HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20090211ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
February 11, 2009
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA '
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: NOON -
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - Jan. 28, 2009 minutes.
IH. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
A. NONE
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #5)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. None
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 541 Race Street -Major Development (Final) Public
Hearing (1 hr.)
B. 1291 Riverside Drive -Major Development (Conceptual)
and residential design Standards Variances, Public
Hearing (lhr.)
X. WORK SESSION
A None
XI. Adjourn 7:15 p.m.
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
RE:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
'Cg K~
541 Race Street, Major Development Review (Final), -Public Hearing
DATE: February 11, 2009
SUMMARY: Lot 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision is a designated historic landmazk, pursuant to
Ordinance 50 Series of 2004, which also granted subdivision approval to the Fox Crossing
development. According to the subdivision approvals, Lot 6 is a 6,068 squaze feet lot approved to
contain two historic 1960s log cabins (aka House Kl and House K2.).
HPC granted Conceptual approval fora revised plan to construct an addition on one of the cabins,
which will be a free mazket residence and to convert the other cabin to a deed restricted for-sale
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The proposed ADU will remain lazgely unaltered with no
external addition. As part of a consolidated application, HPC granted Residential Design Standazd
review and ADU Design Standazd review. Dimensional variances and the 500 square foot FAR
Bonus were granted for the project during Conceptual Review.
A condition of approval required the applicant to revisit the grading plan. The applicant proposes
three different options. Final approval is requested for the project.
Staff recommends that HPC approve grading Option C and grant Final approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: Fox Crossing Partners, LLC, 601 East Hopkins Avenue, Ste. 202, Aspen, CO,
81611.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-92-006.
ADDRESS: Lot 6, Building Kl and K2, Fox Crossing Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: Medium Density Residential, R-6.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff reviews
the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the
541 Race Street, HPC Final Review
Page 1 of 12
P1
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 Ciry 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 ojthe 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
Design Guideline review
Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection
of new materials. A list of the rel"evant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
which staff finds warrant discussion aze included in the memo.
Historic Background: It is staff's understanding that the Griffith cabins were built in 1964 as
rental units. They help to illustrate the trends related to eazly development of tourism in Aspen
Although most of the rustic style cabins built in Aspen after the eazly 1950's were kit log
structures, these small cabins aze true log, hand-built buildings. They aze one story, rectangulaz
homes with typical constructing detailing, such as overlapping log ends and chinking. Each has a
limited number of small windows. Alterations include painting the logs and chinking, replacing
the roof and the addition of storm windows and doors.
Grading: HPC adopted the following conditions of Conceptual approval related to site grading
and the front porches:
1. The front porch of the free mazket residence will not be altered.
2. The applicant will restudy the grading to maintain the existing relationship to grade as
appropriate to be reviewed during Final Review.
The applicant submitted three different scenazios to address the relationship between front
porches of the cabins and the grading between the cabins and towazd the Park. The existing
relationship of the cabins is illustrated in Exhibit E; basically, the front porches of each cabin aze
aligned on grade and there is a gentle slope towazd the new Pazk. The crawl space beneath the
cabins is accessed from the west (front) elevation which explains why the dirt is partially dug out
and the concrete/CMLJ block foundation is exposed.
After balancing the advantages and disadvantages of each option (see attached diagram), Staff
finds that Option C is the most appropriate. The relationship between the cabins is maintained
541 Race Street, HPC Final Review
Page 2 of 12
P2
and the slope between the cabins and the Pazk is less steep than the other options. The drawback
of Option C is that the floor will be lowered one foot to accommodate a greater plate height,
which increases the amount of exposed foundation and would require a new front door and side
door, and the extension or replacement of the porch columns (see discussion on doors on
following page.) Staff finds that this is an appropriate tradeoff to make the cabins functional and
maintain their existing contextual relationship. The front door is somewhat obscured by the front
porch railing. Guideline 9.6 below implies some leniency in slightly adjusting the height of the
structure when a new foundation is built, but Guideline 5.1 and 4.2 recommend maintaining the
existing porch and front door dimensions.
This is a very difficult preservation decision, especially considering the FAR Bonus granted at
Conceptual, but Staff finds that chazacter defining features of these two cabins aze their
relationship to one another as a pair, small scale (indicative of tourist/rental units populaz in the
1960s) and the overall rustic log style, all of which aze lazgely preserved in Option C.
5.1 Preserve an original porch.
^ Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and
spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones.
^ Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that
emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate.
^ Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
^ Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
^ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However; lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
^ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances
the resource.
Foundation Material: The applicant proposes a stacked stone veneer foundation (material
samples aze included in the application.) Staff finds that a stone veneer is inappropriate for this
style of construction, as per guideline 9.5 below, and recommends either a simple metal
foundation or a replication of the current concrete foundation as a more appropriate solution.
This type of rustic style cabin did not have a stone foundation, so it is not appropriate to add one
at this time. Staff recommends that the stone "wainscot" proposed azound the free mazket
rrc;Arnce he chanced to reflect the foundation azound the historic cabins.
9.5 Anew foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
^ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on
a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of chazacter.
^ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should
be similaz in the cut of the stone and design of the mortaz joints.
