HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20090311ASPEN IIISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 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 -February 11, 2009 minutes.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
A. Greenwald tent landscape (15 min.)
B. 214 E. Bleeker Street (15 min.)
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #7)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 219 S. Third St. -Conceptual Review and Ordinance #48
negotiation/historic designation - (public hearing continued
from Jan. 28, 2009 (lhr.)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 601 W. Hallam St. -Conceptual review -public hearing
(lhr.)
X. WORK SESSION
A. None
XI. Adjourn 7:40 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.
PROJECT MONITORING
Mike Hoffman 202 N. Monazch (Blue Vic)
426 E. Main (Main and Galena)
507 Gillespie (new single family home)
334 W. Hallam (Hayden Connor fence)
Paepcke Auditorium
Sarah Broughton 110 E. Bleeker
604 West Main Street
Firestation
Isis addition
308 E. Hopkins (LaCo)
222 E. Bleeker (new single family home)
214 E. Bleeker
426 East Main (Main and Galena)
Brian McNellis Fox Crossing Victorian
204 North Monazch (new single family)
332 West Main Street
510 East Hyman (Elks' deck)
Ann Mullins 135 West Hopkins Street
Boomerang
604 West Main Street
300 South Spring Street
204 North Monazch (new house)
214 E. Bleeker Street
222 E. Bleeker (new single family home)
Deep Powder
Greenwald Pavilion
Jay Maytin Red Onion
Firestation
28 Smuggler Grove Road
707 N. Third
627 W. Main
Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Road
707 N. Third
M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc
3/6/2009
P1
~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE; 1000 N. Third Street, Greenwald Tent- Follow-up on condition of approval
DATE: Mazch 11, 2009
SUMMARY: In January, HPC granted Final approval for the Greenwald Pavilion at the Aspen
Institute. One of the conditions of approval was as follows:
Staff and monitor shall work with the Institute and Pazks Department on an appropriate
landscape plan for the reaz of the structure. The resulting plan will be presented to the full
boazd for approval at a public meeting.
Ann Mullins is the project monitor. Both Ann and the Pazks Department reviewed plans provided
by the applicant and gave feedback. Ann's concern was that the proposed landscape across the
back of the tent should not be too regimented, out of chazacter with other landscaping on the site.
She felt that this may look ok in summer with the tent as a background, but in winter will
look artificial, out of context and awkwazd without tent as a reference.
The Institute made revisions based on comments received and is returning to HPC for final
agreement. The neighborhood representatives have been notified of the meeting as HPC
requested.
Exhibits:
A. Application
B. Minutes of January 14, 2009
P2
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 resolution approving 214 E. Bleeker
with the following condition:
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 HEARING
Nora was seated.
Amy said at the last meeting there were a number of issues such as fire
access and the discovery of a significant utility easement that would push the
tent location back. There was discussion also about the tent size and that it
had increased iri height from conceptual. The meeting was continued until
the issues were reviewed. In the staff memo the only condition of approval
is related to the landscaping. There is a proposal to create a landscape
barrier across the back of the tent to soften it from the neighbors across the
way with a row of Aspen trees. Staff has concerns that the proposal is a
little bit unnatural. Staff and monitor and the Parks Dept. can work with the
applicant on the placement of the trees as a condition.
Jim Curtis represented the Aspen Institute.
P3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14.2009
Joede Schoeberlein, architect on the project.
Jim Curtis said the new tent center of the roof is below what the old tent was
and it is 20 feet even and the five points go up to 25.6. At P& Z there was a
discussion about the location of the tent on or off the utility easement.
Basically this would be a city council decision. We would also like to keep
the tent color white with a white mesh. The critical issue is whether the tent
is off the easement or on the easement.
Planning & Zoning, the Water dept. and Sanitation District are in favor of
the placement of the tent directly to the south of the main utility easement.
The tent would be two feet behind the easement and the tent is located
parallel to the easement and we have landscaped the back side.
Joede said the existing tent is 20.3 feet. The new tent is 3 inches below that
at 20 feet even and the five peaks go up to 25.6. We were able to
accomplish the height reduction by reducing the width from 60 feet to 55
feet.
P&Z recommended the location off the easement parallel to the easement.
Nora said the Bayer landscaping is intentional throughout the campus and
open to the community. The landscape'around the tent needs to be sensitive
to the community and not hidden by a row of trees. Possibly use a berm as
opposed to a wall of trees. The back side of the tent is an opportunity to do
something unique. Jim said the Institute agrees with Nora's philosophy.
Joede said originally the entire mesa area was tree free and the trees have
grown naturally because of the irrigation. On the front side we would
something similar to what was planted around the marble garden where
aspen trees are used to form an edge and also that the irrigation ditches
would be woven through them. It would be a simple arc of trees on the edge
of the gravel entry area and the back would acknowledge a more natural
condition on the back.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffmari opened the public hearing:
Fred Pierce, attorney representing the neighbor across the river who looks at
the back side of the tent. The existing tent sits on the easement. One
proposal is to move it back and closer to my clients. We would like the
7
P4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14.2009
location on the easement with an asphalt pad. My client doesn't want a wall
of vegetation but we do want landscaping that softens it. We are in no way
suggesting that the tent not be there we just feel it should be pushed to the
front of the property. A white tent might be stark and not fit in with the
environment.
Paul Taddune, attorney for Pitkin Reserve. Paul echoed Fred's remarks as
their concerns are identical. Paul pointed out that the P& Z followed the
recommendation of the Water Dept. Easements in the city are always
getting torn up. Alternative A is offthe easement. It would be helpful if
you invited the neighbors to the table to discuss the landscaping. The front
of the tent should be somewhat open. If the tent could be a little less white it
wouldn't stand out as much.
Chairperson Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Ann pointed out that regarding the historic context either location works.
Keeping it off the easement might avoid future problems. In terms of the
landscaping the front design works very well. The lineup of trees in the
back seems a little formal and you would be better off with a grove of
aspens. _
Sarah concurred with Ann's comments. Maybe the berm becomes a nice
place to sit. The white mesh is on the two end walls and the front and not
the north facing on the back.
Michael said he feels either location is OK.
Nora said she would like to see a site plan of the landscaping. Sarah agreed.
MOTION: Ann moved to approve Resolution #2 for the Greenwald Pavilion
with the representation that either location of the tent is acceptable. Staff
and monitor will work with Jim Curtis on the landscape plan to be presented
to the HPC. The neighbors will be invited to the meeting on the landscape
plan. The proposed tent as represented in the plans Exhibit A is approved.
Motion second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 5-0.
Monitor for the tent -Ann
Monitor for the Auditorium -Michael
P5
A,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 219 S. Third Street, Ordinance #48 Negotiation- Continued Public Hearing
DATE: March 11, 2009
SUMMARY: 219 S. Third Street is a
modern 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.
HPC discussed this property, and the owners' redevelopment goals, on January 28th, 2009. At
that time the board agreed that examples of the Modern Chalet style of architecture are worthy of
preservation. HPC members expressed some concern that negotiated benefits could overload the
site in a manner that defeats the value of designation, however it was understood that in this case,
the property owner was already rethinking the project.
New plans have been submitted that . represent an addition to the Modern Chalet, a revised
Historic Landmark Lot Split, setback variances, and an FAR bonus. The application includes a
letter that details the changes since January. Notably, the bedroom count for the project has been
cut in half, and approximately 1,400 square feet of requested FAR bonus has been eliminated.
Also, the proposal no longer references a rear parcel that the applicant may own, and which is
crossed by a City trail. Any issues related to this site will be handled as a separate matter in the
future.
1
The owners of 219 S. Third
P6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is not a standard HPC review, but rather the first step in a
opportunity for City Council to negotiate a voluntary designation of the subject property. Staff
appreciates the applicant's willingness to consider preservation, rather than demolition of this
modern home. We find the designation criteria are met and recommend HPC convey that finding to
Council, along with your support for Council to provide designation incentives.
