HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20090513ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May13, 2009
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: NOON -
L Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - Apri122, 2009
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #15)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. NONE
1X. WORKSESSION:
A. Wheeler Opera House -Joint worksession with the
Planning & Zoning Commission (lhr.)
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. 219 S. Third Street -Historic Landmark Designation,
Historic Landmark Lot Split, Major Development
(Conceptual) FAR bonus, Variances (lhr
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.
P1
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: .Jennifer Phelan, Planning Deputy Director
RE: Wheeler Addition Worksession # 2
DATE: May 13, 2009
This is the second joint worksession with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the
Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) for the upcoming Wheeler Opera House expansion
application. The joint meetings are intended to help the Boards balance the complex issues and
review process, and to create an understanding of the Commissions' different goals to avoid
conflicting decisions. Following is an explanation regazding,the upcoming review process.
The Wheeler is a designated landmark located in the Commercial Core Historic District. As
such, HPC has purview over the mass, scale, context, site location and architectural details
(including materials, fenestration, etc.) of the proposed addition as it relates to the historic
Wheeler and the Historic District through Conceptual Design Review. HPC will conduct
Commercial Design Review and Special Review for Pazking with recommendations from P & Z
during Conceptual Review.. The applicant requests some variations from the underlying
Commercial Core Zone District through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. P & Z
and City Council are authorized to review and approve a PUD application, which establishes
dimensional requirements (based on the underlying zoning) and must be consistent with the
Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP.)
After HPC grants Conceptual Design approval, Commercial Design approval and Special Review
for Pazking, the P & Z will review the application and make a recommendation to City Council
regazding the dimensions of the project or the "size and height of the box" through the PUD
process. It is very important For HPC to understand P & Z's concerns about the project during
HPC's conceptual review process to prevent cyclical conversations or contradictions between
HPC and P & Z, especially because the reviews overlap in some areas. Ultimately, City Council
has final review authority over the PUD and will decide the dimensional standazds and variations
for the addition. Please refer to the attached flow chart of the review process.
Joint formal public hearings with HPC and P & Z are proposed throughout the summer to provide
a venue for Board members to communicate and to understand different perspectives and goals of
the Boards. Staff does not typically conduct joint meetings with HPC and P & Z because the
purview of each Board is cleazly sepazate; however Staff feels that the Wheeler expansion is an
appropriate project to utilize this option. A tentative schedule will be handed out at the
worksession on May 13`".
~ Recommendations to Council regarding Growth Management and Subdivision will be reviewed by P & Z
during the Conceptual PUD process.
P2
Z
w
J
W
W
W
~--'
O
V I
N
W
V
a
W
w
Q
V_
Z
Q
o, v o
0
.
C ~ O
~ N
N
C
V
N
L ~ vii V ~
lA O
`° o
~ ~
N ~ V
~ w n N >.
a 3 3~ v °1 v
.~ G~
C d
•
~ C
O
~ > ~ Y
~ v
' v
OC ry
~
O
C
> E c c ~ v
v
~ C rn ~ m
' o ~
R ~~ ° H W VI
3 A O u Q ~ 7
°
ar ~ o N
• > a
N v
,
a3+ ~ d: Q o
C ~
,
v
oa
v ~ E o f6 p~
V ~ x
v E o v w~
= o .
,
V c p
V
~ D_
`~ V
~ o~
~ ~ hj M C N
N
o~ ~
2 C
E 1O
O L
N V
,v `o
v "'
L
~ Y
c ~
~~ E
.~
a
C ~
O A ~ O
C N V 7 a+
a
O Y 2 C N
O Y N C
3 •3 a °
H
m
c
.~
m
r
V
7
a
d
.~
N
a
V ~ Y ~
~ ~ ~
~
a LL $ ; a
~ a
3 c ~ a '> o
d ~ 41 ~ Q ~ .:: u
a ~ d d ~ c~ 3
z ~ rn_ a LL
V L
c ~
f0 /~
~ ~
a L
d
C ~ C ~, = u ~
V Y w ~ v
o c
F. a
v
>` C
V Z O
V l7 ~ ~ ~ '°
~
V a LL
N f
Z
w
m •• 3
m ~ v v w
-d -
• `O N YO ~ N C
o ~ 3 E o ,C t G
o v o '+~ o a
o
~
v v ~
3 ~° o
V~
m
.
Y o: ~ ~ ,v aci ro,
`~ c
v
• v c Y o c', E "
V
) O O/ .V 0 ~ E
~ C d li o
I~ p 0
~ v
C p ..
,_
~ pi V
,~ ._ v, a
,
~~ ro j N 0 ~
ar 0
i.
C is
~a j
"''^ o
D
v o
c
R ° EL v
o
L v
~ rv rn
~ p
1~ ~ V .. .Y
~ C a+ :
C ~ C 'm0
~~p' °V ~ ~ vii C ~ j N a v
3 Q, N a ~ w ~ .a ~ ~ c
c
J
l7 N
~ ~
a g ` v°
O ~ ~ ~
2 fV
~
~ V
~ z
N D
~ ~
a
a
m
L
Y
N ~y
>
> ~
Y d ~
C
~
a
~ (a
' a °-
V ~ rn 3
~ c
. ^ v
~
~ o >
L N ~
V ~ c
~
L N ~
C
a
? N ~
0
. 3 •~ ~
.
N ~
• ~
~ V
d
~e > G/
E
„ ~ o,
~
LL ~ V O
.? ~ c ~
a
N
V ~ N
P3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 219 S. Third Street- Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split,
Major Development (Conceptual), FAR Bonus, Setback Variances, Residential
Design Standards Variances- Public Hearing
DATE: May 13, 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 28~' and March,
11`h, 2009. The board agreed that examples of the Modem Chalet style of architecture,
particularly this example are worthy of preservation. HPC members expressed concern that
negotiated benefits could overload the site in a manner that defeats the value of designation.
