Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20140528 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 28,2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 12:00 SITE VISITS: Meet at 120 Red Mountain Road 5:00 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes- May 14, 2014 C. Public Comments D. Commission member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest(actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificates of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items NEW BUSINESS 5:10 A. 120 Red Mountain Road- AspenModern negotiation for voluntary landmark designation and Stream Margin review, PUBLIC HEARING OLD BUSINESS 6.10 A. 420 E. Hyman Avenue- Final Major Development and Commercial Design Review, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 6:30 B. 417 and 421 W. Hallam Street Correction to Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING WORKSESSIONS A. None 7:20 ADJOURN TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM,NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation(5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation(20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant rebuttal (comments) (5 minutes) Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed(5 minutes) HPC discussion(15 minutes) Motion(5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. 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- Projects in bold are currently under construction. Jay Maytin 518 W.Main-Fornell 435 W.Main-AJCC 204 S.Galena 920 W.Hallam 233 W.Hallam 507 Gillespie 1102 Waters 420 E.Cooper Lift One Nora Berko 332 W.Main . 1102 Waters 1006 E. Cooper 602 E.Hyman Sallie Golden 206 Lake 114 Neale 534 E.Hyman 517 E.Hyman(Little Annie's) 212 Lake Hotel Aspen Willis Pember 204 S.Galena Aspen Core 514 E.Hyman 624 W.Francis Patrick Segal 204 S.Galena 623 E.Hopkins 701 N.Third 612 W.Main 624 W.Francis 206 Lake 605 W.Bleeker Holden Marolt derrick 212 Lake John Whipple Aspen Core 208 E.Main 201 E.Hyman 420 E.Cooper 602 E.Hyman Hotel Aspen Jim DeFrancia 414 E.Hyman M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc 5/23/2014 M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc 5/23/2014 Al P1 MEMORANDUM AV TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 120 Red Mountain Road— AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Designation, Conceptual Major Development and Stream M ginL Review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 2014 SUMMARY: 120 Red Mountain Road is an approximately 31,000 square foot lot that contains a single family home. Located along Hunter Creek, the house was built in 1962, designed by Ellen Harland, an MIT trained architect who worked in Fritz Benedict's office and her own practice for approximately 20 years. The house has been in the original family ownership until 2014. It was remodeled once, with a 1972 addition designed b � y Rob Roy, '�=• another AspenModem recognized architect. ; Otherwise, the exterior and interior are very original. The new owner has applied for voluntary landmark designation of the property. The owner proposes to convert the existing garage to living space and construct a small onto an existing deck for a new bathroom. The affected areas are both products ofthe 1972 um out remodel. The application includes construction of a new two car garage with a bedroom abov it, linked to the original house by a connector hallway. e HPC is asked to conduct design review. HPC is also asked to make Council regarding the historic significance of 120 Red Mountain Road. a recommendation to Because of the proximity of the development to Hunter Creek, Stream Margin review is r equired. HPC is asked to perform this review instead of P&Z to consolidate the hearing process. APPLICANT: Red Mountain Riverfront, LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects Alan Richman Planning Services. cts and 1 P2 PARCEL ID: 2737-072-00-028 ADDRESS: 120 Red Mountain Road ZONING: R-15A AspenModern Criteria. of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object significance.a collection of b p buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated q ty ed below. uali of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria resour sscr the district When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing must meet at least two of the criteria a-d, and critertio e e cribedhat has made a contribution to trend a. The property is related to an event, p a local, state, regional or national history that is deemed in ed adopted context he specific event,pattern or trend is identified and documented P ibution to local, state, b. The property is related to people who have e a and the specific people are regional or national history that is deemed identified and documented in an adopted context paper; C. The property represents a physical design that embodies resents the technical or aesthetic of a type, period or method of construction, or rep hiloso h that is achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or desgn p is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the istory opinions of persons educated or experienced r related field,that s of thehp operty's poten ial landscape architecture, archaeology or a demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, an e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City devices Council shall adopt and make available to the public reservation Commis sionrto apply which shall be used by the Council and Historic this criterion. as the original Staff Response: The construction history of he building is available. The house is considered to be an ex Sta cellent example P drawings by Harland and Roy are of an Aspen Modern Chalet. 2 P3 Following is an explanation of the Modern Chalet style, from the paper "Aspen's Twentieth Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975. Modern Chalet A distinctive postwar housing type in Aspen is locally termed a modern chalet. With its moderately pitched gable roof oriented to the front, it recalls traditional chalets associated with ski country, but in its expansive glass and minimal decoration, it also seems classically modernist, as if the architect and client liked the chalet idea for Aspen's emerging ski identity, but updated it and made it modern to fit the community's avant-garde tastes. Characteristically, modern chalets have low-to-moderately pitched roofs based on a 3:12 ratio; broad fagades organized in rectilinear solid or glass panels; overhanging eaves, frequently with exposed roof beams; glass often extending to the eaves; minimal decoration; and sometimes stone or brick piers. The symmetrical modern chalets generally have a tripartite organization: a large central glazed area flanked by wood or masonry piers. Predominantly built between the late 1950s and late 1960s, these compact buildings were custom-designed for clients as well as erected by speculative builders. They have a rectangular footprint and fit well on the gridded streets of the older West End and Shadow Mountain neighborhoods. For the most part, their sizable window walls are oriented to Aspen Mountain. Although some modern chalets, such as 500 E. Durant Street, served commercial purposes, most extant examples are residential. They encompass a range of options, from single family to duplexes and even quadriplexes. While evoking such contemporaneous hybrid modernist homes as Eichler in California, Honn in Oklahoma, Keck in Chicago, and Koch (Tech Built) in the east, when compared side-by-side, the Aspen modern chalets not only look different, but arise out of different circumstances. Eichler and the others were meeting the postwar demand for suburban homes that fit the American dream of home ownership, up-to-date while still affordable. The Aspen real estate market was geared toward affluent vacation home owners who might be attracted to Aspen for a variety of reasons—the culture of the Aspen Institute, the skiing of Aspen Mountain, the charm of an authentic western town, or the cachet of owning property in such a desirable place. Many of Aspen's modern chalets were built in the West End, close to the Aspen Institute and its intellectual and cultural offerings. Urban lots in this established neighborhood fitted the compact modern chalets well, yet they still offered mountain views. The modern chalets added to the West End's rich building mix, including Victorian cottages and Second Empire and Queen Anne mansions as well as postwar traditional gabled chalets and classic flat-roofed modernist houses. Often two- and multiple family structures, they also represent a shift in Aspen's evolution as a vacation destination serving both winter and summer tourists. r�A 5 625 Gillespie Avenue, designed by Benedict. City of Aspen files. r 3 P4 In 1957, Benedict designed two free-standing early qW modern chalets side-by-side on separate lots, at 625 & 615 Gillespie Avenue (demolished). Identical, the one- -- story structures had a horizontal base of board-and- batten siding punctuated by two vertical windows defining the ground floor, and glazing in the upper gabled section" below the low-pitched roof. Simple and straightforward, they were topped by overhanging eaves and an extensive = ` roof that encompassed a carport. Five other West end modern chalets date from 1962 to 1965 and show the range of variations within this simple vacation house (see right.) Many modern chalets have glass to the eaves and flanking brick piers. Projecting balconies cantilevered across the front, injecting a three-dimensional rectilinear base that hover just above the ground are also common characteristics. Staff finds that historic designation criteria a and c are met. The house was constructed as a vacation home, very much in keeping with the size and architectural style typical of Aspen homes in the 50s/60s. It exhibits the classic features of the Modern Chalet style, which updated traditional European chalet design with a more contemporary aesthetic. The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff's score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Staff scored the building as a"Best" example of AspenModern, with 16.5 out of 20 points. The house has very minor alterations, both inside and out. Staff finds that designation criterion a is met. 4 P5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BENEFITS The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 201h century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. Staff Response: The applicant requests no floor area bonuses or variances other than those to be discussed later in the memo, related to Stream Margin review. The proposal will amount to more than 500 square feet less than the allowable floor area for the property. The applicant plans to request Council allow that unused floor area into two TDRs that will be permanently removed from the property. The applicant requests expedited permit review and reduction of permitting and development fees. The value of these waivers are being estimated. Ci Council will make the final determination on the full package of incentives f ty or the project. CONCEPTUAL OR DEVELOPMENT 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 UPC 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 UPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. HPC Review 05.28.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 5 of 12 P6 Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing b d the HPC ass. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed developm ent y 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 HPC design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." The original design for the house does not appear to have included agar garage. In wishes 1972, two car garage was built at the west end of the home. The applicant convert that area to living space and build a new garage with bedroom above, linked to the original house with a hallway. The proposed new addition is appropriate in that it is somewhat distanced from the original house and only minimally connected. The amount of demolition occurring for the link is negligible. The view of the existing building as approached from the driveway is preserved. The height and footprint of the addition are compatible with the Modern Chalet. The applicant is building less than footage due to the site and the allowed floor area is also reduced on this rather large property presence of some steep slopes. Staff could make an argument for a fully detached addition,needs and the preservation 8.3, however we recognize the balance of prope r y owner opportunity. 