The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.332 W Main St.0033.2005.AHPC.6@Z W Main St Conceptual HPC - 273512441007 Case 0033.2005.AHPC fl 6 /1 1 J-tf qi co 902 H 1 F . - .. THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0033.2005.AHPC PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735 12 4 41 007 PROJECTS ADDRESS 332 W. MAIN ST PLANNER SARA ADAMS CASE DESCRIPTION CONCEPTUAL HOP REVIEW REPRESENTATIVE HAAS PLANNING DATE OF FINAL ACTION 7.28.2005 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON 2/17/10 0 . 2735' 11 - 4,14,\. bol 0033 - 1005 . 44 f O ~-3.---- 7 1 1-Il@101 h ' Â· 4./ 14 '3 :*1=-1 7 ' Elle Edit Becord Navigata Fgm Report Format Iab Belp 2 4 4 )/ 4 @Ii E Â® 3 23Â·Ii N J , ,] 0 j i lurrp 1 : 01 1161 0 @3@0,1193@8004" -Irl Main Yaluation 1Custom Fields |*tions |Feei IParcek ~ Fee Summan ~ 5ub Bermib I Attacfrnents |Rogthg Status 1 Routing *ry | Permit Type lahpc 3Aspen Historic Land Use Permit # |0033,2005.AlfC Address |332 W MAIN ST Cty |ASPEN State REI Zip |81611 11 Permit Information --- - --- - - * Master Permt | 2| Routing Queue ~ahpc Applied |07128/2005 ~ Projed 1 i status ~pending Approved 1 1 ~ Description CONCEPTUAL HPC REVIEW Issued 1 3 , Final 1 Submitted |ALICE BRIEN 544-1902 Clock Fing- Days [-1665 Expires ~07/2332006 3 -Owner - -- -- --- - - Last Name ERIEN 2| Fht Name |ALICE 322 W MAIN 5T A5PEN CO 81611 Phone ~970)544-1902 P Owner Is Applicant? Applicant --- - ----- -- Last Name *IEN 2| First Name |ALICE 322 W MAIN ST -Â·- j ASEN CO 81611 j Phone |(970) 544-1902 Cust # |26029 Lender Last Name | .2,~ FEM Name 1 Phone ~ F, I , AspenGolÂ®] ~ Recold 1 oi l 14- C.Af Â«\ 1 1,"I"IMMY"I"'i:/I'l'Â£1 1223 d/8 .. 1111 lilli- -1111 -1 lili lll l i lli 1111111111 03/15/2007 10:28f 535456 Page: 1 of 3 JANICE K LOS CH-O:LL r ITKIN COM.TY CO R 16.00 D 0.00 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 332 WEST MAIN STREET, LOT K & WEST M OF LOT L, BLOCK 44, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 11, SERIES OF 2006 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-41-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Alice Brien, represented by L. John Muir of John Muir Architects, Inc, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition and Variances for the property located at 332 West Main Street, Lot K & the west M of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for 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 authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be 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: a. lhe structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and - 11.11111111111111111-Ill f lili 1111111 03/15/2007 10:28Â¢ 535456 Page: 2 of 3 JANICE K VOS CRUD.LL PITKIN COLN-Y CO R 16.00 D 0.00 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, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine. per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, that the setback 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 10, 2006, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were not met, and recommended cotinuatioin; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 10, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, and proposed revisions, and found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 4 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition and Variances for the property located at 332 West Main Street, Lot K & the west M of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, based on the drawings submitted on May 10,2006, with the following conditions: 1. Remove the lightwell proposed to protrude in front of the Victorian, along Third Street. 2. The following setback variances are granted: 3 foot east sideyard setback and 0 foot rear yard setback. 3. The non-historic addition is approved for demolition. 4. 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of May, 2006. 111-1111]11-1111- -11111--lili-11-11-11-11-lilli 535456 Page: 3 of 3 03/15/2007 10:28Â¢ JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUN-Y CO R 16.00 D 0-00 Approved as to Form: 21 -L)1_ David Hoefer, Assistant C*y Attorney Approved as to content: IIISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffre~dlferty, Chair ATTESTU 247. --2. p~041 F,4 1 / /,1~-t/-LJOÂ«53't/\0 kathy Stri~kland, Chief Deputy Clerk .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 332 West Main Street, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Demolition, and Variances- Public Hearing continued from March 8,2006 DATE: May 10, 2006 SUMMARY: The subject property is a large two and a half story Queen Anne Style house located on the northeast corner of Third and Main Streets. It is a contributing resource in the Main Street Historic District. The historic structure was built in 1889 as a residence for J. W. Taylor and his family and was consideredÂ· one of the more prestigious buildings in Aspen with it's decorative barge board and exterior shingles. The building has undergone various alterations since the 19th century including a 537 square foot rear addition, a flat roof carrort and window alterations on the main street faâ„¢ie. The dates of the alterations are unknown and they are considered non-historic. HPC is asked to approve Demolition of the non-historic addition and carport, Conceptual design for a new addition, Setback Valiances and possibly an FAR bonus. The applicant proposes to remove the curb cut and the parking space along Third Street, and to create a single car garage and uncovered parking along the alley. The project, which was originally to convert the whole building to single family use, was reviewed by HPC in August 2005 and continued for design restudy. (Minutes are attached.) In particular, the project was continued for restudy of the addition with regard to the massing, proportions and roof forms. This was particularly related to the second floor of the addition. There was also a concern raised by the Chair about the effect of emphasizing the addition as the entry into the building rather than the front door o f the Victorian. A minor revision was presented to the board on October 26,2005, but the applicant chose to continue without discussion that etening, and has continued the project several times since to consider the development options for the site. The proposal that is before HPC now is to retain most of the historic building as commercial space, with two residential units at the back of the site. The addition has gotten larger since the August review. With regard to other areas of the Land Use regulations, depending on the size of the smaller of the proposed residential units in comparison to the apartment that exists on the site now, some affordable housing mitigation may be required. The owner is able to create a second, free market apartment free of affordable housing mitigation as a landmark benefit. The allowable FAR for mixed-use is 1:1, orin this case 4,500 square feet. FAR figures have not been provided with the current design, therefore staff does not know if an FAR bonus is necessary or not. The applicant must submit information as to the existing number of legal on-site parking spaces now in order to detennine if any parking variances are needed for the proposed project. The two proposed 1 .. parking spaces may be adequate as the redevelopment can maintain the existing parking deficit to sorne degree and the residential units only require one space per unit. The application lacks a roof plan or a south elevation of the proposed addition. These documents must be provided to clarify the project. In general, staff supports the site plan for this proposal, including the 0' rear yard and 3' east side yard setback variances. The buildable area is relatively small since the house is not proposed to be moved forward, something that HPC seemed supportive o f last summer. The design continues to present some challenges in terms of a sympathetic transition from new to old, and complex or "foreign" roof shapes on the addition. Staffrecommends continuance to address these issues and to supply the missing roo f plan and south elevation. APPLICANT: Alice Brien, represented by L. John Muir of John Muir Architects, Inc. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-41-007. ADDRESS: 332 West Main Street, Lot K & the west M of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be 2 .. the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time): 1. Why is the property significant? 2. What are the key features of the property? 3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? 5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? The large Queen Anne style house represents the residence of J. W. Taylor; an influential businessman during Aspen's mining days. Taylor was a partner in the prominent Taylor and Bruton Sampling Works, a company that dealt with handling and marketing ores and occupied a full city block in Aspen. The property is locally significant in its association with an individual person and its contribution to the Main Street Historic District. Key features of the property include the unconventional use of shingles instead of the typical horizontal clapboard siding, decorative barge board, half timber in attic and gable ends, corbelled chimneys with flared tops and the original wrap around porch with square posts with flared tops. The house is located within the Main Street historic district among modest miner's cottages and it is adjacent to large buildings. It is a distinct landmark along Main Street which contributes to a positive relationship between the low scale of the miner's cottages and that ofnew construction. The owner has completed some repair work on the historic house and plans to restore a group of windows on the front faga(le. (No other alterations to the house have been proposed.) These actions will increase the property's integrity assessment score. Mixed Use zoning for this neighborhood allows for the possibility of a significant amount of FAR, which may be difficult to fully achieve and be in compliance with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Design Guideline review Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those guidelines with which staff finds the project may be in conflict are included in the memo. Staff Response: Staff is primarily concerned with the public facades of the addition (west and north). The addition will not be easily visible on the Main Street facade. As recommended in the design guidelines, the height of the addition is lower than the large two and a half story historic resource. As a result, the design guidelines do not require a connector piece between "new and old" structures. Staff finds that with the constraints of the property, a connector piece is not a viable option anyway, however other means of creating a sensitive transition to the new construction are important. Some restudy of this issue is warranted. The new construction is set back from the historic resource only 3 feet along the west faq:acle. Shifting the addition to the east is not a recommended option, as the applicant is already 3 .. requesting an east side yard setback variance of 3 feet from the required 5 feet. Staff finds that the site plan is generally appropriate per the following guidelines: 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. o 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 fioor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass o f a building. o 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. Since the last review, the height of the addition has been increased by expressing a true second floor on the addition. Staff finds that this is a positive change because it helps the new construction relate better to the design character of the Victorian. However, the addition, which is a relatively small form, has a fairly complex arrangement of gable, hip, and flat roof forms. A fiat deck area is acceptable, particularly where it is not easily viewed, like in these plans, but the hipped roo f fornl is out o f character with this property per the following guidelines. 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. 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. 3 Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. There was some discussion at the previous review related to location of window wells. Grates, rather than railings will be required, however staff finds that the west lightwell adjacent to the historic gable end of the house is awkwardly located. The guidelines state: 4 000 00 00 00 .. 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. Commission members had commented on the Third Street entry and its competitiveness with the front door when the whole building was going to be one single family house. As a mixed-use project, a distinct entry to the residential units is appropriate, however the width of the sidewalk will be discussed during review of landscape design at Final. DEMOLITION The applicant proposes to demolish an existing addition on the historic Victorian era home. 