Many aspects of this proposed plan are consistent with existing incentives and preservation models
the City has been using. Other requests are special considerations being sought through the
flexibility afforded by Ordinance #48. Staff supports package of benefits for 219 S. Third Street,
with the exception of the granting of design review approvals at this time. We find merit in the
design of the addition to the Modern Chalet, but believe that the most efficient and productive way
to handle the negotiation is for HPC to pass the matter on to Council at this point, so that they can
establish the threshold parameters of the project (FAR, Setbacks, Lot Split). After that, HPC can
conduct a more conventional design review of the proposed alterations and new construction.
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
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030.B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of
buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The
significance of 20`h 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 year 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 characteristics of a type, period or method
of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer,
craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff Finding: 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
2
Friis, an architect from the area of the Cleary's residence in northern Wisconsin. Staff has been
unable to find information about Eric Friis, and is continuing to try to find additional building
history from relatives of the original owner. Regardless, 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 facade (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.
Examples of classic Chalet buildings in Aspen include:
3
P7
P8
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 appears 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.
4
Examples of Modern Chalets in Aspen include:
P9
INCENTIVES BEING REQUESTED THROUGH ORDINANCE #48. Requests that
exceed the benefits currentl available for landmarks are shown m red.
1. Approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split.
STAFF RESPONSE: The proposed site plan complies with the criteria for a Historic Landmark
Lot Split. No special consideration is needed from Council.
There is one potential exception needed from Council as a result of the proposed lot split. If the
property owner wishes to keep the existing house as a duplex, and build a new single family, the
duplex must be on a lot of at least 6,000 square feet. As proposed it is on a lot of 5,868 square
feet. Either the lot size has to be increased to 6,000, or the existing house has to be single family,
or the property o~~~ner needs to ask for an ezccptiori to the mi~iimum lot size for a duplex on a
landmark site in the R-1 j zone district.
2, 3, 4. Approval of FAR to accommodate the proposed addition to the Modern Chalet,
and construction of a new home on the vacant lot.
STAFF RESPONSE: The duplex at 219 S. Third is currently considered non-conforming
because the parcel isn't large enough for two units (it is 9,942 square feet, instead of the
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The duplex is legal because the original building permit
issued for the property clearly indicated this use, however the undersized lot is penalized by
restricting development to the maximum FAR allowed for a single family house (3,652 square
feet, after deducting some lot area for steep slopes.)
Landmarked properties have different minimum lot sizes, so with designation, the house can be
designed to duplex FAR, which at 4,042 square feet is 390 square feet more than a single family
is allowed.
Within the framework of the negotiation for voluntary designation, the property owner intends to
ask for floor area bonuses to achieve her desired program. The bonuses are the 500 square feet
that HPC often considers for exemplary projects, and an additional ~~rant of -I93 square feet.
These bonuses are over 1,400 square feet less than the property owner was introducing at the last
HPC meeting.
Of the total 5,025 square feet of FAR requested, 2,400 square feet is to be allocated to a new
house on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split, and 2,465 square feet is to
accommodate the existing 1,533 square foot house and a 932 square foot addition to it.
In general, staff finds the size and placement of the proposed addition to the Modern Chalet to be
sympathetic, and successful in preserving the primary/visible to the public facades of the building
with little direct alteration to them.
5
P10
The allocation of a limited amount of FAR for an addition to the resource, and transfer of all
remaining buildable area to a detached structure is very consistent with the intention of the
Historic Landmark Lot Split. The property owner is asking for 493 square feet above and beyond
the typical incentives for landmark properties. Given that the alternatives include no designation
and/or demolition of the Modern Chalet, staff finds this is a reasonable request. HPC's criteria
for an FAR bonus are below. Staff recommends HPC support Council granting a total of 993
square feet of bonus FAR.
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.
Setback variances
In January, the plans presented by the applicant indicated the need for setback variances on the
parcel that contains the Modern Chalet, and the parcel that will be created through the lot split.
The applicant has attempted to reduce these variances.
Related to the Modern Chalet, the building is already out of compliance with the front yard and
east sideyard setbacks. The proposed new lot line and new addition require setback variances on
the' west and rear. HPC has the authority to grant these variances, which should be done in
conjunction with the design review that is to follow Council's negotiation.
HPC does not have the authority to grant setback variances on the new parcel created through the
lot split. These variances are part of the applicant's request for negotiation with Council. The
applicant is attempting to establish a building envelope for the new building. As drawn it
requires a 16'6'' ti~ont yard seibacl: ~~arianc_~ (stai~f tinds'.his particularly appropriate in order to be
consistent ~~ith the placement of the tilodern Cha!et) and a ~' east sideyard setback ~~ariance.
The east sideyard variance allows more flexibility in the footprint of the new house, and is
"internalized" on the site; not directly affecting an adjacent property owner. Staff recommends
HPC support the variance requests for the vacant lot.
Residential Design Standard Variance
The applicant requests Council ~~ai~~e compliance With the "Secondary Mass" requircmcut of the
`Zesi~'enti.,[ 1)esi~n Stand,u•ds i~~r thy; clew lot. The standard requires all new homes to place at
least 10% of their mass in a detached structure. Staff can support waiver in this case because of
6
P11
the constrained building envelope and the fact that the property does not relate to the streets and
alleys in the traditional manner (i.e. the primary building fronts on the alley and there is no rear
access to the lot.)
5. Waiver of the requirement for an ADU for the new home. (The existing home is already
exempt.) Waiver of park dedication fees.
STAFF RESPONSE: At 2,400 square feet, the new home would be required to provide an on-
site Accessory Dwelling Unit, or to pay acash-in-lieu fee of ~171.SS5 (2,400 sq. ft. x
$71.62/sq.ft.). Staff sees this waiver request as a policy matter for Council. The property owner
could receive a waiver of affordable housing requirements within the existing benefits program if
the new house and existing house were condominiumized instead of separated through a Historic
Landmark Lot Split.
Park dedication fees are waived for development on historic landmark properties. No special
consideration from Council is needed.
6. Omitted due to typo.
7. Approval of new windows and lightwells on the north facing facade
STAFF RESPONSE: Staff does not have immediate objections to the proposed work as it is
represented in the HPC packet. However, we feel that all design review issues should be handled
after Council addresses the threshold issues of FAR, Setbacks, and Lot Split. We do not believe
that Council should award design review approvals as part of the negotiation. Once the applicant
has clearly established their development rights, alterations to the property should be handled
through the typical process of HPC applying their design guidelines.
8. Approval to maintain the existing house as a duplex, or convert to single family in the future
with no repercussions to FAR.
STAFF RESPONSE: Whether the owner chooses to develop this property as two single family
homes, or a duplex and one single family home, the FAR is unchanged by right.
9. Approval for a change of roofing material and color change for roofing material.
STAFF RESPONSE: The application does not state what the existing roof material is, and what
is proposed. HPC routinely approves roof material replacement, but the board needs to review
the specifics of the proposal to ensure that the original characteristics of the roof are retained. We
do not believe that Council should award design review approvals as part of the negotiation.
Once the applicant has clearly established their development rights, alterations to the property
should be handled through the typical process of HPC applying their design guidelines.
10. Approval to change the chimney materials.
P12
STAFF RESPONSE: At the last meeting, the applicant provided a photograph of a drystack
stone chimney that apparently represents the intent for a veneer on the chimney of the Modern
Chalet. The chimney on this house is a rather minor element and appears to be concrete block.
There may be a veneer, such as stucco, that is used elsewhere and would be an appropriate new
surface for the chimney. Staff has concerns with introducing stone to the palette of materials on
this structure, however it requires more in depth discussion by HPC. We do not believe that
Council should award design review approvals as part of the negotiation. Once the applicant has '
clearly established their development rights, alterations to the property should be handled
through the typical process of HPC applying their design guidelines.
11. Approval to change the color of the building and trim.
STAFF RESPONSE: HPC does not review paint color.
11A. Approval to change windows with like design as found necessary due to poor condition
and/or poor economy.
