HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20040629ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 29, 2004 4:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SiTE VISITS:
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Roll call
Approval of minutes - May 26, 2004
Public Comments
Commissioner member comments
Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be//18)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. NONE
IX.
NEW BUSINESS
A. 403 W. Hallam St. - Major Development (Conceptual), and
Variances - Public Hearing ~b]
B. 701 W. Main St. - Major Development (Conceptual),
Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption,
Demolition, Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing
~. 949. E. Cooper Ave. - Minor Development - Public Hearing
(Cont'd from June 9, 2004) ~f~.~
X. WORK SESSION
A. NONE
XI. ADJOURN
~._.,,__,.._",,'m'~'_'" ,._",~"_,.~"",,._~____^_,_."'>.
~-~
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Joyce All~eputy Planning Director
TO:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
949 E. Cooper Avenue, East Cooper Court Unit A- Minor Development,
Public Hearing
DATE:
June 23, 2004
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 10,500 square foot lot that is listed on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
In 1995, HPC approved a project that involved the on-site relocation and rehabilitation of
the Victorian era home which sits on this site, along with a contributing barn. Three
additional homes were approved for construction, the last of which was recently
reviewed.
The board is asked to grant Minor Development approval for a deck extension on the
non-historic addition to the Victorian. The applicant has been before the board for a
worksession to discuss this plan.
Staff finds that the project complies with the applicable review standards and
recommends approval.
APPLICANT: Maurice Herman, owner, represented by Gilbert Sanchez, architect.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-52-001.
ADDRESS: 949 E. Cooper Avenue, East Cooper Court Unit A, Block 37, City and
Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: RMF (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
I
_ ,,__,"__'~'m~""_'_'___":' __.~.__~____",., N'_.~__' ....~...."_"....".__...M_.'....~.__..... "...~._"~~_.".'"
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
hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth
in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: The request is that HPC approve an extension of the deck that is on the
west side of the non-historic addition to this house. A list of the design guidelines
relevant to this Minor Review is attached as "Exhibit B."
During a worksession, the board expressed concerns with the proximity of the deck to the
historic side porch. Because the addition to this house was designed before the adoption
of the current design guidelines, there is not as much separation between the historic
resource and addition as would generally be preferred. Arguably, the existing deck in its
current configuration is somewhat competitive with the front porch as viewed from the
west elevation although it's small size and cantilevered design are mitigating factors.
It appears that the deck is far enough back from the street that the expansion will have
minimal impact from the front elevation. There is some visibility of the west elevation
because the house sits on a courtyard. One guideline that may deserve some
consideration is:
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
Cl A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
Cl An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building
also is inappropriate.
Cl An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
Cl An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
In truth, the integrity of the Victorian home that is affected by this project is solely its
overall shape, which is historically accurate. Perhaps particularly because of this
circumstance, Staff does share HPC's concern with allowing new construction to start to
visually encroach on the house, which it appears this deck does, at least from some
perspectives. Staff recommends the project be continued with the direction that the deck
may be expanded towards the south, but any increase towards the west must be restudied
to create some separation from the historic porch.
2
.."__._.~_._., ,~'"'''_''' _____.._,..._,___,~ ,...................'~___w.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the public hearing on 949 E.
Cooper Avenue for restudy of the deck design.
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated March 24, 2004
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Application
3
,_.,~._~.^~._--_._.~-~--'
"Exhibit B, Relevant Design Guidelines, 949 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Review"
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
Cl A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
Cl An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building
also is inappropriate.
Cl An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
Cl 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.
Cl An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
Cl 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.
10.8 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.
Cl Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
Cl Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which
will not alter the exterior mass of a building.
Cl 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.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or
obscure historically important architectural features.
Cl For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave1ines should
be avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
Cl The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
4
-rx /I
,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
403 W. Hallam Street- Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variances-
Public Hearing
DATE:
June 23, 2004
SUMMARY: The subject house was constructed before 1893 and is listed on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The owner requests approval to demolish a
non-historic garage, to construct an addition to the existing residence, and to make minor
modifications to the historic residence. Setback variances and a Residential Design Standard
variance are needed.
HPC held a worksession regarding this project on May 26th, at which time the applicant
requested feedback on whether an FAR bonus would be appropriate as part of their plan to create
TOR's from the remaining development potential on the site. The board was supportive of the
idea and the application in general.
Staff finds that some modifications to the project are necessary, hut these can be handled as
conditions of Conceptual approval, which is recommended to he granted.
APPLICANT: Mary Janss and Stan Gibbs, represented by Joede SchoeberIein of Civic Forum.
PARCEL In: 2735-124-33-005.
ADDRESS: 403 W. Hallam Street, Lot I and the east half of Lot H, Block 36, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the
appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be
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 miner's cottage on this property is significant as an example of typical modest housing built
in the Victorian period.
The key feature of the property is that the cottage is intact in terms of its original form and scale,
something of a rarity here. Alterations have been made to some window openings and features,
but overall, this is a good example from the period. There are a number of other Victorian era
homes that remain in the immediate area.
The property's integrity score should be improved by this project given the fact that some
restoration work will take place on the front porch and exterior materials. The house will not be
subject to any significant additions in the future because only a very modest amount of square
footage will remain after this project is built.
Desi2n 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 warrant discussion are included in the memo.
The proposal is to demolish a non historic garage, construct a new addition, and make some
alterations to the miner's cottage.
