HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20040922ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 5:00 p.M. '
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASr , , COLOr DO
SITE VISIT: Noon - Aspen Institute - please meet by the Health Club
IlL
IV.
V.
VI.
Roll call
Approval of minutes -August 11, 2004, August 25th and Sept.
Ist 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 #29).
VIII.
IX.
OLD BUSINESS
A. 701 W. Main St. - Historic Landmark Lot 'Split, GMQS
Exemption, Demolition, Relocation and Variances, -
Continue Public Hearing to Oct. 13th.
B. 470 N. Spring Street - Request for a 6-m onth extension of
Major Development (Conceptual) approval. (5 min.)
C. 557 Walnut Ave. -Conceptual, Relocation, Historic
Landmark Lot Split, Variances, Public Hearing (40 min.)~:~
NEW BUSINESS
A. Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall - Referral
(lhr.)
X. WORKSESSION
A. None
xI. ADJOURN - 7:00
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: Noon - Aspen Institute - please meet by the Health Club
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - August 11, 2004, August 25th and Sept.
1st 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 N 0 Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #29)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 701 W. Mai t. - Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS
Exemption, De lition, Relocation and Variances,-
Continue Public He 'ng to Oct. 13th. ,t/, /J.
B. 470 N. Spring Street - Request for a 6-month extension of po ~
Major Development (Conceptual) approval. (5 min.) /J1..uJ~ )';
C. 557 Walnut Ave. -Conceptual, Relocation, Historic 11
Landmark Lot Split, Variances, Public Hearing (40 min.) ,)
~Ce
IX. NEW BUSINESS ~i0
A. Aspen Meadows confe.ren.cc!e'lI nd Meeting Hall- Referral
(1 hr.) /Ii,{) ,~ /OV-e.l--+'J~I
X. WORKSESSION
A. None
XI. ADJOURN - 7:00
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Joyce All~~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:
September 22, 2004
SUMMARY: This project affects two adjacent but separate parcels, located within a new
planned subdivision. One of the subject lots contains a Victorian miner's cottage, which has
been abandoned for many years and is significantly deteriorated. This building 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 the parcel with the intention of creating a
public park, and transferring all of the development rights away. Related to this action, the
applicant is seeking a code amendment to the City's Transferable Development Rights program
and requests HPC' s recommendation of support.
The second subject lot contains two 1964 log cabins that have not been designated to date
because of a lack of consent from the previous owner. Through this application, the Rustic style
cabins 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 Code Amendment, Historic Designation
and Historic Landmark Lot Split, all of which will be decided by City Council.
APPLICANT: Walnut Property LLC, represented by Gilbert Sanchez AlA and Stan Clauson and
Associates.
PARCEL ID: 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.
I
BACKGROUND ISSUE: The Victorian house was added to the historic inventory in 1995.
Through the preparation 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 Victorian, and the open space in front. Staff has worked with the
applicant to identify new boundaries that will include the whole cottage and adjusts the open space
slightly in order to protect the landscape. The applicant is volunteering to include the Rustic cabins
in the designated area as well. 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 the new legal description in their resolution.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030B. Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites,
structures or objects must have 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 ofthe 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.
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 World War, looking to the past- and in particular, the American past-
was the result of a nation turning 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 staffs 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 the 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 until 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 warrants 97 out of 100 points,
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 26.415.01O(D.)
26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a
lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following
conditions are met:
a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board
of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes
and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision
regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not
apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures; and
Staff Finding:
The proposal is to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the Victorian property only. 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
26.100.040(A)(I)(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 minimum 3,000 square foot lot size established 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 requiredfor a showing of good cause.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval.
j) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is
eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a
lot split.
Staff Finding:
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 maintains 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 minimnm 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 asked to lend support to a code amendment that would change
one of the parameters of the new TDR program. Currently, there is a limit that a property owner
can land no more than one TDR per site. This project proposes transferring 11 TDR's from the
landmark buildings onto 6 non-historic lots within the subdivision. The applicant feels that this
is necessary in order achieve the value that is needed to offset their preservation obligations. A
code amendment must be reviewed and approved by P&Z and City Council in order to create this
option.
