HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20090128ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 28, 2009
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: NOON -Please meet at 219 S. Third followed by 621 W.
Francis and 214 E. Sleeker
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes -December 10, 2008 and Jan. 14, 2009
minutes.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
A. 214 E. Sleeker Street -roof material and walkway
(20 min.) cont'd from 1-14-09
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #4)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. None
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 621 W. Francis -Ord. #48, 2007 -negotiation (20 min.)
B. 219 S. Third -Historic Landmark designation, Historic
Landmark Lot Split, Major Development (Conceptual)
Public Hearing (lhour 40 min.)
X. WORK SESSION
A. None
XI. Adjourn 7:25 p.m.
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PIS
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.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Preservation Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 214 East Sleeker Street ~, h ~,-
~ ~s
DATE: January 28, 2009 ~~~ p,`
~a.
At their regulaz meeting on April
11, 2007, the HPC passed a
resolution approving the
development of a one story reaz
addition at 214 East Sleeker Street
(adjacent to the Community
Church), a designated landmazk.
A reaz yazd setback variance was
approved to allow 7 feet (where 10
feet is required), and a combined
side Yazd setback variance was
approved to allow 10 feet (where
15 is required). A dilapidated
shed, located on the alley, was
approved for demolition.
~,x
This project is before the HPC to discuss-rfhe roof material on the rear garage
portion of the addition and the side shed roof, the walkway and step materials and
design, and the front porch decking.
Roof: HPC approved a comtgated metal roof for the gazage addition and the side shed
existing addition. The rest of the project was approved to have either wood shingles or a
flat roof. A standing seam copper roof has been installed in lieu of the approved
corrugated metal roof without any approval. Staff is concerned that the copper roof
material is a pretty faz departure from a more utilitarian corrugated metal roof that would
be typically found on a Victorian era residence rather than copper. Staff was supportive
of comzgated metal on the reaz gable mainly because it was reminiscent of a typical alley
structure from the 19~' century that would have any available affordable materials
installed as the roof The cooper material will develop a dull brown patina over time, but
Staff is concerned about the compatibility of copper roofing to the time period of this
property. The only rationale Staff can recommend for leaving the current material in
place is that copper flashing has been used throughout the project, establishing the
;~ ts_
~t
_ _ _ _ ~ _
,.c_;
materials as part of the palette. Staff finds the copper flashing to be inappropriate, but
neglected to state that a sample needed to be submitted before installation. Staff
recommends that the copper roof remain rather than replace it with a different material
that is not relevant to the current material palette: Relevant design guidelines aze below:
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that aze compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
^ The new materials should be either similaz or subordinate to the original materials.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similaz in scale and texture to those used
traditionally.
^ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
::`.
11.8 Use building materials that contribute,to;a,lFaditional sense of human scale.
^ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site
are encouraged. ~,
^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
Front Steps and Walkway: The curved brick walkway and brick steps were not approved
by HPC, Staff or the HP monitor and the walkway was installed without a building
permit or right of way permit. Retaining the stone steps was a condition of final approval
(#5 of HPC Resolution 13, Series of 2007), but it was represented at the last HPC
meeting on January 14, 2009 that the steps were damaged and unsalvageable. This may
have been the case; however there was never a conversation with staff or the HP monitor
regazding the condition of the steps. The tiered brick steps that are installed on the front
fapade aze inappropriate and unchazacteristic of this style of Victorian. Staff
recommends that un-tiered sandstone steps, similaz to the color of the foundation, replace
the brick steps. A design must be reviewed and approved by Staff and HP monitor.
The curved brick walkway was installed without a building permit, right of way permit or
Staff and monitor approval. The Pazks department sent an email, attached as Exhibit B,
to clarify their role in the curved walk. The 'guidelines below recommend running a
straight walkway perpendiculaz to the street unless~there is a tree in the way. Because the
walkway is already installed with snowing}t, ~ ~fa~-''recommends thaC the, current walkway
remain in an effort to avoid any furtliei damage. to the trees.
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 mm~ing perpendicular from the street to the front entry.
Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
^ Use paving materials that aze similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
.,.,
i:k
is:'
!;.,_ ;
Porch Deckine: The wooden decking on. tttgfiont porch was removed and replaced
without Staff and the HP monitor approval. i.'Stal~red-lined the building permit indicating
that the decking needed to be inspected by Staff and monitor to determine which pieces
needed to be replaced and/ or salvaged in order to meet Guidelines 2.1, 2.5 and 2.7
below. Staff did not place this same note on the other sheets in the permit packet that
addressed the porch (there was a small detail on sheet A6.1), feeling that stating the
condition once was adequate (see sheet A1.2.)
The decking was replaced with wood; however the direction of the decking was changed
from perpendicular to pazallel to the front fagade. During construction the azchitect
discovered that the porch was probably a later addition to the historic home; however,
there was no communication between Staff and the HP monitor to inspect the porch and
provide direction. Staff recommends that the decking be removed and reoriented in the
previous perpendiculaz direction, which is consistent with other wooden decking from
this era found in Aspen.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
^ Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
^ Only remove siding which is deteriorated and"'must be replaced.
^ Masonry features that define the overall~hi5~tloric chazacter, such as walls, cornices,
pediments, steps and foundations,l§ho>ald #i~.~reserved.
^ Avoid rebuilding a major poition' o~." an~ exterior wall that could be repaired.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material.
^ Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
^ Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and
resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components
also may be used.
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing
materials on primary surfaces.
^ If the original material is wood clapboazd, for example, then the replacement
material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of
exposed lap and finish.
^ Replace only the amount required. If a few boards aze damaged beyond repair, then
only those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
Staff is quite concerned with the way this project evolved. We have a contractor
licensing program specifically aimed at'erisiffiifg communication and adherence to
conditions. While we do not believC`anyonp~'.`~ `ended to defy the HPC approval, the
responsibilities of carrying out approved p`lan~~ eie not upheld. Staff keeps a record of
permit violations by licensed hp contractotss `The license can be revoked. We will follow
up with communication to this company and expect the azchitect and owner to continue
to follow approved plans or seek advice as the project is completed.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
^ Require the project to revert back to the original approved material.
^ Approve an alternate materials and con~igua;ations.
^ Approve the project as is. , ,,., ~.;~~
}~~_,
~l~ ;~~c,
Exhibits:
A. Roof plan and side elevations with material changes indicated.
B. Letter from Chris Forman, City Forester.
C. DRAFT, HPC Minutes January 14, 2009.
D. HPC Resolution No. 13 Series of 2007 granting Final approval for the project.
E. HPC Minutes dated April 11, 2007 granting Final approval for the project.
F. Letter from azchitect dated Januazy 21, 2009.
i',:.,;}:pit.