Between the two meetings with the Commission, the property owner decreased the proposed
floor area, density, and bedrooms on the site.
On May 11 `h, Council will hold First Reading of an Ordinance to establish incentives, if any, that
that they will commit to the property owner to achieve voluntary designation. The City is not
able to landmark any properties listed on Ordinance #48 without the owner's consent.
The proposal by the property owner of 219 S. Third Street entails preserving the existing 1,500
square foot home, and making an 1,100 square foot addition at the rear corner. The western half
of the site is to be subdivided into a new lot that will contain a 2,400 square foot home to be
designed in the future. To facilitate the proposed project, the applicant requests Council approval
for Historic Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, setback variances, an FAR bonus, a
1
The owners of 219 S. Third
P4
Residential Design Standards variance, waiver of Affordable Housing Mitigation and extended
vested rights. The variances being requested of Council are not within HPC's purview. Items
being negotiated with City Council are shown in red throughout this memo. No HPC action is
needed, but the board should have a full understanding of the proposal.
The project does not increase development rights beyond what could be achieved through
existing code processes, however, Council negotiation could assure the applicant the entitlements
and configuration they are seeking. HPC will still have design review on this site and will be
asked to grant a number of benefits that are traditionally within the board's authority.
On May 26`", Council will hear Second Reading of the Ordinance. At that time the applicant
hopes to have clarity as to what incentives are offered in total. Once an agreement is reached, the
project will return to HPC for Final review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to consider
preservation, rather than demolition of this modern home. We find the criteria are met for Historic
Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Major Development (Conceptual) and the requested
variances.
WHppk~Sq~~
~.
^
:~ ~ . ~ .. ~
.r ~- ~ ~ Y Y
c ~~ ~ rk1HgV '
Legend N
Subject Parcel '*
Roada W ~ E
City~Boundary ~o
o zo ~ ao izo iso S
Feet
2
P5
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 20t" 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
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 gather 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.
P6
Examples of classic Chalet buildings in Aspen include:
r.... , : - ~,.
t.~, ,.,; : ~~
4
Examples of Modern Chalets in Aspen include:
P7
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. The neighborhood surrounding this
property is a microcosm of the architectural influences that have dominated Aspen's history. To
the north is perhaps the oldest residence in town, a circa 1885 log cabin. 1930's tourist cabins
occupy the nearby L'Auberge property. Along Hopkins Avenue are The Boomerang Lodge and
several 1960's era apartment structures. To the east, Chalets, Wrightian structures, and
Victorians are common.
As part of landmark designation review, staff typically completes an integrity score sheet to
determine the amount of original features and material that exists. We are unable to do so for
this property 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, although a draft statement is attached as
"Exhibit B." 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.
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the Municipal Code states that the
application shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section
26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.120(A). In preparing this
review, staff has discovered that recent amendments to the code have rendered the latter two code
citations inaccurate. Section 26.470.070(C) previously provided for Growth Management
exemption of a new home on a Historic Landmark Lot Split parcel. The exemption is now found
at Section 26.470.060(2). Section, 26.415.120(A) refers to appeals of HPC decisions. The
correct code citation is 26.415.110(A), which is procedures for review of Historic Landmark Lot
Splits. The relevant code sections are addressed below.
During the previous HPC reviews, a neighboring property owner raised concerns about whether
the subject site is impacted by natural hazards due to its location at the toe of Shadow Mountain.
Staff asked the applicant to provide a professionally prepared analysis of this question. A letter
from Yeh Associates is attached as "Exhibit C." In addition, the neighbor raised concerns about
adding another residential unit on what is a dead end alley. The alley currently serves the
neighbor's home, a log cabin, and the Modern Chalet at 219 S. Third. Staff consulted with the
Streets Department, who stated that they are required to remove the snow regardless of how
many units use the alley. Property owners must retain their own snow on their site, and not dump
into the right-of--way. There are other dead end alleys in town with multiple residential and
commercial units located along them.
The Fire Department is not concerned with providing service, particularly because the dead end
alley is only half the length of the block. They are likely to require fire sprinklers for the new
house on the Historic Landmark Lot Split as a precautionary measure, but would not ask for a
fire truck turnaround or other mitigation.
5
P8
26.480.030(A)(2),SUBDNISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a
lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following
conditions are met:
a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board
of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes
and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision
regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not
apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures; and
Staff Finding: The property is part of the original Aspen townsite, not located in a subdivision
approved by the City or the County.
b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070(B);
and
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to create two lots. Both conform to the lot size
requirements (minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet) and lot area per dwelling unit requirements
(minimum area of 3,000 square feet per unit) for Historic Landmark Properties in the R-15 Zone
District. This property will contain one single family residence on a 5,868 square foot lot and
one single family residence on a 4,122 square foot lot. The applicant has expressed a desire to
have some flexibility on the timeframe to retain the existing house in duplex, rather than single
family form, since development plans may not be acted on for some period of time. The duplex
will remain legal until the lot split plat is filed. At that point it must be eliminated because the
minimum lot size for a duplex is 6,000 square feet, which is not being provided. 1'llis is a topic
for discussion at City Council. There are several options, including providing the applicant with
a longer than normal deadline for filing the plat.
With regard to affordable housing mitigation, Section 26.470.070(B), the Growth Management
section has been revised and the correct standards are found at Section 26.470.060(2)(a) of the
Municipal Code. New homes on vacant lots formed through a Historic Landmark Lot Split are
required to provide affordable housing mitigation. The applicant has asked City Council for a
wain er as part of the negotiation process. 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 $171,888 (2,400
sq. ft. x $71.62/sq.ft.). Staff sees this 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.