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: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: Staff finds that the non-historic addition proposed for demolition meets criteria d. Staff finds that all of the criteria are met for approval to demolish: the addition does not contribute to the historic resource or district. Staff feels that the proposed addition and rehabilitation efforts can improve the historic resource and Main Street Historic District. SETBACK VARIANCES Staff recommends that HPC grant the requested setback variances for the new addition. This entails allowing a 3 foot east sideyard setback, where a 5 foot setback is required and a 0 foot 5 00 0 .. rear yard setback variance, where a 5 foot setback is required. Staff finds that the requested valiances are acceptable considering the constraints of the lot size, and in light of the rehabilitation efforts and removal o f the carport and curb cut. The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback 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 requested variances are located on the alley and the rear of the east lot line. Both locations are fairly inconspicuous and do not appear to negatively impact the historic structure or the historic district. FAR BONUS Originally, the applicant requested a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Clarification of the currently proposed FAR is needed. The following standards apply to an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets *11 applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; an(For d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). 6 .. No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the FAR bonus is necessary now that the project has become mixed use and therefore has a higher allowable FAR. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: â€¢ approve the application, â€¢ approve the application with conditions, â€¢ disapprove the application, or â€¢ continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the application for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Variances for 332 West Main Street, Lot K & the west M of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite ofAspen, Colorado, with the following direction: 1. Restudy the roof forms on the proposed addition, in particular the hipped roof and the complexity of the plan. This restudy should also attempt to create a more compatible transition from new to old construction. 2. Provide a roof plan, south elevation of the addition, documentation of existing on-site parking and existing and proposed FAR. 3. Relocate the lightwell immediately adjacent to the historic west facing gable end. Exhibits: A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. HPC minutes ofAugust 10, 2005 C. Application 7 .. "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 332 West Main Street, Conceptual Review" 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). m The size of a lightwell should be minimized. ~ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 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 o f the primary building is inappropriate. ' An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. . An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. . An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ' An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ' A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ' An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. I A 1 -story connector is preferred. m The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. â€¢ 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 o f 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. m Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 8 .. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. m For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, comices and eavelines should be avoided. 12.3 Where one exists, maintain the traditional character of an alley. m Locate buildings and fences along the alley's edge to maintain its narrow width. 'Paving alleys is strongly discouraged. 12.6 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street. . Provide auto access along an alley when feasible. m New curb cuts are not permitted. . Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. , Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. , If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. ' Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2005 332 WEST MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL PUBLIC HEARING John Muir, architect Affidavit of publication - Exhibit I Sarah said the subject property is a large 214 story Queen Ann style house that is located on the north east corner of 3rd and Main Street and it is a contributing resource in the Main Street Historic District. The property was built in 1889 with numerous revisions. There is a rear addition and a flat roof carport and window alterations on the Main Street favade. The applicant is proposing a new addition and a garage. Demolition of the non- historic addition and carport are proposed. The curb cut along Third Street and a parking space would be removed and to relocate the parking space to the alley access. They are also requesting setback variances; a rear yard setback of 0 feet, a side yard setback of 3 feet and a parking waiver. In addition they are also requesting a 190 square foot FAR bonus for the rehabilitation of the historic home. Staff is concerned with the side proportion and the complicated roof form of the east elevation as seen from Third Street. There also needs to be discussion of the chimney cap. John Muir said in addition Miss Brien has been working on other improvements to the property including restoring the Main Street window up in the gable to its original configuration. The porch is being worked on to stabilize it. The carport is an eye store and the non-conforming parking will be moved to the alley. They intend to move the cave lines down to the lower level to accentuate a breaking point and provide a portion of roof. This is a residential structure. The variance request for the zero setback on the alley and 3 feet on the east property line was requested in order to pull the house to the north/east so that we can get the comer to express itself as definitively as possible. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. 4 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2005 Comments: ' Sarah said in the plans there are no details for the historic resource. John said the kitchen structure is to be demolished and there will be a connector from the historic house to the addition. Derek said this historic resource is very difficult to deal with. The mass and scale is appropriate and headed in the right direction. He has no issue with the double gable. Jason said the rear and side yard setbacks are OK. He is also in favor of the 190 square foot FAR bonus. It is a tough building to deal with, with the big slope on the north side. How do you design a building and connect it and make it not look like it is going to break off at the hinge point. Jason said he would like to see a new design of the double gable at the next meeting. Michael expressed his appreciation to the owner for not requesting that the historic structure be moved. In terms ofmass and scale the design is appropriate. The setback variances are warranted in this case. The 190 square foot FAR bonus recommendation by staff is a good middle course and he could recommend approval of the bonus. Sarah said the project is moving in the right direction. By supplying the south elevation it would help the board understand the massing. Sarah supports the setback variances and FAR bonus. This is a challenging house and the architect is dealing with site issues. The architect has done a good job of separating the two. The chimney cap needs re-worked to relate more to the historic resource. Jeffrey supports staffs recommendation and the addition is in the appropri ate location. The west elevation needs additional attention. It seems like the roof forms are a little complicated and need restudied. A lot o f times on historic houses the primary entrance becomes a little muted and looses some of its proninence. With a little restudy this proposal could be a charming little addition. He also requested a south elevation to use as a reference point. Amy pointed out that we have a design guideline that requires a connector between the old and new building but that is only required when the addition is taller than the historic house. 5 0 - . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10. 2005 John said to clarify; the committee seems comfortable with the over all mass. The issues are the complication of the roof forms. The window well by the master bedroom is too close to the historic resource. The detailing also needs restudied. John said he can move that light well to the north. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 332 W. Main St., conceptual development and the public hearing until Sept. 141 second by Sarah. Roll call vote: Derek, yes; Sarah, yes: Jason, yes: Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion approved 5-0. 435 W. MAIN - LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL - PH CONTINUED FROM JULY 27,2005 Amy said at the last meeting we got solid direction of combining two plans that meet the guidelines. Staff is supportive and recommends approval of conceptual. Off-site relocation is requested for three of the historic cabins. Six would remain on the site. We do not know of an appropriate location at this point and staff recommends continuation of the off-site relocation until final. The other issue that should be left until final is the resolution of the parking variances. The project is not providing the amount of parking spaces required and HPC will have the ability to waive that. The applicant would like HPC to make a recommendation to council regarding the parking. Alan Richmond reiterated that they would like two statements in the resolution more positive, parking and off-site relocation. Arthur Chabon said at the last meeting it was very clear that we were to take scheme A and turn it into a two building scheme with a connector toward the alley. We are successful in terms of how we were able to weave the scale of the cabins into the massing as a whole. The connector is invisible from Main Street. Alan discussed condition #1 and #6. At this point in the process we are about to move forward to P&Z and City Council. We would like to go forward with a more affirmative statement. At final council will have already completed designation of this property. We need a comfort level that the project will comply with the standard for relocation for the three 6 .... t Do BMEC . r) f I \ IE RIP i-9 ~ Â»7 1 r La 44% 16 1 lo 1h G. 1...= . .--- 1 1 0"2.-- 'ANN ST: PLI 6Aut,Fre- 12&0~: M.444 - SCALE : t/eu = f LOU ./.9,: I - ~bld. *NPZ/* ZÂ»Kipf,%Â·~ -bi :Â·.07 I: 8-i Â·(NU Ff;454'- '.2', 5: 9, h~: *Mil:Â·* A !'Â·:p'Â·t:34 J A , I D.r . .t 4 4 f>.4 1 '1# 9 K *,7# 194 1Â·Â·Â·-4 3 f 9, f, 5 12 ':fis: 67<-333.) EDÂ©437 HN MUIR [TECTS, INC LAIN STREET #304 LE COLORADO 81623 70~ 704-9750 (970) 704-9750 (970) 704-0287 : jma@sopris.net 2 k# 1% )Si 4 /0 4 4 4 H ED FOR DATE r[-HPC REV. 07/14/05 REVEW 08/10/05 REVIEW 10/11/05 REVIEW 04/12/06 DRAWING HPC REVIEW DATE 04/12/06 PRCJECr 332 MAIN STREET 1 0- 1 N C. .C= 1 nP C-1 1 A 1 .... .2 : OCIVWOTOD 'NE[dSV 44 4Â¥4 ' I b Ym,8.'.4".4 , Â·Â·.a..mm.mi i,u,-iqmt,al#jui~-ULZ----9 4 , '0.'-1 "1&1Â£11#Illum â€¢Ill,11,1114~, ' ' ' ' 0 4 4 ~ - 1 71. 9 2 1 4 /. 0 - 0 hiti .radle,nt'../-1.r.,4.-'4':UnilÂ¢44 (a,fi,116[â‚¬(4' .,til. ~ A Â£16 1 BQE--7(Â£81~41=:il ill/~11 u P==2 1 f==> 1 fi& I . 42,2- . r, Ilk-/: .1, . , '' }50- 60 - --9-.4 9----1---;Ii %9--2 3....id / L " 1{lilaa,~t,4,1 I . 11.Â· .. 5-Em.m=M Wi'...1.....m..1 1. ...1, â€¢â‚¬i, r.-lite -'11 1//1 &11!~1 1~,il .. - . ... k ..... . 4, 4 - Ai Â¥ I - 1,1,1,1,111,izallâ€¢Â»' 1.. 2 ... 111.1111'......,- . .. . Ble . . b . .L 1 I. IIi , , .. 4 -' , v 0 - 12;alil 1== 10: I Â· - 4 L. I,J , , ..1- 0 .311 2 0 ,. .... Â· ~Ii ~*12~5---:la 2-~1Â£~~ , ..r , . 4 , â€¢4 , -- -. . 4 - FIJzl?Fr:i~i-2-----I------"----FiF:F~ 227361.*tr:..: rfyff:it 4 R ~ 4 22 : 05?ij I t':.'(4 5/214 j! i;/4 40,94 1 6 ...2 1 WI 5 - *Â»4 ,Â·Â·d ..: 4 14 F 0.72 51Â£ ' I n 43 11 '21 Â¥71:,C ' -1 Â·. 1 :5 19 r R'Â· Â·Â·'4 A Eâ‚¬ij, 541 I ul ..0 b. R E El 4 31 31=131Â« R,9,74:i â‚¬ID..96.Ba: 1 -1,3.+5:,1.,r .1 FE"4.5 I .Al.4.-1*,1.,7 . . 4 iE 7-7 PRQIBCr 332 MAIN STREET ~ 1%*AY__th~~rkâ‚¬_g4209IK;Ht Â®AGS_Ni~Me_(mAIrl_#LaVinaq 1 - s"LED: Ile.= T t-64 HPC-2 :X,84Â£ : fle;' = f 4,11 J HN MUIR L ARCHITECTS,INC j - - 4 . 4/ 0 1 1 :. D . .. .. : .-. ......... .. . 0 iii I'll == ' = . .....0 e .- 4 ........... . =C' V $ .0 ./ 0 : Â¥ 1 . I .. 1.- 2 , '1 f. A~ 0 - d. D m 4,7 f 'R.=0----- 0 1 - 4& J:' . VJ =5*~. m~ 1 44 . idmill'liAL r.-mwil),/.,1,/I=--~~m#li~..mi.=1:=I-Al -'. 4-- - ,-1.-.11111.1 It m - 2 .E. .1 . , . 11.rehil--41,U"--P"'mi~~Illin:j IN ill, Ij M , [It 4 - f El.G= HI=Iâ€žIm*. 1 1 ... - ...~.....El'. . - ELeÂ·=.----.-...â€ž..=.-m#=,eg 7~*.~.-4 . r Â¥3, ., - 1:1. =-Ililihi".dili+2..1-/&'lli -Il//1 -11 2.6,1 r = --7-11.'5 414Â»Â· --'. Iâ€¢lillillilililll,Ill==~=~* Mi,r-~~~51-~&---*wf# A I ** ; 11.*#1,111=1.=imil.~1 LI'll, r .1.1 -- -6 i . 9/ =......=m#'ll' 1 -4 8,2:1_.limill,221â€¢-,65:5555iall'll'"11' 1~' â‚¬- .r ll-m'M=JZ,- "- 1 r- 1 -- I -:. . \/ 2.1- . .0, ,- - ~ D -- .... a -V I I. ---- 1 - .. . a .. . . . . 9. I . 1 l . , . 7- 9 .. . 4 A - ... 