The applicant has proposed language for the code amendment which Staff feels is workable, with
minor revisions. Essentially, the code amendment will allow up to two TDR's to be landed on
sites with the same subdivision or PUD as a designated parcel, with the conditions that the
landing sites are not immediately adjacent to designated buildings and the HPC and Council
approve the plan based on a finding that it furthers historic preservation goals. Community
Development has been concerned that the code amendment could result in the TDR program
being perceived as creating "monster homes" however, by limiting the amendment to just one
additional TDR per landing site, this may be resolved.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(I)(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.
6
Staff Finding: Setback variances are requested for both of the landmarked parcels.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the
appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be
the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project
(note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
1. Why is the property significant?
2. What are the key features of the property?
3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes?
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score?
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property?
The miner's cottage on this property is significant as an example of typical modest housing built
in the Victorian period. 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
7
",.-'-'-~ '~_""'-'~""~._"qC_""_~'__'~_'~,,,,,~_,~_,~-, ,_,"
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
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 just a few 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 opinion of the buildings' current status as well as the effect of the proposed
development. Staff is somewhat concerned that the proposal, discussed below, reduces these
buildings score by approximately 15 points due to plans to relocate them on the site, link them
together, and possibly change a number of window and door openings. Bearing in mind that the
integrity standard was set very high for post-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 concern for many years due to its demolition 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
plan to drop the floor level of the porches on the log cabins (as well as the interior floor level).
This is proposed in order to increase the interior head 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. Staff perceives 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.
8
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.
Other alternatives to increase the volume of the space, including raising the building or adding
dormers would be more intrusive, however staff is somewhat concerned 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 pattern
should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-
by-case basis.
Staff finds that waiving 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 corner board. Staff cites the
following guideline and recommends that the addition be restudied to 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, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
With the restudy of this part of the proposal, staff finds that Conceptual approval is appropriate.
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 alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on
the attributes that make it significant.
26.415.090.C Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets anyone 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; or
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; or
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 returned
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 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in
a historic district.
o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
10
[J 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.
[J 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 alternatives 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 [inked together, is a reasonable compromise. The architect has
done an excellent job of playing down the visibility of the link and avoiding a two story addition.
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus for each lot. The following
standards apply to an FAR bonus. per Section 26.415.110.E:
1. Iu selected circumstances the HPC may graut 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 ofthe highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
II
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, g, and h are being met, and that granting the FAR bonuses is appropriate. All of the
guidelines are satisfied, the historic building will have prominence on the lot, the new
construction is modest in size and design, and there will be much needed, costly 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 that are being requested were a topic of some concern at the last
meeting. The applicant has eliminated all rear yard setback variances. This was accomplished
by shortening the connector on the Victorian by 2 feet, and by reworking the floor plan on the
addition to the log cabins. Sideyard setback variances, the impact of which will primarily be
felt within the subdivision itself, are still needed and have been revised from the last meeting
to accurately represent the special setback requirements that are applicable to this
neighborhood. For the Victorian, the application is for a north sideyard variance to allow a
setback of 5 feet instead of the required 10' and a combined sideyard variance to allow 15'
instead of the required 20.' On the property that contains the two log cabins, HPC is asked to
approve setbacks of 3' instead of the required 10' on the north and south sideyards, a combined
sideyard of6' instead of the required 20', and a 5% site coverage variance.
The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows:
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 sideyard setback variances for the Victorian are needed because the
applicant is working with existing buildings which should be retained in as close to their original
location as possible, which meets criteria b. They have provided the required 10 foot separation
between this house and the log cabins, but are short on the north side of the building.
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
12
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.
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 help to achieve that 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 approval of the TDR Code Amendment, Historic
Designation for the log cabins, and Historic Landmark Lot Split for the Victorian to City Council,
and that HPC grants approval for Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and
Variances with the following conditions:
I. HPC supports the clarification to the boundaries of the designated Victorian parcel as
represented in the application.
2. HPC supports the requested TDR code amendment.
3. The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus for the parcel containing the
Victorian and the parcel containing the log cabins.