6
P9
Park dedication fees are waived for development on historic landmark properties. No special
consideration is needed. Four bedrooms exist on the site now. A total of 6 are proposed. The
fee waiver is 2 bedrooms x $4,429= $8,858.
c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemptio~z under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split"
exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a): and
Staff Finding: The land has not received a subdivision exemption or lot split exemption.
d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the
requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision
may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of
applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation
pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the
Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land
use action.
e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in
the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the
applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following
approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of
the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause.
Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval.
~ In the case where an existing single family dwelling occupies a site which is
eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a
lot split.
Staff Finding: No demolition is proposed.
g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not
exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single family
home.
Staff Finding: A single family home is proposed on each lot.
26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
a.) The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size
and be located in tl:e R-6, R-1 S, R-1 SA, RMF or O Zone District.
7
P10
Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 9,942 square feet and is located in the R-15 Zone District.
b.) The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and
the Zone District where the property is located The total FAR jor each lot shall be
noted on the subdivision exemption plat.
Staff Finding: FAR is based on lot size, in this case after areas of steep slopes created by an
existing berm at the rear of the site are deducted. The lot size for purpose of determining FAR is
7,472 square feet, which equals a base allowable FAR of 4,042 square feet for a landmarked site.
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.) There are other development choices that could add FAR to a site like this
one. The applicant has described the maximum build out (in anon-landmark scenario) as a
single family or duplex, plus a voluntary carriage house, which is exempt from FAR up to 1200
square feet, and earns a 600 square foot FAR bonus.
Landmarked properties have different minimum lot sizes, so with the proposed designation, the
house can be designed to duplex FAR, which at 4,042 square feet is 390 square feet more than a
non-landmark scenario is allowed.
Within the framework of the negotiation for voluntary designation, the property owner intends to
ask for floor area bonuses to achieve their desired program. The bonuses are the 500 square feet
that HPC often considers for exemplary projects, and an additional grant of 493 square feet from
City Council. Staff has recommended approval of this bonus. Of the total 5,035 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 2,625 square feet is to accommodate the existing approximately
1,500 square foot house and an 1,100 square foot addition to it.
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. Staff finds the size and placement of the proposed, addition to the
Modern Chalet to be sympathetic, and successful in preserving the primary facades of the
building with little direct alteration to them. The criteria for the 500 square foot bonus will be
addressed below, in the context of the design review.
A chart that compares the FAR that is allowed on the site without designation, with designation,
and with the requested negotiated benefits follows, for HPC's reference.
8
~ ~ 3
o
~ a~
o
~
r
+r
bl~
~;
~
~
~ y-'r
o
~ N O
x U
00
~ ~
a ~
~ a,
x ~
U
~ ~ ^" '" ~ ~
_"'
O ~ .-~ ~
O
O
cn
3 o Q ~ ~ ~~
L
~'
~
~ -~
~ ~
`O
~" ~
~',
~
6' ~
0~ V1 (~ O
~
~ V)
U rn
U
x
O
CL ~
O O
~~ ~ !
`"~ ~ ~ +
~ ~
x ~
w ~ I
~ O
z O I
~ ~
> +-~
°i ~
> +-' ' Q
x
- _ - - o
N o
a.
v~ ~
. ~
~ ~
o
:~
'CS L ~ _ • ~ + ~ ~
~ ~ ~
O ~ ~ N
' ~ U ~
~ X
~ O
~ cn
~
'O .b O
'~
c~a ,~
~ ~?
~ ~
~ . ~ a, Q
~ ~ a.
-b ~ O
o ~ ~
d ~?
~ b
~
r~i~ O
~ U
O
~ .~
rn
O O .b
a--+ ~ > ~
~ ~ GA
~ -
Cyy~ U
r.+ ~ ~ ~+ ~ N .Ti
~ ~
'
' ~ O ~ O r--~
~ ~ N
' ~„~ ,~
' N
' ~ ~ ~
~"
"' ~
C~ ~
w O
M O
Q ~
S~ ~ ~
~ v
~
'd' 6+ ~j"
~ J ~'
t
\O cd
U ~_
~:
X ~
bA
Q.. ~
by ~
O ~
~
. ~
'Cy
C~ ~ 'd N ~ ~ O ~ 4'' +~-+
'O
O ~ O~
O ~
` 00
x ~
. ,~.
~ `n
~
~ N
~
'b
~
~
dOA
. Nv
o ~ ~,
~ .-.
~
N
~ .
x'~ ~
V"1 ~
~
r-+
3 O
~ ~
~ ,
~
~ ~
~' o,
~
~ ~
' ~ ~
a''
w ~' . ~ ~
°
N ~
' ~ ~
b b
~ ~.
°~ o ~
W
o d
~
~.
~]
w s,
~ ~
~ ~,
~ ~
A "w ~ C ~ W U a+ W
N ~ O
Q
~ .~
~ ~~
N
P11
P12
c.) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying
Zone District. The variances provided in Paragraphs 26.415.120.B.I.a, band care
only permitted on the parcels that will contains an historic structure. The FAR
bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel.
Staff Finding: The development meets the dimensional requirements of the zone district except
for setbacks and FAR. Variance requests are detailed below.
Section 26.470.060(2), Administrative Applications for Growth Management. New houses
on a landmark lot split property are exempt from Growth Management competition, but are
deducted from the overall residential development ceiling levels. To receive an exemption,
affordable housing mitigation is to be provided. The applicant is requesting a waiver.
26.415.110(A), Benefits. This section describes the review process for Historic Landmark Lot
Splits. The process is being properly followed. Both HPC and Council will hold noticed public
hearings, with Council making their final determination based on a recommendation from HPC.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) anrUor addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
The application includes a design for an addition to the Modern Chalet. The new house is not
being submitted for review at this time, but will be under HPC's purview in the future.