S. ~.~_
' Pa
z,
Page 1 of 1
~~~~fi~o
Sara Adams
From: Chris Forman
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:46 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: 214 Bleeker
Hello Sara,
Thank you for keeping us up to speed on this project, particularly the new sidewalk within the ROW. I just want
to be clear with everyone involved that the Parks Department did not review their plans for this walk, nor did we
advise them on how to design or build it. The only conversation that I had with Dave Rybak regarding any walks
had to do with the existing pedestrian walk in need of repair per the City Engineering Department.
Since the new walk has already been installed, there is not much to do in regards to impacts to adjacent trees. If
the HPC would like to see this walkway changed in any way, I will be available and happy to provide any
assistance necessary to make that happen.
Sincerely,
Chris Forman, City Forester
585 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, Colorado 61611
970-920.5120 p
970.920.5128/
chrisf~ci ascen co us
1 naizon9
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 ~1~J n ~ .~i ~i i~~L
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan called tlie~~feeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Brian:lVtcN"ellis, Sarah Broughton, Ann
Mullins and Nora Berko. Jay Maytin was excused.
Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Disclosures: Nora will excuse herself on 214 E. Bleeker
MOTION.• Brian moved to nominate Michael Hoffman as Chair and Sarah
Broughton as Vice-chair. All in favor, motion carried. Resolution #1, 2009.
214 E. BLEEKER -PROJECT MONITORING -ROOF MATERIALS
AND WALKWAY
;,,
f
Jim True noted that the project moniton'~g~issue if approved requires 3
positive votes. "1F
Dave Rybak, architect
Sara relayed that the property is next to the Community Church in the West
End. There was a material change on the roof without approval. They were
approved for a corrugated metal roof on the secondary garage element on the
alley and a shed roof that was existing. They were replaced with a copper
roof. Right now we have a copper standing seam roof where there should
have been a corrugated metal roof.
At the site the stone steps that where to be retained where not retained as
part of the front walk. There has been copper flashing detailing that has
been added to the front porch and around the pediment on the front porch
that was not called out on the permit andt~b'~ approved.
... ~ 4,-~
~ .,ly+,-
Sara said the main issue is the roof xn~t~al: Corrugated metal is utilitarian
and a lot of thought went into the approval of the corrugated metal and it has
been replaced with standing seam copper.
There are three recommendations:
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 '.
1. HPC can require the project to revert back to the original approved
material.
2. Approve an alternate material to replace the cooper roof material which
would be discussed with the architect andf~}~'ner.
3. Approve the copper roof. ~'
.r ,.z~,
' ~'i 1 A4Zat+t~t.1
Sara said the stone steps and cooper flashing detailing are up to HPC to
decide what to do. It sounds like the steps were in bad condition and staff
does not feel they were original but it was a condition of approval that they
be retained.
Amy added that miner's cottages typically had stone or wooden steps. Brick
would not have been used in a tiered or flared design.
Dave Rybak said the approved landscape plan had a straight walk which was
modified because the Parks Dept. wanted it away from the trees so we now
have a straight walk to the property line and a curved walk to the street curb
to miss the street trees. Sara pointed out that the walkway was changed
without HPC approval.
Dave Rybak said the change to the cop~'et~fbof is an easy explanation of our
interpretation of the guidelines. What occ}ured between the owner, contract
and architect was simply we had to ~~d`t~the decision of putting the flashing
package together to install as we were putting the stone back on the building
and the wood siding back on the building. We knew we had a corrugated
metal roof approved. We had to start with the flashing at the stone and
flashing between the stone and the wood siding. In reviewing that the color
choice of a tin colored flashing and a rose stone did not make sense to us so
we went through different scenarios and came to the determination that a
copper flashing would be best. When the copper ages it would be a dark
brown patina and look great against the rose stone. In light of that it also
made sense to use copper as the metal roof. When I read the guidelines it
clearly states that metal roofs need to be approved and we had a metal roof
approved. In my interpretation the difference between tin and copper is a
color. Color is not an issue before the board. I made the determination that
the change to copper is a color change and not a material change because it
is a metal roof. The roof is at the back ofe building on the west face
against the Community Church. The ot$~r'roof is on the west side on a porch
addition. From the street the'roo~'is`drll~b't'sible for a very small portion as
you walk past the house toward the'C~'t~mii~unity Church or from the alley.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009
The color scheme with the copper roof as it patinas is utilitarian. If we had
brought the copper roof during conceptual or final to the HPC we believe the
board would have approved it. We apologize for the misinterpretation and
we were not trying to go against our approvals.
Dave presented pictures of cooper roofs being used throughout town.
Dave said the flashing that is exposed on the front of the house the
construction documents do show flashing: ~'~;here is a six inch piece of
copper at the bottom of the wall that wili:~a covered up with wood siding.
„~ ~ Y
Sarah said she reviewed the changes at'idnsitggested that the changes go in
front of the board.
Dave said several things occurred with the stone steps. At the final hearing I
made statements that we were unsure of the conditions of the stones because
we hadn't taken them apart and they were on the ground. They had also
been sitting in water. We do not know when the stone were placed there.
We found that everything below the roof on the porch, columns balusters
and siding were all replace in the 60's and 70's. Aesthetically transitioning
from the walk to a wood porch with a stone foundation it seems odd that you
would have stone steps. The original builder would have made the porch out
of stone as well.
Sarah commented that condition #5 states that the steps will be reused in the
construction of the front porch. J`"
,~t~,~
i
Amy pointed out that condition # 10 state~''that no deviation from the exterior
elevations approved without first beirlg'reviewed by HPC, staff and monitor.
We don't review paint color but we certainly review color that integral to a
material.
Ann said the steps were clearly outlined. They should not be the design
chosen or the brick steps chosen. What would be appropriate is a stone step
or wooden step to that era of house no masonry steps. The stone was
approved in the architectural plan.
Dave said he has many pictures of houses in the West End with brick steps.
3 ; s~.
". ter,,,
,~,
Ann asked when the corrugated metal'roof was the material indicated. Sara
said it just stated corrugated metal.
Sarah pointed out that the roof is on new portions of the project. The
struggle is whether the copper is a better material choice than the corrugated
metal. The house is a little more formal than other historic resources in the
west end. It would definitely need to be pre-patina. Sarah agreed with Ann
about the steps and aesthetically the steps want to be the red rock and match
the base that is going around the house.
Ann and Michael expressed their concern about the process. Ann said a
corrugated roof is very different than a standing seam just in appearance no
matter what the material is. The material was changed without approval.
Michael said his concern is that. avery di~f~rent roof material was installed
on the other hand if his interpreta~iotiFVVa~~asonable are we being
unreasonable by not accepting it. `
Brian said he is also struggling with the roof. Potentially the roof material
installed could be more appropriate.
Sarah said the architect has been forth right with getting drawings.
