Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20151014 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 14, 2015 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St. 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. None. II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes Sept. 23, 2015 September 30, 2015 minutes C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. OLD BUSINESS A. 827 E. Dean Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 26TH (5:10) IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Draft revisions to HPC guidelines, Chapters 8-11 (5:40) V. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution #28, 2015 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 Chairperson identified 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. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Jim DeFrancia, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal. Absent were Nora Berko, Sallie Golden, John Whipple, Bob Blaich and Michael Brown. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Jim made the motion to approve the minutes of September 9th as amended by Willis. Willis second, all in favor, motion carried. 209 E. Bleeker – Major Development Conceptual review, Demolition, Relocation, FAR Bonus, Residential Design Standards and Variations, Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavits of posting are in order - Exhibit I Photographs - Exhibit II Sara said the building was owned by the Hayes family for a long time and it has been heavily altered. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the miner’s cabin and add an addition. This is a designated landmark site. They are also requesting the 500 square foot bonus and some variations to setbacks and approval of partial demolition for the removal of the non- historic additions that have happened over time. It is a 6,000 square foot lot zoned R-6. The proposed site plan and the amount of mass that is being proposed for the site is a concern. The new addition wraps around the landmark in a way that overwhelms the one story landmark. The applicant has pushed the addition to the rear but there is a piece sticking out adjacent to the landmark that is two stories which is a concern of staff. Staff is recommending a restudy of the site plan and massing. There are two different concepts. One is to shift all of the mass to the rear so you don’t have the “finger” sticking out next to the Victorian. The other approach is to create the look of a lot split with two separate buildings from the street facing façade and do almost an invisible addition behind the landmark. Maybe use a one story connector that you can’t see. What is being proposed is new construction next to it and also a two story behind the landmark. P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 2 Staff feels there is too much mass on the site. Guideline 10.6, 10.8 and 10.14 are not met. The applicant is proposing a gabled roof which is more in keeping with the Victorian. Staff is in support of removing the non -historic addition. There is a shed but it cannot be linked to the Sanborne Map or any documentation. Sara explained that the bonus is in two parts. We are talking about a reconstruction of this building with limited information and whether that makes the FAR bonus appropriate. If there is a lot of guess work does that mean they should get the bonus or is it even appropriate. The bonus should be linked to preservation and maybe not re-creation. Sara said if HPC feels the bonus is appropriate and the criteria met then we recommend that the bonus be conditioned on two TDR’s being applied for. Again, we feel there is too much mass on the site. Variations – They are requesting variations for the east, west, combined and rear yard setback. The variations requested are a product of too much mass on the site. We are OK with legalizing the current location of the home because they are not moving the home. The below grade space is a great way to have mass underground. As far as the combined variances and the east setback we felt that the project could get closer to meeting those requirements. There is a 15 foot combined side yard setback and they are providing about three feet. Residential design standards – They are requesting a variation for the size of the original front porch which doesn’t meet the six foot depth requirement. Staff is absolutely supportive of that because it will recreating the existing condition. Staff is recommending continuation to restudy the mass and the site plan to meet the east side yard setback of 5 feet to get closer to the combined setback of 15 feet. Kim Raymond, architect The proposal is an addition to the east and rear. We will take the gable window out of the rendering because it is not there. We will put the dormer back and restore the roof. We don’t feel the shed that Sara mention is old but old wood has been used on it. A new roof was built over the existing roof and a fireplace was added over time. We will put a small dormer that existed back and restore the roof. We will refurbish the existing doors that were found in the basement. They were probably the two doors that were on P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 3 the front porch. Jim and Mary Hayes who lived in the house were prominent members of the Aspen community. Kim did a context power point of different buildings on the block and explained their density. Kim said we are at 45% site coverage on the lot. We feel the density is appropriate on the lot and is in keeping with other projects approved by the HPC and what is going on in the neighborhood. If the building was by itself it gets overwhelmed by the large building beside it. The addition steps back 18 feet and then the two story element starts back another 5.7 feet. It would be very hard to see the addition from either direction. The little shed will go away and we are restoring the front porch. We have the five foot setback for the garage. There is 9’10” between the cabin and the addition. The cabin will be the main living room. We are trying to keep the same forms, flat roofs and gables. The cabin is a very simple structure. The gable in the back of the addition is 15 feet behind the back of the historic building. We are going to great lengths to figure out what the cabin was and put it back as close as we can and we feel the bonus is warranted. We are losing high ceilings in order to re-create the little cabin. Aspen’s history is important to this board and that is why we are re-creating the roof back to where it was and another reason for granting the bonus. We also feel the cabin needs something behind it to back it up. 417 421 Hallam is a similar project with the building in the middle of the block and has a very similar site plan with an addition that wraps around like our which is another example of what has been approved by the HPC. We feel the FAR of 3,750 fit nicely on a 6,000 square foot lot. City Council does not want us to create TDR’s and sell them or take them off the property. City Council wants us to keep them on the property. Design standards 10.6 - design an addition to be compatible with the size and scale of the main building. We feel we have accomplished that here. Guideline 10.8 says place an addition at the rear of the building or set it back from the front to minimize. The two story addition is 23 ½ feet behind the cabin and out link is off the back instead of off the side. Sara said there are ways to move the mass around so that it doesn’t feel like there is a two story mass all the way around the cabin. If you are having the addition in the back make sure the side yard is much more subordinate to the P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 4 landmark. If the addition is to the side then the rear absolutely needs to be subordinate to the landmark. Don’t do both is what we are trying to say. Jim said this has an addition to the side and rear and has the propensity to overpower the cabin. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Willis identified the issues: Mass and scale and the disposition on site Demolition of the shed FAR bonus Setback variances being requested. 15 foot combined side yard setback which is now 3 feet Rear yard setback for a deck on top of the garage Willis said he shares a lot of staffs concerns about mass and scale. There seems to be two “nested” L’s. Willis said he appreciated the analysis presented. You can’t see the connector piece. The underutilization of the southwest corner of the lot could be addressed. The mass is usually back toward the alley and have a more open area to the front of the house. The three stacked windows on both floors is quite a lot of volume. Not being able to see through to the connector is also a concern. Patrick also agreed that the mass could be moved to the southwest corner and they could still have the stone patio. The gable roof is desirable to keep the historic character. Gretchen said sometimes it is a value to discuss windows with respect to mass and scale because they can significantly affect the perception of the height of the building. Jim agreed about the concern of the mass and not wanting to overwhelm the historic structure. The FAR bonus is OK because they are going to a considerable effort to restore an historic property. Taking the TDR’s off the site would be preferable and that is the intent that the TDR’s are transferable so you can do a better job preserving the site. P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 5 Gretchen agreed with Staff and Willis regarding the mass and site planning. This project doesn’t meet 75% of the guidelines in terms of preservation in Aspen. The addition overwhelms a significant building for the community that is not only an historic resource but also important members of our community have lived here. The site is over developed. You are asking for variances at the back of the building which could be avoided by re-designing the space. The two story massing wrapping around the building is unsuccessful from a preservation standpoint. Small cabins are not deemed to have large additions. The lot split ordinance was adopted to try to prevent this exact type of development. The site plan coverage needs restudied. The bonus is not worthy in the current form. If the massing was taken down to a one story structure next to the historic building and pushed back on the site that might work. Setbacks should only be for historic resources not additions when you have this much land to work with. Willis said he would support a 6’10“combined side yard setback. Five foot on the east and 1’10” for the resource. Willis said Jim and Mary Hayes were a legacy and possibly a plaque could be done in memory of them. MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 209 E. Bleeker until Nov. 11th with guidance that the board has given; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Draft revisions to HPC guidelines, Chapter 2-7 Amy Simon, Sara Adams, Sarah Rosenberg are the team working on the guidelines. Amy said they are changing the guidelines to be simplified. All the photographs are from Aspen. Sara mentioned that the goal is to make the guidelines more user friendly and more concise. Below are the proposed changes. Chapter 2 – Building Materials Victorians have clapboard siding and Aspen Modern has other materials. The section on aluminum siding has been pulled out. Also pulled out was information on building maintenance and a chapter at the end of the guidelines will be added about painting and maintenance. P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 6 2.5 Alternative materials: Added: you can’t replace wood siding with synthetic materials. 2.2 Finish of materials. Added: Finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. Patrick suggested putting the original pictures up first and then the altered photographs. Chapter 3 – Windows 3.1 Preserve the original glass. If Victorian era glass is broken consider using restoration glass for the repair. 3.4 Replacing of a historic window. Use materials that are the same as the original. 3.7 New guideline: Adding new openings on a historic structure are generally not allowed. 3.8 Use storm windows exterior or interior as an option. Chapter 4 4.4 If you are replacing a door on a historic building you could use a salvaged door. 4.5 Adding doors are generally not allowed. 4.8 New guideline: Preserve historic hardware. Chapter 5 Porches and balconies Back porch can’t be demolished. 5.5 If new steps are constructed construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony. 5.6 Avoid handrails and guardrails on steps where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 7 Chapter 6 Architectural details 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required based on original designs. Chapter 7 Roofs Amy said more information has been added about vents and they should be minimal and painted a dark color. 7.3 Skylights – Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a flat roof on an historic structure. Gretchen said she would not support any skylights on a historic structure. Is it preservation or not. Skylights and solar panels are not acceptable on any portion of an historic structure. 7.4 New vents should be minimized carefully placed and painted a dark color and toward the back of the building. You can’t do direct vent fireplaces on historic structures. 7.6 Dormers cannot be added on a front primary façade. Not every building will be allowed to have a dormer. 7.8 Flashing – We are looking for a gray finish, tin, galvanized lead coated copper, painted metal. Cooper flashing is too fancy. Metal roofs are not appropriate for an Aspen Victorian home but maybe for a secondary structure. 7.12 New guideline: Gutters should be minimized and not use copper for a Victorian. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Michael Brown, John Whipple and Gretchen Greenwood. Absent were Nora Berko, Sallie Golden, Patrick Sagal, Jim DeFrancia. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk John will recuse himself on 305 – 307 S. Mill Street Michael commented that at the council meeting they had a lengthy discussion about view planes. Council left the meeting with the result that most of them didn’t understand the view planes and they hadn’t reviewed the criteria and there are a lot of subtleties and ambiguities and they left thinking that staff would conduct a work session on view planes. HPC should attend that work session. We need to have a good understanding of what we are being asked to review. Jim said council wants to have a work session but the challenge is scheduling. HPC and P&Z would attend. Chris Bendon and myself will do a detailed analysis of the history and the language that is used in the code. Tonight you should consider the language as you interpret it and the facts before you. Jim said some of the code language was written in the 70’s 80’s 2000. There are some inconsistencies in the code language. John said he will recuse himself on 305-307 S. Mill 434 E. Coper – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and View plane Review, Public Hearing cont’d from Sept. 9th Amy said at the last hearing everyone was mostly supportive. Demolition discussion was removed from the hearing and it was determined that it is not a required review process at this time. No one can pull a demolition permit In an historic district until the replacement building is approved and that is what has taken several years. The demolition permit stands and the applicant has to pursue the application in a timely fashion because there is P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 2 language in the code about abandonment of an application. Staff said overall the board is supportive of this new replacement building which is a rectangular building that fills the entire lot. Store fronts are at the front of the lot line which is supportive by the design guidelines. Staff mentioned modulations of the façade breaking it down into 30 foot widths expressing the traditional foot print of town. HPC didn’t find that the modulations were an issue because of the columns along the façade at approximately 30 foot intervals express that intent. There is no primary entrance in this design that faces Cooper Ave. and we feel that there needs to be some orientation in that direction that can be addressed at final. The corner treatment was also discussed. Staff objected to the rounded corner that happens on the second floor of the building. The only time you find the rounded corner is on the Elks Bldg. A chamfer flat corner at a 45 degree is recommended for final. Staff is recommending approval with the condition that more information is needed about the transportation impact analysis for final. The applicant is proposing cash-in-lieu payment for the on-site parking. Public amenity: The applicant is expected to maintain 10% of the property open to the sky or some equivalent which could have been a second floor roof deck which is what they propose or cash in-lieu payment. We don’t find that the roof deck meets the public amenity requirements because it is not directly adjacent to a restaurant space and it is not clear what it would be used for that would require public access. We support cash-in-lieu payment equivalent to 10% of the lot size. There were comments made at the last meeting that the building looks like it was influenced by another place and that is a concern of ours. View plane: Amy said this project is subject to view plane review. The view plane originates from the Wheeler Opera house. There are two things you need to consider in determining whether a project can be accepted as proposed or needs heightened scrutiny for the view plane protection. View plane guideline: Development within designated mountain view planes as set forth in this section shall be subject to heightened review so as to protect mountain views from obstruction and strengthen the environmental character of the city and maintain property values and enhance the city’s tourist industry by maintaining the city’s heritage as a mountain community. Standing at the Wheeler Opera house you could not in any way see any part of this building from the advantage point. There is development in between the two spaces that is already taller and obstructing P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 3 the view. HPC is supposed to determine whether there is any new impact here that is beyond minimal. You are also supposed to determine if there is some opportunity that exists that buildings between the Wheeler and this building might be torn down and reopen the view plane and we need to be sensitive to that. There are several buildings between the Wheeler and this site that are designated landmarks. An example is the Red Onion, Paragon Bldg. 410 E. Hyman and also the Independence Building. Michael said the memo of Sept. 9th talked about the criteria for demolition approval and the project did not proceed to HPC final review and the approval lapsed. Amy clarified that the previous conceptual approvals lapsed; however the issue is the demolition approval granted in 2006 and whether that has remaining status. There was a change in ownership and it has been determined that they have shown adequate effort to continue to try and get a replacement building approved. Jim said the issue was raised to the City Attorney’s office and we reviewed this we the Community Development and with the applicants representative and we felt that under the circumstances and unusual history of this building including the determination by council when they had the ability and opportunity and considered an involuntary designation and determined not to do that it was determined that the demolition permit was still active. Michael said he doesn’t understand how one could construe that demolition rights would last for 9 years on an approval. Jim said the circumstances which started in 2007 which included a determination that this was not an historic building were granted a demolition permit at that time and it has proceeded in one form or another since then that that demolition permit approval is still valid. We are strongly recommending that this project be completed once and for all. Council chose not to designate the building and that was an action by council that upon which the previous owners and potential owners could rely on. There actions must proceed appropriately and quickly. Michael asked if there is a section in the code that states how long a demolition is good for or what actions need to take place so that everyone has clarity. P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 4 Jim said this applicant can rely on the demolition permit. There is a whole body of law that enforces that position. Michael commented that he fails to see how the situation is different than it was in 2006. Jim said it is substantially different because there was an action by council that could have involuntarily designated the property historic. Michael explained that his issues is whether the process is legally being followed. Jim said he assured the board that the process is legal. In 2006 we had the power to involuntarily designate it and now council does not have that power. Any designation has to be voluntary. Mitch Haas, Mark Hunt, Herb Klein, Dwayne Romero Mitch did a power presentation on the location of the building. The south side of the property is in the Wheeler Opera House view plane. Everything on the north is the standard 28 foot height limit. There is 243 square feet of public amenity space. The requirement of 10% is about 900 square feet and we are fine with cash-in-lieu. Mark Hunt said the building is a Fritz Benedict building and is really in rough shape. At the last meeting we were directed to make the building taller and be more bold and hold the corner. We have done many studies. We wanted to put a prominent building on the corner and we took inspirations from buildings such as the Elks building and Brand building with its mortar and stone. We are working with steel for the store fronts. We feel the rounded corner is appropriate and the steel ties in with the mining era and it is simple. The glass in the doors reflects the 45 degree angle. The store fronts are 30 feet on Galena and on Cooper they are 27 feet. The curve is set behind the plane of the lot line. On the second floor windows we separated them in a punched way and broke up the windows with a steel shade. There is no residential on the second floor. View plane: The height on Cooper is 25 feet and 28 is allowed. On the alley, Galena Street drops down and the height is 28 feet. The Red Onion P11 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 5 bldg. measures 35 ½ feet tall at the front. The Red Onion blocks the view plane. The Independence bldg. is 42 feet tall and is a landmark. The odds of any of these buildings going away and getting redeveloped in compliance with the view plane height limit is about 0. One would have to build a building less than 7 feet tall and you cannot build a building of that height and comply with building codes. Mitch said the goal is to be compatible but not mimicking anything. Mark said Cooper Ave. has an entry to the second floor. Mark said he understands the 30 foot concept on Cooper but there are actually buildings a lot smaller than that. Herb Klein, attorney for the applicant explained that there was a memo in 2012 from staff that states the demolition approval of 2007 remains valid. This was part of the due diligence when Mr. Hunt bought the property. In the code for abandonment it relates to a development order expiring and a demolition approval is not a development order or a site specific development plan. We could not find anything in the code that had a sunset provision and we agree with the City Attorney’s analysis. Michael said we are being asked to make a decision that circumvents that demolition criteria that will be de-facto tearing down that building. Herb said the HPC in 2007 voted against land marking and City Council voted against land marking. Jim said if a demolition permit were denied here in essence there would be a involuntary designation and we do not have that power anymore. John said we should take the advice of our own legal counsel that this is a moot point and move forward. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis commented that the applicant has accepted the cash-in-lieu. Staff has supported the analysis of the view plane. The 30 foot modulation on the P12 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 6 Cooper Street needs addressed. The corner also needs discussed. Parking and affordable housing will be taken up at final. Willis commented that staff’s position is good particularly as it relates to the corner. The second floor window treatments has a reduction in scale and the sun shad devices are a good feature. Staff brought up the point that the Galena Street side should not be treated the same as the Cooper side and there should be more emphasis on the entrance on Cooper. Regarding the corner with metal there is still a concern with the double height reading of the entrance on a two story building. Gretchen said nothing has changed from the last meeting. The project does not meet 6.27 to 6.31of the guidelines. This is one more very monolithic large building and does not have a breakdown of scale. There is also not a variation of the building height. As a pedestrian walking on the mall there is a breakdown of scale with small buildings. On the north side of the mall there are variations of buildings set back. This building is also competing with our majestic buildings downtown like the Elks’s building and Brand building. Does this building enhance or detract our Historic Preservation. This building in terms of mass is not compatible with Aspen. John said he is largely in agreement with staff’s memo. John commended the applicant for a 28 foot and 25 foot building. I am OK with the 30 foot undulation. With the 22 foot segments and columns is about as close as you can get in breaking down the facades. The punched windows are fine and the wrap around the alley with windows brings light in. The view plane is fine. We are at 25feet and 28 feet. Regarding the chamfer front on the corner the features and metal make it a product of its own time and I enjoy the building and it will be a nice feature. We really need to commend the applicant for being below the height limit. Bob said the issue he keeps hearing is the corner whether it be rounded or chamfer. I feel the corner and structure is a very friendly structure but could go with a flat chamfer as we move forward. Gretchen pointed out that it is pleasant walking down the mall seeing the changes in the buildings. You have that with the Red Onion building. The height of 25 feet is great if the building could be broken up. This building does not meet guideline 6.3 (the building should be designed to reflect the individual parcels). This 100% does not do that. P13 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 7 John said the lots were combined with one structure previously. Michael said he has no issue with the view planes on this building. The Red Onion building is in the way and I don’t see that building getting redeveloped. I question the wisdom of lot line to lot line with no public amenity onsite with every building in the core. I like the chamfer corner and design guideline 6.22 emphasizes that it should be flat. This building is not reflective of the fenestration that you see in Aspen. I understand that the uses are different today but our guidelines do not jive with the uses of the upper level floors. I would prefer council opine on demolition before we make a decision. Bob said the function of the building is different than in the past. Gretchen said that the building proposed does not fit in the fabric of the buildings that are in the core. There needs to be a break down in scale. This is a large building in a small downtown. John pointed out that this is a two story building under the height limit. Willis said the conditions of the resolution would address the chamfer corner and perhaps changing the character of the two street elevations. Amy said if the form, footprint and height are OK you could move the rest to final. Fenestration can be dealt with at final. Mark said regarding mass and scale Gretchen’s comments would be appropriate midblock. This is a prominent corner and this building holds the corner. What is important are buildings that hold the corner and are significant. We came in with a one story building and it wasn’t appropriate and not tall enough. We push for the 30 foot widths and the height limit is 28 feet. It is kind of backwards. The 28 foot height is at the alley and there is a three foot grade change. The ceiling heights on the second floor range from 7 ½ feet to 10 feet. It is smaller than the building that exists now. Willis said up and down with three different fabrics along three different 30 foot widths is not appropriate. The Galena Street side is successful. Coming back with a chamfer corner and coming back with more articulations and P14 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 8 creating the difference between the Cooper facade and Galena facade might get approval. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #26 with the conditions that a chamfer corner 45 degree be on both floors and there is a one story expression of entry at the corner. A transportation analysis for final review needs submitted. There needs to be a difference between Cooper and Galena store fronts. A more public entrance off Cooper be acknowledged. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Gretchen, no; John, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, yes; Michael, no Motion carried 3-2. 