120 Red Mountain Road, is not in a highly visible location, and was not discovered by staff during the original AspenModern surveys. It can be viewed by the public from a newly constructed extension to the Hunter Creek trail. Staff finds that the Conceptual review guidelines are met and the project is sympathetically designed. There are no other reasonable or less impactful locations for an addition to be placed. It cannot be placed behind the existing house. Staff recommends Conceptual approval as proposed. STREAM MARGIN The intent of Stream Margin review is to "reduce f watercourses.tReview shall encourage while ensuring the natural and unimpeded fl development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features." As part of the Stream Margin regulations, the City Engineer's office determines the location of a delineation known as "top of slope." The top Reof w slope is the 120 Red Mountain Road Page 6 of 12 P7 point along a river separating the flat or natural topography of the land from the steeper river bank. It can be considered the top edge of the river bank. Stream Margin Review Standards No development shall be permitted within the Stream Margin unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed development will not increase the base flood elevation in that it is proposed in a location outside the 100 year floodplain. 2. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and Staff Finding Staff finds that this proposal will not be in conflict with the AACP or the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. The Park's Department is in the process of determining if a Fisherman's Easement is appropriate. This will be addressed in the Council ordinance. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and Staff Finding The applicant currently indicates a building envelope that extends partially below the top of slope. Planning Department will work with the applicant to refine this boundary so that the envelope is defined by the building footprint in all areas below the top of slope or within the 15 foot setback from it. The west and south boundaries of the envelope may be defined by the property setbacks. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during HPC Review 05.28.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 7 of 12 P8 construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and Staff Finding The proposal does not interfere with the natural changes of the river. Erosion control will be required as part of the construction management plan with building permit submittal. A drainage plan will need to also be submitted with the building permit application. Staff finds this standard to be met. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the watercourse in any way. Staff finds this standard to be met. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures.that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the watercourse in any way. Staff finds this standard to be met. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain; and Staff Finding There is no proposed development within the one-hundred year floodplain. Staff finds this standard to be met. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and HPC Review 05.28.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 8 of 12 P9 According to Section 26.435.040.E, a special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Staff Finding The Applicant is proposing development that encroaches within the fifteen foot setback from the Top of Slope and is requesting a variance from this standard. Staff finds that the encroachment caused by building a bathroom addition on the deck has no effect on the stream margin considerations since building footprint is not changed. With regard to the garage placement, the applicant has explained constraints created not only by top of slope but also by existing trees and slopes. The encroachment into the top of slope setback is minimal. Staff finds that the proposal is reasonable and mitigates impacts. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and nrpt r ;Q jAr TOP Oi ! sir. `• f A � .4k J L - ' Figures "A" Staff Finding A small area of roof on the garage addition pushes through the 45 degree angle from top of slope. As discussed above, staff finds that the impact is minimal. From the Engineering Department's perspective, impact on the ground plane is generally of more concern than the roofline. HPC Review 05.28.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 9 of 12 P10 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and Staff Finding Any proposed outdoor lighting must be in compliance with the City of Aspen Outdoor Lighting Code and will be reviewed at Final HPC. Staff finds this standard to be met. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff Finding The Applicant's surveyor has not indicated that there are any wetlands on the property. Staff finds this standard to be met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is supportive of the proposal for voluntary landmark designation, as well as Conceptual approval and Stream Margin. review. A draft resolution will be presented to HPC at the hearing. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit C: Application HPC Review 05.28.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 10 of 12 P11 "Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 120 Red Mountain Road, Conceptual Review" 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. ❑ Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new 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. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. ❑ A 1-story connector is preferred. ❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. ❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. ❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. • Additional floor 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. HPC Review 05.28.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 11 of 12 P12 ❑ 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. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. ❑ If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. ❑ Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. HPC Review 05.28.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 12 of 12 Character Defining Features of the Modern Chalet Style 1) Rectilinear footprint, classic chalet orientation © 6) Glass in gable ends extending to the Check box if with gable end to the street and/or mountain eaves view statement is true. © 7) Large central glazed area is flanked by brick El One point per box. 2) Broad gabled facade organized in rectilinear p p solid or glass panels, generally in a tripartite or stone piers organization 8) Minimal decoration Low moderate pitched roof, often b ased on a 3:12 ratio © g) Balcony on front facade . b 4) Roof eave comes down to a low plate height © 10) Entry door recessed or on side elevation . at the upper level 5) Deep eave overhang, may have exposed roof beams © A building must have 6 of the 10 character defining features, either present or clearly documented through photographic of physical evidence to qualify as Modern Chalet Style. Restoration may be required as part of the award of incentives. z, �\ If the property earned 6 or more -- ` points, continue to the next page. ` �����IIIIIIIIII If the property earned less than 6 points, scoring ends. Total Points, 0 — 10 P14 INTEGRITY SCORING f a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. 111CATION OF ON • he building is in its original location. 2 points 'he building has been shifted on the original parcel, but maintains its original 1 point lignment and/or proximity to the street. 'he property is located within the geographical area surrounded by Castle 1 point :reek, the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. .he property is outside of the geographical area surround by Castle Creek, the 1/2 point ;coring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. 'he form of the building (footprint, roof and wall planes) are unaltered from 3 points he original design. .) The form of the building has been altered but less than 25% of the original calls have been removed, OR .) The alterations to the form all occur at the rear of the subject building, OR 2 points .) The form of the building has been altered but the addition is less than 50% ,f the size of the original building, OR .) There is a roof top addition that is less than 50% of the footprint of the roof. AATERIALS Xterior materials he original exterior materials of the building are still in place, with the 2 points xception of normal maintenance and repairs. 0% of the exterior materials have been replaced, but the replacements 1 point Batch the original condition. indows and . . . he original windows and doors of the building are still in place, with the 2 points xception of normal maintenance and repairs. 0% of the original windows and doors have been replaced, but the 1 point ,eplacements match the original condition. • to 20 points Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: f� 5 ' to points Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- ' • • • to points mum of 10 points: wt Eligible:O 10 • • HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: 16.5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams;Senior Planner RE: 420 E. Hyman Avenue- Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design review, Public Hearing continued from 3/26/14 DATE: May 28, 2014 SUMMARY:.The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing two story building and to construct a new three story building. The building currently contains commercial and free market residential uses and is proposed to comprise commercial, free market residential and affordable housing uses. The property is about 3,009 square feet in size and is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. CHANGES FROM 3/26/14: HPC continued the hearing on March 26th with direction to restudy the second floor windows to be more consistent in size and to restudy the brick color and size. Minutes from the meeting are attached. The applicant restudied the second floor windows to make them more consistent in size and to better relate to the historic double hung windows in adjacent landmarks. A brick material sample will be presented at the public hearing to accurately show the range of hues. The brick is no longer a dark color, but rather a mix of orange, red and brown hues which relate to surrounding historic buildings. The air curtain proposed to meet the requirement for a vestibule is proposed to be a thin line in the ceiling that is barely visible. HPC also specified that the glass railing be low iron glass to minimize a green tint to the glazing. Staff finds that the proposed changes are consistent with HPC's feedback in March and meet the following design guidelines. Staff recommends approval with conditions. 6.38 Buildings should be designed to reflect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the street faVade. All of the following should be addressed: ❑ The design and definition of the traditionally tall first floor ❑ The proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern ❑ The completion of the sheer street fagade(s) with capping cornice or other horizontal modeling 6.39 A building should reflect the three dimensional characteristics of the street faVade in the strength and depth of modeling, fenestration and architectural detail. 1 P16 6.40 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. ❑ Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall as they are wide. ❑ Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. 6.61 The palette of materials used for new buildings within the core should reflect the predominantly masonry (brickwork and natural stonework) palette of this area. 6.62 A building or additions to a building should reflect the quality and the variation traditionally found in these materials within the central commercial core. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Final Major Development approval and Final Commercial Design Review approval for a redevelopment of the property located at 420 E. Hyman Avenue with the following conditions: 1. The glass railing shall be a low iron glass to minimize a green tint to the glass. 2. Staff and monitor shall review and approve the brick coloring onsite. Applicant shall provide a brick material mock up onsite. 3. This project is subject to the approvals granted in City Council Ordinance #27, Series of 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #13, Series of 2013, and HPC Conceptual Resolution #17, Series of 2012 and HPC Conceptual call up Resolution #28, Series of 2012. 4. [vested rights language is included in the draft resolution (attached)] THE FOLLOWING STAFF MEMO IS FROM THE 3/26/14 HPC PACKET: BACKGROUND: On July, 25, 2012, HPC granted conceptual approval for the proposed project including a third floor that is 38 feet high which meets the 38 — 42 feet height limit in the Commercial Core. HPC denied the request to increase the height to 40 feet considering the adjacent historic landmarks to the east. HPC was concerned about the impact that the material palette could have on the mass and scale, and added a condition of approval that mass and scale shall be addressed during Final Review when the materials are finalized. In addition, HPC granted approval for off-site public amenity for the required 10% (300 square feet) subject to review by the Parks Department. This request has changed to either off-site public amenity or a request for cash in lieu payment for public amenity. 