4 t ............., . =1 ...1 . .K~ , 1~=L 1 b ..1 . ' - 4 ..'. =. ~All///I'liA . U -/1.Zill'- 1., 9 -01 h . 2:m!==6, a . . . D A~~~-i,~6:WI $ 6,-1.U.billimmiffN'ili,ELE:'41"191;:M:,an~:L i / - F.lat k 1 1 1 t 'I 1, 1 1 - - 86-1 I. 1 1. .. ~i'~~-- h , .1 ~. i Efil nialiximilialmim 1* 11 1 ~,Alu~~11~.~~1.~1 1~-711 ... ~. .. 1 Jim . .... -. -DZ . F *- . . â€¢ 01 -ll.JIJ- -\ - 1 1 /... 6, I \ / E L .- f f;*74-1 - ffif ..1 - .... 1 - - .1 4 -1 -:..:ifiÂ· 9*M.. MA . 9. ~ . **31 ~,4, 1% Ng#45 *50 ' !.Â·7>7Â·:&1%8* 92Â» I'#' #f:.;1 #Â·j *i : CE.C.Â·i< nl Mi WÂ· *4; h. A qÂ·34; ' *.::74 E 44 .: .~ 1.(82% 8%~Â· 5..Bf.t.,1,~91Â·?4% -~ -Â·.---~ 14:.Â·~{..3-f~ iâ‚¬41316 349:<Uff.}.93 Â·Â·0Â· I Â·" */3.Â·3941~ , X 4.1 .: Cl.< 1.,S.~A JOHNMUIR ARCHITECTS, INC 201 MAIN STREET #304 CARBONDALE COLORADO 81623 - (970~ 704-9750 Phone: (970) 704-9750 1â€ž - I. . ..... .. -1.1 - CO . E-Mail: jma.@soptis.net Fax: (970) 704-0287 .. - L - | ._*52 w,us,-be GAKAGE, AEN e; =--- " ' -.-.I"'- " I Â·:t.__J FNEfezeÂ¢ laj/*af, . -*7%0139'21<( Af/L/Ej . 1 49.11 . 1 - 4 1 MEEM. 1 UNPEPL.SA . 3 le= 19*t 1,-7 -~..9- t A-.(Na 64= ttlâ‚¬UDE_lc â€¢6 & I I ! I I 1 Â»CAJ i hqrF ~/ ~ Sl-,20Ck.DAIED <Amâ‚¬NED ileÂ« 0 1 | - .4-247 -~ rwpKI lvE@64 6. 34 157#365%01(RE1 1 A l .,,,2.=6=97 t- F 6 -9 --4- *se, Of:= i ST- t-- --li f-- s - - -4 ~ ~ ~__4 Lizop ovâ‚¬A ls-r ~ - . FLOOFF,bkot ruee- Aets, . 4-K7X 01 7 -hupeR:~ )-(666) VUEU-, -~58Â£:peyÂ« U\~& 1. - . 1 -/4 - - ., - ..-'--'- i.- *.- --I.'-4. --I-....-.. - --I...~ 0 Ma _FUER FON SedaND Fl.COR PL/W sc.,LE-*Â· flÂ®â€ž C f'-2>(4 H0 004 M8 I ...$4=9; 541 90-l~46- StÂ¥Â£3<T-olee â‚¬2 1, 1 . 0 9 E ADIa) f Aa-Ey -ACESSE> 73'-011 SUE>-YE,- Ser 40 tbr-95â‚¬Lty' r- 02Aa' ae=r 1/A.(dr- VAR-E:, F:FeeM. St..23 9 PR>fmÂ©rf UNE> 9- 1 1 0 .. 1 1 5 t )50---' 94 2NtÂ»v-Â£ WEU- 2 4 L <*... 4 - _si i , 1 11 - O R.64â‚¬ YARP 1 SereAEE< Re Â· *vasT#(6 UPAAÂ¢1287 ~~ k 51.-0. ) . , 1 1 *385* *STORIC Sâ„¢.LUO~_ / Atop --I =~lf/ -la,e_i _ i STR.Dere~E, FER #.8 c . PRE-LIM-HPC REV. 07/14/05 VA. \ h..0 -447-----W-â‚¬- - 2- -9 1 1 OF46J;44-- L.VUE ZDF- Â· ISSUED FOR DATE Nil Â· Ck:- - bACTEÂ¥='leem;NTMN --X . - -1. . --W C' PC . HPC REVIEW 08/10/05 9 Â»b-Â»-<v wr < 413>32 hleAJ 5,14,CTORE, seÂ· HPC REVIEW 10/11/05 , 6-9 Â· BACK -e>Ll 1~BMA - 0 2 51-MUCIOâ‚¬-P 2. 1- Hz **A//Fli.st Y, M ~Ygod luckÂ®, ' f ~ JA -1-- 4 45>: 10 1 . 1 / 1 e.. 4:$,t ~ d-z>#At~ OÂ·F- t-1-1 Sirnt ' Srelr:TURE ' W.1 //Upek.6 445(.C 4.- 3-yrth,Ity,w* vt . ) 9\ 0/ 9% I i - utfilt h 1 L x--w <-<- -1 \ C-1 -T '*. / - PROBE#irr (-,10-12' . Ult i - 1 DRAWING 4:~k-~ ~ ~~~-~~~~6~,)4-~~~~~J~9> d. < --- -.-- Er puve. ~N / HPC REVIEW -EE>CER--rte 11= 4 T.le, i DATE . 10/11/05 *fril pre- Ph,L 1 --ikia l 1 11 PROJECT i(*pital - 3 0% sstnay 1 LE . 1--- - LA--- 332 MAIN STREET 1 4%29#4 1 1 4\46-29'~ 11.1\ ife# Wl,eA \'18\vt-2-/1 . YJAJNrl-f M*p - - HPC-1 140 se,â€¢,us I T Et Â£ R. p STB-66 1 wa,&2%% EnIC]-1,3 Â»ILLS DRIOLLSI NOILLICICIV 19 1/1 -. V *t. 3 6 21 1 m' -- - t f ~, 6 -04 7 6 -#B ANKÂ©ou.) *=Ing. M CA-/810 1 .1,/ lili I ..1 C.Syll * 5'eli : ./ 4% 4 4 32 %â‚¬642-4 4, Up b /4 1 - 4- L- t 4 0,94 -pElL h ~ A.Z â‚¬ 9/pe ki X Â¢99 ,-2-'k pk ,\ / /6. 1 4 Â° fit f\---,\ 1, 1 i (Â«) '- : 511rc2#itrlit 'j/1 -; It! 111. / i )\9 1'\ 1 - )Ph\:V-r-pfrii 1 1 ~t ~ ' il Iii :; i 1 1 \1\ 1 1 17 ! li f ./ 1 : - !, : i :..'llit'' 1 1 -1 I Â· : 5/ i :-1 iii i:lit iii W i ' I, I'; 1, ' /1 1 lili i Iii it I 1 :t : i ji f :' 1 1/ff' 1 11;'ll! 1 1 ' :1 / J -I. J.A.... 14.>'1 - Dul k)1.11â€¢1 0 v PINS[EE SBILKH (*. G' FfETICAL 51Â©Inq HPC-2 SCALEt Vq" =I'-on i. 0. 0 0 . I . , 1.Il-- -' JOHN MUIR 2 .j 7- ~GNI~~ ~ ARCHITECTS,INC . . - . . -*Ale':fâ€¢NIDAIMMIÂ«'11'114'llâ€¢/:1041 14 -.'-I ...1...~Il 0 1-1 Ii--=---. --I- Mill:il.Im I ~ 1/.0-./. 1. mil "."-.i ---1.111.-al- 1.-m.---/- - t..= . 1- LIâ€¢- i-:-==Il- 1 1.1.-/ 971. ,-1.0,111.E -- al... Id==ki-=illillilillill-= 1, * .1/.....EN........ ~-'.1/Ar.L--~ ----=ZE r **410':::eall . ....I---411â€¢ 1.1.1 111 4 I 11~.11'llegil~la ~~ZIl.....~ â€¢ r -9=< 1 1 4 .m/'ll.-11111 lili= -1 . 77 - a . .. r . 0 . 0 I I.. . P P D - -.- . 0 1 :i li 1................ 1........... .. l.. i . .. I - .. . 0 = ~ -=- ... &. -1*.'-,2--ii~--~ . r - - Ell'Ekâ€¢â€¢1â€¢im,-* . - ... I D . Timullmmilliliiliwilliwilill./.......d............ 4,".Mill"ll'll'll#A'.IN.'lam. Imilmâ€¢mâ€¢â€¢2~ . 4 - .2- F -0 --1 G.. 1.....7.....imiligi . I - , f a - . 0 1 I . 1 1,1 1 . . .- , '. 1. 1 1 , 1 1 , .. ..0 - --=OL - WI'li 1. . --I-*--Il f.....illimil~.laill"minv"'41///1//imri k -m . - - 1,=i ..1. - 1-'ll-=.Il'I- *d=. = -1..~ I ..1 .....................Uillill Il -1 - === Elga~~~=i#i~IN~Ill ... - 1- I.m .- 1.-1 ill# ~I - MI - 1 1 5.1'.79'.limillibillir:::::5 I u.ivj 4 ng 9 1 irrisi 1% 3.:.24:.2.:1..~.b 1- ..1 , HISTORK, SERCCruee- AJL bED(OND ~-h~ 456 ),te- 641(~Â·);~jI ~.0Â·Â·:j 1 %. 2 . b -AD *Pfr ~ Â¢ sut>/Nfr . *tk v 5 Â«~~~-1-_u_ tf~oi 6-< 31 04-Â·Ap.,1 HPC-3 5cA,LE: V4'= 1 '-c>' b JOHN MUIR . - ARCHITECTS, INC , -1 ..11 Ir.NI.~-ill--0 ~my#.- -1.... r HIEN! , I ........... imilil--.-- - -4.- .0.~. - --- r .... ./mirmi ..........1.. , . f. i .0 .liwilliallitam=limillillililillillifililiglinwillilli'lli~~~~ilillill.iDi~eillimilimilill . 4 1 4 1 i........ill#......Ill.........................ill......1--..............ill'lillilli 111'Ill . , 1 ' , \ 11, -Iwilimmililizill , ar E-'a . =.----I.- .i F 'Imlilj.~ . D A , ... . 4 D a . 09 0. . l. 161Ml~,9 . 11 114.11.11.1 AÂ¥ . F,illy M.= -. r mil ... . 0 . JA = 91 . t I. r ~~~~~~---a~h 4 a .- y. 0 -1:#AS#t ... ...Il/li/*iMm.-,2.1....1.1-Ar/'Ill/ - ' --- b t ...AA'll""10=.Imâ€¢ I....lial'A\'Ill' 1.---/4 f El -Â·i -/--m."/----=a \ 111'.1. ...1.-1 -ar' =: - ..d......1.'.1.k- Â· 8 4 - cri.Ii..........mail.J...1.....;,S....,/.-.I.-i#-I..Il......I, / Ell 1...Illi - -- X. I ./11.11 M l~---1.---~ ~.pHill= i.li:. .*0.1.1 l/,14 El- 1.~~ . 11 L F 91 111,1:11. 11=---- --=~-~"92~~!r-7.."-921=-lilli-i illi3 11=. P./.1111~-."I.U......7......Ell.....Il -,-~. . .. 1 I. D - . 11.- nal--imil-im---~I tI"iIlII"iiI":"I""": - --IF - 11 - 11111111.11'mil = .. 1 ' ./4.........."/'G---------1/iR~lii::*~ill:,2/1/2/limm:millilimiliwililill:lim ........../i.....................lillimill ....1 / . ::1:1"twlilmtillill.QI!" 1 -0--'"=1--'- * F ././aim=41 z 1,111 71 31-- - --11 11 1- - -1~11. -Ii",0---Ill-- 1 . 1 . 11 ./dilim. il -- =- 0 1%9...P .. -. A..4. 1/0 . , ' I -= E 1 M E 8 Al *00 atat E 2 2 9 a OCIV-HOE[03 'NE[dSV 8Â©-8 ts,~n gg a 15[InIJLS NIVIAI ZE > %3 C,2 5 E-- E % e gl S ~ ~ ~ M .1. p . al = .ie.:Â· OR -2 - I: i e.. r- 28.4 c-T-\Trl Tr)(17TT /1 r'.T1TC)TOTTT /1 T AT/--~TTTCTCTTT El td -- tb i iIi ~ 4 11 11& 1 i 9 2 . tW Arr -34./f~11 rtc --P - 16 1 maIAERI DdH BIOd CIal 0=-Il-. . . 7 . 7, -4//4 -- 4 1\ 2 2 -4 1&' . .' -0 -/-: -, ' 1%15.hhi' tag!~am:,mil.Il=~ , . I 1 illillilililllim.lumi~rviri'lizmr:r~~Aiii'=i.'*,11 >~11-1111.-111=id - 1=-3 1 1/, 41.11 11.Mil 111111~11.ili' itt 1 7..1 Al 0 -el'11111111.11=Wy 0- ~1 .7 -17 il,Il,ildillill 1.All/ . 1 1..6 Lii~T#11ip.Idivei~lk : 11~'~7 1----=- t. i. lililliiniuiin Iii~imiÂ®iiiwik~- 11, . I; ' -1"" - - 1 1.1 .1 1 dilimiu.ilifillifili~-illi A.,IWI, 1 -immili, a .. .1 ti//////////*B,~JA.41.~-u ip ~ *, 1 -Ii Ill,Ill'll'll"lill .. 11110 0.1.21 01' 'll!!i . ~Vil~'| '~~='69.lililifilkiri 'i,L.,~~..,.,â€ž,=...- 4114-mieâ€¢#r: 31111'rfe~ â€¢â€¢ 11,>42-;=E/~A '4~11â€¢*4-5:-em~t 4--/ , 6,~~~~~# . -2.- j Â·4 / I . 4 -- 4.-- I . . , 1-- 5, ...4 ,- 4--- . b . - . := - 4 - . -1 4. A --le#- I. I. 7Â»*Iltilit'llmt abillfiiilillillillit illulliwiliAbilidillilikill.imililillitpil:Millip"Hir~WI~ 1Â»lilidllif~illililizillmi t -â€¢~-â€¢:~~,1 all,hu,Mâ€¢lilillimiâ€¢=11111!r 1 ___11!IMMI" ..' 4 0 0, i . - I . i-.I#--I--- I llc Â«/ f *1 li 1-1! Illillit , \1111111111.1111# I. i...Bil. â€¢Nmr â€¢â€¢â€¢7-/ 1 4 LIlli 1 M 1 '1 % 1 0 . 9 k~~1 ,A 0 - . - . - 9 -- )- 7//lic . e , -1 6 - y 1 I / /r 1 , , I .. 9 D . . 1 . 0 . . t -->#196~10 a . 667 1%_ 1 . ..,- .. . -19 ryÂ¢ 1 06< . BWER A 4>\ 1 - TM -4 4 nÂ»\- 1 h I , 6, '' f Ma.Â£4 Â©ma<Er- - .. Otae Gpilâ‚¬51''A 4% t. 4 U /A- Rl 1/ 4 - a 1 ' C< 4 %4 - 0 91 - 1 41. 12Â» tÂ» 1 .. . .. 1- 1 -1 - . *6Es-r 1 rE 339- MAdA] EC _FOOF Pt.16.44 ~â‚¬Â£,4-Ei 1/eput= t '-7(3/ 4 Reerm- rt- . 1%\A . Jo n N M r! R - ARCI[17'ECTS. Inc. May 10, 2006 Ms. Amy Guthrie, City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Via email: amyg@ci.aspen.co.us ' Re: 332 West Main St. Aspen, CO Dear Amy: For the 5/10/06 HPC meeting please consider the following information: Maximum total allpwable floor area is 4,500 s.f.(1.0 FAR) based on mixed use criteria , for a 4,500 s.f. lot Minimum amount of commercial floor area required is 1,125 (.25 FAR) based on mixed use criteria for a 4,500 s.f. lot. Lot contains an existing residential structure of 2,380 s.f. and comprising a 467 s.f. efficiency unit and a 1,913 s. f. historic residence. Applicant proposes to demolish the efficiency unit (non-historic) and convert 1,722 s.f. ofthe historic residence to commercial (office) use, retaining 191 s.f. ofthe historic structure for residential use. Applicant proposes to add 1,585 s.Â£ of new residential construction to the 191 s.f. of remaining historic structure for a total of 1,776 s.Â£ of residential construction. Residential floor area would be divided into two free-market units as shown in the plans. Two off-street parking spaces would be provided, replacing the existing single space , currently accessed from 3rd St. Both new parking spaces are covered and accessed from the alley. Proposed floor area breakdowns are as follows: * Total commercial floor area: - . 1,722 s.f (.38 FAR) Total residential floor area: , 1,776 s.f. - Total project floor area ' 3,498 s.f. (.78 FAR) 201 Main Street, Suite 304, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone: (970) 704-9750 Fax: (970) 704-0287 E-Mail: jma@sopris.net 2 2 Thus, no floor area bonus is requested. Please note that the total project floor area is substantially less than that allowed. Additional floor area would have required a third floor for the new residential portion and it was felt the additional mass would visually oven)ower the historic structure. No parking variances are requested for the residential portion. Variances for the rear yard setback (0) and east side yard setback (3') are requested. HPC's reservations about the roof forms are duly noted. In order to preserve the northwest corner of the historic structure there has been a conscious effort to push the new construction as far towards the alley as possible along 3rd street. A hipped roof form was used at this location (entry to unit A) to mitigate this mass, and allow the unique gabled form ofthe historic structure's 3rd St. elevation to remain as the primary architectural form. I would point out that the northern portion of the historic structure' s ' main roof also comprises a hipped roof form. I will bring a roof plan ofthe proposed design to the meeting. Best regards, L. John Muir, A.I.A e . 0 -Â»11 . jA P)2Â©YERMO Afbu :ORS. MquAE .Sl-lat)(Irl.435 4* - ~ cz-. gueâ‚¬ s:reoctues ran. e.r.c. lk!~FE*PRE*04 i__1 4-,1-r -fiEL--1-01//1- 1 L-Â»2Â«-21'- X.Â«~~~ vull Uuy.-1 91 Â£ 1 111 921'ff* 3. 2 1 1 1 , / 14 -,2 - --Efal. TES= FÂ»cp. I OPPER W.I.Â·'AÂ·l,EDM-/ F - Reeâ‚¬. Ged. T \64.0<=>P anitÂ·4_ gcj, -NuiL 'fl- - Elm- Â· 1 - i 1 r-1 f. -z~730=2 8 MAL)<4 St-- ( Seoulj A d Sprou.Grc-E_, Foof lf~ -1' 24 t=lk.Q~ GLE:>64:r-IN-1 -Tb 65 - 0 89% MAPÂ© 0 -2- RESID IZED TED ~ set-Eke- dee-DEST- 1 3 f Â¥..ific,Flqg fin/Abod )247--_ Irill F t Â· --- 6*t_GdAIAL Cd*[Pt & Â· INU=*- 18*2~2-1,1*2'DOUJE~ -- - . / . a 91 , I - - 1 -i--*. t .42 . .1-1 .1. f , / -11 .. ... Â·Â·Â· 1 , tÂ·Â· 1.:.4 4 --- t 51,PLAI& tt--1*1 P . Iti -46= - AdierAE_ Reof -- -- 211 1 1 . . 1.Â·Â·'L. $ :.. i Â· sreâ‚¬Y e.rre<- rokca w' filrY filligitilil / 1. I.#/ i t., ----~ . -. - ,-. 1 , 4 4 1--fier --- 1 Ii---~--1 4==1- 1 118>Al - P r 1 7 ."1 t \MIAL\CO\AL 6 L-- 7-f \JA r.p- 1 HN %- Ual --it /TEÂ« I--14 -*.4~ n t-7 r--1 1 1 0 eut- traLEY e.~/ --~- , 1. ./ 1 *Ill >-u/ - *-41 ...r~ -1 1 1 /1 1 6Lme>( < 94 /A.LITKC~ pl '65~. '- 0Â©012- .r 1 \ 4," Weer-1 191/XL- -t> â‚¬E_< NEPÂ¢E180*zÂ¥~qÂ»t SOACE; 1 te>,1 -IL 1 Low -. OweRUE --I ED< T 5El/U6-- ST~Â¥40er--0 es> 9 W T l j c - 1 . ADLED f~Â»im -Acass L OFF-Â· Stleaae- PATWÂ« 51012 s,UEN]7Â·, FÂ·DI?df-6 ak 1 r ZEL. t:m :2/*,A czi-LÂ© l' 'j PNS){mer-f L.,24* 9- ... - r -=-n-ylop hop 460%-~f 42-j = 43/4 :/3-4-09 hao Ul,ng-IS (H.i;oW) ,~11+ NOUL;0~6Â¢jsfie ) c#Â¥xaars . 4 I 9 - 1 9*ids -tjah 9 *Prâ„¢19 '-13*BA )19 -1-2674 63*vÂ·a#t) 7 - GEÂ»#e2A+R 9 77<9CMYN 1 hA Er â„¢,1 V fAI 4 ! wpacu - 19'hoals .*51(2153 - 6. y' - #Ll -: -1 252,2/ki Â¥Th/ldls .-/---.--- .Aws nq - 941, I Â¥/ ' I. .-I . CAMS )3) tÂ©\02 JES 90110021-16 3Â·/VaN 7 1 -7198 01Â¥8 i- ~ - *- J- Yil~j#~%J * 1 ----yni j-- 'gieÂ¥ii- '9?TÂ·AA-24* --0 .-4.1 - lilLIGÂ¢L 9* 5-1 - 1- 1*N1128029 -# - --ew-9- . ] [ 4-9-1-7-C- 9-Â©9792 Â»tyÂ«63 941 1 1 3-229 Yat 3-) 0*8191 1Â·4 -f -- - . - 9319 >101% -4*ptu-_:Mt- . h-1. -..............-.......).--, I 74<_Lin owk j 2- e tp -Ph#Elâ‚¬'fi~M=j - .-Â·61 ---1 Â£ r ' -..---- th- 4----=-797.51' 6-2 0 8919 YAW --â€¢CL.u= - c=~'Upyll-1â‚¬ Al W l[1131 .3* 6 9744#44 -9 k r - . 