The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20030910ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO NOON - SITE VISIT - NONE 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - August 27,2003 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 #18) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 470 N. Spring Street - Conceptual and Variances - Continue Public Hearing to Oct. 8,2003 B. 135 E. Cooper Ave. - Conceptual, On-Site Relocation, and Variances, Public Hearing - 5:30 C. 311 S. First - Work Session 5:50 D. 311 S. First - Minor Development IX. NEW BUSINESS - NONE 6:10 X. DISCUSSION A. Guidelines ,:30 XI. ADJOURN P1 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) 432 W. Francis - Minor 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 21 Meadows Road 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) 114 Neale Ave. Derek Skalko 135 W. Hopkins P2 302 E. Hopkins 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) 331 W. Bleeker 114 Neale Ave. CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: HPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit ofnotice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staffpresentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion P3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier. Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 135 E. Cooper Avenue- Major Development Review (Conceptual). On-Site Relocation and Variances- Public Hearing DATE: September 10.2003 SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as well as the National Register of Historic Places. The site contains the 1888 Dixon-Markle house, which is virtually unaltered on the exterior, along with an outbuilding that th appears to have been constructed in the 19 century. je ONS '.. ti:Â¢3 The application proposes lifting the ''122!flell; â€ž historic house to excavate a basement, and relocating it slightly pi*â€¢~31#Kij#:~Â·* t>~ ", I . 4 .44' 4741 7 ..742.3Â·iti,' .4Â· to the north and east of its current ~ 2 3.2:--:--1.37'# 1 *MEÂ·,3,04.>*.u>:. position. An addition will be built ~. 4--Â·-44,// -7,5145..:.:. SZE*%1%4:4 to the west. The outbuilding is also Ligxllm/.fla,~IIi ' .. being moved slightly, into the li~/,w,lb f 1,0 :-- - ~>,ti*. - I - .-9... '. :44@40~ southwest corner of the site. A /7~...1.1-, Â¥iuoy.Â·.. .,,i. single car garage will be built on the Ed-~61 4/.~~Â£M.-n-.1=9Â·--43=31-~'* *a~*#*a,~.~"ti northeast. 1 In order to construct this project. the ~; 1 11â€¢...,1 g, i !.1 I .:'- I ram' '%~.... 2 ar~M.~+04*"Atifi~,~"mi~~= owner needs a 3' west sideyard r-,1 setback variance, a 1.5' east sideyard li ~ . 466. ~Â· U. -, r.1 setback variance, an 8'rear yard setback variance for the residential unit along the alley, a 3' rear yard setback variance for the new garage and a 500 square foot FAR bonus. Since the last HPC meeting, there has been a redesign. Staff finds that this project meets the applicable review standards for Conceptual Review, On-site Relocation, or Variances and complies with the design guidelines. APPLICANT: Chris Pat Aspen LLC, represented by Dave Gibson. PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003. 1 P5 ADDRESS: 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: RMF, Residential Multi-Family. CURRENT LAND USE: Two detached residences. 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 wiN 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 important as an example of a high style Queen Anne residence built during the mining era. The exterior of the house has only very minor alterations to its original architectural design. In recognition of this quality, 135 E. Cooper Avenue is an Aspen Landmark and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986. The outbuilding appears to be of the same vintage as the house, but may or may not be original to the site. 2 P6 The key features of the property include the prominent corner placement of the house, the open space surrounding the building, and the detached alley structure. All of the original architectural features of the house are still present. The alley building has had an addition made to it and it's history is not well documented. With regard to the context of this site, there are two other Queen Anne homes from the period across the street from 135 E. Cooper. The neighborhood has otherwise been significantly redeveloped with multi-family buildings. In Staffs assessment, this property achieves a perfect score of 100 points on the integrity assessment form we have developed, plus 15 bonus points, for a total of 115. If the proposed project were to be constructed, the score would drop by only approximately 4 points, as a result of the impacts of moving and adding onto the house. There is limited potential for future alterations to the property ifthis project were built, because it represents a build out to the maximum floor area and density allowable for the site. Design Guideline review Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those guidelines which staff finds the project does not meet, or where discussion is needed, are included in the memo. HPC has held several site visits and meetings to discuss this project, each time stating concerns with the relationship between the old house, the linking element, and the addition. The plan has been revised to include a one story, 6 foot wide hallway connector. The addition has been redesigned and lowered in height, and the existing outbuilding is no longer proposed to be demolished. Staff finds that all guidelines relevant to this conceptual proposal, namely 7.2, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6, 10.8, 10.9, and 10.10, listed in "Exhibit B," are being met. The project has improved significantly and can be considered an excellent preservation of this important property. - Very little of the historic building is demolished for the connector. A last minute tweak to the placement of this element has resulted in the preservation of all windows on the west fa~ade, contrary to what is stated in the applicant's cover letter. The addition is set back from the front of the house, it's plate heights and ridge are lower than the Victorian, and the overall massing and roof form are appropriate. The outbuilding is retained. ON-SITE RELOCATION The intent of the Historic Preservation ordinance is to preserve designated historic buildings in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to 3 P7 particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a building 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. 26.415.090.C Standards for tile 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; RE 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; RI 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; RE 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 wil] 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 Additionallv, 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 only review standard that this situation may meet is 4, which asks whether the relocation activity is demonstrated to be a:n acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will nof 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. The house is proposed to be moved 2 feet closer to Cooper Avenue, and 3.5 feet closer to Aspen Street. The - outbuilding moves approximately 3 feet south and 2 feet west of its current placement. The following guideline is in question: 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. 4 P8 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. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. The distance that the house is proposed to be moved is relatively minimal, however, original location is an aspect of the property that helps to define historic integrity. Relocation of the building can be justified when it allows breathing room for an appropriately designed addition. Staff finds that is the case with this project, and that the objective of achieving the best preservation alternative is achieved. With regard to the outbuilding, it does not appear in its current location on the 1904 map, therefore staff presumes that is has already been moved and can be relocated again. FAR BONUS The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or.openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be 5 P9 submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Staff Response: Based on the review provided earlier in this memo, Staff finds that criteria a, b, c, d, e, f, and g are being met, and that granting an FAR bonus is appropriate. All of the guidelines are being met, the historic building maintains prominence on the lot, the connector is as minimal as possible, the vast majority of the original historic building fabric is being preserved, and landscape features are retained. SETBACK VARIANCES The setback variances needed are a 3' west sideyard setback variance, a 1.5' east sideyard setback variance, an 8'rear yard setback variance for the residential unit along the alley, and a 3' rear yard setback variance for the new garage. The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: The applicant is requesting relief along the sideyards for the historic house and addition, and along the rearyard for the new outbuildings. Staff finds that setback variances are an important tool that can allow new construction to be appropriately distanced from designated structures. The board has consistently been favorable to granting waivers when there is a clear benefit to the historic resources, as is the case here. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: â€¢ approve the application, â€¢ approve the application with conditions, â€¢ disapprove the application, or â€¢ continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 6 P10 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Conceptual, On-Site Relocation, and variances be approved for this project, with the following conditions: l. HPC grants the following variances: a 3' west sideyard setback variance, a 1.5' east sideyard setback variance, an 8'rear yard setback variance for the residential unit along the alley, a3' rear yard setback variance for the new garage and a 500 square foot FAR bonus. 2. A landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all be addressed at Final Review. 3. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. A. Staff memo dated September 10,2003 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application 7 Pll "Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Conceptual Review" 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. 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. o If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. o An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. o The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. o Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case -by-case basis. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o 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. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the III?C, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. o If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the - lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. o It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. o It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 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 level is inappropriate. o Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 8 P12 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o Anew 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 historically 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 techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. 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. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 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. 9 P13 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS H AND I AND THE, EASTERLY 5 FEET OF LOT G, BLOCK 70, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2003 PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Chris Pat Aspen LLC, represented by Gibson Architects, has requested Major Development Review (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" and WIIEREAS, 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 WIIEREAS, for approval of Relocation of a Designated Property, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.C ofthe Municipal Code, that: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; RI 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; QI 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; gE 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 P14 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, for approval of an FAR bonus, 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: a. The design of the project meets @11 applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element ofthe property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building andfor c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; 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 ofthe historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated September 10, 2003, performed an analysis - of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 10, 2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of_ to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: P15 That HPC hereby grants Conceptual approval, On-site Relocation, and Variances for the proposed project at 135 E. Cooper Avenue5 as represented on September 10, 2003, with the following conditions: l. HPC grants the following variances: a 3' west sideyard setback variance, a 1.5' east sideyard setback variance, an 8'rear yard setback variance for the residential unit along the alley, a3' rear yard setback variance for the new garage and a 500 square foot FAR. bonus. 2. A landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all be addressed at Final Review. 3. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of September, 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 P16 RECEIVED SEP 3 - 2003 GIBSOB ARCHITFCTS. lIC ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT September 3,2003 Ms. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 30 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Dixon-Markle House gerer Residence) 135 East Cooper Avenue; Lots H, I, part of G, Block 70 Conceptual Review by H.P.C. for Major Development Dear Amy: Subsequent to the H.P.C. work sessions of 6/25/03 and 7/23/03, and the Conceptual Review of 8/13/03, the following application has been prepared, with input from these meetings incorporated into the design, including the following features: 1. A Passageway area, 6 ft. deep, one-story high, and virtually all glass, with a high degree of visual transparency, has been used to link the Addition to the Historic Residence. 2. The eave height ofthe addition has been reduced to about 18 ft. above grade, one foot lower than the primary eave and two feet lower than the historic corner window bay eave. 3. Theprimao roofconfiguration ofthe Addition has been changed to a hip roof, from the previous gable shape, reducing the visual mass of the building. 4. The Guest Residence exterior walls have been maintained in the existing configuration, with no changes except to fenestration. 5. The exposed exterior wall surfaces of the Historic House and the VOICE Guest Residence, approximately 8500 SF, are proposed to be 970 changed or altered over only approximately 203 SF of their area, 920 or 2%. 3007 715 WEST MAIN ST., #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 www.gibson-architectsÂ·.com . FACSIMILE 970 920 3103 P17 Amy Guthrie September 3,2003 Page 2 The primary program elements of the Development Proposal remain as follows: 1. Move the two existing residences in order to construct new foundations and basement spaces and locate them as shown on the Site Plan in approximately the same locations on the lot. 2. Adda one-car garage of250 SF, with a 9:12 roofmatching the slope ofthe adjacent Guest Residence. 3. Create an.Addition to theprimacy residence, located on the western interior portion of the site, set 9'6" away from the face of the Historic Residence and set back 10 ft behind the Cooper Avenue elevation (front) of the Historic house, connected by a one-story "transparent" link. 4. Maintain the mature evergreens and willow which define the lot lines on the north and east boundaries. 5. Maintain the steel fence which encloses the property along Cooper and Aspen Streets. 6. Retain all existingfenestration on the Historic Residence, including all existing doors and windows. We are requesting variances to certain setback requirements as described in the enclosed public notice, to more comfortably accommodate the structure on the property. No height variance is needed or requested. We respectfully request that the 500 SF bonus be granted to the project. We look forward to meeting with you on September 10, 2003, to further discuss our proposal. Respectfully yoyi,7 (/: 1 /&6"â‚¬ >616*+1- David F. Gibson, AIA CC Mitch Haas Christine Ferer enc Drawings dated 8/31/03 Copy of Public Notice of Meeting Application Forms P18 . 1 11 124 ~ - Ff y fâ‚¬#t)09 3 fi "ff . /6 % 7 .429'.F ' ./. I. ... *3Â£4 -" -lr , tw#- ..'' 4 Â¥88 4 , . 14'. ~P 7*'*'t. . ..4 l.: kf Â·fil~*; l, 44 1277*hic 4.*39';~l - e..;.t 42 -:4& rk A 4.17â€¢ ' 0~ . j , 2.1%Â¥;6*t .Â£ 411V Â»Â·t,~ .Â·, t.*Â· p,~U,DI~fUR~~T4 - 4- 9 , 1 ,{ fÂ»1*24>54*kf ~.jiÂ·,rivt, 46,,i' ''*. 4 49Â¥411, '4 1. Â· . . ) i./ 4 14< f. fa Â· --' -./ * W 1 . m i*74 Â·M, f 't 'b *th,4/ 1 1 L 11 q " 1 4 4.wi, -4 *.. f,/4, 11 *t f AL/Ablti - /WA j 2 64.k / 1 14 -0 Mult k , i..1 2 - + 1 6-L./1 f --t * 4,1 4 1. * -7 1.7 4 - - 10) Juifut 4-. - . tr- 42. , t.4 t. i 1 -' h . :04 11 , g ti *. I. F. 4 .4 U 1 'L Nt . AL b ~* 3 )11,)' R Ok. - "i 74 AL' A - ' ' *L li6 1 i 44 : 4<4 7 1 i. i > 7 * - , r:t- L.P. 5 A." Â·11 / ... 4 h ~4 , i Â·' . 3:/ idk , A u 1, 1-7-*- 6 . 44 '7 .lÂ«f 11 1"illit - f . ... 1 '.''f 1 I. // ...a -3 11// *. :Al / N 94 . 1,4,"ZIP D .. .ifts,0, I ' 16 6, & 3560Â·i~~ H ~ - -.> - 5.&5:.I- aÂ¥ id'.1, t.k . 7,2 =e#.0., ' 91.}:k - I' f .* ././.-df .Jj " . k,1.; .. 20& - .4 1 + - f./ . I r . 1 7 7 - .Â»361/'A//418//6// f X~ 44 ..,2â€¢wn>r,Â©Â©,e/:/. Ar. , r I , 4#:...* 'all- ' ,#*1./*r t 0, 43 , C .46 t.. 14. 40 ; 31%1<,1 3 4~ F. 24 '/14- -Â·. .,~ 4 4, Â¢ 14 2-12-**1 --2 -1\ r 11. 