The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20040811Xe ASPEN HIStO c rP-rSE VATION ..... REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 2004 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISITS: Please site visit 557 Walnut if you have not been to the property yet and the Motherlode on your own~. We will meet projects that are being considered for awards at 4:00 p.m. to tour the I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes _ July 14, 2004 III. Public Comments IV. Commissioner member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #24) OLD BUSINESS A. Landscape plan for 414 N. First Street B. 403 W. Hallam Street - Final - Public Hearing C. 2 William's Way- Final - Public Hearing(!,~:~. NEW BUSINESS A. 557 Walnut Ave. - Conceptual, Relocation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, and Variances _ Public Hearing WORKSESSION A. 314 E. Hyman _ Motherlode B. Visit from Dan Corson, Intergovernmental Services Director, Colorado Historical Society ADJOURN_ 7:30 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 2004 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISITS: Please site visit 557 Walnut if you have not been to the property yet and the Motherlode on your own. We will meet to tour the projects that are being considered for awards at 4:00 p.m. I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - July 14,2004 III. Public Comments IV. Commissioner member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #24) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. Landscape plan fGr-4t4 N. First Street Ui ... , B. 403 W. Hallam Street - Final- Public Hearing ilu" Jz-M J-:xj C. 2 William's Way - Final- Public Hearin~lti,) cAb :1. IX. NEW BUSINESS A. 557 Walnut Ave. - Conceptual, Relocation, Historic )(f' ./:, Landmark Lot Split, and Variances - Public Hearing J;J;s;zf X. WORKSESSION A. 314 E. Hyman - Motherlode B. Visit from Dan Corson, Intergovernmental Services Director, Colorado Historical Society XI. ADJOURN - 7:30 PROJECT MONITORING .-. -...,,# Jeffrey Halferty 213 W. Bleeker (Schelling) 101 E. Hallam (Gorman) 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus) 922 W. Hallam 110 W. Main (Hotel Aspen) 525 E. Cooper - monitor for the awning 939 E. Cooper Mike Hoffman 950 Matchless Drive (Becker) 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Valerie 513 W. Smuggler (Harman) 640 N. Third 21 Meadows Road 1000 N. Third - Aspen Meadows Restaurant Valerie Alexander 216 E. Hallam (Frost), with Mike 533 W. Francis (Gibson) 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) 0'.., 114 Neale Ave., with Derek 304 W. Hallam - Pan abode 1295 Riverside 735 W. Bleeker Derek Ska1ko 135 W. Hopkins 302 E. Hopkins 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) 331 W. Bleeker 114 Neale Ave., with Valerie Sarah Broughton 135 E. Cooper - Dave Gibson project 514 N. Third 311 S. First 409 E. Hyman 200 W. Hopkins CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 2 William's Way, Visitor's Center, 470 N. Spring, 233 W. Main - , 1J lL - A ,.)",,~ Design Workshop, htc. Landscape Architecture Land Planning Urban Design Tourism Planning Memorandum To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Gyles Thomely - DWI August 4, 2004 Lewis Residence - 414 North First Street, Aspen 3345 Date: Project Name: Project #: Subject: Copy To: Request to improve Path on Hallam Lake Bluff Amy Guthrie Background: My client is requesting that the path, originally used and probably constructed by Mrs. Paepcke be improved, with the goal of creating a safe walking surface that has minimal visual and physical impact to the Hallam Lake Bluff. Pursuant to the Hallam Lake Bluff Review resolution #98-08 item 6, the reconstruction was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in cooperation of the City Parks Department and ACES with final review by the HPC. Attachment A is a letter written in lieu of the City Parks Department, who will not be able to attend the meeting on August 11 th. The letter states that the proposed plans have been reviewed and approved with provisions by both the City Parks Department and ACES. I am therefore attending the meeting on August 11 th to seek the final approval from the HPC. This memo has been written to give you a better understanding of the proposed pathway reconstruction improvements prior to the meeting. Design Intent: .0 utilize and create a safe walking surface on the existing path, originally used by Mrs. Paelicke, that is constructed with minimal disturbance and visual impact from the Hallam Lake surrounds. Design Proposal: Retaininl! Walls In order to improve the path with minimal impact to the bluff, it is necessary to provide a retaining structure that will allow the path to have a flat walking surface as opposed to the undulating side slope that currently exists on the path. The existing retaining device utilizes logs that are held in place by re-bar. Many of these logs have since decayed leaving the re-bar exposed. We intend to use a retaining system that will be placed in front ofthese logs to prevent further erosion of the path. This system proposes to use 6" x 6" timbers that are held in place by I-Beams. The I-beams DESIGNWORKSHOP \o...__~ Asheville' Aspen' Denver. Park City' Phoenix' Santa Fe . Tahoe. Santiago' Sao Paulo 120 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 . (tel) 970-925-8354 . (fax) 970-920-1387 www.designworkshop.com F:\PROJECTS _ A-L\3345-Lewis Residence\D-Public Process\l-Entitlement Submittals\ME-040804-HPC.doc will be placed in concrete filled caissons located in hand dug holes. The spacing of these holes will vary according to the soil and substrata conditions but will be placed at 8' on center on average. Once the new retaining wall is in place, the logs and re-bar will be removed and the void will be filled with drainage rock and soil. It is anticipated that the average height of the wall will be less than 24" with the largest section being 42" for a stretch less than 10' in length. -- It is proposed that the uphill side of the path will be retained using a dry stacked Colorado red stone retaining wall which will vary in height according to specific conditions. Although the majority of the wall will be 12"-18" in height, it is anticipated that this wall maybe 36" in places but no larger. In all cases it will be our intention to keep the size of the retaining walls to an absolute minimum to reduce any visual impact from the Hallam Lake vicinity. Steps There are several areas where the gradient on the path is very steep and unsafe to walk up or down. At these areas we are suggesting to use Colorado red stone steps. These steps will have uniform size risers ofT' and treads that are no smaller than 14". It is proposed that discrete handrails will be placed on the downhill side ofthe trail at all steps. This handrail will be attached to the top of the I-Beam and will be constructed from \1," x 2" steel (with the \1," dimension facing the lake) On top of the steel will be a wood railing slightly larger than the 2" steel. Path Width and Materials The width of the path will be no larger than 2' 6" at any juncture. It is proposed that surface on the flatter areas ofthe path will be random sized Colorado red flagstones. These flagstones will be placed at least 12" apart and the joints will be planted with a native groundcover. ......... Plantinl! As per the suggestion of the Parks Department and ACES we will also plant the areas that the retaining walls are most exposed, for the purpose of screening. In order to stabilize the up hill slopes we propose to plant shrubs that would augment the existing plants on the hillside that are in the spirit of Mrs. Paepcke's gardening passion and personal taste. Extensive field studies have been conducted to discover what plants Mrs. Paepcke did plant in her garden. Attachment B is a list of the plants that were either found or expand on the existing species to fit in visually to what Mrs. Paepcke had used in the past, or are types of plants which she might have liked based on what she had previously selected. We will not disturb any vegetation on the downhill side of the path and during construction vegetation will be protected and tied back. Other We accept the terms and conditions outlined in the letter from the Parks department and we welcome any further comments you may have. - Page 2 . 0; g <f1 ~ C> '" '" c " m E 0.. <f1 ~ ~ 0; m . 0, ;: "- 0 '- m '0 "-. f- . . . . t1. i i1 : o i' ' I"-" ~.... <f) l ~ t -~ III 0 '" ,t' !~.. : .j-t . .- ~ !.. ~l~ ji~~ ~ ~ ",. .'.. , , ~~-;.o....._ ,.,,' 'Uo. . C) ~~i~ ~~!!.~ ; Ci5 t ~ ~! .( ~ ~ LU 1:0 i~, ..; C1.... ... ~ , OOVlJOlOO 'N3dS\f SIM3l NV'HIV'Nor 38N30lS3Cl 31+0d r-l ) \ / . . / / .,-- ) ..~ /( . .,---". . /'--........ / I I \..... ,....;; \ ~... '" ( "'-.. .---j 'vi / \ ~...'" "-..) . . .,/ / / m ~ m ~ ...~ 'J. E .!1! m :I: / / . /' / /' ./ /' . . / / ~ I I il!IIIIIIIIII"1 ! .'11111111111 f-- Z ZW (9::;; _0.. (/)0 W-' OW > W o f-- X W f--z Z4: 0-, ()o.. W f-- (/) !9 , ..- '-l .!1! ~ 0; c _ . ~ ! m' > (5 . -----...... -'-/ ----..! 'C? I -, I! ! I . II i i ! i I i I i I i I i liD -i. I l[bl I _ i i . i I i Il--,~~----II I' I ---, I ' 101 of ! ' I t---------1 . I u_ ~--- .-' .- .- (/ ---"'" }8BJ1S lS ~ ~lJON IB' l I" f ,I I 1 I! i I i I i r- : I~I dJl. !~II' I r I L ' I~! lii-I,!I i . ,! ,i i ! ! i I I I ' ill a . . . ~ i ! . . --.. (' . I ~ !In i ill! ji' I! ,n , , '!'ll, .1 !ill'l 11'11. . .I! 11"" S 01 ~~i;i ~ !~ i h~~= ~ i] ~ ~ !~Bl .; ~ ff .. 1"1 . _ ,Iii '1'111 , - - - f:; ;~~ ~ ~ f ~_!i~~~~ . ~ . hl1~~~n~ , ~~tt~h~iI~!!:i2\!i I iiiiiiiiiiiiii i illn~ill~~ill"ill~~~~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ,.,'''''.t,. < ~ ~ < 0 ~ ~ . . i ~ 5 ! ~ . ~ . . . . . . . . >- . 0: ~.O w zww '" ~8~ " ;;; ~I.L.~ I wwz "lii::5 ~ w.. a. ~Uw 0 . UiSO z ~O~ " zz' "' ~~i I a. . w Bill iQ ~ f- _ 'w I "' ti3~ i ~ < i= ~ :;tt-IC < I !i ,. u ~ ~ ~ II il: :l j!: ~ . r !' i: ~ ~ ~ .i ! I' f I. 1 ' , I Ii I . " . i , i ~~ ! i ., !!2 . 1_ I III . . ~ IIi ' I., ~iIl~ ! [ !!i ,'! ' ~ ll' I. . z ; 1,1 m! 0 ~ , ,i! U ! ~ w ";= ~ , , , ~ 'I ~ . I, 0 . Ii U 0 I- 0' w " , ~ !' 0 .1 . 'I 0 . ,- I Ii! ill . . i ,j ,'IW ~@ ill ,I, ,1 IlIl wm ~. ill1!1 ',I -w !l! 0 '. !~~~. ~~ z . 'll" ~ ~.. " Il,' ,-- ~ II il. w. I" 1111 Ow I! o~ ~o ~~ . I II ~~ , I .' l' ii 1 C(~ ~~ .w .i ~~ z~ ~w ~ffi II ;)~ -< wm i' ". .