The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20030423ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 23, 2003 SISTER CITIES ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO NOON - SITE VISIT - 114 Neale St., 308 Park Ave, 470 N. Spring (Meet at 114 Neale) 320 W. Hallam (site visit on your own) 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - Feb. 26,2003 III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. , Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificates of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #9) I VIII. OLD BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS 5:05 A. 5:35 B. 19 E. Hopkins - Conceptual, Cont'd from 4/9/03 -Â»Â» 9 ~14 Neale Street - Conceptual, Cont'd from 4/9/03 jo 6:15 C. 320 W. Hallam - Conceptual, 41-/7 2 , - *X. WORKSESSIONS 6:45 A. 308 Park Ave. 7:15 B. Galena and Main 7:45 XI. ADJOURN PROJECT MONITORING Jeffrey Halferty 428 E. Hyman (former Sportstalker Store) 213 W. Bleeker (Schelling) 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with Neill 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Mike 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus), with Teresa 922 W. Hallam 110 W. Main (Hotel Aspen) 118 E. Cooper (Little Red Ski Haus) Neill Hirst 434 E. Main (Hills) 409 E. Hyman (New York Pizza building) 205 S. Third 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with Jeffrey 635 W. Bleeker 110 E. Bleeker Mike Hoffman 950 Matchless Drive (Becker) 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Jeffrey 513 W. Smuggler (Harman) 633 W. Main (Dart) 920 W. Hallam (Guthrie) 640 N. Third Teresa Melville 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) 323 W. Hallam (Rispoli) 513 W. Bleeker 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus), with Jeffrey 515 Gillespie (Bone) 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) Valerie Alexander 216 E. Hallam (Frost) 533 W. Francis (Gibson) 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) Derek Skalko 135 W. Hopkins 302 E. Hopkins 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: rIPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit o f notice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion - ..f MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning DirectoM~~Alt FROM: Katie Ertmer, Assistant Historic Preservation Planner RE: 114 Neale Street/17 Queen Street, Lot 2- Major Development, Conceptual- Public Hearing - CONTINUED DATE: April 23,2003 SUMMARY: This is a continuation of the Public Hearing from February 26, 2003. This memo will discuss changes made to the proposal. The current application involves. the design of a new, single-family residence and an accessory dwelling unit on the newly created lot. Because the entire site remains listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures," the proposed building must receive HPC approval and must comply with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the Land Use Code. The maximum allowable floor area, 3,945 square feet was established through the lot split. The applicant is also asking for variances from some of the Residential Design Standards. APPLICANT: Henry and Lana Trettin, represented by William Sharples, ShoP Architect and Suzannah Reid, Reid Architects. PARCELID: 2737-073-83-002. ADDRESS: 114 Neale Street/17 Queen Street, Historic Landmark Lot-Split, Lot 2, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-15A (Modepate Density Residential) 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 1 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 Cily 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. The procedures for the review of Major Development projects include a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Apfroval 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. At the previous meeting on February 26,2003, the HPC voiced concerns regarding the location of the garage off of Neale Street. There were concerns about backing out on to Neale Street and there was a recommendation to restudy the garage location. The applicant was also asked to restudy the size of the fagade that faces Neale Street. There were also comments regarding the size of the roof as viewed from the historic structure and the porch as it relates to the historic resource. This memo will discuss changes made by the applicant. The applicant made changes to the screen wall along the Neale Street facing faQade, the fagade containing the garage doors and entry portal, and the ADU parking space. They have also added a basement element and a skylight in the courtyard to provide light to this area, as well as two staircases to provide access. The roof plane lowered in some places and some skylights have been added. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." While the subj ect lot does not contain a historic structure it is still considered a landmark lot and HPC must evaluate the application as such. HPC must decide whether it meets the guidelines regarding new structures on lots created by landmark lot-splits and find compatibility with this particular historic resource. At the previous meeting HPC recognized that the property is located iii a section of Aspen that does not follow the traditional grid street pattern of the town. It is also located on a lot that has topographical features that suggest sitting the proposed building much lower in elevation than the historic structure. These conditions may be taken into considpration when evaluating how the proposed structure fit into the context of the historic building. 2 Chapter 11 relates specifically to. building a new house on a landmark lot. This memo will discuss Staff concerns that were addressed in the previous memo from February 26, 2003. The following guidelines were discussed in the previous memo. Building Orientation 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. o The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. 1 A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. Mass and Scale 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Building 6 Roof Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. o They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. 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. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff maintains concern that overall, the proposed house may not be creating key ties to the miner's cottage in regard to the Design Guidelines. However, as discussed above, the topography of the site and distance of the proposed residence from the historic structure are factors in evaluating the relationship between the two. Guideline 11.1 requires that the entrance to the new house be oriented to the street and that the building be parallel to the lot lines. Staff has some concern that the orientation of 3 000 00 the new house is facing Queen Street, while the historic building is oriented toward Neale Street. However, this part of the City does not have a traditional grid street pattern Guideline 11.2 requires a functional front porch and a clear entry into the building similar in size and shape to those seen historically. Staff finds that the porch area is not similar in shape and size to the porch on the historic structure. The applicant has changed some features of the entryway off of Neale Street that make it more distinguishable as an entry. 11.3 and 11.4 require that the house be in scale with the historic building by breaking the mass down into similarly sized modules, and that the front plane of the building not be taller than the historic resource. . Staff finds that the proposed structure has an overall lower profile than the historic structure. 11.5 and 11.6 discuss how building and roof forms of the new house must be similar to those found on the historic building. Staff finds that overall, the composition of the forms that make up the new house are different than those found on the historic house. However, the shape of the building and roof, and the way it is set into the site allow unobstructed views of the historic resource and will not interfere with the character of the historic structure. The proposal meets guideline 11.10 that discusses the distinction of old and new buildings. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AREAS OF THE LAND USE CODE: The Historic Preservation Commission is permitted to grant variances from the Residential Design Standards per section 26.410.040(D) and 26.222 of the Land Use Code. The Applicant is requesting the HPC to grant variances from some of the Residential Design Standards in section 26.410.040 of the Code regarding new development. A copy of this section of the code is included iii the exhibits with this memo. According to section 26.222.010 appeals for exemption from the Residential Design Standards should identify why the exception would '71) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Axea Community Plan, and (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints." Staff finds that while there are site characteristics that need to be planned around, these characteristics do not create any unusual site-specific constraints that negate an opportunity to meet the Residential Design Standards. Options exist on the site to achieve compliance, therefore, it will be evaluated on requirements (1) and (2). Staff finds the proposed building still requires several variances from the Residential Design Standards. The variances will be addressed one by one: 26.410.040(B) (1) Secondary Mass: All new structures shall locate at least ten (10) percent of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached 4 from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and accessory dwelling units are examples Of appropriate uses for the secOndary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of secondary mass shall be dejined as an element not less than six (6) feet in -width and ten (10) feet in length with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Staff response: There is no mass completely detached from the primary structure in this proposal. There is an Accessory Dwelling Unit incorporated in the design. However, it does not meet the standard for a linking element. Staff finds that the proposal does not meet this standard and the applicant will need a variance. 26.410.040(C) (2b) Parking, Garages, and Carports: the front fagade of the garage or the frontmost supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the frontmost wall of the house. Staff response: The garage doors do not meet this standard, as they are flush with the east fagade of the structure. The applicant will still need a variance from this standard. 26.410.040 (D) (1) (a) and (b) Entry: The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet (10') back from the.front most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be talker than eight feet (81 A covered entry porch offifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet (61 shall be part of the front fagade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height. Staff response: The proposal has architectural features that can be interpreted as a covered entry porch. However, the standard requires the porch to be not more than one story in height. The proposal has a deck above what would be considered the front porch, which makes it a two-story feature. Staff finds that the proposal does not meet this standard. The proposal also has a front entry door that is more than ten feet back from the front most walls on both the Queen and Neale Street sides. The applicant will need variances from these standards. 26.410.040(D) (2) One Story Element: All residential buildings shall have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the buildings' overall width. For example, a one-story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space. Staff response: The applicant has made changes to the proposal that lowered the wall height of the west facing fagade of the ADU portion of the structure. Staff finds that this meets that one story element standard and the applicant will no longer require a variance from this standard. 26.410.040 (E) (29) Inflection tfa one (1) story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one story in height along their 5 common lot line. If there are one-story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose the side towards which to inflect. Staff response: Staff finds the north side of the proposed building is one story and meets the inflection standard. There is no need for a variance from this standard. As required by the City Engineer, the applicant has located the parking spot for the ADU off of the existing curb cut on Queen Street. The applicant have given Staff and the City Engineer a letter discussing how the driveway access off ofNeale Street will meet the line of sight and safety standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the new design of the proposed residence in relation to the topography of the site and distance from the historic resource do not interfere with the context and character of the historic property. Staff recommends Conceptual approval with conditions. RECOMMENDED MoTION "I move to approve Resolution # , Series of 2003 approving the Major Development (Conceptual) application for 114 Neale Street/17 Queen Street, Lot 2, with the following conditions:" l. HPC hereby grants a variance from Section 26.410.040(B) (1) of the Land Use Code regarding Secondary Mass. 2. HPC hereby grants a variance from Section 26.410.040(C) (2b) of the Land Use Code regarding Parking, Garages, and Carports 3. HPC hereby grants a variance from Sections 26.410.040 (D) (1)(a) and (b) ofthe Land Use Code regarding Entry. 4. The applicant will pave Queen Street in front of their property to a width of twelve (12) feet, to be measured from the center of the right of way and provide a stabilized gravel shoulder. 5. The applicant will submit a plan for the driveway with line of sight improvements to be approved by the City Engineer. The curb cut and driveway are to be constructed to the City of Aspen's Engineering Standards. 6. The applicant will correct the location of the handicap ramp on the corner of Neale and Queen Streets if the City Engineer determines it necessary. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated April 23,2003 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Section 26.410.040 (B)(C)(D)(E) of the Land Use Code D. Application E. Letter to City Engineer Regarding Driveway Access F. Unapproved Minutes from HPC Meeting on February 26,2003 6 - I Exhibit B 114 Neale Street/17 Oueen Street, Lot 2, Guidelines Relevant to Conceptual Review of the New House Building Orientation 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. o The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. o The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. o A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. o In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. Mass and Scale 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. o The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. o The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Building & Roof Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. o They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. o Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. o Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. o 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. Driveways & Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. 