541 Race Street, HPC Final Review
Page 3 of 12
P3
Landscaae: The applicant focused primarily on the grading issue and does not propose a
landscape plan at this time. Staff attached a photograph of the cabins taken from Race Alley in
2000 to illustrate the very simple landscape that is mainly sod. Staff recommends that Staff and
monitor review and approve a landscape plan.
Material: The applicant proposes anon-reflective, standing seam copper roof for both cabins
and the free market residential addition. Staff believes that the current metal roof is a
replacement, and finds that a new metal roof is appropriate; however standing seam copper metal
seems too expensive a material for the original function of these cabins as gritty, tourist rentals.
Staff recommends that the type and style of metal roof for both residences be reviewed and
approved by Staff and monitor. Relevant guidelines 7.9 and 7.10 aze below.
7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to
those used traditionally.
^ Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings.
^ If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof materials should be earth tone and have
a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
^ If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish.
7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible
and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building.
^ A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish.
^ 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 inappropriate.
Staff finds that the details proposed for the new addition reference the horizontal logs on the
historic resources in a contemporary and compatible style, which meets guidelines 10.4 and
10.11 below. Staff recommends that the Board discuss the appropriateness of the proposed
aluminum channel between the wood siding, aluminum windows and front door on the new
addition. The aluminum channel is recessed behind the wood siding and it creates an interesting
reference to the white chinking on the historic cabins. Staff is in favor of this detail and figures
that the recession of the channel will lessen the shine ofthe-aluminum. Aluminum differeritiates
the addition from the historic cabins, but staff is concerned about the possible reflectivity of this
material.
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 are all techniques that may be considered to
help define a change from old to new construction.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of
the primary building.
The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
541 Race Street, HPC Final Review
Page 4 of 12
P4
Doors and Porch Columns: If HPC selects Option C, the front and side doors would need to be
replaced with replicas that fit the new door height. Staff believes that the current wood doors aze
original to the building. Option C also requires the replacement or extension of the porch
columns to compensate for the increased plate height. This is obviously a difficult decision for
HPC since these elements appeaz to be original and we typically do not allow the removal of
original elements; on the other hand, the cabin needs to be functional and it needs to meet
building codes (at ]east one door is required to be 32" x 80" for safety.)
Fenestration: The applicant proposes to maintain and refurbish the original wood windows in
the historic cabins. More contemporary windows aze proposed for the addition, which provides
interest along Race Street and distinguishes the addition as a product of its own time.
Liehtina: The applicant does not propose any lighting fixtures at this time. Staff recommends
that Staff and monitor review and approve lighting fixtures and locations prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
Details: Staff request clarification as to whether the "line shack #1" and "line shack #2" signs
that aze outside the side doors aze going to be retained on the cabins. A century ago the term
"line shack" referred to a cabin on the open range where cowboys could take shelter from
nature's wrath. The signs represent the original intent of these cabins as tourist/rental
accommodations. Staff recommends that the signs aze stored during construction and replaced in
the current location on the cabins before completion of the project.
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional-information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development Review
(Final) for the property located at 541 Race Street, Lot 6, Fox Crossing Subdivision, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following wnditions;
1. Grading Option C is approved.
2. The stone foundation is not approved for either cabin or the addition. An alternate
material and detail will be proposed arid reviewed and .approved by Staff and
monitor prior to the submittal for a building pemrit.
3. A detail of the porch column extension/replacement and details of both new doors
(front and side) will be submitted with the building pernut application and reviewed
and approved by the Staff and monitor.
4. All porch decking will remain and be restored. Staff and monitor approval is
required before any decking or any historic element on the cabin is removed.
541 Race Street, HPC Final Review
Page 5 of 12
P5
5. A metal roof material and style will be reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor
prior to submittal for a building pemut.
6. A landscape plan, including driveway and walkway materials, will be submitted
with the building permit application for review and approval by Staff and monitor.
7. Lighting fixtures and a lighting plan will be reviewed and approved by Staff and
monitor prior to purchase and installation.
8. The current "line shack #1" and "line shack #2" signs will be retained in their
current location.
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. The applicant shall document, using photographs and drawings, all historic
elements prior to restoration and relocation of the building.
11. A construction plan with detailed phases for the development of this lot shall be
submitted with the building permit application for approval by HPC Staff. The
historic home shall be secured, stabilized and protected during construction, and
rehabilitation of the historic home shall be in the primary phase of development.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. A relocation .plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and
protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit
application.
15. 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.
16. The conditions of approval, both Conceptual and Finial HPC Resolutions, aze
required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all
other prints made for the purpose of construction.
17. 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.
18. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a
specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
19. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-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
541 Race Street, HPC Final Review
Page 6 of 12
P6
all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order
void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not
part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation
of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City
Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public
of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property
right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of
three (3) yeazs, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24;
Article 68; Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described
property: 541 and 541 '/: Race 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 nbi 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. Relevant Design Guidelines and ADU Purpose Statement and Standazds.
B. Diagram analyzing the proposed grading options.
C. Photographs
D. Minutes from HPC Meeting on June 25, 2008, Conceptual Review
E. Application
541 Race Street, HPC Final Review
Page 7 of 12
P7
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines and ADU Standards for 541 Race Street,
Conceptual Review"
5.1 Preserve an original porch.
^ Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and
spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones.
^ Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that
emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate.
^ Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch.
^ Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in asingle-family context is strongly
encouraged.