1 J/ S U - 1-' CA<*1% â‚¬hftsg*9 r , 7*9 9177\11 1--4-i .14 ' 6," , 44341#U--TEL 93 1 90~alag: 7- 'â‚¬> ~iTAaghtlÂ»A / CIEPÂ¥1 -214921 30 ~ da#ZA 9271-WK 3 - CÂ©9Â»iNGâ€¢ -R-SEfE\Â·&, 7 9-2001=1 11 / . pamÂ·,21/1 ri E) '~ 3 7Â¥4 la *3600 99+79 Y' -15 1 M(2*mÂ« t~ 3Â»Atâ‚¬ cÂ»0)9\ g 693 dr,tpy:ag frÂ· Â· *07-vo -_â„¢law Ck:Fooaais -Pualâ‚¬111 ~:9Â»Aj:sua =10 raÂ·411 . .... Telephone & Television Risers Garage Telephone & 99 Television Risers Top Back ~ 1~--0'0-' of Curb of Gravel Te hone & tti li ' I ~ l:ound 05 Rebar &/' -.4111%0 4-2 1 0---24--// i (11 # 4 /1 Te/evt ' n Risers Plastic Cap L.S. 9184 823.229 72- 0 Câ€¢ 8 Trees 4"-6. 6 0.25' ' --0 Found Spike Replaced wi*b #5 3* Side Yard 1 Â£ SA Cr er Rebar wittMed Plastic e n U tap Cap L.S. ~538 S tback Line 1 \ Carport. ' iWindo x E e of Gravel / 9.5 -Â·Electric-Â·---- --207---2 -7- , / --10*ters -34.71 -1 2 13 1 J 1 ,-,A , i ------ 4 I '1 #0- 11, .L blt-i, 1-7 1-,/ 1,11 . 1 1'71 , - 1. ..i ..4. 0 DO ia 1 .SE' Â·.'--4. j r...~5.5' Go 1Â·~ / 11 i I, - ir. 6 .- - .3 6, 46 4 1, 1,- /, i 99* 0 r 0 / Mâ€¢~0>Â¢, 5 37 0 1 1, 1 0' 1 1 - - 1-1 1 >tmek- 2 F a# 4. 8 038(12?937 Â·GlF+- --i3 1 ~ , , 1' '-1- 1,1-- - 1 l. A o ry-in - 41.1 1-7.1 1- -1 i *Col= //Gas v 04 4 - ~#*C f~?4 r Â· 106Â¢-i , , n - 11 Riner 4.35' t - --Conbretd 1 4 1 4 . 321 "'"##ytill jiT'' *%1,)4~Fbe1*frevit~-TErt''Mf,Jte*9410*Lilic#-2-1 3 k' .V#. /4 1 1 111 1 ./13. i Ve lcd 6 *' 0 r h 1 2 , -4- 1 14 1 11 -1 41 - 1 I . b.1 1 1- 18* 44/ 00.. f I -. .1 - Il. - p=, AR 1 / 1 28- 1,-91?1 4 / 11 1 ,44 \ * 0 / *44 0/ , ~ friff~33- -I-t x.z\7'.-%-26 MJ,- F-- -_7 ~l PA 1* i - - 9 Ill 4 P/4 0/ 0/ 12 e ~ 41 / Â£ ~ < ~/---4-â‚¬overed-~-- .44- 1_ '.3*\- 1 1 ' piefd,t,j'.2 -_i'<7** 1 Bush -. *4Â» 7.7* F.k .11.-21 -12.-157-2--9 '9 -4- --- 4.- -64Â§18<EVP.~Y 1 0., ri -&*Â« P r 1 6 1/ 1 4 ~1'49 Bush~ k /k / / i 0 601Â«Â©ne *9 /44 1 1 cooet- 4211' / / 4 402<- A-- 0 , /VPSDS,71 14 45.00' 97Â°46 3/44* i a Found #5 Rebar ~ fi ..2 A A. 1 4 T 'â€¢.Â·.4 I . 4 4 ~48~Tree ~~ 1 Top Back -4 1 of Curb Lot Zoe 4 0â€ž 207 Page 1 of 1 .. Amy Guthrie From: Amy Guthrie Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:10 AM To: 'John Muir'; 'Alicebrien@aol.com' Subject: 332 W. Main John and I spoke briefly the other day and I am under the impression that there is still work in progress on your design for the 332 W. Main Street project. The project has been continued at HPC 9 times since the original application in August 2005. I think your goal was to be on this Mar. 8th date for sure. bitt since that isn't happening (I haven't received drawings) I am putting one last continuance on HPC's agenda and after that we will declare your application inactive. I-IPC's agendas are very booked right now and I can't keep holding spots for you via coiitinuances and putting other people off to later dates. Tile first available agenda at this point is May 1 Oth. I will ask LIPC to continue to then unless you want to pick some other date off in the future. but whatever date is selected is the last time that I can recommend a continuation and I am going to require that you submit your drawings by April 12th. one month in advance of the hearing so that I can put someone else in your place if you aren't ready. 1 truly do not mean to sound nasty. there is just way too much need for agenda spots in front of HPC right now. Let me kiiow- by this Thursday at noon if you want some date other than May 10th. Otherwise, that will be it. Thanks. Amy Guthrie City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 (p) 970-429-2758 (f) 970-920-5439 www.aspenpitkin.com 2/28/2006 .. December 5.2005 Alice Brien 332 W. Main Street 1 1 :i' Li i ); OF ASPEN r. Aspen. CO 81611 RE: 332 W. Main Street I)ear Alice: Following is clarification about development options for 332 W. Main Street. Please refer to the Mixed Use Zoning District from the Municipal Code for more information. The property at 332 W. Main Street is 4.500 square feet in size. It can be used fbi- a single-family house. multi-fainily housing. mixed use. or commercial only. Each of these uses has implications in terms of allowable square footage and development rights. This letter focuses only on mixed use as you have expressed this as a goal. Currently the historic portion of the building is in office use. and the 1960% rear addition contains one dwelling unit. The Municipal Code defines this apartment as a "multi- Family housing unit. The City has regulations in place that are meant to prevent the total [oss of living units that liave typically been occupied by locals over the years, therefore in order to demolish this unit (meaning to remove 40% or more of the walls and/or root). or convert it into commercial space you will have to address the mitigation regulations contained iii Section 26.530.040 of the Municipal Code. If the existing unit is replaced with one that is exactly the same size and same number of bedroonis as exists now. 110 further action is needed and the new unit will not have to be deed restricted as affordable housing. If the existing unit is replaced with one that has the same number of bedroonis. but larger square footage, the new unit still will not have to be deed restricted as affordable housing. however affordable housing mitigation equal to the percentage that the unit has increased in size is required. This mitigation can be constructed on the site. but since it is likely to be a fraction of a unit (unless you double the size of the original). cash in lieu payment may be preferable. The Housing Authority will calculate the payment amount. Oiice the issue of demolition of the old unit has been addressed. you have the right to add one niore free market unit on the site because the property is a 11istoric landmark. No affordable housing mitigation will be required for this unit. FAR. height and setback limitations are described in detail iii the Zone District. The niaximuni allowable is 1:1 (increasable to 1.25:1 with Special Review and additional on- site affordable housing). The total square footage devoted to commercial uses and the total square footage devoted to free 111 arket residential use are each limited to .75:1 .. The remainine issue that we discussed last month was on-site parking. Currently, the property does not appear to have the amount of on-site parking that would be required at the rate of 1 space per 1.000 square feet of net leasable and one space per residential unit. You are permitted to maintain the existing deficit, but must provide parking for any iiicrease (i.e. i f you add another residential unit. one more parking space will be needed.) 1-I PC can grant waivers for oil-site parking. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. To the extent that your revised proposal remains consistent with the public notice that has been issued (which covered demolition and replacement of the existing addition, a rear yard setback variance of 51 and east sideyard setback variance of 3/ and a request for an FAR bonus of lip to 500 square feet) your notice is still good and we should select a realistic date for another contintiance. If other variances, including parking variances, are going to be necessary. we need to re-notice. Thank you for your effort on this project. Sincerely. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer -L 04 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 332 West Main Street, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Demolition, and Variances- Public Hearing continued from October 12, 2005 DATE: October 26. 2005 - COÂ¥,71- . -h) /\Lay lo, 2.O 0 49 SUMMARY: The subiect property is a large two and a half story Queen Anne Style house located on the northeast corner of Third and Main Streets. It is a contributing resource in the Main Street Historic District. The historic structure was built in 1889 as a residence for J. W. Taylor and his family and was considered one of the more prestigious buildings in Aspen with its decorative barge board and exterior shingles. The building has undergone various alterations th since the 19 century including a 537 square foot rear addition, a flat roof carport, and window alterations on the main street fagade. The dates of the alterations are unknown and they are considered non-historic. 1 IPC is asked to approve Demolition of the non-historic addition and carport, Conceptual design for a new addition, Setback Variances and possibly an FAR bonus. The applicant proposes to remove the curb cut and the parking space along Third Street, and to create a single car garage along the alley. Depending on the use of the building, a parking variance may need to be handled at Final review. The applicant has previously noted that the entire structure will function as a single family house. However, it was not recognized that an FAR penalty was built into the new "Mixed Use" ordinance to discourage the creation of single family houses on Main Street in the future. Although 332 W. Main was built as a residence, it has function as an office building with a secondary residential unit for some years. Converting all of the space to residential now would be considered creating a new single family home and there is a 20% reduction in allowable FAR for doing so. Even if HPC granted the entire 500 square foot FAR bonus, the project before the board is 250 square feet over the maximum allowable FAR. Staff and the applicant are communicating about the possibility of including an area of office space within this project so that mixed-use dimensional requirements (2:1 FAR) will apply and the proposed square footage is no longer problematic. HPC should review the project with the assumption that there will be a resolution to that effect. Otherwise. the application will have to be continued for a redesign that makes cuts out the 250 square feet overage. At the last meeting, this project was continued for restudy of the addition with regard to the massing. proportions and roof forms. This was particularly related to the second tloor of the addition. There was also a concern raised by the Chair about the effect of emphasizing this area as the entry into the building rather than the front door of the Victorian. ~ 4 (4 9,02~ 1 .. There are have been no changes in plan form since the last hearing on this project. in August. Roof forms have changed so that there is more of an expression of a full second floor. Staff supports the site plan for this proposal, including the 0' rear yard and 3' east side yard setback variances. The roof forms still do not appear to meet the design guidelines, therefore restudy is requested. Iii addition, there is even a stronger expression of the Third Street door as the primary entry. which is of concern. Because only minor alterations need to be made to bring the proposal into compliance with the design guidelines, the applicant is encouraged to th bring a restudy to the October 26 meeting for review and possible approval by the LIPC. APPLICANT: Alice Brien, represented by L. John Muir of John Muir Architects, Inc. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-41-007. ADDRESS: 332 West Main Street. Lot K & the west 92 of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on tile proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be 2 .. the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time): 1. Why is the property significant? 2. What are the key features of the property? 3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? 5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? The large Queen Anne style house represents the residence of J. W. Taylor; an influential businessman during Aspen's mining days. Taylor was a partner in the prominent Taylor and Bruton Sampling Works, a company that dealt with handling and marketing ores and occupied a full city block in Aspen. The property is locally significant in its association with an individual person and its contribution to the Main Street Historic District. Key features of the property include the unconventional use of shingles instead of the typical horizontal clapboard siding, decorative barge board, half timber in attic and gable ends, corbelled chimneys with flared tops and the original wrap around porch with square posts with flared tops. The house is located within the Main Street historic district among modest miner' s cottages and it is adjacent to large buildings. It is a distinct landmark along Main Street which contributes to a positive relationship between the low scale of the miner's cottages and that of new construction. The owner is undertaking rehabilitation measures to the historic house including removing the lion-historic window in the gable end along Main Street, which will increase the property' s integrity assessment score. Mixed Use zoning for this neighborhood allows for the possibility of significantly more FAR than is currently proposed for the site. It is likely not possible to achieve this maximum and be in compliance with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Design Guideline review Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those guidelines with which staff finds the project may be in conflict are included in the memo. Staff Response: Staff is primarily concerned with the public facades of the addition (west and north). The addition will not be easily visible on the Main Street facade. As recommended in the design guidelines, the height of the addition is significantly lower than the large two and a half story historic resource. As a result, the design guidelines do not require a connector piece between -tiew and old" structures. Staff finds that with the constraints of the property, a connector piece is not a viable option anyway. The new construction is set back from 3 .. the historic resource only 3 feet along the west fag(le. Shifting the addition to the east is not a recommended option. as the applicant is already requesting an east side yard setback variance of 3 feet from the required 5 feet. Staff finds that the site plan is appropriate per the following guidelines: 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. u 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. u 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. Since the last review, the height of the addition has been increased by expressing a true second Roor on the addition. Staff finds that this is a positive change because it helps the new construction relate better to the design character of the Victorian. However. the addition, which is a relatively small form, includes gable. hip, shed, and flat roof forms. A tlat deck area is acceptable, particularly where it is not easily viewed, like in these plans, but the hipped roof form is out of character with this property per the following guidelines. Again, the complexity of the roof plan is a concern. 