2
Overall, staff finds that the project is compliant with the design guidelines. The footprint, height,
and roof forms of the addition are sympathetic to the historic house. The addition is one story in
height for some distance behind the cottage, which provides a very successful transition to the
taller area along the alley.
There are two aspects of the proposed alterations to the miner's cottage which are topics for
Conceptual review. The first is the re-opening of the original porch. This is a very positive
change to the condition of the house and is supported by the guidelines. Staffs only concern is
that the rebuilt porch be based on factual evidence about its design to the greatest extent possible.
The owners have been informed by an earlier resident that the porch, as he remembers it from
several decades ago, was as they show in their plans. However, the Sanborne maps, and a
photograph of the house immediately to the west before it underwent a very destructive
renovation, indicate that the porch originally had a different layout. It is clear in looking at the
subject house that its foundation does not match the rest of the building, supporting the idea that
the shape that it has today is not original. Staff recommends the plans be amended to rebuild the
porch in the following manner:
','
"D
j
'"
frT"]
! :1
,
~" :z r
;/L;';...LI
r
i,
..
[7
1904 Sanborne Map
showing identical homes
and porches at 403 &
407 W. Hallam
Front porch at 407 W.
Hallam pre- renovation.
Based on comments made at the worksession, the architect plans to continue to study restoration
of the front porch and will provide new drawings for HPC to discuss.
The second part of the proposed work on the miner's cottage at 403 W. Hallam Street that was
debated at the worksession was the addition of new dormers. Two are proposed; one on the east
elevation, on the non-historic part of the house, and one on the west elevation, on the historic
front gable end.
The house currently has attic living space and the owner wishes to improve the livability of this
area. The guidelines related to dormers are:
3
"-~'""---"-_..----. ......., "-'._"~-~---._----"
7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character.
D A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the
ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building.
D The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic
building.
10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that
of a historic building.
D An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on
the side.
D Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic
ones on similar historic structures.
D Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one
foot
Staff is not concerned with the dormer on the east because it is not affecting the historic part of
the building. The dormer that will become a part of the front fayade of the building is more of an
issue because it impacts one's perception of the simplicity of the design of the house. Dormers
were not used on Aspen's miners cottages originally. Some higher style buildings have them,
however it appears that they were always paired, not used as a single element as is proposed in
this project. HPC appeared to have a similar concern at the worksession.
As stated, the attic has been in use for some time. The owner is not proposing to build a
basement under the miner's cottage, so space is at a premium. After discussing the project with
the Chief Building Official, it appears though that in terms ofIRC compliance, it is not necessary
to add more natural light to these rooms. Egress is needed from the area where a bedroom is
indicated, and the CBO has confirmed that the "new larger window" indicated in the historic
west facing gable end of the house will be adequate. The west dormer will not be required so
Staff has recommended its elimination. The owner has a significant concern with fire safety and
an HPC member suggested the possibility of installing sprinklers in the building as an extra
security measure. This is being pursued and the architect has informed staff during the
preparation of the memo that the west dormer is being removed from the project.
Skylights are also proposed to be located on the historic roof and will be discussed at Final
review. Typically they have not been permitted on historic buildings, or at least only are allowed
in very obscure locations.
DEMOLITION OF THE GARAGE
The plan includes a proposal to demolish the single car garage that faces Third Street. Building
Department records show that this structure was built in 1956. Demolition shall be approved if it
is demonstrated that the application meets anyone ofthe following criteria:
4
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c.
Aspen, or
The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location III
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance.
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area.
Staff Response: The garage is not related to the period of significance for the Victorian, and has
no special architectural merit, so staff finds that the above criteria are met and supports removal
of the building in favor of allowing for a well designed addition.
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a floor area bonus that will be applied to the square footage that is built
on the site and will result in a balance that can be sold in the form of two 250 square foot TOR's.
Based on the information contained in the application, the bonus needed to accomplish this is 376
square feet. The following standards apply to an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.IIO.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
5
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
Staff Response: Staff finds that all of the criteria except "g" are being met. The scale and
siting of the addition are excellent, and the addition in no way "hovers" over the historic house as
has unfortunately been the case in some past projects. The miner's cottage is being restored and
street facing open space is left around the building much as it exists today. A bonus in the
amount needed to allow the property to benefit from the sale of two TOR's, which may help to
fund some of the restoration work, is appropriate.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The project includes requests for the following setback variances: a 2 foot west sideyard setback
reduction for the new addition, a 5 foot east sideyard setback reduction only to allow for a
lightwell, a 7 foot combined sideyard setback reduction due the proposed lightwell, and a 5 foot
rear yard setback reduction for the new addition. The criteria, per Section 26.415.1l0.C of the
Municipal Code are as follows:
HPC must make a finding that the setback variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: The setback variances, particularly the west and rear yard variances, are
important in that they allow the addition to be set back as far as possible on the lot, creating a
cushion of space around the historic house.
The east sideyard setback variance and combined sideyard variance are necessary because of a
lightwell. Staff does have some concerns with the size and location of the east lightwell, in part
because it does not comply with a Residential Design Standard. The Residential Design
6
Standards state that "All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing fayade(s) of a
building shall be entirely recessed behind the frontmost wall of the building." In this case, the
lightwell projects closer to Third Street than the addition does. In order to receive a variance
from the standard, which applies to all residential development, it must be found that the
variance, if granted would:
I. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting,
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints.