~ ~~ w' , . '!. ~~ U. ~I Iii!! ~~ ~ o. ~ ~~ . i '" I! i < ~. U ~: Z w III um I [ ~ ~; Q8 <! <ll. :c z i' ~~ 0 ~ I w~ w o ~~ ~ ~ . ~ p CLU 0 IH . u 0 _I . z ~ ~ ~ ~ x w w 0 . Ii r ~ 1 ~ ~i .' , w i' "';. z -I ". 0 II !! . . ~ 0 B ii 3 I 'j > . . 0 . . . . . . is i jJ I.f" -' (/J ~ l . I 1-10 :ll ~ Cls e~ :;;~i 0::: ~nh j"'t,.,- o I~ j:j -i'! ~ 't ':. 'OS, C)<ci~ ~~e~ 1i51~ ~e .( ~ ~ .,"!l OaIruOlO;) 'N3dS\f I I , i ! ! ~ IIIII11I11 I -11111111111 ,N I I ,..-- '....J f- Z ZW (9:2 _Cl.. enO W...J OW > W o en woo! f-<( -f- enw o SIM3l N'v'Hl'v'Nor 38N30lS3CJ 3l+0d ATTACHMENT A .........,;, ~ A$J!..~~ Gyles Thomely Design Workshop 120 East Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 August 4, 2004 Re: Proposed reconstruction of footpaths/Lewis Property 414 North First St. Dear Mr.Thomely, Pursuant to resolution #98-08 the reconstruction offootpaths is permitted with cooperation of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES) and the City of Aspen Parks Department. Both parties have reviewed approved the proposed plans with the following comments and requirements - I) All work and construction shall be accomplished and completed manually. If the site or proposed construction does require mechanical equipment the applicant will be required to redesign the plan in order to accomplish the reconstruction of the footpath manually. 2) Prior to construction existing vegetation within the area of work shall be tied back and protected. Silt fencing shall be installed on the down-slope side ofthe path. Contact the Parks Department 920-6011 for inspection and approval prior to construction. 3) All disturbed soils shall be stabilized and re-vegetated with an approved seed mix and planting plan. Design workshop shall review the proposed plan with the Parks Department prior to completion of the footpath. 4) Parks Department staff and the applicant's representative identified several sections along the trail that will require additional p1antings. (Sections: 5,8 & 15 more may be identified in the field)The plantings will be placed in a manner that provides screening of the structural timbers and reconstructed footPath. These plantings shall be dense enough to provide some screening in winter. The plantings shall be native to the hillside using the existing vegetation as an example of a planting pallet. ~. ,-, 5) Temporary irrigation will be required for all additional plantings and re-vegetation of the disturbed soils. 6) ACES and the Parks Department is concemed with the possibility of poor soil profile and further erosion of the hillside during hand excavation. If excavation is limited due to rock refusal or the soil profile prevents proper stabilization the applicant will be required to relocate the placement of the I-beams. All excavation shall be limited to what is necessary for placement and installation of the I-beams 7) The applicant's Representative shall contact Parks Department stafffor bi-monthly site visits and updates. Site visits and updates will be decreased or increased based on the success and progress of the work. Design Workshop, Inc. Landscape Architecture Land Planning Urban Design- Tourism Planning Memorandum To: From: Date: Historic Preservation Commission - Gyles Thomely (DWI) August 4, 2004 Project Name: Lewis Residence Project #: 3345 Subject: Plant List Copy To: Amy Guthrie ATTACHMENT B Recommended Plants to Compliment Existing Plants along Upper Trail The following plants are suggested to augment existing plants which were found along the upper trail, and to be in the spirit of Elizabeth Paepcke's gardening passion and personal taste. These plants are a combination of cultivated and native plants, which either expand on existing species, expand the native palette, fit in visually to what Elizabeth Paepcke had used in the past, or are types of plants which she might have liked based on what she had previously selected. Plants in existing Hillside Garden Oriental Poppy Columbine Snow in Summer Common Thyme Johnson's Blue Geranium Speedwell Painted Daisy Shasta Daisy Tiger Lily Papaver orientale 'Brilliant' , double or single form Aquilegia caerulea Cerastium tomentosum Thymus vulgaris Geranium 'Johnson's Blue' Veronica austriaca 'Crater lake Blue' Chrysanthemum coccinium (red-magenta) Chrysanthemum maximum 'Alaska' or Little Princess' Lilium spp. Orange, 3'tall - Additional Sedums to expand the Sedum Collection Autumn Joy Sedum Sedum 'Autumn Joy' Blue Creeping Stonecrop Sedum 'Blue Spruce' Red-Leaf Showy Sedum Sedum'Robustum' Goldmoss-Utah Stonecrop Sedum acre evergreen Oak-Leaf Stonecrop Sedum hybridum Russet Showy Stonecrop Sedum spectabile 'Indian Chief Dragon's Blood Sedum Sedum 'Dragon's Blood' Red Carpet Sedum Sedum 'Red Carpet' DESIGNWORKSHOP r.........._ Asheville' Aspen' Denver' Park City. Phoenix' Santa Fe . Tahoe' Santiago' Sao Paulo 120 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 . (tel) 970-925-8354 . (fax) 970-920-1387 www.designworkshop.com Document2 Additional Poppies (I gallon size) Red Oriental Poppy Salmon Oriental Poppy Additional Columbine Varieties Yellow Columbine Other Perennials Purple Coneflower Orange Coneflower Mountain Bluet German Bearded Iris Lady Bells Additional Perennial Geraniums Bloody Cranesbill Wildflowers Royal Penstemon Peristemon Penstemon Aspen Daisy Lupine Fireweed Sticky Geranium Blue Flax Native Monarda Showy Goldeneye Westem Larkspur Larkspur Indian Paintbrush Additional Vines and Tall Plants Virginia Creeper Goats Beard Westem Larkspur Snakeroot Aster Plants for Fall Color Black-Eyed Susan Aster Autumn Joy Sedum Showy Goldeneye Native Bulb Pasque Flower Papaver orientale 'Beauty of Livermere' Papaver orientale 'Princess Victoria Louise' Aquilegia chrysantha Echinacea purpurea Echinacea spp. Centaurea montana Iris germanica (Comes in many colors) Adenophora spp. Geranium sanguineum Penstemon strictus Penstemon barbatus 'Prarie Dusk' Penstemon barbatus Erigeron speciosus Lupinus argenteus Epilobium angustifolium Geranium viscossissimum Linum perenne Monarda fistulosa menthaefolia Viguera multiflora Delphinium occidentale Delphinium ajacis Castilleja integra Parthenocissus quinquefolia Aruncus dioicus Delphinium occidentale (Rocky Mt. Native Plants) Cimicifuga racemosa Aster spp. Rudbeckia fulgida 'Goldsturm' Aster spp. Sedum 'Autumn Joy' Viguera multiflora Page 2 ...." ~.... "''''b,~ -yTiJ 13) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 403 W. Hallam Street- Major Development Review (Final), Public Hearing DATE: August 11, 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. HPC granted Conceptual approval and Variances on June 29,2004. Minutes are attached. Staff finds that the project, with some minor modifications, meets the design guidelines and should be awarded Final approval. APPLICANT: Mary Janss and Stan Gibbs, represented by Joede Schoeberlein of Civic Forum. PARCEL ID: 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 DEVFLOPMENT (FINAL) The procedure for a Major 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. 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 I 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. _c The property's integrity score will be improved by this project given the fact that restoration work will take place on the front porch and exterior materials. The house will not be subj ect to any significant additions in the future because no square footage will remain after this project is built. Design Guideline review Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, feuestration, selection of new materials, and technical issues surronnding the preservation of existing materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines 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. Overall, staff finds that the project is a very sensitively scaled addition to the miner's cottage. There are a few aspects of the landscape plan and material selection that should be discussed by the HPC. Staff recommends that the paved area on the east side of the restored front porch be reduced in size, or preferably eliminated based on these guidelines: "" 2 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. D The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. D Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. D Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. D Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. If a path towards the sideyard is desired, it should be a secondary material, such as flagstone steppers. Patios should be concentrated towards the back of the site. The landscape plan indicates two lightposts, one in the front and one on the east. HPC has not been allowing lightposts in front of Victorian era resources because they are illuminate the front of a building in a way that was not really typical of the period. Front porch lights are the preferred altemative. A lightpost already exists on the 3rd street side, and may be more acceptable because it is less associated with the miner's cottage. The guidelines read: 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. D Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. D Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. D Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. D Do not wash an entire building facade in light. D Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. DAvoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. The next two areas of discussion have to do with restoration of the miner's cottage. First, the application indicates new siding will be installed, but if the original exists under the aluminum, the first choice will be to repair and retain it. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. D Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. D Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. D Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, comrces, .- pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. 