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. 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 tile context. On a residential structure. eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 4 0 0 0 0 CCE 0 0 .. The architect has simplified the chimney from the last review. There was some discussion at that time related to a proposed window well off of the west elevation of the new addition. So long as a grate. rather than a railing. is used around this feature, staff finds that it meets the following: 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. Staff agrees with the concern expressed at the last meeting about the side eiitry becoming competitive with the Main Street door. The canopy over the door should be functional. but perhaps inore modest. The guidelines state "the historic front door on a primary fagade must remain operable (and must remain in use as the main entrance into the building)." DEMOLITION The applicant proposes to demolish an existing addition on the historic Victorian era home. 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, The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location iii Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural. archaeological. engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: Staff finds that the non-historic addition proposed for demolition meets criteria d. Staff finds that all of the criteria are met for approval to demolish: the addition does not contribute to the historic resource or district. Staff feels that the proposed addition and rehabilitation efforts improve the historic resource and Main Street Historic District. 5 C C C .. SETBACK VARIANCES Staff recommends that HPC grant the requested setback variances for the new addition. This entails allowing a 3 foot east sideyard setback. where a 5 foot setback is required and a 0 foot rear yard setback variance, where a 5 foot setback is required. Staff finds that the requested variances are acceptable considering the constraints of the lot size. and in light of the rehabilitation efforts and removal of the carport and curb cut. The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback 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 requested variances are located on the alley and the rear of the east lot line. Both locations are fairly inconspicuous and do not appear to negatively impact the historic structure or the historic district. FAR BONUS Ille applicant is requesting a 500 square foot tloor area bonus. The following standards apply to an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the 6 .. proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Staff Response: As discussed in the summary, if the owner chooses to use this property exclusively as a single family residence, the proposal is approximately 750 square feet over the allowable FAR. HPC can only award 500 square feet, therefore the application will have to be revised. If the tloor plan of the building is amended to include a mixed use aspect, then there is ample FAR available. Public notice has been issued for an FAR bonus, therefore it remains a part of the application. but should not be awarded until the issue about building use is clarified. For HPC's information, the applicant is proposing or has already performed the following improvements to the historic Victorian: most of existing roof and roof underlayment replaced; portions of rotting fascia replaced; sagging front porch stabilized structurally, portions of shingle and brick repaired or replaced; window iii upper gable. Main Street side to be restored to original configuration; and the entire structure repainted. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: â€¢ approve the application, â€¢ approve the application with conditions, â€¢ disapprove the application, or â€¢ continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant approval for Major Development (Conceptual). Demolition, and Variances for 332 West Main Street. Lot K & the west 14 of Lot L. Block 44. City and Townsite of Aspen. Colorado. with the following conditions; 1. Restudy the roo f forms on the proposed addition, in particular the hipped roo f and the complexity of the plan. 2. De-emphasize the Third Street entry canopy in order to avoid conflict with the Main Street door. 3. The following setback variances are granted: 3 foot east sideyard setback and 0 foot rear yard setback 4. The non-historic addition is approved for demolition. 7 .. 5. 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: Resolution # . Series of 2005 A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. Application 8 .. "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 332 West Main Street, Conceptual Review" 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. â€¢ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). â€¢ The size of a lightwell should be minimized. â€¢ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible. it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. â€¢ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. â€¢ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the pri mary building also is inappropriate. â€¢ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation ofthe primary building's historic style should be avoided. â€¢ 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. â€¢ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building. while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. â€¢ 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. â€¢ 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. â€¢ A 1 -story connector is preferred. â€¢ Tile connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. â€¢ 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. â€¢ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. â€¢ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. â€¢ 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. â€¢ Typically, gable. hip and shed roofs are appropriate. 9 .. â€¢ 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. â€¢ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 12.3 Where one exists, maintain the traditional character of an alley. â€¢ Locate buildings aiid fences along the alley's edge to maintain its narrow width. I Paving alleys is strongly discouraged. 12.6 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street. â€¢ Provide auto access along an alley when feasible. I New curb cuts are not permitted. ' Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. ' Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. , If an alley exists. a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. . Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. 10 .. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 332 WEST MAIN STREET, LOT K & WEST M OF LOT L, BLOCK 44, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2005 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-41-007 WHEREAS, the applicant. Alice Brien. represented by L. John Muir of John Muir Architects, Inc, has requested Maior Development (Conceptual), Demolition and Variances for the property located at 332 West Main Street, Lot K & the west 14 of Lot L, Block 44. City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado: and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected. constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures establislied 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 projects 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 authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties. it must be 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 Additionallv, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and .. b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine. per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code. that the setback 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, Amy Guthrie. in her staff report dated October 26,2005, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 26, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application. found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of_ to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual). Demolition and Variances for the property located at 332 West Main Street, Lot K & the west !4 of Lot L. Block 44. City and Townsite of Aspen. Colorado. as proposed with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the roof forms on the proposed addition, in particular the hipped roo f and the complexity of the plan. 2. De-emphasize the Third Street entry canopy in order to avoid conflict with the Main Street door. 3. The following setback variances are granted: 3 foot east sideyard setback and 0 foot rear yard setback 4. The non-historic addition is approved for demolition. 5. 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 Developdient Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. .. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day of October 2005. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION .Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk .. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 332 1,1.7. Ated .1 -9. , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLE HEAR[NG DATE: r-3 1 lo/03% , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 1 < 02 f L J Q Lticâ‚¬c-<34 LA 6,7 4 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado. hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.3 04.060 (E) of the iAspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~Ff- Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy Of the publication is attachedlhereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice. which form was obtained from the Cominunity Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproo f materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is atta.ched hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) dars prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency. state. county, municipal government, school. service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses ofproperty owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) 9 U Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise. the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (] 5) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. (2~Â«-Q,ts__stz:2*Â£(144 ~Bature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledge4 before nie lhis 15 day of ju '7 , 2005 by-~jl.-4 La -n.U WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL , My commission expires: 4/7-3 ~-9~ , ruel/0 Notary Public '093 .... ..... ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL DCF,I Ill,g ai a point on trle Easterly line o[ a par- ce! of land described in Book 214 at Page 254 of the Pitkin County records whence the Southeast 4 corner ot the Southwest one-quarter of the South- ~ west oneÂ·quarter of Sectior.28 bears South 869.32 feet and East 494.94 feet; thence running Westerly and parallel to the Southerly line of said Section 28. North 88'54'05" West 272.43 feet; thence run- ning Northerly and parallel to the Westerly line of said Section 28, North 00'29'49- West 100.00 feet: thence running Easterly and parallel to the South- erly line of said Section 28, South 88'54'05" East 274.23 feet to the point of intersection with the ~ Easterly line of the aforementioned parcel; 1 thence South 00'32 00" West 99.97 feet along the ~ Easterly tine to the Point 01 Beginning. Pltkin~ County, Colorado. A parcel of land being the southerly part of~ a larger parcel oi land described in Book 377 atl Page 161, also being in the SWI/4SWI/4 of Sec tion 28, Township 10 ~outh, Range 84 West 6th Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, ~ ing more particularly described as follows: ginning at the southwesterly corner of said parcel of land from which the SW corner of said Section 28 bears N 89'36'36" W adistance 01 200.00 feet more or less with all bearings based on the bear- ina Al "'C Afr,1.1Â·.0~ r L.-. I PUBUC NOTICE RE: 332 W. MAIN STREET- MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday. August 10. 