4. The HPC hereby approves the following setback variances: for the Victorian, a north
sideyard variance to allow a setback of 5 feet instead of the required 10' and a combined
sideyard variance to allow 15' instead of the required 20,' and on the property that
contains the two log cabins, HPC approves setbacks of 3' instead of the required 10' on
the north and south sideyards, a combined sideyard of 6' instead of the required 20', and a
5% site coverage variance.
13
5. The architect must restudy the location of the kitchen addition on the Victorian so that it
does not encroach on 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.
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 September 22, 2004 or the conceptual approval shall be considered
null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code.
II. 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 6,015.62 square
feet in size with 2,770 square feet of floor area, and a Lot B of 9,044 square feet in
size with 2,173 square feet of floor area available to be used for TDR's.
Exhibits:
Resolution # ,Series of 2004
A. Staff memo dated September 22, 2004
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Integrity Assessment
D. Minutes of August 11, 2004
E. 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 pattern
should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-
by-case basis.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
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 alternative.
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.
15
D 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.
D 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 building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may
be considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
D An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
D A I-story connector is preferred.
D The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
D Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roofforms should be similar to those ofthe historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
16
of or example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices 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 occurred.
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)
STAFF 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 of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10 -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.
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 roof form 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.
18
0- The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or
alterations.
STAFF SCORE: 5 points. Nothing has changed the scale of the buildings. This score would
be reduced to 3 under the current proposal.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10- The original door and window pattern are intact.
8- Some of the doors and windows are new but the original openings are intact.
4- More than 50% of the doors or windows have been added and/or the original
opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most of the original door and window openings have been altered.
STAFF SCORE: 10 points. It appears that doors and windows have not been altered. This
score might warrant a small reduction for the proposal to lower the thresholds of the original
front doors.
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES/SPARE OUALlTY OF THE DESIGN
10- The form and features that define the Rustic style are intact. There is an overall
sense of simplicity. Window and door openings and decorative features are spare.
5- There are minor alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic style.
0- There have been major alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic
style.
STAFF SCORE: 10 points. Few features of the cabins have been, or will be altered.
TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 45) = 45
. SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
5- The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was originally
constructed.
3 -There are minor modifications to the physical surroundings.
0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the building.
TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 5) = 5. The applicant is going to some lengths to preserve the
open space that is currently the foreground of the cabins.
. MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited
during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a
historic property.
19
EXTERIOR SURFACES
15- The original exterior wall materials (log, wood siding, and stone) and the
decorative trim materials are intact
10- There have been minor changes to the original combination of exterior wall
materials and the decorative trim materials, but the changes have been made in a
manner that conforms with the design guidelines.
5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall
materials and the decorative trim materials.
0- All exterior materials have been removed or replaced.
STAFF SCORE: 15 points. Materials are intact and will remain intact.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
IO-All or most of the original doors and windows units are intact.
5- Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units
would meet the design guidelines.
0- Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units that
would not meet design guidelines.
STAFF SCORE: 10 points. It appears that no features of the cabins have been altered. This
number may be reduced to 5 points depending on the degree to which window units are replaced.
TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 25) = 25
. WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crqfts ofa particular
culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
DETAILING AND ORNAMENT A TION/HAND-BUlL T CHARACTER OR IMITATION
OF HAND-BUILT CHARACTER
15- The original detailing is intact. The building is built from locally available
materials and exhibits evidence of handwork, or is attempting to do so if mass
produced.
10- There have been some alterations of loss of the original detailing or handwork
character.
5- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its stylistic
category.
0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original structure.
0- The detailing is gone.
STAFF SCORE: 15 points. The buildings are clearly hand built and maintain a very simple
character. This will not be changed by the new proposal.
20
FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME
5- The natural finishes and color scheme that define the Rustic style are intact
3- There have been minor alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme that
define the Rustic style.
2- There have been substantial alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme
that define the Rustic style.
STAFF SCORE: 2 points. The buildings have all been painted, which was not their original
condition. This score will increase to 5 points under the new proposal.
TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 20)= 17
SCORE FOR 541 and 555 Walnut Street as they exist today= 97 POINTS
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS
Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might
be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the
point range to more accurately reflect the specific property.