3 o Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. _ The plans indicate that the two front doors that are being restored off the front porch are of .differing designs. Staff is uncertain if this is based on what the architect is seeing in photographic evidence, but it is not a condition that has been found on other miner's cottages in town. In general, the guidelines state: 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. o A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. o A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. o Simple paneled doors were typical. oVery omate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. Finally, staff recommends that there be additional discussion of the material palette for the new addition. This topic was touched on during Conceptual. The architect has removed some of the Chalet-like features that were indicated on the previous drawings, and overall the addition is very simple in character, which is commendable. Staff has some concern though that the materials (weathered wood siding and a rusted corrugated metal roof) are too rustic in comparison to the finishes and details of the Victorian. This might be less of an issue of the new construction were a free-standing "outbuilding" along the alley. The guidelines to discuss are: --- 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to. imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers 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. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. ," 4 It has occurred to staff in considering this issue that there is some irony in the idea of approving weathered wood siding, which may in fact be wood salvaged by demolishing old barns, as a material for a historic preservation project. The material has been allowed in two recent reviews without this argument having been raised. Staff recommends that there be discussion of other altematives to the proposed siding, such as painted board and batten, perhaps just on the connector to soften the transition from the front part of the house. Similarly, it may be appropriate to reserve the rusted corrugated metal for just the alley part of the building because of its rough character. Staff also questions whether the multi-paned windows on the addition are somewhat distracting from the simple double hungs on the Victorian and suggests this be evaluated by the board. 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 (Final) 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: 1_ The front porch is to be constructed in the most historically accurate configuration. 2. At Conceptual, HPC granted 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 confirmation by the Zoning Officer of the exact variances needed for the east lightwell as represented on June 29, 2004, the HPC grants up to a 5 foot east side yard setback reduction, up to a 7 foot combined sideyard setback reduction and a variance from the Residential Design Standards related to lightwells. 3. At Conceptual, HPC granted an FAR bonus of up to 350 square feet in order accommodate the approved design and still leave a balance of 500 square feet available to use for two TDR's. The bonus is not approved for additional construction beyond what is represented in the approved plans. 4. The paved area on the east side of the restored front porch is to be reduced in size, or preferably eliminated. Softer materials, such as flagstone or brick pavers, are preferred. 5. Eliminate the proposed new lightpost in front of the house. 6. Use matching front doors on the front porch unless historic evidence suggests otherwise. 5 7. Discuss other alternatives to the proposed siding for the addition, such as painted board and batten, perhaps just on the connector to soften the transition from the front part of the house. Similarly, it may be appropriate to reserve the rusted corrugated metal for just the alley part of the building because of its rough character. 8. Discuss the use of multi-paned casement windows on the addition. 9. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what original materials appear to still exist on the structure, and what treatments will be used to retain them. Retain any original materials that can be salvaged. 10. 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. II. 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. 12. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of2004 A. Staff memo dated August 11,2004 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Minutes of June 29, 2004 D. Application 6 - ,..,.....,'. "'''''''"" "Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 403 W. Hallam Street, Final Review" '~ 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. D Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. D A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. D Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. D A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. D On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) D A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. D Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. D Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. D A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less transparent. A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six feet), but should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. D Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. D Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project; D This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. D Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. D Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. D The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. D Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. 7 [J Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. [J Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. [J Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. [J Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. [J It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. [J Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. [J Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. [J Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, comlces, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. [J Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. [J If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. [J Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. [J Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. [J A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. [J A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. [J Simple paneled doors were typical. [J Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. [J Use materials that appear similar to the original. [J While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, altemative materials may be considered. [J Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. [J When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. 8 - /'~ "'--, TO: -rITI ~) MEMORANDUM Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 2 Williams Way- Major Development Review (Final), Public Hearing DATE: August 11,2004 SUMMARY: The subject property was listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures in 1999, and contains two miner's cottages linked together with new construction. The westernmost cottage (referred to at HB 1 in the application) is original to the site and was built by John Warkentin, Jim Markalunas' grandfather. The eastem cottage (HB2) was moved to 2 William's Way in approximately the 1950's. The applicant proposes to separate the historic buildings and restore them, based on the records and physical information that are available. A small addition is planned for the north side of the Warkentin cottage, but. no. expansion is planned for the other structure. The two buildings are to be moved from their current locations, and a new home will be built on the east end of the property. No variances are needed for the project. The project received Conceptual approval by a 5-0 vote on January 14, 2004. During the development of the project, several photographs of HB2 when it was located on Main Street were found, and will now be used to guide the restoration work. Staff finds that the design guidelines are met and recommends Final approval be granted with standard conditions. APPLICANT: Scott Hicks and Maureen Kinney. The architect is Ooug Rager. 1 PARCEL ID: 2737-074-31-001. - ADDRESS: 2 William's Way, Smuggler Hunter Trust Lot #1. ZONING: RMF-A, Residential Multi-Family. CURRENT LAND USE: Duplex. The westem unit is deed restricted to "R.O." (Resident occupied) and the eastern unit is Category 4 affordable housing. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant intends to take advantage of the multi-family zoning on this site. While multi-family is typically defined as 3 or more attached units, on historically designated properties, the dwellings may be separated. This option helps to further HPC's goals and is a benefit to the owner, who prefers to create some privacy between the homes. There is a Growth Management exemption available for landmarks which allows one new free market unit to be built on this site. Whether the Warkentin house (HBl) or the new structure will be free market is a somewhat complicated matter that the owner will have to work out with the Housing Authority. HB2 will be maintained as a Category unit. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) The procedure for a Major 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. ....