1 4, 4. &,%%-/1# 4*Aot 4:Wal-fu -4.U 1 5794, '16-ji,>t 4~~ t'ili, 7..f T'.4 G .Mlinly' #Fll .4 Â¥ 3' I " .d :251 ~; 1.. 94 ff '4 * C '~ Jil Y . d 4 *Il / . vid - 1. :4 1 n- 'li 1 -4,1 . 24" e. L -0 1 .% 4 4 .6, b U It. . 1 --0-*Il- % i.*L..~>,.f@ . r , .... . .f *f .. ilâ€¢ 1' f / 2 *1Â¢ 41Â¢t i{ '.. ), ti ' ... .r * %Ad'V 1 )le> Dukf, 1 961:. ma'.Ir. 6 .- .k- ' mImi , *; 'Ill'11,101 r 1/1,2 -I S .r 11 '4 . ,- 14 4:4# ,-*J. 1 - ... I - 1,0, # - 1.1 1 1 I . t i I. . m --~ -- Â£ !1 . P 4. k. Aâ‚¬ -14 ' . ..y <%5r I i "Â¥fvt â‚¬ 4 -L,t.=~=.I~~~~~4I,=;;,p,Im....,s-9.9.4,1-.in,=_ i.LI'' -- . 4.0 4 . r A t '=1 1 -, 1,1,111 4,= ?1?&116*4*23 1 . D--2 - - I .%, ..1 5 - M. 4 1... -1,-11,4,?i,1,411"~~i '11/ I. I Â· '=.... '' 4 4 - *411#...10*- : '1 4,+AP d . .. -:9 * I <Â· : 4. t A IN N / C -I .. 't 77 P e . 6 1...1 I'll'll'll'll/ *i~~&4 ~11~. - i r . -al r , 1, t 1 1/ ' trMIAÂ°Â» 4 i i- 4 ~44 . 1.â€¢d .34. â€žtk ~ g . wa rap 135 E. Cooper 61Bf 0[1 ARCHITECTS lir Â·i 9.' t LU 1. li - 2.' - 41.. t. . a ..g.. .1, 4 '' .-. 111 - - 196 -22=- D --- - &1 .@ 10 M. N Mi A .di fÂ®uwd I././ r r-...'.a* - 27 4 2. .....4 . br HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC September 2,2003 Mrs. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 135 East Cooper Avenue Conceptual Application (Lots H, I, and part of G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen) Dixon-Markle House (Ferer Residence) Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the accompanying plan sets to constitute a resubmitted formal request for approval of a conceptual development for the above-captioned property. The subject site is located on the southwest corner of East Cooper Avenue and South Aspen Street, and has an area of 6,500 square feet (0.149* acre). A Vicinity Map showing the location of the subject property is provided below. k.--ty.,M 'tylbom ' 01 -mÂ·k..4 512 ....f 7 *,0 994_sti Ar=* 2&46 10;, Grantle,&:1~ I 4 41*Â»fm" St Ball Field * " H Â¢ --'- it# 2#.il-&5~~I~-1 i 4 St fâ‚¬44#aepicl e Andâ‚¬484 -. d'rn. 0**agner ParkkÂ«â‚¬ 81Â» 07 i â‚¬/ 07w-.:~r- 1*w-,kr#-91.4,6 rl'w * i ../ 60rytHâ‚¬~TilIEN r. Ill-viI 02003 14#DQuestw~m Inc.: OZ~~Wav~3~th.~~no~b~- 444#~ The 6,500 square foot lot is zoned Residential Multi-Family (R/MED and is permitted an FAR of 3,680 square feet exclusive of the potential for a 500 square foot FAR bonus from the HPC. With the FAR bonus, the maximum allowable â€¢ 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADO â€¢81611 â€¢ â€¢ PHONE: (970) 925-7819 â€¢ FAX: (970) 925-7395 â€¢ e 4 FAR on the site will be 4,180 square feet. The property contains the 1888 Dixon- Markle House as well as an outbuilding (accessory/guest residence). The property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (hereinafter "the Inventory") and on the National Register of Historic Places. The Proposal The proposal involves the preservation of the outbuilding and historic house while adding onto the main residence. More specifically, an addition will be made to the west side of the historic house, and this will involve removing one window from the west wall of the house to accommodate a small (six feet wide) one-story connector between the existing residence and the addition. French doors will be added on the south (rear) elevation. Both the existing house and the outbuilding will be lifted to excavate basements and construct foundations before being slightly relocated as shown on the Site Plan (very little change from existing locations). A detached one-car garage of just 250 square feet with a 9:12 roof matching the slope of the adjacent Guest Residence, will be built at the southeast corner of the site. The addition to the primary residence will be located on the western interior portion of the lot set 9'-6" away from the west face of the historic residence, 10 feet behind its front (Cooper Avenue) fagade, and 17 feet behind the start of its front porch. The addition will be connected to the historic house in minimal fashion, using a one-story, six foot wide link constructed primarily of glass to provide transparency aimed at making it visually recede. Furthermore, the connecting link will be set behind a large existing spruce (evergreen) tree. The front porch of the historic house maintains a 10 foot setback from the front property line; the proposed addition will maintain a 27 foot setback from the front property line. The mature evergreens and willow that define the lot lines on the north and east boundaries will be maintained, as will the steel fence that encloses the property along Cooper Avenue and Aspen Street. All existing fenestration on the historic residence will be maintained; this includes relocating one 2'-6" wide by 6'-0" high double-hung window from the west elevation to the south elevation. The south elevation presently lacks any fenestration. To enjoy any passive solar gain whatsoever, a home needs fenestration on its south side. In order to complete this project several variances are necessary. These include the following: a 3 foot west side yard setback variance; a 1.5 foot east side yard setback variance; an 8 foot rear yard setback variance for the detached residence along the alley; a 3 foot rear yard setback variance for the new FERER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 2 detached garage; and a 500 square foot FAR bonus. A combined side yard setback variance is not required since the property contains two detached residential structures and is in the R/MF zone district. As compared with the most recently reviewed plan sets, this proposal differs in several important ways. The guest residence will be retained and its exterior walls will be unchanged with the exception of fenestration. The approximately 8,500 square feet of exposed exterior walls on the historic house and the guest residence are proposed to be changed or altered over only some 266 square feet or just 3%. The connecting element between the historic residence and the addition has been substantially reduced in size and redesigned to minimize the potential for visual impact. The eave height of the addition has been reduced to approximately 18 feet above grade, one foot lower than the primary eave of the historic structure and two feet lower than the historic corner window bay eave. The primary roof configuration of the addition has been changed to a hip roof, as opposed to the previous gable shape, reducing the visual mass and apparent height of the structure. As a result of the lowered eave height and changed roof form, the overall ridge height of the addition has been made to be lower than that of the historic residence. These changes as well as the setbacks of the addition result in an addition that is subordinate and subservient to the historic resource. The Proposal Relative to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Conceptual Review focuses on the height scale, massing, and proportions of a proposal. As demonstrated above, the height scale, massing and proportions of the proposed addition are subordinate and subservient to the historic structure, will not compete with or at all overwhelm the historic structure, and will not compromise the integrity or historic significance of the property. The following narratives refer to those Guidelines relevant to the subject proposal. Chapter 1 of the Guidelines addresses the streetscape and lot features. The proposal provides for preservation of the historic landscape and landscape elements that remain intact such as the evergreen trees and the willow tree, and the steel fencing, all of which help to visually define the property boundaries. Existing walkways to the front porch and rear entry will be rehabilitated, maintaining their current alignments. In accordance with Chapter 2 of the Guidelines, historic building materials will be maintained and preserved in place to the maximum extent practicable while completing an addition. Consistent with Chapter 3, all but one historic window will be preserved in place. The one window to be removed is not in a character-defining location; FERER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 3 . indeed, it is located on the least visible portion of the structure. Rather than simply removing this historic window, the applicant is proposing to reuse it on the south elevation, which is devoid of fenestration, and from a practical perspective, in need of windows. With the exception of the relocated historic window and the addition of French doors on the rear/south elevation, no new fenestration is proposed on the historic residence. The character-defining features of the historic doors (front and back), and their distinctive materials and placement will be preserved, thereby ensuring consistency with Chapter 4 of the Guidelines. Incidentally, the proposed French doors on the south elevation are in a location that ensures minimal visibility from the public ways and are of a design that will eliminate potential of being confused for original. There are no existing windows on the south-facing fagade of the house and the addition of fenestration on this side will greatly improve the livability of the structure, not to mention the potential for at least some passive solar gain and natural light. The residence