^ This also applies to lazge, multifamily structwes. There should be at least one primary
entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element.
7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to
those used traditionally.
^ Replacement materials should be similaz to those used historically on comparably styled buildings.
^ If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof materials should be earth tone and have
a matte, non-reflective finish.
^ Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
^ If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish.
7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible
and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building.
^ A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish.
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 inappropriate.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmazk structwes than those in a
historic district.
^ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation altemative.
^ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occw as a first phase of any improvements.
^ A relocated building must be cazefully rehabilitated to retain original azchitectwal details and
materials.
^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secwe the structwe and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. _
^ The design of a new structwe on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
^ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
541 Race Street, HPC Final Review
Page 8 of 12
P8
9.5 Anew foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
^ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on
a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of chazacter.
^ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should
be similaz in the cut of the stone and design of the mortaz joints.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
^ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
^ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances
the resource.
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 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.
10.11 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 ottiginal materials.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used
traditionally.
The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by
the HPC.
All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural -ighting.
Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted.
Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling
the length of time that exterior lights aze in use late at night.
• Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
541 Race Street, HPC Final Review
Page 9 of 12
P9
• Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of
buildings.
• Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
14.g Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building.
• Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light
onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights
which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged.
• Lighting shall be cazefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the
property or into public rights-of--way.
14.10 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.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
• Plan pazking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not
permitted.
• If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
26.520 Affordable Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses
26.520.010 Purpose
The purpose of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and. Carriage House Program is to promote
the long-standing community goal of socially, economically, and environmentally responsible
development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values
balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working residents and part-time
residents. ADUs and Carnage Houses represent viable housing opportunities for working
residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing
being easily identifiable as "employee housing." ADUs and Carriage Houses also help to address
the affects of existing homes, which have provided workforce housing, being significantly
redeveloped, often as second homes.
ADUs and Carriage Houses support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base
within the town and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's
chazacter. ADUs and Carriage Houses allow second homeowners the opportunity to hire an on-
site cazetaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing
opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally
preferred land use pattern, which reduces automobile reliance.
Detached ADUs and Carriage Houses emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the
privacy and livability of both the ADU or Carriage Houses and the primary unit. Detached ADUs
and Carriage Houses aze more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a
com-munity goal of housing the workforce.
To the extent Aspen desires detached ADUs and Carriage Houses which provide viable and
livable housing opportunities to local working residents, detached ADUs and Carriage Houses
qualify existing vacant lots of record and significant redevelopment of existing homes for an
541 Race Street, HPC Final Review
P 10 Page 10 of 12
exemption from the Growth Management Quota System. In addition, detached ADUs and
Carriage Houses deed restricted as "For Sale" units, according to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, and sold according to the procedures established in
the Guidelines provide for certain Floor Area incentives.
26.520.050 Design Standards
All ADUs and Carnage Houses shall conform to the following design standazds unless otherwise
approved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review:
1. An ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of which
must be a closet or storage azea. An Carriage House must contain between 800 and 1,200
net livable square feet, 10% of which must be closet or storage azea.
2. An ADU or Carriage House must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This
includes the following:
a) An ADU or Carriage House must be sepazate]y accessible from the exterior. An
interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to Special Review;
b) An ADU or Carriage House must have sepazately accessible utilities. This does not
preclude shazed services;
c) An ADU or Carriage House shall contain a kitchen containing, at a minimum, an oven,
a stove with two burners, a sink, and a refrigerator with a minimum of 6 cubic feet of
capacity and a freezer; and,
d) An ADU or Carriage House shall contain a bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink,
a toilet, and a shower.
3. One pazking space for the ADU or Carriage House shall be provided on-site and shall
remain available for the benefit of the ADU or Carriage House resident. The pazking
space shall not be stacked with a space for the primazy residence.
4. The finished floor height(s) of the ADU or Carriage House shall be entirely above the
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, on all sides of the structure.
5. The ADU or Carriage House shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or
Carriage House located above a detached gazage or storage azea shall qualify as a
detached ADU or Carriage House. No other connections to the primary residence, or
portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or Carriage House as detached.
6. An ADU or Carriage House shall be located within the dimensional requirements of
the zone district in which the property is located.
7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU
or Carnage House. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing
snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided.
8. ADUs and Carriage Houses shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of
this title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not
limited to, the Uniform Building Code requirements related to adequate natural light,
541 Race. Street, HPC Final Review
Page 11 of 12
P11
ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression, and sound attenuation between living units. This
standazd may not be varied.
9. All ADUs and Cazriage Houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the
property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070 Deed
Restrictions. This standazd may not be varied.
P12
541 Race Street, HPC Final Review
Page 12 of 12
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL), FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 541 AND 541 `/: RACE STREET, LOT 6, OF THE FOX
CROSSING SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2009
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-92-006.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Fox Crossing Partners, LLC, 601 East Hopkins Avenue, Ste. 202,
Aspen, CO, 81611, represented by Janver Darrington of Chazles Cunniffe Architects, requests
Major Development (Final) for the property located at 541 and 541 '/: Race Street, Lot 6 of the
Fox Crossing Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.of
the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Saza Adams, in her staff report dated February 11th, 2009, performed an analysis
of the application based on the review standazds and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines, found them to have been met for Final Review, and recommended approval
with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on February 11, 2009, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable
review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved
the application by a vote of - to _.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development Review (Final), for the property
located at 541 Race Street and 541 '/: Race Street, Lot 6, Fox Crossing Subdivision, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as proposed with the following conditions;
1. Grading Option C is approved.
2. The stone foundation is not approved for either cabin or the addition. An alternate
material and detail will be proposed and reviewed and approved by Staff and
monitor prior to the submittal for a building permit.