305-307 S. Mill Street – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and View plane Review, Public Hearing continued from July 22 John recused himself Amy said in July the proposal was for a scrape and replace and the board had concerns regarding a lot line to lot line redevelopment. The existing building is a u shape and will be clad with new materials. New construction will occur in the open notch at the center of the site. There will also be a new addition at the north end of the property where the popcorn wagon sits. We are looking at 1000 square feet net leasable all above grade and no basement excavation and a real reduction in the construction impacts that were previously submitted at the last meeting. The applicant is planning to retain the existing building but if they were to go cross the threshold of removing more than 40% of the surfaces of the existing building it would be considered demolition. We have applied the demolition criteria because it is in the historic district and we aren’t sure if the calculations will go over the 40%. We have found no historic significance. The arched façade building was built in the 60’s but we have never found any documentation on this building. The popcorn wagon is a vehicle and a movable object and is not something that could be considered for designation. It has been moved a few times. Remodeling: Amy said recladding the existing building and breaking it up into distinct modules is successful. The arch is being retained and that is a P15 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 9 nice connection to other buildings downtown. The new additions are lower in height than the existing structure and primarily glass. The storefronts have nice connections to other storefronts downtown. There are entry points on all facades which meets the design guidelines. With the new development less than one parking space is generated. The applicant is proposing cash-in-lieu. Public amenity: Amy said the property has right now 1,330 square feet which is about 22% and the applicant has to meet that again. The applicant is showing 834 square feet of open space and a little less than 500 square feet to be mitigated by cash-in-lieu. We find that to be appropriate. Exhibit I – new drawings Amy said with regard to trash they are enclosing the trash area and enlarging it and making it more in compliance with the requirements. Environmental Health supports their plan. The trash area is larger than the requirements. One ongoing concern is the mechanical equipment. It is not represented on the plan and the concern is the visibility of the mechanical equipment and how it sprawls across the roof and that can be seen from the Wheeler Opera House. The revised plan indicates that the new roof top equipment will not exceed the heights of the existing roof top equipment. This does not satisfy the concerns that the mechanical is all over the place on the roof. There is no organization to it and potentially intruding into the view plane. We have suggested that all mechanical be consolidated on the new addition in the middle and hopefully it would be lower than the surrounding development and hidden. Right now there is no representation on where it would be and how tall it would be. This is important to the view plane impact. The applicant also needs to submit a transportation impact analysis for final review. View plane: Amy said there is a view plane that stretches all across the frontage of the Wheeler property. Then it projects toward Aspen Mountain in a wide cone. This building falls right into it. It hits the property line at about 7 feet. The proposed new development is lower in height than the existing structure. The new development that will happen in the middle of the site is lower. We feel that there is no new impact on the view plane and we don’t feel there is a likelihood of new development of this site that would open up the view plane and lowering all the new construction to lower than 7 feet. We feel an exception is appropriate and HPC needs to make a finding P16 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 10 that there is minimal or no impact on the view plane or that there is not the likelihood of future development that would open the view plane back up. Amy said the commercial core zone district requires a minimum of ceiling to floor height of 13 feet which is basically the height of the existing building. The applicant is proposing that their new construction be 11 feet tall. They could raise the height to 13 feet but that contradicts the view plane desires. HPC needs to decide if the 11 feet is too squatty in proportion with the historic district. Mitch Haas presented a power point on the development. The trellis is at the property line and is 10.6 feet in height. At the front we have a 6 foot setback and an 8 foot setback on Mill Street. The addition is pulled back from the street and does leave a good amount of open area around the building. No mechanical would be taller than existing mechanical equipment. If we did Amy’s suggestion it would have to be set back 15 feet from the street and the concern is whether there is enough area. The basement below Jimmy’s Bodega would remain for storage. Mark Hunt – The existing site is made up of two buildings and a trellis. The first time we came in we showed one building then we looked at the corner and set the addition back and made it light and airy and open. We will re- clad the Bodega building with accordion windows. The space in the center is around 700 square feet. We pulled everything back to make the façade on the park side pop out as well as the arch and clean everything up. Mitch presented the board with a power point of the view planes. The view plan hits the property at 7.3 inches tall which is less height than the existing popcorn wagon and one could not build on this property and comply with the city building rules and view planes. The building code has a standard door at 7 feet tall. The door framing would put it above the view plane. Commercial design standards have the entrance at sidewalk level so you can’t sink down into the ground to provide the space to fit within 7.3 inches. We have conflicting regulations and it is impossible to comply with all of them at the same time. We have not gone to the full height of 13 feet to not push into the view plane. The Gray Lady height is 13.5 feet tall. We listened to the feedback from the last meeting and the public and dialed the proposal back from a redevelopment that was much taller than what is being presented today. P17 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 11 Commissioners: Bob commented that the proposal is moving in the right direction and the application has come a long way. In the presentation it shows the popcorn wagon disappearing and in the minutes it states that you are offering it to the city as an amenity and they can put it anywhere they want to. Mark said that is an option but there is room in the 6 foot setback for it to sit. Michael said all the renderings indicate the popcorn wagon staying. Mitch said that was the case before we were told we needed 300 square feet of trash and recycling. The feeling now is with a six foot setback we will still be able to fit the popcorn wagon in. Mark said he feels the popcorn wagon will fit. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman, attorney said he is speaking for 5 of the six space owners of which I am one in the building next door Wheeler Square building. Gideon said they appreciate that the applicants have been meeting with us and discussing the concerns. We want to address three issues that were left after the changes were made and that Mark and Mitch have agreed would be appropriate to put in the resolution and I hope HPC would consider doing that. That the applicant will work with the neighbors on the construction management plan. That the applicant will fix the drainage problem along the property to prevent their drainage flowing onto our property that it currently does. That the applicant commits that the rear door facing the alley toward Wagner Park will not be used for the public and will remain in its current configuration. We are appreciative of the applicant working with us. Gideon commented that to approve this HPC is making a finding that for commercial space in the downtown 8 foot ceilings are not really desirable and the code requires first floor ceilings to be much higher in that zone district and the justification to allow an encroachment into the Wheeler view plan to allow for realistic ceiling heights is in part because the encroachment is minimal and in part because the rear of the existing roof top mechanical already intrude. Our building next door has the same view plane issues and same similar situation and that the same logic and findings you would approve to our minimal changes to comply the same way if we came in with the same kind of request. P18 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 12 Gretchen said in regards to drainage one property cannot drain onto another property and Engineering will make sure that doesn’t happen. Michael commented that the request is a private party agreement. Jim said HPC would not normally have the authority to put these as conditions on this particular approval; however, if the applicant is willing to put those as conditions voluntary they can do that. If HPC doesn’t want them as conditions that would be up to them also. You don’t have an obligation to put it in and you can’t mandate it. Willis said there is an opening on the south side and the windows look like a service counter. Amy said they are windows. Bob said you can’t make that a food service area. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Mitch said we want to be good neighbors and we can memorialize the agreement between us privately or in the HPC resolution. Amy said any agreement has to comply with all city regulations. On the door the city doesn’t want to be enforcers as to who is going in and out of the door. Jim said they cannot agree to something that is not consistent with our requirements. I would say the same regarding the door. Any condition would be subject to compliance with all city regulations. Gretchen said there are codes in place to handle the issues between the applicant and neighbors. I would not support putting it in the resolution. Gideon pointed out that the board encourages applicants to work with the neighbors and I would hope you would agree to add it in the resolution. P19 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 13 Michael said it is hard to insert elements that do not come under purview in the resolution. Willis identified the issues: Demolition Public Amenity Utility trash enclosure View plane issues Mechanical equipment Willis said this project is 1/5th the size of the previous presentation. The quality is much higher. It enhances the pedestrian experience tremendously. I do support the view plane being less restrictive than what is there now. I could also see someone taking a more drastic point of view regarding the view plane based on what the guidelines say. The drainage plan etc. will be captured by the Building Department requirements. The rear door is not relevant given the glazing and openings proposed. Gretchen said she is happy to see the changes and what they have done is kept a building so that there is some familiarity in new development that people can recognize. That is an important key element that is being lost. The reduction of the view plane is appropriate and I support lowering the building. The trash area is great and the public amenity is excellent on the street. Regarding the mechanical if you lower the ceiling where the bathrooms are to as low as possible maybe the roof line can be lowered and put the mechanical equipment in the area where Amy suggested but get the roof down. You don’t need ten foot ceilings in the bathrooms. A mechanical plan should be submitted at the next meeting. I like what you have done on this corner lot breaking up the height, breaking up the mass and it has a breakdown of scale which is appropriate for Aspen. The transparency of the north building is appropriate and the fact that you can walk outside anywhere in that building. Bob said he feels strongly about this project and it has been very well thought out and you retained some of the character that exists and I like the architecture and transparency. It is a very commendable project. The existing buildings are a hodgepodge. Congratulations on the re-thinking of the building. P20 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 14 Amy pointed out that the public amenity calculation etc. will be confirmed during the building permit process. Michael said he reviewed the minutes from April 17, 2013 hearing with regard to the addition of the trellis to the building. The minutes stated that the trellis is being built to give the popcorn wagon a sense of being. What happened, it go pushed into a corner vs. being exposed. In the 80’s there was a fire pit around the wagon and it was a great public amenity. We are putting a roof on the trellis and enclosing everything. It was also stated that the trellis destroys the openness of the corner. I would like to see the public amenity maintained and I don’t support the cash-in-lieu and I don’t agree with the view plane and I read the standard. I went to the edge of the observation point and looked in the spectrum and it has an effect on the view plane. I’m not sure that building wouldn’t get redeveloped to open the view plane further. Willis said the standard is that the view plane is minimal and less than what is there currently. Gretchen said if the bathroom roof was lowered you would pick up 3 feet and the mechanical might work there. They also need a plan for final and how it is going to be covered up from the top. Amy said the mechanical plan needs some organization to it so it is in the most minimal impact area. Bob said he needs to see a plan for mechanical that shows the function of the space. MOTION: Gretchen moved to approve resolution #27 as prepared by Amy with the condition that a roof plan be presented showing the mechanical and final heights of equipment at final. No higher than 13’5”. Motion second by Willis. Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, yes; Michael, no. Motion carried 3-1. MOTION: Bob moved to adjourn; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. P21 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 15 Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P22 II.B. C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\7676.doc 10/1/2015 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 332 W. Main 1102 Waters 1006 E. Cooper 100 E. Main 417/421 W. Hallam 602 E. Hyman 61 Meadows Road ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision 232 E. Bleeker 609 W. Smuggler ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC 420 E. Cooper 420 E. Hyman 407 E. Hyman Rubey Park Sallie Golden 206 Lake 114 Neale 212 Lake 400 E. Hyman 517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s) Hotel Aspen Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove 135 E. Cooper 1280 Ute ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Willis Pember 204 S. Galena Aspen Core 120 Red Mountain 233 W. Hallam 101 E. Hallam 229 W. Smuggler 407 E. Hyman Patrick Segal 204 S. Galena 701 N. Third 612 W. Main 212 Lake Holden Marolt derrick 333 W. Bleeker John Whipple Aspen Core 201 E. Hyman 549 Race 208 E. Main 420 E. Cooper 602 E. Hyman Hotel Aspen 610 E. Hyman 301 Lake Michael Brown 223 E. Hallam Need: 530 W. Hallam P23 II.F. TYPICAL PROCEEDING 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 (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. Procedure for amending motions: A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion. If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion and voting on the Motion may then proceed. If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails, discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed. P24 II.K. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 827 Dean Street – Conceptual Major Development Review, Setback Variances, FAR Bonus, Partial Demolition PUBLIC HEARING continued from August 26, 2015 DATE: October 14, 2015 SUMMARY: The subject property is a designated chalet built in 1954 and located in the east end of town on Dean Street. The property contains a designated single family home and a small 1980s cottage (accessory building) at the rear of the property. The proposal is to demolish the cottage and replace it with a new cottage. Setback variations are requested to both legalize the existing location of the landmark and for lightwells and a roof overhang associated with the new accessory building at the rear. The applicant responded to HPC comments from August by opening a portion of the front porch thus eliminating the request for an FAR Bonus. Although this is an issue for Final Review, the applicant has removed the chalet details from the proposed accessory building. Minutes from the August 28th meeting are attached. There have been many alterations and additions to the chalet over the years including enclosing a side porch and adding a second floor on the rear of the residence. 