In order to better comply with both the setback requirements and the Residential Design
Standards, Staff recommends that there be discussion of the opportunity to either reduce the size
of this lightwell or move it to the north or south side of the building per the following HPC
guideline.
9.7 A Iightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
D In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards).
D The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
D A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be
surrounded by a simple fence or rail.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
· approve the application,
· approve the application with conditions,
· disapprove the application, or
· continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development (Conceptual)
and Variances for 403 W. Hallam Street, Lot I and the east half of Lot H, Block 36, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
7
I. The front porch is to be constructed in the most historically accurate configuration.
2. The proposed dormer is to be eliminated from the west side of the historic house. (This
has apparently been agreed to.)
3. HPC hereby grants the following variances: a 2 foot west sideyard setback reduction for
the new addition and a 5 foot rear yard setback reduction for the new addition. Subject to
discussion at the meeting of other reasonable options related to the east lightwell, the
HPC may also grant a 5 foot east sideyard setback reduction, a 7 foot combined sideyard
setback reduction and a variance from the Residential Design Standards related to
lightwells.
4. HPC hereby grants an FAR bonus of 376 square feet in order to ultimately allow for the
creation of two TOR's from this property. The bonus is not approved for additional
construction beyond what is represented in the plans currently under review.
5. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(I) 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.
6. 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.
Exhibits:
Resolution # , Series of2004
A. Staff memo dated June 23, 2004
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Application
8
.-." -~-~~"~-.--_------.
"Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 403 W. Hallam Street, Conceptual Review"
5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch.
D Keeping an open porch is preferred.
D Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the
porch is not acceptable.
D Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch,
may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be
placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may
still be interpreted.
D The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged.
D Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate.
7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character.
D A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the
ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building.
D The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic
building.
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
D 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.
D If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
9.7 A Iightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
D In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards).
D The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
D A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be
surrounded by a simple fence or rail.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
D 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.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
9
"-'~-~'""-~'~"-~__'~~_"'__'~..______v~
D 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.
D An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
D A I-story connector is preferred.
D The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
D 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 Roofforms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D 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.
D For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that
of a historic building.
D An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on
the side.
D Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic
ones on similar historic structures.
D Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one
foot.
10
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
D Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb
cuts are not permitted.
D If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene.
14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, iffeasible.
D Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be
placed on the alley.
14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a
primary structure.
D Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the
structure has along a block.
II
v
c
o
R
u
M
~.,,~'
ARCHITECTURE
COmmunity PLANNING
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DEVELOf'MENT CONSULTING
MEMO
Amy Guthrie/ City of Aspen
Stan Gibbs/Mary Janss
Joede Schoeberiein
June 21, 2004
Gibbs Residence - Revised Drawings
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enclosed drawings reflect the following changes from those submitted prior to the work
session based on what we heard in the meeting:
"'.,,,",,,
.
The proposed front porch is now an "I." configuration based on photographs of 407
Hailam.
The proposed dormer has been eliminated from the west side of the front gable.
Ail skylights proposed on the existing house have been removed.
The proposed dormer on the back wing of the house has been changed to a shed styie
dormer so as to make it more consistent with the character of the 1954 addition and
less like the originai portions of the house.
The smailest part of the iink to the back addition has been changed to frame
construction (formerly all giass.)
We have enciosed the area of the 2'. floor of the addition that was formeriy a porch
and eliminated the "chaiet" styie railing.
The window weil on the east side of the addition has been made much smailer.
A new door has been added to the west side of the garage.
The gable on the north side of the addition has been eniarged and aligned with the
door beiow to protect from snow failing off roof.
I have recaicuiated the FAR based on the second floor changes and the reduction of
exposed basement wall. (i also inciuded the 50'/0 discount for the second floor storage
areas, which was not in the original caiculation.) The new total FAR. is 2,658.2
(Ailowabie = 2,820)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
332 W. Main, Suite 2A,
970 920-0221 FAX 970 920-7833
P.O. Box 550, Aspen, CO 81612
e-mail cvcforum@sopris.net
,
G)
@
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines - Compliance memo
403 West Hallam
403 West Hallam is included on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures.
The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the existing listed structure in order to restore an
appearance closer the original, to make repairs that will protect the asset and to add a
major new addition to the rear of the existing house.
Proposed work:
Existing structure:
The work will involve removal of a non-original enclosed front porch and its replacement
with an open porch similar to what appears to have been the original configuration. The
current aluminum siding will be removed and replaced with new wood lap siding and
square trim as appears to be the original finish of the house. Existing trim and cut shingle
siding (high in gable ends) will be rehabilitated and repaired or replaced where no longer
existing. Other non-original additions will receive finishes that are different, but
compatible with those on the original house in order to distinguish these additions from
the original structure. The applicant also proposes to reconfigure some of the upper floor
to increase the utility of this space. As part of this work we are proposing adding
dormers and skylights to bring appropriate light, ventilation and safe egress to these
spaces.
New Addition:
This project includes constructing a substantial addition on the rear portion of the site to
accommodate a new garage and a master suite. The major portion of this addition has
been pulled to the rear of the site to maximize the separation form the original house.
The addition is being designed in a different style and with different finish materials to
distinguish its identity from the original house.
Style and Design:
This structure is a classic example ofa modest Vernacular Wood Frame "Miner's
Cottage". It was most likely constructed in the 1880's and first appeared on the city
surveys of 1891. The original structure had a slightly asymmetrical gabled cross plan.