~, 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, 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 to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time): - 2 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 because it contains two 19th century miner's cottages, one of which is original to the site. Key features of the property include the placement of the Warkentin house and the open space surrounding the existing building. Although it appears that the original house has been relocated, at least onto a new foundation, its orientation is believed to be unchanged. Architectural features have been altered on both cottages, however the basic simple plan and roof forms are essentially intact, as are some of the door and window openings. Their integrity will only be strengthened by this proposed proj ect. Below is the 1893 Bird's Eye View of Aspen indicating what staff believes is the Warkentin house. There are no Sanbome maps for this area, so information is somewhat limited, however in examining this map and a historic photo of town, we have some confidence. Two of the homes pictured in this drawing still exist on Walnut Street, but the remaining structures have all been demolished. As a result, the context lacks consistent character and is not particularly sensitive to new development. This property is currently developed as a duplex. As such, the maximum allowable floor area is 4,764 square feet. Multi- family housing is calculated on a different scale however, and the allowable FAR takes a dramatic jump to 21,475 square feet. The proposal before HPC totals approximately 5,800 square feet, therefore significant construction could theoretically still occur on the property. It is highly unlikely that anything approaching that number could ever be achieved, given the historic preservation concerns on this site. 3 Desi!!:n Guideline review ~, Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, selection of new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines 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. Both historic buildings will be approximately 500 square feet in size, once the existing link is demolished. The addition requested for HBl is small (90 square feet), and placed along a wall that must be reconstructed anyway, since the original materials were removed in the 1950's remodel. The proposed new house is approximately 4,800 square feet, obviously significantly larger than the historic buildings. It is placed some distance away from the historic buildings. The massing is broken down into a number of distinct pieces, which staff finds is working well. The height of the building steps down as it begins to approach the historic cottages. Car access has been pushed to the back of the site. Staff finds that the new house is meeting all of the relevant design guidelines, found in Chapter 11. During this review however, staff has found that the garage is not in compliance with a "Residential Design Standard" that requires the doors to be 10 feet further back from the street than the rest of the house. The architect is in the process of redesigning this area so that the standard is met. The new plans will have no effect on the historic resources and can be approved at the Final review hearing or can be handled as a condition of approval. "'I, One ofHPC's goals at Final is to approve a landscape plan. The plan that is submitted represents that most of the existing vegetation on the site will be retained. Some trees are to be added around the new house. Staffs only comment is related to sidewalks. The guidelines state: 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. o This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. o Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. The meandering sidewalk to the new house is acceptable because of the more organic pattem of this neighborhood, however, staff would like the plans to represent sidewalks running directly from Willianl's Way to the two historic homes as a condition of approval. ~- 4 This project involves substantial restoration, and some reconstruction work on the Victorian buildings. In terms of the guidelines that discuss proper restoration techniques, this will be ensured through supervision of the project and the requirement that the contractor have a historic preservation specialty license. Staff has a handful of concerns related to the alterations proposed for these buildings. On both units, staff recommends that the stone foundations that are represented be deleted in favor of exposed concrete based on this guideline: 90S A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. a On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. a Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. Staff s other concerns are with specific features of the miner's cottages. Beginning with the dormers proposed for HB I, the following guidelines are important to discuss: 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. a Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. a Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. a 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. a The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. The owners have stated in earlier meetings that the addition of the dormers is an important priority for them. In part, this is because they have an obligation to retain the same number of bedrooms and square feet in the R.O. unit as currently exists. In reviewing the plans, elevations, and building sections, staff is concemed that the dormers, while designed to be relatively small elements, have a fairly significant visual impact on a very simple building, but serve an existing loft in the house that has extremely limited usability and mayor may not be able to be included in the net livable square footage that must be maintained. One can only stand at full height right under the roof ridge. Recently, as part of the review of a similar house, there was a discussion about whether or not trying to accommodate living space in the roof where it was never really intended to exist was an appropriate. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, an appendix in the HPC .'",""... 5 'k guidelines, encourage that in adapting a building to modem use, it is important to create minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and special relationships. There are already non-historic windows in both gable ends of the house to provide some light and air to this loft. Staff recommends that the dormers not be allowed and that to the extent the area is used, it maintain more of an attic character or serve as storage. Ideally, if storage is the only use, the windows in the gable ends, which are not likely historic features, should be eliminated as well per the following guideline: - 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. D Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. D Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. D Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. If there is a need to provide additional net livable area to meet the housing guidelines, the ~ applicant should prepare an amendment to the basement level floor plan and/or perhaps a small expansion of the proposed addition. """"",,. The tinal point of discussion in this review is a few minor concems with window and door configurations on the historic buildings. There is some restoration planned of original window and door openings that have been closed in. It should be understood that these should be located in the field based on framing evidence, inspected by HPC staff and monitor. In addition, staff and monitor will need to review cut sheets for all new units. Staff recommends that the existing full light door on HB2 be replaced with a door that is typical of the period, as is shown on the proposed south elevation drawing. The guideline is: 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. D A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. D A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. D Simple paneled doors were typical. D Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. Drawings for both HB I and HB2 show stained glass windows to be installed on the rear facades of the buildings. On HBl the window is in the new addition, and on HB2 it is on a rear wall that is reconstructed. HPC does not typically allow historic features of this sort to be added to buildings as stated in these guidelines: ...... 6 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. D Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings.. D Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. D It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. 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. 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. Staff recommends that the stained glass windows be replaced on the plans with simple windows that are in character overall with those used on the rest of the buildings. With the conditions of approval noted below, staff recommends that Final approval be granted for 2 William's Way. 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 Major Development (Final) be granted with the following conditions: 1. Add front sidewalks running directly from William's Way to the two historic homes to the landscape plan. Any changes to the landscape plan submitted in the final review packet will need approval by staff and monitor. 7 2. k-3. ~ 4-5. 6. q: Use an exposed concrete foundation on HBl and HB2, not stone. Prepare a redesign of the garage area on the new house to bring the project into compliance with the Residential Design Standards, for approval by staff and monitor. 4. If there is a need to provide additional net livable area in HB I to meet the housing guidelines, the applicant should prepare an amendment to the basement level floor plan and/or perhaps a small expansion of the proposed addition, for approval by staff and monitor. If storage is the only allowable use for the loft space in HBI, eliminate the windows in both gable ends. All new windows that are being added in historic walls should be located in the field based on framing evidence, inspected by staff and monitor. 7. Replace the west facing front door in HB2 with a design as represented on the south elevation of the building. 8. Remove the stained glass windows from the rear elevations ofHBl and HB2 and replace them with simple windows that are in character overall with those used on the rest of the buildings. 9. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 10. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structures must be submitted with the building permit application. 11. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 12. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what original materials appear to still exist on the structure, and what treatments will be used to retain them. 13. 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. 14. 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 informatiorl is available. 15. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 purpDse of construction. 19. 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 8 ....."""." ,.,-, approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 20. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. Exhibits: Resolution # , Series of2004 A. Staff memo dated August 11, 2004 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Minutes of January 14, 2004 D. Application '+>.;,...... 9 "Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 2 William's Way, Final Review" .-. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. o This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. o Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. o Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. o The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. o Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. o If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. o Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. o Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. o Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. o Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. o Do not locate plants or Lees in lOCutions that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. o It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. o Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. o Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. o Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, comtces, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. o Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 2.2 Protect wood features from deterioration. -- ~- 10 D Provide proper drainage and ventilation to minimize rot. D Maintain protective coatings to retard drying and ultraviolet damage. 2.3 Plan repainting carefully. DAlways prepare a good substrate. Prior to painting, remove damaged or deteriorated paint only to the next intact layer, using the gentlest means possible. D Use compatible paints. Some latex paints will not bond well to earlier oil-based paints without a primer coat. 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. D A void the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. D Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. D If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. D Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials. D In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such as a fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic model. D Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. D Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick. D EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. D Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. D Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. D Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. D Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. D Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. D Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. D Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. 11 CJ 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. CJ 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. CJ 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. CJ Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. CJ 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. CJ A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, 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. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic window. CJ Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. CJ If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning around the perimeter. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. CJ Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. CJ Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. CJ If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a tater time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. CJ If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. CJ Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. CJFor additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door. CJ Match the frame design and color of the primary door. CJ If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. 12 - "'" i' ;-"" -. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. o A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. o A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. o Simple paneled doors were typical. oVery ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. o Generally, wood storm doors are most appropriate when the original door is wood. o If a storm door is to be installed, match the frame design, character and color of the original door. 5.1 Preserve an original porch. o Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. o This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. o Use materials that appear similar to the original. o While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, altemative materials may be considered. o Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. o When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. o The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. o The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. o Repair only those features that are deteriorated. o Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, usmg recognized preservation methods whenever possible. o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. o Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. 13 a Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. a Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. a If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which traditionally was a smooth painted finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features shonld he based on original designs. a The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building's heritage. a When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. a Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. a Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. a It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. 6.6 Replacement of missing elements may he included in repair activities. a Replace only those portions that are beyond repair. a Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence. a Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible. a A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass comice may be considered at the top ofa building.Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. a Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roOf as seen from the .street. a Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. a The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. a A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridge line and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. a The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. a Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. 14 .-. ....,;<1,. .-. ",.<S1l"; ~_. D If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. D Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. D If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. D A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. D A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. D Seams should be of a low profile. D A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 9.S A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. D On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. D Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. D Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. D Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. 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. 10.4 Design a new arldition 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. 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. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. D The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. D Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. D Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. D Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 15 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. o These include windows, doors and porches. o Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. o This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. o Highly complex and omately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and int~nsity to that used traditionally. o The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. o All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. o Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. o Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. o Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. o Do not wash an entire building facade in light. o Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. o Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. o Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway from the street. o Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete. 16 ~,.> .-.. - RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 WILLIAM'S WAY, SMUGGLER HUNTER TRUST, LOT 1, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2004 PARCEL ID: 2737-074-31-001 WHEREAS, the applicants, Scott Hicks and Maureen Kinney, represented by Doug Rager, have requested Major Development Review (Final) for the property located at 2 William's Way, Smuggler Hunter Trust Lot #1, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. . The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 11, 2004, 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 with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 11,2004, 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 with conditioins by a vote of _ to _' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Final approval for the proposed project at 2 William's Way, Smuggler Hunter Trust Lot #1 with the following conditions: 1. Add front sidewalks running directly from William's Way to the two historic homes to the landscape plan. Any changes to the landscape plan submitted in the final review packet will need approval by staff and monitor. 2. Use an exposed concrete foundation on HBl and HB2, not stone. 3. Prepare a redesign of the garage area on the new house to bring the project into compliance with the Residential Design Standards, for approval by staff and monitor. 4. If there is a need to provide additional net livable area in HB 1 to meet the housing guidelines, the applicant should prepare an amendment to the basement level floor plan and/or perhaps a small expansion of the proposed addition, for approval by staff and monitor. 