2005 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hail. 130 S. Galena St., As- pen, to consider an application submitted by Alice Brien of 332 W. Main Street, Aspen. CO 81611. The applicant is represented by John Muir Architects. and the project affects the prop- erly located at 332 W. Main Street, Lot K and the west 1/2 01 Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. The proposal is to demolish and replace an existing addition. The application requires a 3' east sideyard setback variance, a 5' rear yard setback variance, and an FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet. For further information. contact Amy Guthrie at he Oty oi Aspen Community Development De }artment. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429Â· !758. amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jeffrey Halferty Chair. Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 'ublished in the Aspe~ nmes Weekly on July 24. 005. (2902) 3. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE iÂ» Â«- REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE 'ANCO \ ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 33,2 W Ina I n ST , , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Au A lo, 1005 Â® E.trn , 200.51 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, f/~MA rhult (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: * Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. x Posting ofnotice.- By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted in a conspicuous place on the subject property at least fifteen (15) days pljorto the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 2 5 day of jU b/ , 200 5, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph oftheposted notice (sign) is attached hereto. $ Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Acopy ofthe owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text o f this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature 10 Y- The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this .2 day of Au60ST , 200Â£,by Ai,De.AE. JIT 'TUD,Me.904 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: /Obs-/05 Ou...e'-*.~*_ Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 332 W. MAIN STREET- MAJOR HPC DEVELOMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers. City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Alice Brien of 332 W. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611. The applicant is represented by John Muir Architects, and the project affects the property located at 332 W. Main Street, Lot K and the west h of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. The proposal is to demolish and replace an existing addition. The application requires a 3' east sideyard setback variance, a 5' rear yard setback variance, and an FAR bonus ofup to 500 square feet. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Conununity Development Department. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429- 2758, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jeffrev Halfertv Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on July 24,2005 City of Aspen Account .. ALG SECOND QPRT 320 W MAIN LLC ALLAN ANDREW S C/O GILDENHORN ALMA L PO BOX 2720 154 MARION ST 2030 24TH ST NW ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80218 WASHINGTON, DC 20008 ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AREP BLEEKER LLC BARTON META PACKARD A COLO NON PROFIT CORPORATION PO BOX 1546 4475 N OCEAN BLVD APT 43A 311 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81612 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLAU SETH J BECK GLENN A BLEEKER STREET PARTNERS 11 BLAU JUDITH 16640 D STREET PO BOX 10276 3896 DOGWOOD LN VICTORVILLE, CA 92392 ASPEN, CO 81612 DOYLESTOWN, PA 18901 BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE & DELANEY BLEVINS J RONALD & PHYLLIS M BLONIARZ JOHN W & DONNA L LLC 310 W BLEEKER ST 1839 N ORLEANS ST 164 LITTLE PARK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503 BRAFMAN STUART & LOTTA BEA TRST BROWDE DAVID A CARINTHIA CORP 5630 WISCONSIN AVE #401 604 QUAKER RD 45 E LUPINE DR CHE\A' CHASE, MD 20815 CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHAMBERS PETE/SEND TAX BILLS TO CITY OF ASPEN CLICK JANE DOUGLAS PRICE 130 S GALENA ST 333 W MAIN ST 8611 MELWOOD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BETHESDA, MD 20817 COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA COMCOWICH MARK 10% COMCOWICH SUZANNE 10% 500 DOUBLE EAGLE CT PO BOX 293 2 ADAMS ST #1510 RENO, NV 89511 WILMOT, NH 03287 DENVER, CO 80206 COMCOWICH WILLIAM L 70% CRETE ASSOCIATES LP CRETE ASSOCIATES LP C/O CHARLES CATHCART PROP MGT C/O UNIVERSITY CITY HOUSING CO 3418 SANSON ST PO BOX 1374 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104 PO BOX 1524 ASPEN, CO 81612 BRYAMAWR, PA 19010 CROWLEY SUE MITCHELL DEROSE V F DOBBS JOHN C & SARA F 409 S GREENWOOD AVE 1209 N 14TH AVE PO BOX 241750 COLUMBIA, MO 65203 MELROSE PARK, IL 60160 MEMPHIS, TN 38124 GOLD RANDAL S FISCHER SISTIE GREINER JEAN M TRUST EPSTEIN GILBERT AND MOLLIE 442 W BLEEKER 333 W MAIN ST PO BOX 9813 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1613 ASPEN, CO 81612 . \ Â·11 S -l.- - 1. r r 3 -, . r.---.- , 201 Main Street, Suite 304 Carbondale, CO 81623 201 Main Street, Suite 304 Carbondale, CO 81623 ..ilt.IIi. li ilii i iii 81622#2216 ili!~!fil~~il|ii:,12~1!|lilili~lililitill!111!1213111111 iIA PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 332 W. MAIN STREET- MAJOR HPC DEVELOMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 10,2005 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Alice Brien of 332 W. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611. The applicant is represented by John Muir Architects, and the project affects the property located at 332 W. Main Street, Lot K and the west 14 of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. The proposal is to demolish and replace an existing addition. The application requires a 3' east sideyard setback variance, a 5' rear yard setback variance, and an FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2758, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jeffrey Halfertv Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on July 24,2005 City of Aspen Account .. JACOBY FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP JBG SECOND QPRT HASBURGH PATRICK B CASPER J JACOBY 111 C/O GILDENHORN JOSEPH B PO BOX 3928 1402 DLIVAL DR 2030 24TH ST NW ASPEN, CO 81612 WASHINGTON, DC 20008 GODFREY, IL 62035 JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD JNM BLEEKER STREET LLP JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST OF ASPEN 2018 PHALAROPE 432 OSCEOLA AVE PO BOX 12099 JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FL 32250 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ASPEN, CO 81612 KARP MICHAEL MCDONALD FAMILY TRUST PLAUS DEBBIE ANN 3418 SANSOM ST 320 W MAIN ST 3513 CAMDEN DR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 ASPEN, CO 81611 LONGMONT, CO 80503 POTVIN SALLY ALLEN PREIN KATHERYN 10% PRICE DOUGLAS L AND VALERIE 320 W BLEEKER ST 4692 ERIN CT 8611 MELWOOD RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 BETHESDA, MD 20817 QUINN CHRISTINE RICHTER SAM RICKEL DAVID DRAWER C-2 16330 MIRASOL WAY 3928 DOVE CIRCLE SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33446 HUNTINGTON VALLEY, PA 19006 RISCOR INC ROSENTHAL DIANNE SAMIOS CAROLE & NICHOLAS A 2651 N HARWOOD ST #335 PO BOX 10043 PO BOX 867 DALLAS, TX 75201-1576 ASPEN, CO 81612-7311 WESTMINSTER, MD 21158 SCOTT MARY HUGH SHEEHAN WILLIAM J AND SCRUGGS DAVID C & PHYLLIS R RUSSELL SCOTT 111 & CO LLC SHEEHAN NANCY E 365 RIVERBLUFF PL 5420 S QUEBEC ST #200 10 GOLF VIEW LN MEMPHIS, TN 38103 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 FRANKFORT, IL 60423 SILVERSTEIN PHILIP SLOVITOR DAVID & ELAINE SNYDER GARY SILVERSTEIN ROSALYN 3332 PAPER MILL RD 8324 BROODSIDE RD 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006-3722 ELKINS PARK, PA 19027 BRONX, NY 10463 SOUTH CASTLE INVESTMENT LTD SPEARS NANCY TAD PROPERTIES LTD LIABILITY CO 202 N CURRY ST #100 PO BOX 2630 PO BOX 9978 CARSON CITY, NV 89703 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 TAD PROPERTIES LTD LLC TEMPKINS HARRY THALBERG KATHARINE TOWNE CENTRE PROPERTIES LLC TEMPKINS VIVIAN 221 E MAI N ST 323 W MAIN ST #301 420 LINCOLN RD STE 244 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 .. WEIR MARSHALL 50% TORNARE RENE & SYLVIA WANATOWICZ SEBASTIAN CARL E GUNGOLL EXPLORATION LLC 308 W HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 10502 50% ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 1504 DORCHESTER DR OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73120 WHYTE RUTH WOLOFSKY MOIRA PO BOX 774787 129 CLARENDON AVE STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO 80477-4787 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 1 1 i k a -- ' 3 , 4 ,- 11 I. 8,4. 3 PUBLIC NOTICE . 4 1 1 . ~ .11. , - 11 438-A 1 1 1 1 ill,1 PI ~ i J lilli lilli Â»- 1 - 4 - 4 4,/15*15,0,14 1 ..1 11 - Â». 6 4.,fic,!$443,4"ttjl - *- - I 4# N - -0 -- F,4 -7 - . . .. -/. - - - -12 2:7 - - Â«- -v "t'. 27:=a.4. ... . - - -. - ./-+4 4/â€¢ta/*iÂ·%.1/ 2--r - 5,/T~: 7.2.-. % 1 -1.-7 . - 0 dE B.0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 3-*k THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Intern RE: 332 West Main Street, Major Development Review (Conceptual). Demolition, and Variances- Public Hearing DATE: August 10,2005 SUMMARY: The subject property is a large two and a half story Queen Aiine Style house located on the northeast corner of Third and Main Streets, a contributing resource in the Main Street Historic District. The historic structure was built in 1889 as a residence for J. W. Taylor and his family and was considered one of the more prestigious buildings in Aspen with it' s decorative barge board and exterior shingles. The building has undergone various alterations since the 19 century including a 537 square foot rear addition, a flat roof carport. and window alterations on the main street fagade. The dates of the alterations are unknown and considered non-historic. The proposed addition is for a living area, kitchen. powder room and bedrooms that comprise a single family house. The application before LIPC is for the demolition of the non-historic addition and carport and the construction of a new addition and garage. The applicant proposes to remove the curb cut and the parking space along Third Street, and relocate it to the alley accessed single-car garage. The property is short one onsite parking space and will remain so with the new proposal. The Zoning Officer will determine whether HPC needs to grant a parking waver for the nonconformity which, if required. will be discussed at Final Review. The applicant requests setback variances and a 50() square foot FAR bonus in light of rehabilitation work recently completed or agreed to on the historic structure. The proposed addition requires 190 square feet of the FAR bonus to comply with code. Staff recommends that I-IPC grant the 0' rear yard and 3' east side yard setback variances and a parking waiver. Staff recommends that LIPC grant 190 square feet of FAR, rather than the full 500 square foot FAR bonus. Staff has concerns with the proportion of the west elevation of the proposed addition and recommends restudy. Because only minor alterations need to be made to bring the proposed west elevation into compliance with the design guidelines, the applicant is encouraged to bring a restudy of the proportion to the Conceptual Review on August 1 0111 for review and possible approval by the HPC. 1 .. APPLICANT: Alice Brien, represented by L. John Muir of John Muir Architects, Inc. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-41-007. ADDRESS: 332 West Main Street, Lot K & the west 4 of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: MU. Mixed Use. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as-follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the sta# analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Recently. the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time): 1. Why is the property significant? 2. What are the key features of the property? 3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? 