7 - See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. o Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 8 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) FOR THE NEW HOUSE LOCATED AT 114 NEALE STREET/17 QUEEN STREET, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, LOT 2, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. SERIES OF 2003 Parcel ID #: 2737-073-83-002 WHEREAS, the applicants, Henry and Lana Trettin, represented by William Sharples, ShoP Architect and Suzannah Reid, Reid Architects, have requested Major Development approval (Conceptual) and Variances from the Residential Design Standards for the new house located at 114 Neale Street/17 Queen Street, Historic Landmark Lot-Split, Lot 2, 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, the Historic Preservation Commission is allowed to grant Variances from the Residential Design Standards according to Section 26.410.020(D) of the Municipal Code; and - WHEREAS, the City Engineer determined it was appropriate to have access to the site from Neale Street as long as the safety conditions agreed to by the City Engineer and the Applicant are met and that this determination met the requirements of the Subdivision Exemption Plat for 114 Neale/17 Queen Historic Lot Split Plat Notes numbers 7 and 12; and WHEREAS, Katie Ertmer, in her. staff report dated April 23,2003 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended the application be approved; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on April 23, 2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application by a vote of to THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC approves Major Development (Conceptual) and Variances from the Residential Design Standards for the new house located at 114 Neale Streeâ‚¬17 Queen Street, Historic Landmark Lot-Split, Lot 2, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, finding that the review standards are met, with the following conditions: l. HPC hereby grants a variance from Section 26.410.040(B) (1) of the Land Use Code regarding Secondary Mass. 2. HPC hereby grants a variance from Section 26.410.040(C) (2b) of the Land Use Code regarding Parking, Oarages, and Carports 3. HPC hereby grants a variance from Sections 26.410.040 (D) (1)(a) and (b) of the Land Use Code regarding Entry. 4. The applicant will pave Queen Street in front of their property to a width of twelve (12) feet, to be measured from the center of the right of way and provide a stabilized gravel shoulder. 5. The applicant will submit a plan for the driveway with line of sight improvements to be approved by the City Engineer. The curb cut and driveway are to be constructed to the City of Aspen's Engineering Standards. 6. The applicant will correct the location of the handicap ramp on the corner of Neale and Queen Streets if the City Engineer determines it necessary. -i j 1-1 4,1.01~ / 9 64 4 2-7 PA,Â£0 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of April, 2003. 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 2'Z 26.410.040 Ok 44---- o 1. Building orientation The front facades of all prin- Yes. No. cipal structures shall be par- 1 alle] to the street. On comer }MU][Â«1 lots, both street facing 1 i i Â«U Yes./ facades must be parallel to -\Â« the intersecting streets. OIl curvilinear streets, the front -li facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of . the midpoint of the arc of the street. One element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front comer of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. 2. Build-to lines. On parcels :or lots of less than - 1 .Yes. NO. . Yes. 15,000 square feet, at least 60% of the front facade shall 41 M#u be within 5 feet of the nunimum front yard setback line. 9 , -0 e-; j . P--= 1 . On corner sites. at least 60% -#MP~EEM of both street facades. of the building shall be within 5- . feet of the minimum setback' lines. Porches may.be used ~ meet the 60% standard. 3. Fences. Fences, hedgerows, and planter Al'11111. li~111111111 lilli lili N 1 Yes. - boxes shall not be more i==1 A 6-,-~- than forty-two inches (42") *-34/EmiR mur-juiim high, measured from natural Â·â€žÂ· grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made benns are prohib- ited in the front yard set- back. 1 NO. 381 7737 Alf#t (Aspen 4/00) 524 26.410.-040 B. BUILDING FORM. The intent of the following building farm standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing, by promoting the development of accessory units off o f the city alleys, and by preserving solar access. 1. Secondarv Mass. All new structures shall locate at least ten (10) percent of their total square footage above grade in a mass : which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a A 97- 07\ - bi --7 ..:./.2.'a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and 41112 -. 1@11 accessory dwelling units are examples of .- Eb-/.---- _-12\- appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the ~ purposes of secondary mass shall be defined as an element not less than six (6) feet in width and ten (10) feet in lerigth with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. C. PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The intent of the following parking, garaiges, and carport standards is to minimize the. potential.for conflicts between pedestrian and automobild: waffle Â·Â·Â·- ... ... by placing parkingtgarages-,Â·andcarports-Â·on alleys, or to minimize thepresence of garages and catports ~ 42'fE as a lifeless bart Of the strebt'scake where alleys do not exist. !* 9 65 Alley. ; Â· 1. For all residential ~ 1 -LF.ME.JIg | * .4 1 Yes.f:*~.1 uses, parking; garages, and- L.'/0: r.carports shall be accessedÂ· , from an alley-or privateÂ·rodd ifone exists. -11 . - 1/' Street 2. For all residential uses that do not have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall be met: a. + Â·Â·On the street facing facade(s), the width of the , - -=#70 ),/0- c living area oIl the first floor /*aa >p shall be at least five (5) feet reater than the width ofthe IMT C ~Â·-~ : f - arage or carport. 0---1 -Â·9 P-72-12.5 '-1 525 (Aspen 10/02) GQ 01 26.410.040 b. The front facade j- ~ of the garage or the frontmost supporting column of a carport 1 shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the frontmost wall 2 y. 10, o f the house. 1 , LL_ j 4,- x -+ a x. s'=F c. On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size, the garage or carport maybe 4. -M... forward o f the front facade of the house only if the --- --1.4Â«3> -33>-r /- garage doors or carport entry 3-<1Â»5:>/ ./ are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). .0 d. When the floor of a garage or carport is above or , -6 C below the strett leÂ©el, the driveway olt within the front yard setback shall riot exceed two (2) feet in 'OL--2-*t depth, measured from natural grade. < 2' e. - The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four (24)feet. . ..1 f. The garage d oors shall be single stall doors. -~---224' - - D. BUILDING ELEMENTS. The intent of the following building elements standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which.providehuman scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. (Aspen 10/02) 526 26.410.040 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes, town, houses, amd duplexes shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. In the case of townhouses and accessory units facing courtyards or gardens, entries and principal windows should face those features. On corner lots, entries and principal win- dows should face whichever street has a i i i i greater block length. Multiple unit residen- iii L~_LÂ«-~ f- i f ~ tial buildinks shall have at least one street- C f i oriented entrance for every four (4) units, Corner Lot illiillil and front units must have a street-facing Lkf 1 1 I i i 1 1 i I principal window. This standard shall be lifili[Fil satisfied if all of the following conditions ff - Block Length /1 4 are met: a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet (10'0") back from the frontmost wall of the building. Entry doors , shall not be taller than eight . 1-' /10,10Â»211~ A 4 -1 - 1 + 40 4/7Â«-Â»41 \ 1 \Â« - ,Â«Â·952393~ ' - -- b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50): ormote square feet, with a minimum ,10~ -1 4Ik 9~7.- depth of six feet (65, shall ' be part of the front facade. Edtry porches and canopies - ' 1- f - shall not be more than one story in height. - C. A street-facing prin- ,/0--12\\~ cipal window requires that a One / ===I significant window or group 1 - H - M ~ 11 Story ? ':111 lili 11.... - 0 & W of windows face street. Element--*NMUNGFIFICIA.|111 -. / Â· r. . 1 i--Principal 1 .Window.. c . :, Â· 2. One storv element. All residential buildiAgs shall have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width. For example, a .one story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space. 527 (Aspen 400) 26.410.040 3. Windows. a. Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second :2 m 5 11 floor level would typically exist, 1,==90 Window which is between nine (9) and twelve zone" feet (12) above the finished first floor. . 7==r For interior staircases, this measure- 12 ment will be made from the first land- . ing if one exists. A transom window above the main ena'y is exempt from this standard. 7 1 All street facing areas with an exterior expression of plate height greater than ten (10) feet shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of finished floor. b. No more than one non-orthogonal window Orthogonal 0 11 ~ E - shall be allowed on each facade of the building. A single non-drthogdnal -Window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be consid- tred one non-orthogonal window. , Â·,w * Non-Orthogonal W , 3.425 -1 ig )~bqrIP---J# 4. Lightwens. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing 0 -1 facade(s) of a building shall 1 - be entirely recessed behind r-4 the frontmost wall of the , building. T - Street \~-- NO (Aspen 4/00) 528 26.410.040 E. CONTEXT. The intent of the following standards is to reinforce the Unique character of Aspen and the region by drawing upon Aspen's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in designing new structures. 1. Materials. The following standards must be met: a. The quality of the - - exterior materials and details and their application shall be consis- tent on all sides of the building. 6,&- Â£ I = J.- -<2Â»*99';95346' 7 No. b. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For . r--~ _.cm , 1 instance stucco: which is a., + - 6=b==5~r-' j . I Â£ 1 ,-/ 7 :; .. Â· ..... #*%621= light Or non-bearing materi- 4 ... P~tzj==Br=Er=6 1,2 - . . al, shall not beused below a. -<, :9~:R.: 2..:.2~1.3.-2.- ' f - 1 heavy material, such 2% p . -Â· ,47 - :2Â·:.'~ 4 - 7-:r 7 Stoile. r ~ t: Hikhly reflective sur- -3 -.:.Yes.Â· .-p. No. faces shall not be used -as exterior materials. 2. Inflection. The following standard must be met for parcels which are 6,000 square feet or oven a. If a one (1) story building exists directly adja- cent to the subject site, then -- 0 the new construction must step down to one story in I[ImlE' i-- 1 !Â®Elilfilil Umi== height along their common M I #-0 000 TNEINK 1 --1 91 1 lot line. 2 there are one story buildings on both sides - Â·Â· of the subject site, the appli- - cant may choose the side If... Then. towards which to inflect. 529 (Aspen 4/00) ElÂ· 00 - - 26.410.040 =r 1 - i I t (111"' 0 121 012' - A one story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure, or portion of a structure, where there is only one floor of fully usable living space, at least 12 feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one story tall as far back along the- common lot line as the adjacent building is one story. (A5pen 44Â£8) 530 114 Neale / 17 Queen Street Revised Submittal for HPC Conceptual Review 4/9/03 Dear HPC members and staff, The proposal that was presented at the meeting on Feb 26th has been restudied and in a number of cases, revised to address the concerns of the Board and Staff. Following is a summary of the changes and of the additional information which has been provided. Revisions Related to compliance with the Residential Design Standards: 1. Secondary Mass: Original proposal: The staff felt that the distinction between the two story section and the one story section was not clear enough to meet this standard. New Proposal: The screen wall, which previously created a continuous line between the two volumes, has been dropped to create a clear separation between the two story section and the one story section. 2. One story element: Original proposal: In the original proposal the Neale Street faGade was very flat punctuated by window elements, the garage door cut, and the portal to the entry porch. Staff and the Board seemed to feel that a more prominent element was required to meet the standard. New Proposal: An architectural projection has been added which spans the length of the garage and the entry portal. This element creates a strong horizontal one story element on over 20% of the faGade as required by the standards. (The design standards define a one story element as " porch roof, architectural projection, or space.") - 3. Covered Entry Porch - - Original proposal: The entry porch, as proposed, was a covered walkway along the south facing fagade of the building. A portal into the building' s courtyard from Neale Street served as the visual equivalent to the entry porch. It was staff' s interpretation that the fact that the porch was covered by a second level porch created a two story element. New proposal: This proposal has not altered the entry sequence of the building. The applicant disagrees with staff's interpretation of the issue. The porch is defined by a continuous horizontal element (the floor plane) which provides cover to the porch and indicates a one story scale along the fagade. If supporting columns or the roof line elements were two stories in scale, the applicant would agree that this constituted a two story element. In this case, the configuration has a one story scale. In addition, the Neale Street elevation now has a stronger one story element which ties into the entry porch, further reinforcing the scale. I ./ 4. Garage Location and Orientation Original proposal: The garage doors were located flush with the main fagade, utilizing an existing curb cut on Neale Street. The main fa~ade sat on the setback line. The location of the garage was the result of creating a compact house form which impacted the site in as minimal a way as possible. The concerns of the staff and board seemed to revolve around the safety issues of the access along Neale Street, and the large vertical wall created by the fagade configuration. New Proposal: After considerable consideration, the garage location remains at the Neale Street curb cut. It is still the goal of the design to create a compact building on the site with minimal disturbance to the natural contours and vegetation. The location, curb cut, and retaining wall have been reviewed by the City Engineer's office and all the safety requirements have been incorporated into the design and approved by the Engineer. In an effort to breakup the tall vertical surface, the face of the garage doors has been pushed back into the fagade by a foot, and combined with the addition of a one story architectural projection. These alterations interrupt the tall vertical wall surface and reduce the scale of the main faGade, improving the pedestrian experience. 