benefits from two character-defining porches, one on the front and one on the back. As dictated by Chapter 5, both of these porches will be preserved in their current condition. Similarly, architectural detailing is being preserved in accordance with the Guidelines and policies of Chapter 6. Chapter 7 provides that the character of a historical roof should be preserved, including its form and materials. The proposal does not involve any changes to the historical roof, its form or its materials. By using a one-story, ground level connecting element between the two-story historic house and the addition, the original eave lines and eave depths are fully preserved. In a related vein, by placing the connecting element in the location proposed, one's ability to read the original corners and size of the house is maintained. Chapter 8 addresses treatment of secondary structures. While the historic significance of the guest house has not been decisively determined, the applicant has acquiesced to foregoing any debate over the issue. Rather, the applicant proposes to preserve the guest house with no changes to its existing walls or configuration; instead proposing only minor changes in fenestration to improve its functionality and livability. Chapter 9 states that proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposal involves a very slight relocation of the structures to a degree that will be nearly indiscernible. The structures will remain on-site and in their current/historic orientations. Their heights above grade will not be perceivably altered. The Guidelines state that in general, relocation has less impact on individual landmark structures than those in a 0 FERER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 4 historic district; the subject property is not in a historic district. The relocation will also enable enhanced preservation by allowing construction of proper foundations and, thus, better support for the aging structures. Chapter 10 provides the most relevant of the Guidelines as it addresses building additions. The proposal is consistent with the Chapter 10 guidelines. For example: (10.3) one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is fully maintained (as described in the foregoing); (10.4) the new addition will be easily recognizable as a product of its own time due to its proportions, materials, fenestration and forms; (10.6) the addition is compatible, subordinate and subservient in size and scale, with lower plate heights, lower eave heights and a lower overall height than that of the historic house; (10.8) the addition is setback behind a mature spruce tree, 17 feet from the front porch and 10 feet from the front-most wall of the historic house to minimize visual impact and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent; (10.9) roof forms of the addition are similar to those of the historic structure; and, (10.10) all historically important architectural features of the historic structure are preserved without being destroyed or obscured. With an addition that is compatible with the historic structure in terms of mass, scale, and proportions, the overall integrity of the Dixon-Markle house is maintained. The use of a small and appropriate connecting element between the historic residence and the addition ensures minimal change to the resource with no change to the most visible and important facades. Primary entrances and porch elements as well as important architectural features will all remain intact and without any change to historic orientations. In these ways, the proposal is fully consistent with the Guidelines of Chapter 11. The Guidelines of Chapters 12 and 13 are not applicable as the project site is not on Main Street or in the Commercial Core Historic District. For the most part the Guidelines of Chapter 14 are more applicable to Final reviews than they are to Conceptual reviews. Nevertheless, the project is and will be found consistent with Chapter 14's general guidelines addressing such topics as accessibility, color, lighting, on-going maintenance, and treatment of mechanical equipment service areas, driveways and parking. In total, the project is completely consistent with the HPC Design Guidelines as thoroughly demonstrated above. Projects, such as the subject that are found to be consistent with all of the Guidelines have typically been approved and awarded a 500 square foot FAR bonus and this project should not be an exception. FERER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 5 FAR Bonus Request This application requests that the HPC grant a 500 square foot floor area bonus as part of the conceptual development approval. Section 26.415.110(E) of the Code addresses the requirements for the HPC's granting of floor area bonuses. Specifically, said Section states that, in select circumstances, the HPC may grant up to 500 additional square feet of allowable fIoor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design oftheprojectmeets allapplicable design guidelines; and Consistency with all applicable design guidelines has been thoroughly demonstrated above. The proposed new construction is fully compatible with and subordinate to the property's historic features. The project preserves all important features such as landscape elements, windows, doors, the front and rear porches, architectural details, and the roofing and roof forms. Perhaps more importantly, the proposed development involves a truly outstanding effort to preserve two historic structures, one of which is an extremely important resource. b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and/or Responses demonstrating that the addition is proposed in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building are provided throughout the foregoing portions of this application. c. The work restores the existing portion Of the building to its historic appearance; and/or The proposal involves an outstanding preservation effort and the historic appearance of the buildings will be maintained. d. The new construction is rejlective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or The proposed design ensures the ability of casual observers to interpret the historic character of the primary building while allowing the new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Historic alignments and street orientations will be maintained on the addition. The proposed design uses a FERER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 6 connector element to link the historic structure with the subordinate and subservient mass presented in the addition. The proposed building forms are similar to (but do not mimic) those of the historic structure. e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or All construction materials will be of high quality. f An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or Again, the proposed design uses a smaII, one-story connecting element set back behind a mature spruce tree, some 10 feet from the front-most wall of the historic house and some 17 feet from its front porch to connect the historic house and the addition. The connecting element is also located so as to allow for preservation of the historic house's original corners. An appropriate transition between the old and the new is being provided. g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or The detached, historic guest residence is being preserved. h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and/or Again, all sionificant trees will be preserved, as will the historic steel fence that defines the property's street frontages. In summary, to be eligible for a 500 square foot FAR bonus, a project must meet standard "a," above and one or more of standards b-h. The Code provides at Section 26.415.110(E)(2) that projects which demonstrate consistency with multiple elements of standards b-h will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. The foregoing has demonstrated complete consistency with standard "a," as required. In addition, consistency with standards b, c, d, e, Â£ g and h has been assured as a result of this application. Accordingly, granting of the requested 500 square foot bonus is merited in the current case and should be awarded to this application. Variances Section 26.415.110(13) of the Code states that dimensional. variations are allowed on projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property than would be FERER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 7 .. required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. Specifically, the HPC is empowered to grant variances for designated properties to allow: a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c. Up to five (5) percent additional site coverage; d. Less open space than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. The following individual variances are requested to accommodate the proposed conceptual development plan: â€¢ 3 foot west side yard setback variance to allow a 2 foot setback where 5 feet are otherwise required; â€¢ 1.5 foot east side yard setback variance (provides a small, four-inch cushion for error) to accommodate a setback of 5'-6" where 6'-8" feet are otherwise required (*Note that underlying zoning requires only