2 P17 During call-up procedure on August 27, 2012, City Council remanded the application back to HPC to resolve the mass and scale of the project at Conceptual Review rather than during Final Review. Council expressed concerns about what was at the time a proposal for glass as the primary exterior material, and the potential lack of compatibility of the design with the Historic District. On November 14, 2012 HPC re-reviewed the project and approved the mass and scale for Conceptual Review. On May 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) granted growth management allotments for the increase in commercial net leasable area, growth management review for multi-family replacement and the development of affordable housing, and a recommendation in support of subdivision review. During the June 11, 2013 P & Z meeting, members of the Commission expressed concerns about the proposed glass fagade and their ability to review the architecture. On September 9, 2013, City Council granted subdivision. approval for the project including a condition that Council has the ability to call up the project after HPC grants Final design review. APPLICANT: John Martin, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects PARCEL ID: 2737-073-39-020 thru -027; and 2737-073-39-801 ADDRESS: 420 East Hyman Street, Lot O Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core, Historic District Overlay. FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Major Development and Commercial Design review is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. The procedure for Final Major Development Review and Commercial Design Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the 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. 3 P18 For new development in the Commercial Core Historic District, the guidelines found in the 2007 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines along with relevant preservation guidelines within the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines are applied. Commercial design review must address the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. STAFF RESPONSE: A list of the relevant Commercial design guidelines is included in the application. Historic Preservation Guidelines to consider are listed at "Exhibit A." Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and selection of new materials. Landscape plan: A landscape plan is not proposed as there is no place for landscaping. Lighting: A lighting plan is included in the application as sheet EL 2.1. Simple recessed downlights are proposed for the project, which Staff finds to be appropriate for the new development. Fenestration/ Materials/ Details: Originally, the applicant proposed a primarily glass building. Since HPC conceptual review, the materials and window pattern has evolved. The current proposal includes mostly glass on the first floor with butt joint glass panes and thin steel mullions as shown in Exhibit 15 of the packet. A more traditional punched window openings with elongated brick is proposed on the second floor. The actual color of the brick is yet to be determined. Spandrel glass is proposed as a header atop the second floor windows along Hyman 4 P19 Ave. and a portion of the interior alley. A steel panel lintel is proposed below the windows. The recessed third floor is mostly glass- clear glass along the front fagade wrapping around to the interior alley and frittered glass for the back half of the third floor including the rear elevation. Exposed steel I-beams above the first floor mimic a traditional belt course. A louvered metal screen is proposed for the rooftop mechanical equipment. Staff is supportive of the direction that the design is headed and is supportive of the proposed materials, but has some concerns. The applicant plans to bring material samples to the HPC hearing which may answer some of Staff's concerns. 1. The building seems a little top heavy with the almost entirely transparent first floor. Historic buildings in the Historic District typically have large storefronts with ample windows. Corner historic building typically have either corner entrances or a solid column. Staff is concerned that the lack of a corner post or something similar unbalances the architectural hierarchy described in Guideline 6.38 by creating a top heavy building. 2. The second floor windows and the spandrel glass application could better meet the guidelines by being more consistent with one style. Staff appreciates the different styles, but there are too many different window types, sizes and styles proposed on one building to meet Guideline 6.40 3. Staff is concerned about the spandrel glass on the second floor in that it essentially removes any feeling of a cornice or cap to the second floor level as described in Guideline 6.38 and 6.40. 4. The size of the proposed brick module, and the color of the brick need to be reviewed for their relationship to surrounding historic buildings. 6.38 Buildings should be designed to reflect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the street faVade. All of the following should be addressed: ❑ The design and definition ofthe traditionally tall first floor ❑ The proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern ❑ The completion of the sheer street fa�ade(s) with capping cornice or other horizontal modeling 6.40 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. ❑ Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall as they are wide. ❑ Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. 6.60 Building materials should have these features: ❑ Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically ❑ Reduce the scale and enhance visual interest ❑ Convey human scale ❑ Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate P20 6.62 A building or additions to a building should reflect the quality and the variation traditionally found in these materials within the central commercial core. Vestibule: The Commercial Design Standards require new building to incorporate an airlock entry into floor plans to avoid temporary canvas airlocks on the exterior of a building. The applicant indicates a interior air curtain to function as the airlock. Staff recommends the applicant provide an example of how a mechanical air curtain works for HPC to determine if the Standard is met. 6.49 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. ❑ An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary fagade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. ❑ Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. ❑ Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. Exhibits: A. Relevant HPC Gui elines B. Applicati 'wJl� � vgou 6 P21 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN (FINAL) APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 420 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-39-020 thru -027; and 2737-073-39-801 WHEREAS, the applicant, John Martin, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, has requested Major Development (Final) and Commercial Design (Final) for the property located at 420 East Hyman Avenue, Lot O, Block 88, aka Duvike Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Final Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance #27, Series of 2013 granting Subdivision approval; and WHEREAS; the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution #13, Series of 2013 granting Growth Management .allotments for one (1) Free-Market Residential Growth Management Allotment, three (3) Affordable Housing Growth Management Allotment, and 786 sq. ft. Commercial Growth Management Allotments; and 420 E. Hyman Avenue HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014 Page 1 of 3 P22 WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated May 28, 2014, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards are met and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 28, 2014, continued from March 26, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Final) and Commercial Design (Final) for the property located at 420 East Hyman Avenue, Lot O, Block 88, aka Duvike Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. The glass railing shall be a low iron glass to minimize a green appearance to the glass. 2. Staff and monitor shall review and approve the brick coloring onsite. Applicant shall provide a brick material mock up onsite. 3. This project is subject to the approvals granted in City Council Ordinance #27, Series of 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #13, Series of 2013, and HPC Conceptual Resolution #17, Series of 2012 and HPC Conceptual call up Resolution 428, Series of 2012. 4. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) 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: 420 East Hyman Avenue, Lot O,Block 88,City of Aspen, Colorado. 420 E. Hyman Avenue HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014 Page 2 of 3 P23 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 are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 28th day of May, 2014. Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 420 E. Hyman Avenue HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014 Page 3 of 3 P24 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 262 Chairperson, Jay Maytin, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, John Whipple, Jim DeFrancia and Patrick Sagal. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney - Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Nora made the motion to approve the minutes of March 12" second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Patrick commented that decisions have been made and we need to connect the guidelines with the purpose and intent. Patrick also said there is not enough oversight with city council. Disclosure: Jay said Zocalito is a business in the 420 E. Hyman building. Jay said he is not involved with the owners of the building. Nora said she has used Derek Skalko who is representing 417 and 421 W. Hallam in the past but she has no conflict with this project. 420 E. Hyman Ave. — Final Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Sara said the project has been before you a year ago for a commercial design review. The project went to the Planning & Zoning a subdivision at City growth management allotment and for a recommendation Council. Council was concerned with the amount of glazing that is proposed. Council will exercise the call up provision after H dea final. Since door onto Hyman Avenue to then the glazing has changed•lead to the second floor and they eliminated the second floor breezeway along the interior alley and the third item that changed was the third floor level plan was the extension of the deck along 1 P25 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 the alley. After the subdivision approval the floor plan changed a little and the egress. Staff feels the changes meet the design guidelines and we are supportive of all the changes. HPC needs to determine if they want to go forward with final. There is no landscape plan proposed because they are lot line to lot line. The lighting plan is very minimal and they meet the intent of the design guidelines. 1. Staff feels the building is a little bit top heavy because of the amount of transparency on the first floor. Staff feels guideline 6.38 is not met. Buildings should reflect the architectural hierarchy which has to do with a tall first floor. Staff appreciates that this building is a building of its own time. A lot of the new buildings down town are starting to all look the same and that is not what we are asking for. We just need to make sure this building works with the historic district and the guidelines and not distract from them. 2. Staff is concerned with the second floor windows and the spandrel glass application. We feel the windows could better meeting guideline 6.4 by picking a single style. There seems to be too many different shapes and styles going on in the front and along the side of the interior alley elevation. 3. We are somewhat concerned about the spandrel glass on the second floor. Guideline 6.3 and 6.4 talk about having some sort of cornice or cap at the second floor level to relate to the second story buildings in the historic district. 