P13
3. A detail of the porch column extension/replacement and details of both new doors
(front and side) will be submitted with the building permit application and reviewed
and approved by the Staff and monitor.
4. All porch decking will remain and be restored. Staff and monitor approval is
required before any decking or any historic element on the cabin is removed.
5. A metal roof material and style will be reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor
prior to submittal for a building permit.
6. A landscape plan, including driveway and walkway materials, will be submitted
with the building permit application for review and approval by Staff and monitor.
7. Lighting fixtures and a lighting plan will be reviewed and approved by Staff and
monitor prior to purchase and"installation.
8. The current "line shack #1" and "line shack #2" signs will be retained in their
current location.
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. The applicant shall document, using photographs and drawings, all historic
elements prior to restoration and relocation of the building.
11. A construction plan with detailed phases for the development of this lot shall be
submitted with the building permit application for approval by HPC Staf£ The
historic home shall be secured, stabilized and protected during construction, and
rehabilitation of the historic home shall be in the primary phase of development.
12. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings 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.
13. 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.
14. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and
protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit
application.
15. 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. .
16. The conditions of approval, both Conceptual and Final HPC Resolutions, aze
required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all
other prints made for the purpose of construction.
17. 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.
18. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a
specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
19. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific
development plan vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the date of issuance of
P14
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, 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: 541 and 541 '/: Race 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.
[signatures on the following page)
P15
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of February
2009.
Michael Hoffman, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P16
~~ah~t $.
O
n ~ a ~°
0
a
~,y~~
° CEO
A ~~ d
~
; w o ~a
o ~~°o
° ° ~ ~ ~ a d
~
.
~ ~
;
.~ n ~ n rn Q: ~'~
~
~
~ ~a
o ~ x ~
c~'o ~ ~ ~' cy ~' ~ ~. ~ r° ~ ~
~, a o ~ cc ~ q, w
o o w
ti ~ cp ~ ~ o
~ o
~ cD
o ~ ~ ~, w
~ v, p ~. r+ G..1*
b ~ ~ a' o
T ~ ~ o cp
~ ,-~ ~' ~ ~
r; n Q ~' UQ
~ -e
' m
o r« c
~ . w ~ p
y ~ ~ ~p (D
~: CD ~' ~ (D ~ ~ Q-
~ v,' O (9 ~ ~' C Z '7S' `~
~p (D y A
d ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~' o ~ ~
~• d
a. a ~*
~
o
~' b
-+
~ v°
.~
u `°
~' ~ `°
m vfDD ~
~
c
e
;' w
_c n. ~
,ate' o ~
° y 't3 '~ C~ cD p
~ ~ ~ (D l9 ~. "O
;~ ~
'~
ryp
~ _
~
~ w rr
O
'+ a ~ ~
o ro
~
~
~ ~
~
,~
~
o
~ ~
~ • ~*
~
0
° o A
0 c
0 0 6. w
o o
~ c~ ~ o n o ~ o 0 0
w h y ~'a a 0 0 o c, o y a
~~ r v a s a:~ a
o
~ ~* ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w a. ~ ° o ~ ° o o ~ ~' ~ o ~ '~ ~
CD .-y A r+ -d C1 fD A
~ a o o a ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ x fD w ~ `° -a ~° ~ ~ ~
~ '~ A
~ S v ~
~ ° ° w a,~
O ~
~ A-a ~ a'~
n ti
' rt ~
~
..h
~ . UQ f
~
"i
~~
N
f~ •
~c
,~
-~
~. _
~.
,~~
:. .
i
k ._ ,~
~' ~
,.,
_ ~ ~: .
._
~:^ ~~~•i
k
i
_ .N
:`~
F
.. ~,:-_+
~:a:..
MDTION: Ann moved to approve Resolution #14 for designation of 61 Z W.
Francis; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried 6-0.
541 and S41 '/Z Race Street --Conceptual Development and Variances
Michael recused himself.
Sarah chaired.
Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I
Colored photographs -Exhibit II
Sara said the discussion is about Lot 6. There will be two 1960's cabins
located onto the parcel and this was a11,aRp~,oved through the subdivision.
The request is to discuss adding an addition to one of the cabins that will be
a free market residence. They want ~to``convert the other cabin to an ADU
and they are not proposing any changes to the cabin, possibly asub-grade
space but no external addition which is favorable. HPC will be looking at
the residential design standards for accessory dwelling units. They are also
requesting the 500 square foot FAR bonus and some setback requirements.
Overall staff feels the guidelines are met especially guideline 10.3 and 10.4.