Hopefully we can be proactive in moving forward. This should have come
before the monitor first.
Ann said coming in for approval after the fact puts the H PC in a very
difficult position.
Michael said we are either going to hold our ground, yield or be aggressive.
Michael proposed continuing this for two weeks in order for the board to
think about the situation.
Dave Rybak said he feels the board doe~lRtruly believe him which he takes
offense to. We came in only because Sara and I have a different opinion of
my interpretation of the code. We are here because what it came down to
was the correct material selection for us as the construction team. We would
like to go forward and the examples of other standing seam copper roofs that
have been approved have been submitted.
4
ASPEN IIISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009
Brian said the HPC could take the same stance as Dave and say we aze
offended as well by the architect taking assumptions without coming to us in
the first place. ' ~;1,
~., ..l* l::~i~.
Dave said we don't want to take up tlie.6oazd's time and we didn't want to
be here in the first place. We want this project to run smoothly.
Michael reiterated that he is not ready to make a decision.
Ann said the steps are very clear and the roof material is a tough decision.
Sarah pointed out that our ultimate goal is to have the best project. Ann said
she feels the corrugated material is more appropriate.
Brian said he can support Michael's decision to table the item.
Michael said he could support the walkway as constructed other than the
flaring that staff has identified. The change in the roof is a different
situation. ~`~
ti:1
Brian said possibly in HPC's view the cb'"~'per might be a better roof.
~,~s=-..
Michael said he is concerned about the process that was used and he doesn't
want to invite architects to take a broad view of what their interpretation of
the guidelines is. They should confirm their interpretation with staff.
Kris Church, owner said we have been through a lengthy process and we
really appreciate all your time. In our meetings even with the light fixtures
Dave as been concerned with the entire process in trying to keep it in line.
We do apologize but the contractors said the copper would be a better roof
with the copper standing seam. We thought we were giving a better quality
to the house and a good look and it is on the alley and on the new part. The
brick for the steps is reclaimed brick.
Sarah, Brian and Ann relayed that they are,adamant about the stairs.
Sarah pointed out that every project, that boines before the HPC is unique.
Brian reminded the board that the roof material is on new construction.
Corrugated systems are not as good as standing seam. If our purpose is to
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009
help preserve the historic resources we have a better chance with a standing
seam roof which is a higher quality.
Dave said through the 90's rusted corrugated was the material of choice for
metal roofs. Now we are having a glut of zinc and we like the copper
because it is timeless. Copper is a ready available material throughout
history and patinas to an innocuous brown.
MOTION: Sarah moved to amend the re.~oL.~,ution approving 214 E. Bleeker
with the following condition: ~ `s' ~a ~ `
1. Brick stairs be removed and the'stone stairs be replaced to match
what was in our approved resolution. The stone should match the
stone coursing on the foundation.
2. The copper standing seam roof remains on the new addition as
currently proposed.
3. Realigned walkway approved as built per the Parks Department. The
reclaimed brick is OK
Motion second by Brian.
Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, no. Ann, no.
Motion failed 2-2.
MOTION: Ann moved to continue 214 E. Bleeker until January 28`x'; second
by Michael. All in favor, motion carried.
GREENWALD PAVILION; FINAL REVIEW -CONTINUED
PUBLIC I~~4TtING
i ;~,
.'.1=~i...'6`k~.H
,I ~a~
,;. l~« ~:
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (IIPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) AND
VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 214 EAST BLEEKER STREET,
LOT B OF THE BRUMDER LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 13 ,SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-48-002.
WHEREAS, the applicants, 214 East Bleeker, LLC, represented by Rybak Architecture and
Development, PC, have requested Major Development Review (Final) for the property located at
Lot B of the Brumder Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on
the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" 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 r r r• ~~ i
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a heazing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.of
the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, 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 character of the historic property or district; and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or azchitectural chazacter
of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and
WHEREAS, Saza Adams, in her staff report dated April 11, 2007 performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, and recomt3anded that the project be approved with
conditions; and ~ ' f
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on April 11, 2007 the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code and
approved the application with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
,c
That HPC hereby grants approval for Major Develppment (Final), and Variances for the property
located at 214 East Bleeker Street, Lot B of the Brurrider Lot Split, Block 72, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions;
1. A combined sideyazd setback variance is granted for 5 feet, where 15 feet is required.
2. The replacement of a historic window with a door on the east elevation is not approved.
3. The lightwell at the southeast comer of the historic resource will be reduced 3 feet from
Bleeker Street.
4. The proposed transom windows will be removed from the historic resource.
5. The stone steps will be reused in the reconstruction of the front porch.
6. The foundation, chimney, and porch will be documented and photographed prior to
dismantling, and the foundation height will remain consistent with historic photographs.
7. The lighting fixtures will be approved by staff and monitor.
8. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what
original materials appeaz to still exist on the historic front porch, and what treatments will
be used to retain them.
9. 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.
10. There shall be no deviations from the extericat~~elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff anH'mdnitor, or the full boazd.
11. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
12. 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 aze known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
13. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
14. 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 fma] approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) yeazs,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following d'e§cribed property: 214 East Bleeker Street.
.r,
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.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of Apri12007.
Approved as to Form:
~.t
Jim True, City Attorney ~'?~'
W ,,
Approved as to content: ' ,
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
~~<;~
~X~h~l~" ~.,
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIO
MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2007
Discussion:
John Olson said the wood came about due to costs and he understands that
there is no wood on this building. If there is a way to wrap the wood in
metal he will do that.
Brian said structurally it doesn't have to be steel; the point is to match the
materials.
Amy asked if there was an aesthetic reason why the posts had to continue
above the railing. Sarah said she feels the posts are out of context. The
board felt that the curve could be eliminated and possibly the posts.
Third amendment to the motion: Michael amended the motion to allow
latitude to not do the post and curve and the revisions should be approved
by staff and monitor; Alison second. Roll call vote; Alison, yes; Brian, yes;
Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-0.
214 E. Bleeker Street -Major Development -Final, Review and
Variance
Jeffrey was seated.
Affidavit of public notice -Exhibit I
Sarah said the proposal is for an addition to the rear of an 1893 single story
Victorian located in the West End. At conceptual HPC granted relocation of
the house forward, demolition of the outbuilding and approval of the new
addition. A setback variance is also proposed for the combined side yard
setback for light wells. Overall the application meets the guidelines.
Site plan: Staff is a little concerned about the light well off the non-historic
bay addition and its prominence along Bleeker Street. Staff is concerned
about having a light well and rising up ttie patio a foot above the natural
grade. Guideline 9.7 states that the light=ells should be minimized. The
t.,_
landscape proposed is appropria'fe and it Fiieets the guidelines that we have.
The applicant should work with staffreg'arding the lighting fixture in the
packet.