4. There is concern about the size and color of the brick module. Staff is recommending that staff and monitor review the color of the brick to make sure it communicates with the brick in the historic district and be the same kind of hue. Sara said all new buildings have to incorporate an airlock into their floor plan to avoid the canvas airlocks that pop up in the winter time that stick into the right-of-way and don't look good. The applicant is proposing a mechanical air curtain and we just need an explanation as to how it will work. Staff is recommending a continuation with a restudy of the second floor windows, sizes, styles and material application on the first floor. Guideline 6.38, 6.4, 6.62 and 6.49 are not entirely met in the application. Exhibit II — Letter from June Kirk who is not supportive of the project and that the project doesn't fit into the character of a miner's town. Exhibit III —highlights of the presentation 2 P26 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Charles Cunniffe, architect Charles said we are looking at taking a building in an historic setting and giving it a contemporary twist without losing some of the elements that relate to the historic context. When looking ge on the the commercial on the ground floor and all of the affordab and all the free market on the third floor. The ground floor is mostly glass/glazing. The second floor has punched openings for the internal uses. The third floor is set back to the same ets� nstead f the requited to the 15 feet.The second floor is stepped back 20 centered the door in the middle of the building which is the same as the historic buildings on that street so it to the commercial design style of the other buildings in its neighborhood. To the right of the door there is an entrance that takes you into the shops and downstairs and up to the second and third floors. The window above the door is for a small commercial the office space. On the corner the glass wraps around and brings you into alley. This is a narrow alley but is a public pedestrian walkway. There is no other mid-block pedestrian alley. The building is built with the columns inboard of the glass. Because of heat loss and condensation having the columns inside the insulated wall is a better building technique. We don't feel the building feels top heavy because the third floor is set considerably back. We do want the building to have a nice streetscape along the side facing the pedestrian way. There are entrances to other store in the pedestrian alley. On the top floor there is opaque glazing and punched windows. The windows would be operable. The red brick color picks up the brick color of most of the buildings in town. The base course would be Basalt rock which would anchor the store front windows. Charles presented the board with the material,selections. Patrick inquired about the K value of the glass and does it affect the column inside. Charles said the glass column is separate from the glass purporough ho rill read the column spacing because you will see t which will be nice. Willis asked how far back the glass handrail is from the face of the building on the second floor. Charles said it is about 4 inches back. 3 P27 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Bill Guth, owner of Hops Culture 414 416 E. Hyman. Bill said the alley between these two buildings is not a public access it is a private piece of land mostly owned by my landlord and the adjacent property owner. On the fire rating glass mostly it would be an aluminum frame and the design is elegant. Peter Fornell asked who owns the alley space. Charles said it is a joint agreement between the two adjacent buildings but it is for the purpose of pedestrian access. It is available to the public to get to the businesses in the alley. Peter asked if a property owner could go to the property line. Charles said it is a mutual agreement and both parties would have to dissolve the agreement. Peter said it sounds like each building owns half. I have walked through that space for 30 years and I would like to see it kept. Jay said we reviewed the Hops building and it was represented that the Hops building has more of the alley. There is an agreement between the two property owners that there will always be a ten foot corridor through there to walk. Bill Guth said nine feet from the face of his building is owned by his landlord. Right now the Zocalito building is about three feet off the property line and they plan to build to the property line. I am putting outside seating there (6 feet) so there will be a 3 foot strip from the edge of my outdoor seating to fencing. It gets tighter for sure. The easement agreement only says access has to maintained. You are not going to walk into a 9 foot alley when outdoor seating will be taking six feet from my building. Sallie said what might be lost is the Zocalito seating. Jay said an accessible corridor of 36 inches is that up to code. Hops is taking 6 feet and the new building is coming out three feet there is only 3 feet left. What is the minimum corridor. 4 P28 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Sara said the perpetual easement between the two property owners specifies the width of the access. Debbie said Dennis Murray from the Building Department said this building being built to the property line is appropriate. Issues: Changes to conceptual and whether the board wants to move forward to accept those changes. Front door added. Remove the second floor breezeway. Extended the third floor level deck. John said he supports staff recommendation to go forward and he trusts staff s opinion. Most of the items are dealing with window fenestration and minor changes that are more for final than conceptual. Willis agreed with Staff and John. Nora, Jim and Sallie said they are fine with moving ahead. Patrick said he can move forward. Jay also agreed. Karen Setterfield said she represents the landlord of the building to the west. I recall that there had to be access between the two buildings but it didn't specify the dimensions. Sara might be right that there is a specific figure. Jay closed the public hearing. Peter Fornell said he is concerned about the pedestrian access and a third party should be involved which should be the City of Aspen. Jay identified the issues: Lighting Materials Four points that Sara mentioned Air lock 5 P29 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Top heavy and materials Spandrel glass and second floor windows Size of brick and color of brick Discussion: Patrick said this is a beautiful design but I don't think it fits the historic character of Aspen, looking at the purpose and intent. It seems that everything modern that comes before us is glass. What I see here is a Moorish castle from Southeastern Spain. I agree with staff with their four recommendations. The window styles should be more similar. The cornice on the second floor should be more in character with the other buildings on the block. Willis said he disagrees with staff that the building is top heavy. It seems to have adopted a wedding cake layer composition where each three levels are drastically different. There is a disconnect between the modules and the renderings vs what we are seeing here. I also agree with staff that the second floor windows could be more consistent. I see three different varieties. The windows should have a little more continuity. I would suggest unequal corners and a broader spans of glass facing the street on the second floor. The building has a rich palate and has a lot of character. Nora said she understands a building of today but we need context within an important street in the middle of town. The building feels very distracting and I am worried about the brick. We see so many things that look one way on the rendering and totally different when built. I feel the tiny mullions are out of context. Sallie said she is proud of what our architects and owners have done with the downtown. I am also proud of the glass and vitality that has been brought into the town. I also don't feel the building is top heavy. I also agree with Willis on th y. I also like the thin mullions. I also agree that the Jim said he feels the and Charles said he can adjust the east window. Jay said he feels the ground level works well. Th 6 P30 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION _MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 the block. My other concern is thesdWi6ft6h4because they are a big needs piece of equipment and you have a glass window above the door where and you will see it. We need a rendering of that equipment. I also support continuation. Charles said basically you only see a strip in the ceiling. John said air curtains are something that needs to be carefully calculated out. They are a good solution if you can meet the energy codes. Charles said he heard a lot of good comments. We can clean up the second floor windows so that there is a regular rhythm. Willis commented that the ground floor details are elegant. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 420 E. Hyman Ave. to April 9t ; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Willis said the glass handrails off the shelf turn green. I would ask that you use low iron glass. That can be handled between monitor and staff. 1P X1 1 %wjng o f :ml iel rte s sho b Patrick said he is concerned with the second floor cornice. Charles said he would like a specific list. Applicants suffer from clarity from all boards. Sometimes there is a total new makeup of a lack of the board and we need to know the specific concerns in order to have the right tools to work with. John said 6 out of 7 are ok with the cornice. Everyone said the restudy of the second floor windows need addressed. Low iron glass for the railing and an example of the brick. Nora said the four points from staff should be addressed. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; John, yes; Willis, yes; Nora, yes; Sallie, yes; Jim, yes; Jay, yes. Motion carried 7-0. 7 P31 p MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 417/421 W. Hallam Avenue — Correction to Landmark Designation, Setback Variances, FAR Bonus, Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation, Demolition PUBLIC HEARING continued from March 26, 2014 DATE: May 28, 2014 SUMMARY: The subject property is a duplex — half of which is designated a historic landmark. When the property was designated in 1992, there was a clerical error that listed the wrong half of the duplex as historic. In addition, almost all designated properties affect an entire site, not just a single unit. This applicant seeks to correct the error. In addition the applicant is interested in converting the duplex into a single family residence and requests approval to demolish non-historic additions, pick up the house to dig a basement, and to construct a large addition. Variances including setback variances, the 500 square feet FAR Bonus and Residential Design Standard variances are requested. On October 23, 2013 HPC conducted a worksession regarding this property. APPLICANT: David and Marcia Kaplan, represented by Derek Skalko of 1 Friday Design Collaborative and Jake Bittner of Thomas Pheasant. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-33-007 and 2735-124-33-008. ADDRESS: 417 and 421 W. Hallam Avenue, Units A and B of the Hallam Street Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. ZONING: R-6 UPDATE: HPC continued the public hearing on March 26`h with direction for the applicant to pursue exploratory demolition to possibly shed light on the front door/front porch location and for the applicant to restudy the connector piece. Staff recommended continuation during the March 26` public hearing citing that the project did not meet the design guidelines regarding mass, height, scale, length of connector piece, and primary entrance. Staff also raised concerns that the FAR bonus criteria were not met, the setback variance review criteria were not met and the Residential Design Standard variance review criteria were not met. Staff remains concerned about all of these items and recommends denial of the conceptual major development request, denial of the variances. Should the property receive Conceptual HPC approval for this project Staff finds that the landmark will no longer meet the review criteria for designation and recommends that the property be delisted as described below. 417/421 W. Hallam St. Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 1 of 12 P32 The updated proposal includes: • Additional 4 ft. to the length of the connector piece (for an 8 ft. connector piece where a minimum of 10 ft. is required). Staff Response: Adding 4 ft. to the connector piece does not push the large two story mass far enough away from the resource and does not meet the Design Guideline 10.7 or the Residential Design Standards described below. The prominent gable of the new construction overshadows the one story historic resource. • The length and height of the large east-west gable of the new construction is slightly reduced. Staff Response: Dropping the height of the new construction by 1 ft. does not break up the mass of the prominent gable, which continues to be out of scale with the historic home and alters the context to create a backdrop of construction behind the historic home. The Design Guidelines 10.6,10.7, 10.8 (provided below) are not met. • The lightwells were relocated to no longer need minimum setback variances. The following setback variances are requested: o 5 ft. rear yard setback variance where 10 ft. is required and 5 ft. is provided o a combined setback variance of 6 ft. 3 in. where 10 ft. is provided and 16 ft. 3 in. is required o a 1 ft. 10 in. setback variance where 1 ft. 10 in is provided and 10 ft. is required for living space and 5 ft. is require for garage. Staff Response: Staff finds that the review criteria for granting a variance (below) are not met: the requested variances do not enhance an adverse impact to the historic character of the property and are not similar to the character of the historic property. a) Is similar to the pattern,features and character of the historic property or district; andlor 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. • 500 sf FAR Bonus Staff Response: See discussion below. Staff does not support the requested FAR Bonus without further restoration work to the historic home. • Residential Design Standard variances (see last page of staff memo below): o 26.410.040.A.2 Build to lines o 26.410.040.B.1 Secondary Mass o 26.410.040.D.1 (a) and (b) Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Windows Staff Response: Staff finds that the criteria for granting an RDS variance (site specific constraint and neighborhood compatibility) are not met. There is no site specific constraint to not build a front porch, to not have a front entryway within a specific distance from the frontmost wall of the house or to not have the majority of the building area pushed back on the property. Parking Waiver • Provide 1 parking space onsite in garage. • Need a waiver of a parking space or need to provide a surface parking space. 