a 5 foot side yard setback and that the proposal exceeds this requirement; however, the Code requires that on corner lots, the street-facing side that is not designated as the "front" yard must maintain a setback equal to at least two-thirds of the underlying zone district's front yard setback requirement which in the subject case is 10 feet); â€¢ An 8 foot rear yard setback variance to allow a 2 foot setback for the detached guest house along the alley where 10 feet are otherwise required; and, â€¢ A 3 foot rear yard setback variance to allow a 2 foot setback for the detached one-car garage along the alley where 5 feet are otherwise required. In granting these variances, the HPC must find that the requested variances: a. Are similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/ or b. Enhance or mitigate an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. The requested variances maintain consistency with the patterns, features, and character of the historic property and the neighborhood as substantial distances are maintained between the property lines and the edges of pavement on Cooper Avenue and Aspen Street. The proposed setbacks still allow for FERER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 8 preservation of all significant trees while maintaining far greater perceived setbacks (i.e., from the roads). In fact, the east side yard setback exceeds that required by the underlying zone district but the variance is needed due to a technicality in the Code with respect to corner lots. Allowing the one foot west side yard setback will enhance preservation efforts by facilitating a maximum separation distance between the historic structures and the addition. The same is true of the rear yard setback variance for the guest house and the east side yard setback variance. Similarly, the requested rear yard setback distance for the detached garage allows views from Aspen Street toward the historic guest house and a consistent rear yard alignment between the guest house and the garage structures. We hope the information and responses provided herein prove helpful in your review, and we Iook forward to working with you toward approving this worthy application. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, TTâ€ž 9 T An 4 Planning, LLC Mitch'Maas, AICP Owner/Principal CC: David Gibson, Architect Christy Ferer, Applicant/Owner Attch./ c: My Documents/City Applications/HPC Applications/Ferer/Ferer Concpt App FERER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 9 Land Use Application THE CITY OF A~PEN PROJECT: Name: P h<ON- HAe-1<LE=- tbve,E Location: 1 as 8491- 4,0 Per#L *VES, Lars 1,4, .:1:5 10â€¢Â£Â£> 7+12 24911312 421 5 Prof Â£53, Bu,r ic-70 (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds descnption ofproperty) APPLICANT: Name: C.H.,2 1 Sm N g F/26#- Address: lie-7 6 '11#- Aâ‚¬ 1 U.7, ) kly. 101 '2-8 Phone #: (0-123 895,935â‚¬)Fax#6(11 265 -45 92- E-mail: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Â£34/1 D 6-1 Bâ‚¬Dk) AUO M (TOH A-A-46 Address: 7 15 W. Ptl-, A) Sr 0 153 20 1 U, Pl # L.L. 97-; 16 108 Phone #: 920.3oes-7 Fax#: 920 331 03 E-mail:,th.1, 9@,<5>101#vrA'z-4.d . Cow%- â€¢ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): El Historic Designation Â£ Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Â£ Certificate of No Negative Effect ~ Demolition (total demolition) ~ Certificate ofAppropriateness ~ Historic Landmark Lot Split -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development - -Final Historic Development - -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description ofexisting buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) AIJ 0-iq:TE:>21(- Re&10â‚¬*iCe ap Abot,r MOO 14, 811(ET IU i AA8 PLuS A Gueâ‚¬â€¢r REECIPENCe al= AlBodr 56-79*= 4.u[7-RvariED FRiou 710 I qot. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) No\IE. 11+9 -760 2,251 Pek)CeS Â·Th lu.ow CAA<91-2-107(7 0,1 Af' r,4921.Â·le,3752 tkyw grrturÂ·:r A Ao 6 --CA.Q. e.4-2.4#. i Aiup A 390 - 9~wowÂ·.1 ADprnend Tb 7112= tit *re, RIC RECiPEAJOEL LaCWTE:t> "10 rrHE weerr . FEES DUE: $ P 't , Dimensional Requirement Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: 135 6491- <560,64 4,5 - Applicant: PAvip GR*Er-*t- * M Fnew f44,46. Project Location: AG 62 r 05'.pEER i Lors +14 I * 849TE-elÂ¥ 9 Prol=GA, Zone 84-Â£3 Â£Rtc. -70 + District: R..4 Lot Size: /39:.Pr wu=*p- 1 Irro Pr- Peay=>, Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, ahd steep slopes. Please refer to the definition ofLot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number ofresidential units: Existing: 2 Proposed: 2_ Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 4- Proposed: 9 Proposed % of demolition: 1 3% C ~5*23 / C ZGG, p \ DIMENSIONS: (Write It/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Existing: 2-0427 Allowable: 11 230 Proposed: 41 1 1 Height 0/VaL r 600|* AG>WL,J Principal Bldg.: Existing: 523'- +Allowable: <25'- O Proposed: 216'- 4- 0% pÂ© Accessory Bldg.: Existing: \4~ ARo-wable: U/ A Proposed: \41 (*3 rr.\ On-Site parking: Existing: O Required: 4 Proposed: 1 % Site coverage: Existing: 128.2- Required: N.A. Proposed: 4190 % Open Space: Existing: 7 1- 8 2,Required: 35 2 Proposed: 5990 Front Setback: Existing: 12 f -7.Required: f 04- O" Proposed: /O' - O Rear Setback: Existing: 9-EARequired: ID' *- O Proposed: 54 36&'* Combined Front/Rear: Existing: /7 1 ",4.Required: 90' -d ' Proposed: /2 '4 0" Indicate N. S. E, W 1 I .. Side Setback: tweâ€¢.*5 Existing: 4--5 Required: 9-0 Proposed: 1/-00' Side Setback: (eigh Existing: 9 f. 14~-Required: 6 ' -8 Proposed: 5'- 6 " Can,Â£ 16,Â·va,Â·,0,~~,1 - Combined Sides: Existing: 13'- -Akequired: It '0- 8 Proposed: 7/ -Â¢" Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachm~Qjgnses have been issued: .20Â£94â€¢p Ar.H ehyr ct= O'- -7 0 1 Â¢2-eAlt yARD ,33Â£/22&~11'30.1-rl,a,r- OF- LA' --2,%6 Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed):~REFE,2 -173 6 ~42-5/03 Pi/BUC 14cm Ce. DESCE_' Pl-7 â‚¬>A,# ' 2â€¢<LOSEÂ» . ) PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 135 E. COOPER AVENUE- MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Christine Ferer requesting Conceptual HPC approval to make an addition to the existing buildings located at 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I and the easterly 5 feet ofLot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen, as well as approval to move the existing house and outbuilding a small distance from their current locations. The proposal includes a request for the following variances: a 3' west sideyard setback variance, a 1.5' east sideyard setback variance, a 10' combined sideyard setback variance, an 8'rear yard setback variance for the existing unit along the alley, a 3' rear yard setback variance for a proposed new garage, a waiver of up to 3 on-site parking spaces, and a 500 square foot FAR bonus. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jeffrev Halfertv Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 23,2003 City ofAspen Account 8 Â· 3/Â· 03> /36 E. Â£2:,OFEKL . b)WER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL UPPER LEVEL ATTIC _EVEL TOTALS ACTUAL % F.A.R. ACTUAL F.A.R. ACTUAL F.A.R. ACTUAL F.A.R. HISTORIC HOUSE 1009 SF 9% 91 SF 772 SF 772 SF 728 SF 728 SF 219 SF 219 SF GUEST RESIDENCE 596 SF 12% 71 SF 595 SF 595 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 0 ADDITION 916 SF 14% 127 SF 804 SF 804 SF 773 SF 773 SF 0 0 GARAGE 0 SF 0 SF 250 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 0 ACTUAL TOTAL 2521 SF 2421 SF 1501 SF 219 SF 219 SF 6662 SF F.A.R. TOTAL 289 SF 2171 SF 1501 SF 4180 SF , South Aspen L.4,1PI~2>SS- 0 ;AMP AÂ»f 135 East Cooper 1 4 1 i .. 4 407 4-1 NE 100 .0 1 41&81_ FEA[Oa - .. r . r--1 6-29.3 / 1 2Â®Zil . Basil ./ \ t 5 NG FRNE 67 ' 4.5 66â‚¬,rhk:*.Â· + U ' 14-0.r + + e 4 1 I 4 0 e. PL-, Fi -fl..13;_r> t , U / 34 New/ aeâ€¢.1 21 i ~ - Garage \ 0 1 1 1 .S.nEN 0 . 1 -/26* , i --- ' ./ r 3 F ---'Â£ -&.- -fl-*-- - Historic Residence * ' ' * Â· Â· Â· Â·t-/ 0 ... , As - . 4 0/ .. k 2.1 + . .. - 7-4 2 0 9 42 Â·- 4 + .... 1 1 -0 1. . . 4 , r + h + rf + -~ 4+ .- AS. 7% 1 1Â·- u,-J LA $- 1 2.Â·t Â©f'~4 K 5 .pÂ· i 1 . ... -- .. ! l/@brUJELL a . Sf=RgE- -- 1.-.u' Cl:.... j . I -. r 4 + 9/'- 0" .%+P?.V 1* -4 + 0 . r -11 .%* 1 / d= \ 1 'rd 112 2- Â· _* f 1 â€¢ .-ft li'~,~~" ~~~ 7' ~~~ ' ~~ * In. . i 2 -- , U /4 - 2 -4 \ 1 ,Â« , Addition >+ 3 1 , 1 11 3 J>_i_ Â·Guest Residence M! f 11- 5 EK(ST/NG uwaW / Ilill'I~ Il i ./t Â»'7 f . / 1 , -r \ 1.-~\ 1 , /7 / #wen sp h \\ 4 6... 1 1 rd 1 1 NÂ· - / 4- - r-<Ar#-476-~ERACACG~ SITE PLAN g 31 03 \ 1 1 0 5 jo <20 PrÂ· -0 East Cooper DZ >Pole Aeuv Â·Â·22.82- -3-n -21_. . Aspen St., 0 .. 135 East Cooper ./- 0 9 .e 0 LA 1-.P=ZIP=#t==9 : 1 (LW.) 1 1 11(L.%) 11 - . . 2' GARAGE . 1 /1. 1 1 Sn-TING 9 .. I KPORCH' 1 . - I. . 0 I C====31 Â· , - - TERRACE PORCH ENTRY ---Â·mIT. -I â€¢ â€¢ - 101 . 50Â»m*=30' 4=91 \11 -Â»f//44 5 no PowÂ·, (Oil - 1 1 - 1 ,. J 11 1 g. 4 (LW.) 1 ... 17~~~T~ = 1 . 1 - i i. ~-9:ill . . to, -7' \01 1#3#7 - + . M.H. Ul' BEDROOM 11"91 \ PORCH - 1 7-7-27'~ BREAKFAST - -4 i L_i' - ke=vc 1 d P,4- il 11 i f-hl * _â‚¬__It O --ICH 21 11 11 1 1 -1 DINING '~~ PREHEd Â· 4 1 4.I W 1 i 1 4-1 1 5 0 .