5. Inflection Staff' s original finding was that this standard had been met, and no changes have been made that would affect that finding. Revisions related to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 11 The original position of the staff was that the proposed building did not comply with the elements of Chapter 11, requiring the building to reflect and reinforce the historic structure. It is the position of the applicant that the basic physical relationship of the historic structure and the proposed structure, puts the historic structure in the predominant location on the site. The design of the proposed building further reinforces this predominance by it' s low horizontal form, it lack of detail on the main fagade, and the minimal openings into the building. The applicant believes that the intent of the guidelines is achieved through contrast, in this case, instead of sympathy. In addition, the guidelines state that they are written "to address typical conditions found on residential sites dating from the mining era. These similar principals may also apply to other property types, which the HPC will determine on a case by case basis." (page 89) This site is not a traditional street, nor does it have a pattern of traditional development. It is fortunate that the historic building has retained the high point on the site, which gives it every advantage over the development of the neighborhood. This is an unusual situation, which mitigates the set of problems that the guidelines were designed to address. Problems which arose from the development of new buildings on flat sites and in close proximity to usually small scale modest historic homes. The new proposal does address a number of the Residential Design Standards and in doing, also addresses the issues of Chapter 11. Guideline 11.1 is addressed to the extent that the new one story element reinforces the visual strength of the entry portal, orienting it to Neale Street. While no traditional entry porch is provided as intended by guideline 11.2, there is a more clearly defined line which serves the purpose of reducing the scale. Guideline 11.3 is addressed by the clearer delineation of the two masses on the Neale Street fa~ade. Guideline 11.4 is met both by the physical relationship of the buildings, and by the alterations described above. Guideline 11.5 and 11.6 refer to the roof forms. While the design does not make use of traditional forms, the form is low and simple to the extent that the changes in plane are incremental. Not the complex roof forms of gable roofs with multiple dormers that are more typically seen throughout this area, and which the guidelines were written to temper. Other Revisions: 1. At the request of the owner, a large subgrade space has been added to the area below the courtyard. The resulting visible changes are a light monitor (skylight), on grade in the courtyard, and a stair well down to the subgrade space along the east side of the courtyard. The light monitor' s windows face south and the roof is a continuation of the wood decking on grade. 2. To address some concerns about the size of the roof plane as seen from above, the main roof plane has been broken up by adding some complexity to the low geometric forms, and some new skylights. This should provide more interest on the roof plane when seen from above. Every effort was made to address the concerns of the Board and the Staff in the preparation of this revised design, within the goals of the owner' s program and vision. We thank you for your consideration, ShoP Architects Reid Architects For Henry and Lana Trettin 4/9/03 Attached please And the letter defining the agreed upon safety accommodations for use of the existing curb cut. D iD 4 IL. e ila ut'+ G Nick Adeh City of Aspen Engineering Department 413 Opilok ~5 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Date: 2/17/03 -. I#,ta/ift 5 Re: 114 Neale / 17 Queen Street Lot 2 5 d 0 661- ..AA$ g,10 Driveway Access c .05* 64<4% . i.,414# Dear Nick, b 'PAA V /L ~11103 The owners of the property at 114 Neale / 17 Queen Street Lot 2, are requesting your approval to utilize the existing curb cut along Neale Street for driveway Â·access to Lot 2 for a new single family residence. Though the plat map states that the driveway should access this site from the existing curb cut on Queen Street, the topography of the site in that area discourages that as a point of access. The site is bounded by Neale Street on the west, Queen Street on the south, and two residential parcels on the north and east. The site is generally rectangular and runs the long way, descending along Neale Street with two benches of relatively flat topography and three steps of steeper slope, ranging from six to ten feet of elevation change at each step. The site is particularly steep at the point of the existing curb cut on Queen StreetÂ· Also the driveway at the existing curb cut heads to the east and onto the adj acent site, avoiding the steep slope on this site in that area. The existing curb cut on Neale Street accesses a relatively flat area on the site, without requiring a driveway which would cut through steeper slopes. The characteristics of the site clearly qualify for a condition of hardship relative to the driveway access. The plat allows for the use of the Neale Street access, with the approval of the City ~ Engineer, provided that the appropriate safety.measures are included in the design. The driveway will beÂ·designed, and reconstructed in the same location, to meet the standards Â· recently practiced by the Engineering Department, and as outlined in the Interim Design & Construction Standards document. The line of site safety zones will be created using the standard for an alley to a residential street and some site retaining will be created to allow for unobstructed views to the north. The recommended driveway width with transitional wings to the sidewalk will be created and the required distance to the face of the building will be maintained. In addition, the other improvements to the perimeter of the site will be made as required by the Engineering Department. The handicapped ramp at the corner of Queen and Neale will be reviewed for compliance with the current standards, and if need be it will be reconstructed to meet those standards. Queen Street will be improved with paving along the length of the lot frontage and for the required width and the curb will be stabilized along the frontage. An area of gravel will be provided between the curb and the new paved area and will be graded for appropriate drainage. 412 North Mill Street PO Box 1303 Aspen, Colorado.81612 970 920 9225 v Â· 970 920 7723 f vkr@rof.net All of these improvements will be specifically described on the permit drawings, and elements of the design which are relevant to the HPC conceptual approval discussion will be provided for that meeting. Thank y~,fof your consideration in this matter suzannahZ(*acid-*fERitects ~ \1 6 C: Bill Sharples, ShoP Architects Lana and Harry Trettin, Owners -12 +AL&+ E - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26,2003 Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Teresa Melville, Michael Hoffman, Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander. Neil Hirst was excused. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Intern, Katie Ertmer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of Jan. 8zh and Feb. 12% second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: Valerie, Derek, Michael, Teresa, jeffrey Valerie relayed that the decision was made on 533 W. Francis that it was not appropriate to move the historic vegetation. Michael was elected as the new Vice-chair. 114 NEALE ST. - CONCEPTUAL Sworn in : Craig Pasquarelli, William Sharples, Suzannah Reid Affidavit of public notice was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Katie stated that the proposal is for a new house on the vacant portion of what was a lot split on 114 Neale St. The maximum allowable FAR is 3,945 square feet. They are proposing a single-family residence with an accessory dwelling unit. They are asking for variances from the Residential Design Standards regarding garage door, covered entry porch, one-story element, secondary mass and inflection. Preservation Guidelines: This is modern architecture that we have not really seen before with an historic project. The architecture itself is great but we need to compare it to what is required in historic preservation guidelines which say that there needs to be a strong connection between the two buildings in terms of elements that relate to the historic structure. Guideline 11.1 discusses street orientation. The historic house faces Neale St. and the proposed house faces Queen Street so it doesn't fit that 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26,2003 guideline. The garage doors are facing Neale St. with conflicts with the orientation of the historic structure. Guideline 11.2 discusses the front porch. The porch should be similar in size and shape as the historic. The proposed porch is larger and travels the length of the house and it has a deck above it which is not consistent with the historic structure which is a one-story small element. Guideline 11.3 and 11.4 talk about the massing and having similar size modules. The massing on the proposed house is one large mass and not Sympathetic to the historic structure as we would like. It is not in a small scale and not broken up. The historic structure has a small addition offthe rear which breaks up the massing of that structure. Guideline 11.5 discusses the forms that they should be similar to the historic house. Staff feels that the forms on the proposed house are more complex then those found on the historic house. The proposed roof forms are very contemporary and A-symmetrical. The request for variances are from the residential design standards, the secondary mass. The requirement is that all new structures have a piece that is separate from the main dwelling and maybe connected by some element. There is no mass that detaches from the structure or uses a connecting element.that we feel fits that design standard. The ADU is connected by a deck. Staff does not feel this warrants an exception from the standard. Parking: The standards say that the garage doors should be set back ten feet from the front most faGade. The proposed garage doors are flush with the fagade that faces Neale St. Staff feels that this didn't quite meet that standard. The garage doors come pretty close to the sidewalk and creates a curb cut in a primary sidewalk. The standard talks about the covered entry porch which should be a one story. The proposed porch is more of a two-story element because it has a deck above it. The standard for one-story elements states that the element should comprise 20% of the building's overall width and should be street facing. There is a 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26,2003 one-story element on the structure; however it is at the rear of the building and not facing Neale or Queen Street. Inflection talks about the relationship between the varying buildings. Staff determined that there was no need for a variance from this because there is a one-story house on that side. There were discussions with the Engineering Dept. about the driveway. The plat notes said that the entry to the property had to be off Queen Street unless the City Engineer found it to meet safety standards. After a meeting the City Engineer said the new proposal meets the requirements. Staff was unable to recommend approval for this project. Craig said they met the Trettin's at the International Design Conference where he was a presenter. Coming over the No Problem Bridge is the dynamic way that you would first be introduced to the site and to the house. They did dozens of designs but it became important that the front elevation be facing Queen Street. That is the entry to the neighborhood. The Trettin's moved the historic house up to the hill to its present position. The lot is narrow after the setbacks are into play. Natural materials and rusted metals were chosen to blend in. These forms are contemporary but modest. They designed the house to not disturb any of the original landscaping that exists. The house is almost dug into the hillside. The view plain from the historic house is intact to the mountain and the overall height of the house was lowered to snuggle it into the hillside for sustainability and heating and cooling issues. Greg responded to staff's concern. The proposed footage is less than allowable. They are below 3,500 and the allowable is 3,945 square feet. The ADU has a separate entrance from the side. There is an open walkway from Neale Street or from Queen St. The house really tries to address the comer in two different ways. The roo f of the one-story building is used as part of the family's outdoor space that would be an extension from the living room above. The porch has a band that goes the entire length of the house. The massing has two bars and the inflection was brought down in the back to keep the view plane open and make a more gentle connection between the 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26,2003 historic structure and the new structure. The roof form is a contemporary ./--- - roof form. If we put gable roofs on it would block the entire view plane of the other house. One of the biggest issues was the location of the garage. Either you bring the driveway from Queen St. where we have a very difficult topography and hill would have to kill a lot of the vegetation or use the existing curb cut on Neale St. which is there currently and that is why we located the garage where we did. We wanted to disturb as little as possible. Since the front elevation is on Queen St. the side elevation would be on Neale St. and that would be an appropriate response to the guidelines. With the setback it is difficult because the site is narrow. The plan has three bedrooms in the lower level and a bedroom above. The lower level bedroom have glass so you can open the doors in the summer time and get out into the grass area. We are pushed to the edges on both setback lines. If we had to push the garage in it would make a strange dark overhang underneath one side and we would also loose one of the bedrooms. The idea is to keep the house as compact as possible, get it right, get it in the ground, get the roof low and let the historic house have its presence on the corner and let the new house have its presence on Queen St. Suzannah Reid said this is an unusual site based on what the standards and guidelines were written to address. There is a lot more separation between the two houses both horizontally and vertically. The design is low key and modest with the use of simple materials. Questions and clarifications: Valerie inquired about the cut on southern side of the site? Suzannah said apparently the historic house used to site on that flat area and the cut was behind it. Valerie also asked about the height. Greg said the house is 25 feet and the allowable is 25 feet. Suzannah said if you did a gabled roof it would be measured at the.mid point and it would go up considerably higher depending on the roof pitch. Jeffrey said the historic house was moved and the new access is off King Street. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26,2003 Teresa asked for clarification on the driveway. Katie said the Engineering Dept. determined that they needed to come off the existing curb cut. Teresa also asked what the distance was between the new house and the historic house. Greg said it is at least 60 feet apart. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Gary Nichols said he lives on King St. and the plan indicates that cars will back out onto Neale St. He feels that is a real mistake because cars come up over the hill and they won't even see the cars backing out until they are over the crest of the and headed down. He would rather see the garage off of Queen Street. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Comments: Michael said the applicability of the historic preservation guidelines to this project do not apply. There is no physical relationship between the two structures. Regarding the residential design standards he agrees with staff that changes need to be made to meet those standards. Derek emphasized when we are looking at this project there is a severe non- applicability of the guidelines as to what they have produced. Regarding guidelines 11.3 the massing is handled fantastically well. A gabled roof will not work on this project. This design is very different from most everything that we have seen in Aspen. The roof form is successful because it is conscientious of every surrounding element. The porch design from the double faGade is ingenious solution. Teresa said she appreciates the design and the minimization of the design. We need to stick to our guidelines and keep ourselves accountable. Teresa supported staff's memo that the project is too far from our guidelines. Valerie said it is a great project and feels there is an opportunity for approval with conditions. The residential guidelines seem to work best in the West End where it is nice and flat. We will have less impact to the main street being Neale as it relates to the front of the house ill that you have seven foot retaining wall there to accommodate the entrance off Neale street 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26,2003 which can be very imposing as a pedestrian coming up. Possibly use .-.-- snowmelt or lowering the retaining wall; getting the driveway off Queen Street with some minimal vegetation removal might be a little more sensitive to the site. There is an opportunity to restudy the garage and consider it off Queen Street. Guideline 11.2 refers to the front porch and entrance off of Neale St. The design ideas are great. The portal is a nice interpretation of a porch. Regarding mass and scale the only concern is on Neale Street where it gets really big. What is overwhelming about the fagade is that it is a false faGade. There is an opportunity to do a little separation between the one bar and the other structure and it could be brought down a little and still provide privacy to the users but not be so intimidating to the street. The roof is a fun modified flat roof and it is quite exciting in the pre ect. Jeffrey relayed that the distance between the new and historic house is a great. He also disagrees with the garage off Neale St. It is a very steep grade coming down to the river and would be very problematic. He recommended restudy of the garage doors off Queen Street. Guideline 11.2 refers to the porch connection and the scale entity. Jeffrey said he has some concerns with guideline 11.3 and 11.4 and the historic vegetation. Guideline 11.6 relates to roof forms. He agrees that this is not a gable form but the mass is approximately 65 feet. When you are in the historic resource and looking down that is a large roof form and possibly needs restudied even though it is unassuming. He suggested a little more height. The garage wall form creates an intimate privacy but it also does shield its way away from the street which is also purposeful and it is a very busy street. With some modification the project can work but he supports staff s recomInendation. Suzannah said with the garage offNeale Street and the trade off you end up with a much more building appearing on the site. We are limited to using the shared access that exists by the Engineering Dept. Greg said they worked for a year and a half on this project and the most difficult issue has been the location of the garage. Michael said one of his concerns is that we might weaken the design for no particularly good reason. Derek dittoed Michael's concerns. He would 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 1MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26,2003 pre fer that the proj ect not be shut down due to fear o f the unknown. There are a lot of things in this project that do not neatly cinch up and apply. David Hoefer reminded the board that their decisions or recommendations need to be tied into the criteria. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development of 114 Neale Street to Mayl 4th; second by Valerie. Motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Valerie, Derek, Michael, Teresa, jeffrey Jeffrey reminded the board that this is a landmark lot. Suzannah requested the board address specifically the garage and if it works on Neale Street. Jeffrey: Guideline 11.2 regarding the porch needs restudied. Guidelines 11.1 orientation needs restudied. Guideline 11.6 concerning the roof form and 11.10 need restudied. The residential design standards 26.410.040 regarding parking garages and car ports needs to be re-thought. The one story element also needs addressed. The garage location because of the safety issue needs looked at on Queen Street. Valerie said she gave her direction previously. Teresa said she doesn't mind of the garage is on Neale Street and the garage door being flush doesn't bother her. She is as traditionalist and likes a front porch with a little cover. She also feels their needs to be a little more tie in to the historic house up the hill. Michael said after evaluating carefully the location of the historic structure and the landforms and the slope of the hill it is his finding that the historic preservation guidelines are largely inapplicable here but there is so little physical connection between the historic structure and the proposed new home. With regards to the specific question of the garage he shares Gary Nichols concern about backing up onto Neale Street in the winter. Possibly 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2003 cars could enter Neale Street going forward. In terms of general guidance the residential design standards are important here for a lot of the reasons Teresa mentioned. Little damage to the overall design could occur to meet those standards. Derek said obviously the garage is the main concern of the board. He does not share the same concerns. Guideline 11.1,11.2,3,5,6 they are applicable as the house is an excellent design. The material palate is conscientious. The design inspires me and makes me want to continue to be a better- architect. 819 E. HOPKINS - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES MOTION: jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 8 * '1 t MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Katie Ertmer, Assistant Historic Preservation Planner RE: 819 E. Hopkins- Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, Variances, and FAR Bonus- Public Hearing, Continued from April 9,2003 DATE: April 23,2003 SUMMARY: This property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and contains a Victorian home. The proposal before HPC involves major conceptual review, on-site relocation, and partial demolition. The applicant will be submitting a PUD application for review by P&Z and City Council to establish the dimensional and open space requirements of the project. The applicant has proposed changes to address HPC and Staff concerns. This memo will discuss the changes proposed by the applicant. APPLICANT: Tom and Darlyn Fellman, represented by.Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-08-032. ADDRESS: 819 E. Hopkins St., Lots D-F, Block 31, City and Townsite ofAspen, Colorado. ZONING: IUMF (Residential Multi-Family) CURRENT LAND USE: 9,000 sq. ft. lot, single-family residence 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 1 r-~71 April 9,2003 RE: 819 East Hopkins To Whom It May Concern: I am a property owner of Unit 3,80 1 East Hopkins Ave. and therefore a neighbor of 819 East Hopkins. I have reviewed the proposal submitted by Rally Dupps of Consortium Architects and I support this proposal in full and without reservation. I feel the size and density of this prejects is appropriate and the restoration of the historic yellow house js not only much needed, but much appreciated. This project, in my opinion, would be a wonderful addition to the area, and at the same time, protect and preserve the historical house that sits on this property. Most Sincerely, 14\ 0% Robert H. Eggleston.. 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: A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." This memo will discuss the changes- proposed by the applicant. In response to concerns voiced in the Staff memo dated April 9, 2003, and their own amendments to the application, the applicant brought proposed changes to the HPC meeting on that date. These changes included: on the larger building; adding a shed roof to the front porch and reducing the size of the deck above the porch, moving the lightwell from the front of the building to a location under the front porch, moving the deck along the alley to the west side and extending the deck on the north eleVation (behind the cottonwood tree.) On the smaller, new building there is a proposed new loft element. HPC continued the hearing in order to have time to consider the amended application and to allow the architect time to address the changes that were proposed at the hearing by HPC and public comment. There were concerns regarding the deck above the front porch, the massing of the east faQade of the larger building, and the height of the roof of the staircase element on the larger building. Iii regard to the Parks Department's concerns about the cottonwood tree, the proposed design is not the most sensitive or optimal way to preserve the tree, but it will work. The current proposal places the tree in a courtyard setting that removes it from the public setting, but does preserve it. The Parks Department worked with the applicant to come up with some way to make the proj ect work with all of the site constraints and the applicant's desire for the type of development proposed. There will be very specific construction and preservation guidelines related to the preservation of the tree if the application is approved. Staff has evaluated the amended application. Because the proposed new building is freestanding and is not ali addition to a historic structure, on a Landmarked property, Chapter 11 provides the relevant guidelines. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. o A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. 2 o The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. o The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Staff still has concerns regarding the front porch. The proposed porch is a much larger element than the historic porch. The height of the proposed porch roof is similar to the roof height of the historic house and Staff finds this to be out of scale with the historic structure. There is still a deck element proposed above the porch, which does not meet the Residential Design Standards and will be discussed later in this memo. Staff maintains their finding that a one-story porch that is more compatible in size with the historic porch would be more sympathetic to the historic resource. Staff finds that the applicant should lower the height of the porch to make it more compatible with the historic resource And that it should be made a one-story element without any deck element that is accessible from the second floor. - -Ii (Ul!1, i~ J jl r: it r.Â£ 2 Â©Ii-?hh-2-firf' - I InI IF--'ill 174| r- I=-1---Fij~ll'jIGPIc~r-= -1 1 - 1 11 1 11 1 The applicant has reduced the roof height of the entryway/staircase element on the larger th building. At the HPC meeting on April 9 a Commission member requested that the applicant lower the height of this element. Staff agrees with this request. The following is an illustration of the changes to this element. J /0-14= 4/IN I I -r=T -1-1-. I 1 b-71 El 03 , El 1 i =L ..1121 ~ f- - =T.W. L462 :..:L.141 -L A- Â»th ~ 621 / ,. Eli'22.3 . 1. liN A lin':UE 'Im E 1 11 -/\ H 11 Original North New North. Original West New West Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation 3 40Â«t The cross gable has been replaced with shed dormers and the overall height has been reduced very slightly. The new design relocates the deck that was proposed along the alley, to the west side of the larger building. Staff has no concerns There is a proposed extension of the deck along the portion of the faGade behind the cottonwood. Staff has no concerns The applicant has proposed roof height changes for the larger building that provide some breaking up of the long wall that was previously proposed along the east side. Staff finds that the lowering of the roof in the middle of this portion of the building provides a visual breakup of the building. The applicant has proposed adding a pop-top, loft addition to the smaller, new structure that contains the historic shed. Staff has concerns that this loft addition detracts from the character of the historic shed. Staff also finds that it adds to the mass of the site. The original proposal for this building was a one-story structure that incorporated the shed as a garage bay. Staff finds that the applicant should eliminate the pop-top loft element and return to the original proposed height in order that it more appropriately addresses the historic character of the shed. The following illustrate the proposed changes. A ~Â·123--1-'EZE--Â·ir X 1 $.*-<*-XW#' --- m= i Â£ 4\ , L-- -- -lieivE**d EED /,/fi\> 4 4 1 M r" -7 I b 1 1 : 1 }u:+1 Ill....] 11 1 Previous Proposal Current Proposal Previous Proposal Current Proposal The amended application also includes changes to some of the windows. Staff finds that the newly proposed windows are more compatible with the historic resource. Staff finds that this site has specific constraints that have to be dealt with. This site contains two historic structures and a historic tree and is zoned Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF.) The proposal must be evaluated taking into consideration all of these constraints as well as how the proposed development relates to the preservation of the historic resources. ON-SITE RELOCATION The intent of the Historic Preservation ordinance is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical 4 relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to a particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. 16.415.090.C Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; gr 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; 9[ 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: The applicant has addressed Staff concerns with the relocation of the historic structure. Moving the historic house to the west side of the property and next to the adjacent historically designated property is a more appropriate relocation of the historic resource. Chapter 8 of the Design Guidelines discusses Secondary Structures. The applicant is proposing to turn the historic shed so that it faces east instead of north. The proposal includes incorporating the shed into the garage that is to be located at the rear of the new one-unit building. The applicant is proposing to maintain the exterior and original roofline of the shed. Chapter 8 encourages the adaptive reuse of a secondary structure if it dan be preserved and continue to serve a function. Because the applicant is proposing an "adaptive reuse" of the historic shed, rather than demolition Staff finds the relocation to be appropriate. DEMOLITION 26.415.080(A)(4)The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that applipation meets any one of the following criteria: 5 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, RE b. The structure is not strui:turally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, or c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, 91: 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: The applicant is no longer requesting to demolish the historic shed at the rear of the property. They are requesting to do a partial demolition of several sides of the shed in order that it may be adapted into use as a garage for one of the units. Staff finds this partial demolition to be appropriate. Staff finds the partial demolition of the small addition at the rear of the existing house is appropriate. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AREAS OF THE LAND USE CODE: The proposed changes to the proj ect have addressed Staff' s concerns regarding some of the Residential Design Standards. There is now a street oriented entrance on the new building which meets the stahdard. The proposed changes also address Staff concerns regarding inflection. The historic, one-story building is now adjacent to the neighboring one-story historic building and the two-story portion of the proposed new construction is adjacent to a neighboring two-story building. The proposed changes include the use of three non-orthogonal windows on the south facing faGade of the new two-unit building. The proposal also includes a two-story porch element. HPC is required to make a recommendation to the P&Z regarding variances from these standards. According to section 26.222.010 appeals for exemption from the Residential Design Standards should identify why the exception would "(t) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more ejfectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints." 6 Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(b) Windows No more than one non-orthogonal windows shall be allowed on each fagade of the building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with multions and still be considered one non-orthogonal window. Staff Response: While Staff does not recommend approval of variances from the Residential Design Standards, Staff finds the proposed use of a non-orthogonal window in each of three gable ends on the alley facing fagade to be in the least visible location on the proposed building. Section 26.410.040(D)(2) One Story Element All residential buildings shall have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width. For example, a one-story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space. Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed porch is a two-story element that does not meet the standard. Staff recommends the applicant restudy the front porch. Staff also finds that any sub-grade construction on the site must remain inside the property boundary and the City Engineer must approve any overhang encroachments. STAFF RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT There were comments from the public both for and against this project. There was a request from HPC to specifically address a letter submitted by the representative of a number of the neighbors. Staff will address the concerns outlined in the letter. In regard to Design Guideline 11.3, which discusses constructing a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic building and subdividing larger masses. The neighbors had concerns that the two-story building is quite large when compared to the historic building. Staff finds that the zoning of the site combined with the presence of the historic buildings and the large cottonwood tree are conditions Â·that must be considered, along with the fact that the proposed building sits in a neighborhood of multi-family projects. The applicant has 9,000 square feet of potential FAR allowed by zoning for this site. The proposed development has been broken down into three masses. The applicant has all of the new construction away from the historic resource and has not included any additions to the historic house. Relocating the historic resource next to the adj oining historic property maintains a positive relationship between the two historic buildings. The amended application includes lowering the roof height in the middle of the larger building, which reduces some of the mass. In regard to Guidelines 11.2, and 11.4, which discuss the front fa~ade and porch, Staff finds that the two story design is driven by the site constraints and the proportions of the front faGade of the new building are generally related to Victorian design. The porch in the amended application is a two-story element and should be reduced to a one-story element. The neighbors agreed with Staff s assessment regarding the porch. 7 In regard to Guideline 11.9, which discusses building components similar in size and shape to the historic resource, the neighbors had concerns about the windows and the massing being not of similar size and shape. Staff finds that the proposed changes to the windows are more compatible to the historic resource. The massing was discussed above. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the applicant has addressed Staff concerns regarding the massing, and the window shapes and sizes. Staff recommends approval of the Conceptual plan, On-Site Relocation, and Partial Demolition for 819 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will restudy the size of the front porch of the new, two-unit building in order to make it a one-story element. 2. The applicant will eliminate the loft element on the smaller of the new buildings and return the roof height to one story. 3. HPC recommends to the Planning and Zoning Commission that they grant a variance from Residential Design Standard 26.410.040(D)(3)(b) allowing the applicant to install three non-orthogonal windows on the south fagade of the larger new building. 4. HPC recommends to the Planning and Zoning Commission that they not grant a variance from the Residential Design Standard 26.410.040(D)(2) regarding a one-story element. 5. An application for Final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within one year of April# 2003 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003, approving Major Development (Conceptual) for 819 E. Hopkins St., Lots D-F, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado." Exhibits: A. Staff Memo Dated April 9,2003 B. Relevant guidelines C. Applicable Residential Design Standards D. Revised Drawings and Elevations E. Letter from Neighbor Representative Natasha Saypol 8 Exhibit B Relevant Design Guidelines for Conceptual Development Review, 819 E. Hopkins Priu ate Yard 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. o Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. o If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. Treatment of 1Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. o Features important-to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. o Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. o Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. 1 Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. Replacement Windows 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement,window to the original in its design. o If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 9 0O 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. o. A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's easing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. Treatment of Existing Doors These guidelines for the treatment of doors apply primarily to front doors, although they do include secondary entrance doors and screen doors. Greater flexibility can be applied when replacing side and rear doors when they are not visible from the public right-of-way. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. - o Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. o If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. o Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. o For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door. o Match the frame design and color of the primary door. If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. Replacement Doors 5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. Simple paneled doors were typical. Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 10 0 0 0 0 2 00 Energy Conservation 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. o Generally, wood storm doors are most appropriate when the original door is wood. o If a storm door is to be installed, match the frame design, character and color of the original - door. Treatment of Porches 5.1 Preserve an original porch. o Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch. Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. Keeping an open porch is preferred. Enclosing a porch with 01)aque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable. o Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted. 'The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged. Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. o This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. Porch Replacement 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. o Use materials that appear similar to the original. o While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. o Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. 11 00 00 0 0 91 0 o The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. Treatment of Architectural Features Preserve significant architectural features. Repair only those features that are deteriorated. Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. o Isolated areas of damage may be.stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. o Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. o Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which traditionally was a smooth painted finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. o The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building's heritage. o When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. o Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. o Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. o It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities. Replace only those portions that are beyond repair. Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence. Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible. A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass comice may be considered at the top of a building. 12 00005 0 05 Oon Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. o Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. o Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. o The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. Secondary Structures 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. o When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. o A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. See Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 13 Â°Of 0 000 0 004 0 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. 3 On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. o Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and desig:n of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. o Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground leyel is inappropriate. o Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it en-hances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. o In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). o The size of a lightwell should be minimized. o 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. Existing Additions 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Buildings on Landmarked Properties Building Orientation 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. o The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. o The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. o A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. o In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. Mass and Scale 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. 14 The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. The front should include a one-story element such as a porch. Building & Roof Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. o They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. 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. Architectural Details 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. o These include windows, doors and porches. o Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. Highly complex and omately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. Driveways & Parking 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. 3 Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 15 00 000 00 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 819 E. HOPKINS, LOTS D-F, BLOCK 31, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. SERIES OF 2003 Parcel ID #: 2737-182-08-032 WHEREAS, Tom and Darlyn Fellman, represented by Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects, and Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC, have requested Major Development approval (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Partial Demolition, for the property located at 819 E. Hopkins, Lots D-F, Block 31, 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, the application included a request for approval of on-site relocation of the historic house and barn. In order to approve Relocation of a historic structure, per Section 26.415.090.C, the HPC must find that the proposal meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; 91: 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; 91: 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and WHEREAS: the application included a request for partial demolition of a non-historic portions of the historic residence and portions of the historic shed. In order to approve partial demolition, per section 26.415.080(A)(4) the HPC must find 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, gr b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure,or c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, the HPC recommends to the Planning and Zoning Commission a variance from the Residential Design Standard in section 26.401.040(D)(3)(b) allowing two non- orthogonal windows on the alley facing fagade of the new building; and WHEREAS, Katie Ertmer, in her staff report dated April 23,2003 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended the application be approved, with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on April 23, 2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application by a vote of to . THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC approves Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Partial Demolition for the property located at 819 E. Hopkins, Lots D-F, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado finding that the review standards are met, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will restudy the size of the front porch of the new, two-unit building in order to make it a one-story element. 2. The applicant will eliminate the loft element on the smaller of the new buildings and return the roof height to one story. 3. HPC recommends to the Planning and Zoning Commission that they grant a variance from Residential Design Standard 26.410.040(D)(3)(b) allowing the applicant to install three non-orthogonal windows on the south faâ„¢le of the larger new building. 4. HPC recommends to the Planning and Zoning Commission that they not grant a variance from the Residential Design Standard 26.410.040(D)(2) regarding a one-story element. 5. An application for Final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within one year of Apri]492003 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of April, 2003. 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 .410.040 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes, town, houses, and duplexes shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. In the case of townhouses and accessory units facing courtyards or gardens, entries and principal windows should face those features. On corner lots, entries and principal win- dows should face whichever street has a 1!zili 11 1 ili!!fill j greater block length. Multiple unit residen- i I i ! ! I-i ' 1 Ual buildinks shall have at least one street- ilifitii oriented entrance for every four (4) units, r-) :1111!17 co7er Lot b i ! i i i i i and front units must have a street-facing L,~7 1 1 li i 1 1 i I principal window. This standard shall be I i I i i I I.li ..1 satisfied if all of the following conditions - Block Length - are met: a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet (10'0") back from the frontmost wall 1 - of the building. Entry doors . = shall not be taller than eight b. A covered entry 1 1 \39 7/ - porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a Imnimum depth of six feet (69, shall ~ - be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height. C. A street-facing prin-- E cipal window requires that a One -f- 2- significant window or group of windows face street. Story~ )REp[Â® -El- - E- Element-> ~i.Hil#flb i<dzh:.'I,h'lll'lili .