The scale and size of the addition do not overwhelm the cabin. They are one
story in height and appropriate. Staff is concerned about the connection of
the connector piece to the historic cabin for the addition. We are
recommending dropping the height if that is possible or shortening the
length. It is difficult to distinguish the gable roof form of the cabin with the
connector piece intersecting right into that gable. Another concern is the
relationship of the free market porch to grade. There seems to be some
changes in the floor of the free market porch, it seems to be a lot lower than
the accessory dwelling unit. Staff feels the,relationship to grade of the front
porches remain as existing. They are identical right now and should remain
that way. In terms of the porch guidetline~5~1 and 5.2 take about preserving
the original porch and avoid removmg.or covering details of the historic
porch. They are proposing to take off some of the horizontal logs that are
part of the front porch and putting in stone columns and staff feels they are
not appropriate for the landmark. In terms of the FAR bonus we think that
they meet the criteria and the design guidelines with the condition that the
front porches remain the same in terms of the relationship and also design.
6
Alison said she finds that the proposal is eligible under our criteria and it is a
good example of Post War Aspen. As long as the current owners have it, it
will be kept in the existing context.
We also think the FAR bonus shoal
brought into a little more compliant
differentiation between the original
for the addition.
~d if the connector piece is
guidelines by having a
and where that connection is
Sara also pointed out that the front yard of the house is actually facing the
park not Race Street which was part of the subdivision approval. They are
requesting two front yard setback variances for each of the cabins and two
side yard setback variances and a distance between buildings variance. This
site is a 6,000 square foot lot and they are trying to put the two cabins on the
site as part of the subdivision approval. The cabins are detached which staff
supports. Staff is in favor of the setback variances in terms of the site
planning. Keeping the cabins detached is preferable than having them
attached.
Stan Clauson presented
Stan said the original approval had the two~,an-a-bodes brought together in
one single family residences. That endeiT~being an unfeasible design.
There where three historic resources n overall project, the Victorian
house on Lot 5 and one pan~a-bode o~iLo~ 5~ and one on Lot 6. In laying out
the subdivision Walnut Street extended which became the park and that is
the front and Race Street or alley is the rear of the property.
Charles Cunniffe, architect did a power point on the project.
The park slopes from the. pan-abodes down to the other houses. The power
point showed the relationship of the porches to the park. One of the pan-a-
bodesporches steps down because the floor level in the building is lower. In
the back of the pan-a-bode the head room is six feet. The top of the plywood
on the roof height is nine feet on the connector. We don't want to expand
the already below space as it will be uncomfortable. On the connector we
could have the connector look like a cricket rather than a sloping roof. The
addition looks bigger on the pan-a-bode because it is so small. In allowing
the free market unit to be lowered and discussing the lower porch it lets the
pan-a-bodes step up to the Victorian. At grade you wouldn't see the sloping
roof because each house blocks the others
Sarah asked about the slope on thf so`~41%~~fthe cabin, Charles said there is a
grading change to the house next to the cabin. To avoid having a foundation
wall there is a grade change from the house to the right up to the cabin.
P23
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 25.2008
Sarah said so there is a hill there. Charles said we are trying to mold it so
that it looks natural rather than having walls. The hill and drop off is true to
the way it existed.
Sazah asked about the grading between the ~yvo cabins. Charles said it is
basically a slight swell for drainage. Ch~r~es said it slopes from back to
front so we aze draining from the. alley s~d3~ bf the house into the pazk. The
park was designed to be a drainage azt~a;"'lie cabins will be moved slightly
together.
Sara said as part of the subdivision approval both cabins are designated and
they are being relocated to Lot 6 and it is up to the applicant to figure out
how the design should work.
Charles said in the earlier approval the cabins where combined to have one
large free market.
Sarah asked about the porches. Charles said they aze one step to grade now.
The grade has been moved around during the construction of the site.
Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing.
L.J. Elsperman, neighbor said he suppor~~s; a project. L.J. asked if they
where taking away space from thy' park, ~' ~ `¢ its the FAR being increased.
Stan Clauson commented that the paz~C will~remain as is. The previous
approval created a single family free market residence. This proposal is a
single family free market plus an ADU. The ADU is not considered in the
density. In terms of the land use code there is no increase in density but
there will be two residences instead of one and it is the same FAR.
Sara said the ADU is going to be deed restricted for sale.
Chazles said on the site the FAR is lower than previously approved. L.J.
said the cabiris aze 840 square feet.
Sarah closed the public hearing.
Sarah said basically we are being asked to look at the porch, connector, FAR
bonus, setback variances and grading.
`s: s~".
ai
[ ~' ~ J
~ ..j .~~Jssr.
.-. ._ l~.. i~~,_
P24
~,.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008
Alison pointed out that the setback variances improve the situation.
Sarah said the porch and the connector go hand in hand because it is a
grading issue. Alison said you wouldn't bring the porch up and step up to it.
Brian said he is more concerned about seeing the connector from the alley
side. If it can't be seen the sloped connector would be preferable because
that design would be better for drainage.
1t,
Alison also agreed with Brian. Applying t~e cricket would make the roof
lines more complex. Guideline 1'0 4 sup~brts a product of its own time.
Ann and Sarah agreed. ~ ~ ~~
Jay said he feels we should try to find innovative ways to make the design
parameters work and maintain the integrity of the historic resource.
Sarah said she has a lot of concerns about the grading that is going on and
the siting of the house. We.are:.creating=real~issues-with drainage.
Depending on the height of the cabins then goes into the height of the
connector piece and the roof. ~~need=to-b~siting=-the<cabins=as-per our
guidelines~whclr'taiks°about keeping thettin theii~'histortcrelationship-with
the site. The existing conditions has a much gentler slope.