- l ~17[UIU-III- ri TH KITCHEN ' i. L--11 1 - i r - -+ 00(30 -3, ,~ (LW.) r-h=I-iII-T CD I / 94 I lit. 1---i--Ill--I-.,1.- --;=It .~ .-. Nl *-- MAIN:FLOOR PLAN g ,1.e 2 M . \ 0 . ID 20 E Cooper Ave. 6 , Aspen St 618500 ARCHITFCTS .It ft 135 East Cooper k- 1 1 4/ -- BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM Â«17 i , ! i i HALL E-4 9:Â· .. *----3*2 --- im. -C ,Â¤1-<9 -~ -1- i arrrING BATH . l-flop. 4 9 (open) - < ~ 1 F 1 f C> I , 9. =1. 1.[1 + f 1.1 f , . \ 1 . ----a - 1 1 1= MASTER BEDROOM I. , i ' '8 I iji- 1 1 - BATH # ~ 1 CLOSET 7- - --1 -.1 -11#93 c:~ 'uzzÂ§ -_~ --I31 ----]~]--1 }1 1 t. e UPPER LEVEL PLAN 8-3/.05 3 Cooper Ave. . A Aspen St 61BfOO ARCHITFf:-TR l IC 135 EastCooper 10Â©.O ' . 40 1 1 -4 +1 1 i 0-WJ # 1 1 0 BA --1 1 1 BEDROOM 1.1/1 iNg b CLI STORAGE 1 -- ' r.-~--if Â· 1 . HALL .. 0 Lf . . 4. ... MEOHANI~*1. / (LW.) f C L.WÂ·j 1 0 1 4091. 1 i - 9 N /1 Â· IN .L i . Up -- ' FAMILY 4 .- -- 0~ 2- CL 1 1 rÂ·-- 4 14 - 94 ' FAMILY 9-; â€ž.)6 BEDROOM l ~ - ~~t 4-Illl,/ bÂ«- 1 . it.#ATH.L.- - . BEDROOM F ~--1- - g 1 ) ' - 1. LJ I 0-W.)_ . ~ LOWER LEVEL PLAN g.8 j to, 1) au~ il I 4 20 Fr Cooper Ave. 65.0, Aspen St. 61Bf00 ARCHITECTS l IC 135 East Cooper -1 - I , 1 - 1 /6.7 E- - - - - -- -1 1 i i 1 1 f t ir 4/ \ r 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 -- 1 .1 21 2 --/- - 78 F-- .0 - 1 1,112. 1 /11 1 1 4-- ---- - -- -~ 1 0. 4 11 \ â‚¬477/4 VIL ... | |Ii 1 H-+ _ 2-24 12/Er~ OF.*1 2 - 4-- 1 . 3 + . : 12.~ 12- 1 : I L- 2 -4, _ 11_ _. C P 1 1 - -- il--j -7 4 ft 2- 1 1 '2/4.t 12- 1 1 1 ; 1 1 1 1 - 11 /1 \ 1 3 1 \ .11 / 1 11 11- 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 11411 ,-- i f 1 94 /2 1 . 4- - 1 1 4 'l 1% L_ - - --- -- -- r- - -- 4Â· -- -- - -1- - - 1 e ROOF PLAN 8. 11Â· 03 pit-I] 1 5 0 /0 =01 pr Cooper Ave. ' 1 =Sks" 435 E.*tCocmer 3 MIZZE-lp 11=j -- -- â€¢ i 1...1 T a.. /17'-3, - 1 - 0 1 .4 Upfard LWEL- 11'' t... Â£3001 + . 8 r=11 11 Q' - . 802 -T D E=7-3,0 1 - U el -ck-tmlikEYEL- S. Aspen 7 at_ r 00 7- O. 1 1 1 It 1 1 1 J ~# NORTH ELEVATION: 4. 1 1 -1 1 2 i 1 1 1 . ir - _. i 1 (0462- ta,e- -#+.V.*-- E== 11 0 ! -rÂ· 1-r :. T~- R--4 L-111==.11 r t - 0 0 0 p===:11:3 -- MINII 11[9- 00 MInlin E -- ~ 1**02- 00 -- 1 Alley 1 8 ----- --* DEZJD*EZE][1 2-----~. ECeeper , 1 11 1 11 1 4 ;i 1 IL ~i i -il ka i 1-1 \ 1 1 11 1 1 I ELEVATIONS 9 h>t ~63 L EAST ELEVATION It 1 1 â€ž9 -,14 I I ARCHITECTS 1! C 135 EastCooper 'llr==11 k \ 1 Il U' 0 - 11; 1 111 12 1,1. -- - --1 - - -1 ---- --- ..J-- 5. Aspen ....a . , 1 1 1 5149 1 1 i. 1 1 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 1 1 1- J -.-Id .---*--1- --1 . - .4 -U . 0 .. .* - t. *A --I - ~ Ezzl =zz------ ECooper rl Â· ------ - Alley _4 -/.*;i 11 li 1 . 1 15 1-4 '1 1 1 ATIJ ELEVATIONS 8, 94. 07 4---4 ; 1 WEST ELEVATION - -17 fl==f=tÂ«f~===1â€ž .. 13*East Cooper -0 - O B-Â»f- -E1 - Ilr==1~~- : I I liE--1 : F i 1 11 1, 1-i Â· 1 r. L. +1 1 65 H al L -4 #=41 li 4- 1 WESt ELEVATION 1 EAST ELEVATION ~ ~ 16=J tiist,~ie Residence 11 1 1 1 1 i Addition l MECHANICAL --t . L - BBB BEE 1 1 1 st NORTH ELEVATION 1 - L -~ Guest Residence 1 - - 1 LE - ELEVATIONS *Hidden" 6 -2Â¢05 | i i ----0 1 dj L% Ly 6 5 10 20 pr- 42 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 0 0 0 5 NUMENT NE. 1376 -i S 75Â°09'll-E ~ 65.00* ctÂ·r'i Mo.BLOCK 70 0 CORNER HORIZONTAL CONTROL 1 1 . 1 PORCH 0 Ci t' 30.8 A 16.5' 40. 9.2 4 t' i,5' *~~ ~ ~ 10 3.0 . A Lrl ' co O 1 2 3.0 12.4' 1'4 Z ~ PORCH 11 .la 29.3 | STORAGE| 1 H I~ STONE WALK 1 sp A 11 , , 0, 5.0 .M' + 14.6' 0 . 0 00, 0 41 PORCH 1. .1.1 4 10.2' Ld ! O -comr o > O --r-0 71 Z -1-40-4 i.ou s E -0 > Z>X 1.063 - ZOo U) Â· G) 22 c J 4 ~ 2 20 1% I w 3, . > 77 O ~" O - ~ 'c) QT &31 3 4.4 41 TRASH c: E-] ~ ~~ " '(D w. ill LO PARKING , z :m ' tri 2376 0 1 N 75069Â·ilÂ·w 65.00' 2376 w 'ALLEY BLOCK 70 - 1 Co I Â· 121 Oj GRAVEL 19.6 STONE 14050 49-IE 100 .00-001 M.64.050Â¥1 S ERS, INC. ASPEN, ~ H AND I AND THE Â· EASTERLY 5 FEET O.F LOT G, IMPROVEMENT SURVEY MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission dRA THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 311 S. First St. - worksession DATE: September 10, 2003 SUMMARY: The subject property contains a Victorian era home that was attached to a new home in 1980. The applicant proposes to demolish the link between the two buildings and complete a "facelift" on the non-historic residence, adding a one car garage, porch, new exterior materials and windows. HPC reviewed an application for this project in May, and continued it with some concerns about the new porch and the proposed fenestration. Since then, the owner has selected a new architect, and has re-submitted for Minor Review, which is scheduled on HPC's agenda for this evening. During the development of plans, the new architect contacted staff and inquired whether or not setback variances could be available to make the new garage, which is the major impetus for the project, a more usable space. This is something the board can consider, under the following standard: Section 26.415.110.C: HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. The Assistant City Attorney has approved the architect's request to conduct a worksession so that the board may hear the background on the variances. While you may not make any formal determination or "pre-judge" the concept since proper notice has not yet been issued, you may indicate if you feel there is no merit to the idea. If that is the case, the board will move into review of the existing Minor development request. If not, the applicant will withdraw the pending project and complete public notice for a future meeting date, variances included. 1 P19 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ijAA THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 311 S. First St. - Minor Development, Public Hearing (Previously noticed and continued) DATE: September 10, 2003 SUMMARY: The subject property contains a Victorian era home that was attached to a new home in 1980. The applicant proposes to demolish the link between the two buildings and complete a "facelift" on the non-historic residence, adding a one car garage, porch, new exterior materials and windows. APPLICANT: Paul and Elaine Sandler, Represented by Donna Guerra and Martin Mata. PARCEL ID: 2737-124-68-004. ADDRESS: 311 S. First Street, Lots R&S, Block 54, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: IUMF - Residential Multi-Family. MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with - the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the 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. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three 1 P20 hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures setforth in Chapter 26.316. A list of design guidelines relevant to this project is attached as "Exhibit B." The memo will discuss only those that staff finds may not be met by the proposal, or which warrant discussion. The applicant is planning to remove a non-historic connecting element between the historic building (constructed in 1887) and the newer structure (constructed in 1980, not reviewed by HPC.) There are no proposed changes to the historic building except for repairing the wall. The floor of the connector serves as a roof for an existing basement mechanical area, so it will be retained as an exterior deck, approximately 2 feet above grade. The connection and new house are out of character ~ "' I . with the historic building, and any improvements to the situation are welcome. Current location of *onnector 3, t Staff has recently located a photograph of 311 S. First that should be used as a guide to repair the .1.c t- '.....' - .aÂ· disturbed wall, according to the following guidelines: 3.4 Match a replacement window to the 1 original in its design. o If the original is double-hung, then the K ra.Â· Â· ~ ~:1 :1 1119' Â·*DÂ· Â·Â· 1 replacement window should also be double- ..,â€ž.9-le:.:. ..r hung, orataminimum, appear tobeso. Match r.. ...1 .,1,... - I - t k T. 31 the replacement also in the number and position 9'J ' of glass paIles. 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. 2 P21 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 ofthe wall. Two double hung windows will be re-installed to match this photo, with the location to be driven by any physical evidence at the site, as well as close examination of the picture. In addition, selection of brick that matches the historic material, and cut sheets for the exact windows to be installed will be required, all subject to staff and monitor approval. With regard to the proposed alterations to the new house, it should be acknowledged that it's massing and placement, which are not variables up for discussion at this time, were not particularly sympathetic to the old cottage. It is difficult to create a strong relationship between the two structures at this point. The most important action is to remove the physical separation, which is occurring. The proposed new fenestration is more vertically proportioned than the existing, a nicely scaled porch is added, and the wall surface is broken up with new materials. Staff finds that the changes are appropriate and meet the guidelines for new structures on landmark lots to the extent possible in this case. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Part of the application is to add a garage to the front portion of the new house. The doors face the alley, however, a variance is needed from a "Residential Design Standard: 26.410.040.C.2.b. Thefront fagade of the garage, or the frontmost supporting column of a carport shall be setback at least ten feet further from the street than the frontmost wall of the house. The elevations also include some windows on the east side of the house that violate the following standard (Note that there are windows on the south that also violate the "no - window zone," however they are existing and do not have to be brought into conformance): 26.410.040.D.3.a. Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine and tweivefeet above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. All residential development must comply with this standard or receive a variance based on a finding that: 3 P22 A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Response: The proposed garage will be the closest part of the house to the street. There is no other location possible that would not involve significant remodeling of existing space. The garage function is not evident from the street, and does not create the kind of lifeless elevation that the standard is concerned with. Many other improvements to the building are being made, therefore staff finds that a variance from this standard is appropriate. The small clerestory windows proposed on the east elevation do not, in staffÂ° s opinion, create the perception of a voluminous space, which the standard is addressing, therefore a variance is appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Minor development approval for 311 S. First with the following conditions: l. HPC has granted a variance to Residential Design Standards 26.410.040.C.2.b and 26.410.040.D.3.a. 2. Exact location of the restored windows, selection of brick that matches the historic material, and cut sheets for the windows to be installed on the south wall of the old house will be subject to staff and monitor approval. 3. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and - location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring: purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 4. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 5. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 6. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 7. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 4 P23 8. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 9. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # , Series of 2003. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated September 10,2003 B. Relevant Guidelines C. Application 5 P24 Exhibit B - Relevant Guidelines Windows and Doors 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 ofthe 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. 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. Existing Additions 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. Mass and Scale 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. 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. 6 P25 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. Materials 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. o Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. o Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 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. 7 P26 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 311 SOUTH FIRST STREET, LOTS R&S, BLOCK 54, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2003 Parcel ID #: 2735-122-39-003 WHEREAS, the applicants, Paul and Elaine Sandler, represented by Donna Guerra and Martin Mata, has requested Minor Development approval for removal of a linking element between a historic building and a non-historic building, addition of a one-car garage, and fagade changes to the non-historic building at 311 S. First Street, Lots R&S, Block 54, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Aspen 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. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a Development Order; and WHEREAS, the procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project' s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant infonnation on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC reviews 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; and - WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated September 10, 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 September 10, 2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application after a duly noticed, public hearing, took testimony, found the application to meet the pertinent standards, and approved the application by a vote of to THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: P27 That the HPC approves Minor Development for 311 S. First Street, Lots RAS, Block 54, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: l. HPC has granted a variance to Residential Design Standards 26.410.040.C.2.b and 26.410.040.D.3.a. 2. Exact location of the restored windows, selection of brick that matches the historic material, and cut sheets for the windows to be installed on the south wall of the old house will be subject to staff and monitor approval. 3. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 4. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 5. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 6. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 7. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 8. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 9. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preseEvation prior to receiving a building permit. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of September, 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 P28 10 Park Avenue, Suite 100, Basalt, CO 81621 t970-927-1092 f927-1093 mata@sopris.net Wednesday, August 06,2003 Amy Guthrie, City of Aspen Community Development Historic Preservation Committee Members HPC Work Session 311 South First Street Aspen, CO Enclosed are 12 sets of drawings to help our discussions during the proposed work session. The purpose of this work session is for discussion with the HPC regarding a possible front yard setback variance request for this project. If there is a general indication from the board that the proposed variance would meet the standards in the land use code then we would consider tabling this application once again so that we may notify the public and formally request a variance. The owners of this property have recently changed design/ planning representation for this application. Donna Guerra is presently representing the owners and I am assisting her in the architectural development of this project. In our review of the drawings to date we have come to the realization that the new garage as presently proposed is not practical. The owners had been advised that the garage would be tight but were not clearly aware that the clear width could be as little as 8'-1". Our minimum recommended garage width for a situation such as this is 11'-0" clear inside of the garage walls. We hope to seek a variance that would allow us to provide a 7'-0" setback distance where a 10'-0" distance is required. The land use code allows for such a variance when used for the purpose of enhancing the architectural character of the historic property. This variance would allow us to provide a deeper front porch and, as the elevations illustrate, would allow a step and additional roof plane in the fagade closest to the street. These enhancements would improve the character of the property and immediate neighborhood and be accomplished without detriment to the existing historic structure. Sincerely, Martin Mata .. 3 AA / 9 4 - i v r.~ 0 4 t . r . ,6/ .0 4 1 t) Â£-3 2 3 / 49 M. 6 9 4, t ., 4 1 90 ... V. --1 8 9 . 0 1 1, 6 4% 3 ~ f. f .7 t.,4 =165 4 1/ \ \ new access to .- r. 4 1 leil / existing mech. \ 4 lAi, ' 1 0 1 , Â£ 14.~9 -1,1 1 .-1, , 1.- /1 -- 1 - =31 4 .t. I ./ A 11/ % AS new deck over .~ ! Sudng tlmth. 4 room* - -1 0/ . -E 579'11 existing g ' 4 < t-4 1 historic , 4 J M 2\ 1 ~ 1.~ 's'# 6 12/1/. r~~~~~~~e i~ â‚¬~4-;\ , L 5 ~~ 1=i 0 -bV,; i-deck structure i x 3..,.4 1 L -i] ' r id 1 0 1 1417' A.-- I /\ n - i - --1. 1 PIll c : 1 1 Le Ir 6 e 7 1 ./ Z Â» 0 , i /1 -: G J ,~~ . 1 k. - -1 rf | I . rew. a.9. d .NL 4615 111 '' -440 lili 1 ~-m rt=r-rfilloa. - - -r - 111 6Â·r-- 7'-0" setbagk_ 'aâ€¢ i , fÂ»5Â«/1-3 AN.24.-- i 1 1- - g , P'-+- Â· 2 lexg 1 4 .4.lia 411 Yit' '..Ak -4/ SPU 1 nÂ©03' preperty line /43-4*14------- 1 1 N 1/,6 19'16 3 ~ :25 16 i ..irpÂ·e 1 ' J 1 '- r 1 . I [it'.1 49'.. 0 : ,Â·,1. 0, 06â€¢1,1.5. ~ existing pavement m existing grass ~ I Â·dka 'i 1 0 ' Existing site plan Information taken ftom 09-28-01 south first street improvement survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers. 6% MINOR HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT -SANDLER RESIDENCE 311 South First Street -Parcel ID#2735 1246 8004 August 2003. HPC WORK SESSION. Aspen, Colorado Architectural Site Plan Scale: 1"= 20'-0" VU NORTH MATA DESIGN COMPANY 10 Park Avenue, Suite 100 Basalt CO 81621 Ph. 970-927-1092 Fax 970-927-1093 mata@soprls.net ~ A-1.X ..69.2//r ... --- - ... ---- --MI-'.0- - - - -y 4 -I.. -- ..I MI~ -/.0. - - ..... -- I.