Fenestration: The windows proposed for the new addition are appropriate.
They are vertically oriented and double hung. Staff is a little concerned
about the transom windows along the east elevation. Introducing a new
element does not comply with guidelines 11.9 and 11.10 and we feel the
transom windows should be eliminated.
4
The applicant is also proposing to replace'an historic double hung window
with a French door to go out onto the patio. There is another entrance onto
the patio and staff is opposed to the removal of the double hung window.
In terms of materials what is being proposed is appropriate for the resource.
The applicant is proposing coursed wood siding. The porch has to be
removed when they relocate the historic home. The applicant is trying to
locate photographs because there are questions about the balusters and
railings which have been replaced with 2 x 4's. We also recommend that the
stone steps that are leading to the porch be reused.
They intend to demolish two non-historic chimneys. They are proposing flu
on the rear elevation which is acceptable because it is not visible from
Bleeker Street and it does not impact the historic resource.
Setback variances: The light wells are at;the minimum size required so
variances are not needed but they need ambined side yard setback for a
lot this size. The combined has to add u~~o 15 feet and it only adds up to
ten feet so they need a variation of five' feet. Staff recommends approval.
Dave Rybak, architect explained that the renovation of this residence is with
the idea of distinction within the context of a valuable resource. Dave went
over the material selection. Ship lock siding with a''/z, groove with a batten
strip is the siding. A beveled lap siding is proposed for the hip roof building
and the gabled roof building. Double hung windows are proposed for all
new windows put into the house. We would like to add divided lights into
the proposed new windows so that there is a clear distinction between new
and old. We added transom windows to both the windows in the master area
and the doors. The window trim will mimic what was existing. The
structure will be relocated then put back at grade.
The light well that Sara brought up does sit to the east side of the Bleeker
Street fagade; however it works off of the back of bay that was added. It
steps back approximately three feet We;ti~ve "ganged" our light wells so
that two rooms take advantage of the oh~~iight well and that is probably why
it seems larger than a light well for, one Loom. We feel with proper
landscaping that view of the light well will be screened from the street face.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2007
Michael said the light well is concealed and appropriate. He also agreed that
a different lighting fixture is recommended.
{
Sara said in interpreting the guideltnes s)~~;'~ ,eels the transom windows are
introducing a new element. Usiiig thg ~iv~t ed light and shape of the
windows that were proposed withotiYthe transom were enough to distinguish
between new and old.
Michael said he would support staff's recommendation on the transom
windows and the French doors.
Sara reiterated that the side yard variance request is five feet on the east and
five feet on the west side. They are required to have 15 feet and only have
ten feet.
Sarah thanked the applicant for being so thorough in his presentation. In
terms of this application Sarah is in support of everything. She also can
support the French doors given it is off the main fapade but cannot support
the transom windows.
Alison indicated that she is in favor of the~'light well and it combines two
rooms. The landscape plan is great;~rt~'w~iks well with the neighborhood.
The shielding of the front light well ~rom~ Bleeker is acceptable. Alison also
said she likes the lighting fixture and possibly there is a way to make it work
with the lighting code. Regarding the fenestration it is always difficult to
give away an historic window. The transom windows on the back read
well. The materials and stone steps fit in well. Regarding the setback
variance Alison is in favor of them because this is a one story building.
Brian touched on the issues of concern for him. The light well will be
visible from the streetscape and maybe there is something that can be done
to reduce the size or prominence. With regard to the French doors he is not
in favor of them and the historic resource should no[ be altered with the
transom window. The transom windows on the new addition are acceptable.
Hopefully the light fixture can be modified to comply with the lighting code.
Jeffrey commended the applicant and staff on the thorough and thoughtful
presentation. It makes it much easier to deliberate and understand the
intentions. In addressing guideline 9 7 ~. ~ stbly staff and the applicant can
reduce the size of the light well'~spe~ct~ll'from the Bleeker Street side.
,.,,
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2007
Jeffrey also agreed that the transom window on the historic house should be
eliminated but the one on the addition can remain. The foundation and
relationship to grade is perfect and the detail is exceptional.
>.
Dave Rybak said they can reduce the. width to the east by a foot of the light
well. It is four feet deep and the minimum is three feet.
Amy said the bay window is not historic and it sounds like Dave is trying to
work around it and maybe a resolution is taking the bay window off and put
the historic fagade back the way it was. The light well is trying to adapt to a
circumstance i.e. bay window that is not historic.
Dave said the access out of the great room is very important and we don't
want to give it up. We understand the board's concern of loosing the
historic window but the window is set back. We could replace the window
with a single door and store the window in the attic for future reclamation.
The facade is not the most important fagade on the building. Its visibility is
not seen because it is set back from the church.
Sarah said she feels this area of the house is a spot where we could alter the
,.i,
facade. The house has gone through growf}~ and revolution.
~ 'r.
Michael reiterated that this is an historic resource and we can't allow this
type of alteration to it.
MOTION.• Michael moved to approve resolution #13 with the elimination of
condition #1. Condition #2 that the combined side yard setback variance of
five feet is approved, which means you will end up with ten feet. Condition
#4 be amended that the light well comes back one foot. It would be reduced
to 3 feet in the east direction. Condition #5 clarifies that the transom
window on the historic house be removed. Brian second the motion. Roll
call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes.
Motion carried S-0.
Alison is the monitor.
500 W. Francis, Historic Landmark Lot Split
Affidavit of posting, exhibit I..
Sara explained that this is a 9,000 squaze; #bot lot that contains a two story
Victorian and a carriage house along the'alley that encroaches into the east
and rear alley. The applicant is requirecfi,Co get an encroachment license for
~x~-hr~~fi 1~.
TO: Sara Adams
FROM: Dave Rybak
DATE: January 21, 2009
RE: 214 East Bleeker
MEMORANDUM
Several items were discussed dining the Monitors Comments at the January 14~^ meeting. I
would like to provide this memorandum as a clar'rfication of the issues for the Commission to
consider prior to the next meeting on January 28.
METAL ROOFING
Standing seam copper roofing has been installed on the Garage Addition at the North end of
the project and on the previous addition shed roof area on the North-West corner of the
original structure.
The selection of copper as the roofing material was derived from the selection of flashing
materials to be used at the transition of stone to siding, and stone to other materials on the
structure. The red sandstone foundation veneer requires flashing at the transition to the
framed walls and wood siding. In some areas the flashing is mostly covered by wood trim, in
other areas, a cap detail exposes up to 4 inches of the flashing. The copper color in both raw
and patina'd states blends well with the red sandstone foundation. This relationship of color
then drove the decision to utilize copper as the flashing material throughout the project, and
also as the metal roofing material.