5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? The large Queen Anne style house represents the residence of J. W. Taylor; an influential businessman during Aspen's mining days. Taylor was a partner iii the prominent Taylor and Bruton Sampling Works, a company that dealt with handling and marketing ores and occupied a 2 .. full city block in Aspen. The property is locally significant in its association with an individual person and its contribution to the Main Street Historic District. Key features of the property include the unconventional use of shingles instead of the typical horizontal clapboard siding, decorative barge board, half timber in attic and gable ends, corbelled chimneys with flared tops and the original wrap around porch with square posts on flared tops. The house is located within the Main Street historic district among modest miner's cottages and adjacent to large buildings. It is a distinct landmark along Main Street which contributes to a positive relationship between the low scale of the miner's cottages and that of new construction. The proposed work includes rehabilitation measures to the historic house including removiiig the non-historic window in the gable end along Main Street and material restoration. which will increase the property's integrity assessment score. The proposed addition will require an FAR bonus, as it is deficit 190 square feet of allowable tloor area. Staff recommends that HPC grant only 190 square feet of the 500 square foot FAR bonus. limiting any future development. Design Guideline review Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as 'Exhibit A." Only those guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed, are included in the memo. Staff Response: Staff is primarily concerned with the west elevation that faces Third Street, as the addition will not be visible on the Main Street facade. The character of the proposed west elevation of the historic resource is broken into a few different modules that are interesting and unique. As recommended in the design guidelines, the height of the addition i S significantly lower than the large two and a half story historic resource. The proposed addition is setback from the historic resource only 3 feet and does not have a connector piece that LIPC typically requires for a new addition. Staff finds that with the constraints of the property, a connector piece is not a viable option. Shifting the addition to the east is not a recommended option, as the applicant is already requesting ati east side yard setback variance of 3 feet from the required 5 feet. 3 .. 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. o 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. u 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. Staff finds that the wide proportion of the west elevation of the addition does not positively retlect the proportions of the historic building. Staff recommends a restudy of the west elevation of the addition to make it more narrow and maybe taller; similar to that accomplished on the south and east elevations of the proposed addition. Staff is concerned with the complicated gable roof form on the proposed west elevation of the addition and its impact on the massing and proportion of the addition in relationship to the historic resource. The proposed gable roof on the west elevation has a double ridge element on the side closest to the historic resource. This element complicates the roof form and widens the appearance of the addition. The extreme slope of the historic resource presents a challenge to the roof form of the new addition, especially without a one story connector piece. Staff recommends that the applicant simplify the roof form of the west gable end. 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. 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. u Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. Staff finds that the new addition is recognizable as a contemporary addition. The covered porch element incorporates negative space into the proposed west elevation, breaking Lip the mass of the addition and referencing the nature of the historic porch. 4 00 0 6 EEC 0 0 .. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. u A new addition that creates ati appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. u An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. u An addition that seeks to imply ati inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o 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. U An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. u A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change iii material ora differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. Staff is concerned with the design of the proposed chimney and finds the triangular cap inconsistent with the Queen Anne style. Staff feels that a chimney on the addition is acceptable and recommends a restudy or removal of the cap element. There is a proposed window well off of the west elevation of the new addition. located close to the historic resource, and extending out almost as far as the historic resource. As per Section 9.7. a lightwell is generally not permitted on a wall that faces the street. As long as the lightwell is located behind the frontmost wall of the historic resource. it is in compliance with the Residential Desigii Standards. Staff finds that the lightwell will not be readily visible from Third Street and will not distract from the architecture. The application does not specify whether the lightwell will be covered with a grate or surrounded by a fence. Staff finds that the location of the lightwell is acceptable and recommends that a grate cover be used given its intended location. 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. DEMOLITION The applicant proposes to demolish an existing addition on the historic Victorian era home. 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, 5 00 0 .. 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 iii Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic. architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building. structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs o f the area. Staff Response: Staff finds that the non-historic addition proposed for demolition meets criteria d. Staff finds that all of the criteria are met for approval to demolish: the addition does not contribute to the historic resource or district. Staff feels that the proposed addition and rehabilitation efforts improve the historic resource and Main Street Historic District. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. SETBACK VARIANCES Staff recommends that HPC grant the requested setback variances for the new addition. This entails allowing a 3 foot east sideyard setback, where a 5 foot setback is required and a 0 foot rear yard setback variance. where a 5 foot setback is required. Staff finds that the requested variances are acceptable considering the constraints of the lot size, and iii light of the rehabilitation efforts and removal ofthe carport and curb cut. The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback 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 requested variances are located on the alley and the rear of the east lot line. Both locations are fairly inconspicuous and do not appear to negatively impact the historic 6 .. historic structure or the historic district. Staff recommends HPC discuss the adjacent structure to the east to determine whether the 3 foot setback will have an adverse impact. FAR BONUS The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets al! applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing or has already performed the following improvements to the historic Victorian: most of existing roof and roof underlayment replaced; portions of rotting fascia replaced, sagging front porch stabilized structurally. portions of shingle and brick repaired or replaced: window in upper gable, Main Street side to be restored to original configuration; and the entire structure repainted. Staff finds that the proposed rehabilitation of the historic resource qualifies this project for an FAR bonus. The proposed addition is deficient 190 square feet of FAR. Staff recommends that HPC grant 190 square feet of the maximum 500 square foot bonus to allow the proposed addition to be built. 7 .. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: â€¢ approve the application, â€¢ approve the application with conditions, â€¢ disapprove the application, or â€¢ continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant approval for Major Development (Conceptual). Demolition, Variances, and an FAR bonus for 322 West Main Street, Lot K & the west /2 of Lot L, Block 44. City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the proposed chininey cap element for HPC Final Review. 2. Restudy the proportion of the proposed west elevation. 3. Restudy and simplify the double ridge roof form of the west elevation of the new addition. 4. The following setback variances are granted: 3 foot east sideyard setback and 0 foot rear yard setback 5. A 190 square foot FAR bonus is granted in light of rehabilitation to the historic resource. 6. The non-historic addition is approved for demolition. 7. 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 1 listoric Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension ofthe 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: Resolution # , Series of 2005 A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. Application 8 .. "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 322 West Main Street, Conceptual Review" 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. â€¢ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). â€¢ The size of a lightwell should be minimized. â€¢ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. â€¢ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. â€¢ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. â€¢ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. â€¢ 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. â€¢ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. â€¢ 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. â€¢ 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. â€¢ A 1 -story connector is preferred. â€¢ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. â€¢ 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. â€¢ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. â€¢ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. â€¢ 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. 9 .. â€¢ Typically. gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. â€¢ 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. â€¢ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines sliould be avoided. 12.3 Where one exists, maintain the traditional character of an alley. â€¢ Locate buildings and fences along the alley's edge to maintain its narrow width. â€¢ Paving alloys is strongly discouraged. 12.6 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street. â€¢ Provide auto access along an alley when feasible. â€¢ New curb cuts are not permitted. â€¢ Whenever possible. remove an existing curb cut. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. â€¢ Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. â€¢ if an alley exists. a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. â€¢ Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. 10 .. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), VARIANCES, AND FAR BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 322 WEST MAIN STREET, LOT K & WEST M OF LOT L, BLOCK 44, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2005 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-41-007. WHEREAS, the applicant. Alice Brien, represented by L. John Muir of John Muir Architects. Inc. has requested Major Development (Conceptual). variances, and FAR bonus for the property located at 332 West Mait-1 Stree~-,ot K & the west 14 of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Sectiok 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, *larged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district 1114~1 plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director aniapproved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual \Â¥ajor Development Review. the HPC must review the application. a staff analysis report and the evidendK presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic PreservÂ®on Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicakle Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the applicat*n to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny: and 'iCON!,pt. Ndiwi WHEREAS, for approval of setback vftriances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hea~ng to determine, per Section 26.415.110.C of tile Municipal Code, that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and charactor of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates ati adverse impact to 1~}le historic significance or architectural character of the historic property. an adjoining designated historic ~perty or historic district: and WHEREAS, for approval of an FAR bonus. the HPÂ¢\{nust review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, ~r Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guiddlines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and 42e addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual intigrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its histÂ®c appearance, and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns f~ind iii the historic building's form. materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. Ati appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding: and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained: and .. WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated August 10,2005, performed ati analysis of tlie application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 10, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby reÂ®mmends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), variances. and FAR bonus for the property loca*d at 322 West Main Street, Lot K & the west 96 of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Col~ado, as proposed with the following conditions, 1. Restudy the propked chimney cap element for HPC Final Review. 