4 TDRs have been severed from the property which restricts the allowable floor area to 2,240 sf. Image 1: Map of subject property (indicated with star). P25 III.A. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOLITION APPLICANT: 827 Dean Street LLC c/o Remy Trafelet represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning and Rally Dupps of Rally Dupps Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-58-004 ADDRESS: 827 Dean Street, Lots P & Q, Block 113, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. ZONING: RMF (Residential Multi-Family) Staff Response: Overall, Staff is supportive of the proposal to reconstruct a small accessory building at the rear of the property that is detached from the historic landmark. Site plan: Staff is supportive of the site plan which detaches new construction from the historic landmark and is consistent with the current configuration of buildings on the site. The new building is entirely recessed behind the landmark and meets guideline 10.8 below. A small pool is proposed at the rear of the property behind the landmark. Setback variances are requested for the new building, which is discussed below. The applicant proposes a pool in the back yard. A landscape plan and details for the pool and hardscape are required for Final Design review. Mass/Scale/Height: The proposed small accessory building is about 530 sf of floor area. The one story building is proposed to be 13’ 1” tall to the apex. There is a basement level that includes 2 lightwells along the rear. The overall form of the building is similar to the landmark. Staff is supportive of the small scale of the new building. On a conceptual level, staff finds that guideline 10.6 is met and recommends materials, details and/or windows be further refined to meet guideline 10.4 for Final Review. 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. P26 III.A. 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. Front porch: The applicant proposes to open a portion of the front porch (original condition is shown below). As such, the FAR Bonus is no longer requested. Staff is very appreciative of this effort and commends the applicant for the restoration. 5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. Keeping an open porch is preferred. Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable. Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted. The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged. Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate. P27 III.A. Image 2: Assessor’s photograph showing open side porch and no second story addition. Image 3: Assessor’s photograph showing open side porch. P28 III.A. Image 4: Recent photograph showing enclosed porch. Parking: The applicant proposes to maintain the existing parking situation. No additional parking is required as part of this application. 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, 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: P29 III.A. SETBACK VARIATIONS 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: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 1980s accessory building. Staff finds that criteria (d) and criteria (a – c) are met in that the accessory building is not historic and does not contribute to the significant of the parcel or the historic preservation needs of the area. 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 HPC 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. 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: The applicant requests variations for the following setbacks: Setback Variation Requested Required Proposed East side yard Minimum of 5’ 1’ 4” for existing condition West side yard Minimum of 5’ 1’ 6” for existing condition Combined yard 15’ 2’ 10” for existing condition P30 III.A. Rear yard 5’ 3’ (lightwells project 3’8” deep into setback and eave overhang is 2’ into the setback) Staff is supportive of the rear yard setback variations for lightwells and the roof overhang, which allows a greater distance between the landmark and the new construction. One of the rear yard lightwells qualifies as an exemption from setbacks because it is required egress from the below grade bedroom; however the second lightwell in the rear yard setback requires a variation. Staff is supportive of the variations that legalize the existing condition of the landmark. ___________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the conceptual mass, scale and height of the proposed new accessory building. Staff recommends approval with conditions: 1. Demolition of non-historic accessory building is approved. 2. The following variations are granted as shown on Exhibit A. In the event of a discrepancy, the attached site plan prevails. a. East side yard is 2’8” for the current location of the historic house. b. West side yard is 1’6” for the current location of the historic house. c. Combined side yard variation of 4’4” for the current location of the historic home. d. Rear yard of 1’4” for lightwells and for a 2’ eave overhang on the accessory building. 3. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines Exhibit B: HPC Minutes from August 28, 2015 Exhibit C: Application P31 III.A. 827 Deane Street HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015 Page 1 of 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), PARTIAL DEMOLITION, FAR BONUS, AND VARIATION APPROVALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 827 DEANE STREET, LOTS P AND Q, BLOCK 113, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2015 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-58-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, 827 Deane Street, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requested HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, FAR Bonus, and Variations approval for the property located at 827 Deane Street, Lots P and Q, Block 113, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and WHEREAS, 827 Deane Street is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and 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 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: P32 III.A. 827 Deane Street HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015 Page 2 of 3 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.1.a, 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 WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated October 14, 2015, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval of the project with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a meeting on October 14, 2015 continued from August 26, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and approved the project by a vote of ______________. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development approval and Setback Variations with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of non-historic accessory building is approved. 2. The following variations are granted as shown on Exhibit A. In the event of a discrepancy, the attached site plan prevails. a. East side yard is 2’8” for the current location of the historic house. b. West side yard is 1’6” for the current location of the historic house. c. Combined side yard variation of 4’4” for the current location of the historic home. d. Rear yard of 1’4” for lightwells and for a 2’ eave overhang on the accessory building. 3. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. P33 III.A. 827 Deane Street HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015 Page 3 of 3 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of October, 2015. ______________________ Willis Pember, Chair Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit A: Conceptually approved site plan, setback variations, and elevations. P34 III.A. Exhibit A – Relevant Design Guidelines 5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. Keeping an open porch is preferred. Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable. Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted. The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged. Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 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. P35 III.A. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. 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. The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. P36 III.A. Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Michael Brown, Jim DeFrancis and Sallie Golden. John Whipple was absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of August 12th as amended by Michael Brown. Michael second the motion. All in favor, motion carried. 533 E. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Special Review and Viewplane Review, Public Hearing Debbie reviewed the Public Notice – Exhibit I Amy said the proposal involves an addition to the church and a reconfiguration of the front entry. The property is landmark designated and located in the historic district. Conceptual design: Amy said the applicant proposes a 3,000 square foot addition on the west side of the church plus a 3,700 square foot basement. HPC needs to consider the design guideline and the view planes. As the view plane crosses the property it is only ten feet off the ground at the front lot line along Main St. and only 14 feet high on the alley. That means all new construction should be under that height limit or HPC can allow it if you find that there is no new impact on the view plane. No negative visual impact created by the proposal. The proposed addition is 21 to 25 feet tall and is obviously through that view plane. City hall and the Conner cabins are through the view plane. In the early 1990’s the elevator addition was added and in the mid 1990’s the carriage house/garage employee housing structure was built. The new addition attempts to work around some of those conditions and staff is concerned that there is not an appropriate amount of space available for the pavilion where it is placed between the employee housing and church. There is crowding along the alley and not providing enough breathing room and obstructing some of the views of the side of the historic church. There was a chapel in the middle of the site and we suggested to the applicant that they relook the program and consider the possibilities of a detached structure in front of the employee housing building as a possible way to decrease impacts directly to the church and possibly allow for more flexibility and follow the history how the site has been developed over time and reduce some of the impacts. The review has involved other city departments. The Engineering Dept. has suggested that the curb cut on Main Street cannot continue. As far as we know there has been no permit for the curb cut. It has been there at least from the 60’s. There are also new CDOT regulations regarding access to HWY 82 and the City is considering the relocation of the bus stop that is in front of Locals Corner and moving it east. The applicant has an appeal process that P37 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 13 Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0. 827 Dean Street – Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Variations Jim and Sallie left. Debbie reviewed the public notice – Exhibit I Amy said this is a landmark property in the east end of town and it was landmarked voluntarily as a pre-Aspen Modern effort. The owners of the building wanted it protected and they were one of the early creators of TDR’s. The property sold and the new owner would like to do an accessory building on the back of the site. There is an existing building built in the 1980’s and it is to be demolished and replaced. Nothing is proposed to happen on the exterior of the primary chalet at the front of the site. The primary building has been remodeled several times. The applicant is not planning on doing any restoration or removal of any of the changes that have happened. Harry Poshman built the building after WWII. There are two addition on either side of the front and one in the back. The applicant is requesting demolition of the guest building in the back and they are also proposing to do a small pool on the site. Staff is essentially in favor of the project and in favor of the demolition. Variances have been discussed for the guest house on the east side and the rear. The variances are related to light wells. The applicant deleted the light wells on the east side. The variance is for two light wells serving one bedroom and you only have to have one. HPC needs to discuss whether to grant a setback variance to allow more light into the basement or that it isn’t really an historic preservation benefit so maybe you wouldn’t support the variance. The applicant has requested a 70 square foot bonus. Staff feels the bonus should be used as a tool for restoration and there is no restoration proposed here. 70 square feet isn’t a lot but maybe they could do a simple modification to the front of the house or they could reopen a porch enclosure in order to earn the bonus. Michael said staff is recommending that they do some kind of restoration to earn the bonus. P38 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 14 Amy said the one story detached building in the back is a good decision and could be recognized as a bonus worthy effort. The applicant sold 4 TDR’s but they cannot land TDR’s. Michael said the light wells at the rear of the property are exposed to the park and possibly they could be enclosed by a fence. Mitch Hass, Hass Planning Riley Dupps, architect Mitch said this is a modest project and we are intentionally not touching the building. The client likes the house as it is. We are not asking to attach to the back of the building with any kind of connector. We are using all of the floor area in a detached structure with a basement. Leaving 430 square feet is the only incentive for someone later on to do a restoration. The addition is in the back where no one sees it. Riley said the owner loves the historic house as is including everything in the inside. The historic house has two bedrooms and the owner has three children and the proposal is for an 11 foot tall building and 530 square feet on each level. There are three story buildings that tower over this building. The building will be detached. The 70 square feet is for the basement lightwells, a bunkroom in the back. There is a neighboring fence that is very close to the lightwells. The lightwells are six inches tall and we can plant shrubs around them. The owner does not want any changes to the main house. The two additions on either side were added in the 70’s. There is stone that goes all the way across the front. We could propose to cut that back somewhat. We have no connector. We did not want to put the addition on the back of the house and add mass. Mitch said if you open the porch back up we don’t need a floor area bonus. The light well makes the space more livable. Gretchen said the height is 13 feet the same as the height in the back of the historic house. Michael said to get the house at some point back to the original they would need more than the 430 square feet. P39 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 15 Amy said they could do a basement under the house and that would consume some square footage. TDR’s could also be sold. Riley said the kitchen will be enlarged into the bar area. Michael said if the enclosed porch was removed you would free up FAR. Riley said that is true but the home owner doesn’t want to touch the main house at all. He bought the house because of the chalet look it has. Nora asked staff if they thought the new cottage was too similar to the historic house. Amy said it has been toned down but that can be addressed at final. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public comment. Gary Wright, land use and real estate attorney representing the Winterhaven condominiums to the east. I am here to object to the setback in the rear. Exhibit II. In the code it says accessory buildings shall not be provided with a kitchen or bath facilities sufficient to render them suitable for permanent residential occupation. This proposal is for permanent occupation. There are three bathrooms. Why not enforce the ten foot rear yard setback. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mitch said accessory buildings often have bathrooms. If you don’t have a kitchen it is not suitable for permanent residence occupancy. Amy pointed out that it is not considered a dwelling unit and does not have all the facilities that someone would need to live in as a standalone building. It is clearly not a primary structure. Amy said Junee Kirk’s letter was included in the St. Mary’s exhibits and she doesn’t support the changes to this property. Exhibit VII from St. Mary’s Amy also received a letter form Lonnie White regretting seeing the property changed Exhibit IV. P40 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 16 Willis identified the issues: 70 square foot bonus Setback variances 1.4 for the light wells in the bunkroom Mass and scale Amy said a curb is being provided around the light well. Staff feels the mass and scale of the new building is very sympathetic and it could have been a bigger building and it is consistent with the site as it is today. Michael said he would not support one square foot of bonus because there is nothing being done to fix the historic resource back to its original state and why should we give a bonus for not doing anything. Same thing with the setback variances. You could peal back to its original state the historical building and that would cure at least the eastern setback variance. There is very little done to differentiate the materials in the window styles or to provide a building that is unique and a product of its own time. The building looks as if it was part of the original chalet which runs counter to our principles. Bob said he can see where the owner is coming from based on what Riley said with the Austrian Swiss style. You could satisfy the requirement with an abstraction by changing the fenestration and materials. Gretchen said the building is the exact height as the lower roof at 13 feet and it goes against our guidelines because it is confusing what was original and what is new. Swiss buildings have long deep overhangs. The building is almost half the size of what is existing in footprint. I don’t feel we are getting anything special to warrant the variances. Willis said staff recommended for final that the materials and window styles and details be addressed to differentiate old from new. Willis said he feels the mass and scale is OK. Amy said conceptual would be accepting the roof pitch, foot print and shape. Gretchen reiterated that it has the same height and roof pitch and same fascia detail. P41 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 17 Willis said the building is subservient to the larger building which is in the guidelines. Riley said the historic building is 1730 square feet and this building is 530 square feet. Patrick said he is on the fence and there should be something done to get a bonus. Whether or not having a connector is sufficient I am on the fence. Patrick said the building utilizes the space well by putting it below ground. Willis pointed out that it is extremely rare that we see a detached building. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #25, 2015 as written, second by Gretchen. Roll call vote: Patrick, no; Gretchen, yes; Nora, no; Willis, yes; Bob, no; Michael, no. Motion fails. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 827 Dean Street to October 14th; with a restudy as to how to eliminate the 70 square foot bonus or create some preservation of the historical resource; second by Bob. Gretchen said setback variances are critical to get anything new on the property away from the historic resource. Roll call vote: Willis, no; Michael, yes; Nora, yes; Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes; Bob, yes. Motion carried 5-1. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P42 III.A. August 19, 2015 Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 827 East Dean Street, Conceptual Application Update Dear Sara: Based upon the comments and discussion at the HPC meeting on August 26, 2015, the following revisions have been made to the proposal to remodel the historic home and develop a replacement accessory structure (cottage) at 827 East Dean Street in Aspen: • The applicant is no longer asking for an FAR bonus of any kind/amount. Nonetheless, the applicant has revised the proposal to include restoration work that will help to better define the original, historic chalet form. Almost ten (10) feet of the currently enclosed front porch area on the historic house has been opened up to not only accomplish a degree of historic restoration but also to reduce the total FAR such that no bonus is needed. This required sacrificing some existing interior/livable square footage from the chalet while allowing the accessory cottage structure to maintain the same livable square footage as originally proposed. • The opening up of the front porch assists in the restoration efforts by getting the historic home closer to its original footprint and better allowing passersby to read the original corner of the chalet structure. • The details on the cottage that emulated the historic home have been removed so that the cottage can be seen as unique and as a product of its own time. Otherwise, the cottage design has not changed since the previous hearing. The proposed changes and development are all clearly depicted on the accompanying plans set provided by Rally Dupps Architect. If I can be of further assistance in any way, or if you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or email address provided below. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch Haas Owner/Manager HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC • 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 10-B • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 • • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • MITCH@HLPASPEN.COM • P43 III.A. HPC CONCEPTUAL OCTOBER 14, 2015 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PARCEL ID# 2737 1825 8004 827 E. DEAN ST. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, BLOCK 113, LOT P AND Q 827 E DEAN ST. Construction issue date: COVER Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 8 2 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q P 4 4 I I I . A . WE S T E N D S T R E E T HOUSE CABIN GLORY HOLE PARK O P Q R S WINTERHAVEN CONDOMINIUMS ALL E Y B L O C K 1 1 3 A / K / A D E A N S T R E E T IMPROVEMENT SURVEY CERTIFICATION LEGEND AND NOTES ASPEN TOWNHOUSES EAST SURVEY Construction issue date: SURVEY Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 8 2 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q P 4 5 I I I . A . BRICK PATIO NORTH 1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN E1 EXISTING 1/4" = 1'-0" ENTRY BEDROOM MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BATHROOM CLOS. BATHROOM LDRY HALL CLOS. MECH.KITCHEN BAR BAR CLOS. GREAT ROOM DINING BEDROOM CLOS.SHWR. BATH CLOS. PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE SHWR. STORAGE SHED DA S H E D L I N E O F R O O F A B O V E DASHED LINE OF ROOF ABOVE EXI S T I N G B R I C K P A T I O DA S H E D L I N E O F R O O F A B O V E 10' REAR YARD SETBACK 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK 7 . 5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 7 . 5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K P E R C O D E P E R C O D E PER CODE PER CODE E1 Construction issue date: EXISTING PLAN Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 82 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q P 4 6 I I I . A . 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH ROOF PLAN1 E2 EXISTING SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT DASHED LINE OF WALL BELOW DASHED LINE OF WALL BELOW ROOF OF STORAGE SHED 10' REAR YARD SETBACK 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK 7. 5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 7. 5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K GLASS SKYLIGHT 6'-2 9/16" 6'-6 1/8" 6'-2 3/16" 5'-5 3/4" 2'-7 7/8" 3'-3 5/8" 6 3/16" 1'-6 1/4" P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE 8' - 0 7 / 1 6 " 12 ' - 5 1 5 / 1 6 " 2'-0 1/4" 2' - 5 1 5 / 1 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 1'-3 13/16" 11 7/8" 1'-3 7/16" 5'-11 3/4" ROOF BEAMS BELOW GLASS 3'-1 7/16" 3' - 0 " E2 Construction issue date: EXISTING ROOF PLAN Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 82 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q P 4 7 I I I . A . NORTH ELEVATION4 E3 1/4" = 1'-0"E3 WEST ELEVATION3 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTINGEXISTING SKYLIGHT ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. F.F. ELEV. 117'-8 1/8" T.O. UPPER ROOF ELEV. 113'-0 7/8" T.O. LOWER ROOF STUCCO STUCCOGRADE GRADEROCK VENEER PLANTER BOX BOARD AND BATTEN WOOD SIDING COSMETIC WOOD SHUTTER WOOD BEAM METAL FLASHING PLYWOOD SOFFIT GLASS SKYLIGHT 12 4 12 4 SOUTH ELEVATION2 E3 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING EAST ELEVATION1 E3 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. F.F. ELEV. 117'-8 1/8" T.O. UPPER ROOF ELEV. 113'-0 7/8" T.O. LOWER ROOF STUCCO STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF FIREPLACE VENT STUCCO GRADEGRADE 12 4 12 4 17 ' - 8 1 / 8 " 1 3 ' - 0 7 / 8 " E3 Construction issue date: EXISTING HOUSE ELEVATIONS Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 8 2 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q P 4 8 I I I . A . COTTAGE SOUTH ELEVATION4 E4 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING COTTAGE WEST ELEVATION3 E4 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING COTTAGE NORTH ELEVATION2 E4 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING COTTAGE EAST ELEVATION1 E4 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ COTTAGE ELEV. 111'-3 3/16" T.O. ROOF @ COTTAGE ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ COTTAGE STUCCO STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF BOARD AND BATTEN WOOD SIDING WOOD BEAM METAL FLASHING METAL FLASHING ELEV. 111'-3 3/16" T.O. ROOF @ COTTAGE 12 4 12 4 12 412 4 11 ' - 3 3 / 1 6 " E4 Construction issue date: EXISTING COTTAGE ELEVATIONS Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 8 2 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q P 4 9 I I I . A . BRICK PATIO NORTH 1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN E1 EXISTING 1/4" = 1'-0" ENTRY BEDROOM MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BATHROOM CLOS. BATHROOM LDRY HALL CLOS. MECH.KITCHEN BAR BAR CLOS. GREAT ROOM DINING BEDROOM CLOS.SHWR. BATH CLOS. PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE SHWR. STORAGE SHED DA S H E D L I N E O F R O O F A B O V E DASHED LINE OF ROOF ABOVE EXI S T I N G B R I C K P A T I O DA S H E D L I N E O F R O O F A B O V E 10' REAR YARD SETBACK 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK 7. 5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 7. 5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K PE R C O D E P E R C O D E PER CODE PER CODE E5 Construction issue date: EXISTING SITE PLAN Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 NORTH 1 EXISTING SITE PLAN E5 1/8" = 1'-0" 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 82 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q P 5 0 I I I . A . 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK 5' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 1' - 6 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 5' REAR YARD SETBACK DASHED LINE OF WALL BELOW DASHED LINE OF WALL BELOW EXISTING SKYLIGHT TYP FOR ALL GLASS SKYLIGHT STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF: NO CHANGES UNLESS IT IS TO REPAIR OR REPLACE WITH NEW TO MATCH EXISTING TBD WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR ROOF BEAMS BELOW GLASS STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF EXISTING ROOF LINE UNCHANGED NO CHANGES TO DEAN ST. HARDSCAPING 1'-6" SKYLIGHT TREE DRIPLINE 1'-6" 2' - 0 " 1'-6" 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2'- 0 " 1'-6" VENT HOOD BELOW ROOF OVERHANG A1.1 Construction issue date: PROPOSED SITE PLAN Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 NORTH 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A1.1 1/8" = 1'-0" 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 82 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q P 5 1 I I I . A . POOL 5'-0" 5' - 0 " WA L K W A Y LIN E O F P A T I O < 6 " A B O V E G R A D E DA S H E D L I N E O F R O O F A B O V E DA S H E D L I N E O F R O O F A B O V E WALKWAY NO CHANGES TO DEAN ST. HARDSCAPING 1' - 6 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K TREE DRIPLINE 5' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 5' REAR YARD SETBACK MAIN HOUSE DASHED LINE OF ROOF ABOVE CL O S E T CLOSET SHWR. SHWR. BATH BATH BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 LIGHT WELL DASHED LINE OF ROOF ABOVE STAIR DN 14'-9"16'-9" 7' - 9 5 / 8 " 12 ' - 1 1 " 10 ' - 0 " 6'-6" DA S H E D L I N E O F R O O F A B O V E COTTAGE W D SINK LIGHT WELL BUNKROOM LIGHT WELL 4'-6"4'-6" BATH SHWR. STORAGE LAUNDRY UP STAIR 23'-3" 12 ' - 1 1 " 3 ' - 0 " 8'-3" 7' - 9 5 / 8 " 20 ' - 8 5 / 8 " 31'-6" LIGHT WELL 9'- 1 0 " V . I . F . COVERED PORCH 123 OPEN WALL PER HPC APPROVAL EXISTING ENTRY DOOR IN NEW LOCATION NO CHANGES TO FLOOR AT COVERED PORCH A2.5 Construction issue date: PROPOSED PLAN Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 8 2 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q NORTH MAIN LEVEL PLAN1 A2.5 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED NORTH COTTAGE BASEMENT PLAN2 A2.5 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED P 5 2 I I I . A . 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK 5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 1 ' - 6 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 5' REAR YARD SETBACK DASHED LINE OF WALL BELOW DASHED LINE OF WALL BELOW EXISTING SKYLIGHT TYP FOR ALL GLASS SKYLIGHT STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF: NO CHANGES UNLESS IT IS TO REPAIR OR REPLACE WITH NEW TO MATCH EXISTING TBD WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR ROOF BEAMS BELOW GLASS STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF EXISTING ROOF LINE UNCHANGED 1'-6" SKYLIGHT 1'-6" 2' - 0 " 1'-6" 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1'-6" VENT HOOD BELOW ROOF OVERHANG A2.6 Construction issue date: PROPOSED ROOF PLAN Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 8 2 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q NORTH ROOF PLAN1 A2.6 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED P 5 3 I I I . A . 