During this construction decision process, we reviewed the HPC Guidelines, specifically
Chapter 7 -Roofs, Chapter 10 -Building Additions, Chapter 11 -New Buildings on Historic
Properties, and Chapter 14 General Guidelines to determine if utilizing the copper material
was contrary to the approvals. Guidelines 7.9 and 7.10 discuss the use of metal roofing, yet
neither distinguish a difference of metal materials as is distinguished between "specialty"
shingle materials listed in Guideline 7.8.
CHAPTER 7 -ROOFS
MATERIALS
7.8 Preserve original roof materials.
• Avoid removing historic roofing materials that is in good condition. When
replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both
style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen
historically.
• Specialty materials such as tile; slate or concrete should be replaced with a
matching material
7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture
similar to those used traditionally: `'{"
• Replacement materials sholildr'b~''similar to those
comparably styledbuildirigS. '~""1°'~
• If a substitute is used, suchta"s composition shingle, the
be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish.
used historically on
roof material should
310 Sopris Circle, BasaR, Colorado 81621 (970) 9271171 dave@daverv6ak.com
214 East Bleeker
January 21, 2009
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• If copper flashing is to be use, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-
reflective finish. ~ ~`
~. ,lU~;
7.10 If it is to be used, a mefafrcof s~tould:.pe applied and detailed in a manner that
is compatible and does not detract frdm'fHe fi'istoric appearance of the building.
• A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-
reflectivefinish.
• A metal roof with alead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative.
• Seams should be of a low profile.
• A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is in appropriate.
The Guidelines for Chapter 10 -Building Additions, discuss form, placement, proportion and
appropriateness. The discussion of material is limited in Guideline 10.11, for which the
simplicity of a standing seam roof is subordinate to the dominate texture of the wood shingle
roof of the historic resource.
10.11 On a new addftion, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
• The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original
materials.
Chapter 11 -New Buildings on Landmarked Properties, discusses the need to reinforce the
importance of the historic resource and provide the ability to distinguish new structures from
the historic. Copper building material is has bp~r•~~F~lized throughout Aspen at during many
periods. The installation of the copper matenal we5 tlone in the late fall, which will allow the
copper to patina naturally during the winter ~{~s~tAv~~~2nd water diminish the reflectivity of the
new copper. . , ,. ~~,~ -f;~ ~ .
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used
traditionally.
• Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
• Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on
the site are encouraged.
• Use of highly reflective materials pis discouraged.
Chapter 14 -General Guidelines, discuss color as an historic tool which may distinguish
distinctive styles, and states, "HPC does not review the choice of color,..." The guidelines
discuss "paint schemes" but do not differentiate the color of a roof from the color scheme of
a building.
With this guideline review we concluded the change from "corrugated metal roofing" as
submitted, to copper standing seam roofing was within the discretion of the owner as a color
selection.
The Historic Resource at 214 East Bleeker is uniqu for a one story Victorian in Aspen. The
large hipped roof and corner turret combine tb`pt' ~de a form more sophisticated than the
typical "Miner's Cottage" constructed during this e`Fiod. It's location next to the massive,
rusticated stone Community Church g(1~s tfiis ~r~~. se a context unlike any other residential
~~, "~°.,
214 East Sleeker
January 21, 2009
resources. The selection of copper for use as flashing and roofing material blend with the
color of the original red sandstone foundation and the neighboring church, while providing a
simplicity and grace to the added forms. The copper is in harmony with its surroundings, not
a detraction to the resources, as a "lead" colored roof may have been.
ENTRY WALK
A brick entry walk has been constructed from the front porch to the street curb. The
landscape drawings submitted during the HPC Revi<iw process show a straight alignment,
perpendicular to the street, from curb to porch, wit;~~rj'o material indicated. During the review
of the pending walkway construction with the Cit ,,pp Aspen Forester, the walk alignment was
required to be realigned to relieve the rootr~tru~t3it`e' of a streetscape tree. To accomplish
this, the walk curves to the east from the property line, away from the tree, then bows back
to perpendicular alignment prior to reaching the street curb.
ENTRY WALK STEPS
The two red sandstone slabs placed in front of the porch, and utilized as porch steps, were
found to be decaying from ground water saturation when lifted from place. The lower slab
was spauling and cracked when lifted. The upper slab also showed signs of decay. As part
of the entry walk construction the stone slabs were replaced with brick steps. The walkway
curves out from the walk width to create a landing for the first step, and the second step is
narrowed in width creating a step on three sides. Please refer to the attached walkway
drawing for the details of the constructed steps. The design of walk way and steps
establishes a progression from public to private spaces, while differentiating the historic
resource from new construction.
The red sandstone slab steps appeared out of place, floating in front of the wood deck, which
had no other stone detailing. The progression of stone steps, to wood porch, back to stone
foundation is inconsistent with the grace of the historic resource. This change of materials
and the decay of the porch structure noted below suggests the stone steps were not original
to the structure, placed there during the reconstruction of the porch deck.
:: ~ j&.
PORCH DECKING ,rte '~
During the demolition phase of the ~"on$trud#i6~~the front porch was found to be an
"additive" element to the original strucfute~~nbt~?fitting on a permanent stone foundation
similar to the enclosed house. The outer periFri~ter walls of the deck had no foundation, and
was constructed of nominal sized 2x framing with lap siding for enclosure. Significant decay
was found within the wood of these walls. The existing porch decking was nominal 1x tongue
& groove material running north-south instead of east-west or parallel to the house. Atypical
framing scenario would be for the deck joists to run perpendicular to the house to minimize
the span length, which would result in the decking running parallel to the house. The wood
porch columns sat on top of the decking, toe-nailed into the deck and structure below. The
existing railing was not original, being constructed of 2x4's and 2x2's of 1-1/2" dimension. A
metal pipe railing had been added to either side of the porch steps, attached to the porch
columns and buried into grade.
The combination of elements discovered during the demolition phase brought us to the
conclusion the porch deck had been reconstructed from ground to decking, and railings, with
the columns possible replacements as well.
~L
' (: X41 ~~I~i'.
-:. ,ia,k~ o,.
ALIGN EDGE OF STEP WITH
EDGE OF FINISHED PORCH FACE
RETURN FIRST RISER
BACK TO PORCH '
SNOWMELTED BRICK SIDEWALK
ON CONCRETE SUB SLAB:
ROW-LOCK BOARDER q
W/RUNNING BOND FIELD -~
RELOCATE HISTORIC FENCE
TO PROPERTY LINE ~~
i
CONC.
r:
R16 ,0
R~6~_0"'
8'-5 3/4"
~ 16'-0"
~" EXISTING STREET CURB
16'-0"
io arm c.w ewn w.rt eta
re ar lln ereem we te& a+.wa.wryeK
0
i a
w
~e
II
i~ ~ M
I~~~~i ~
1
IIII /gq^
I;I;I SNOWMELT ZONE 4
I , ITT`-- AREA: 55.5 S0. FT.