5. If storage is the only allowable use for the loft space in HBl, eliminate the windows in both gable ends. 6. All new windows that are being added in historic walls should be located in the field based on framing evidence, inspected by staff and monitor. 7. Replace the west facing front door in HB2 with a design as represented on the south elevation of the building. 8. Remove the stained glass windows from the rear elevations ofHBl and HB2 and replace them with simple windows that are in character overall with those used on the rest of the buildings. 9. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 10. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structures must be submitted with the building permit application. 11. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 12. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what original materials appear to still exist on the structure, and what treatments will be used to retain them. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 .-. -...,jIiII/I - - approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 20. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of August, 2004. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: . Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN mSTORlC PRESERVATION COMMISSiON MINUTES OFJANUARY14.:Z004 . Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman, . Neill Hirst was excused. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer .-~--- y Guthrie, . ric Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, C . fDeputy City Clerk MOTION: Sara movedto approve the in utes of December 10,2003; second by Derek. All in favor, motion ca ied. Disclosure: Derek will recuse himself 939 E. Cooper. He also stated that he worked for CRA prior to the pplication of the Visitor Center but has no financial inter st in the projec . David Hoefer said Derek could sit in on the project. 2 WILLIAM'S CONCEPTUAL-PH ---ON-SitE LOCATION Sworn in: Doug Rager, S tt icks / Amy said the app1ican~'and staff s been working on access issues for driveways. It seems that the historic houses are placed in the right area of the lots and there is a good distance between them and the new house. There have been some changes to the new house and it doesn't appear as large as it was on the first plan. . Scott said we are looking for the parking situatio to be located off Spruce Street. The parking for the two historic structures ill be located at the northwest comer of the site. At the last meeting it w suggested that the kind of single story structure be located in the front of e other masses to give it a distinct shape from the other house. There is 3 feet between RBI and the new structure. We did that by reducing the footp 'nt of the new structure. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: . I '....:,...>.; ,,'i,,:,.;';-;1,"'- ",.j,',.' :" ,~>,::o~,.~ i.;'_'..',.; ....; ~, ....., "1 , I , , I ......'.... -":,",-",;,;,:,-,",,,"','>,;,;.",,-;', f; -rx. A.J MEMORANDUM THRU: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission --JA-Pr Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director TO: FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: .557 Walnut Street (Victorian home)- Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption, Major HPC Development (Conceptual), Relocation and Variances. 541 and 555 Walnut Street (Log buildings)- Historic Designation, Major HPC Development (Conceptual), Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing DATE: August 11, 2004 SUMMARY: The project affects two adjacent but separate lots, located within a new planned subdivision. The Victorian miner's cottage, which has been abandoned for many years and is significantly deteriorated, is to be rehabilitated, including a new addition. Setback variances and an FAR bonus are requested. The applicant requests a Historic Landmark Lot Split of this parcel with the intention of defining the newly created lot as a public park, and transferring all of the development rights off of the parcel. The 1964 10g eabins have not been designated to date because of a lack of consent from the previous owner. In this application, they are proposed to be landmarked, moved slightly on the site and rehabilitated for re-use as one single family home. Variances and an FAR bonus are requested. Staff finds that this project meets the applicable review standards and complies with the design guidelines. Conceptual approval, Relocation, and Variances for both parcels is recommended, along with a motion to support the Historic Designatio'l and Historic Landmark Lot Split by City Council. APPLICANT: Walnut Property LLC, represented by Gilbert Sanchez AIA and Stan Clauson and Associates. PARCEL In: 2737-073-00-022/23 ADDRESS: 555 and 557 Walnut Street, which are described as Lots 2 and 3, Block 3, Williams Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, and 541 Walnut Street, which is described as Lots 4 and 5, Block 3, Williams Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6. BACKGROUND ISSUE: The Victorian house was added to the historic inventory in 1995. Through the development of this application, it has come to light that the legal description that staff used in the ordinance listing the property was inaccurate. The area that has been landmarked includes only half of the cabin, and the open space in front. Staff has worked with the applicant to identify new boundaries that will include the whole cabin and adjust the open space slightly in order to protect the landscape. When the project reaches City Council, it is anticipated that they will incorporate this amendment into their approval for the project. HPC is asked to put their support behind this new legal description in their resolution. HISTORIC DESIGNATION 26.415.030B Critertci. - -'- To b eligible for designati on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objec mus ave a demonstrated quality of significance. The Victorian is already designated. The significance of the log cabins will be evaluated according to the following criteria: 1. The property was constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to one or more of the following: a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history, b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and can be identified and documented, c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. """. -'.A# Staff Response: According to the applicant, the log cabins on this site were built by the long- time property owners, the Griffith's, in 1964. Quoting from the white paper that has been prepared by the Community Development Department titled "Aspen's 20th Century Architecture: Rustic Style Buildings," After the Second W odd War, looking to the past- and in particular, the American past- was the result of a nation tuming inwards, and away from foreign battlefields. The romance and heightened idealization of the West, and the appeal of the rugged individualist's lifestyle, was evidenced by the popularity of television shows like "The Lone Ranger" and "Davy Crockett", and further, by the proliferation of Western movies (many of which were produced as a result of the McCarthy Era effect on post-war - 2 .,..-..... Hollywood productions). The American public acculturized the West's ideals, and the Rustic Style even found its way into children's toys like "Lincoln Logs." Between 1940 and 1959, the number of full-time residents in Aspen increased by 1000, and "by 1959 at least 200 part-time residents joined the year-round crowd." As Aspen's amenities began to attract a larger, more influential and wealthy group of second homeowners (including some of Hollywood's brightest stars), the city began to transform itself into a premiere, year round resort, and many people "chose to move to or build vacation homes in Aspen." It is staff's understanding that the Griffith cabins were built as rental units. They help to illustrate the trends related to early development of tourism in Aspen and therefore meet "Criterion A." At present, staff does not have information that would support a finding that "Criterion B" is met. The Rustic Style paper defines the distinctive characteristics that must be present in order to meet "Criterion c." They are: . Hand built structures that are constructed out of locally available materials, usually log; stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney. Later examples include machine cut logs. . The buildings are usually single story, with a low-pitched gable roof. . True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be dressed and flattened for stacking or may be in rough form. Chinking infills the irregularities between the logs either way. Machine made buildings mimic these details, though without the chinking. . Window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used to finish out tbe window openings. . Building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements. . The roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends are often infilled with standard framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space. The emphasis is on hand-made materials and the details stem from the use of the materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal. Staff finds that these cabins exhibit all of these fundamental characteristics and meet "Criterion C." Although most of the rustic style cabins built in Aspen after the early 1950's were kit log structures, these small cabins are true log, hand-built buildings. They are one story, rectangular homes with typical constructing detailing, such as overlapping log ends and chinking. Each has a limited number of small windows. The property meets two of the three designation criteria, which leaves the question of integrity to be evaluated. Integrity can be measured through the scoring system that HPC has developed. Over the last few months, Staff has completed site visits and an initial assessment for all of the remaining Rustic style buildings constructed during the local period of significance, which has been identified as pre-World War II lmtil the early 1970's. At least 20 buildings exist in town 3 that might be considered important within the Rustic style, including residences and lodges. Only four of these properties, 308 Park Avenue, 300 W. Main Street, 501 W. Main Street, and 304 W. Hallam Street, are currently landmarked. 