- . - - . -rÂ· +-Principal Window. 2. J One storv element. All residential buildings shall have a one-story street facing element the tdth of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width. For example, a .one story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space. 527 (Aspen 4/00) e *ki &-E E GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. RONALD GARFIELDJ 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ANDREW V HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DAVID L. LENYO TELEPHONE MATTHEW C. FERGUSOPP E-mail: (970) 925-1936 CHRISTOPHER J. LaCROIX:'2 atty@garfieldhecht.com FACSIMILE CHAD J. SCHMIT' (970) 925-3008 Website: EDEN C. STEELE NATASHA SAYPOL www.garfieldhecht.com 110 MIDLAND AVENUE GREGORY S. GORDON'Â·4 SUITE 201 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 TELEPHONE (970) 927-1936 MICHAEL D. McCOLLUM FACSIMILE PARALEGAL CRAG E. BOGNER April 8, 2OO3 (970) 927-1783 IT MANAGER, PARALEGAL Via Hand Delivery Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Attention: Katie Ertmer 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 819 E. Hopkins - Major Development (Conceptual) - Public Hearing, Continued from March 26,2003 Dear Katie: We represent the homeowners (the"Homeowners") who reside at 830 E. Hopkins, which is located directly across the street from 819 E. Hopkins. The purpose of this letter is to object to any approval of the current Conceptual Plan, On-Site Relocation, and Partial Demolition for 819 E. Hopkins. We did not submit a formal written objection for the March 26,2003 hearing because we were informed, pursuant to that certain Memorandum from you dated March 26, 2003 (the "March 26 Memorandum"), that the Applicant's proposal (the "Old Proposal") needed significant restudy and that the hearing on the application would be continued to a future date. However, it should be noted that the Homeowners did in fact attend the March 26 hearing and voiced many concerns with the Old Proposal. Since the March 26 hearing, it has been brought to our attention that the Applicant has submitted a new proposal (the "New Proposal") for the development of 819 E. Hopkins. Pursuant to your Memorandum dated April 9,2003 (the "April 9 Memorandum"), Staff is recommending approval o f the New Proposal, though subject to thirteen conditions (the "Conditions"). We understand that the Applicant has made an effort to propose changes to address HPC and Staff concerns, as has been highlighted in the April 9 Memorandum. However, it is the position of the Homeowners that the New Proposal is still far from an excellent Historic Preservationproject, and that HPC and Staff should not approve (even on a conceptual level) the New Proposal until such time as the proposal meets all of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and most importantly, those guidelines dealing with massing, density, scaling, and front elevation and entryways. 84333-1 1. also admitted to 2. also admitted to 3. also admitted to 4. also admitted to New York Bar Connecticut Bar Illinois Bar New Jersey Bar Â® Printed on recycled paper GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. April 8,2003 HPC, Katie Ertmer Page 2 The Homeowners' opposition to the New Proposal is described in detail below. A. Design Guideline 11.3 Guideline 11.3: Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. â€¢ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. Homeowners Response: The Homeowners recognize that under the New Proposal, the massing of the new construction has been broken up into two structures. There would be a freestanding, one-story structure (incorporating the historic shed) at the rear of the historic house and a new, two-story building to the east and south. However, in looking at the drawings for the New Proposal, it appears that the two-story building is still quite large in comparison with the historic structures, and that Staffs concerns with the new building being "one large mass which surrounds and overwhelms the historic structure" [quoted from the March 26 Memorandum] has really not been ameliorated. Guideline 11.3 expressly states that a new building has to appear "similar in scale" with the "historical buildings on the parcel." The only difference between the Old Proposal and the New Proposal is that under the New Proposal, the two-story building overwhelms two smaller historic structures, instead of one smaller historic structure. The point to be emphasized here is that Guideline 11.3 does not permit any "overwhelming" of any historic structures whatsoever. The Homeowners recognize that the Applicant has addressed Staff s concerns with the "Inflection standard," in that the one-story historic yellow house is being placed next to the neighboring one-story historic building, and the two-story portion of the New Proposal is adjacent to a neighboring two-story building. However, it must be emphasized that the Inflection standard is a different standard than Guideline 11.3. Guideline 11.3 specifically deals with the relationship of the buildings on the "original site" to eachother. Guideline 11.3 does not deal with the relationship of the on-site buildings as they compare to buildings on adjacent sites. 84333-1 GARFIELD & HECHT. P.C. April 8,2003 HPC, Katie Ertmer Page 3 The only place in the April 9 Memorandum that addresses the massing flaws of the New Proposal is the statement that the east fagade of the two story building is a "large, unbroken mass." The Homeowners contend that the entirety of the two-story building is massive and not just the east fagade, and that Applicant should be required to further reduce the massing of the New Proposal as a condition to Conceptual Approval, rather than Final Approval. B. Design Guideline 11.2 Guideline 11.2: In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. â€¢ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally Homeowners Response: The Homeowners agree with Staffs concerns that the front porch under the New Proposal is much larger than the historic porch and has a deck above it, unlike the historic porch. Additionally, the front porch is a two-story element, which is not only incompatible with the one-story porch element o f the historic house, but also violates Section 26.410.040(D)(2) ofthe Residential Design Standards. The Homeowners recognize that Staff has recommended a "restudf ' o f the porch as one o f the Conditions ofFinal Approval. However, the Homeowners believe that the porch is a significant element of the historic character of the site and should be redesigned prior to Conceptual Approval. C. Design Guideline 11.4 Guideline 11.4: Design afront elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. â€¢ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. â€¢ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Homeowners Response: In the March 26 Memorandum which addressed the Old Proposal, Staff focused on the scaling of the front elevation of the new building and how such elevation was "out of scale" with the one story historic structure. Under the New Proposal, the front fagade of the new building still contains a two-story element, and therefore is much taller than and overwhelms the one-story historic structure. However, 84333-1 GARFIELD & HECHL P.C. April 8,2003 HPC, Katie Ertmer Page 4 the April 9 Memorandum does not appear to address this problem with the front faGade at all. Issues with the front fagade should be rectified prior to any Conceptual Approval. D. Design Guideline 11.9 Guideline 11.9: Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. â€¢ These include windows, doors and porches. Homeowners Response: The Homeowners agree with Staffs concerns, as set forth in the April 9 Memorandum, that "the shape and size of some of the proposed vertical and horizontal windows are too narrow and are too different than those found on the historic building." The Homeowners believe that just as is the case with massing, scaling, and elevation, all issues with respect to building components that are not compatible with the historic structures should be resolved prior to Conceptual Approval. It is the understanding of the Homeowners that the very purpose of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines is to ensure that when a historic site is developed, that any new construction is compatible with and highlights the existing historic structures on the site. The New Proposal does not focus on the historic yellow home and the historic shed, and make these structures prominent features of the development. Instead, the two-story building is a massive structure that envelops the site and overpowers the historic buildings. The Homeowners ask Staff and HPC to require the Applicant to revisit the Design Guidelines which have not been met prior to any Conceptual Approval being granted. Thank you in advance for your attention to and consideration o f the concerns o f the Homeowners. Individual Homeowners may submit letters addressing issues in addition to the issues emphasized herein. Very truly yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. It I loigh* ByN Natasna baypol 84333-1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 320 W. Hallam Street- Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variances- Public Hearing DATE: April 23,2003 SUMMARY: The subject property is a 3,000 square foot parcel created as the result of a recently approved historic landmark lot split. It contains a Pan Abode home built in 1966. The lot split approval established fome parameters that affect the current application. In recognition of HPC having granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus for the future redevelopment of this home and the adj acent Victorian, the Pan Abode became a designated historic structure and cannot be demolished. The maximum floor area for all construction on the Pan Abode lot was set at 1,500 square feet. A 2' west sideyard setback variance and a 2' combined sideyard setback variance were granted to accommodate the Pan Abode's existing location. The building is slightly crooked on the lot and a variance was needed at it' s northwest corner. (Although the new site plan included in the drawing set shows the Pan Abode square to the lot lines, the architect intends to maintain its skewed placement. A revised plan will be provided at the HPC meeting. Staff believes this to be a non-issue that is not perceivable from the street.) The application proposes an 826 square foot addition to the rear of the 600 square foot Pan Abode home. Conceptual approval, a 1.5' side yard setback variance for the east side yard to accommodate a window bay on the addition; a 3.6' side yard setback variance for the west side yard for a lightwell (note that this variance is unnecessary if the lightwell is the minimum size required by code, which the architect states will be the case); a rear yard setback variance of 2.5' and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 3.5' to allow the addition to be pushed back from the historic cabin are requested, along with a waiver of the one required on-site parking space. Staff recommends that the plate height and ridge height of the addition be discussed at the HPC meeting before a determination is made to approve this project or continue for restudy. Staff finds that the variances, with the possible exception of the east side yard variance request, should be approved when the roof issue is resolved. APPLICANT: Judy Haas, owner, represented by Derek Skalko, 1 Friday Design Collaborative. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-14-001. 1 ADDRESS: 320 W. Hallam, Lot P, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residence. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal niaterials 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 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 property is significant as an example of housing built early in Aspen's history as a ski town, at a time when economy and simplicity were desirable. Kit homes like this one were inexpensive and quick to build. Although the structures were machine produced, they still reflected the same American West iconography of the older true log structures in town. The Pan Abodes simulated traditional log construction and referenced its important details. - 2 Key features of Pan Abodes are that they are typically single story, with a low-pitched gable roof They sometimes have deep eaves, and usually have exposed rafter tails. The flat surface of the machine shaped, tongue and groove logs are central to the building's character. Window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned, and wood trim is used to finish out the window openings. The building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements. Detail and decoration are minimal. This particular Pan Abode stands in a neighborhood where there is a reasonably strong Victorian context, including the two Victorian era homes to the west and one across the street. Historic cottonwoods still line this side of the block. The small scale of this home, its materials, and low pitched roof form are anomalies on the block, however this modestly sized building is in no way intrusive. A small addition can be reasonably made to the structure without a negative impact on the character of the area. There are no apparent alterations to this Pan Abode from its appearance in 1966. An addition constructed behind it, and distanced from it with a connector should not negatively affect the Pan Abode's integrity score. Any architectural changes permitted to happen to the historic house itself will need to be carefully weighed to insure that integrity is not compromised. The project represents a build out of all but a small amount of square footage allotted to the site, so no significant projects would be anticipated to affect this site in the future. Design Guideline review A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." This memo will discuss only those which staff finds are not met by the proposal. Staff finds that the project is in compliance with the City's general "Residential Design Standards." The Pan Abode is proposed to remain in its current location. (The applicant may request approval to lift the building to install a new foundation in the exact same location, based on initial feedback from potential contractors. If this is the case, the request will be made at Final review.) Planned alterations to the historic home are the replacement of the existing window units, in-kind replacement of the roof, and installation of a skylight on the western roof slope. All three of these are issues that should be addressed at Final, not Conceptual review, however, staff' s initial comments are that if window replacement is determined to be appropriate, the new units must carefully match the existing dimensions and muntin patterns. No alterations to these characteristics would be appropriate. Skylights have not been allowed on primary roof slopes of historic structures in the past, and the one that is proposed would likely be in conflict with the design guidelines in this case. A one story addition with a more steeply pitched gable roof is proposed to the rear of the Pan Abode, linked to it with an 11 foot long, one story connector. The connector meets the back of the cabin where a window is currently located, so no significant amount of wall surface will be removed as part of the new addition. The walls of the connector all held back from the corners 3 of the existing building to maintain the integrity of it's plan form. Staff finds that the location and nature of the connector piece meet the design guidelines. The addition is no wider than the Pan Abode, and is rectangular in shape. Any discussion of the proposed materials and detailing of the addition will be reserved for final review. Staff anticipates some debate over the skylight's conformance with the design guidelines. The only aspect of the height, scale, massing and proportions of this proposal which staff feels is in question is the steeper roof pitch proposed for the addition. As staff understands it, the Pan Abode has a 2:12 roof, which is nearly flat, and the addition is proposed to have a 10:12 pitch. In speaking with the architect, staff has been informed that the roof pitch was selected to respond to the forms that are typical around this block. This may in fact be the best decision, however, both staff and the HPC will benefit from viewing the model of the project, which will be available at the meeting. This will help everyone to determine if perspective really minimizes the height difference between the two part of the building or not. As depicted in the elevations, staff has concerns with both the plate height and ridge height of the addition, per the following guidelines: 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o 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. o A 1-story connector is preferred. o 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. 