Alisotf skid=part of<tK-probietn~aslh`~ho~~usc tmthe=south~as~si~ckliw'~e~r_
Charles pointed out that originally the cabins where to be pushed together as
a single family home and it had a.differen~ 'pproach to the site. Charles
suggested bringing the grade acrq~g and~tlµcreating the swell and that might
work. 'W~could do an~are~ drain~tq,tfi~c~nter. of the two cabins-and drain it°°
out to the"vaik' The varl~is'the d"raina'e`tiond for: the_enrize:.site~
Ann agreed with Charles recommendation.
Brian said do create the abrupt change in the landscape to make the park
more usable or do you taper it out. Sarah said the grading should not be
falling on the historic resources. Charles said we need to find balance
between all the sides.
Brian-suggested-designing retaining wallsand-use-shrubs.on the sloped-area.~-
This grading is essential to the 500 square foot bonus.
P25
.:tt~'>;
Sarah said the two cabins need to be seen on thesame: evel piece of land.
Jay said the grading is directly connected to lowering the porch. How do we
feel about lowering the porch. By allowing that to happen the bonus would
be less warranted. Guideline 5.1 and 5.2 deal with preserving the original
porch.
Brian said if there is something we could do to maintain the same level of
facades on the two buildings he could grant the bonus.
Alison said the ADU is well done and it complies with all the guidelines.
The problem is they are trying to force it into something that it is not by
lowering the floor grade.
°';.
" ~f
Jay said this is a designated property, , d~s clear that the~porch should-not
.~~~ ged. I've been in botli units„ ;~f the person who is going to buy
this unit will have the quaintness of owning an historic piece of property and
that will be incorporated as to how they live in it. This is a major issue. I
would have a problem offeringrthe bonus as designed.because. of lowering
the:porch'
Ann said she doesn't have the same problem. The site plan has been
approved. The importance here is that the cabins are separated and they are
being preserved.
i
Sarah pointed out that we are not here to compare the two applications.
Sara said in reference to the FAR bonus in the future the applicant was
thinking about establishing TDR's.
Amy said the bonus that is provided for the<ADU and the 500 requested, not
all is needed to build the project that is,~rq`p~osed so they can sell some as
;'~ ~~~I, ~~ii R
Sara said they are not required to do any affordable housing mitigation on
this lot because it is designated. They are doing it voluntarily.
t0
P26
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 25.2008
Charles said the cabin is being brought up to code. I don't think you can
meet every guideline 100%. Guidelines #rg guidelines and they are to guide
the HPC to come up with the right solut~b~pr something that compromises.
5 a~,~.
Sarah it is great that the cabins are beug preserved and they are now five
feet apart. The cabins do need to function for today but I still have a lot of
concerns with the grading. We all concur that the site is working well and
the stumbling block is this elevation puzzle.
Stan said possibly the approval could call for a restudy the grading at final.
Ann said they are close enough to getting the bonus. The bonus is granted at
conceptual and the grading is reviewed at final.
Ann said she would made a motion to approve the project contingent on
working out the grading.
Jay said something needs to go in the motion about the porch. Sarah said the
~pnrchn~ifs""relatio ssti~to tlie`de is the'concem
. ~s- E~
Ann said isn't the issue that the gorcl~ ggt~ver. Sarah said yes. Sarah said
she is fine with adding the condition..?';;;; ~"
Jay said grading detracts how the cabins where set there to begin with.
Again, the people who live in these cabins have to live with park activity
right out there front door. ading from~the cabin ta'the park should not
.~_
di .tinguish a property line It sfiould encourage people to come up to the=
cabin:.. _.
MOTION.• Ann made the motion to approve Resolution #1 S as written for
541 and 541 % Race Street. Ann pointed out that the condition on the front
porch and the free market are in the resolution. Motion second by Alison.
Sara asked if condition #2 should be changed.
Brian said the applicant will restudy the grading.
~_
Sarah said the motion needs to be clear ag~to~what we are asking.
4r ,KP
i ?'~'_~
Alison said the relationship to grade of the free market cabin is the issue.
11
P27
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 25.2008
P28
<Sarah said we are tryingto:sa~thatthe: existing.relationship to grade-that
these cabins have is what_we.would•like to see in the proposal because we
don't see it right now inane free: market:
Brian said the grading needs restudied to help maintain the existing
relationship between the two buildings.. ,: ,
;u':
Sarah re-phrased the condition: ~epplsoan~~ill restudy_ grading to maintain
existing relationship to grade asapprgpriate and to be reviewed at final:. _.
Amy asked the board if they are asking that the porch not be dropped on the
free market. Sarah said yes, that is what we are asking. Condition #1 states
that the front porch on the free market residence will not be altered. Right
now the porch is being altered in this proposal.
Amy said she just wanted to make sure that it was built in the resolution.
Amended motion: Ann accepted the change to condition #2 that the
applicant will restudy grading to maintain existing relationship to grade as
appropriate to be reviewed at final. Alison amended the second.
All in favor, motion carried.
Holden Marolt Shed and Ski Club building
.; u
Brian Flynn pointed out that the. 'arks, I~~'.rtment prefers to tear down the
Marolt Shed. That area should be'use~ha~;open space not storage. We let
the Historical Society use the one bay: It is a public safety hazard right now.
