Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20040901ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISITS: Please meet at 137 Westview Drive for a ~roup site visit. II. III. IV. V. VI. Roll call Approval of minutes - Public Comments Commissioner member .comments Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #28) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 114 Neale Ave.- Major Development (Conceptual), Continued Public Hearing (40 min.) IX. NEW BUSINESS A. 113 E. Hopkins -Minor Development-Public Hearing (20min.) WORKSESSION A. Potential Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendment (30 min.) XI. ADJOURN- 6:30 ''''" ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISITS: Please meet at 137 Westview Drive for a eroup site visit. I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - 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 #28) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 114 Neale Ave. - Major Development (Conceptual),~ Continued Public Hearing (40 min.) ~~ X IX. NEW BUSINESS A. 113 E. Hopkins - Minor Development -pu. blic I}earing (20min.) fd t ~ctl/7l) X. WORKSESSION A. Potential Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendment (30 min.) XI. ADJOURN - 6:30 J1lL 4) MEMORANDUM '" TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ..}AA Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director THRU: FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 114 Neale Avenue- Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Residential Design Standard Variance- Continued Public Hearing DATE: September I, 2004 SUMMARY: The subject property is a vacant parcel that was created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. Because the land was included in the original designation of the adjacent Victorian era miner's cottage, HPC has review authority over any proposed development. Conceptual approval is requested for a new single family residence and accessory dwelling unit, along with a variance from a "Residential Design Standard" related to windows. The variance will be dealt with at final review because it is not a topic that is appropriate for this level of the discussion. ......~ ." HPC reviewed and commented on this project on July 28, 2004. Staff finds that the revisions that have been provided for this continued hearing do not sufficiently address the conflicts with the design guidelines which have been cited, and do not create a compatible relationship b.etween this new house and the Victorian miner's cottage. The guidelines related to height, scale, massing and proportions are not sufficiently met to allow for a Conceptual approval. Staff recommends that the project be discussed and then continued to a date certain to allow the architect time for restudy. APPLICANT: Alice Brien, represented by John Muir Architects. PARCEL 10: 2737-073-83-002. ADDRESS: 114 Neale Avenue, Lot 2 of the 114 Nealel17 Queen Street Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-15A. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) ',. The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a ". recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Desi!!: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." This property is 15.,160 square feet in size. The maximum allowable floor area that was established through the lot split is 3,945 square feet. Much of the square footage that could have been added onto the adjacent Victorian era home was transferred onto this lot. The floor area "' allotment may be reduced subject to a calculation of slopes over 20%. The architect will need to confirm this issue with the Zoning Officer, along with the methodology for calculating the area of building that is only partially below grade. As stated in the application, the property is subject to a reduced height limit through a private agreement with the neighbor. The proposed new building is approximately 3 times larger than the Victorian that it is meant to relate to. Some of the potentially negative impact on the historic resource is mitigated by the fact that the subject parcel is at a lower elevation, ensuring that views towards the miner's cottage at the top of the hill will be protected. In addition, the new house is 5.7 feet away from the landmark house, including a 10 foot increase in distance provided since the last hearing. This was achieved by reducing the connecting link between the master bedroom pod on the north and the main body of the house. The area of the new house that is closest to the old one is one story in height for a distance of 35 feet, also helping to create a sympathetic arrangement. The architect has divided off a portion of the new house into a distinct mass which is linked to the main body of the building in order to break down the massing, and he has also designed a detached accessory dwelling unit. These choices all may help the project to meet the following guideline: .... 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. 2 ..... o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. The architect is faced with a difficult design challenge because there is such a large difference in the size of the homes involved in this lot split. Additional effort to design the project as a "compound" of masses that are more related to the Victorian would be beneficial. In particular the size of the central element of the building does not comply with 11.3. The architect has lowered plate heights and floor elevations for this review, which has some benefit, however the overall scale of the large roof over a single mass is still very problematic, as is the linear character of the house. It might be appropriate to orient the footprint so that the building is somewhat more broad from front to back and not as long. Staff also finds that the "vocabulary" used in the design IS III conflict with some of the guidelines, for instance: 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. o They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. o Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. o Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. o On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. o This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. o Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. Without getting into a discussion of materials, which is a topic for Final review, the roof forms, the central roof, and the entry are all in some conflict with the scale and character of the Viqtorian. The roof is more complicated than is typical of the designated building. The building has a very strongly expressed style that does not bear a relationship to the landmark structure. One of the reasons that HPC has been generally supportive of contemporary design solutions when adding onto, or building next to a Victorian, is the fact that the detailing and material palette tend to be very simple and quiet, as evidenced, for example, by the addition that is on the Victorian in question. Many of these concerns were stated by Staff and HPC at the previous hearing, but have not been revisited at all. Staff recommends that HPC and the architect discuss the project, followed by a continuance for restudy of those elements which are not meeting the guidelines. 3 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 114 Neale Avenue be continued to a date certain. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated September 1,2004 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application ,",~"." ,,- '-. 4 ~A) MEMORANDUM "''''..... TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 113 E. Hopkins Avenue, Minor Review- Public Hearing DATE: September 1, 2004 SUMMARY: The subject property is a 6,000 square foot lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The board is asked to grant Minor Development approval for expansions to non-historic portions of the subject house. Staff finds that the project complies with the applicable review standards and recommends approval with conditions. APPLICANT: Jim and Ellen Gould, owners, represented by Kim Raymond Architects. PARCEL 10: 2735-124-58-002. ADDRESS: 113 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots C and D, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three I - hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. '-- Staff Response: The request is that HPC approve an expansion on the north side of a 1989 addition, and in the southeast corner of the house. The basement will also be increased in size and lightwells will be built on the east and west sides of the miner's cottage. A worksession was held on this project in February 2004. The property is currently under the maximum allowed floor area and appears to leave approximately 300 square feet on the table. The owners rnay want to consider creating a TDR to capture the value of some of their unused square footage. Guidelines applicable to the design of this proposal are attached as "Exhibit B." Staff has no concern with the new staircase at the back of the house. It connects to non-historic construction and has no public visibility. The window wells are also acceptable, provided that they are protected with grates, rather than railings. Staff finds that the following guidelines should be discussed in relation to the addition on the north side of the house. ..-<".", 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roofforms should be similar to those of the historic building. o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. '-... The proposed addition does not project as far forward as was shown in the worksession, and also does not connect to the west side of the miner's cottage anymore, which are positive changes. The project removes a Victorian looking porch that currently lives on the front of the addition, which is a very beneficial change because this porch is competitive with the historic building and confuses the history of the house. A new, simple porch is proposed in this new construction. Staff suggests that it would be best to have no porch at all in this area because the porch on the addition does not appear to be very functional, as it is only 3 feet deep and does not have a door for access. While considerably "quieter" than the existing condition, this 2 ""-.,.. element does still detract somewhat from the porch on the historic building, and cuts down on the setback between the new and old construction. It would be preferable under guideline 10.9 for the new addition to have a sloped roof, however, staff does not object to the creation of an upper floor deck. A simple railing might be preferable to running the siding all the way to the top of the wall. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve Minor Development for 113 E. Hopkins Avenue with the following conditions, as stated in the attached Resolution # , Series of 2004. "'"".- 1. Use grates instead of railings on the lightwells. 2. Eliminate the porch on the north side of the new master bedroom addition. 3. Create a handrail that has some transparency around the new upper floor deck. 4. HPC staff and monitor must approve any exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 5. 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. 6. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 7. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 8. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 9. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated September I, 2004 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application '<;. 3