10.9 Roo f forms should be similar to those of the historic building. o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. SETBACK VARIANCES The setback variances needed are a 1.5' side yard setback variance for the east side yard to accommodate a window bay on the addition; a 3.6' side yard setback variance for the west side ,0 yard for a lightwell (note that this variance is unnecessary if the lightwell is the minimum size . ~ required by code, which the architect states will be the case); a rear yard setback variance of 2.5' and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 3.5' to allow the addition to be pushed back from the historic cabin. The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C ofthe Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: 4 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 Finding: The applicant is intruding only slightly into the east yard setback. As noted above, the project appears to comply with the west yard setback requirement. Staff finds that the variance on the east for built in shelves is not unreasonable in size, provides some visual interest to the east wall, and creates a feature that distinguishes the character of the new architecture from the old. However, it is not necessarily directly related to the preservation of the Pan Abode, which the board should discuss. The rear yard and combined front and rear yard setback variance is important in that it allows the addition to be set back as far as possible on the lot, creating a cushion of space around the historic house. Staff recommends the variance be approved. ON-SITE PARKING VARIANCE The applicant requests a waiver of the one on-site parking space required of this proj ect. Per Section 26.415.110.C, parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for parking reductions. 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a filiding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Finding: Only one on-site parking space is required by the Code for this one bedroom house. Providing it would eat up valuable space on the ground plane and could result in part of the addition being pushed up into a second story, which would not be desirable when the single story character of the Pan Abode is so key. Staff recommends the space be waived. The owner will be able to park on the street. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: 5 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 that HPC carefully review the model provided at the hearing to make a determination as to the appropriateness of the proposed plate height and ridge height for the addition. If restudy is needed, the hearing should be continued to May 28, 2003 and a revised scheme(s) generated. With regard to the variances, staff recommends the HPC approve a 3.6' side yard setback variance for the west side yard for a lightwell if it is. necessary and desirable for extra liglit and air to the basement, and approve a rear yard setback variance of 2.5' and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 3.5' to allow the addition to be pushed back from the historic cabin. The 1.5' side yard setback variance for the east side yard to accommodate a bay window on the addition should be discussed to ensure that granting it clearly forwards a historic preservation goal. Staff recommends that the waiver of one parking space be granted. An application for Final approval must be submitted within one year of Conceptual approval, which is standard procedure. A proposed resolution approving the proj ect without restudy of the roo f is attached in the event that the board is prepared to make such a motion. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # , Series of 2003." Exhibits: Resolution # , Series of 2003 A. Staff memo dated April 23,2003 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application 6 "Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 320 W. Hallam, Conceptual Review" New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historidally significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o 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 tecliniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. o Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where . these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o 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 facides and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. o A 1-story connector is preferred. o 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. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 7 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 id recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o 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. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 8 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 W. HALLAM STREET, LOT P, BLOCK 42, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2003 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-14-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Judy Haas, represented by Derek Skalko, 1 Friday Design Collaborative, has requested Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variances for the property located at 320 W. Hallam Street, Lot P, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspgn 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, 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, for approval of parking reductions, 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: 1. The parking reduction and waiver o f payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adj oining designated property or a historic district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated April 23,2003, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended that the project be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 23,2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Majbr Development (Conceptual) and Variance approval with the following conditions: . 1. A 3.6' side yard setback variance is approved for the west side yard for a lightwell if it is necessary and desirable for extra light and air to the basement, and a rear yard setback variance of 2.5' and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 3.5' are approved to allow the addition to be pushed back from the historic cabin. 2. A 1.5' side yard setback variance for the east side yard to accommodate a window bay on the addition is approved. 3. A waiver of one parking space is approved. 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 23rd day of April, 2003. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Vice-Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk / Land Use Application THE CnY OF AspEN PROJECT: Name: JUDY E-\AAL EZEM>\ ReAkIE Location: 320 0-E>ST- HAU-Arn -ST-F:Pt=t=- C USX V - BLOCks (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) .7-7-39 Â·- 1 29 -con- 21 APPUCANr: Name: - JUDY .HAAS Address: FO 130< 330 Phone #: 425 ----ggHZ Fax#: 152-4 -3390 E-nlail: 4:~:vel<' Q gluof-064,clobjeck nel- REPRESENTATIVE: Name: DEâ‚¬Ekr â‚¬5\<ALkÂ© - 31- FRI [347' 1 6.Lc. Address: -520 0/44 LAAE 'hone #: -309 -069 9 Fax#: 920 - 7322 E-mail: Â£,ferek (E)Â«i-ukoleqrchr'4rd-5, net TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): E] Historic Designation m Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) El Certificate of No Negative Effect U Demolition (total demolition) Certificate ofAppropriateness C] Historic Landmark Lot Split -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 33<15-1-7 NG Â·- Â»/UE>LE ETT11 LY -RESI CENCEE - F?Ard PEKSDEL Â«14/CELÂ¥2EL PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Ute _ *61 kkbLE EAry) 1 LY RES IG@ENCE_ f*.4 +Al-MUE Â»0( - WVJ MPr>f-/7 07Â·J CgolE FEES DUE: S 122; irmaice) mmuÂ®00 Dimensional Requirement Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: 14AA,6 4536(93; 320 Â»Eg HALL:Aen -srraser- Applicant: ,) UPY 1-+AAS Project Location: -320 GUEST- HALLAFV? frieâ‚¬ET- Zone District: LO-7--5 hololp G L oce 42- Lot Size: Â· -5,0-ED &* F=T- Lot Area: . 0699 ACQGZ-6 (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area maybe reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: NA Proposed: 4% Number ofresidential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1 ('Â»iNGE FAR,Of) - Number ofbedrooms: Existing: \ Proposed: \ Proposed % of demolition: NA DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Existing: 960 Allowable: 1 400 Proposed: \42-6 Height 6 24/ ) Principal Bldg.: Existing: 6013 Allowable: \ SCE> Proposed: < 20 / '~ Accessory Bldg.: Existing: NA Allowable: Wr Proposed: WA OIl-Site parking: Existing: O Required: \ Proposed: ~ % Site coverage: Existing: Â»6- Required: NA Proposed: WA % Open Space: Existing: MA- Required: NA Proposed:- WK Front Setback: Existing: 1 H Required: 1 4 Proposed.Â· 1 9 d *ME LOGATIOV ) Rear Setback: Existing: '5 Required: 24 1C) Proposed: 19&<- d uo spced'Xcip"vayr>j Combined 25' ~--- 51 Front/Rear: Existing: 2 0 Required: ~~Gr ProposedÂ©.j ~~f#fnE-) Indicate N. S. E. W Side Setback: 6 Existing: Required: 4 Proposed: 3 2, M '61\DE Â·grrelc 1 Side'Setbacir.Â» Existtrtg::-Â» 9 Requtred'~ .52 Prdposed- \16 " 4 5â‚¬E, 9531946 Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: BEUSEUE -1*â‚¬ aL] AaccE . TQAY EE hek) 07?Jf:tern/NG Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): l 45 " '51 r.22 -SET-r340< vARJAIL) <ZE g 8224*893#4~ â‚¬233 f 11 L'*HTWELL UAR\A N.)622 (6:19,42FN SCIPE'~ L...Â»P 776Â« 10-6 LAR [ANEE 4--3 LUAI UEL -41'06[-KE- SFOT- 1 64*A 031 2)-151 + 037,--Â·n *n_~A o P 3 -5 EXHIBIT<~- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE 1 44 Ren o REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE COD ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: '52:) MAE,61- HALIAry K, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: /AP|e f L 23RP , 200_23 9:027 pro STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 13>IEN'EX -SWALA<C> , REFRESEA.1-r747-ILE J UPY IJAAS , OKMEÂ¥2 (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 (IE) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Pvel'*fED Â»19Â¢21 L -3RP ~ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. .,~ Posting ofnotice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the , Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, C MAd=_Â»b waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide \ ~77*t.-~.:p ~ 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 prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 991(lay of AP'el L , 20003, 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 ofproperty 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 ofthe property subject tothe,developmentÂ·applicatie, ThenamegandÂ·addresses ofpropertrownen - 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) F\8(LEY> LETrees ,#19/03 f Fberr~dED '*2-2 ' WA Rezoning or text amendmenL Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners o f real property in the area o f 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 Thq,foregqing "Affidavit of Notice" was aclglowledged before FQ this // day of ~P Z I ,1001Â» 3 KQ.l kb , Ue ip. r TOR/.46 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ..4:0 RALENE 2 MJ.commission ejeires: )) 0 ~9064 1 (-2(2184,&.S-- PETERSON : :0 Nota?y Public C-8#.â‚¬6<Ne My Commission Expires 01/17/2006 ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED :Â·BY MAIL W--: -~ ~Â·- - h '->h Â·' v-Â· 4"lll# U< \1'.H i'CI]lut .:''$ iii t i; i 1 1.,it-!' Ali}!L-'.' jit 2'2 "uÂ·Â·4 lill l,lc GUIient Lit.\ .4 -1Â· 41>, 01 rii.Kill i (/dill) uh LfiC) d T)('di CU I:(; PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 320 W. HALLM-MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), VARIANCES, WAIVER OF REQUIRED PARKING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Judy Haas requesting approval for Major Development (Conceptual), Variances, and Waiver of Required Parking. The property is located at 320 W. Hallam, Lot P, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen. An addition is proposed to the existing Pan Abode structure. The applicant is requesting a 1.5' side yard setback variance for the east side yard; a 3.6' side yard setback variance for the west side yard; a rear yard setback variance of 2.5' and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 3.5'. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the one required parking space. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., .Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jeffrey Halfertv. Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 3,2003 City of Aspen Account rjr , 1 ~/Sed SheetsTM Use template for 5160Â® . I . EECOND ST LLC 1, ALLEN ROBERT H & JUDY LEY BARKER JACK 1/2 INT A /AICHARD CORBETT 4545 POST OAK PL STE 101 ' PO BOX 7943 |L, ~ #2 N WEST SHORE BLVD STE 110 i ~ HOUSTON, TX 77027 ASPEN, CO 81612 4 4 FL 33607-5749 1 1 r, i Z BENNINGHOFF ESTHER BLEVINS J RONALD & PHYLLIS M i ' CITY OF ASPEN ~ 233 W HALLAM AVE 20320 FAIRWAY OAKS DR #353 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ' BOCA RATON, FL 33434 ; , ASPEN, CO 81611 11 1,1 CONNOR F HAYDEN ; COOPER JOHN T j COX CAROLYN M 444 GRAPE ST P O BOX 1747 961 PASEO DEL SUR DENVER, CO 80220 ' SPRINGFIELD, MO 65802 SANTA FE, NM 87501 DEVOS ESTHER LEONARD DIIANNI DONNA M 1 DOBBS JOHN C & SARA F PO BOX 3238 , 323 W HALlAM ST PO BOX 241750 ASPEN, CO 81612 i ASPEN, CO 81611 , MEMPHIS, TN 38124 1 EPPLER KLAUS TRUSTEE FIRESTEIN CHESTER & BEVERLY ' FISCHER SISTIE PROSKAUER ROSE GOETZ & 9777 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 501 442 W BLEEKER MENDELSHON ~ , BEVERLY HILLS, dA 90212 ASPEN, CO 81611 2255 GLADES RD #340 W BnCA RATON, FL 33431 FIVE CONTINENTS ASPEN REAL-TY FRIEDBERG BARRY S 11 GALLANT MARILYN ; C/O EDWARDS JOSEPH 111 555 PARK AVE 7W 617 VINE ST STE 1430 502 MAIN ST STE 201 NEW YORK, NY 10021 CINCINNATI, OH 45202 . CARBONDALE, CO 81623 i ' 1 23 1 i JONES STEPHEN MARTIN TRUST W 1 HOUGH JENNINE :, JANSS MARY TRUST 1 500 CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY N : 265 BRIGHTON RD NE 1 403 W HALL_AM i : BLD 6 STE 125 1 ATLANTA, GA 30309 , ASPEN, CO 81611 AUSTIN, TX 78746 ili MCANIFF RICHARD J KINNEY STEPHEN J & SUSAN M KOUTSOUBOS TED A 1 ' ' C/O CORNERSTONE ADVISORS P O BOX 330010 c 415 E HYMAN AVE #206 777 108TH AVE NE SUITE 2000 MIAMI, FL 33233 1 +, ASPEN, CO 81611 BELLEVUE, WA 98004-5118 1: 1 1 ~ MULLINS DON R MOSS CHARLOTTE ' MYERS JOSEPH V JR i % HARDING & CARBONE 555 PARK AVE 7W 421 W HALLAM ST I 3903 BELLAIRE BLVD NEW YORK, NY 10021 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77025 NEISSER JUDITH E REV TRUST LAN REVOCABLE TRUST PATRICK JAMES K C/O BERNADETTE REED 718 N LINDEN DR 417 W HALLAM ST 3281 GRAFTON LN BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81611 AURORA, IL 60504 ~AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® Use template for 5160Â® \ ~ARLSTONE ESTHER S ' ' PENINSULA LLC - POTVIN SALLY ALLEN ;} pO BOX 8750 1 ~ PO BOX 6594 320 W BLEEKER ST i aIIEN, CO 81612 I : i SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 : : ASPEN, CO 81611 RIGGS ASPEN TRUST RISPOLI PETER SAX JOEL D 6815 BALTIMORE DR 323 W HALLAM ST ' 303 W FRANCIS ST DALLAS, TX 75205 ' ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHLOFFER BRUNHILDE P : SIRKIN ALICIA , SMART PAMELA PO BOX 941 3500 S BAYHOMES DR 1040 W CONWAY DR ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI, FL 33133 ATLANTA, GA 30305 STEEPLECHASE PARTNERS LLC STILWELL REED & CLAIRE TEAGUE LEWIS TRUST PO BOX 10686 i 191 UNIVERSITY BLVD #714 862 NORTH BEVERLY GLEN BLVD ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80206 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 TITUS JOHN & JOAN REV TRST WEISE RICHARD H 3025 BRYN MAWR ; 5451 N E RIVER RD #503 DALLAS, TX 75225 ' i CHICAGO, IL 60656 ~ AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® 1 %Â£1 L â€¢ IP 4Â· # 7/ 644 3 4 : lilli Crs 'Ph *34 11 V 2 1 -1]Zi-d~ i 7/ .