The existing original roofs were all 14/12 pitch. The house was originally one story with
an unfinished attic space. The two gabled profiles facing the streets on this corner site,
feature simple projecting rectangular bay windows. The rest of the original windows are
tall slender double hung. The original siding is believed to have been lap wood
clapboard, though none of this original material remains. The gables feature a trim
bordered area of chamfer-ear cut shingles that appears to be original. The small roofs
over the bay windows were also finished in this material. The roof is, and probably was
originally, standard cut wood shingles, although none of the original roofing remains.
The trim and ornamentation was fairly simple. What remains of the corner trim is square
cut, there are built up milled profiles at the eaves and some fairly basic ornamented
Page I of8
~._.~-----,~" -,""., ~"-"-,- "'-'--"_,,,~
brackets under the bays. The original (no longer existent) porch was probably a filigree
type structure that included lathed spindles and columns as is common throughout the
town in this type of structure.
The entire back portion of the house (the rear leg of the cross) was replaced in 1954 with
a somewhat bulky addition of the full width of the plan with a lower asymmetrical roof
pitch. The portion of this addition facing the side street has the appearance of an
enclosed porch, however there is no evidence that it was ever open. This addition
included a second floor.
In 1961 the original front porch was removed and the area was enclosed as part of the
front room. The aluminum siding was installed and some of the double hung windows
were changed to casements and pictures.
In 1966 the second floor was further extended into the original portion of the house by
lowering the ceiling in one of the original rooms. A second floor window was added on
the west wing of the original house at this time. At this time the upstairs and downstairs
bathrooms were added. If there was any bathroom in the house prior to this, its location
and configuration are not known.
In 1969 the house was re-roofed and a ventilated roofwas added over the entire house
including the original roof and that on the additions. The edges were finished with more
built up trim in the character of the original profile. The roof still has very little
insulation and there are considerable problems with ice dams, icicles (river sized), and
leaking.
The parcel also includes a shed style garage built in 1956. The garage is at the Southeast
corner of the lot and is partially in the street R.OA and alley.
Streetscape and Lot Features:
The street-planting strip consists oflawn and street trees consistent with the traditional
pattern. There is no sidewalk except for a small stretch from the rear gate to the garage
entry. This section of sidewalk was installed in 1957. The rear portion of the yard is
fenced with a looped woven wire and post fence. A portion of the street planting strip
adjacent to the garage and back yard has been paved with asphalt. The yard is mostly
lawn with some flowerbeds and trees and shrubs.
The applicant is not proposing any changes to the street- scaping except to remove the
paving and replace it with grass. The front and rear door walks will be replaced and
extended to reach the street. All of the mature trees within the yard will be preserved.
Some recently planted young aspen trees will be displaced by the addition and relocated
on the property. The fence will be reconfigured slightly to accommodate the
configuration of the addition. A small amount of solid fence is proposed on the alley side
to protect the window well at that location.
Page 2 of8
Historic Building Materials:
'-,/ The bulk of the siding was removed and replaced, probably a couple of times. The
current siding is broad aluminum clapboard. The original principal siding appears to
have been wood clapboard, though none of this material remains. The upper portions of
the exterior walls still include some trim and shingle siding that appears to be original.
This project will include replacing the aluminum siding with wood clapboard to match
what we believe to have been the original appearance consisting of square trim corners
and a horizontal clapboard field. The portions of the trim and shingle siding that remain
will be reconditioned and restored in place. Replacement will be limited to those pieces
that are beyond repair and will be done with materials in kind.
The foundation consists of mortared rubble stone, which appears to be in good condition.
The foundation will be reconditioned and restored in place as required. Replacement will
be limited to those pieces that are beyond repair and will be done with materials in kind.
Windows:
Many of the original windows remain and will be retained in the rehabilitation of the
original structure. These windows will be reconditioned and restored in place. The 2nd
floor of the rear addition currently includes a picture window with flanking casements.
As part of the effort to restore an appearance and proportion closer to the original house,
these non-characteristic windows will be replaced with a pair of new double hung
windows. These new windows will match the original windows as close as is feasible
with a new manufactured window. Another non-original double casement window on the
ground floor of the old addition will be displaced with a french door. (This is near the
rear side fence and is not visible from the street or alley. The small double hung on the
2nd floor west gable is a modem window and we plan to replace it with a larger window,
more in line with the scale of the original windows.
Doors:
The house currently has two exterior doors. Neither is original, nor are they in original
locations of exterior doors. The door on the old rear addition will remain as is. The front
door that is located on the filled-in front porch is a contemporary panel door. Since the
porch is being restored to an open configuration this door location is eliminated. The
new front door will be in a new replacement wall located where the original wall was and
a new door will be located where we believe the original was located. A new double arch
top glass paneled door will be installed in this location. This new door will match the
style of what we believe the original exterior doors to have been. A transom will be
installed over this door as we believe to have been the original configuration.
Porches:
This house appears to have originally had an open covered front porch. This porch was
eliminated in 1961 and replaced with an expansion of the existing front room. In this
project we propose restoring the porch with a structure we believe to be consistent with
the original configuration. Since there are no known photographs of the original porch
we are basing the design and details of this replacement structure on other existing
examples in the area and period photographs of other structures. The style of the
Page 3 of8
replacement porch will be simple, but will include some basic ornamentation in the form
- of turned spindles and corner post as we believe to have been included in the no longer
existing original. There were likely two doors from this porch to the interior. This
project will place a door approximately where one of them likely was located.