4 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION A3.1 WEST ELEVATION3 A3.1 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PROPOSED IF EXISTING ROOFING NEEDS REPLACEMENT, REPLACE WITH NEW STANDING SEAM ROOM TO MATCH EXISTING - TYP FOR ALL MIDDLE PANEL OF WINDOW TO HAVE INTERIOR INSTALLED DRYWALL ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. F.F. ELEV. 117'-8 1/8" T.O. UPPER ROOF ELEV. 113'-0 7/8" T.O. LOWER ROOF 12 4 12 4 SKYLIGHT TYP FOR ALL MAIN HOUSE EXTERIORS: NO CHANGES TO EXTERIOR OF MAIN HOUSE UNLESS IT IS TO REPAIR OR REPLACE BROKEN OR DEGRADED MATERIALS WITH NEW TO MATCH EXISTING. COORD. REPAIRS WITH HPC OPEN COVERED PORCH 123 COVERED PORCH 123 OPEN EXISTING ENTRY DOOR IN NEW LOCATION EXPOSED EXISTING WOOD COLUMN -REF. STRUCT SOUTH ELEVATION2 A3.1 1/4" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION1 A3.1 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PROPOSED RESTORE EXISTING SLIDING DOORS ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. F.F. ELEV. 117'-8 1/8" T.O. UPPER ROOF ELEV. 113'-0 7/8" T.O. LOWER ROOF 12 4 12 4 TYP FOR ALL MAIN HOUSE EXTERIORS: NO CHANGES TO EXTERIOR OF MAIN HOUSE UNLESS IT IS TO REPAIR OR REPLACE BROKEN OR DEGRADED MATERIALS WITH NEW TO MATCH EXISTING. COORD. REPAIRS WITH HPC A3.1 Construction issue date: PROPOSED HOUSE ELEVATIONS Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 8 2 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q P 5 4 I I I . A . COTTAGE SOUTH ELEVATION4 A3.2 1/4" = 1'-0" COTTAGE WEST ELEVATION3 A3.2 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSEDPROPOSED ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLATE @ COTTAGE T.O. F.F. @ COTTAGE ELEV. 108'-9" ELEV. 91'-0" T.O. ROOF RIDGE ELEV. 113'-1" T.O. F.F. @ BASEMENT STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF WOOD BEAM 12 4 12 4 FINISH AND EXISTING GRADE FINISH AND EXISTING GRADE 7' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 8' - 9 " 4' - 4 " 13 ' - 1 " WOOD BEAM 6' - 8 " 2" WOOD TRIM DASHED LINE OF BASEMENT LEVEL BEYOND COTTAGE NORTH ELEVATION2 A3.2 1/4" = 1'-0" COTTAGE EAST ELEVATION1 A3.2 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PROPOSED T.O. PLATE @ COTTAGE T.O. F.F. @ COTTAGE ELEV. 108'-9" ELEV. 100'-0" ELEV. 113'-1" T.O. F.F. @ BASEMENT ELEV. 91'-0" T.O. ROOF RIDGE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF METAL FLASHING 12 4 12 4 DASHED LINE OF STAIRS BEYOND FINISH AND EXISTING GRADE 7' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 8' - 9 " 4' - 4 " 13 ' - 1 " DASHED LINE OF BASEMENT LEVEL BEYOND 7' - 0 " A3.2 Construction issue date: PROPOSED COTTAGE ELEVATIONS Drawing Title: a r c h t e c t R A L L Y D U P P S III ra l l y d u p p s @ g m a i l . c o m c 2 0 1 5 R A L L Y D U P P S A R C H I T E C T - T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D O R C O P I E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S . C O N S O R T I U M A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D A L L O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D 72 0 - 4 8 1 - 7 3 5 3 PO B 3 6 6 2 As p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 6 6 2 8 2 7 E D E A N S T . R E S I D E N C E R E M O D E L A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 P A R C E L I D # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 5 8 0 0 4 8 2 7 E . D E A N S T . C I T Y A N D T O W N S I T E O F A S P E N , B L O C K 1 1 3 , L O T P A N D Q P 5 5 I I I . A . P56 III.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Update to Historic Preservation Design Guidelines- Chapters 8-11 DATE: October 14, 2015 SUMMARY: HPC’s current design guidelines were adopted in 2000. Amendments were initiated in 2004 and in 2010, but not completed due to budget constraints and intervening projects which sidetracked the work. Staff has revisited the progress made previously and incorporated it into a new proposed update. We will present the information to HPC in three segments in September and October. We plan to visit directly with several design firms in Aspen to take their input, and we will hold a lunchtime meeting for the public. The last of HPC’s reviews of the draft will be a noticed public hearing. Council adoption of the guidelines will be required at the end of the process. The purpose of the amendments is to incorporate knowledge that has been gained from 15 years of using the document. In addition we aim to better address distinctions between Aspen Victorian and AspenModern era resources. We have updated the graphic presentation, provided better illustrations, and simplified and abbreviated the text where possible. The changes are too comprehensive to provide a red-lined version indicating all new and removed language. The proposed and existing guidelines are provided for reference. The attached chapters; 8 through 11 address relocation, additions and new structures immediately adjacent to historic resources. There are several new, more restrictive ideas incorporated in the guidelines. For instance, the new guidelines indicate that no addition can more than double the size of a historic resource. Additions directly behind a historic resource on a corner lot would be limited to one story in height, unless the new development was completely detached. Staff asks that HPC verify that the content is appropriate, or indicate what should be re-written. Illustrations can be added or removed. The board should consider whether there are any additional guidelines that are needed given experience in using the document. P57 IV.A. 46 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 8: SeCondary StruCtureS This chapter addresses the treatment of secondary structures. These guidelines apply in addition to the guidelines for treatment of doors, windows, roofs, materials, additions and architectural details presented in the preceding chapters. Secondary structures include detached garages, carriage houses, and sheds. Traditionally, these structures were important elements of 19th century residential sites in particular. Secondary structures help interpret how an entire site was used historically. Most secondary structures are simple in form, materials, and detailing, reflecting their more utilitarian functions. Because secondary structures are often subordinate to a primary building, greater flexibility in their treatment may be considered, but their preservation is a priority. Secondary Structures 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. • When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details. • If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure. • On some AspenVictorian properties, a barn was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot. This pattern must be maintained. • Any proposal to attach a secondary structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • The position and orientation of the structure should be maintained except when HPC finds that an alternative is the best preservation option. • Some AspenModern properties incorporated garages and carports into the architecture. This pattern should be maintained. 8.3 Do not add detailing or features to a secondary structure that are conjectural and not in keeping with its original character as a utilitarian structure. • Most secondary structures are basic rectangular solids, with simple finishes and no ornamentation. Policy: When a secondary structure is determined to be historically significant, it must be preserved. This may include keeping the structure in its present condition or, rehabilitating it or adapting it to a new use so that the building continues to serve a useful function. Note: Outbuildings often encroach into the alleys or at least into setbacks, and the owner should be aware of variances or encroachment licenses that may be required to renovate these buildings. C hapter 8: S eCondary StruCtureS This carriage house illustrates how Victorian secondary buildings were typically placed along alleys. P58 IV.A. City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 47 Chapter 8: SeCondary StruCtureS 8.4 When adding on to a secondary structure, distinguish the addition as new construction and minimize removal of historic fabric. • Additions to a secondary structure must be smaller in footprint than the original building and lower in height. Maintaining the overall mass and scale is particularly important. • Do not alter the original roof form. • An addition must be inset from the corners of the wall to which it attaches. 8.6 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. 8.7 Preserve original door and window openings and minimize new openings. • If an original carriage door exists, and can be made to function for automobile use, this is preferred. 8.8 If a new garage door is added, it must be compatible with the character of the historic structure. • The materials and detailing should be simple. 8.9 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary structure to a functional use is encouraged. • The reuse of any secondary structure should be sensitive so that its character is not lost. After: The same outbuilding, after restoration, contributes to the collection of small structures along the alley. Before: Outbuildings can fall into disuse and disrepair. When converting an outbuilding for vehicular use, install a simple garage door. This former barn has been adapted for residential use, with character defining features preserved. P59 IV.A. Secondary Structures City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines page 73 This chapter addresses the treatment of secondary structures. These guidelines apply in addition to the guidelines for treatment of doors, windows, dormers, materials, additions and other features presented in the preceding chapters. Background Accessory structures include garages, carriage houses and sheds. Traditionally these structures were important elements of residential sites. Because secondary structures help interpret how an entire site was used historically, their preservation is strongly encouraged. Key Features of Secondary Structures Most secondary structures were simple in character, reflecting their more utilitarian functions. Many were basic rectangular solids, with simple finishes and they typically had no ornamentation. Primary materials Chapter 8Chapter 8Chapter 8Chapter 8Chapter 8 Secondary StructuresSecondary StructuresSecondary StructuresSecondary StructuresSecondary Structures Policy: When a secondary structure is determined to be historically significant, it should be preserved. This may include keeping the structure in its present condition, rehabilitating it or adapting it to a new use so that the building continues to serve a function. Many of the materials used traditionally in secondary structures are those employed in the construction of primary buildings. Simple board and batten siding or clapboards were typical. Treatment of siding is addressed in the preceding chapter and applies to secondary structures as well. In preserving or rehabilitating secondary structures, it is important that the character- defining materials be preserved. Roof forms and materials Traditionally most secondary structures had gabled or shed roofs. Roofing materials included metal, wood, asphalt and composition shingles. Property owners are encouraged to use traditional roof forms and materials if undertaking more extensive projects, such as converting a secondary structure to a new use. However, because accessory structures are often subordinate to the main house, greater flexibility in the treatment of accessory structures may be considered. Adaptive reuse of secondary structures The reuse of any secondary structure should be planned realistically so that its character is not lost. Maintaining the overall mass and scale is particularly important and therefore, raising the roof-line of a structure to create a "pop-top" is discouraged since it will alter the height of the roof's ridgeline, and the structure will appear much larger than it would have historically. NOTE: Outbuildings often encroach into alleys or at least into the setback, and the owner should be aware of variances or encroachment licenses that may be required to renovate these buildings. P60 IV.A. Chapter 8 page 74 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines The historic maps above illustrate the large number of secondary structures used in both commercial and residential settings.* The map on the left provides a detail of the blocks at E. Cooper Avenue and S. Hunter, which includes several commercial structures, whose primary facades align along the street. In the rear, setbacks varied and secondary structures were sometimes built along the alley edge. The map detail on the right illustrates a residential context. Here, secondary structures are even more numerous, and are also located along rear property lines. W. Main Street *The map on the left is from 1893 and the one on the right is from 1904. P61 IV.A. Secondary Structures City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines page 75 Secondary Structures 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. • When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. • If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. • An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. • The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses. 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. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. • A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. • If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. • If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. • A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. See Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations. The simple character of a secondary structure should be maintained. This includes preserving its form, materials and details. While most secondary structures are modest in character, some exhibit more refined details. These features should be preserved. P62 IV.A. Chapter 8 page 76 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines P63 IV.A. 48 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 9: Building reloCation & FoundationS This chapter presents guidelines for relocating historic structures and installing new foundations. The guidelines apply to primary and secondary structures. The original placement of a building on its site is an important aspect of history, contributes to integrity and authenticity, and should be preserved. Historic records indicate that structures have been occasionally moved within the City reaching back into the Victorian era, therefore, some precedent exists. Today, however, such relocation must be considered carefully. Lifting a house to install a foundation that meets modern standards can be very beneficial to the long term condition of the building. Ideally the structure will not be repositioned as part of this process. It may be acceptable to reposition a structure on its original site if doing so will accommodate other compatible improvements that will assure preservation. For example, if a house straddles two parcels, shifting it to one side may accommodate construction of a new, detached structure. Doing so may better protect the scale of the original structure, as opposed to erecting a large addition in close proximity to the landmark. Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. • In some cases, the significance of the structure, the context of the site, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. • If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct more than 50% of the original exterior walls and foundation, it is not an appropriate preservation option. 