435 W. Main Street is under consideration as part of the Aspen Jewish Community Center project. .-~' The Walnut Street cabins are well preserved and do not appear to have any modifications from the original design other than the application of paint on the logs and replacement of the roof material, both of which are proposed to be reversed by this project. Staffs integrity assessment for the cabins is attached, and the conclusion is that the property warranJs 97 out of WQ.Jlf1into, ; which is well above the 75 point minimum requirement. Staff supports landmark designation for this property. 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 26.415.010(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 proposal is to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the WlJorian prop" . At this time the applicant has not verified for the City whether or not this property is part of a previously approved subdivision, however in either case Historic Landmark Lot Splits are exempt from the criterion. 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 26.1 00. 040(A)(1)(c). Staff Finding: This proposal will create one 6,016 square foot lot, and one 9,044 square foot lot, each of which will meet or exceed the minlnlUm 3,000 square foot lot sizeesraorished for Historic Landmark Lot Splits. - 4 Council has adopted 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 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 required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. f) 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: The existing Victorian is to be preserved as part of the project. 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 proposal mainlains the Victorian as a single family home and transfers away all of the remaining development rights, leaving the rest of the land for a park. 5 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 15,060 square feet and is located in the R-6 Zone District. 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 an R-6 zone, is 4,443 square feet. The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus, discussed below. Should the FAR bonus be granted, the total FAR is to be allocated as follows: 2,770 square feet to Lot A, which contains the historic Victorian house, and up to 2,173 square feet to be converted into TDR's. Within this application, HPC is as to lend support to a code amendment that would change one of the parameters of the w TDR progr urrently, there is a limit that a property owner can land no more than one TD applicant for this proj ect intends to spread the TDR's out primarily within their new subdivision and wishes to be able to land more than one per house in order to achieve the value that they feel is needed. This request will be part of a code amendment to City Council. At this time, Community Development Department is somewhat hesitant to see this change adopted because the program is so new and to the extent tllat it may be seen as relieving historic buildings, but creating "monster homes" elsewhere, TDR's could be threatened. It does appear that there is some market for them beyond just this subdivision, so it is hoped that the owner could sell them under the existing rules and receive the benefit that is warranted by the preservation choices that they are making. 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 FindingY"Setback variance e requested for the parcel that will contain the Victorian. --- 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 reporUhat 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. Although very deteriorated, it is one of the most authentic buildings of this type left in Aspen. The significance of the log cabins was discussed earlier in the memo. Key features of the property beyond the authenticity of the buildings is that the amount of undeveloped property that contributes to the open landscape in front of the miner's cottage and log buildings, and the way that the property developed over time to serve the needs of a long term owner. There is one other Victorian home on this street, and the 2 William's Way property, which is some distance away. Little other 19th century context remains in this densely developed neighborhood. Staff has argued since the initial discussions on this project that those characteristics that are still evident, such as the lot and block pattern of development on Walnut 7 an Race, should continue to be respected. The applicant has abandoned an earlier plan to close off part of Race alley and is retaining the orthogonal lot configuration that currently exists. ,..-" In terms of how the project will affect the integrity of the designated buildings, as stated they are both currently very intact. The Victorian would achieve a high score on the integrity assessment, and may lose j~st a tew points depending on the extent that materials, doors, or windows need to be replace due to deterioration. The integrity score for the log cabins, attached to this memo, reflects staff s~inion of the buildings' current status as well as the effect of the proposed development. Staff is somewhat concerned that the proposal reduces these buildings by approximately points due to plans to r~locate th..m "0 ~te, link them together, and possibly change a number of window and door openings. Bearingin mind that the integrity standard was set very high for p~st-war buildings, and these structures are currently not protected at all, it seems that thoughtful application of the design guidelines will ensure that the log cabins are still worthy of designation after this project. There will be no remaining potential for future additions to the property if this project is built, because it creates a commitment to move all of the remaining allowable FAR from the designated buildings to TDR's. Desil!n 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. - Overall, staff finds that this proposal is an excellent preservation effort. The Victorian has been a topic of concem for many years due to iiSaemulilion by neglect and the cabins were expected to be lost following the failed effort to designate them without the owner's consent in 2000. The applicant is proposing relatively modestly sized additions to these structures and is creating TDR's to move the square footage away into new homes. The historic open landscape is being preserved and the buildings will be enjoyed by those who visit the park. Staff has just two points of discussion to bring up with HPC. First, the board should discuss the Ian to drop the floor level of the porches on the log cabi (as well as the interior floor level). This IS pr . enor ead height. The effect will have limited visibility, but will require that the front door thresholds be lowered and either the doors be replaced or an additional foot is added to their length. Stattperccives this as a Conceptual review issue to the extent that this is the applicant's solution to addressing the existing low height of the building. The most relevant guidelines are: 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. o Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 5.1 Preserve an original porch. 8 o Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. Other alternatives to increase the volume of the space, including raising the building or adding dormers would be more intrusive, however staff is somewhat concemed with this change. Because the porch floor and front door are blocked to some extent by the solid wall along the perimeter of the porch, this may be an acceptable alteration. The next guideline in question relates to the desire to detach as much mass from the designated buildings as possible, and to reflect traditional site planning. The guideline, which addresses garages, is: ---- :::-- 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattem should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case- by-case basis. Staff finds that watvmg this guideline is appropriate because there is a connector of some significant length proposed to buffer the Victorian from the addition. With regard to the log cabins, they have historically been alley buildings and it would not be desirable to move them further forward to separate a garage. The final design issue is the location of the kitchen addition on the Victorian. The addition will occupy roughly the same area where an existing, non-historic shed on the north side of the house sits in now. The kitchen is slipped back enough to reveal a bit more of the gable end than is visible now, but it still intrudes into the eaveline and obscures the come taff cites the following guideline and recommen s 0 tighten it up so that it does not encroach on the gable, or is possibly placed on the back of the Victorian: 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, comices and eavelines should be avoided. With the restudy of this part of the proposal, staff finds that ~eptual-appr~al is aonropr-Ul<pc--- 9 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 altemative 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, structnre or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets anyone 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; Q! 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; Q! 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; Q! 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 of the 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: The Victorian house is to be lifted to dig a basement, and then will be retumed to its original location. The log cabins are both to be moved sideways and slightly forward of their current site. The guidelines state: 9.1 Propos o In gene a histor' tn. o It must be dem rated that relocation is the best preservation altemative. 