9
P13
To the right is a photo of the
rear of the house. The
applicant proposes an
addition at the southwest
corner, which leaves this
view (and the alley, or front
facade) completely intact.
The addition is built
partially into the hillside.
Location of
proposed addition
The new construction
reflects the height, roof
pitch, and proportions of the
existing building. It results
in little to no demolition of
the existing structure. It
does back up to the western
carport, and the applicant
proposes the main entry into
the house in this location. HPC should provide feedback on this topic because typically the
board prefers to retain original entry points. Currently the house is a duplex and there is a simple
doorway located under each carport.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
^ Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door,
door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and
flanking sidelights.
^ Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
^ If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the
door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic
position.
^ If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must
remain operable.
One proposed alteration to the Modern Chalet that staff does not support is filling in the area
under the rear deck. Staff finds that the projecting deck is an important element of the rear
(visible from the street) facade and the recessed basement wall should be retained. The applicant
has stated a desire to repair/reconstruct the rear deck. This is an issue for Final review, however
the overall character and materiality of this element should be preserved. It is likely that the
railings could benefit from some safety upgrades.
10
P14
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original
designs.
^ The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building's heritage.
^ When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence,
develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and
maintains similar scale, proportion and material.
Staff supports Conceptual approval with the condition that one of the two original entry doors be
retained as the access into what is to become a single family home. In addition, the area under
the rear deck should not be infilled. More discussion about the deck itself, along with the
landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials is required at Final.
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to
an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
11
P15
Staff Response: Due to the nature of the negotiation process, which initially only gave the City
a 90 day time frame to work within (since extended with the applicant's agreement), staff did not
schedule a worksession on the bonus. The application has been before HPC twice already, so the
board has had the opportunity to provide early feedback.
The applicant requests the full 500 square foot FAR bonus. Staff finds that the Modern Chalet
must be preserved in a very intact condition to earn this bonus. The project includes additional
FAR bonuses through Ordinance #48 and it is important that we do not overwhelm the historic
resource in the process of trying to save it.
Few alterations to the existing architecture are proposed. The drawings indicate that new
windows are to be added on the front facade. The windows are in alignment with existing units,
but extend the glazing to the eave line. The applicant wishes to replace all the window units, in
kind. New lightwells are proposed for the basement. The roof materiaUcolor are proposed to be
altered, and the applicant would like to apply new stucco or veneer to the existing chimney (a
very small element on the roof) The building is to be repainted, which is not a topic within
HPC's purview. The applicant would like to remove and reconstruct the rear deck with new
materials, more in keeping with the character of the house. All of these items are most properly
reviewed at Final. HPC has relevant guidelines to achieve the best result on all of these topics,
and staff finds that none of the work "makes or breaks" the argument for an FAR bonus.
Painting and general repairs will be undertaken to refurbish the building and the improvements to
the prominent rear deck will make a better contribution to the architectural character of the
building. There is little opportunity to earn the bonus through restoration work because the
building hasn't been significantly changed.
As discussed above, staff finds the proposed addition to be quite sympathetic to the existing
house. The decision to direct much of the new construction towards a detached new house is
also strongly supported.
The designation is voluntary and the 500 square foot bonus is one of the more valuable benefits
available in the historic preservation program. Staff supports the applicant's request.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are
as follows:
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
12
P16
Staff Response: The applicant requests setback variances on all four sides of the existing house,
mostly due to existing conditions.
The building is already out of compliance with the front yard (alley) and east side yard 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 area 16'6" north yard setback reduction for the
existing location of the house, a 20'6" north yard setback reduction for new lightwells (may not
be required if the lightwells are the minimum size required by Building Code), a 2' east yard
setback reduction for an existing shed alongside the east carport, a 4' west yard setback reduction
for an existing shed alongside the west carport, a 5' west yard setback reduction for the proposed
addition, a 4' south yard setback reduction for the proposed addition, and a 10' rear yard setback
reduction for a proposed patio.
The variances that facilitate new, above ground construction are at the rear of the site,
internalized to the property, and allow the addition to be positioned in a location that preserves
the three publically viewable facades intact. Staff finds this location, and the variances, to be
more appropriate than the previous plan, which was to add on directly behind the Modern Chalet.
We support the setback waivers finding that criterion "b," above, is met.
HPC does not have the authority to grant setback variances on the new parcel created through the
lot split, however variances are needed to establish the building envelope suggested on the site
plan. Council is being asked to grant a 16'6" front yard setback variance (staff finds this
particularly appropriate in order to be consistent with the placement of the Modern Chalet) and a
~' east sideyard setback variance on Lot 2. 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 has recommended Council support the variance requests for the vacant lot.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The existing building requires variances from the following Residential Design Standards:
Building Orientation, Street Oriented Entrance, and Principal Window. The proposed new
addition requires a variance from the Residential Design Standard related to Windows.
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
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 board may consider
I 13
~"'
P17
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.
216.410.040.A.1 Building Orientation
The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street.
Staff Response: The front facade of this house faces the alley. The building is orthogonal to the
lot lines, which is the underlying intent of the standard. This is an existing condition. Staff
supports a waiver of the Residential Design Standard.
216.410.040.D.1 Street oriented entrance and principal window
a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet back from the frontmost
wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight feet.
b. A covered entry porth of firfty of more square feet, with a minimum depth of six fee shall
be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story
in height.
Staff Response: The front facade of this house faces the alley. The entry doors are located
under the carports and currently do not meet the Residential Design Standards. Staff has
recommended the door(s) be preserved. If the door is relocated to the back of the west carport, as
proposed, that would still be more consistent with the architectural character of the house, than
would be a new street-facing door as required by this standard.
A front porch is not a feature that is authentic to this house, and one should not be added. Staff
supports waiver of this standard.