IIIII
1 1.
T
I~I~I
II'I' 14'-6"
IIIII
IIIII P7
I II ~
11111
I;1~ R~4-6"
Q
II
I
B'-5 3/4°
i
N
2'-0" ~ 2'-0"
214 E BLEEKER RENOVATION
t
CL - 12.0
ENTRY WALK LAYOUT
A-,
~,~ i
~ .}}~~~~~
' a:~``~
Scale: 1/4" =1'-O"
Date: 12/17/08
~~/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 621 West Francis Street, Ordinance #48 negotiation process
DATE: January 28, 2009
PROCESS: In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance,
Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land
use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed
at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was
negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant
architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modem structures as well.
Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous
meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular,
Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from
all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to
potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of
2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30.
Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have
historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance.
Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited
while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program via the HP
Task Force.
621 West Francis is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of
Ordinance #48. Owners of a property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forwazd
with proposed projects if they:
A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay
under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or
B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from
Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC
review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or
C. Submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90 day delay period, during which
time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate preservation of the
property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmazk designate
the property, the building permits will be processed as requested.
Marsha and Bob Cook, the property owners of 621 West Francis Street, submitted a
building permit to remodel their home. Staff reviewed the proposal and determined that
the work was detrimental to the potentially historic azchitectural character. Mrs. Cook is
an active member of the Historic Preservation Task Force and understands the historic
designation process, benefits and incentives available. The owners prefer to proceed with
obtaining a building permit (option C above), rather than negotiate with the City at this
time.
Within the 90 day negotiation period, meetings aze scheduled with the Historic
Preservation Commission and the City Council regarding the proposed changes and the
nature of the Potential Historic Resource. HPC review is not a public hearing, the
acceptance of comments from the public or property owners are at the discretion of the
Commission. The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council
regarding Council extending benefits to the owner to preserve the property without
inappropriate alterations. City Council will meet on Febrvazy 9, 2009 at Spm in Aspen
City Hall.
APPLICANT: Marsha and Bob Cook, 621 West Francis Street, Aspen, CO 81611
PARCEL ID: 2735.124.011 and 2735.124.26.012
ADDRESS: 621 West Francis Street, Reeds House Condominiums, Units A and B, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
2
DICUSSION: 621 West Francis Street, pictured below, is a two story A-frame style
duplex residence built in 1968 by Ted Reeds, a local Aspenite. The azchitecture fuses
both Modern aesthetics (glazing in the gable end, A-frame form) and chalet traditions
embodied in the deep overhanging roof eaves and defined balconies.
Ted Reeds was a local Aspenite, not a trained architect, but built this home for his family.
He was presumably influenced by other similar style azchitecture typical throughout town
in the 1960s. Directly across the street, 624/626 West Francis Street (built in 1962 and
pictured below), is a duplex residence with similar azchitectural features that Staff has
termed "Modem Chalet." This type of architecture signifies the progression of Aspen as
a tourist destination with modest vacation homes that pay homage to the mountain
lifestyle (large gable roof)
and modern building
technology and aesthetics
of the era.
While 621 West Francis
may not be the singular best
example of Modern Chalet
style in Aspen, its features
clearly contribute to the
understanding and visual
representation of the small
inventory of this style of
1960s vacation residences.
This unique block of West
Francis Street is fortunate
enough to boast three
3
Modern Chalet style residences (621,624,626 West Francis) in one condensed azea that
visually reinforces the 1960s trend. (Please see Exhibit B for further info.)
PROPOSED CHANGES: (proposed drawings are attached as Exhibit A)
Staff fmds that the following proposed changes are not minimally intrusive or reversible
and will adversely impact the character defining features of this azchitectural style:
1. The project includes complete replacement of the exterior siding materials. This
is a significant change from the original design and architectural chazacter of the
building.
2. Removing the existing balconies on the primary (north) elevation will destroy a
character defining feature of this home. Balconies such as these aze a common
element of Aspen's classic Chalet style azchitecture, and the more modern
derivatives of the style as it evolved in Aspen. As you know, 621 W. Francis is
being characterized as a "Modem Chalet."
3. The removal and replacement of the fenestration on the primary (north) fapade
with units that aze inconsistent with the size, detailing, pattern, and placement of
the existing windows is detrimental to the integrity of the original design.
4. Cutting the roof joists back to align with the fascia will adversely impact the
reference to Chalet style architecture in Aspen.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
• The HPC is asked to make recommendations to the Aspeu City Council
regarding the nature and value of the Potential Historic Resource and the
proposed changes.
Exhibits:
A.) Proposed drawings
B.) Modem Chalet draft white paper
4
ASPEN'S 20`" CENTURY ARCHITECTURE:
MODERN CHALET STYLE BUILDINGS
The Modem Chalet style in Aspen describes buildings constructed in the 1950's to early
1970's that combined the influences of Chalet architecture with the modernist approach
employed by trained local architects, typically within the offices of Fritz Benedict, Herbert
Bayer, Rob Roy, and their associates. The low pitched roof, deep overhangs, balconies, simple
form, orientation towazds the mountain and other aspects of the Chalets were re-visited with
much more glazing on the primary fagade, typically carrying all the way up to the roof.
Decoration was minimal, but still focused on the eaves, fascias, and balconies. To a degree,
this style made the characteristics of modernism more sympathetic to the mountain
environment and Aspen's architectural context.
CHALET PRECEDENTS
MODERN CHALET EXAMPLES
,uw.A~7r
3.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 219 S. Third Street- Historic Landmazk Designation, Historic Landmazk Lot Split,
Major Development (Conceptual), Public Hearing
DATE: January 28, 2009
SUMMARY: 219 S. Third Street is a
modem home constructed in 1965. It is
identified on Ordinance #48, Series of
2007 as a "potential historic resource."
Owners of property on Ordinance #48
have a few options if they wish to
proceed with work. They can request
staff or HPC approval for their
immediate plans without actually
agreeing to designation, they can
volunteer for designation based on a
package of incentives negotiated with
City Council, or they can pass on
designation and accept a 90 delay period
for the processing of a permit to alter or demolish the building.
Street are willing to negotiate for designation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to consider
preservation, rather than demolition of this modern home. We find the designation criteria aze met,
and many aspects of the proposed plan are consistent with existing incentives and preservation
models the City has been using. The owner is asking for flexibility that HPC cannot grant, and
those matters will be passed on to Council. HPC findings aze needed regazding Landmark
Designation, Historic Landmazk Lot Split, and Conceptual review. Staff recommends that the board
provide the applicant input to clarify and/or minimize some of the requested exceptions and
continue the application to a date certain.
APPLICANT: YLP West, LLC, represented by Suzanne Foster.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-65-005.