417/421 W. Hallam St. Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 2 of 12 P33 Front door/Porch/FAR Bonus/Variances: Staff finds that the historic landmark must have a preservation/restoration aspect to the project in addition to a design that meets the Design Guidelines in order to earn the 500 sf FAR Bonus. The applicant proposes to restore the siding and to restore the roof form depending upon evidence uncovered during construction. To begin with, Staff conducted further research into the - photograph at right, and based on aerial photographs, the photograph is not 417 E. Hallam St. While Staff thought that the alignment of Shadow Mountain in the background and the roof form/style of the photograph seemed similar to 417 E. Hallam St., further research indicates that the photograph may , r� r� not be 417 E. Hallam and is probably of a building that has been demolished. The applicant did exploratory demolition to see if there was any evidence of a front door along the front facade of the r historic home.The demolition showed that a front door was in the location of the east double hung, which is consistent with the 1904 Sanborne Map. There is no conclusive evidence as to when the entrance was moved to the current side of the historic home; however there is clear evidence as to the location of the front entryway during the period of significance. It is indisputable that there was an entrance into the historic home: it was originally a stand-alone building with no attachments to other buildings. In Staff's opinion the home was originally built with a front door in the location of the eastern double hung window. Prior to the 1904 Sanborne map, the owner added a front porch element. The door was probably not moved between 1893 — 1904 (miners that lived in this type of structure typically did not have the funds to move the front door around), and according to the maps a porch was added by 1904. The unwillingness of the applicant to restore the historic home to its original appearance with a front entry door or any entrance into the historic home (with or without a front porch) is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines (see Guideline 4.1) and inconsistent with other recently approved landmark projects there were required to have a front door and to use the front door into the historic home as the primary entrance for example 201 E. Hopkins Ave., 1006 E. Cooper St., and 320 Lake Ave. Not providing any entrance relegates the historic home as a secondary and subordinate artifact on the property. The purpose of the Design Guidelines is to ensure appropriate restoration and preservation of the historic resource by highlighting the landmark as the primary focus on the property. The purpose of the FAR Bonus and the ability to request variances for historic properties is an incentive for preservation and restoration of the historic home. HPC is charged with finding the balance between the incentives and preservation of historic landmarks. 417/421 W. Hallam St. Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 3of12 P34 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. ❑ Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. The HPC on numerous occasions has required an applicant to restore the historic home in order to grant the 500 sf FAR Bonus: Blue Vic (202 N. Monarch completely restored the front porch, siding, architectural details); 135 W. Hopkins Ave. (rebuilt front porch, restored siding, restored windows); 320 W. Hallam Ave. (removed a dormer in the front facing gable end and restored the front porch). Staff does not find that the proposed work meets the FAR Bonus review criteria a— h. Staff finds that the proposed project, if conceptually approved, will no longer meet the criteria for landmark designation. The current condition of the property barely meets criteria a and b for landmark designation (below). Staff finds that appropriate restoration and an appropriate addition will further enhance the landmark and its eligibility as a designated landmark. The proposed project and the lack of restoration/preservation will cause the property to no longer meet the designation criteria. Staff supports delisting of the property if the proposed project is granted conceptual approval. DESIGNATION HISTORIc 26.415.030.B. Aspen Victorian 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of Aspen Victorian, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to the criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district shall meet the criteria described below: a) The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it contains structures which can be documented as built during the 19`h century,and b) The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. Staff Response: Staff finds that criteria a and b are both met. The requested landmark designation corrects a clerical error that occurred in 1992 when the property was originally designated — the wrong half of the duplex was listed as historic. The property is shown on the 417/421 W.Hallam St. Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 4 of 12 P35 1893 aerial map and the 1904 Sanborne map (see next page). It represents a typical residential miner's cottage. The form of the home is largely intact however there have been many alterations: the front porch was removed, the hipped roof was replaced with standing seam metal and the flat top of the roof changed to a ridge. Non-historic additions were added including a side addition for an entry deck. The windows were changed on the front elevation and a non- historic bay window was added. The property appears to be in its original location. Staff recommends that HPC recommend Council designate the entire property as historic (including both units) with the condition that the front door and possibly the front porch be restored and be the primary entrance for the residence; the roofform be restored as evidenced during construction, and the new addition meet the Design Guidelines. • t � �QasAro�� -Iff 923 I. 419 q17 41Sq13 a1 .4 / 40/ (7 ,, x�, N� N )q. B. C. D, E. F. G. AA r N N A � 36 N a 417/421 W. Hallam St, Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 5 of 12 P36 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, DEMOLITION Staff Response: Staff is concerned that the fundamental aspects of this project — site planning and the height and massing of the new addition — do not meet the Design Guidelines. Staff recommends a restudy of the project that preserves and highlights the historic resource. Staff's concerns are outlined below. Site plan: The front entrance to the new project is proposed to be setback the length of the historic home and is located in the new addition. Staff recommends that the applicant restore the front porch shown on the Sanborne map above and locate the primary entrance in the historic home.The applicant does not agree that there was a front porch on the historic home, as stated in the addendum to the application. One way to determine if the double hung windows were moved is to open up the wall and inspect the framing of the windows. A front entrance on the east side of the home doesn't seem to make sense as there is a double hung window and a chimney where the entrance area would be located. This type of construction was riot typical to the miner's cottages in the area. The large bay window removes any evidence of a window or door in that location. Staff appreciates that the applicant proposes a large front setback for the new construction, but is concerned that the setback is so large that it pushes the mass behind the historic home creating a backdrop of new construction that dwarfs the landmark. Mass/Scale/Height: Staff finds that the prominent east/west ridge proposed behind the historic home overwhelms the landmark and does not meet the Design Guidelines below 10.4, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 11.5. Staff recommends different roof forms or reorienting the ridge to break up the mass and height, and the addition of a connecting element behind the historic resource be studied. The overall tone and style of the new addition does not seem to relate to the historic resource. The applicant plans to bring a physical model to the meeting, which may help explain the relationship. At this time, Staff recommends a continuation of the project for a full restudy. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. ❑ This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. ❑ Use materials that appear similar to the original. ❑ While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. ❑ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. ❑ When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. ❑ The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. 417/421 W.Hallam St. Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 6 of 12 P37 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. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. ❑ A 1-story connector is preferred. ❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. ❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. ❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. ❑ Additional floor 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. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. Demolition: 26.415.100.4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, 417/421 W. Hallam St. Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 7 of 12 P38 c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally,for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the demolition of the non-historic additions as proposed. Staff finds that the 19th century rear lean-to addition to the residence that is shown on the Sanborne map has been altered beyond repair. The sheds along the alley are represented as being recent additions. Relocation: 26.415.090.C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally,for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 417/421 W. Hallam St. Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 8 of 12 P39 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the proposal to pick up the home and dig a basement as long as the landmark is placed back in its original location. The applicant must provide a letter from an engineer or licensed home mover stating that the landmark can successfully be picked up and moved. Parking: 26.415.110.D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying , zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for parking reductions. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district.. 26.515.040.A Special review Standards: A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Parking: The applicant proposes 1 onsite parking space. 2 spaces are required. It is unclear as to whether a surface parking space is proposed or if the applicant requests a waiver of the second parking space requirement. An updated landscape plan was not provided in the application. Staff requests clarification at the meeting. Staff finds that the review criteria above are not met: a parking waiver does not mitigate an adverse impact on the historic resource, is not practically difficult, does not result in an undesirable development scenario. Staff does not recommend a waiver of a parking space for this project. 417/421 W. Hallam St. Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 9 of 12 P40 VARIANCES: FAR BONUS, SETBACK STANDARD VARIANCES 26.415.110.F. Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the UPC 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; 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; c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e) The construction materials are of the highest quality; f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Staff Response: Staff strongly recommends that the applicant restore the front porch shown on the 1904 Sanborne Map, restore the roof form and material, and design an addition that meets the Design Guidelines in order to meet the review criteria to earn the 500 square feet FAR Bonus. There are many opportunities for preservation/restoration of the historic home that may be pursued in order to warrant the FAR Bonus. 26.415.110.C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The UPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 417/421 W. Hallam St. Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 10 of 12 P41 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: See updated variances on page 2 of memo. Staff finds that the review criteria are not met with the proposed project. 26.410.020.D.2. Residential Design Standards. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review 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 the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Following are the requested variances, underlined area are not met in the proposal: A.2 Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet at least sixty percent (60%) of the front facade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent(60%) standard. B.1.Secondary mass. All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate linking element. This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.13.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the pulposes of linking a primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length not more than ten (10) feet in width and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an 417/421 W. Hallam St. Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 11 of 12 P42 accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. D.1 Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.13.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front most wall of the building Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet with a minimum depth of six (6) feet shall be part of the front facade Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. Staff Response: Staff finds that the review criteria are not met and recommends that the applicant restudy the project to meet the Standards above. The Residential Design Standards are based on established neighborhood scale and character. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the correction to landmark designation with the condition that the project is restudied and the historic home is preserved by restoring the front entryway. Staff recommends a restudy of the new addition to highlight the historic resource. Staff supports the removal of non-historic additions and the proposal to pick up the home and dig a basement. Staff does not support the requested variances, the parking waiver, or the 500 square feet FAR Bonus. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines Exhibit B: Application (provided March 26, 2014) Exhibit C: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit D: Minutes from HPC meeting on March 26, 2014 Exhibit E: Updated application 417/421 W. Hallam St. Conceptual HPC Review May 28,2014 Page 12 of 12 P43 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) DENYING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION, DEMOLITION, FAR BONUS, AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 417 AND 421 WEST HALLAM STREET, UNITS A AND B OF THE HALLAM STREET CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION #- , SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-33-007 AND 2735-124-33-008 WHEREAS, the applicant, David and Marcia Kaplan, represented by 1 Friday Design Collaborative and Thomas Pheasant, requested HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, FAR Bonus, and Variance approval for the property located at 417 and 421 West Hallam Street, Units A and B of the Hallam Street Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Unit B of the Hallam Street Condominiums is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department and the applicant are pursuing an amendment to the landmark designation legal description to correct the clerical error that designates the non-historic half of the duplex which is under City Council's authority; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to approve Relocation, according to Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property, it must be determined that: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 417/421 W. Hallam Street HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014 Page 1 of 4 P44 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and WHEREAS, in order to approve Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080.A.4, Demolition of Designated Historic Properties, it must be determined that: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS,the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.La, Variances. 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; and 417/421 W. Hallam Street HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014 Page 2 of 4 P45 WHEREAS, the HPC may approve a waiver of required parking spaces according to Section 26.415.110.D, Parking. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site.parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. WHEREAS, in selected circumstances, pursuant to Section 26,415.1101, 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; 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; c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e) The construction materials are of the highest quality; f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. WHEREAS, the HPC may grant a variance from the Residential Design Standards upon a find that: 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 feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. 417/421 W. Hallam Street HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014 Page 3 of 4 P46 WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated March 26, 2014 and May 28, 2014, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended denial of the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 28, 2014 continued from March 26, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal inconsistent with the review standards and denied the project by a vote of NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby denies the request for Conceptual Major Development approval, Waivers, Variances, and the 500 square feet FAR Bonus. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 28th day of May,2014. Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 417/421 W. Hallam Street HPC Resolution# , Series of 2014 Page 4 of 4 P47 Exhibit A—Relevant Design Guidelines 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. ❑ If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. ❑ Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials. ❑ In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such as a fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic model. ❑ Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. ❑ Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick. ❑ EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. ❑ Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. ❑ Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. ❑ Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. ❑ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. ❑ Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. ❑ Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. Replacement Windows 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. P48 ❑ Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. ❑ If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double- hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. ❑ Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window,use materials that appear similar to the original. ❑ Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. ❑ Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. ❑ Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. ❑ A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. 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. P49 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. ❑ Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. ❑ This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. Porch Replacement 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. ❑ Use materials that appear similar to the original. ❑ While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. ❑ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. • When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. • The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. ❑ The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. ❑ Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. ❑ Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. ❑ The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. ❑ Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. P50 ❑ A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. • Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. • A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. ❑ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ❑ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided. ❑ The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered. ❑ In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to other historic structures in the area. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. ❑ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. ❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. P51 ❑ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. ❑ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. ❑ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. ❑ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). ❑ The size of a lightwell should be minimized. ❑ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new 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. P52 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve,historic alignments that may exist on the street. ❑ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. ❑ A 1-story connector is preferred. ❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. ❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. ❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. ❑ Additional floor 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. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. P53 ❑ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. P54 INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- 19TH CENTURY MINER'S COTTAGE Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. • LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 5- The structure is in its original location. 4- The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original alignment and proximity to the street. 3- The structure has been moved to another site, still within the historic Aspen townsite. 0- The structure has been moved to a location which is dissimilar to the original site. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5. Structure is in its original location • DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,structure, and style of a property. BUILDING FORM 10-The original plan form, based on Sanborne maps or other authenticating documentation, is unaltered and there are no recent additions. 8- The structure has been expanded but the original plan form is intact and the addition(s) would meet the design guidelines. 6- The plan form has been more altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines. 4- The structure has been expanded in a less desirable manner, but if the addition were removed, at least 50% of the building's original walls would remain. 2- The structure has been expanded and the addition overwhelms the original structure , destroying more than 50% of the building's original walls. 0- Two historic structures have been linked together and the original character of the individual structures is significantly affected. 4 — structure has been altered but if removed building form could be restored. ROOF FORM 10-The original roof form and the original porch roof, if one existed, are unaltered. 8- The original main roof is intact but the porch roof, if one existed, has been altered. 1 P55 6- Dormers have been added to the structure or additions have been made that alter the roof form, but the changes would meet the design guidelines. 2- Alterations to the roof have been made in a less sensitive manner, not in conformance with the design guidelines. 0- Less than 50% of the original roof form remains. 4—the roof has been altered and replaced with standing seam. SCALE 5- The original one story scale of the building, and its character as a small cottage is intact. 4- The building has been expanded, but the ability to perceive the original size of the 3 or 4 room home, is preserved. 3- The building has been expanded and the scale of the original portion is discernible. 0- The scale of the building has been negatively affected by a large addition, whose features do not reflect the scale or proportions of the historic structure. 4—building has been expanded but scale is intact. FRONTPORCH 10-The front porch is not enclosed and original decorative woodwork remains, or if there was no porch historically, none has been added. 8- The front porch is enclosed but maintains an open character and some original materials. 6- The front porch is not original, but has been built in an accurate manner, per the design guidelines. 2- The front porch has been enclosed and most original materials are gone. 0- The front porch is completely gone or replaced with a porch which would not meet the design guidelines. 