26.410.040.D.3 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 (12) feet above the finished first floor.
Staff Response: The windows on the east side of the new addition violate this standard. Staff
does not find a specific site constraint, or preservation concern that would justify a waiver,
therefore the windows should be redesigned to comply. Windows are reviewed by HPC at the
Final level.
NOTE: The applicant is requesting City Council waive compliance with the "Secondary Mass"
requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the house on the new lot. The Residential
Design 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 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.)
14
P18
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC support Council approval of Historic
Landmark Designation and the Historic Landmark Lot Split. Staff recommends that HPC grant
Major Development (Conceptual), FAR Bonus, Setback Variances, and Residential Design
Standards Variances with conditions. The board should be aware of one additional request the
applicant is making to Council, which pertains to "Vested Rights." 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 required to provide a 3 year vesting period. The
applicant is asking Council to grant 10 year vesting.
Recommended conditions of HPC's approval are:
1. At least one of the two original entry doors must be retained as the primary access into
the building.
2. The area under the rear deck should not be infilled.
3. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot bonus.
4. HPC hereby grants Lot 1 a 16'6" north yard setback reduction for the existing location of
the house, a 20'6" north yard setback reduction for new lightwells (may not be required if
the lightwells are the minimum size required by Building Code), a 2' east yard setback
reduction for an existing shed alongside the east carport, a 4' west yard setback reduction
for an existing shed alongside the west carport, a 5' west yard setback reduction for the
proposed addition, a 4' south yard setback reduction for the proposed addition, and a 10'
rear yard setback reduction for a proposed patio.
5. HPC hereby grants waivers of the following Residential Design Standards for Lot 1:
Building Orientation, Street Oriented Entrance, and Principal Window.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Draft context statement for Modern Chalets
C. Report on natural hazards
D. Application
15
P19
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for219 S. Third Street, Conceptual Review"
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
o Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the
door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms
and flanking sidelights.
^ Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
^ If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that
the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic
position.
^ If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must
remain operable.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original
designs.
^ The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building's heritage.
^ When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence,
develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and
maintains similar scale, proportion and material.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier 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.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
^ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
16
P20
^ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
^ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
^ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
17
ASPEN'S 20th CENTURY ARCHITECTURE:
MODERN CHALET STYLE BUILDINGS
The Modern Chalet style in Aspen describes buildings constructed in the 1950's to early
1970's that combined the influences of Chalet architecture with the modernist approach
employed by trained local architects, typically within the offices of Fritz Benedict, Herbert
Bayer, Rob Roy, and their associates. The low pitched roof, deep overhangs, balconies, simple
form, orientation towards the mountain and other aspects of the Chalets were re-visited with
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.
CHALET PRECEDENTS
P21
P22
MODERN CHALET EXAMPLES
P23
P24
~ Yeh and Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers & Scientists
April 29, 2009
Ms. Suzanne Foster Project 28-211 A
7 S. Main Street
Yardley, PA 19067
Subject: Geological Hazards Evaluation, Cleary Property, 219 S. Third Street, Aspen,
Colorado.
Dear Ms. Foster:
This letter presents the results of Yeh and Associates geological hazards evaluation for the
subject property. This evaluation is intended to provide an assessment of the geological hazards
which may affect development of the property. This evaluation consisted of field reconnaissance
and review of existing literature. Although the site is located within the City of Aspen, our
investigation was conducted in accordance with Section 7-20-20 Steep and Potentially Unstable
Slopes and Section 7-20-50 Geologic Hazards, Sections (a) through (i) of the Pitkin County
Development Standards. This evaluation does not include environmental assessment.
INVESTIGATION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Our investigation consisted of a site visit and review of five map sets:
• "Geologic Map of the Aspen quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado" prepared by Bruce
Bryant, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971
• '`Geologic Map of the Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys", 1974 by F. M. Fox and
Associates, Inc.
• "Map Showing Areas of Selected Potential Geologic Hazards in the Aspen Quadrangle,
Pitkin County, Colorado" prepared by Bruce Bryant, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972
• ``Environmental and Geologic Constraints Map of the Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys",
by F. M. Fox and Associates, Inc. 1974
• "Pitkin County Colorado, Lower Roaring Fork Valley, Potential Geologic Hazards" 1974
by Colorado State University
SITE CONDITIONS
We conducted a site visit to the property on April 21, 2009. The study area included the
northeast-facing slope on the northwestern most extremity of Aspen Mountain (Ajax) that is also
known as Shadow Mountain. Two parcels are included in this study. The parcels are located
within the City of Aspen and are bounded on the north by an alley and on the east by 3rd Street.
There is an existing house on the northeast part of the parcel. An old railroad bed, bike trail,
existing earth berm and heavily treed area lay to the south of the parcels. We understand that the
planned development will occur to the north side of the old railroad grade.
5700 East Evans Avenue, Denver, CO SD222, (303) 781-9590, Fax (303) 781-9583
170 Mel Ray Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, (970) 384-1500, Fax (970) 384-15D1
570 Turner Drive, Suite D, Durango, CO 81303, (970) 382-9590, Fax (970) 382-9563
P25
28-211 A Cleary Property, 219 South 3`d Street, Aspen, Colorado
The topography above the site is relatively steep, mountainous terrain. The elevation of the
slope above the study area ranges from about 7900 to 8900 feet.
The slope above the site consists of exposed bedrock cliffs with local slope gradients greater than
150% interrupted by talus slopes which have developed due to rocks dislodging from the
bedrock cliffs and depositing at the base of the cliffs. This part of the slope is heavily vegetated
with conifers as well as low forest undergrowth and grasses. The outcropping bedrock areas
consist of very hard, dolomitic sandstone, shale and quartzite bedrock with some shallow rocky
talus covered bedrock.