ADDRESS: 219 S. Third Street, portions of Lots O-S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential
1
The owners of 219 S. Third
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030.B. Criteria To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmazk Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of
buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The
significance of 20~' century properties like 219 S. Third Street is evaluated according to the
following criteria:
A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th Century
history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the yeaz in
which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and is related to one (1) or more of
the following:
a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional
or national history,
b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is .deemed
important and the specific contribution is identified and documented, or
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive chazacteristics of a type, period or method
of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer,
craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff Findin¢: 219 S. Third Street was built in 1965 as a vacation home for the family of Tom
Cleary. It remained in the same ownership for over 40 years. The house was designed by Eric
Friis, an azchitect from the area of the Cleary's residence in northern Wisconsin. Staff has been
unable to fmd information about Eric Friis, and is continuing to try to find additional building
history from relatives of the original owner. Regazdless, staff finds that this house represents the
character of typical vacation homes being built here in the 50's and 60's. Staff has termed
houses like 219 S. Third "Modern Chalets." Buildings like this one combined classic Chalet
architectural features, such as low pitched roofs, deep overhangs, balconies, simple form, and
orientation towards the mountain with modern aesthetics such as much more glazing on the
primary fagade (typically carrying all the way up to the roof). Decoration was minimal, but still
focused on the eaves, fascias, and balconies. To a degree, this style made the chazacterisfics of
modernism more sympathetic to the mountain environment and Aspen's architectural context.
Examples of classic Chalet homes in Aspen include:
.,w
Examples of "Modern Chalets" in Aspen include:
Staff finds that 219 S. Third meets designation criteria "C." It is part of a collection of buildings
that uniquely illustrates cultural and design influences that significantly changed the built
environment of Aspen as it developed into a ski resort.
Staff typically completes an integrity score sheet to determine the amount of original features and
material that exists. We are unable to do so because the Modern Chalet style is one that has
become recognized as potentially significant during the course of the Ordinance #30 and #48
discussions. At this point no context papers or scoring forms have been adopted for use. This
house appeazs to be unaltered from the original design. We did not locate building permits for
any significant work on the exterior of the structure, therefore we feel that the building has a high
degree of integrity and authenticity.
Staff supports landmark designation for this structure finding that the review criteria are met.
3
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) andlor addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
219 S. Third Street is a 9,942 square foot lot zoned R-15. It contains a duplex, which is
considered a legal non-conforming use. It is legal because the original building permit was
issued for a duplex, but it is non-conforming because the current zoning does not allow for a
duplex on a lot of this size (a minimum of 15,000 square feet of lot azea is required for a duplex.)
The property is listed on Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 as a potential historic landmazk. The
City has the opportunity to negotiate a package of preservation incentives that will persuade the
owner to landmazk. If incentives cannot be agreed upon, the City is unable to insist on
designation and the owner may proceed with work that could include demolition.
The survey provided for this project indicates that the new owners of 219 S. Third Street have
purchased a "north pazcel," which contains the 1965 "Modern Chalet" home, and a "south
parcel," which is vacant except for a stretch of City trail. The front and back azeas are bisected
by the old Colorado Midland Railroad right-of--way. The applicant claims that the reaz parcel is a
developable lot, which is of concern to the City given our desire to maintain the trail and its
setting. The City Attorney's office has reviewed detailed historical documents related to this
situation and, while the City does not cede that this applicant clearly owns this as a separate
pazcel, it would be in the City's best interest to seek a Quit Claim Deed in an effort to extinguish
development rights on that site. The application before HPC refers to a request to transfer
development rights from the rear parcel to the front. Council will be asked to consider whether
or not FAR and density bonuses equal to the perceived value of the rear pazcel aze appropriate to
the overall preservation of this site.
4
S
+`~il:'~
Y~
•' ~ ~
fi
_\_ :,
;'+
~,..
~w• '~
fy~`Y
'w"..
.~,
4,, '1a
ti
~,~yy,,~~f
~a+>s
~,.:, ff
i ,~
~.
- ~.... ~i
.. Yt
~~! 9 x
i
~, ~.:
:,, .} e
n
,i
j~~ i
di
i
.,~
"North Pazcel," containing the
1965 home
Former Colorado Midland Railroad
right-of--way
"South Parcel," containing the
City's maintained trail
Staff has prepazed a matrix (attached) compazing the development rights for this property without
designation, with designation, and with the additional incentives being requested under
Ordinance #48 (highlighted in yellow.) The special incentives being requested include an FAR
increase of 1,904 square feet, setback and design standard variances, and waivers of fees.
Proposal summary
The proposal is to retain the existing 1533 squaze foot "Modem Chalet" house as a duplex, add
approximately 2,155 square feet on to it, complete a Historic Landmazk Lot Split, and construct a
2,757 squaze foot new single family home on the vacant parcel. The total density of three units is
permitted on this parcel if landmark designation is completed, however the proposed lot sizes
need minor revision in order to meet the Land Use Code. The applicant can either revise the
proposed lot sizes to meet the zoning requirements, or include a variance request in their
negotiation with Council.
FAR
The FAR that is represented by this project reflects the allowed FAR for the "north pazcel," plus
a request for Council approval for an FAR bonus equal to the rights of the "south pazcel" as a
developable lot. HPC is also asked to grant their 500 square foot bonus for "preservation
excellence." Plans for the new construction aze provided in the packet. (Please note that while
the applicant intends to allocate a total of 3,688 square feet to the modern house, the drawings
submitted exceed that FAR. They will be revised to reduce the footprint of the addition on the
5
east and west sides, but at this time HPC does not have enough information to grant approval.
This will be one of the reasons for Staff's recommendation to continue the project.)
Setback Variances
The applicant requests a reaz yard setback variance for the addition to the existing house, which
HPC has the authority to grant. (This will require additional public notice.) The applicant will
need Council approval for setback variances for the new house. HPC cannot grant these because
the vacant parcel created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split is ineligible for HPC incentives.
Other requests
An attached letter from the applicant details some other incentives they hope to receive from the
Ordinance #48 negotiation. These include requests to be exempt from providing an ADU for the
new house and being granted the ability to undertake landscaping on City property. Staff is not
prepared to take a position on these issues until input is received from other City departments.
Some negotiation requests are pertinent to HPC and the board may want to comment,
understanding that this process is new to everyone and some simple dialogue with the owner may
alleviate their concerns over the ability to replace roof material, repaint the modem house, etc.
Staff does object to the requested exemption from formal HPC review of the proposed new
house, and to the notion that HPC be asked to accept the project without finalized plans for all
alterations to the old house.
Compliance with Design Guidelines
Staff is pleased that the City has the opportunity to gain a successful project on this site. Based
on the information that has been provided, we see no conflicts with the HPC design guidelines.