STAFF RESPONSE: The existing windows do not appear to have any distinctive character that
would be lost through replacement. Typically HPC is presented with cut sheets for replacement
windows to verify that the original units are being replicated. This requires more in depth
discussion by HPC and should return to the board after the Council negotiation.
12. Approval to landscape and provide screening on the public right of way along 3`d Street, up
to 3 feet from the road.
STAFF RESPONSE: Staff has consulted with the Park Department, who are not in favor of
waiving review for landscape in the right-of--way. Review is necessary in order to be consistent
with established tree planting patterns and species in town, to accommodate snow storage,
preserve site lines, etc. The property owner has indicated to staff that this request will be
dropped.
13. The new single family lot does not face a public street and instead will face an alley. There
are different requirements for buildings that face alleys versus regular pedestrian and vehicular
thoroughfares. Therefore, we would like the single family home to be exempt from HPC review.
STAFF RESPONSE: Staff is not in favor of exempting the new house from HPC design
review. The intent of landmark designation is to preserve the historic resource itself, and to
insure compatibility of any new construction on the site. The property owner has indicated to
staff that this request will be dropped.
14. 10 year vesting for all approvals granted.
STAFF RESPONSE: Once a land use approval is granted, it never expires, however it can
become subject to new laws after a certain period of time. "Vested Rights" is the time period
when the approval is protected from most changes that may be adopted (approvals are never
protected from amendments to the Building Code, and some other life/safety issues.) The City is
8
P13
required to provide a 3 year vesting period. The applicant's request for 10 year vesting is a
policy matter for Council.
15. Approval to remove the existing porch and rebuild with materials appropriate to the Modern
Chalet style.
STAFF RESPONSE: Staff understands this request to be related to the rear deck, which the
applicant represents is more recent construction. As stated, we believe all design review issues
should be handled by HPC after the Council negotiation. In concept we do not object to
reconstruction of the deck, particularly if old drawings or photographs can be used to guide the
work.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC support the finding that 219 S. Third Street is
worthy of historic designation and that the board recommends Council grant the requested
benefits through Ordinance #48. The City is unable to designate the property without the
owner's consent. The package of benefits (below) achieves the goal of preservation.
1. The property owner requests landmark designation.
2. The property owner requests approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split as indicated in the
application.
3. The property ov~mer requests an exception to the minimum lot size for a duplex on a
landmark site in the R-15 zone district.
4. The property owner requests a 500 square foot HPC FAR bonus and an additional grant
of 493 square feet.
5. The property owner requests a 16'6" front yard setback variance and a 5' east sideyard
setback variance on the vacant parcel.
6. The property owner requests a waiver of the "Secondary Mass" requirement of the
Residential Design Standards for the new lot.
7. The property owner requests a waiver of the requirement to pay acash-in-lieu fee for
affordable housing on the new lot.
8. The property owner requests 10 year vested rights.
Exhibits:
A. Application
B. Modern Chalet context paper
C. Minutes of January 28, 2009
D. Letter from neighbors, requesting story poles
9
P14
March 2009
Community Development
Att: Mrs. Amy Guthrie
City of Aspen
Re: 217 & 219 S. Third Street
~~
~~~
~~
Cp C~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ O
~~UNi ~, ~ Zp~9
T Y~F~F~OpF~I/
~fFHI
The below listed neighbors request story poles erected Far proposed duplex
addition and proposed third unit.
1 t is our understanding that the deadline for Fostefs re-submitted application is
Monday, March 2, 2009.
Name/signature Printed Address
03/2/2009 11:26 404-572-5134
MPo2-2-20H9 10:42P FRDM:
March 2009
Community Development
Att: Mrs. Amy GsrthrSe
City of Aspen
Re: 21T & 219 S.'fhird Street
KING & SPALDIIJ6 LLP
TO:i4045-725134
PA(~ 02/02
P.2
P15
~~~~~~
cod , , 70p
~~b/jy !FO~ 9
D F(~p~FN
The 4elow 1ist~ ne~l-tars request story poles erected for proposed duplex
addition and proposed third unet
I t is our ettderstandtns that the d~diim Aar Poster's resubmitted appticatloo is
Monday, March 2, 2009.
Name/signature Printed Address
P17
ATTACHMENT 2 -Historic Preservation Land Use pplication
1
PROs ECT: THE CITI' DF ASPEN
Name: y!- P 'uJesfi' ~ ~~
Location: Q S . 3,nt s ter e.dr
Bl oc~l< 3 q F,~,-cF tors o P Q F? S z~,,~ I~,I3 P+ S
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bound d scription of property)
Patcel ID # (REQUIRED) o~-I 3 5- l a 4- ~, s"- o a s
Name: `{ L P LiJest' Lyc-
Address: -j S. ~~;r 5~.~~- a~~lu- q (90 (0
Phone#: ads-yy3- ~Otoo Fax#:~tS- 93-- GSS~ E-mail: uaann~ C
REPRESENTATIVE' '~'-~v>~~f~ ?u: ~ 1.215 ~ CQw~
Name: 5' u2q e~r+z ~vsta~
Address: -1 S w~q,„ Sk,.zt uadl Pa 140m7
Phone#: als-35"3- 190-] Fax#: a215 -yq3 -(os
~
E-mail ~
: uzc, E.ne
TYPE OF APPLICATION: ]ease check all that a 1 } ~05~`rJ P. u ~ 1 ars . caws
Historic Designation
^ C
ifi
^
R location (temporary, on
ert
cate of No Negative Effect ^ o off-site)
[~ Certificate of Appropriateness ^ D molition (total
^ -Minor Historic Development d molition)
® -Major Historic Development ® H storic Landmark Lot
® -Conceptual Historic Development Slit
^ -Final Historic Development
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildin s uses, previous ap{~rovals, etc.
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings uses mo
~(is4-orE~ Lbt SP1,-1- 1 Pvoprs.~tl add~~,P.E. ~o
pen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requireme s, Updated: May 29, 2007
Paee:2~9 ,
MRR-02-2009 17:20 From:215 493 6559
P18
1. 219 S. 3`d Street Development Project.
Ilistorv
219 S. 3rd Street has been unanimously voted as being a potential historic resource
within the identified historic context of the Modetn Chalet by the members of HPC on its
January 28, 2009 meeting.
With this HPC endorsement, it is our intention to voluntarily designate the existing
duplex historic under Ordinance #48.
In our original application package we had the following requests, which, after taking
into consideration the comments and concerns of the IiPC members have been revised:
• Original density -1 duplex with 8 bedrooms and 1 siuogle Family with 3
bedrooms. Revised density -1 single family (Modem Chalet) with 3 bedrooms, 1
single family (new construction) with 3 bedrooms, a change from 12 bedrooms to
6 bedrooms.
• Original building height for chalet addition 25'. Revised height - 2]'
• Original variances request for new single family -Front, Rear and bout side
yards. Revised variance request for new family -Front yard 8' 6" to line up with
set back of existiuag chalet, eastern side yard vaziance of 8' (required -10").
• Original FAR bonus requested - 500 SF as allowed by HPC plus an additional
1904 SF economic incentive as allowed by HPC divided as follows: 3888 SF for
chalet, 2548 SF for new single family. Revised FAR bonus request - 500 SF
FAR bonus as allowed by HPC plus an addit9ona1493 SF economic incentive as
allowed by HPC divided as follows: 2625 FAR for chalet and 2400 SF for the
new single family. These FAR amounts are consistent with or less than similar
Sized lots in the immediate azea.
In return, we are asking HPC and the City of Aspen Counsel to approve the following
project for 219 S. 3rd S[ceeL•
1. Approve the Ordinance #48 historic lot split.
2. Approve 2400 5F of FAR for a single family residence on the new lo[ including the
granting of'the variances for side and front setbacks that are needed, and exempt this
property's requirement for a detached building due to the unique shape of the site.
3. Approve the 2625 SF of FAR, footpriunt and basic design for the expansion of the
duplex including the setback variances that will be needed.