0 - front porch is removed. DOORS AND WINDOWS 10-The typical door and window pattern on the original house is intact- two doors off the front porch, large double hung windows in gable ends, and tall, narrow double hung windows placed "sparsely" on building walls. 8- Less than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building are new and the original door and window openings are intact. 2- More than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building are new and/or some of the original opening sizes have been altered. 0- Most or all of the original door and window openings have been altered. 2 - doors and windows are altered. 2 P56 SIMPLICITY OF DESIGN 5- The overall sense of "modesty" in design and detailing on the original structure is intact. 0- New, non-historic trim and other decoration have been added to the building and have altered its character. 4—the simple detailing is largely intact. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 50) = 18 • SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. PROXIMITY TO SIMILAR STRUCTURES 5- The structure is one of a set (at least three) of buildings from the same period in the immediate area. 3- The building is part of a neighborhood that has numerous remaining buildings from the same period. 0- The building is an isolated example from the period. HISTORIC LANDSCAPE FEATURES 5- A number of elements of the original landscape are in place, including historic fences, walkways, plant materials and trees, and ditches. 3- Few or no elements of the original landscape are present, but the current landscape supports the historic character of the home. 0- The current landscape significantly obscures views of the structure. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 10) = 8 building is close to other landmarks. • MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. EXTERIOR WOODWORK 10-Most of the original woodwork, including clapboard siding, decorative shingles in gable ends,trim, fascia boards, etc. remain. 6- Original siding has been replaced, but trim and other elements remain. 6- Original siding is intact but trim or other elements have been replaced. 0- All exterior materials have been removed and replaced. DOORS AND WINDOWS 10-All or most of the original door and window units are intact. 3 P57 8- Some window and door units have been replaced, but with generally accurate reconstructions of the originals. 6- Most of the original windows have been replaced, but with generally accurate reconstructions of the originals. 0- Windows and/or doors units have been replaced with inappropriate patterns or styles. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) = 12—alterations have occurred, but some original elements remain. • WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION 5- The original detailing is intact. 3- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its stylistic category. 0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original structure. 0- The detailing is gone. FINISHES 5- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry unpainted. 4- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry is painted. 3- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance but masonry is unpainted. 2- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance and the masonry is painted. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 10) = 8—detailing and finishes are accurate. • ASSOCIATION Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. 5- The property would be generally recognizable to a person who lived in Aspen in the 19th century. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 4—the alterations to the front fagade may confuse a person, but the roof form and scale are intact and relate to the 19th century. 4 P58 • BONUS POINTS UNIQUE EXAMPLE 5-The design of the building is unique or one of a small group among the miner's cottages. (i.e.It has Italianate or Second Empire detailing.) OUTBUILDINGS 5-There are outbuildings on the property that were built during the same period as the house. MASONRY 5-Original brick chimneys and/or a stone foundation remains. PATINA/CHARACTER 5-The materials have been allowed to acquire the character of age and are obviously weathered. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100 (and up to 20 bonus points) MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 50 POINTS Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific property. Total of 55 points. 5 D059 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 417 & 421 W. Hallam St. — Correction to Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances, Public Hearing. Debbie Quinn said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Sara said the proposal is to correct a landmark description and proposal for conceptual review and variances including setback variances,floor area bonus and residential design standard variances. There is also a request of relocation and partial demolition. The property right now is a duplex. Half is designated and half is not. This was designated in 1992 and at that time they only designated one of the unit and they picked the wrong unit. We assume it is a clerical error. The proposals is to forward a resolution to city council to designate the entire property. Staff finds that the review criteria for designation are met. The property was built prior to 1893 and the integrity scoring was 55. The property needs preservation help. Sara said the current roof form has a ridge rather than being flat. The issues is whether there was a front porch or not. The 1893 Sanborn map does not show a front porch and the 1904 map shows a porch. There had to be an entrance porch somewhere. They are proposing to set back the new addition significantly. The entrance to the single family home is in the new addition and is set back half way into the middle of the lot. Guidelines 5.4, 5.5 talk about the importance of a front porch and the importance of entering the historic home as the primary entrance. Staff is concerned about the site plan. The Building Dept. can issue and exploratory demolition permit which may if the applicant is willing to do a little bit of interior demo. It may tell us by looking at the framing what is happened with the windows and if there ever was a door. It is unfortunate because there is a huge bay window in the front. Maybe HPC can do a site visit during the exploration and look at the framing. Staff is concerned about the large setback for the addition. We feel that it is so large that it pushes the mass in an east west fashion which is one of the reasons they need setback variances. We don't feel that is appropriate. Guideline 10.8 requires a ten foot setback from the front facade of the historic home but this is at least double that. It also doesn't meet the residential design standards. Staff is also concerned about the east west ridge and there is no breakup of the roof form behind the historic home to 8 P60 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 give it some sort of relief. There is no ten foot connector piece between the historic home and the two story mass proposed behind it. We also have concerns that guideline 10.4, 10.6, 10.8, 11.5 are not met. The overall style doesn't relate to the historic home. It is very simple but it maybe over simplified as relating back to the historic home. They propose to remove the unit of the duplex that isn't historic and remove a lean-too addition that has been severely compromised by over framing etc. There is a shed on the alley that has new framing that will also be removed. Staff is in support of the demolition. The house will be picked up to do the basement and put back in its original location. The applicant will need to provide a letter from a house mover to let us know that it can be successfully picked up to dig a foundation. Two parking spaces are required and the applicant is providing one. It is not clear whether they want a waiver or pay for a parking space. They are also requesting a 500 square foot bonus and staff feels it is not met with what they are proposing tonight. To gain the FAR bonus you need to meet the design guidelines and the historic building has to be a key element of the property and the addition has to be incorporated in a manner that maintains a visual integrity of the building and we do not find that those are met specifically criteria A, B, C, D and F. Sara said there are also some side yard setback variances requested and a combined side yard setback request. HPC has to make a finding that the variances are similar to the patterns, features and character of the historic property. We find that those standards are not met. Residential design standards are also being requested. We also find that the review criteria for variances are not met. Staff also doesn't feel there is a site constraint. Issues to be met. Restore the roof form in accordance with guideline 7.1 Submit a relocation letter We recommend exploratory demo to figure out if there is evidence of a front porch. Meet the intent of the residential design standards Meet the sideyard setbacks. Place the entrance in the historic resource in accordance with guideline 5.5 Recommend that the break up the mass of the addition specifically the roof to meet guidelines 10.9,10.9. 10.4, 10.3 Recommend that they explore adding a connector that meets guideline 10.7. Derek Skalko, architect 9 P61 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Jake Bittner, architect from Thomas Pheasant out of Washington DC Derek said the historic entity is from 1888. In 1889 and 1896 the rear addition was added. Somewhere between 1889 and 1896 the side property was added. In 1904 the Sanborn there could have been a flat roof. There is no historic porch on the building. In 1904 there is indication that a porch existed on the east side of the building. There is a lot of things that happened here and nothing is conclusive. Post 1904 there was a structure on the adjacent property that was on the property line and then we see a connecting element at that time. We believe the desecration occurred in 1977 when the large addition occurred. We are restoring the entire west side of the mining cottage. Jake said we tried to release the historic building from the addition as well as re-establish the side yard and place the historic building in its original siting. It would have a side yard that was open. We have one garage and one open air parking space. We are trying not to distract from the historic houses. We did look at different ways to break up the mass behind the building but every time we did that it distracted from the original building. Derek. said on the combined side yards we are about a foot over. We are asking for a larger light well which requires a variance to do that. Sara addressed the deck space. In the R-6 zone district we have two different setbacks. We have setbacks for primary structures for habitable space and a setback for garages, accessory buildings and sheds. The setback for the primary building is ten feet and a garage a five feet. They need the five foot setback for the garage because there is usable space on top of the garage that goes up to the five foot setback they need a variance of five feet because there is a requirement for ten feet. Patrick said the original door on the historic house has not been located. Staff is not in favor of the proposed placement of the entrance. Sara said we do not know if the side entrance is original or not. Nora asked if the applicant is willing to do some exploratory excavation. Derek said they would have to consult the client. 10 P62 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 John said I can see their concern because if the entrance is in the front and a porch you have lost your master bedroom area and you would have to reconfigure the entire program. Waiting for a decision makes it difficult. Sara said that is why we would like to pursue this now. Derek said we feel the photograph is likely to be this house. It aligns with Shadow Mountain. Derek said he has a theory that the two lots were at some point adjoined. We can't go east on the property for the door. Sara said the building permits show that the two buildings were not connected. We will get this dialed in for the next hearing. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Doug Allen, attorney represented Sistie Fischer. I feel this proposal is brilliant. They have treated this sensitively. Sistie is on the west side and south side of the property. She owns property on both sides of the alley. I am favorably impressed by the entry and it shows just like the picture. It is a mess back there and we welcome something favorably. I would like to see some windows in the second element that faces Hallam. They have also been sensitive to the neighbors. The parking space on the east back corner is good for the other people back up to that alley and need to use that alley. Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Issues: Setback variances Residential design standards East west ridge of the roof mass No ten foot connector Parking waive Entrance Dimensional variances Roof form Front porch 500 square foot bonus Mass and scale 11 P63 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 . Jay commented that a continuation is necessary. The exploratory demo is almost required for us to understand what should really happen here. The mass that you have created is all over the top of the historic resource. I feel it would be more appropriate to ask for a rear yard setback variance to alleviate some of the pressure. I believe moving the mass away from the historic structure warrants a parking waiver. The solid east/west ridgeline is the first thing I noticed about this project. It creates a ton of mass. The connector is so necessary in this project. The front door has to be in the historic structure. I am in support of the bonus because you have to completely replace a side of the historic resource. Willis said from an architectural point of view there are many appealing things. The architecture highlights the jewel like character of this structure in a compelling way. I am torn. The spirit of the connector is achievable. The connector looks three or four feet at the most and if you were closer to 7 or ten you would mitigate the subject of a secondary mass. Nothing says you can't have a continuous ridge line and nothing says you have to break it up. I do not feel anything is apparently wrong with the addition. It has a farm house aesthetic which is appealing and shows off the historic structure well. To get the bonus you need to flatten the roof form and maybe put a chimney up there. Those are the kind of things HPC would look at. Regarding the exploratory history at what point of history do you want to dial in. History is a moving target. Maybe it is 1904. The pattern of the entrance is evocative as to what was there and what is there now. The calm, quiet and dignified way these pieces highlight the historic resource is commendable. I am sure I am missing lots of guidelines and variance. Nora said she appreciates the model. Right now the design feels overwhelming and would a connector make it better. The mass and scale is too big for the historic resource. I have to agree, why are we punching a front door in when we don't know if there was a front door. The photograph is clear. If the variance helps with getting some distance then I could feel better about it. We don't want to see a "wall" on Hallam Street. Willis pointed out that the ridged mass is glazed floor to ceiling. It will be light and open and read as a glass wall. Patrick agreed with Jay that demolition for the research should occur before we get too far because that could change the view of where the front door and everything else can go. I would recommend a porch as staff as 12 P64 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 indicated. This is a Victorian Street and we are looking at going back to Victorian history. Whether the massing is broken up with gables or a lower roof angle I would agree that the roof itself overwhelms the property, not that it is two story. John said this project is unique. I am in favor of a little more connector would be beneficial but I like the design. It is thoughtfully done. The structure is unique to preserve. If we do an exploratory demo we might not learn a lot. In certain instances it might be better to look at what you are going to get rather than following all the guidelines. They are close to having a great project. In order to get the 500 square foot bonus the connector needs looked at. Sallie said architecturally this is beautiful. I like not having the porch and it does need a larger connector. The problem with the ridge line is that it doesn't meet our historic guidelines. If you were going to have an east west ridgeline it would be on a carriage house and the carriage house would be subservient to the main house. It is doing justice to the historic structure because it is setting a nice backdrop for it. Maybe the backdrop needs to be further away from the historic house. I'm OK with the bonus especially since the wall will be replaced. Parking and backyard variances are terrific. Setbacks Residential design standards Parking waiver Front porch Roof Form Front Door Willis pointed out that not all Victorians fit into the residential design standard formula. Jim said the entrance could be the side or the front. Sara said we don't know what we would find doing the excavation demo as there have been a lot of alterations to this house. Nora said departing from strict guidelines we will get something better. 13 P65 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Jim said his focus is on a greater separation of the connector and you would have a clear distinction of the historic structure. It is a very creative solution and we shouldn't get upset looking for the original door. John said maybe the garage could be pulled back to give a little more separation. Sallie said it would be interesting to see what was originally there and pull the addition as far back as possible. Jake said they don't really have any objections. The exploratory demotion is worth while but there are tenants in there and it will be very disruptive. There is still some uncertainty that if we did find a door if the definitive answer would be to put a porch back on. Lots of things suggest that it didn't have the typical front door. I am hesitant to try to make it fit a mold. Sara said at one point there was a porch. Does HPC think the porch should come back and we restore it or is the 1893 the more appropriate time period. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 417 & 421 W. Hallam to May 28th; second by Jay. Sara said does the board want the applicant to go forward with exploratory demolition. Willis said the applicant should decide what point in history they want to target. John said there is more evidence that a porch didn't exist. Maybe we should go with the oldest date. Jim and Jay said they feel there was a front door at some point. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Patrick recused himself. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kat Teen J. trickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14 EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE COD ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 2 MAat-� ►'1 R00,-,j— ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: �Q tIQLS A Dr a:c a_, 20Jl STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Piti n ) I, ` Ct I lC� l� t ✓1 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the_ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached-hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage -prepaid U.S.mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the MOOR3TTf;q ' rQ e sub ►�8t1� -p rty j ,ct to the development application. The names and addresses of (AIA330J00 property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they SM&004aeet'x�ppeared no,r ore than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A a+oc;a r sutclaa z9iio:ri y of Elie 6wners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section- 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach sum7ia7y, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued 077 next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty,(30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text ansendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any ' way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection,,.in the planning, agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature avit of Not e" was ackno ledged before e thi &day The foregoing 20 b Oil of 1 y PUBLIC NOTI RE:120 RED MOUNTAIN RDA ASPENMOD- T1 T T ERN NEGOTIATION FOR VOLUNTARY LAND- �S'S' My�D AND OFFICl L SEAL MARK DESIGNATION,CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT,STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing My commission expires: will be held on Wednesday,May 28,2014,at a �T meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,in Council Chambers,City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen. HPC will consider an application submitted by Red Mountain Riverfront,LLC,0133 Prospector Road, Suite 41026,Aspen,CO,81611,represented by O}�rcr N Kim Raymond Architects and Alan Richman Plan- Notary J tang Services. The applicant is proposing f KAREN REED PATTERSON volun- tary landmark designation and negotiation for r in- centives through the AspenModern program. _ .NOTARY PUBLIC Conceptual design review,Stream Margin and Variance approvals are requested for an addition to STATE OF COLORADO the property,which is 120 Red Mountain Road, Parcel ID:2737.072-00-028,city and Townsite of NOTARY ID#19964002767 Aspen,Colorado.For further information,contact I- Amy Simon at the City of Aspen Community De- H1VjEN TS AS APPLICABLE: My Commission Expires February 15,2016 velopment Department,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,. CO,(970)429-2758,amy.simon®cityofaspen.00m. I slJay Mayt t A TION Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission /E POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) t Published in the As Ti May 8,2014 L(10170512) Aspen on+ v+ AND GOVERNMENTAL AGE11'CIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL.ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 j AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: } 20_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ' ss. County of Pitkin ) I (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: !� Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the ._.— Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. 'A phot©graph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15)days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) i i 1 Mineral Estate Q►rner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt { requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30)days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current I tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that I create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas,are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing I on such amendments. i Signature The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 2 day of /`7G Y > 201y, by le1'-7-b eel " a Yrzo-�d 1 ' JOSHUA S.MALL WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL j Notary Public / ! State of Coloado My commission expires: 1-2ll ill 7 Notary 10 20134076"6 My Commission E fires Dec 19,2017 otary Pu is ! ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE 0OWERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 I I NO ate• Wed , 2014 ay 2$ Time : 5:00 P.m. Place : 130 S. Galena Street, Council Chambers, Aspen Purpose : HPC will consider an application by Red Mountain Riverfront LLC 0133 Prospector Rd., Ste.410213, Aspen, CO, 81611 , affecting this property. A licant- proposes voluntary pp ne�oto .,atin. Landmark desig nation,_ _ . ConCep tual design7- for incentives, and Variance review_- Strearn Mann A s en formt�on contact For fu rther in -429-27 g Dept. a t g7p Planning N 110 VALHALLA LLC ASPEN PITKIN EMP HSG INC SAAR HUNTER CURTIS 25% ! 9201 WILSHIRE BLVD#305 C/O MICHAEL VERNON CPA PO BOX R BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 100 ELK RUN DR STE 103 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 BEKLIK ROYA BIELINSKI BRIDDGET BONDS MICHAEL STEPHEN& ELAINE PO BOX 7640 620 INDEPENDENCE PL JOHNSON ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 310 INDEPENDENCE PL ASPEN,CO 81611 BOUGHTON WILLIAM REID BRUNSWOLD KIRK W BUESCH THOMAS A BOUGHTON JACQUELINE LEE LANE TAMMIE A 206 INDEPENDENCE PL 102 INDEPENDENCE PL 413 INDEPENDENCE PL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CALLWINNIE LLC CITY OF ASPEN DECAMPO RICHARD L&SUSAN K 1606 CLEMSON CIR ATTN FINANCE DEPT 309 INDEPENDENCE PL LA JOLLA, CA 92037 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 FRANKLIN DAVID MICHAEL&MICHELLE GOSHORN MARCA L HAGGERTY BEATRICE M 207 INDEPENDENCE PL 516 INDEPENDENCE PL 308 INDEPENDENCE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HALL JO-ANN HARRISON TRENTON A HIPP CHRISTINE A 103 INDEPENDENCE PL PO BOX 11165 621 INDEPENDENCE PL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOLMSTEDT MONIKA IRELAND MICHAEL C JACKSON LAURI A PO BOX 1141 515 INDEPENDENCE PLACE 619 INDEPENDENCE PL ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 KIRCH MARK A LASKO ELIZABETH LUTZ CATHERINE 412 INDEPENDENCE PL 618 INDEPENDENCE PL 311 INDEPENCE PL ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816113204 ASPEN, CO 81611 MADSEN DIANNE G&TIMOTHY T MITCHELL MARIAN RUBEY TRST 25% PITKIN COUNTY 104 INDEPENDENCE PL C/O HARDING&CARBONE 530 E MAIN ST#302 ASPEN, CO 81611 3903 BELLAIRE BLVD ASPEN,CO 81611 HOUSTON,TX 77025 POLVER RACHEL RUBEY CATHERINE B&ROBERT B RUBEY ROBERT NEAL TRST 25% PO BOX 10475 8.333%EA BERING KAREN RUBEY 8.333% 9 GREENWAY PLAZA#1000 ASPEN, CO 81612 2106 MATHEWS HOUSTON,TX 77046 AUSTIN,TX 78703 I SLADDIN MICHAEL D STARODOJ ROBERT F&PAULA A WEDUM JOHN R 311 INDEPENDENCE PL PO BOX 1121 101 INDEPENDENCE PL ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 WILLIAMS STEVE WILLOUGHBY PONDS TRUST 620 INDEPENDENCE PL 180 N WACKER DR#001 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60606 i i