Most of the slope, except for the outcropping bedrock, consists of soft, shallow colluvial soil
deposits with cobble and boulder sized dolomitic sandstone clasts partially to completely buried
in the soil matrix. The bedrock is estimated to have several feet of soil cover and will likely
possess rockfall characteristics more like rocky soil than bedrock. This portion of the slope is
moderately to heavily vegetated with conifers and light forest undergrov~~th. The conifers are
typically 20 to 30 feet in height and have trunk diameters of 6 to 18 inches.
Mine access and activities above the parcel have resulted in a slope that is softer, flatter and more
irregular than the natural slope higher up the mountain. The bike path which runs along the base
of the hill to the south of the parcels creates a flat area that is approximately 30 to 50 feet wide.
P26
28-21 lA Cleary Property, 2l9 South 3`d Street, Aspen, Colorado
There is also afive-foot high, man-made earth berm located to the south of the proposed
development.
The outcropping dolomitic sandstone units show evidence of potential future rockfall. The
frequency of rockfall from the cliffs is moderate, with multiple rockfall events greater than one
half cubic yard occurring annually.
P27
28-2] IA Cleary Properly, 219 South 3`d Street, Aspen, Colorado
RESULTS
Section 7-20-20 Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes
The parcels are relatively flat except for the slope formed by the old railroad grade which is well
vegetated and stable in its current configuration. The site is not impacted by steep and potentially
unstable slopes.
Section 7-20-50 (c) Rockfall
There is a potential source of rockfall several hundred feet above the site which is unlikely to
affect the proposed development due to the characteristics of the slope above the site. The
remnants of past mining have created an area, which should stop any rockfall that originates
from the northeast facing slope of Shadow Mountain. The slope configuration resulting from the
historic mining activity as well as the existing earth berm makes it unlikely that future rockfall
will affect the parcels.
Section 7-20-50 (d) Alluvial Fan Hazard
There is a potential for small, infrequent debris flow and debris flood events to originate from
Shadow Mountain during intense precipitation events. These small events are unlikely to affect
the proposed development due to the characteristics of the slope above the site where the
remnants of past mining have created an area which is less steep in addition to the protection
provided by the flat area and berm near the existing bike path. It is unlikely that future debris
events will affect the parcels.
Section 7-20-50 (e) Talus Slopes
One of the maps that we reviewed showed the parcel at the boundary of Quaternary talus deposit.
Our site visit indicated that the actual boundary was several hundred feet to the south of the
mapped boundary and that the site is not impacted by talus slopes.
Section 7-20-50 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (fl, (g)_(h), (i)
This site is not impacted by Section 7-20-50 (a) Avalanche; (b) Landslide Hazard; (c) Rockfall
Hazards; (d) Alluvial Fan Hazard; (e) Talus Slopes; (f) Mancos Shale; (g) Faults; (h) Expansive
Soil and Rock; (i) Ground Subsidence.
SUMMARY
Our research and evaluation indicates that the site is generally free from potential geological
hazards and appears to be suitable for the proposed development.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geological practices in this
area for use by the client for preliminary planning purposes. If geological hazard mitigation is
included in the site-specific development plan, Yeh and Associates, Inc. should review the
P28
28-2] lA Cleary Property, 219 South 3rd Street, Aspen, Colorado
proposed design and construction procedure. The preliminary conclusions and recommendations
submitted in this report are based upon data obtained from the observations made in the field.
The findings and recommendations given in this report are site-specific, and are only valid for
the subject site.
Respectfully submitted,
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
PfN
Roger A. Pihl P.G., (WY #PG-3353)
Principal Scientist
i
- - - 29
0
0
/
/
/
/ ~ / I ~I
/ I ~
/ / / I Z
I _ I o
/ PROPOSED LOT 2 I ~ I
4,122 s.f. ''- ~
/ ~ / (PROPOSED F.A.R.= 2,400 sq.ft.) I „ I
/ I w
/ / /
/ ~ 8'-6"
/ I
L PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE ~
r~/ ~ ~ ~ o ~`~ PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)
/ o b 61_~1~
I
I
~,
/~/ ° - --
~~Q PROPOSED ADDITION
0
z
EXIST. I
CARPORT
PROPOSED 4'-6"
PATIO
I ~ w
O
I o=
y U
d ~
I
PROPOSED ~ IST. EXISTING BUILDING
PATIO ~ECK FOOTPRINT
O .Jl
o~
i ~
I
EXIST. I
CARPORT
~ PROPOSED LOT 1
5,868 sq.ft.
(PROPOSED F.A.R.= 2,625 sq.ft.)
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)
PROPOSED LOT DIVISION/ BUILDING ENVELOPES -
FOSTER
71Q C ~Rf
A-1
IIATC. !1]_(11 _!1f]
P30
Written description of proposal:
Proposed for 219 S. Third Street
1. Complete the historic lot split dividing the property into two separate parcels.
2. Create small addition to existing duplex as per floor plan and elevations included in
this packet.
3. Create setback variances for new lot that create an approved building envelop for its
future develpment
__.~
P31
ATITACHMI;NT 3 - Dimensional Requirements ror•m
(Item #IU on the submittal requirements lce.y. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project: ~ (~5 I ~~
Applicant: Sl)z/~-ti~~ COST C~
Project
Location: ~ I q ~5 . ~ ~,Q T (L~~T ~ tE ~ t ST sr ~='• i~~ ?~ ~k ~ .