4. Award the 500 SF allowable bonus for maintaining appropriate HPC historic guideline
fox the duplex and awazd an additional 493 SF bonus as economic incentive.
5. Exemption from the Growth Management Quota System (employee housing) and a
waiver of Park Dedication fees for both the duplex addition and the Single family
development as outlined in your draft DTD 11/10/O8.
MRR-02-2009 17:20 From:215 493 6559, - Paee:3~9
P19
7. Approval of the new North elevation of the existing duplex (faces ally) which includes
a new window configuration, full light wells for the submerged level and new windows
for the submerged level.
S. Approval to leave the existing duplex a5 the multi family dwelling, or [o wnvert it to a
single family residence at any time in the future with no change in the available FAR and
bonus.
9. Approval for a change of roofing material and wlor change for roofing material.
10. Approval to change the chimney materials.
11. Approval to change the color of the building and trim.
11A. Approval to change windows with like design as found necessary due to poor
condition and/or poor economy.
12. Approval to landscape and provide Screening on the public right of way along 3ra
Stzeet up to 3= from the road.
13. The new single family lot does not face a public street and instead will face an alley.
There are different requirements for buildings that face alleys versus regular pedestrian
and vehicular thoroughfares. Therefore, we would like the single family home to be
exempt from k1PC review.
14. 10 year vestiug for all approvals granted.
15. Approval to remove the existing porch and rebuild with materials appropriate to the
modern chalet style.
nn
P
LV
_ 1
~a a •p
® a ~ al i
C C ~ ~ ~:
~ i r • n eE
~ ' i5 : EE
t - ° • i
1 ~ a E a
j r eE
E a f a~
a ~~ e
y ~:
,. o`
e~
Si
h
e
p .,~.~ ~rA.~
N ~Y•~Y.
Oe j
pig%+. n `^~ f~ a ~~ '
ng
a~f ;'i ~ '
a 'Y; ``
i
f ~
a ` .~ Y
~~_~ a ~,,
.;;
•f ` `~~ ~i
f `` . ~~ a `~~ .
~ _ 'i
- ~di `` ~~
a '' f ~ ~
r ~
~. m.
r• "'+o
~e nore reran
E aryar ~~i
i +
< ~Z
ya ~: t ~'
d
s .o.]].iio
a9• i~ i i~ 2_ $ a ~ ~ rE~ a~t~ 2 fSC!
e•
~ 9~ i ~ i~ 't•~ ~a ~a r °
a i~B E ;
'Yj6 $ a aEji ~pi~ F~Cp~~ (~iE'.3 ea p1 F
..
i ~~i a a s{ E~ :s,pyy e
r t o a rE 'aE 4
y B
jEFa ~ .C: ~ E i ~ n
~ ..
r
MRR-02-2009 17:20 From:215 493 6559
Paee:4~9
- - - - - 4 - -
o ---
/ r-- -
/ ~ ,.
z_
I J
fo_D„ ~ ~
w
a
6
~ PROPOSED LOT 2 ~ ~
4.122 s.f.
(PROPOSED F.A.R.= 2,400 sq.ft.) ~ X
/ ~ ~ I W
/ I
~ B'-6^
~ / ;
PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE J
-~~' PROPOSED PROPERLY LINE (fYP.)
~ ~~
/ ~ e
0
~o ,g PROPOSED ADDITION
~'p j / [ARRORT
d'.6^
I,
.~
PROPOSED LOT 1'
5,668 sq.ft.
(PROPOSED F.A-R.~ 2,625 sq.fr.)
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE CFYP.)
PROPOSED LOT DIVISION/ BUILDING ENVELOPES A- ~
SCALE 7/76'=7'-0'
FOSTER
21 9 S.3 RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 onrE: oa-0i-oa
MRR-02-2009 17 20 From~215 493 6559
PROPOSED LOT 1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN
FOSTER
219 5.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611
Pa9e~5~9
~~
W.~.~i.
aer bath
r I
I
~ I
A-L
SCALE 3/32' = 1'-0'
DATE: 03-07-09
MAR-02-2009 17 20 From:215 493 6559
Paee~6'9
r . ~ ~ I
~ ~
I
~ PROPOSED ADDITION
I
I
~I
I I ii
I ~ ~ I I bed oom I
~ Y
3 ~ I
PROPOSED d HI ~
LOWER d w
PATIO I o 3
a _° ~
I I ~ ~ ~ bed oom 3
~~
o I
I I
C:-:~ I
-- --~
__ --
PROPOSED LOT 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN A-3
SCALE: 3/32' = I'-D'
FOSTER onTE o3-01-09
219 5.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 8167 ~
MRR-03-2009 12:10 From:215 493 6559
P24
Mar 02 09 06:41P Traina Petty
Pase:2~2
L2151 369-0721 P.2
~ECEf~fED
~~~ Zoos
G.1 r ~r naF'tN
COMMUNITY QE6'ELOPMENT
~ u ~u tl ~Il~ Illllll I I I I I I I!
LL__1___-J___LI----------~
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
.~
L-I------- - J ~-------------u---J
PROPOSED N~( &T~'I ELEVA710N
~~
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC
FOSTER
219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO Bt 611
A710NS
SULC ]p2' - 1'-0'
MRR-02-2009 17:20 From:215 493 6559
r it . ~. ,, ,' ~'ll '
~.-..
Pa9e:7'9
I I I ~___ ~
--- _J
u ------~--~-----------
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-4
SCALE 3 /aZ' - 1'--0•
FOSTER
2195.3 RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 oniE:cr9-ot-ov
MAR-02-2009 17:21 From:215 493 6559 Paee:6'9
P26
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
zone
Dishier:
Lot s,ze:
Lot At ea:
A7~'ACH1VZ~rT 3 - Aimensional Iiequiretnents Irorm
(Item ItIO on the submittal requirements key. Not accessary for all projects.)
ai9 S ~K,Q sT2~cr C ~Kls7/u~ ~~Pi.~t~ ~v-r~
~-[s
(For the purposes of calcu]aUng Floor Alea, Lol Arce may be reduced fo, areas within
the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definiUOn of Lot
Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Gxuw[g: ~ Proposed: L7
Number of residential units: .Existing: .z Prnpored.- l
Number of hedeooms , Lsisti„~>.' ~i Proposed:
Proposed %ofdernol i(ion:
DIMIsNS10N$: (write n/a where no requirement exists in t he zone dt c_tficl) ~
Floor Area. $xi,rting: fS33 Allowable: 2~Z~ Propnset/ 242
fie,eht
Principal Bldg; Existin 1 '
K $
ANowa.blc: '
2 S ,,
1)opnsed: Z~ I
Acccssoly Bldg. Gxr.rhn.g: /U /} AUowable: N~/} Proposed: ~~i9'
On-S)teparking. Tsisrin
d': 2 ~.
Required: N A' 1 rnposed:
z-
%S,tecoverage: Esrsring: 20% Required; /U~/a- Prupnsed: ~'Z- /O
% Open Space: Ezrsri.ng: (7 ~,~ IZeguired: /V~/~- P, opn.red.