9.2 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. • It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. • Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. Policy: Moving a historic structure is discouraged; however, in some instances it may be the most appropriate option. Generally, buildings must be relocated within the boundaries of their original site. Permanent off-site relocation is detrimental and will only be allowed when no other preservation alternative is available. C hapter 9: Building reloC ation & FoundationS P64 IV.A. City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 49 Chapter 9: Building reloCation & FoundationS 9.3 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. • Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. • Building code implications must be carefully considered to avoid the need to add new handrails or other non-historic features if possible. 9.4 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. 9.5 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and may not “float” in the landscape. Text The original sandstone was used as a veneer on this foundation after a new basement was built. Placeholder P65 IV.A. 50 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 9: Building reloCation & FoundationS 9.6 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. • The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. • During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. 9.7 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged. • Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative. Storing the historic resource on site during construction of the new foundation is strongly preferred. Temporary off-site storage of a structure requires special efforts to protect historic features. P66 IV.A. City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 51 Chapter 9: Building reloCation & FoundationS P67 IV.A. Building Relocation City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines page 77 Chapter 9Chapter 9Chapter 9Chapter 9Chapter 9 Building Relocation & FoundationsBuilding Relocation & FoundationsBuilding Relocation & FoundationsBuilding Relocation & FoundationsBuilding Relocation & Foundations This chapter presents guidelines for relocating historic structures and for the reconstruction of building foundations. They apply to primary and secondary structures. Background A part of a historic building's integrity is derived from its placement on its site and therefore, its original position is important. Preserving the original foundation is always encouraged. Generally, removing a structure from the parcel with which it is historically recorded will compromise its integrity. However, there may be cases when relocation will not substantially affect the integrity of a property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. Early city maps suggest that some structures were shifted on their sites, and even relocated within a block to make room for more buildings. Therefore, some precedent exists. Today, however, such relocation must be considered very carefully and on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, it may be possible to reposition a structure on its original site if doing so will accommodate other compatible improvements that will assure preservation. For example, if a house straddles two parcels, shifting it to one side may accommodate construction of a new, detached structure. Doing so may better preserve the scale of the original structure, as opposed to erecting a large addition. Proposals to relocate a building within its site boundaries will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Policy: Moving a historic structure is discouraged; however, in some instances this may be the only viable option, and it may be considered in limited circumstances to preserve the structure's integrity. A related concern is the character of the building's foundation. Traditionally, most buildings in Aspen had simple foundation designs. Many had a wooden sill that was clad with siding. A few of the grander structures had stone foundations. These features should be preserved. However, even when a building is preserved in place, it is often necessary to rebuild the foundation. When doing so, it is important to convey the character of the original foundation. At times, it may be necessary to "mothball" a building in order to keep it safe until it can be improved. Wood panels should be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and particularly historic glass. Special care should be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. P68 IV.A. Chapter 9 page 78 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 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. When relocating a historic building, it should be sited with an orientation similar to its historic arrangement. P69 IV.A. Building Relocation City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines page 79 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. • 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. Locate the structure approximately at its historic elevation above grade. Lifting it too far up from ground level, such as in this example, is inappropriate. A replacement foundation should be similar to an original foundation such as this one. P70 IV.A. Chapter 9 page 80 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines P71 IV.A. 52 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 10: Building additionS Background This chapter presents guidelines for the construction of additions to historic structures. They apply to primary and secondary structures. Some special references are made to additions planned in historic districts. Many historic buildings in Aspen, including secondary structures, were expanded over time as the need for more space occurred. Typically the addition was subordinate in scale and character to the main building. The height of the addition was usually lower than that of the main structure and was often located to the side or rear, such that the original building retained its prominence. The addition was often constructed of materials that were similar to those used on the original structure. This tradition of adding onto buildings is appropriate to continue. It is important, however, that a new addition be designed in such a manner that it preserves the historic character of the original structure. Existing Additions An existing addition may have taken on historic significance itself. It may have been constructed to be compatible with the original building and it may be associated with the period of historic significance, thereby meriting preservation in its own right. Such an addition should be carefully evaluated before developing plans that may involve its alteration. In some cases, an early alteration that has taken on significance actually contrasts with the original building, for example, a Modernist addition that was constructed on a Chalet style structure. The change reflects the evolution of the property. This type of addition could be significant and worthy of preservation. The majority of more recent additions usually have no historic significance. Some later additions in fact detract from the character of the building, and may obscure significant features. Removing such noncontributing additions is encouraged. Basic Principles for New Additions When planning an addition to a historic building, minimize negative effects to the historic building fabric. Alterations and additions should reflect their own time while being subordinate and supportive of the historic resource. The addition shall not affect the architectural character of the building. In most cases, loss of character can be avoided by locating the addition to the rear. The overall design of the addition must be in keeping with the historic structure and be distinguishable from the historic portion. This philosophy balances new and old construction and allows the evolution of the building to be understood. Keeping the size of the addition small and subordinate, in relation to the main structure, helps minimize its visual impacts. An addition must be set apart from the historic building, and connected with a one story linking element. This creates a break between new and old construction and will C hapter 10: Building a dditionS Policy: A new addition to a historic building must be designed such that the character of the original structure is maintained. It shall also be subordinate in appearance to the main building. Previous additions that have taken on significance must be preserved. Note: The Residential Design Standards described in the Aspen Municipal Code apply in addition to these guidelines. P72 IV.A. City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 53 Chapter 10: Building additionS help maintain the perceived scale and proportion of the historic resource. In historic districts, consider the effect the addition may have on the character of the area, as seen from the public right-of-way. For example, a side addition may change the sense of rhythm established by side yards in the block. Locating the addition to the rear would be a better solution in such a case. When designing an addition to a building, it is also important to remember that the maximum potential floor area in the Land Use Code is not guaranteed if it cannot be appropriately accommodated on the site. In some cases, smaller additions may be necessary. Approval for Transferrable Development Rights may be sought if unbuilt floor area cannot be accommodated on the site. Existing Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. • For AspenVictorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. New Additions 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 must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. • An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. • An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an AspenVictorian home. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. Before: An addition extended the length of the cross gable and porch on this house, significantly altering its character. After: The same house after the non-historic addition was removed and the building was restored using historic photos. The rear addition varies from the form of the resource, but addresses the materiality and fenestration. P73 IV.A. 54 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. • The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. 10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. • Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. An addition can not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.8 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. Chapter 10: Building additionS An addition that does not provide a transition between old and new, and imitates the original building is no longer allowed. After: The same building after restoration. Before: Additions on the front of this structure, and an application of stucco masked the architectural significance of the building. P74 IV.A. City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 55 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant facades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. • Only a one-story connector is allowed. • Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors. • In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave. • The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic resource. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially 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 primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On AspenVictorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. This lot could not accommodate a rear addition. This side addition is successful because of its simplicity, scale, and separation. Chapter 10: Building additionS This addition to this Victorian is clad entirely in brick to distinguish itself from the original clapboard sided Victorian. This addition is taller than the resource, but setback on the lot and scaled in a sympathetic manner. P75 IV.A. 56 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Rooftop Additions on Flat Roofed Buildings 10.13 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of the historic building. 10.14 Set a rooftop addition back from the street facing facades to preserve the original profile of the historic resource. • Set the addition back from street facing facades a distance approximately equal to its height. 10.15 The roof form of a rooftop addition must be in character with the historic building. Chapter 10: Building additionS This rooftop addition is subordinate to the architecture of the original historic resource. P76 IV.A. City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 57 Chapter 10: Building additionS P77 IV.A. Building Additions City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines page 81 This chapter presents guidelines for the construction of additions to historic structures. They apply to primary and secondary structures. Some special references are made to additions planned in historic districts. Background Many historic buildings in Aspen, including secondary structures, experienced additions over time as the need for more space occurred. In some cases, owners added a wing onto a primary structure for use as a new bedroom, or to expand a kitchen. Typically the addition was subordinate in scale and character to the main building. The height of the addition was usually lower than that of the main structure and was often located to the side or rear, such that the original primary facade retained its significance. The addition was often constructed of materials that were similar to those used on the original structure. In some cases, owners simply added dormers to an existing roof, creating more usable space without increasing the footprint of a structure. This tradition of adding onto buildings should continue. It is important, however, that a new addition be designed in such a manner that it preserves the historic character of the original structure. Existing additions An addition may have taken on historic significance itself. It may have been constructed to be compatible with the original building and it may be associated with the period of historic significance, thereby meriting preservation in its own right. Such an addition should be carefully evaluated before developing plans that may involve its alteration. In contrast, more recent additions usually have no historic significance. Some later additions in fact detract from the character of the building, and may obscure significant features, particularly enclosed porches. Removing such noncontributing additions should be considered. Chapter 10Chapter 10Chapter 10Chapter 10Chapter 10 Building AdditionsBuilding AdditionsBuilding AdditionsBuilding AdditionsBuilding Additions Policy: If a new addition to a historic building is to be constructed, it should be designed such that the early character of the original structure is maintained. It should also be subordinate in appearance to the main building. Older additions that have taken on significance also should be considered for preservation. Typically an addition was subordinate in scale and character to the main building, such as the shed addition at the rear of this structure. (Historic photo courtesy of Aspen Historical Society, date unknown.) P78 IV.A. Chapter 10 page 82 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Basic principles for new additions When planning an addition to a historic building, one should minimize negative effects that may occur to the historic building fabric. While some destruction of historic materials may be a part of constructing an addition, such loss should be minimized. Locating an addition such that existing side or rear doors may be used for access, for example, will help to