* ou,a 14 - y. . *KIt Â£ ./ 1. - , 1449 'Clile,; 2 - D e.-7,4,/F.:&9/27 - A...Â¥.Mat 4 7 ,- , 4 -,t, , W.mt Be- * .....â€ž-~'*46 1 . 1 41, .-W- iall- *t .4 --I.r.. .4<,3,it~ 21-.r. ... 444 . U.17.4 . I .9 A .L. 1 3, 4 6 '1 , f 11111111[11111, ./ 412 ....,1 .5 , 320 Oak Lane Aspen, CO 81611 1 frid a y Phone: 970.544.0695 Fax: 970.920.7822 design collaborative Memo To: The Aspen Historic Preservation From: Judy Haas, Owner 320 W. Hallam St. Commission Derek Skalko, Principal 1 Friday Design Collaborative Fax: 970.544.9797 Date: March 26 2003 Phone: 970.544.9595 Pages: 2 Re: 320 West Hallam Street - Pan Abode CC: The applicant, Judy Haas, currently owns a 3,000 square foot property located at 320 West Hallam Street. A one story, historically designated pan-abode structure currently is located upon the site. We are submitting a formal application requesting approval of a significant addition to be added to the existing 20' x 30' pan abode structure with modest changes to the existing exterior as indicated in the design package. There also exists on the property a cottonwood tree of significant size. Aspen Parks Dept. has requested the new addition be as respectful as possible to the preservation of the existing cottonwood and we have proposed an addition connecting itself to the existing pan-abode in accordance with both Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and being mindful of the Parks Department's requests. As currently envisioned, the development would include preservation of the existing cottonwood tree, preservation and restoration to the existing pan-abode structure with no changes to the existing location and height of structure, and the development of a single story connection element with a story and a half addition structure with a footprint of roughly the same (slightly longer) nominal dimensions as the existing pan-abode structure. We will be seeking the following from HPC: 1) A 1 '-6" side yard setback variance on the north property side (as encouraged by the Parks Department) 2) A 3'-6" side yard setback variance on the south side of the property to accommodate a light well for the lower basement bedroom area 3) A variance to permit one fewer on-site parking spaces than would otherwise be required 4) Conceptual approval of the proposal as a whole 5) Approvals as requested to the existing pan-abode structure documented on architectural drawing sheet A3.2. i .h We are very excited about the potential this project has offered us and look forward to working with your commission. Thank you very much, Derek Skalko Representative for Judy Haas, Owner 320 West Hallam Street 0 .. 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Planner B ~ Ad Afl Ullyv v j RE: Visitor Center Work Session - NW Corner of Galena and Main Streets DATE: April 23,2003 The City of Aspen has been working on a master plan (the Civic Master Plan) for the portion of town primarily occupied with civic uses - Fire station and City Hall blocks of downtown north through the Aspen Art Museum and the Sanitation District. This process has identified visitor service function as a primary issue to address and the benefit of the current location next to the parking garage entrance has been a focus of this discussion. The property at the corner of Main and Galena Streets was identified by the Civic Master Plan Advisory Group as a potential for a new visitor center. The property owner was then contacted and discussions progressed with the aid of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association. Bill Poss and Associates has been retained by the property owner to outline potential options for a project. A project would likely proceed as a public-private paftnership, but no formal decision has been made. This work session will aid the discussion by informing the project about appropriate design scenarios for this property in its context with the Commercial Core Historic District. The property is not a Historic Landmark. Plans will be presented by the applicant at the work session. 1 ~1 +13'23 20Â¤ EAST 37TH STREET ~ ARCHITECT SHOP ARCHITECTS, P.C. FLOOR NO. 2 NEW YORK, NY 10016 7 p H . 21 2.889.9005 FX. 212.889.3686 EMAIL: STUDIC]~SHOPARC.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: BURO HAPPOLD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC 105 CHAMBERS STREET FLOOR No. 3 NEW YORK, NY 10007 P. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED BY THE OWNER OR OTHERS NEALE STREET ON OTHER PROJECTS, FOR ADDITIONS TO THIS PROJECT, OR if -342 FOR THE COMPLETION OF THIS -- , 0 PL ------ PROJECT BY OTHERS. / h.u;YA h . . -- -- ISSUE / auy --0- NO. DATE DESCRIPTION --r -- 0 ------0 0 ----- -- Ir 0---- f 1 001 1 i. /0 0 Z 1 . - -4- 1 1 .. PROJECT , f - - ---il , . ---Il-- -- --- -- , U) i , ---1 -4 1 . TRETTIN RESIDENCE ASPEN, COLORADO '~ DATE 0423 03 DRAWN BY: TJA/KIL 0 1 --- /. 1 1 f It 1 1 SCALE: 12= 1-0 CHECKED BY: TJAAUL 1 DRAWING TITLE: Ilo 1 1 12 1 U 1, ' 1 / 1 1 1 -1 , ' 1 , 1 / / ' EXISTING CONDITIONS , , A 1 1 i - 0 0 1 ~0Â·j EXISTING TREE /0 1 ----- I 1 , Vi ./ - ~ EXISTING SHRUBS tÂ« <Off) il f ~ f DRAWING NUMBER: DO00 133hllS N33AÂ¤ ARCHITECT: SHoP ARCHITECTS, P.C. 200 EAST 37TH STREET /09/ NEW YORK. NY 10016 PH. 212.889.9005 FX. 212.889.3686 f~ i ~ Â«-Â«ff ~ EMAIL: STUDIC]~SIC]PARC.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: BURO HAPPOLD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC 105 CHAMBERS STREET FLOOR No. 3 NEW YORK, NY 1 0007 PH. 212.334.2025 Fx. 21 2.334.5528 - 44 - THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE NEALE STREET ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND 4/ - :- ----- RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE N OTTO BE USED BY THE OWNER OR OTHERS 1 ON OTHER PROJECTS. FOR 0 ------ ADDITIONS TO THIS PROJECT, OR i -- - PROJECT BY OTHERS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THIS / 0 ---0.- 1 ISSUE NO. DATE DESCRIPTION rn/3 ----------- --I-- ----- -- -- - ff 9 4- 0 1 - 0 1 Z / - G) jO; r 1 $ i /4 00 Ill I ! 1 | / Fle :i --- '--- ---- --------7 -4 PROJECT'. ' ' /41 1 1 ' f U m TRETTIN RESIDENCE 1, t 1 i [I~ ASPEN, COLORADO , 1 DATE: 04.23 03 DRAWN BY: TJA/KJL // 1 1 1 11 / ~ ~ ~ 1 SCALE: 1/25" = 1 '-0 CHECKED BY: TJA/KJL 1 10 11 11 DRAWING TITLE: 1 1 -1 )1 - , 1 /094 1 11 ~--- , SCHEME 1 , 7% 0 - 1 1 0 /PX - 1 1 /F /0 fL \ F-] 2 STORY BLDG. FLOOR AREA 1 / F l...2.---IL_-Â·- L--- -- i - -_22IL---LimEÂ»t---2 A#th //1 / - - L_J (2737 se. FT.) 1 STORY BLDG. FLOOR AREA E (900 Eg. FT.) ~ NEW AsPHALT (2662 se. rr.) ~0 Â·j REMOVED TREE (6 TOTAL) ~ REMOVED SHRUBS (70 FT. ) BLDG. WALL .1-TO NEALE ST. (1 567 SQ. FT.) GROSS COVERAGE OF BLDG. A-T GRADE (3465 se. FT.) USED ALLOWABLE BLDG. AREA (3930 se. FT.) DRAWING NUMBER: E--1 1 /GE&Â· ,, IrvEÂ·72 Â· 0 10 FT. 25 FT. 50 FT. DO01 ARCHITECT: SHoP ARCHITECTS, P.C. 200 EAST 37TH STREET FLOOR NO.2 NEW YORK, NY 10016 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: 7 31 . EMAIL: STUDIO@BHOPARC.COM / / , mi-1. 212.889.9005 FX. 212.889.3686 / ,/ BURO HAPPOLD CONSULTING / ENGINEERS, PC // 105 CHAMBERS STREET << FLOOR NO. 3 / NEW YORK, NY 10007 / PH. 212.334.2025 Fx. 212.334.5528 THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE , DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT'S NEALE STREET RELATED [DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED BY THE OWNER OR OTHERS \ le Vlf> f \ C) N OTHER PROJECTS, FOR ADDITIONS TO THIS PROJECT, OR - - 2 FOR THE COMPLETION OF THIS i ~42~h , PROJECT BY OTHERS. / ISSUE: 0 / DESCRIPTION 1/ 0 0 r / / -- f l,l; f {- 0 0 " 1 1,11 ~ ~ Â«1--~ 1 0 - 1/ 0 : \ 1 /f'' f // j ) 9 1 1 1 al i \ dil/ ' / / / i.\1,2/l / 1 i. I ' f :/#f y< 4/ //7 UJ PROJECT: 1 /1/~fr//7 1 If \ TRETTIN RESIDENCE .. 1 /9/ , \ 1 1 1 . 1/ 1 " xI ASPEN, COLORADO / 1 DATE: 0423.03 DRAWN BY: TJA'KJL 1 I f ff -i fl-9---4 # / DRAWING TITLE: ' ~ ~ l , SCALE: 105â€¢=i'-0 CHECKED BY: WAS I 1 -art ..5 9 i - r -i irtly 0 -2 -- 1/ SCHEME 2 0 1 li '0 1 900 Ly r o .r /12 '4 - / -~ 2 STORY BLDG. FLOOR AREA , / Ld (2770 SCO. FT.) \ --X--tifff,~trid'Fisr 0 ..C { f/~ r 1/0 (688 EQ. FT.) ~ 1 STORY BLDG. FLOOR AREA ~ NEW ASPHALT (2325 -7. FT.1 ~ REMOVED TREE (7 TOTAL) O REMOVED SHRUBS (70 FT. 1 BLDG. WALL 1-TO NEALE ST. GROSS COVERAGE OF BLDG. AT GRADE (3774 sm. FT.) USED ALLOWABLE BLDG. AREA (3926 se. FT.) DRAWING NUMBER n i 1 0 10 FT. 25 FT. 50 FT. DOOZ 133hllS N33nÂ¤ ARCHITECT: SHOP ARCHITECTS, P.C. 200 EAST 37T,-, STREET f f f f f off f~ c Â«,3 NEW YORK, N 1001 FLOOR No. 2 PH. 212.889.9005 ... 212.889.3686 EMAIL: STUDIO(~SHOPARC,COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: BURO HAPPOLD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC - 1/f f J 105 CHAMBERS STREET FLOOR No. 3 NEW YORK, NY 10007 PH. 212.334.2025 Fx. 212.334.5528 , -f - THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO ,Di:95 F ----- BE USED BY THE OWNER OR OTHERS ON OTHER PROJECTS, FOR 1<6- 0-Â¥/ ADDITIONS TO THIS PROJECT, OR FOR THE COMPLETION OF THI PROJECT BY OTHERS. ' 25 UN FY ISSUE: jAU>--<I'.I- ..I-- -I---- ---------- 0 0. No. DATE DESCRIPTION 0 0 -- 0 , . 0 1 . 0 O 1 11141123 tr / I , 1. ,/1 1 1 1 . lili 1 PROJECT: AspeN, COLORADO 1 1 TRETTIN RESIDENCE : ' DATE: 04.23.03 DRAWN BY: TJA'KJL 1 1 1 / 1 1 , 1 1 SCALE: 1/25..1-0 CHECKED BY : VWVS r 1 DRAWING TITLE: I. 1 , 1 -) 1 / , ~1>95 SCHEME 3 0 .1 0 O , . , 1 â€¢ 1 0 , -- * - 1.24111(1:..~~1*43? f 1 -- L.-1 (2522 2.2. FT.) 0 1 --- [-1 2 STORY BLDG. FLOOR AREA / - 6/ 1 STORY BLDG. FLOOR AREA ~(1120 se. FT.) 1 ----- ----- -- M -- -- ---- ------ --- - -4* -4- --- - ~ NEW ASPHAL-r (2700 se. F-r.) ~ 1 STORY BLDG. ROOF ~Â·j REMOVED TREE (6 TOTAL) O REMOVED SHRUMS (70 FT. ) BLDG. WALL .LTD NEALE ST. C 1070 se. FT.) GROSS COVERAGE OF BLDG. AT GRADE (3725 se. FT.) USED ALLOWABLE BLDG. AREA (3920 Se. FT.) DRAWING NUMBER: Fl- p 0 10 FT. 25 FT. 50 FT DOO3 ARCHITECT: SHoP ARCHITECTS, P.C. 200 EAST 37-rH STREET f LI /Â«ft FLOOR NO. 2 NEW YORK. NY 10016 < pi. 212.889.9005 FX. 212.889.3686 EMAIL: STUDIO<~SHOPARC.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: BURO HAPPOLD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC 105 CHAMBERS STREET FLOOR No. 3 NEw YORK, NY 10007 PH. 212.334.2025 Fx. 21 2.334.5528 404 / - THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE NEALE STREET ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECTS \ - DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE NOTTO BE USED BY THE OWNER OR OTHERS 1 -/1 ---I-- ON OTHER PROJECTS. FOR 1 --- ADDITIONS TO THIS PROJECT, OR FOR THE COMPLETION OF THIS ---- PROJECT BY OTHERS. , 0 . --- O - ---- ... i 1 ISSUE: 1 No. DATE DESCRIPTION 0 0 -0-- ---- ---------- -----7----- ~ . ffÂ« 0 0 // 0 1 0 , 0 , 0 1 j . 1/ 0 --1 -11 PROJECT: '' 1 X) TRETTIN RESIDENCE 1 1 ' , Â· , , ' 1 ~ ASPEN, COLORADO 1 .. 1 1 1 11 , ~~ DATE 04.23.03 DRAWN BY: TJA/KJL i i // 110 DRAWING TITLE: i SCALE: 1/25Â·=1'-0 CHECKED SY: \A,WS , 1 1 1, 1 11 1 % A j : 1/ li - , SCHEME 4 1 0 0 1 0 1-1 / 1 0 -- 1 1 F-1 2 STORY BLD[3. FLOOR AREA ' - L._3 (2440 se. FT.) 0 1 --- ~ 1 STORY BLDG. FLOOR AREA (870 SIT. FT.) O 0 ~ NEW As PHALT (2450 se. FT.) ---~- -- --- =~- BLDG- WALL 1TO -NEALE ST ~ 1 STORY BLOG. ROOF ~0Â·j REMOVED TREE (7 TOTAL) ~ REMOVED SHRUBS (70 FT. ) (1512. se. FT.) GROSS COVERAGE OF BLDG. AT GRADE (3792 sal. FT.) - CO USED ALLOWABLE BLDG. AREA (3908 SQ. FT.) E-3 ~1:~,=*li~3~li,26*~ABM'*1[r#*2. DRAWING NUMBER: 0 10 FT. 25 FT. 50 FT. DOO4 133B1S N33AO ARCHITECT: SHOP ARCHITECTS, P.C. 200 EAST 3 7TH ST/EET c'Li ; FLOOR No. 2 NEW YORK, NY 10016 PH. 212.889.9OOS FX. 212.889.3686 EMAIL: STUDIC]~SHIPARC.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: BURO HAPPOLD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC 105 CHAMBERS STREET ~ FLOOR No. 3 NEW YORK, NY 1 0007 PH. 212.334.2025 FX. 212.334.5528 THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE NEALE STREET ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO 1 - BE USED eY THE OWNER OR OTHERS ON OTHER PROJECTS. FOR ADDITIONS TO THIS PROJECT, OR ~/11 0 T--- FOR THE COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT BY OTHERS. --- 0 . I -- 0 ISSUE - (t No. DATE DESCRIPTION 1 0 Â° , O 0 '. 0 1 -- 1. --0 -- 0 4- / 0 1 1 .. -1 0 1 1 . 1 to PROJECT: 1. , ' 1 . / 1 TRETTIN RESIDENCE '' '1 1, 1 1 1 ASPEN, COLORADO , 1 1.-li, 1 1 1 1 1 ~ DATE 0423.03 DRAWN BY: TJA/KJL 1 SCALE: 1/25'=1'-0 CHECKED BY:WWS 1 1 110 ' i DRAWING TITLE: . . Al , 1 11 / - 1 SCHEME 5 9--239) )f f 1 / 9 - - / 10 , -- 1 - -(3910 se. FT.) 0 ~ 2 STORY BLDG. FLOOR AREA 1 --- ' ..0 - ./ I.- 0 ~ 1 STORY BLOG. FLOOR AREA -4 (O SQÂ· FT,) ~ NEW ASPHALT (2581 SQ. FT.) ~Â·_; REMOVED TREE (8 TOTAL) 0 REMÂ¤VED SHRUBS (70 FT. ) 141 1 BLDG. WALL 1-TO NEALE ST. O SW. FT. (2400 SQ. FT.) GROSS COVERAGE OF BLDG. AT GRADE (3245 SQ. FT.) USED ALLOWABLE BLDG. AREA (3910 SQ. FT.) (VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR POOL) DRAWING NUMBER: 0005 133hllS N33AÂ¤ KING STREET ARCHITECT: SHOP ARCHITECTS, P.C. // FLOOR No. 2 200 EAST 3 7TH STREET NEW YORK, NY 10016 < H. 212.889.9005 FX. 212.889.3686 EMAIL: STUDIC](*)SHOPARC.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: BURO HAPPOLD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC 105 CHAMBERS STREET ' FLOOR No. 3 NEW YORK, NY 10007 PH, 212.334.2025 Fx. 212.334.5528 THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE NEALE STREET ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT'S r DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE NOTTO BE USED BY THE OWNER OR OTHERS / ON OTHER PROJECTS, FOR ADDITIONS TO THIS PROJECT, OR . FOR THE COMPLETION OF THIS ---- PROJECT BY OTHERS. 1 0 ---- ISSUE '' . 1.----- -- 1 4 - NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ---- 1.1 . . 1-55Â«4 2 . 0 0 . I. / / 0 -4 0 j CD 1 1 .. - --- --- -----------1 01 PROJECT: - - U) 1 . 1 . 1 11. 1 iÂ· 1 . 1 1 TRETTIN RESIDENCE 1 '. 11 '1 1 ' 1 1 / E~ ASPEN, COLORADO . 1 1 1 1 1.. i / -, , '1 l ~ ~ ~ DATE'. 0423.03 DRAWN BY: TJA/KJL 1 '' 1 ~ ~ SCALE: 1/25Â·'= 1-0 CHECKED BY:VANS 1/ ito i DRAWING TITLE: - -- --- , SCHEME 6 1 1 0 0 -- 1 0 1 --- - 111 , i o , 1 1 - 1 1 1- - I. LL--1 (2442 SQ. FT.) ~ 1 STORY BLDG. FLOOR AREA -- 4{ ---f~- ~-- --#--------- ~ ~ ~ ~2 STORY BLOG -FLOOR AREA (487 SQ. FT.) ~ NEw AspHALT (791 50. FT.) ~Â·j REMOVED TREE (1 TOTAL) O REMOVED SHRUBS (O FT. ) BLD[3. WALL 1-TO NEALE El-. (1 1 70 Se. FT.) GROSS COVERAGE OF BLDG. AT GRADE (2477 Sci. FT.) t USED ALLOWABLE BLDG. AREA (3552 se. FT.) DRAWING NUMBER: DOO6 133hllS N33AÂ¤