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. ilding will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ess of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in ~'" 10 a 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. a The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. Up until a recent revision to the proposal, the log cabins, if preserved at all, were planned to be moved to a far corner of the site. Staff and the applicant discussed many altematives for these buildings, all of which would have likely resulted in them being moved. Re-using them as ADU's for some of the new development might be a possibility, however they would not remain in this area and would not remain as a pair. This proposal, while not without some impact to their character since they will be linked . reasonable compromise. The architect has done an excellent job of playing dow the visibility of t link and avoiding a two story addition. The applicant is requesting a 500 standards apply to an FAR bonus. pe are foot floor ar bonus for each lot. .Il0.E: The following 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, pursnant to Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that inclndes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be 11 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 the FAR nuses is appropriate. All of the guidelines are satisfied, the historic building will have prominence the new construction is modest in size and design, and there will be much needed restoration work on the Victorian. Staff does have a concern with the amount of materials that may be replaced on the Victorian due to its abandoned state. The application mentions the possible reconstruction of numerous features. As a condition of approval, staff recommends that the applicant be required to retain a contractor or consultant with demonstrated knowledge in conservation of historic wood to oversee the restoration. SETBACK AND SITE COVERAGE VARIANCES The setback variances needed for the Victorian are a rear yard setback of 8' instead of the required 10'. On the property that contains the two log cabins, HPC is asked to approve a rear yard setback of 5' instead of the required 10',2'6" instead of the required 5' on the north and south sideyards, and a 5% site coverage variance. The criteria, per Section 26.41S.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows: "''''''''1.. HPC must make a finding that the 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 rear yard setback variances requested for each lot are important because they allow for separation between new and old construction, and, in the case of the log buildings, prevent them b1':ihE; Hl.8"ed ~Q f.:u [UI ward lhal (hey ahgn with the Victorian, which has never been the condition. Staff finds that these variances meet criteria b, above. The sideyard variances for the log cabins are the result of trying to maintain a side by side placement of two fairly wide buildings on one building lot. These setbacks will affect the immediate neighbors within this new subdivision more so than any other property. Staff finds that these variances meet criteria b by helping to make it feasible to keep these cabins. The,site coverage variance needed for the log cabins is a result of the effort to keep the development all at one story, which is very appropriate and a commendable preservation effort. Staff finds that the site coverage variance meets criteria b. -, 12 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: . 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 finds that this is an appropriate project. The lot split has been demonstrated as an effective way to remove development pressure from historic residential buildings, and the TDR program will clearly have that effect as well. It should be recognized that the log cabins are not currently designated and the owner has the option to apply for a demolition permit at any time, since the City has not initiated its own landmark application. Staff recommends that the HPC recommend aPEI:oval of Historic Design<[tion for the log ~s and Historic Landmark Lot spITtrOrthe Victorian to City Council, and that HPC grants approval for Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Variances with the following conditions: 1. HPC supports the clarification to the boundaries of the designated Victorian parcel as 0represented in the application. 2. HPC supports (or does not support) a code amendment that would change the limitation on the number of TDR's that can be landed on anyone parcel. 3. The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus for the parcel containing the Victoria~BA th~ parcel (6ut,,;uing tas leg eaIJill3) ~ No -tJN eltetN$ 4. The HPC ereby approves the following setback variances: for the Victorian, a rear yard setback of 8' instead of the required 10' and for the log cabins, a rear yard setback of 5' instead of the required 10', 2'6" instead of the required 5' on the north and south sideyards, and a 5% ~~erage variance. v 5. The architect ~~tu4Y.lthe location of the kitchen addition on the Victorian so that it does not encrodc'lnih the historic gable end. 6. The applicant is required to retain a contractor or consultant with demonstrated knowledge in conservation of historic wood to oversee the restoration of the Victorian. 7. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the houses will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 8. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 for each parcel to insure the safe relocation of the structures must be submitted with the building permit application. 13 9. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 10. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within one year of August 11, 2004 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.4l5.070D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. 11. For the property that contains the Victorian, a subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC; and d. Be labeled to indicate that this proposal will create a Lot A of 6015.62 square feet in size with 2,770 square feet of floor area, and a Lot B of9,044 square feet in size with 2,173 square feet of floor area available to be used for TDR's. - Exhibits: ~ Resolution ~eries of 2004 A. Staff memo dated August 11, 2004 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Integrity Assessment D. Application """'" 14 "Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for Conceptual Review" ~.""'''.~ 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. D Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 5.1 Preserve an original porch. D Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. D Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. D Expanding the size of a historic. porch is inappropriate. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. D Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. D Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattem 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. D In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. D It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation altemative. D Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. D A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. D 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. D The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. In general; moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. D 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. D It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. D 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. D Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. IS i:I Changing the historic' elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 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. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary bnilding is maintained. i:I A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. i:I An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. i:I An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. i:I An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. lOA Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. i:I An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. i:I 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 bnilding. i:I An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. i:I A I-story connector is preferred. i:I The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. i:I 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. i:I Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. i:I Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. i:I 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. i:I Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. i:I 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. 16 -. - "',.," o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, comices and eavelines should be avoided. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 17 Exhibit C- INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- RUSTIC Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. ",,""""", . LOCATION LOCATION IS THE PLACE WHERE THE HISTORIC PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED OR THE PLACE WHERE THE HISTORiC EVENT (JCCURRED. 5 - The structure is in its original location. 3 - The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original alignment and proximity to the street. o - The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilar to its original site. TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 5) ST AFF SCORE: 5 points. The cabins are currently in their original locations. This score would be reduced to 3 under the new proposal. . DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style ofa property. BUILDING FORM 1 0 -The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still intact. 6 - The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines. o - Alterations and/or additions to the building are such that the original form of the structure is obscured. -.. ,..".....1 STAFF SCORE: 10 points. The cottages are currently free-standing and have had no additions. This score would be reduced to approximately 6, or possibly less, for linking the buildings together. ROOF FORM 10 -The original roofform is unaltered. 6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the current design guidelines. o -Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form. STAFF SCORE: 10 points. Roofforms have not been, and will not be, altered. SCALE 5 - The original scale and proportions of the building are intact. 3 - The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines. ~- 19