----Il --' ./.....I- .I 0 - 12-â€¢ New living space over garage is - 1 7 stepped back 9 9 from face of Â«//---94 4 - garage below -1 U it 1,3||IE~~ , .. 9 1 - -Ill./- - d ..~ k . - r . ~1. 01 0 ~t - 4@jk -4 4 - Fla . , q i- ,, [r:7*ui ~ 29+Z . rk' 71: 1 D 0 1 1 . , A: t, I Deeper porch (8'-0" clear) Roof element at ist story level Mountain Side Elevation 1/84 = 1 -0 Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen MATA DESIGN COMPANY HPC WORK SESSION August, 2003 71 1 111 Â¢ 0 -0-0 - iâ‚¬-0 setback /1.- , , - Box-out beams -, ~- New living space over garage is stepped back from face of garage below 2 1 7 .,1 ~, New windows, . mi' t ~C-G Â· A 11 ~ doors and siding -. i : nt , i,i i i. i 4.--Porch roof beyond It,- It $ r ,- - 1 f 1 Re-build decks *- 11' 1L1. U---1 . .... - 4 '11 1,1,1 1/ T 3 1 4: ' V -rrr~ t New stone and ~ ~ 3, lifill \1 1Â· 4~ New garage with alley access is timber columns ~~ U 1/-0- 1 i 1 1/11 k forward of living space above 1.41 .O , 4%4~.49 11. 11' 1 4 *0 0- 9 11 j i Will'll""I""Il",lk.. - I. - 7'-0" setback variance Mountain Side Elevation 1/8"=1'-0" Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen -Aili/A/u=JA - HPC WORK SESSION August, 2003 ... Living room addition beyond 10'-0" setback-: - Repair, patch, and 1 --44.1,/-,X - paint existing siding 2-de,0 - - ;-&--4*~J~. 4/ Api - -- -1,- - -47 - i lit 22 . - --, ~ '*F~:- --0 Relocated/ new '-. -1 1 1 -Â·- - windows It- - - 1 1- -6=1 - . --- . k -- .-. - 4 I I -- .. .-.77.-4 1 . ... Outline of connector -1 - 0- . to be removed 1 -' 1 ./ 3.2. f -m.-0=MIll . : 1.11.1 1 - 4-1 2, 1 151 1. 11 =1 7'-0" setback 1 - - 1 1- 1/ U- 17 =---1- C .1 variance -* i 'G . New deck surface over , i - ... . mechanical room â€¢ - -m . 04 Q-*o. I *: I , -- 1 10?29Â· 9 . 9 to '40 ' Existing mechanical room below grade Wrap stone around corner New covered entry porch rd' Existing north elevation â‚¬=... North Elevation 1/8"= 1 '-0" Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen HPC WORK SESSION MATA DESIGN COMPANY August, 2003 I . ... 4 , 1 . ..C.,4.*.3.10,~fak--1 ,~h .. f. 1 1 r , r. Â¥- # ---- 1 - t 1 . .1.17.1 1 J 'U + Ag. Existing first street elevation 1-- =M- i- -J=-rw L.2-rll 1 80 '- 1-/1 Ad.1 -\ ' --i L - -0 1.*4 1\-11 1 a ~ta r-1 0 12; ' 9 :29 4 7 W ' 92,41 6 7 0. 1 El . - i . Â»---L__ Proposed First Street Elevation Mountain Side Elevation no scale Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen HPC WORK SESSION MATA DESIGN COMPANY August, 2003 lili I I y- 44 . 1 , 4 \ 2 3 â€¢'O 2. , r On, â€¢1 4 A 1 6 -1 V' -% 1 9. I ..Sfil j - 11 0 -/r L~ $~ '~ r / . :96 4 1 U' A 7. 2,1 1, 1- f / 1 r 42â‚¬13. 1- D, If Â£ 1/ 7 existing mach. 7 1 f-, 4-J ~ l :/ t room 11 r. /r ., /'fl Af'Tr , '3, , ~11 '' 1 . 1 - 4 . t # .6 WN,4,1 42 E ' ' i j newdeckover 1 existlng mech room e r existing e 479 \ 1.-- 067 1 1 historic . , g r. i It / '~ existing .r, &/1 ,5, 1.3 X 1 C : structure ~i i .8 . 4 Ed 1 - / . -,t t.' J new deck , residence F==1 1 " 8 1. 21:'.4 9 \ 47 6-/1 -ld -- *412 r bri-AL :O h. 4 67, ..9 2411 Ifi = r-VIA n - r 2 - fy-U .~ 4 5 - .4 1 9 itew garage i e.J' new Forch Â· 'r'7~7Â·Â·* 1 Le*. 4 10'-0" frght setback -: ' /1.2- 34 /\' , 7.---1Â»J.\ L 2#, Fi ' j \ '41.1.~hf 1 ly--- >-' . 1~ 'TT -rv j spruce Â£ J 421,14, Â·f r -- 1 . property line ' I 14 Â·,4 9 I 1 : ~â€¢6 ~6 ' el \,-4 . 44.- Id . 7 1 9 ,Â·, 1 Â·: e.â€¢ PEâ€¢ Aâ€¢-1- I /- 1~.1~ I :R@* F .4 ~ existing pavement Ll existing grass , 744>F./ Existing slte plan Information taken from 09-28Â·01 south first street improvement survey prepared by Aspen Sulvey Engineers. MINOR HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT -SANDLER RESIDENCE August 2003. 311 South First Street -Parcel ID# 2735 1246 8004 Aspen, Colorado Architectural Site Plan Scale: 1 "= 20'-0" VU NORTH MATA DESIGN COMPANY 10 Park Avenue, Suite 100 Basalt CO 81621 Ph. 970-927-1092 Fax 970-927-1093 A-1.1 mata@soprls.net C \MDC\Sandler\Drawing@lAl-1-8,(11.ctâ‚¬, ed lh, 8/27/2003 4:0205 PM KE+1917Â·1,6 +J -1,11111111 4:.11â‚¬ 44Â»-42*0'Â·Â·~J AL -42. .,faiÂ·.,4 .04.*~0151,Â»1;.2 T *841.La . 1 r..,0.,-.- . U Jl C....- - -2 71 . .a .:i'I 1 BATH 1 Nle.1,4 KITCHENETTE 0 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 .10~F *62 ~ 0 . BAâ„¢ 2 T - lot ) CL E / CL Tv CL DOWN 43 Bolz- mmNO .. 1 I hlefi ht,/AJ -i...i...I STMAL 1-1 1 CL UVING " 1 BEDROOM 3 *grbr ENTRY UP 9. l Nâ€¢14 GARAGE ..~a / ~*Fil.UCE. N g,1 PORCH \ / - El - ---- I.-- ---.. -0.,4- 1.*;/ 0-29* - --/.0.- -'.- Sandler Residence 0 -~ f GPOUND FLOOÂ¥LAN # t= Il-0 311 South First Street, Aspen Minor Historic Development Application ~ 1 August, 2003 -1 010 R 1.-----------------+I WALK-IN CLOff MA51-Ele 8*ATI-1 0 0 3 POWPER LIKEN PANTRY / GLESf WN 511.12 m , 145,1 210 MM121 i /37 U NUSTER BEDROOM 1 i FlaPLACE FIREPLACE 4 1 oFFICE Â£ I 1\~ *atj / 1 \ E 3 1 --~ .ET / LIVING 14#w 1 lie-* -74 7 1 Sandler Residence # t, 1 Â¢ b 311 South First Street, Aspen UPPER FLOOR PLAN I \7003 9> 1 Minor Historic Development Application August, 2003 0 Â» FL Â»4 26 -a -EL 2 41 U gH. P2 \ 1 0 ' L * u'*,4 4 *fl'I~RÂ·r.v #1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN </ ,-' Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen * Minor Historic Development Application August, 2003 mm ... I . . . .. . . 0 , . -&.&-2<. g -Â·---Â· - . /Â·11 Ill- -/ 1 . - - #..../...I- *I-.I"ll *-I--4, . Living room . _ 22 addition over garage l - - F.. . --- *--*..---7 . - -- 1 t:.- 1 1-2 2 --m--- â€ž---Ila New deck rail. . r . 0 â€¢ 1 :,4. ~r, + 4 3. 4 71 . i. - Outline of ' - existing spruce tree - 1=------- New balcony 0 , hal. i Pe , - / New stone base , -'ll--4 , '4# u:i, 1 . 4 *MI New garage addition/* ./4 : t.(9516 1 0 - i* la I 4 - . 12 00% 1 0 ,Â¢ 0 . 9 4 7 ' & ..4 & 29 4% ....... 4 4. '*et: I :24Â© i Soiith First St. Elevation 1/8"=1'-O" New porch Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen MATA DESIGN COMPANY Minor Historic Development Application August, 2003 ... - 9--'..../- - - .-I ,- Box-out beams - --7--- - - + -mEZIZZE* - 4- New living space over garage New windows, 1 1S doors and siding .-A , '111 . 1 *:1 1 1 .0, W.. 0 4 1*1 + 11 1 4 . 1 'r .t -14 -- +I- ./ , - New railing Re-build decks . i . 0 -141 9 . . ' - 0 . 1 . Â·,i U ip U 4 1 New stone and * 1 timber columns~ -- 4- New garage with alley access @00 1 Â¢,1, J ' - New exterior stair Mountain Side Elevation 1/8 =1-0 Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen MATA DESIGN COMPANY Minor Historic Development Application - August, 2003 ... Work on east elevation (back of building) to be similar but no stone. Living room addition beyond -7 1 / Repair, patch, and .00-*1|~~9334 kÂ»_ - paint existing siding t -- - - 4 - 4/--~ - - '.I- --W I /2- - - .Er. 1~ ---L- - - cnic--Ill.--12/ windows Relocated/ new - - 1 - ..6 - . .. I % h .. .. '41 - -- - . - Outline of connector -. I ir - r~ - to be removed -r - -----fl -M=-42/ - . Irllrll=:n - 1. 11 11 - - l. . - 1. a 'IZE t> I. I--/. 1 New deck surface over 0 11.1 1% 6, e : ' - mechanical room U 0 2. /A , 06 : . D I Existing mechanical room below grade I.-0.. I /1,1 . Wrap stone around corner 34 1-02 1 - ~ New covered entry porch - Existing North Elevation North Elevation 1/8"=1'-0 Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen MATA DESIGN COMPANY Minor Historic Development Application August, 2003 ... 71*71- -2 - e 4 . 11*1. ' 4 4 2 00 ~R" tilt . Existing first street elevation 1 2 . 4 , t,i~0* -r-% =-=d=-tfit 611 F= &%.1-111/16â€¢~ :~I.~I.~4 , 3 Â·0 -3-3 -1 ......... 1- Proposed First Street Elevation South First St. Elevations no scale Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen MATA DESIGN COMPANY Minor Historic Development Application August, 2003 DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 6 of the Guidelines: The design guidelines provide a basis for making decisions about the appropriate treatment of historic resources and compatible new construction. Property owners are encouraged to review the guidelines when planning an improvement project, to assure that the work contemplated will help preserve the historic character of the City. Owners must comply with the guidelines prior to securing a building permit. Note that not every guideline will apply to each project, and that some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The HPC will determine that a suficient number of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve a project proposal. We emphasize that these are only guidelines, are not applicable in all cases, and need to be weighed with the practicality of the measure. City Ordinance 26.415.060(B) Design Guidelines. The HPC has adopted design guidelines .... These guidelines set forth the standards necessary to preserve and maintain the historic and architectural character of designated properties and districts. The standards apply to the exterior features and/or notable streetscape and landscape elements of the designated historic property and/or district. These guidelines are intended to offer assistance to property owners undertaking construction, rehabilitation, alterations, changes of exterior appearance or any other development involving designated historic properties or districts.