0695 Fax#: E-mail: derek lfrida .com TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please CheCK all that appl ^ Historic Designation ^ Relocation (temporary, on ^ Certificate of No Negative Effect ^ or off-site) ^ Certificate of Appropriateness ^ Demolition (total ® -Minor Historic Development demolition) ^ -Major Historic Development ^ Historic Landmazk Lot Sp ^ -Conceptual Historic Development ^ -Final Historic Development EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Existing Miners Cottage detached single family residence PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings uses modifications, etc.) Remove non-historic rear massing (154 sq ft) and install French door system out to proposed deck Front gazage aces area to be remodeled into kitchen w/ stone patio proposed, window modifications per elevations to the front facade of residence fence proposed for front yazd screening Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 P58 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: Mazgazet Ann Mullins Owner - 216 West Hyman Avenue Residence 216 West Hyman Avenue, Aspen Blk. 53, Lots O & P, City and Townsite of Aspen R-6 6 UUU sq tt 6 000 sq ft (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mazk, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Exisring:NA Proposed.•NA Number of residential units: Existing:_I Proposed.• 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed: Proposed % of demolition:_154 sq ft proposed demo / 2667 sq ft existing = 5.7% demolition DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Existing: _1,862 Allowable:_3,240 Proposed:_1708 Hei ht Principal Bldg.: Existing: _13'-11" Allowable:_25 '-D"_Proposed:_13'-Il" Accessory Bldg.: Existing: NA Allowable: NA _Proposed: NA On-Site parking: Existing.• _IRequired.•_2 Praposed.•_1_ %Sitecoverage: Existing: _22%_Required:_50% Proposed:_20.5%_ Open Space: Existing: _NA_Reguired.• NA Proposed: NA_ Front Setback: Existing: _4'-6"_Reguired:_IO' Proposed:_4'-6"_ Rear Setback: Existing.• _45'-8"-Required: S'gar/10'_Proposed.•_53'_ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N. S. E. W Existing: _NA_Reguired: NA _Proposed:_NA_ Side Setback: Existing: _W-O'_Reguired:_5' Proposed:_0'_ Side Setback: Existing: _E-]7'-3"_Required:_S '_Proposed:_17'-3"_ Combined Sides: Existing: NA_Required: NA _Proposed.• NA_ Distance between Existing.• NA_Regurred:_NAProposed.•_NA_ buildings: Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: 4'-6" Front Yazd Setback Existing /West Side yard residence encroaching currently Vaziations requested (identify the exact variances needed): 0' West Side Yard variance to address existing conditions - No encroachment licenses for any adjacent properties. Aspen Historic Preservation Lend Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007