The modern house is preserved intact (with some alterations to the reaz deck appazently), there is
an discreet "connector" between the old house and the new construction, and much of the new
development is set partially below grade, in character with the existing structure. This helps to
diminish the visibility of the living space being created on the site. The new home is oriented in
the same way as the old home, it is broken into masses which are sympathetic to the modern
building in plan form, elevation, and height. Roof pitches, while not as flat as the chalet pitch,
still create a profile that ties the buildings together.
The new house does not meet some of the Residential Design Standards that aze conceptual level
issues. It does not meet the requirement that at least 10% of the mass be placed in a detached
structure (Secondary Mass.) It does not have a First Story element comprising at least 20% of
the front fapade. It also has the entry door set back too faz from the front of the house to meet the
standards. Some of these elements will be very difficult to accomplish without other vaziances or
reduction in the overall square footage. HPC should weigh in on whether amendments to the
design aze needed or if variances would be appropriate because the project "provides an
appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development
is proposed and the purpose of the particulaz standard."
Staff recommends that HPC provide feedback on the proposed new construction, so that the
applicant can make clazifications and revisions for the next meeting.
6
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to
an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
Staff Response: Due to the nature of the negotiation process, which only gives the City a 90 day
time frame to work within unless extended, staff did not direct the applicant to participate in a
worksession. The application needs to be continued for clarification and revision, so the HPC
has the opportunity to provide fundamental feedback at this time.
The applicant requests a 500 square foot FAR bonus for the historic house. The plans for the
addition need some refinement in terms of FAR, and clarification as to any proposed alterations
to the building (changes in roof materials, windows, and other elements have been mentioned.)
Staff finds that the Modern Chalet must be preserved in a very intact condition to earn this bonus.
The project includes additional FAR bonuses through Ordinance #48 and it is important that we
do not overwhelm the historic resource in the process of trying to save it. With this in mind, the
applicant should provide better documentation of the preservation goals for the landmark house.
7
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
The criteria for approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split aze as follows:
Section 26.480.030.A.2
Lot split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one (1) detached single-family
dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the
following conditions are met:
a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County
Commissioners or the City Council or the land is described as a metes and bounds pazcel which
has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City on March 24,
1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures.
STAFF RESPONSE: This criterion is not applicable to landmark properties.
b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying Zone District. Any lot for which development is proposed will
mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Subsection 26.470.070.B.
STAFF RESPONSE: This criterion is part of the negotiation with City Council. One of the
proposed lots is not lazge enough to contain a duplex. The owner wishes to request a waiver of
affordable housing.
c. The lot under consideration or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to
Subsection 26.470.040.C.1.a.
STAFF RESPONSE: This criterion is met.
d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter and conforms to the
requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk and
Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor
will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and
growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
STAFF RESPONSE: The plat will be a required condition of approval.
e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the
County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one
hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid
and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause.
STAFF RESPONSE: This will be a required condition of approval.
£ In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a
lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split.
STAFF RESPONSE: Demolition is not proposed in this project.
g. Maximum potential build-out for the two (2) pazcels created by a lot split shall not exceed
three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and asingle-family home.
STAFF RESPONSE: This criterion is met. The proposal is for a duplex and a single family
house.
And
Section 26.480.030.A.4
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be
located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF or O Zone District.
STAFF RESPONSE: This criterion is met. The parcel is 9,942 square feet.
b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the
Zone District where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the
subdivision exemption plat.
In the Office Zone District, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor azea
for lots created through the historic landmazk lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated
on the subdivision exemption plat because the floor azea will be affected by the use established
on the property:
If all buildings on what was the fathering pazcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum
floor azea will be as stated in the R-6 Zone District.
If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in
commercial/office use, then the allowed floor azea for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for
all uses other than residential in the Zone District. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split
remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the
maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards.
If there is commercial/office use on both riewly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses
other than residential in the Zone District will be applied.
STAFF RESPONSE: This criterion is part of the negotiation with City Council.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone
District. The variances provided in Pazagraphs 26.415.120.B.1.a, band c aze only permitted on
the parcels that will contains an historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the
maximum FAR allowed on the original pazcel.
STAFF RESPONSE: This criterion is part of the negotiation with City Council.
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 HPC provide feedback on whether or not the
property complies with the designation criteria, as well as any conflicts with the design
guidelines.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Matrix comparing development rights
C. Application
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for219 S. Third Street, Conceptual Review"
For the addition to the old house:
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 vaziation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier features.
o 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 similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
10
^ A 1-story connector is preferred.
o The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
^ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
^ Additional floor azea may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof Forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
^ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs aze appropriate.
^ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of azchitectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
For the new house:
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
^ The building should be arranged pazallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
^ .The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
^ Anew porch should be similaz in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
^ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendiculaz to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to
the street.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
^ Subdivide lazger masses into smaller "modules" that are similaz in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
^ The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
11
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic properly.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs aze appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
12
~~
;'.
o?i' r0r~,e, d
n .~ f
~ %~ ,~ g
e V ~& da;
a ~ 9~9fj ~.2 ._ of ;~
py P ~v
ebP Kp~SQ ~ G tS
RS S YDW_. a a ... s
gib., .. =i
.tiQ
-ca
YCC°
.~ ffd(
:s:f
/ xi
x•
°,
_ }6x
9(
.,p
'° O(
?l E ~ •.i 3 "•..
~.,
,. _ .~ ~~ _
'}6' `• ---`s
~ll +~
$/~
v, ;' f, ~ ~ ~ ~,
s ~-T ~ . i~
~ e ~° ` ~ : `` e ~` c
- a a ~ f ~ ~:
_ i ~ ~~
=sae _
dir „,. d'
z o°rx r .,
ef?
a ., •ar ~3i~
6•
d- d
~~
as _ {
5 • iaRe
• s •OB~o
aei 9 iP~ 4 i - ' •' igig Y eigppp3 ~ °§ ~R 5 i ? ~~= °•~E °~£ ~f( ~ f 3 3 3 ~' °o
••a :;ice ~ 'o qc "4f eei. F.•tw. pE se:*fSi(
p_f ° f.Bs ~ ~ 3 6,p (i ~a ~ ` .°~ °~ b;, i xf4 ~~ (v f ~ s
fs a~sq i z c °ge~i F gu e x iv. ies iFF 8S e ( i
ifz s c ( ~.•eS- fx • F {x 3 (eif •-.• sc' ( S i
~pff'. ~ a psfi i{ '. ~ is ;~a lfq i,,++ f { G
xas.. ~ i ° ~ ( ca pf '
~_; i ;, ai~g~ a a_ ?. of "y F
a s i~f ~ v ~f (
=f' i ~ ~ =~pyga{e ~ f ~j• i~55 10 0
i