minimize the amount of historic wall material that must be removed. The addition also should not affect the perceived character of the building. In most cases, loss of character can be avoided by locating the addition to the rear. The overall design of the addition also must be in keeping with the design character of the historic structure as well. At the same time, it should be distinguishable from the historic portion, such that the evolution of the building can be understood. This may be accomplished in a subtle way, with a jog in the wall planes or by using a trimboard to define the connection. Keeping the size of the addition small, in relation to the main structure, also will help minimize its visual impacts. If an addition must be larger, it should be set apart from the historic building, and connected with a smaller linking element. This will help maintain the perceived scale and proportion of the historic portion. In historic districts, one also should consider the effect the addition may have on the character of the area, as seen from the public right-of-way. For example, a side addition may change the sense of rhythm established by side yards in the block. Locating the addition to the rear could be a better solution in such a case. When designing an addition to a building, it is also important to remember that the maximum potential floor area in the land use code is not guaranteed if it cannot be appropriately accommodated on the site. In some cases, smaller additions may be necessary. P79 IV.A. Building Additions City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines page 83 Existing Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. • Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Additions 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. Scenario A— This addition is too large and is directly attached to the historic structure. Scenario B— This addition remains too large. A small connector is used, but is insufficient to adequately separate the two masses. Scenario C— This addition is reduced in scale and is more clearly separated from the historic building. Case Studies for Larger Additions: Direct connection Connector is too small Appropriate connector P80 IV.A. Chapter 10 page 84 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 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. One option is to construct an addition to the rear and link it to the main structure with a "connector." ConnectorConnectorConnectorConnectorConnector Not AppropriateNot AppropriateNot AppropriateNot AppropriateNot Appropriate A new addition should not dramatically change the form or scale of the existing building. P81 IV.A. Building Additions City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines page 85 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. • The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. Rooftop Additions 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. • An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the side. • Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic ones on similar historic structures. • Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one foot. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. • This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street. An addition should be set back from any primary, character- defining facade and its architectural details should be kept simple. A rooftop addition and ground level additions should be set back from the original facade. This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street. In some cases, adding on vertically, through construction of dormers, will help to minimize the impacts of additions and preserve rear yards. P82 IV.A. Chapter 10 page 86 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 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. P83 IV.A. 58 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 11: new BuildingS on landmarked propertieS The City provides several incentives for residential property owners to divide the square footage that could be built on a landmark parcel into two or more separate structures, to reduce the size of an addition made to a historic house and to reinforce the original character of many of Aspen’s neighborhoods, which had small buildings on 3,000 square foot lots. To determine if a property is eligible for a historic lot split to subdivide ownership of such structures, refer to the Aspen Municipal Code. Designing a new building to fit within the historic character of a landmarked property requires careful thought. Preserving a historic property does not mean it must be “frozen” in time, but it does mean that a new building should be designed in a manner that reinforces the basic visual characteristics of the site. The new building should not look old: imitating historic styles is inappropriate. It is appropriate to convey the evolution of the property and neighborhood, discerning the apparent age of each building by its style, materials, and method of construction. A new design must relate to the fundamental characteristics of the historic resource (site, location, mass, form, materials, details) and be “of it’s own time.” For instance, a traditional form may have contemporary materials and windows to balance new and old construction. On the other hand, a contemporary form may have traditional materials that relate to the resource to maintain a strong dialogue between new and old construction. Simplicity and modesty in design are encouraged. Building Orientation AspenVictorian buildings are usually oriented with the primary entrance facing the street. This helps establish a “pedestrian-friendly” quality. AspenModern buildings have a range of orientations depending on the design philosophy of the architect. For example, a Chalet style building is often sited at an angle to face mountain views. Building Alignment A front yard serves as a transitional space between the public sidewalk and the private building entry. In many blocks, front yards are similar in depth, resulting in a relatively uniform alignment of building fronts which contributes to the sense of visual continuity. Maintaining the established range of setbacks is therefore preferred. Mass and Scale The mass and scale of a new building is also an important design issue. A new building must be compatible in mass and scale with its historic neighbor and not overwhelm it. At the same time, minimizing any addition to the historic resource and shifting square footage to the new structure is generally desired. Building Form Most historic buildings in Aspen are composed of simple forms - a simple rectangular solid is typical. In some cases, a building consists of a combination of simple forms. A new building should respect these traditions. C hapter 11: n ew B uilding S on l andmarked p ropertie S Policy: New detached buildings may be constructed on a parcel that includes a landmarked structure. It is important that the new building be compatible and not dominate the historic structure. Note: The Residential Design Standards described in the Aspen Municipal Code apply in addition to these guidelines. P84 IV.A. City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 59 Chapter 11: new BuildingS on landmarked propertieS Building Placement 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • AspenVictorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. Mass and Scale 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. 11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new structure(s). • This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot split. Building and Roof Forms 11.6 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. • They can not overwhelm the original in scale. This new home is strongly related to the scale and forms of the adjacent Victorian. This new structure uses Victorian inspired forms and materials, but a contemporary approach to fenestration. P85 IV.A. 60 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 11: new BuildingS on landmarked propertieS 11.7 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. Materials 11.8 Roof materials shall appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. • Roof materials must have a matte, non- reflective finish. 11.9 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. • Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. Architectural Details 11.10 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. • These include windows, doors, and porches. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. 11.11 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. This new home reinterprets the roof form and balcony found on the Chalet home next door. The adjacent Chalet. P86 IV.A. City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 61 Chapter 11: new BuildingS on landmarked propertieS P87 IV.A. New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines page 87 The City provides several incentives for residential property owners to divide the square footage that could be built on a landmark parcel into two separate houses in order to reduce the size of both buildings, to reduce the size of an addition made to a historic house and to reinforce the original character of many of Aspen's neighborhoods, which had small houses on 3,000 square foot lots. To determine if a property is eligible for a historic lot split, refer to both the Standards for Landmark Designation and the Land Use Code. Basic Approach Designing a building to fit within the historic character of the property requires careful thought. First, it is important to realize that, historic properties remain dynamic, with alterations to existing structures and construction of new buildings occurring over time. Preserving a historic property does not mean it must be "frozen" in time, but it does mean that, when new building occurs, it should be in a manner that reinforces the basic visual characteristics of the site. This does not imply, however, that a new building must look old. In fact, imitating historic styles is generally discouraged; historians prefer to be able to "read" the evolution of the street, discerning the apparent age of each building by its style and method of Chapter 11Chapter 11Chapter 11Chapter 11Chapter 11 New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/ Historic Landmark Lot SplitsHistoric Landmark Lot SplitsHistoric Landmark Lot SplitsHistoric Landmark Lot SplitsHistoric Landmark Lot Splits construction. They do so by interpreting the age of a structure, placing its style in relative chronological order. When a new building is designed to imitate a historic style, this ability to interpret the history of the street is confused. Rather than imitating older buildings, a new design should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the historic resources while also conveying the stylistic trends of today. It may do so by drawing upon basic ways of building that make up a part of the character of the property. Such features upon which to draw include the way in which a building is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street, and its basic mass, form and materials. When these design variables are arranged in a new building to be similar to those seen traditionally, visual compatibility results. These basic design relationships are more fundamental than the details of individual architectural styles and, therefore, it is possible to be compatible with the historic context of the city while also producing a design that is distinguishable as being newer than the historic buildings. It is also important that a new building in close proximity not impede one's ability to interpret the character of the historic property; therefore, a new structure should be compatible in scale, site relationship and style. Simplicity and modesty in design are encouraged. Policy: In some cases a new primary structure may be constructed on a parcel that includes a landmarked structure. In such cases, it is important that the new building be compatible with the historic structure such that its integrity is maintained. P88 IV.A. Chapter 11 page 88 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Most individual landmarks are residential building types that share basic features, regardless of style. These are described in this section. Key Features of an Individually Landmarked Property Building orientation Traditionally, a typical building had its primary entrance oriented to the street. This helped establish a "pedestrian-friendly" quality. Locating the entrance of a new building in a manner that is similar to those seen traditionally is therefore preferred. Building alignment A front yard serves as a transitional space between the "public" sidewalk and the "private" building entry. In many blocks, front yards are similar in depth, resulting in a relatively uniform alignment of building fronts which contributes to the sense of visual continuity. Maintaining the established range of setbacks is therefore preferred. Mass and scale The mass and scale of a new building is also an important design issue. A new building should be compatible in mass and scale with its historic neighbor and not overwhelm it. Building form Most historic buildings in Aspen are composed of simple forms—a basic rectangular solid is typical. In some cases, a building consists of a combination of simple forms. A new building should respect these building traditions. P89 IV.A. New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines page 89 These guidelines address typical conditions found on residential sites dating from the mining era. These same principles may also apply to other property types, which the HPC will determine on a case-by-case basis. The Residential Design Standards (city-wide design guidelines for all new residential construction) also apply. Building Orientation 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. • The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. • A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. • In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. Mass and Scale 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. • The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Appropriate: Orient the front of a primary structure to the street. Entrances are clearly visible from the street Inappropriate: The entrances on these two buildings do not orient to the street, and therefore do not visually relate to other, historic buildings along the block. Entrances are obscured P90 IV.A. Chapter 11 page 90 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Inappropriate: Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the historic property are inappropriate. Building & Roof Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. • They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. • Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. • Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. • On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. • Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. • Roof materials should have a matte, non- reflective finish. Materials 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. • Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. • Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. P91 IV.A. New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines page 91 Architectural Details 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. • These include windows, doors and porches. • Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. P92 IV.A. Chapter 11 page 92 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines P93 IV.A.