F,on( Setback:
F;zisu:n °
F' ~S ~
Requue~'
~
Z s
Proposed _ _
~ ' ~
y G
~o'
Rear Sctbach. T;xrs[ing: J~ [ Required: /~ 1'rnpnxed: _
O
Combined FronURca
h, dicate N S E w Existing: ! 3' to " Rer aired:
I 3 5 r s
I ropn.ved. ( ~[
_~
Side Setback: Existing: °/' Z ~` Required: /O~ Proposed: q 12~
SideSethack: T:zist[ng; ,2)r IZegttir•ed: /O~ Pr'oposed.• '3 r
Combined S,des T.•x[,rrin 3 ~ L "
$:
1Zequrred:
.Zc7 •
Proposed: 1 ['
` 2
Distance between Exr,snn ti ~{- Re uirerJ:
g ~ q /, O ~
Proposed; '
~ D
buildings:
T:xtsting non: conformities o1 encroachments and Hole if encroachment licenses have been issued
~ ([S~
wal5~
variations requested( (identify the exact variances needed)
V G Y l g h L l} ~yE.ti~ ~}
Aspen Hltita is 1>r e:cr vatinn
~~ 5 ~ ~'Jflv:~ Land Ube Application 12eyui,emenls, Updated. May 29, 20(17
\ h G\lX i f14)
MAR-02-2009 17:21
P i o,j ecl •
AppLca n i
Pi o,{ecl
Location
Zone
DiSUlcl
Lot S,ze
1.0~ A,ea
From:215 493 6559
Pa9e:9~9
A7"I'ACFIM~NT3- DinteusionalXZequirernents.rornt
(item tllU on fhe submittal requirements key. Not necessary fm~ all pro~ecls.)
S
~,`1 ti 7 5 f
(For the pwposes of calculating P1oo, Area, Lol Arca map het educed Icu at ca4 ~+,rlhro
the hagh wait{ anar}c, easements, and sleep xlopcs. Please. iefe, to the definil,on of Loi
Ai ca in (he Municipal Cpde.)
Commercial net leasable: Gxist,ng: O 1>,opnsed O
Number o! restdcnBal umis' L•xi.tting ___o P,nlrnsed: _
f
Numhcr of hed,oons: E.ristuie: O~_ 1'roposed. _
3
Proposed % of demoliUn»:
1~IMIiNS10N5: (write n/a where no requn~cnlent ex,sts m the ~onc d ' ]cr)
Floor Ai ea Existutg: -, AlloL~ablc' - _ 1', ohosed a ~ ,
He,chl
Punc,pal Bldg L•a~stur
$ '
Allow¢l?le: 2 5 ~
1 rnpnscc ~
y`L S'
Acccsso,y I31dg L'zesang _ - , Alln,vnble. N~i9" 1'ropri•sed ~~~
On-Srtep2rk,ng F.a~isrin
8
Requi,ed
: y ~ ~
1,npnsed
Z
%Sile cove,aFe. Ecis?in~. u„ed ~ /UI/-I- I'rupnsed. `}
~
°/n Open Space, Ezislrn
g ~
Required
/V~/-I"
p,opnsed '~
~`
Fionl Setback hxlstin
~' ~
fequer eci. r
z S
Aop¢sed ~ ~r
8
Rear Setback !s'x{-au,g: Re9uned. (U 1'r¢pnaed' /Q
Combined Front/Rea
~
l,idicale N, S. H W
Exshn~. Required: 3 S r 1'rohnaed / ~ ~~O v
Srde Setback ~ l;xrster,~ Regtri,ed: /~7~ T,oposed' S
S,dc SetbaeJc. W T;.zisrrng.~ Req,ur ed ~~ ~ P, npnsed 10
Comb,ncd Sides lixsttng tequaed: ZO ~ Prnpn.red (>
Drstancebetween L•xrsr:ng, NFh Required ~~ .Proposed ~(7~
nl,aa{ngs.
Isx,sting non-con.[o,mtUes of enc:uachments and note rf encroachment hcenscs have been ssucd
Var tatroats requested~•~ (rdenttfy the enact variances needed).
v.,vigr~~ s cYre~~ Fv,,• t +5 ~ 5z~hac~;
P27
i
Aspc,+H~~ln~,o V~ecc, valinn
.~ , „ T and Use nppUcnnan Reyuiiemcnls, llpdaicd Mat• 29.2gp7
~ i 9 S~ K,Q STfLi:GT - N ~~' S t tnG-~e T-rAmu~
P28
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009
Michael commented that Marsh's contributions to the task force have been
tremendous. The task force appreciates all that she has done.
Michael said he feels the same way as Nora, Sarah and Brian. This is not a
cleaz example of modern chalet.
Ann pointed out that we have a diminishing resource and we should save
what we can until the criteria are set.
Amy pointed out that we do have criteria in the land use code. We could
provide you with more of a context paper and more examples to illustrate
Modern chalet if needed.
MOTION: Ann moved to recommend to City Council that this is an historic
resource and to go forward with negotiations for the property at 621 W.
Francis. Fails for lack of a second.
MOTION: Brian moved to recommend to City Council that no negotiation
should occur on 621 W.. Francis for designation; second by Sarah.
Roll call vote: ~rian, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes; Jay, no; Ann, no; Nora,
no. 3-3 split vote.
2l9 S. Third -Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Lot Split,
Conceptual Development, Public Hearing
Amy said this property also falls under Ordinance #48 negotiations. Ord.
#48, 2007 identifies a list of potential historic resources. There are
approximately 80 potential resources that preliminary met our designation
criteria and there should be some evaluation significance before the
properties were lost. Aspen has a 30 year old preservation program. For the
past ten years we have been discussing what besides Victorians are
important. A task force is actively working on trying to give city council
recommendations on how we can move forward on the long term. 219 S. ,
Third is on the list and the building was built in 1965. When someone's
property is on Ordinance #48 they have a few options. If they have no plans
at all they. can sit tight and see how the task force develops. If there is
something they want to do they can come to HPC and ask for I~'C approval.
This applicant is interested in negotiation. They are interested in
volunteering for designation and negotiating with City Council with some of
HPC's input on a package of incentives that would persuade them that
designation is something that is appealing.
7
P29
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28.2009
The application will be continued as the applicant is uncertain about the
architecture selected and she is changing architects and needs time to make
revisions. Before you is designation, historic lot split and conceptual
development for the architecture proposed.
Historic designation:
The application has to meet one of three criteria:
a. An event pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to
local, state and 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.
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction or represents the technical or
aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design
philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff feels 219 S. Third meets criteria C. It is a representative of a modem
chalet style. Photographs of the Classic chalet have been provided. Chalet
buildings were built heavily influenced by the Europeans who were coming
here to begin our ski resort. They have a lot of European decoration and
detailing. Photographs of Modern chalets have also been provided. These
are a unique combination of the aesthetic influences in town such as Herbert
Bayer with his Bauhaus flat roof very box like modern structure. Most of
the Modern chalet houses have been built as second homes and tourist
accommodations. Staff has been trying to do research on the house but the
owner and architect have both passed away. We do know they were both
from Wisconsin. Staff finds that the designation criteria are met.
Surrounding the parcel is the St. Moritz lodge and a number of Victorians.
This area is significant of the Post War Era and there are quite a few chalets
and pan-a-bodes in that area. The property is zone R-15 which means the
minimum lot size is typically 15,000 square feet. This lot is 9,942 sq. ft. so
it is considered non-conforming, smaller than the minimum required in the
zone district. The duplex on the site is not permitted and would not be
allowed to be constructed today because the lot is not big enough but it is
considered legal because the permit issues in 1965 said duplex and the city
issues the permit. If the owner demolishes the house they still have the right
to go back and build a new duplex. The proposal is to retain the house.
With Ord. #48 the applicant has the opportunity to negotiate and request a
8
P30
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009
package of incentives that are needed to secure designation. They also have
every right to apply for a demolition permit. This is a cooperative
discussion. An historic lot split is also being proposed which is allowed in
the R-15 zone district for an historic landmark. The landmark designation
makes the property conforming and a duplex is allow on at least 6,000
square feet in this zone district. The lot split would be on the west side of
the house and a new house would be created on the other lot.
Whether or not they do the lot split they have a right to the duplex or two
detached units. If they do the lot split they have the option to keep the
duplex and another unit. The ultimate. outcome could be two or three units.
Variances are also being requested. The;e is also the possibility of an
addition on the side of the duplex. The owner is also requesting an FAR
bonus for the property that is beyond the 500 square feet. Council would
have to approve that request. The owner is asking fora 1,900 square foot
bonus for the empty lot.
Amy said through the area is the old right-of--way for the Colo. Midland
railroad coming across the bottom of Shadow Mountain. There has been
discussion that the right-of--way bisects the applicant's property into two
pieces.