Architectural details:
All of the existing original materials and architectural details will be retained in place and
restored and repaired where possible. Replacement of original materials will be limited
to those beyond repair. We do not anticipate needing anything more than limited
selective replacement as what original material and detail remains appears to be in
generally good physical condition. The bulk of the siding and trim was removed many
years ago. The non-original siding will be replaced with new material and detail
matching what we believe to have been the original configuration.
Roofs:
The original roofs were steeply pitched and appear to have been finished in cedar
shingles. The entire original roof was covered by adding furring and a new roof surface
to create a vented roof. The current roof is finished in wood shingles though none it is
the original material. The current roofing is in poor condition and it leaks. This project
will include reproofing the entire existing house with new material so that the finish
matches the presumed original appearance.
Secondary Structures:
At the present time there is a single car garage built in 1956 that is much younger than the
original house. Interviews with the previous owner indicate that this structure was
preceded by a couple of freestanding sheds at the edge of the alley. The garage was
covered, until recently with asphalt shingle material that matched that on the house before
the aluminum siding was added.
This project will displace the garage structure although the principal volume of the new
addition will sit in a position similar to the current garage.
Building Relocation & Foundations:
The original house will remain in its current and historic position. No changes are
proposed to the original foundations except to repair any structural problems that might
be found in the process. Any repairs that are made will be done in a manner to preserve
the original appearance. At this time we do not anticipate any significant foundation
repair to be required.
Building Additions:
Existing Additions:
The front porch was removed and replaced with an addition to expand the front room.
This project will remove the porch addition and restore an open porch as discussed above
under the porch section.
Page 4 of8
~''''''''''
The entire rear bay of the house was replaced with an addition that extends the full width
of the back of the house. This addition also appears to have been modified several times
during its life. Due to the fact that the current siding runs continuously the full length of
the structure the reading of the original form of the cross plan has been substantially
obliterated by this bulky addition. The addition also sports an asymmetrical roofline, one
slope of which is much shallower than that of the original house.
This project will leave the rear addition in place, but proposes several superficial
modifications to enhance the reading of the original house and to distinguish the addition
so that it will appear more as an addition. A portion of the addition was built to look like
an enclosed porch though we don't know that it ever was open. This portion of the
structure will be re-sided in a different material so as to clearly distinguish it from the
primary form of the original house. We also plan to add a rake to the rear of that addition
that is mirror of the rake of the steeper west side pitch of the addition. This new rake will
partially restore the symmetry of the rear elevation and provide a more vertical reading of
the original house more consistent with the original. There mayor may not have been a
rake in this position. In any case it will provide a logical point for a change of finish
materials at the point where the former exterior wall clearly sat (as evidenced by the
position of an old foundation wall.)
'<0'''''
New Addition:
The most significant part of this project is the construction of a new addition in the rear
of the lot. The objective of the design of the new addition is to separate it from and
clearly distinguish it from the existing house. The addition consists of essentially three
elements: a one-and-a-half story element, a one-story element and a Connector. The
addition is intended to be "barn-like" in character and will be much more rustic than the
somewhat more refined original Victorian house. The one-and-a-half story portion is
pulled as far from the house as possible in order to clearly distinguish the structures as
well as to help preserve light in the current rear windows of the house. The low portion
will bridge most of the gap to the original structure and a glass "conservatory" structure
will make the actual link to the existing building.
At the same time as trying to distinguish the new addition from the existing structure,
there are several aspects of the design that try to be sympathetic to the original
composition and the historic development pattern. Placed at the rear of the lot, the
primary form of the addition will appear as secondary structure, as is common in this
area. As viewed from the street, the main portion of the addition will have a similar
vertical character as the original house. In another nod to the original house the addition
will include a flat projected bay window, except in this case, in a more rustic form.
The primary roof form of the addition, that which faces the street, will be a simple gable
similar to that of the original structure. The finishes of the addition will be rustic
weathered vertical and horizontal barn wood, which will clearly distinguish it from the
original house.
Page 5 of8
-.,,.,
General Guidelines (Chapter 14):
Accessibility:
N/ A - this is not a public facility
Color:
The final color scheme has not been determined yet, however it will in principal be
simple. On the original house we intend to use a single finish for the body of the
clapboard siding, a single color for the shingle infill siding and a trim color. The
treatment of the wood clapboard may be a natural wood finish. Currently the decorative
elements have a couple of different accent colors and we have not yet determined if we
will continue this or simplify the scheme slightly.
The new structure will consist of a natural weathered wood finish. It will either be
allowed to weather to a dark patina and sealed in a few years, or a weathered appearance
finish will be applied to the natural wood.
The roof of the existing house will have cedar shingles. The addition will have rusted
corrugated metal roofing.
Lighting:
On-going Maintenance of Historic Properties:
The rehabilitation of the exterior of the building will include cleaning and repainting of
existing original finishes including trim boards and cut shingles. Materials requiring
repair will be repaired in place where possible. Replacement will be minimized and
limited to materials that are badly rotted and beyond repair. We do not anticipate a lot of
replacement.
Mechanical Equipment and service areas:
The home does not include any exterior mechanical equipment or service areas.
Driveways and Parking:
The current garage is accessed from the street. This garage is being replaced by a garage
that is accessed from the alley and at the location furthest from the street.
An existing paved area in the street planting strip will be removed as part of this project.