Zone
District: ~ - I S
Lot Size: _ ~ ~ y~ ~ f
Lot Area: 7 ~ 7 ~ ~ F
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Aie[I llla}~ be reduced for areas within
[he high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot
Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: L'xisrirrl,>:~ O 1'roJ~nsed: C~
Number of residential units: E.~;isrira~>: ~1 1',~~J,~s~a; i
Number of bedroot)rs: Existing.' ~~ I'rvpvsed: ~ 3
Proposed % of. demolition: ~
DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirenr.ent exists in the zone di.~tricl)
Floor Area: Existirz~: 1 S 33 Allpwrzbly: ~
' ~~ U 2 5~ 1'ropvsed: a (0 2 S'
Height
Principal Bldg.: Lxistin ~_
g: ~ ,4llar~~ablc: t
2 S ~ .
I r npnsed: ~ i
Accessory Bldg.: Existirt ~:~_
~ t~ Allowable:
NIf~- , . ,
1 r oposcil:~
On-Site parking:
E~~isting: ~. Re Lcired:_
9 _
/U~ ~ ~ J a
/~ 1 ~ o ~oscd:
Site coverage: E~islirt~: V °Ib Re arired:
~-. g yI~
I'rupvse.d:
Open Space: Existing: ~0 ~7o Regtrired: N~/-~- Proposed:
Front Setback .fsx:istr:n~: ~ ` ~ `~ Re uireo':
9 -Z S ~ ``
Proposed: ~ `
Rear Sctbaclc: I:'xi.rring: S ~ Rec i~rt:red:
1 <y ~ -~
1'rnpnsc~d: _ ~
Combined Front/Real
lndicale N S E 1>.r Exi,s~tin~:.. l3 I ~ ~ Rec t.r.ir~ed: 3 5 ` ~ • / ~
- - 1 I r vvnsed ~ cG
Side Setback: Existit~.g:~Regr~rit ed: (O ` I'r~opnsed: ~ ~ ~ ~
Side Sctbaclc °
Fxisting:_ a ~ Reguirerl:
/O
Proposed: i
3
Combined Sides: Existin °` ~
g:_ 3 ~ ~ I?eguired:
Z~ ~
Proposed: t "
1 oZ ~
Distance between Existin ~
g: /v ~" Rc,gtared: O ~
~
P~~vpnscd: ~
~ U
buildings:
( ~ i ~n~ w~.l 5
?::xisting non-conforn)ities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses ha~~e been issuc;d:
~ ~r~ l~ I,~ S'ov ,F
a~~r~5
Variations requesl.ed (identif~r the exact variances ne.eded):
Aspen Historic l'rescrvatinn
J Land Use AP}~licalion l~eyuircmen(s; Updalcd: R9ay 29, 2007
P32
Project:
Applicant:
Project
.Location:
Zone
D;strict:
Lot Size:
1,oi Area:
A1~1:'ACNM~NT 3 - Dimensiaual Requiren~er~ts corm
(ltem #IU o>> tJie submittal requirements Ice.y. Not necessaz,~~ for <<ll proje.cts.)
~C~SI~
~ ~ `~ ~S . ~ K~Q ST (2-~-~T ~ N ~ ~ 5 t r (r ~ 2 T-~Fhnu
- 1 S
~ ~ ~'f 1 _~ ---
(For t]ie purposes of calculating Floor Area, .Lot Area rna~- be reduccc~ .for arca.~ within
the ),i~li vrafcr mark, easements, and sleep s)opcs. Please refer to the defuliti~n of Loi
A~ ca in the Municipal Cede.)
Commercial net )easabJe: L'xisci,r~>: O 1',oposed:
C~
Number o! resiclcnlia} units: .E.xisting: =
~ Prn~~osed: ~
Number oi~ bedrooms: La~stin~>;: Q 1'ropvsed: .3
I'roPosed % ~f demolition:
)~IMIs~~SIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zoned icl)
Floor Area: Exi,tlin~: ~ ,a Ilowablc: - - Proposed ; ~ t( Ob,
I-iei~hl
Principal Bldb.:
L•a:ish:r,g:
Allvwc,blc:
2 S ~
1',npnscc J
_ a s.
Access~l }~ T31db : L.i~istin >: -
AII(I1V(Zj)LL: ,` d
l"//
~
( ~ .
.~ 10/,0.4Cf~:
/~' /~
Oll-Slte paT}(!nb': T~"l$t(,2~:~ negL,,.1C[~: /
~
/U /`7 1',n~~nseU~ :
Site coy-crag,c: E.~:sti,r~:. ctzred. /U~~
~%n O}~en Space. Existing ~ Required N~/+ 1'ropn.red ~r,
Front Selt~ack:
F;_~asti„g:
~cquireci!: ,
-2 S
Prvpnsec! ~ ~~
g
Rear Scthaclc: 1>xr:,ct~ng: I?eq,r,recl !v 1', nposed /Q ~
Combined Front/Rca
lr1.dlCale }~, S, ~. ~~
- ~~'xi,S'tt,t~:
~
I~egr.rirect (
3 5 ~
I , vpn,ser.1: / l~
~ ~ ~O
Side Setback: ~ Ea:stinp: Req,ri,~ed l~~ .1'ropnsed: S
Side Sethac)c: W l;.zistins: _ ~„yl~egeeired: /y l'rvpnsed ~ ~
Combiucd Sides' T-xisting:` ?eguired: .Zc~ ~ Prvpn.t~ed. (~
Distance between L'xi,cting: /1/ ~zf" Regi~ir ed: ~ ~ P, oposed: `~
bui}dings.
)/xisling non-conformities rn encroachments a,~d note it er,croaehmrnl lic.cnses hive been issued:
Variations requested (identif~+ the exact variances needed):
V :; V I q Yl L c' S r~-yy-~ ~• FVi:.~} '~ S i c~-E. S L~.t L~
/~St~Cn t]151(111C hrcc~iv~lirni
_,_ , „ r end Use /1(,t~lit:alicm 12eyuiicmC»IS; Updated nAa~~ 29, 217(17
P33
1. 219 S. 3`d Street Development Project.