Michael asked for clarification on the FAR.
Amy said a duplex of 3,652 sq.ft. is allowed without designation.
With landmark designation the FAR can be 4,542 sq.ft. The duplex could
remain and there could be up to three units with the lot split.
Sarah clarified that the property is on the north side of the railroad right-of--
way.
Susan Foster, owner said they recently purchased the property and as part of
the negotiations we would like to deed the property to the south to the city.
After the models were done we determined that we wanted to make changes.
The building has a couple changes. The roof has been changed and two little
window treatments were added. The other four windows are existing. The
porch is not the original porch, it is pressured treated wood. We want to
.rebuild the porch to something more historically correct. Originally we
thought about keeping this a duplex but believe we want to create a single
family home with an addition off the side of the building. We are also
9
-..._--- P 31
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28,.2009
proposing a single family home that would include the 1,900 FAR requests
from council. I am looking for today is HPC's feeling about the worth of
this structwe as a historic resowce. If HPC feels it is a worthy resowce
then we have plenty of time to figwe out what specifically the structwes will
look like.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing.'
Herb Klein, attorney for Angela and Paul Young who are neighbors across
the alley. The Young's would suffer impacts if this is developed as
proposed. Lisa Purdy is also representing the neighbor to discuss the
landmark question. It is a threshold issue because no one wants to seethe
applicant go through plan redesign if it appears as though this board doesn't
feel the property is worth of designation.
Lisa Purdy said she was asked to look at the historical significance of this
property. I have been to the site and looked at the context but there are no
scoring sheets for specific criteria for the Modem Chalet. It is premature
right now to make a decision on this with the lack of criteria and lack of an
.adopted context paper. In regard to staff s memo, staff found that the
building meets criteria C and that 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. I have done
designations all over the country and my feeling is that it does not live up to
the standard of what you should be looking for. It is not unique and the
design is all over mountain resorts and across Colorado. It is a fairly
standard design and does not have any unique qualities that would make it
stand up. The period of significance goes from 1936 to the mid 1960's.
This was built in 1965. In my opinion it is too far removed to have had any
kind of influence. It is almost a generic version. The building doesn't have
any scalloped edges on the eaves and the windows are not horizontal. There
is nothing with the building that raises it to the top of collections of chalet
buildings in Aspen. It.meets the scrutiny but it really does not holdup and
doesn't have enough artistic merit, cultural merit or architectural merit to
qualify for historic designation. You need to have a high enough standard
for historic designation that it really creates something significant with real
architectural merit or some other kind of merit. Other cities and in Aspen if
you have a collection of buildings that have some merit you usually put
those in an historic district because the buildings themselves don't have
enough architectwal merit to stand up to individual designation. Most
10
___.
P32
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28.2009
development of the aspen ski area took place on or before 1965. This
building is sort of a stripped down version of a chalet style. I have had over
30 yeazs of experience in the field and I do not see enough evidence in the
staff memo and I did not find enough evidence in my research to really merit
historic designation of this building.
Herb Klein said he came here to talk about the integrity of the process at this
point in dealing with these 30 year old and Post War properties. You don't
have a scoring paper and no adopted context paper. Staff s work has been
very good in defining this context although we disagree with their
recommendation of this particular property possesses the characteristics that
worthy of land marking. Ordinance #48 has opened up the process where
people can come in and see if they can negotiate with council. One of the
things they want is 1,900 square feet of FAR for the out parcel that is
bisected by the trail. They have bought into something that has a title
dispute with the city and through ordinance #48 they can negotiate and
preserve the house if allowed to have 1,900squaze feet of additional FAR. It
has turned into issues that have nothing to do with historic preservation and
they now have become part of the negotiations. My feeling is that there is
no provision in the code that allows for the transfer of floor area from two
parcels that are not contiguous to each other. HPC should look at the
property and see if it is worthy of landmark designation with the
understanding that if it is landmazked that opens the door to significant
additional development. It is not necessarily a win win situation here when
the historic resource is kind of the pawn in the game when it is not worthy of
designation. The impact of density is very significant and adverse to the
neighbors, the Young's. The parcel is an odd parcel and its access is off an
alley. You are talking about loading up the alley with a two single family
homes and a duplex on the dead end alley which has maintenance and
parking issues. Under any normal planning it is not an area fora (ot of
density. The fact that it is on ordinance #48 list does not mean that it should
be landmazked it means it is potential and the pros and cons should be
- weighed.
Four letters entered into the record -Exhibit II opposing the project.
Lisa Purdy letter - Exhibit I
Herb Klein read a letter from John Staton basically stating that he has lived
here for 15 years and no one ever referred the house as a chalet and he is
opposed to the project.
P33
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28.2009
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing.
Jack Wilkie said he is a member of the task force. One of the committees is
on incentives. One issue is whether we should even have lot splits and I
would recommend that you post pone a decision on all this. There are only
6 houses that are Modern chalets and there is no continuity from one to
another. I own one of the six remaining. This is the weakest category and
we don't have incentive rules or integrity rules.
Mark Johnson, attorney for Suzanne Foster. We need to focus on whether
this is an historic landmark. All HPC is doing is allowing the process to go
forward if they feel it should be recommended historic.
Mitch Haas, planning consultant for'Suzanne Foster. Ordinance #48
originally had quite a large list and based on the recommendations from staff
and historic preservation consultant's input the list got down to the final list
that is in Ordinance #48. In that process the properties that remain deserve
to be on that list because they are potentially worthy of being landmazked.
All we are asking is that still the case, that it is potentially worthy of land
marking. The city council will decide the benefit package.
Paul Young, 413 W. Hopkins. In our opinion the building is not historic.
Historic designation provides the ability for a lot split and for all the
variances requested. We are talking about going from four bedrooms to
twelve bedrooms. We are talking about an alley that doesn't work. There is
no parking in the alley because it is a dead end alley.
Chairperson Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing portion of the
agenda item.
Jay said the lot isnon-conforming to the zoning. If the house is not
designated and the owner decided to tear it down how much FAR is
allowed?
Amy said 3,652 squaze feet is available in the form of a single family or
duplex. In this case the lot split could increase density by'one unit if she
wanted to keep modem duplex and do a new single family but it doesn't
sound like that is necessarily what she has in mind. The nature of an historic
12
P34
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28.2009
lot split is to simply separate ownership where someone might have a
condominium they would have fee simple ownership.
Michael asked the board if Modern chalet style is worthy of designation.
Brian, yes, Jay, yes.
Ann said chalets represent skier architecture and this is a very important era
in our town. This is a very important style to preserve.
Sarah also agreed that Modern chalet is a style that should be designated.
Nora and Michael also agreed.
Michael asked the board if 219 S. Third is a good example of Modern
Chalet.
Jay said there are only six of these left on the list. We have the opportunity
to preserve these buildings that are already in Aspen and these buildings
have significance. We need to start protecting the Modern chalet buildings.
Each Modem chalet becomes more significant to the history of our town.
We need to decide what we want to keep as our history or it will all be gone.
The building is very interesting as it relates to the mountain and the way it
sits on the curve. It is time this commission should definitively protect the
chalets.
Jim True said there is discussion about no criteria but section 26.415.030B
adopted ordinance #48 that sets forth the criteria. Amy also pointed out that
you are not required to write a context paper for every style of building that
you might want to talk about.
Ann said if we recommend designation it doesn't mean we are agreeing to
the incentives.
Brian said he is having a hard time differentiating the potential greater
planning issues, density, FAR, affordable housing, neighbors and impacts to
the Midland trail eta
Jim said it is his understanding that you are determining if the building has
historical significance under the criteria and directing council to continue
negotiations. It would be in HPC purview to say if this applicant is
recommending certain incentives as part of that negotiation and HPC felt it
13
P35
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28.2009
is inconsistent with the historic aspect of it and that it would be detrimental
to the historic nature and historic preservation you certainly have the
purview to say that.