Signs:
None
".-
Page 6 of8
Aspen Residential Design Standards - Compliance memo
403 West Hallam
A: Site design:
1. Building Orientation:
The front facade of original house faces Hallam Street and is parallel to the street (at least
almost parallel.)
2. Build to lines:
The minimum front setback for this lot is 10 feet. The Front F~de of the existing
historical structure is approximately 16 feet 2 3/4 inches from the front lot line or I foot 2
3/4 inches further back than specified in the guideline. The minimum side setback for this
lot is 5 feet. The side facade of the existing structure is 16 feet 8 inches from the side
property line or II feet 8 inches further back than specified in the guideline.
We believe that this is the original position of the house and we are not proposing to
move the house to meet this guideline.
We propose locating the rear portion of the addition approximately 5 feet from the
property line or at the minimum setback allowed for a side. The addition is not large
enough to make the overall structure comply with the 60"/0 contact guideline.
3. Fences:
The house currently has a looped wire fence enclosing the back yard. We propose
reusing the same fence material to enclose the back yard making a slight change in the
configuration to enclosed a little more of the yard. The gates will be reused. The entire
fence is under the 42" limit.
We propose adding a 42" solid wood fence at the alley to prevent snow from being
pushed into the window well.
B: Building Form:
The design strategy for the addition is to make it distinctly separate from and
hierarchically subordinate to, the original house. The main portion of the addition has
been pulled as far as possible to the rear of the site. The connection is made by two
smaller links. This emphasizes the separate identity and maximizes the amount of
sunlight to fall on the back of the existing house.
C: Parking, Garages and Carports:
The garage is currently facing the street and there is a large parking apron. This project
will reconfigure the garage to be accessed from the alley directed in the standards. The
garage will be close to the grade of the alley. There will be a single bay door.
Page 70f8
'.
D: Building Elements:
-.' I. Street orientation: The original house meets the orientation requirement. It is
focused on the street of the long block.
a. The original porch configuration (which we are restoring), will not meet
the front door criteria, but we believe it is consistent with the intent.
b. The original porch configuration was part of the front fa~ade and thus
meets this criterion.
c. The original structure actually has two identical "principal window(s)",
one facing each of the two streets of this corner lot. The new addition will
also have a "principal window" facing the side street.
2. One Story Element: The original house meets the one story element requirement.
The house itself is a tall one story structure, as viewed from the front and the
porch is a smaller one story element contrasting the taller portions of the house.
3. Windows:
a. No window zone: The front of the house is one story with no windows
bridging the no window zone. The windows on the (side) street face of
the addition respect the no window zone.
b. All of the existing and proposed windows are orthogonal.
c. The only window wells proposed are on the side and rear of the lot.
. "..,'-
E: Context
I. ~terials:
a. Consistent use of materials: The materials used on both the original and
new structures will wrap the corners.
b. Material Logic: ~terials are being used in fashions consistent with
traditional logic. Concrete and stone bases with wood above.
c. Reflective Materials: No highly reflective materials are proposed.
2. Inflection: N/A lot size is under 6,000 SF
-:....,,,..,
Page 8 of8
R/3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
701 W. Main Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption,
Demolition, Relocation and Variances- Public Hearing
DATE:
June 23, 2004
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures and contains two structures, a cabin and an outbuilding. Neither building exists
on the 1904 Sanborne map. The year of construction on record with the Assessor's office is
1935.
HPC held a worksession on this property two months ago. The applicant wishes to receive
approval to relocate the house on the site, complete restoration work to the extent possible, and
make an addition to the existing cabin for use as a residential structure. A second home is to be
added to the site and the outbuilding will be demolished. In order to construct this project, a
variance from the minimum lot size for a Historic Landmark Lot Split will be requested, along
with setback variances, and an FAR bonus. If the applicant chooses to go forward with the
Conceptual design review as part of this process, variances from the "Residential Design
Standards" may also be needed.
The applicant has developed alternate site plans for the lot split based on HPC feedback at
the worksession, and a site visit with staff. These plans were developed very close to the
memo deadline and lack enough detail for a complete review, therefore the memo that
follows should be considered an outline of the applicable review standards and preliminary
advice to HPC. Staff recommends that the project be discussed but then continued to allow
more time for research into the original appearance of the existing cabin and more
finalization ofthe site plan.
APPLICANT: Wes and Susan Bailey Anson, owners, represented by Jake Vickery, architect.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-46-004.
ADDRESS: 701 W. Main Street, Lots H and I, less the west 2.35 feet of Lot H, Block 19, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: 0, Office.
I
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following
requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section
26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.01O(D.)
26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a
lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following
conditions are met:
a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board
of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes
and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision
regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not
apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures; and
Staff Finding:
The property is part of the original townsite and has not been previously subdivided
b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section
26. 100. 040(A)(I)(c).
Staff Finding:
The property is a non-conforming 5,765 square foot lot as a result of an adverse possession by
the adjacent neighbor. This proposal will create one 3,000 square foot lot (which is the minimum
size required for a Historic Landmark Lot Split), and one 2,765 square foot lot, which requires a
variance that will be discussed below. Site plan alternatives are attached that divide the property
par<!llel to, and perpendicular to, the orientation of the historic lot lines.