History
219 S. 3rd Street has been unanimously voted as being a potential historic resource
within the identified historic context of the Modern Chalet by the members of HPC on its
January 28, 2009 meeting.
With this HPC endorsement, i[ 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 HPC members have been revised:
• Original density -1 duplex with 8 bedrooms and 1 single family with 3
bedrooms. Revised density - 1 single family (Modern 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 -?_l__
• Original variances request for new single family -Front, Rear and both side
yards. Revised variance request for new family -Front yard 8'6" to line up with _
set back of existing chalet, eastern side yard variance of 5' (required - 10"). _ .. {Deleted: s
_. _..
• 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 - S00 SF
FAR bonus as allowed by HPC plus an additional 493 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 area.
In addition. since the meeting irn March l7 x(108 sve have also eliminated our re uest tip
1~ncissal~e_>,hc,lnth]i~lt~hl..,cif«~a~__~i14~rtg_S_1'h~ad.St~~Etaalti rU~i~c,~_n~~xcm~ti~}n_~TS.}m
HPC r~~i~~s for the new dingle family,,,
In return, we are asking HPC and the City of Aspen Counsel to approve the following
project for 219 S. 3`d Street:
1. Approve the Ordinance #48 historic lot split.
2. Approve 2400 SF of FAR for a single family residence on the new lot 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, footprint and basic design for the expansion of the
duplex including the setback variances that will be needed.
4. Award the SOO SF allowable bonus for maintaining appropriate HPC historic guideline
for the duplex and award an additional 493 SF bonus as economic incentive.
P34
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 11/10/08.
7. Approval of the new North elevation of the existing duplex (faces ally) which includes
anew window configuration, full light wells for the submerged level and new windows
for the submerged level. '
8. Approval to leave the existing duplex as the multi family dwelling, or to convert 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 color change for roofing material.
10. Approval to change the chimney materials.
11. Approval to change the color of the building and [rim.
1...2_„ Approval to change windows with like design as found necessary due to poor
condition and/or poor economy.
10 ear vestin for all a royals ranted
.1--,___y._.__ g_ ___._PP__.__~.----~--------- -_ -.-_.--- .
1.~„_Approval to remove the existing porch and rebuild_with materials appropriate_to the _
modem chalet style.
{ Deleted: 1 I A
Deleted: 12. Approval to landscape an
provide screening on the public right of
way along 3"' Street up to 3 from the
road.9
13. The new single family lot does not
face a public street and instead will face
an alley. There are different requirement
for buildings that face alleys versus
regular pedestrian and vehicular
thoroughfares. Therefore, we would like
the single family home to be exempt fron
HPC review.9
Deleted: 14
Deleted: t5
P35
- - - I
~ I
YKUKOSED A DITION
O ~ EXIST.
CARPORT
PROPOSED
UPPER I
PATIO
~ ~ LLI ~
I
PROPOSED f~XIST.
LOWER DECK 0 w.i.cl.
PATIO
mast r edroom master bath
O '
EXIST.
I CARPORT
PROPOSED LOT 1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN
FOSTER
71Q C 2R1
A-2
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0'
ne-rc~ na_ni_no
P36
- - I
PROPOSED ADDITION
~I
~I
I~
vo
~I
~ Y I bed oom
I
a
PROPOSED 3 I
~' -
~'
`~ '
LOWER
v v
i ^ o
PATIO I n ~ I I ^ ^
o ~
a o
II
II bed oom 3
0
C. .~ ~
PROPOSED LOT 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN
FOSTER
219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611
A-3
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0
DATE: 03-D1-09
P37
II II
~~
II
II
------~--~----L ------J
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS
FOSTER
'>1~ C ~Df
Q-4
SG4LE: 3/32" = 1'-C
Mar 02 09 D6: 41
Traina Petty
[2151 369-0721 p.2
.~
~-~-_--._..-___~ ~~-------------li-~--~
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-5
FOSTER
z l ? S.3RD STREET, nSPEtJ CO 8161 1
SCALL' 3132' - 1'-C
DATE; 03-01-07
LL__.._..L----~---~-~----------~
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
Mar 02 D9 06:41p Traina Petty (215J 369-0721 p.~39
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-4
FOSTER SCALC~ 3172" - 1'-0'
21 9 5.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81 61 1 pa7E: o~-n~-nn
PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION
/ `r i# H/ ~ ` c c ~ l7 tY
1 ~ G ~ L S ~~
;r j s J ~ ~ ~ rylF~~. '~
7 l ~ ~' z
~~~ ^ ` ~.{ 111 ~. i s,= _ a
ti 1 ~ ~-df z 'I
_,
~.
'\
l'
~.
~~
~.~
v.
~.. ~~\, .. ,'~. 1
,~,~ ~~~
~ .- ~ ~
i
;~
~1 ~`
'~ ~ a
+ ~4 ~. ~ ~ ` ...~..
ill .~ ~ - 4
,~
~';~ ..
14, 1'~ 7 i
1 x
~__ ~ li
1: '! ,~\ 3
~l
~ d
. ~ ~" ~ .,
\'
.l
`l~ .
I +`
U'.'
~_1 ~ 1
1 ~:
.\~ /
l;;.l
,j
. 71'/+
~ .~I .~
_~
i' E
.,
i1'S S
~ , ~ `~
~ `,`
J
.3
r'
~,~I
_'
~~~ d~
\f\~/^I
v 1
v
ei ~
~
` ``
`
l
a % .~
`
'
? ~ ?
i
!'
~
~ t~~J
C~}I
i '
``
yy l~
~~_1
< ~~
i1~~1
1~
L ~.
.J
W
r^~r^ '~~
Vl
~ Y ~j~E
~ o S~i~ e-
zm i~
w iffb~
~~~ 1,
Q Q ~ '
r'
J (n jF~ 6
~Sj L~{`1
L1 ~iil
O