Jay pointed out that the HPC does not know what the applicant wants to do
at this time.
Amy said the applicant is coming back March 1 ls' and we would like to
send an entire package to council that is good.
Jay said at the conceptual public hearing we will know what the applicant is
searching for as far as incentives.
Brian said we can give direction to the applicant if this piece of property has
the quality and we as a commission would like to see preserved.
Suzanne Foster, owner said that is the only direction we need tonight. All
the other negotiation is down the road. Without knowing that this is a
structure that you all believe needs to be preserved I don't know what to do.
Michael asked staff what they think is the significance of the car port.
Amy said the carport is very significant to the design and it is a dramatic
roof shape. It would detract from the building if it was demolished.
Nora said her concerns are the trade offs and it is difficult to separate the two
issues.
Brian said if there is a particular incentive that you feel jeopardizes anything
under the historic umbrella then we can state that.
Ann mentioned that the additional square footage seems a little excessive on
the lotto the south in this development:
Amy pointed out that I-IPC does not approve the lot split or designation,
council does.
MOTION: Jay moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual
development for 219 S. Third; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion
carried.
14
P36
Angela Young said they are full time residents. Her concern is that historic
preservation can become an unruly tool by seasonal land developers. 'That
bothers me if there is a marginal situation and where there may be a negative
impact on a marginal designation with over development.
Paul Young said it is known in the real estate community that there has
never been an historical designation for a lot split that wasn't granted.
MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor,
motion carried.
Me ti adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
7~Ct.-,... ~~S~~C..'~-~.,, l ,
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
15
P37
Q~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planne
r.
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director
RE: 601 West Hallam Street, Major Development Review, Residential Design
Standard Variances -Public Hearing
DATE: March 11, 2009
SUMMARY: 601 West Hallam Street is located on the corner of ~ '~ ;~~~~~ __;
__
Fifth and Hallam Streets in Aspen's West End neighborhood. Th ~ ~ ~'
reason for HPC's purview over this property is unusual In 1991, - _ `--'-_%, ;''
HPC adopted Resolution Number Five (5), Series of 1991, which %~ ~~_. _
delisted 601 West Hallam from the historic inventory. During the ~ -
delisting hearing, the applicant voluntarily agreed to grant HPC (~~'~ -_ -__ ~~
"mandatory review of any future redevelopment on the subject ! ~ `~ -
parcel in terms of mass and scale." HPC Resolution Number Five ~---.
~ Series of 1991 and the recorded covenant are included in the ~~~~~~__ `'- -
( )~ ~ _
application package. Basically, HPC is authorized to review and ~ ,` ;' ,--~
approve the project on a Conceptual level, but the project will not return for Final HPC review.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence and replace it with a 3,200 square foot
two story single family home. The project conforms to the dimensional requirements of the R-6
zone district. HPC is asked to grant Residential Design Standard variances for the proposed
project.
Staff recommends. that HPC approve the proposed new residence with conditions. Staff
recommends that HPC deny three of the four requested Residential Design Standard variances
based on a finding that the intent of the Standards and the criteria for granting a variance are not
demonstrated in the proposal.
APPLICANT: David Newberger, 2905 San Gabrielle, Suite 218, Austin, TX, 78705,
represented by Harry Teague, 129 Emma road, Suite A, Basalt, CO 81621.
PARCEL ID: 2735.124.31.002.
ADDRESS: 601 West Hallam Street, Lots H and I, Block 23, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R - 6
601 West Hallam Street
Page 1 of 9
P38
DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
HPC's purview is limited to mass and scale which is defined in the recorded covenants as
follows:
Mass: "any new building will be designed so that it is not one big uninterrupted box
structure and will use appropriately pitched roof forms for residential buildings as
opposed to flat roofs "
Scale: "window and door dimensions and building scale shall be consistent with the
scale of other buildings on the block"
Mass: The applicant chose to maintain Fifth Street as the front yard, which allows the existing
large cottonwood trees to frame the front facade. The proposed new building breaks up the mass
into two distinct pieces while balancing a sustainable goal that maximizes solar access and
includes a greenhouse and a green roof. Both pieces are two stories with a one story connector
link, which successfully reduces the perceived mass of the residence and complies with the
definition of mass above. Relevant Design Guidelines for new development on historic
properties are listed below to help guide HPC's decision even though this is a unique situation
since the property is not designated a landmark. Staff finds that these guidelines are generally
met.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
The majority of roof forms in the neighborhood are traditional gables and sheds. The "Harry
Teague" roof form proposed for the new residence is an innovative and contemporary
interpretation of the traditional shed dormers and triangular gable shapes found in the
surrounding roof forms. The proposed "Harry Teague" roof and flat roof further break up the
perceived mass of the new residence by juxtaposing two different forms to create a visual
separation. The recorded deed restriction specifically references an opposition to flat roofs;
however HPC has the authority to decide that the proposed flat roof/roof garden are appropriate.
Staff finds that the intent of this section of the 1991 Resolution is to prevent one large volumetric
box from being built without any modulation, which is clearly not the case for this application.
Overall, the proposed mass introduces a contemporary interpretation of the traditional forms in
the neighborhood and is appropriate. Design Guideline 11.6 is listed below for general guidance.
601 West Hallam Street
Page 2 of 9
P39
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. ~
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
Scale: 601 West Hallam Street is the only other building located on the block that contains the
Wheeler/Stallard Museum. There is a mix of residential development along Hallam and Fifth
Streets that includes a few designated 19th century landmarks, as indicated with orange hatching
on the map below. HPC is required to revie~
relation to the surrounding context, which
includes both one and two story Victorians.
The applicant appears to have chosen the
more vertically inclined Wheeler/Stallard
Museum and the extensive vegetation in the
block (including the large Cottonwoods) as
the contextual inspiration for this project.
Verticality is emphasized in the proposed
design through the "Harry Teague" roof
form, fenestration and architectural elements.
The majority of the exterior surface is
proposed to be covered with vegetation
which will presumably soften and blend the
residence into the surrounding landscape.
The applicant proposes a contemporary one story entryway with a covered porch in the linking
element, which is set back from the front facade of the house and intends to break up the mass.
Solar panels and a deck atop the linking element are proposed. Staff is concerned about the
location of the solar panels and the deck/railing which blurs the line between a one and two story
element. It is extremely important that the one story linking element read as a defined single
story to break up the two story mass on either side. Staff finds that a stronger first story element
would create a stronger relationship of the new building to the neighborhood. The tall vertical
fenestration along the front (Fifth Street facing) facade helps break up the front facade into two
levels and abstractly relates to double hung window proportions typical to the surrounding
landmarks. Overall, Staff finds that the proposed scale does not overwhelm the large
Wheeler/Stallard museum and, with a true one story element, it will fit into the site context.
Relevant Design Guidelines are listed below, even though this property is not a designated
landmark.
601 West Hallam Street
Page 3 of 9
P40
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
^ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
^ The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The applicant selects the option to maintain the existing deficit of parking and does not provide
any parking spaces.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The applicant requests four (4) Residential Design Standards variances for the new project.
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 variances 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 Board of Adjustment or
the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the
board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a
variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate, and the deciding board shall
fmd 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 board may consider
the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate
neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board deems is necessary to
determine if the exception is warranted; or
b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff Response: The Residential Design Standards were adopted to preserve residential
neighborhood scale and character and to promote pedestrian friendly envirorunents through
positive streetscape design that emphasizes public to private space transitions. Interesting
architecture and lively spaces that contribute to the neighborhood streetscape are primary goals
for residential development. The form based Standards are prescriptive and apply to all new
residential development. Variances are approved when one of the criterion above are met. The
four requested variances are listed below:
601 West Hallam Street
Page 4 of 9
P41
1.) 26.410.O10.B.1 Secondary Mass. All new single family and duplex structures shall
locate at least 10% of their total squaze footage above grade in a mass which is completely
detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. This
standazd shall only apply to pazcels within the Aspen hifill Area pursuant to Secfion
26.410.O10.B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and accessory dwelling units aze
examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass.