HPC needed more information on the Ski Club building.
MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk_
12
~'" ~ t.'+
. m.m~m ..mmau mu mxm . rr wwi wv m l3TV 3TM U50 S $ k `~
^ I I Kiasv ~wssOa~ xoa ~ ~
-1~ I I wmag~wu~Miw J 3W3HJS ~~~' ~ ~ $~
,JI u S1J31/HJLN 3ddINNnJ 537UVN7 Z>l '8 pl 3S(lOH'9 107 = 10
o--
o--
t~
a----
o----
o--
_il
li
I~
.~
Z
0
a
0
j b
o
a
li
__
o-----
o---:
o--~
o--
~ ~
~3 ~
w '
= b
2
1
E~
~°~~
e~
000
~~;s6
~~~~~t
- oooo®
~ ~~
i- ~ ~,~~~
~~E~l~
Y 00000
J_
J_
P29
I3 .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 1291 Riverside Drive, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Residential
Design Standards -Public Hearing
DATE: February 11, 2009
SUMMARY: The subject property (Lot B) is a 3,920 squaze foot vacant lot that was created by
a Historic Landmazk Lot Split in 2004. A 500 squaze foot FAR bonus was granted to the
fathering pazcel: the historic lot, 1295 Riverside Drive or "Lot A" was allotted 2,233 squaze feet
of FAR to accommodate the existing chalet and the vacant lot 1291 Riverside or "Lot B" is
allotted 2,408 squaze feet of FAR. The vacant lot is required to comply with all dimensional
requirements and to provide affordable housing mitigation, which will be through cash in lieu.
The applicant requests HPC approval for a new single family home. Some Residential Design
Standard variances aze requested for the design.
Staff recommends that HPC grant Conceptual approval with the condition that the height is
reduced for review and approval during Final.
APPLICANT: Scott and Alex Kendrick, represented by Scott Lindenau of Studio B, 501 Rio
Grande Place, Suite 104, Aspen, CO.
PARCEL ID: 2737-181-17-024.
ADDRESS: 1291 Riverside Drive, Lot B of the Lot 20, 1295 Riverside Drive Subdivision,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-15
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as jo[lows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the 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
1291 Riverside Drive, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 1 of 7 F31
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant
DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed,
aze included in the memo.
Staff Response: Overall, Staff is supportive of the proposed new building. It is a contemporary
interpretation of the Design Guidelines that successfully balances old and new construction. The
design cleazly references the historic chalet through the long rectangu]ar. massing and slightly
sloped roof. The proposed roof form is contemporary but Staff finds that the low slope is
consistent with traditional chalet roof slope. The proposed roof deck is a positive addition and
creative use of space that does not detract from the landmazk.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
o Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs aze appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in azeas 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 aze
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history aze
especially discouraged on historic sites.
The two story front fapade plane, bifizrcation of first and second stories with material details, and
a second story balcony draw from chazacter defining features of the landmark while
appropriately balancing new and old construction with modern details and materials. In this
specific case, Staff finds that the street facing gazage is appropriate considering the context and
the narrow, rectangulaz lot. This 1960s era subdivision does not have alley or on street pazking,
so parking and gazages aze a visible element of the streetscape. Details like the symmetry of the
1291 Riverside Drive, HPC Conceptual Review
P 3 2 Page 2 of 7
gazage door openings reflect the symmetrical windows on first floor of the landmazk creating a
positive dialogue between buildings. Even though it is a subtle reference, the proposed gazage is
in the space that historically would be used for farm animal shelters in a traditional Ewopean
Chalet. Staff is supportive of this modern spin on the traditional function of this space and the
overall configwation of the building on the lot.
Staff s only concern is with the height of the proposed building in comparison with the historic
resowce. The proposed details and form relate to the adjacent landmazk, but the scale and height
may dominate the chalet, the ground of which is set a few feet below grade. Staff finds that the
floor alignments and height relationship between the buildings must be strengthened. Dropping
the height is important, but a straightforwazd issue that can be confirmed during Final Review.
Relevant Guidelines aze below:
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
^ Subdivide lazger masses into smaller "modules" that aze similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primary plane of the front should not appeaz taller than the historic structwe.
^ The front should include cone-story element, such as a porch.
PARHING REQUIREMENTS
The applicant is required to provide 2 onsite pazking spaces. This requirement is fulfilled.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The following 3 Residential Design Standazds need variances:
1.) 26.410.040.0.2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street,
the following standards shall be met:
a. On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living azea on the first floor shall be at
least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport.
b. The front facade of the garage or the front most supporting column of a carport shall
be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front most wall of the
house.
e. The vehiculaz entrance width of a gazage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-
fow (24) feet.
£ If the gazage doors aze visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-
stall doors, or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors.
2.) 26.410.040.D.1 Street Oriented entrance. and principal window. Al] single family
homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Section 26.410.O10.B.4 shall have astreet-
oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family unties shall have at
,J
~ Einhaus is the term for multi-purpose chalets that combined living, cooking, and the housing of animals under one
roof.
1291 Riverside Drive, HPC Conceptual Review
. Page 3 of 7
P33
least one street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units, and front units must have a
street facing principal window.