Council has recently adopted new benefits for historic properties, pursuant to Section 26.420 of
the Municipal Code, which states that affordable housing mitigation will not be required for
properties created through a historic landmark lot split.
c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split"
exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(I)(a); and
Staff Finding:
The land has not received a subdivision exemption or lot split exemption.
d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the
requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision
2
may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of
applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation
pursuant to Chapter 26.100.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community
Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action.
e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in
the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the
applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following
approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of
the plat by the City Council will be requiredfor a showing of good cause.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval.
j) In the case where an existing single:family dwelling occupies a site which is
eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a
lot split.
Staff Finding:
No dwelling will be demolished as part of this lot split. The outbuilding along the alley is
proposed to be demolished. It is currently being occupied as a residence illegally, which must be
corrected.
g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not
exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single:family
home.
Staff Finding:
The parcel currently contains a single family home. The proposal will add one new homesite. No
more than two units in total can be created as part of this redevelopment.
26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it
meets the following standards:
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square
feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or 0 zone district.
Staff Finding:
The subject parcel is 5,765 square feet and is located in the Office Zone District. A variance is
being requested in order to meet the minimum lot size stated above.
3
^ _''''".__--..._~,~~",."..,~,._.._.,..___.,._'_..___._.~H__._ .~',...
b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of
the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot
shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat.
Staff Finding:
The maximum floor area for the original parcel, containing a historical landmark in the Office
zone, is 3,142 square feet. (There is an error in the allowed floor are that is represented in the
application.) The applicant will be requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus. Clarification is
needed as to how the FAR is proposed to be allocated between the parcels. Although the public
notice included Conceptual design, at this time the expectation is that HPC will conduct a Major
Development review to approve the architecture for the project at a future date.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c)
are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR bonus
will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel.
Staff Finding: Setback variances are requested for the parcel that will contain the
cabin, but cannot be granted for the vacant new lot.
VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REOUlREMENTS FOR A HISTORIC
LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
The applicant will need two variances related to lot size. The first is a variance from the
minimum required size for the fathering parcel, which is 6,000 square feet. Due to the adverse
possession, the lot is 5,765 square feet. The second variance is for the size of the newly created
lots, which are meant to be at least 3,000 square feet each. One of the new lots will conform to
the requirement, but the other will be 2,765 square feet.
In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must
make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and
policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title;
Staff Finding: The AACP does support of the concept of more dense development and infill,
and preservation of a variety of historic resources.
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the parcel, building or structure; and
Staff Finding: Without the lot split, the "use by right" development options for the site are a
single family house, which would entail an addition of approximately 2,400 square feet to the
675 square foot original cabin, or an office/mixed use development that would add some 3,700
square feet. HPC has found in the past the Historic Lot Split has worked well to satisfy their
goals and the property owner's, and it takes away the pressure to create out of scale additions on
designated buildings. Because of this, staff finds that a variance will allow for the most
4
,-,~~-~,--",~""",---,,,-,~~""'------"""-~"-"- ..
reasonable and appropriate development scenario in light of the City's Historic Preservation
standards.
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district,
and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining
whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of
the following conditions apply:
a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings
in the same zone district and which do not resultfrom the actions of the applicant; or
Staff Finding: As stated above, the property does have an unusual circumstance in that it
became non-conforming through a property line dispute. The applicant is working with an
existing building, which cannot be modified in any significant way. Staff finds that this standard
is met.
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege
denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other
parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and
Staff Finding: No additional FAR is accrued through the variance, only the right to divide it
into two residences. This is a use that is generally allowed for historic properties in the zone
district. Staff finds that this review standard is met.
DEMOLITION
The applicant proposes to demolish the outbuilding that exists on the property and also
contemplates demolition of some portion of the existing cabin if it is determined to be non-
contributing.
In order to approve any demolition, the HPC shall review the application, the staff report and
hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general
public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be
approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c.
Aspen, or
The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location III
5
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area.
Staff Response: No information is available about the age of the
outbuilding, other than that it was constructed after the 1904 Sanborne
Map. A portion of it can be seen in a 1969 aerial view of the property. It
appears to have been constructed in at least two phases. This is a large
structure that extends almost the full width of the property along the alley.
At this time, staff does not have information that would support a position
that it is historically significant building. It does contribute to the
alleyscape in that it is a typical one story utilitarian structure set right on the
rear property line, an important development pattern in Aspen. Staff
believes that without a more definitive position on the age and importance
of the building, it will be burdensome to require the applicant to retain this
shed.
The guidelines state:
/(if
1 \ rt;J"'"
II I '
j IJ
I I 'I
. I. .
\ LLJJ
I 'If. I.
, .J
f" "
I,
,
11904 Map
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
i:I 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.
i:I 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.
i:I An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases.
i:I The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary
structure, while accommodating new uses.
With regard to the historic cabin, there is very limited information that has become available
about its history, however staff has located a floor plan drawn for the assessor's office in
approximately 1957 (below.) This plan supports the historical narrative provided by the
applicant that suggests that an entry porch used to exist in the front portion of the building. It is
6
clear on the site that this section of the house has a different foundation. On
the inside of the building there is a door opening and a window opening on
what was likely the original front of the house. Staff recommends that the
applicant continue to pursue other sources to guide the rehabilitation of this
cabin, including older assessor records that may be available at the Aspen
Historical Society, photographs of Main Street at the Historical Society, and
any photographs that neighbors or other Aspen residents may have. It is very
important to locate more facts about the building in order to go forward with
this project as a preservation effort that is worthy of receiving variances.