A subordinate linking element for the purpose of secondary mass shall be defined as an
elements not more than ten (10) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length with a plate
height of not more than nine (9) feet. Linked pavilions six (6) feet in width and ten (10)
feet in length shall be exempt from Section 26.575.020.A.8, linked pavilion.
Staff Response: The purpose of the Secondary Mass section is to break up the perceived mass
of new development through the design of a one story linking element or a detached
structure. The applicant proposes a linking element between the proposed two story.
mass; however the dimensions of the. proposed linking element aze ten feet (10') by
fourteen feet (14'), which do not meet the ten feet (10') by ten feet (10') requirement.
The required length of the connector piece is exceed by four feet (4'). According to the
application, the azchitect felt that 10' in length was proportionally incompatible with the
proposal. Staff fmds that increasing the length of the linking element is appropriate in
this case because it further sepazates the mass of the project which meets the intent of the
standard and its compatibility with smaller residential homes in the vicinity. As
mentioned previously, Staff is concerned about the deck and solaz panels proposed atop
the linking element. They create the perception of a two story element, which defeats the
purpose of the one story connector piece breaking up the mass. Staff finds that criterion a
is met for granting a variance from this Standazd with the condition that the solaz panels
and the deck proposed above the linking element aze omitted.
2.) 26.410.040.D.1 Street Oriented entrance and principal window. All 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 units shalLhave at
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 (8'.)
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 fagade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more
than one story in height.
c. Astreet-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of
windows face the street.
601 West Hallam Street
Page 5 of 9
P42
Staff Response: The intent of the street oriented entrance and principal window is to create a
pedestrian friendly walking experience with architectural elements that relate to human
scale and to enhance traditional residential building types and patterns. The applicant
proposes an entry door that faces the street and is located fourteen feet six inches (14'6")
behind the frontmost wall of the building. The entry door is covered with a deck that is
accessed from the second floor. Staff fords that the distance of the door from the front
fagade of the residence and the second floor deck azea aze not compatible with the context
of the neighborhood and do not meet the criteria for granting a variance. Staff recommends
that the applicant come into compliance with this Standard.
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 fast 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
fagade shall not be precluded.
Staff Response: The purpose of this Standazd is similaz to the other standazds discussed in that
it ensures a pedestrian friendly walking environment with elements that relate to human
scale and public to private spaces. The. connector piece is the only one story element
proposed for the project. As mentioned previously, Staff is not in favor of a deck and
solaz panels above the one story element. The space above the first story element is
prohibited from being accessible in order to preserve the one story chazacter of this piece.
Staff finds that a true one story element will better relate to the surrounding context of the
neighborhood and recommends that the applicant bring the development into compliance
with this Standazd.
4,) 26.410.040.D.3.a Windows. Street facing windows shall not span through the area
where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve
feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be
made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is
exempt from this standazd.
Staff Response: The intent of this Standard is to distinguish first and second levels from the
exterior of the house, which helps reduce a structure's perceived height and mass. One of
the windows proposed on the front fagade of the home is between nine (9) and twelve
(12) feet. While the untraditional undulation of fenestration on the front fagade is
interesting, Staff fords that the context of the neighborhood does not support granting a
variance for this Standazd. Staff recommends that the applicant bring the fenestration
into compliance.
601 West Hallam Street
Page 6 of 9
P43
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the mass and scale, as defined in
HPC Resolufion No. 5 Series of 1991, for the property located at, 601 West Hallam Street, Lots H
and I, Block 23, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions;
1. Accessible space above the one story element is not approved.
2. The solaz panels proposed above the linking element aze not approved.
3. A Residential Design Standazd variance is granted for 26.410.O10,B.1 Secondary Mass,
with the condition that the space above the linking element is not accessible and the solaz
panels above the linking element aze omitted.
4. The applicant will bring the proposal into compliance with the following Residential
Design Standards: 26.410.040.D.2 First story element, 26.410.040.D.1 Street Oriented
entrance and principal window, and 26.410.040.D.3.a Windows.
5. There shall be no deviations in scale and mass, as defined in HPC Resolution Number 5;
Series of 1991, from the exterior elevations as"approved without first being reviewed and
approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full boazd.
6. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City
Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public
of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property
right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
601 West Hallam Street
Page 7 of 9
P44
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval~d fora sriod of
development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, Pe
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: 601 West Hallam Street.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent
reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations
and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals aze
not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and
judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights
shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final
development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of
referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the
Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
601 West Hallam Street
Page 8 of 9
P45
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 601 West Hallam Street"
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 contest, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
^ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
^ Anew porch should be 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 cleazly 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.
^ The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs aze appropriate for primay 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 similaz 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.
601 West Hallam Street
Page 9 of 9
P46
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMA'IISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MASS AND SCALE AS DEFINED IN HPC RESOLUTION NUMBERED 5
SERIES OF 19'91 AND A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE WITH
CONDITIONS, THREE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES ARE
DENIED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 601 WEST HALLAM STREET, LOTS
H AND I, BLOCK 23, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2009
PARCEL ID: 2735.124.31.002.
WHEREAS, the applicant, David Newberger, 2905 San Gabrielle, Suite 218, Austin, TX,
78705, represented by Harry Teague, 129 Emma road, Suite A, Basalt, CO 81621 requests mass
and scale review, pursuant to HPC Resolution numbered 5, Series of 1991, and Residential
Design Standard Variances for the property located at 601 West Hallam Street, Lots H and I,
Block 23, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, HPC resolution numbered 5, Series of 1991, grants HPC the authority to review the
mass and scale of new development on the subject properly, defined as follows:
Mass: "any new building will be designed so that it is not one big uninterrupted box
structure and will use appropriately pitched roof fortes for residential buildings as
opposed to flat roofs;"
Scale: "window and door dimensions and building scale shall be consistent with the scale
of other buildings on the block;" and
WHEREAS, 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 Standards, 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 particulaz standazd. 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 necessazy for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints;
and
WHEREAS, Saza Adams, in her staff report dated Mazch 11th, 2009, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standazds, found that the review standards for Residential Design
Standazd variances were not met, and recommended HPC deny the requested variances; and the
P47
found that the mass and scale met the intent of HPC Resolution numbered 5, Series of 1991 and
recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on Februazy 11, 2009, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was inconsistent with the review
standazds for the Residential Design Standazd variances, and was consistent with the intent of
HPC Resolution numbered 5,. Series of 1991 and approved the a portion of the application with
conditions by a vote of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants mass and scale approval, pursuant to HPC Resolution numbered 5,
Series of 1991, and grants approval for one of the requested Residential Design Standazd
variances, three of the requested Residential Design Standazd variances aze denied for the
property located at 601 West Hallam Street, Lots H and I, Block 23, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions;
1. Accessible space above the one story element is not approved.
2. The solar panels proposed above the linking element are not approved.
3. A Residential Design Standazd variance is granted for 26.410.O10.B.1 Secondary Mass,
with the condition that the space above the linking element is not accessible and the solaz
panels above the linking element aze omitted.
4. The applicant will bring the proposal into compliance with the following Residential
Design Standazds: 26.410.040.D.2 First story element, 26.410.040.D.1 Street Oriented
entrance and principal window, and 26.410.040.D.3.a Windows.
5. There shall be no deviations in scale and mass, as defined in HPC Resolution Number 5,
Series of 1991, from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and
approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full boazd.
6. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104:050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City
Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the,City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public
of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property
right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
P48
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:, 601 W est Hallam 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 thai 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 26304.070(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 March
2009.
Michael Hoffman, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
ATTEST:
• Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
wr ae oee *zear~uoze N
tia•w oew ewwa s z e ~§
1O311HO11tl 311 `Jtl31 AtlNtlH
a
w
n~
0
rc
a
LIeLB 'apeiolop'uadstl
wslleH IseM L08
aouapisaa ~a6~agMaN
I~
L~ _