On corner lots, entries and principal window should face whichever street has a
greater block length. This standazd shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions aze
met:
a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet (10') back from the
frontmost wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight feet.
b. A covered entry porch of fifty or more squaze feet, with a minimum depth of six feet
(6'), shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall nto be more
than one story in height.
c. Astreet-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of
window face street.
3.) 26.410.040.D.2 First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first story
street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the
building's overall width of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element
is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the
height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate
height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it
is a deck, porch or enclosed azea) shall not be allowed over the first story element, however,
accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be
precluded.
26.410.020.D.2 Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040.
Projects which do not meet Section 26.410.020.D above may be granted vaziances by the
Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is
subject to the requirements of Section 26.415. An applicant who desire to consolidate -other
requisite land use reviews by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Boazd of Adjustment or
the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the vaziance application decided by the
boazd' or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a
variance from the Residential Design Standazds shall demonstrate, and the deciding boazd shall
find that the vaziance, if granted, would:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particulaz standard. In
evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing boazd may consider
the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate
neighborhood setting, of a broader vicinity as the boazd deems is necessary to
determine if the exception is warranted; or
b) Be cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff Response:
1291 Riverside Drive, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 4 of 7
P34
26.410.040.0.2. (Gazaeel: The purpose of this standard is to create a pedestrian friendly
neighborhood by emphasizing living spaces (i.e. front doors, windows, porches) rather than
"dead spaces" in the form of gazages. After visiting the neighborhood and assessing the position
and configuration of the residences on the lots and the number of trees; Staff finds that, as a
newer subdivision, the context of Riverside Drive includes gazages forwazd the front fapade of
the residences. Staff finds that criterion a is met. 1291 Riverside Drive is required to meet the
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for a new building on a historic landmazk lot split. The
guidelines ask new buildings to reference the historic resource, in this case a chalet. The
proposed building clearly emphasizes the historic chalet through the massing and form; which
meets the Guidelines.
26 410 040 D 1 Street Oriented entrance and priricinal window: The applicant proposes a side
entrance, similaz to the adjacent historic chalet. A street oriented entrance would be inconsistent
with the historic resource. Staff finds that the eclectic context of buildings in the neighborhood
meet the criterion for granting a variance from this standard.
26 410 040.D.2 First story element: The Residential Design Standazds aze general in natwe,
while the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines require compatibility with a specific historic .
resource. The chalet does not feature a one story element, but rely on a balcony to define the first
and second floors. Staff finds that the two story front facade of the proposed building with a
second floor balcony meets the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines by referencing the form
and chazacter of the historic resource and the context of the neighborhood supports the proposed
design.
Due to the context of the neighborhood, the existing development pattern and the adjacent
landmazk, Staff recommends that HPC grant variances for the following Residential Design
Standazds: 26.410.040(0)(2); 26.410.040(D)(1); 26.410.040(D)(2).
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development Review
(Conceptual) for the property located at, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following
conditions;
1. The applicant will reduce the height of the new building to strength the floor alignments
and height relationship between buildings for review during Final Review.
1291 Riverside Drive; HPC Conceptual Review
Page 5 of 7
P35
2. Variances from the following Residential Design Standazds aze granted: Section
26.410.040(C)(2); Section 26.410.040(D)(1); and Section26.410.040(D)(2).
3. 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.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
°/Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 1291 Riverside Drive, Conceptual Review"
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 dooi 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 aze 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 appeaz taller than the historic structure.
^ T'he front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 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 aze
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
1291 Riverside Drive, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 6 of 7
P36
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history aze
especially discouraged on historic sites.
1291 Riverside Drive, HPC Conceptual Review
Page 7 of 7
P37
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1291 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LOT B OF THE LOT 20,1295 RIVERSIDE
DRIVE SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2009
PARCEL. ID: 2737-181-17-024.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Scott and Alex Kendrick, represented by Scott Lindenau of Studio B,
501 Rio Grande Place, Suite 104, Aspen, CO request Major Development (Conceptual) and
Residential Design Standazd Variances for the property located at 1291 Riverside Drive, Lot B of
the Lot 20, 1295 Riverside Drive Subdivision, 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, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHERAS, for variances from the Residential Design Standazds, Section 26.410.040, which do
not meet Section 26.410.020.D, the HPC shall find that the variance, if granted, would:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In
evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing boazd may consider
the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate
neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the boazd deems is necessary to
determine if the exception is warranted; or
b) Be cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints;
and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated February 11th, 2009, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standazds, found that the review standazds for Residential Design
Standazd variances were met, and recommended HPC approve the requested variances; and the
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met for Conceptual Review,
and recommended approval with conditions; and
P38
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on February I1, 2009, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standazds for the Residential Design Standard variances, and was consistent with the "City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of _ to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), and the request
for Residential Design Standazd vaziances for the property located at 1291 Riverside Drive, Lot B
of the Lots 20, 1295 Riverside Drive Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as
proposed with the following conditions;
1. The applicant will reduce the height of the new building to strength the floor alignments
and height relationship between buildings for review during Final Review.
2. Variances from the following Residential Design Standazds aze granted: Section
26.410.040(C)(2); Section 26.410.040(D)(1); and Section26.410.040(D)(2).
3. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(I) 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.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of February
2009.
Michael Hoffman, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P39