2. Restudy the proportion of the proposed west elevation. 3. Restudy and simpliffÂ®e double ridge roof form of the west elevation of the new addition. 4. The following setback>ariances are granted: 3 foot east sideyard setback and 0 foot rear yard setback \ 5. A 190 square foot FAR bJÂ®s is granted in light of rehabilitation to the historic resource. 6. The non-historic addition is'*proved for demolition. 7. A development application for.a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a CÂ®ceptual 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 *mmission may, at its sole discretion and toi- good cause shown, grant a one-time extension Â¥ the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for iiI, to six (6) months proAded a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration dqte. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regufar meeting on the 10th day of August 2005. Approved as to Form: i <I << David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney (AMERAA Â£1 .. Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferly, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Li~L JilLA JOIIN MITIR A RCII[TECTS. Inc. HAND DELIVERY TRANSMITTAL TO: Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Aspen/Pitkin Department of Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 CC: FROM: John Muir DATE: July 14, 2005 RE: 332 Main Street, Alice Brien Dear Amy: "6 sets Conceptual HPC submittal drawings for 332 Main Street, Aspen, Colorado for Alice Brien." Regards, RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2005 John Muir ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 201 Main Street Carbondale, Suite 304, Colorado 81623 Phone: (970) 704-9750 Fax: (970) 704-0287 E-Mail: jma@seprls.net F==ful . 1 4\ A JollxM<'IR A El'11] T E C T S. Inc. July 26,2005 Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Aspen/Pitkin Department of Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81621 Dear Amy: On behalf of my client Alice Brien I would like to initiate conceptual HPC review for the addition ofa new residential addition to the historic structure at 322 Main Street. We have transmitted to your office 6 copies ofthe conceptual drawings on July 14. In addition to this letter please find two additional copies ofthe drawings and a check covering the application and review fee. The application has been noticed and posted as ofMonday 7/25/05. Overview Existing structure is in the Victorian style. Ms. Brien, with, in coordination with your offices, has already performed or agreed to perform the following improvements: â€¢ Most ofexisting roofand roofunderlayment replaced â€¢ Portions of rotting fascia replaced â€¢ Sagging front porch stabilized structurally, portions of shingle and brick repaired or replaced â€¢ Window in upper gable, Main Street side, to be restored to original configuration â€¢ Entire structure repainted New Construction and Floor Area Bonus Demolition and new construction would occur North ofthe line ofthe original historic structure as interpreted by HPC and would comprise living area, kitchen/nook, powder room, three bedrooms, two bathrooms, 1-car garage, and mechanicaVcirculation spaces 201 Main Street, Suite 304, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone: (970) 704-9750 Fax: (970) 704-0287 E-Mail: jma@sopris.net .. on two above-grade levels and a basement. Proposed floor areas for new construction are as follows: Actual floor area FAR floor area Upper level 565 s.Â£ 565 s.f. Lower level 573 s.f. 573 s.f Basement 694 s.f. 29 s.f. Subtotals 1,832 s.f. 1,167 s.f. Garage 231 s.f. 0 S.Â£ Grand Total 2,063 s.Â£ 1,167 s.Â£ The existing structure is 2,380 s.f in size. Allowable floor area for the lot is 2,820 s.f. Existing non-historic portion to be demolished is 537 s.f Thus, the available floor area is by zoning is 2,820 - 2,380 = 440 s.f. Adding the area to be demolished equals 977 s.Â£ , yielding a floor area deficit of (1,167 - 977) 190 s.Â£ In light ofrehabilitation work already completed or agreed to, Ms. Brien respectfully requests HPC grant a floor area bonus of 500 s.f Requested Variances Parking - existing non-conforming parking count is proposed to remain at one, but space is relocated to alley-accessed single car garage. Existing Third St. curb cut, parking space, and carport are to be removed. Setbacks & linking element - a rear yard setback ofzero and a side yard setback of 3'- 0" are requested, as well as a variance on the "linking element" portion of the residential design standards. This allows new construction to be placed approximately 3'- 0" behind the historic structure, as seen from Third St, thus expressing the corner ofthe original historic structure. Thank you Amy, we look forward to working with you further on this project. Sincerely, ~.1 " 0 CD' Wk FA.â€¢~ L. John Muir, A.I.A. .. J M] A 2,//laâ‚¬*.Alle.a~ ~ Jolix Mi!IR A R C H 1 T}: i' '1' s. Inc , TRANSMITTAL *LAUL i TO: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation, City of Aspen CC: FROM: John Muir DATE: April 12, 2006 RE: Alice Brien, 332 Main Street, Aspen Amy Guthrie, 6 sets revised submittal for 332 Main Street pursuant to May HPC Review. Note: Nanative letter from JMA to be fonvanled to you via email tomorrow. Thanks Amy! Regards, John . , , 201 Main Str&et Cait,ondale, Suite 304, Colorado 81623 Phone: (970) 704-9750 Fax: (970) 704-0287 E-Mail: jma@sopris.net .. .. 0. 0. -1 1 - 9.- 4-. -- - a R:- t 9Â¥ZOPOSE:Â© ''Â·UE*f ,~10Â¥2-la. Plgron-\C_ 219i31*L.-1. 1 f JOHN MUIR N k.. 61*r---ffeijaORS~EX 8-8.C. LK[TE#FÂ¥0~0Lf i_.1 4.IT - ARCHIr['F. CTS, INC 2-11 C Â· -1 1.-joÂ»Â« - . 14-=rjul CARBONDALE COLORADO 81623 201 MAIN STREET #304 -. T- r-11Â·r-Â·"11-1 1 ir, 8'AJITAL#/ft/AMJ A . -3621 (970~ 704-9750 - Tlit 12 3-12 F F=lee:g.Gc it ,%%â‚¬L&71'kl 6(..E..0 .Athlt 1.il.Id,/2-~ -43- GUE>64770'-1 12> 65 ~ C ---- 1(74 - 1/.<4~p .-P 1 -- L Phone: (970) 704-9750 44*744 d salkLGLE:>EDOP T r 0 â„¢4116- U.4 1 2 -1 -1.T- 2.14 RESÂ®IZED 16 2 0 1 't / Fax: (970) 704-0287 0/ AaMEL .Ladew) 0 -_ seteeÂ£$* Ceang- i ~ UPL64*94_ CoN.FlalÂ· 0 P <f . f~_-4.. 0 cir %Â® L-8 7 *Â£(61700Â¥*t Â¥UIT-- /+268â‚¬. a E-Mail: jma@sopris.net Saivatu /~ 1 BU:*Â· Â»BLN,4â‚¬-6 hy 4 Evi#REM= F \ \P y 8%94 S Lty ) -, , .,/|lek / Nmei- . 4 - lod u A r - - - - i j._i, ~kÂ·-.-Â·Â·Â·Â·-Â·-;â€¢hfm ' 1 1,1 \ -Iyl-~--f~(YI?lft'_ 1 Gille# St I (2' Sed.FCAPFE:P (J< o. 449â€¢Li I u dÂ·,Â·Â·rey, I Jr 417 t 37-~ q 6/ 0 t.- 248 40 4/ . 4 1 j...~174 --i Fl- I.U .~~, 2~ - 1 I j=-- . 7 14, 12:4 er& u#.4 * 1- , + 00. -: 3 4 + 1 MerN- Ref' t.-,_,0 - ai el 0-. \2\3%2ut --0. 6.1.' 7 i *72 J 1- ~nr M#bil:mEgN#/4 , A. 00 - V greFY *- eâ‚¬~Â¥* To BitÂ·~ liMMLI .- c '- m , I - coo p c - Â·cy .-f f/6:ZE.,B,-4 41 161*814Â£ (~ L.. ------~f~- If 1 21390 - 25Â»i la ~r %79.21 Co rses.# f~4~01~ 1 11 - .... 'u I 1-4 ~El 1 .... , 42% 7 Et ' -"a--04'*64/X~I.,4/44.A/~T,- - . . lospitar . Snar ir 1 *6 2 f\... ~ ~St /,*te*#26~ 1 Fe ; w.?\Ne. 1 \N /ALODV-(CE HA , NZ. 02>012_ 1 \ golf \(Ger: ALPINCL I -C> 61-L_tWPGr) 510*Ad~~~91 VIC\Nrl-f M,Ad' _ 66â€¢CE.: 17Â®1' - 1 '-04 Ne sed.a . - Ca sc 1 9[-1/L(6/ Styocro ~ee c-p ; r- - 11 Ma 1- <0 1 *U ADIap f ALL-EÂ¥-Â· ACEESS Lou 5/DE>YED- SgrlaAâ‚¬-6 PR>fmer-f U.Ate) r~-- 6 -~ ra KIA ,~6*'~57-16Â£6:r VÂ»421,~yÂ«E F=gcu S !-0 ") 4-1- ID â‚¬-0 1/- 321-,-P - ~ F~ 9-12613Â»kl W.EU_ < 01 r-rE (n Â£ 6 --- 40\~ 4 ./ , O 126Â£42. YARV 1 â‚¬,er'2AELE RE, . 4 1 CposerÂ·IAU. -1 i Y/Â·4;U,*,~~7 1. . V) /-- ~PUsrwb t+l.StoR/4. st-u'Â£3Â« Up -4-5 ~MagetiCL 0~1606.64.- LUUS OP~ Â·â€¢ * ~, . .41 t STRUetuRE, FER BÂ·,FIC. bArreeleer-KEID<4 - k_ 3 I 1- Â» NE,ki STROCORS> ser -4-1] L_9Â» all Â¥:3Â»el eF- t-â‚¬1 2 5-TRucirtoe-S> ,6 e<-IST I Gr 6 tÂ« 1 4 -. 4 1, 1 J vr . 1%-7 -9 \0 -J ISSUED FOR DATE 1 Srnucul.)RE *1 //UKDOâ€¢d WSLE_ PRE-LIM HPC REV. 07/14/05 - 1- ) 1 J 44 2- PRO M/2ir-< Ll 9-176 1 LE < 1 â€¢â€¢ 6 j 41 ~ PS- FLKA ~44# - sj/6176 Li - 4,-z~t# / i --L 11 Li49- DRAWING l--\ ~j -Â» s-1 - PRE-LIM HPCREV. 9-6--- -- 32 DATE - 07/14/05 - PROJECI' T M~ 1 R- D STA 6 6 332 MAIN ST HPC-1 . . . . 0 . . 2,4*ilm- EnIELI,DA-WILLS DIFIOLLSIH Oi NOIJLICICIV C f . . 0 . 0 . . e..... .- 3 k... - my=--â‚¬11 n , -1. E-- ' - - uNED OE â‚¬71-g-1,4Â£* - BlylÂ©AC. SrEL)00#*L JOHN MI.~[R ARCIiITE CTS. INC 11 1 E see*ip - - 1. wiltDÂ»Â£ / 9- I W 201 MAIN STREET #304 1/- WOOP SKA#64-Â£ gL- CARBONDALE COLORADO 81623 â€¢IM'~|~L ,-ZADDAC~ g, ~~L't?$7'IC;Â§0 / Nb~.----------04y (970~ 704-9750 ecou Far (970) 704-0287 F[rBE.026Â©. 2*Â»46,2 Phone: (970) 704-9750 E-Mail: jma@sopris.net 1 1 1.- I jf V ' - % - .1 \, -- f -23~ *Imp k 22*3 11 tr. " SH 10Â«-S US *kthk,00\4 AA_* 9421/1,42Â£3, ~, - -- - =-"'- FlzeR 6 -0 3 1!1- 8 vizz*f . * L - fi . ff! 1 9.-014 sluE> - r ,-11--'-1-2 - - )AlÂ».lamAD CE -ns 44% 142If-- 1 .=Ill,= --- SgpdA 1 290Â¢Et~LALÂ« \612>P nâ‚¬iiffffiFT \04492 **4Â»MEt -Â· WEIAL P~ME) FL-1' -41 F:12Â£)41- 5'-0,3 , Reap FA14.- - Mavv geoexemb SED 2Aâ‚¬352 i - I~E~ *011 FÂ¥a,A tHS:e'Fic- srgectoet g SH,r --1 LAPPEP SED!/LiGâ€¢ r 4 7-34,.,.~ Slp[)46/ -1 l *1./UÂ©ed E G~â‚¬N:e) L-,(+12,4Â¢32 Clz)Â¥1 60Â« VEâ‚¬t: Stbblâ‚¬+ .. 4 4~ WEBâ‚¬r- 904*160 . 8090*D ( ENT>EUP/mON *644*f (AMAH â„¢mgr,1__ 5.c,â‚¬.E,: 1/6.- f LOB 0 0 - 4 - Emu 01 A -~_*s k.4642 of= d.,AKAgE-, ASNED> 1 1 .. .Il.-4. .. . .. .. 0. .I ._---.- il/Lkil 4_L reoeje=TY UNLE, 6Â«DOW Figi-1 ~M .. . 11, 1 1- 41 1 -7 i I.r%, I, ' ,/4 1*4 4 Â»4- & 1 ONE)EP....9. - 6.-(046 0= Wl SIZE-L 1 1 t:094,4 1 Sr,mat:*E> AEâ‚¬NED ' '-19MT 4 * FT, Â· A f 9FirE71 1 'l . f - 14Â»4 1 -1**REN-& kie~_i~fiemli i . /17- 1 1-- 1 1 11 4-6 - 4 - f - . . 44- - 1 1 -Ent 3-1Â· 4 9 - 1 1 ~*Or O\Lâ‚¬42 '(VE- 1 ~- ISSUED FOR DATE ~ 6 1-Â»E' ae 1ST putple- eau>w Â· 7 f . PRE-LIM HPC REV. 07/14/05 4--7L '- . â€¢ .1 *1 0-000*1 Â¥- P*zere#2=M UN,691 WELL 1 *%Â©PE>yri U SE> r--2 , Ir.. .4 -..-I.- .. ..Ill---Ill--- .6 --~ -I#- .. - ..1 ---- .. .- t, 1 -..- - --- 1 BASE,eFE_Fu=R FON *SCCNE>_FUE>R _PLAN -*:IALEE UÂ®0 c f Le'll 56*LE>: 900 - f'-ou Dit.AING PRE-LIM HPC REV. DA'. 07/14/05 PRojiLer 332 MAIN ST HPC-2 0 0 . . . . . EnIELLD flUS DMOISIH 01 NOILLICICIV LS NI NHdSV . 0 . . 0 0 . . T I r-1 n 1 Ol t Block 44 cap K and ie of is ,ther e -Zoning Dept. ' in the by documents Page 942 in-the - - - esotution No. 10 f the Pitkin County t back line to 3 inches hown on this plat with the east side yard setback :yor in and is true described , connections ept as described Fou, s except as Plas r sign of Top 'd parcel, +0124 2 01 3638 Date - EL. er~ t-- Nottee. TUTTLE SURVEYING SERVICES 332 West Main Street According to Colorado law, you must commence 20.0 4... Jr f ~ any hyd action based upon any defect in 226 Heather Lane IL .... ZI ZI;t,~in . r<..."- first discover such defect. In no event may Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Date: 10/21/04 I'7711) 'r'()1) {3771â‚¬7-tt Sl-trvey Plott Aspen, Colorado 81611 this survey De commenced more than ten years (970) 928-9708 (FAX 947-9007) from the date of the certification shown TUTTLE SURVEYING SERVICES /9 1 File: hereon. 0 0 I I . 0 3// /0/>.f 1 . 0\00 0. .. . 0 44 . p. A 0. I. .0 4 .... Irl#liCâ€¢Lâ€¢G~ .. .-. . ' 0 - . 2 .. 41 ' L .. .. .. . I -I I V . I . -,0 . -9-4 rz 4~ - - 2.714- A# I - // '' .=17. .... 0. 0 - I I . .'-'.' . .. I . ./.-5, 1Â« ..6 . , --.1 .2 . . . 90. .. I I l. + I--V-/Ill-~L. ' ... I . G ... .. . I. ... -. ... ... . I. ... ./ -I. ... . .. ./ I . . ' 0Â£.2 I C. - - 0 - I ... .... ..B. .. ..... ... . J. 4 in... I# fl 4 .. -n - . .0 . ./ 0\ , ... 0/ .. .0 . . â€¢p . D ... . I lili - *. -- I - , D. - . / 1 1 . 1 - EL. ... 1% I . I ' '' ...... . A .- . ..... P L- - .... #. I .... - .. I .'/ - 9- I .-I'-I. I . ..-. .... . e ... . . . I . 44 . I .0 -.. .. I. 4 1 4 0 - I I ---, I I. I ... 2 . 4 0 0, i 4 ... -.. . r I .. .... G . -... - I '' . . .# I. . - 4 .1. . ... I. I 4 0 f : . 4 1 j. = t ./ I . 4 : -- 1,0 % -ru 0 0 , 0 1 4 -I - .. ..... .. - 0 - . I.- - -. . . I. . 8.-0 . I ... -.. - - - -. i . A . . -* - .. 0- *. -- I . ... .' -Il . , ' - 0 -0 .. i. . 4 -- - ...... . .... I ... .0 00 , )-.... --a-----Ill-/ . -I- - ...... , . I. .... 0 - 100 H - ' . ./ DIA .. .. , '=P.Milm./4 4. . 0 0 -0 - - . - 'Millill"'ll"iller - I. '' 0 @ .40=-9 -- 0- D- 1.If 2 j . d # 3// .. . 1 fiD .r,- f 0 0 r. .. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENJj)EPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of Citv of Aspen INvelopmett *Dolication Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Ul~ 1~~,fÂ« (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 332 U . m *161 (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because ofthe size, nature or scope ofthe proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent ofthe costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or Cio Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ / 3.2 O.which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $220.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPugap 01 13 By: By: ~ ~- Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: Billing Address and Telephone Number: Reauired 332 Lo .MAIA 57 Aspee g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 9 70 5'f4 - i 9 0 2- RETAIN FOR PERMANENTRECORD D CLÂ¥.ca_ 23-65- ) 7 -9 - 4- ),009-