11957 Floor
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
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 the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets anyone ofthe 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; .!!!
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; .!!!
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
Additionallv, for approval to relocate all ofthe followinl!: 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: At the worksession there was debate about whether it is appropriate to divide
this property so that the front lot is cut off from the alley. The applicant has restudied the idea
7
-,-.,~._._,.._--~._--.~'
and provided HPC with alternative plans. In either case the cabin is proposed to be moved to the
side and forward of its current location. "Option A" indicates the front and rear portions of the
building being removed, which mayor may not prove to be appropriate based on additional
research. "Option B" retains the whole structure and places it fairly close to the front property
line. "Option C" is the typical, and generally preferred lot split layout, although the architect has
chosen to place the cabin on the interior lot, which needs to be discussed. There is a large spruce
tree at the front of the site that significantly influences all of the options.
The following guideline will be in question:
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
i:I In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in
a historic district.
i:I It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
i:I Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
i:I A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
i:I 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.
i:I The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
i:I In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
HPC should also review all of the guidelines in Exhibit B, which are important to the issue of the
site plan. 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.
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.IIO.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
8
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 ofthe
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
Staff Response: Additional research and discussion is needed before any finding on the FAR
bonus is possible. A bonus will not be appropriate if the project is based solely on guesswork
about the cabin's original appearance.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The setback variances needed are not defined at this time since the site plan is a work in progress.
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: No findings can be made at this time.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
9
. ~~._~<."~_.-..>'-<--
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC provide some feedback based on the
information before them and then continue the hearing to a date certain, which will be July 28th or
later.
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated June 23, 2004
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
10
"Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 701 W. Main Street Historic Landmark Lot
Split, Demolition, Relocation and Variances"
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
i:I Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
i:I If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
i:I 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.
i:I 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.
i:I An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases.
i:I The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary
structure, while accommodating new uses.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
i:lln general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in
a historic district.
i:I It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
i:I Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
i:I A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
i:I 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.
i:I The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
i:I In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district
should be avoided.
i:I The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered.
i:I In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than
moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects
patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to
other historic structures in the area.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
i:I 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.
11
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
i:I It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
i:I It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building
in front of it.
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
i:I Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of
materials, finishes and design.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. (New buildings on
Landmark Lot Splits)
i:I The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
12.1 Respect historic settlement patterns. (Main Street Historic District)
i:I Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes
consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space.
12.6 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street. (MSHD)
i:I Provide auto access along an alley when feasible.
i:I New curb cuts are not permitted.
i:I Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut.
12.8 Provide a front yard that is similar in depth to its neighbors. (MSHD
See the guidelines chapter: Lot and Streetscape Features.
12.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings
during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. (MSHD)
i:I The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the block.
i:I A structure should appear to have one primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to
the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street.
12.10
12.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard dimensions
seen in the block. (MSHD)
i:I These include front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks.
i:I In some areas, setbacks vary, but generally fall within an established range. A greater
variety in setbacks is inappropriate in this context.
i:I Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block.
12.11 Keep the front setback of a new structure in line with the range of setbacks on the
block seen historically during the mining era. (MSHD)
12
~-.......
12.12Maintain similar side yard setbacks of a new structure or an addition to those seen
traditionally in the block during the mining era.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
i:I Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb
cuts are not permitted.
i:I If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene.
See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures.
13
.' .. ,m.,~ '_"'f"i~~~n~i!:i~1: ";""
~I"" '_ ,_ ,-;< ' ,:,~!~.;\\::rT1:t':f:I~11~?,'~~' (>";,~.!;.~. ,,'1<
,'"""""':1;" ~"""..1;: -of_) ,.",.-, ""l.~-'.'.~'~~" " . '"" d-'
"'f::;~tit~~J'i';'f:'i;,~F:~ ....~.., '-,;..~~~
. ~- . "''''''(VAI1d_ 3)../6
i
'-
~
c~
J:: )
)<..
/:)
I
--->
-.
~
~.
t7<J~~?lS )'A/JUtqC??~/I ~
/l(btlCI/ ~m '/0 L . ~
...t. 0')
o NfW1J()J N O?
cp coe/1;
1~
I
I
~-
I
1--
,
f
i
I
"1 \"
'---.
-+-
"
./'
/
"
\'
\\
\,
j )
j
/
.. ........~//I
t
o
_.__J
"
".
~'--.....-..,
""""W't'''''I'>I.~
r -"1,"1. i ,"';'i!':]!i/,'I:_ri-r'~:":Jtit~~:{;~
- '~''''-~~'l
j
I
[1-.05
,
"
'.
,
,
"'":.,\
-'~- _.
-(~i'?!a~~tI)" "
", '\'-, .:.!-~ '"
''J,'!IiJt;:I tJ@;1:'1I(O" '.
" '<." ~ ~o/Li',,, '-
, ~ '.'
'-~'". " "
,I ' \
-,
-',
",
"
\"...,
-',
"'-j '\
..... "
~ . \ . , \,
....\ - -'.~ .;..".....:1...;
'.....,..,. ""~ ". -\> <,
,~ "'-
'\ '
\.
- --i---
~i
, 1
j
---;
i
1 .
,
~, -..J-,
/
i
~~,G 5
--
:;
:;
--('1
~I
,
"
j
I
i
,j
i'
,
'.
(--..
. )
I, ,
(
,
J
(:
(
{
\
L--i'M/
~