21
Land Use Application
.
REl'AIN FOR PERMAHENT RECOIl)
THE CITY OF ASPEN
PROJECT:
Name: PoX CF-05S I. 0 5UBO/ IS/of.!
I
Location: ~S;s: (;S'7 /I//tt-ItVT /Ivf:. UJ :5 ~ ~ 3 C/C.:; /JJ/lu ;'tt
5"4-/ Wt41-IVVT r=-. to 1- ~ >" fJC-()~ '3 tvl UI,./15 'eJl'Ttof./
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
I
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) d.-l310 I 300 0 ;2-;;;2.. ',;l1 :; 'l 0 'l 3 0 0 oc?- "3
ApPLICANT:
Name: ()J,
Address: P-;P:; f.I. /I1fL-1-
Phone #: Q1o.!;, 4-4- . ()
f-LC
ulTf;
/f-{}G--Prz
E-mail:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: 6' I ~T f2.-. S,th../C ~ 2-
A.ddress: -0. Q'?-87 -SfY3N Co 8/6(;2.
r'hone#: Q1o.Q+r5. ()S'1i Fax#:Q1o .Cf;z..S-'5~7oE-mail:
rG a,/ (L <l to . I/(4
TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
C8J Historic Designation
D Celiificate of No Negative Effect
D Certificate of Appropriateness
D -Minor Historic Development
o -Major Historic Development
0.' -Conceptual Historic Development
D -Final Historic Development
D -Substantial Amendment
0' Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
D Demolition (total demolition)
g Historic Landmark Lot Split
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (descri tion of existin buildings, uses, rovals, etc.)
I If I
4JT5 ~ / 3 111/} 7/ie /!1ff/fCp,vT ~c1W /!tIC.. Cu~y tc!l6ll/if~ /~
1t{:- .~ ~ C()~, Two ~6- Cl/8IHS' I~ I {64-
/(l-s 0 I/?s ocu4~ M111 "'{'}Ie: 9rt:=.
PROPOSAL: (descri tion of ro osed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) fflr2- /qJ1JU5 Rn--- TW iJ wTG
7f1tvJb JW ~upJ7&o1V (fI,UUt:?tUb I/!JIJt7Zof.! J;; T/lP
l{iC,tofU OJ7L~, to UIf/3 ~ oS7iW3/-t t'tNf') /fIJtofl,(C wT '?}t.1
8F TIfC ~mL1. Pe~7Pt:J ':PIle. U{1.IOIUft(4:::. ~f6firf-licl'f RK-
7fte: U- ~5 II<<--w~ f?bcoClf-lWf/{ /2PfJ{]1/If kN ~ ~{7lJN.
{)(~f~ it~$5 HTL .71tI:- SrlPS. Gf11I5fl;rrwf-.j CF TDg/S.
Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Fox CF-oSStftG <i1/8DN! StaAl
W!t1-l<;vT ?~~ttt35
,
54-!, bS-~ ~ 557
, l
f2 .?
?roj ect:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
LLc-
VJ/tl-IUUT I/V~
/
I~ "/tF/ 5F f?tfSTlfI&/t?-/jCl-7 ~ P/2ofD'iPt:? IAI:5 ~5
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot' Area may be reduced for areas within Iv;I /fI~(2I C
the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot I
Area in the Municipal Code.) !.f;T 'ifttT
M- Proposed:
S Proposed:
r;.., Proposed:
1/4
;?-
8
Commercial net leasable:
Number of residential units:
Number of bedrooms:
Existing:
Existing:
Existing:
3~
I
Co "'j!}j(;-f;
'3
Cl!i3IN~
;;z
~W
Proposed % of demolition:
DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area: Existing::2{ .fog Allowai{le: 8/~ 0 Proposed:tP,,7 7 0
~( 71-0
o
Height ;;tr;' ,
"'rincipal Bldg.: Existing: 11-' Allowable: Proposed: 17
Accessory Bldg.: Existing: ID' Allowable: X' Proposed: If,
On-Site parking: Existing: 4- R?tred' fi/ 2.-~~osed ~
% Site coverage: Existing: ?-;;..10 Req~'ttd;. / 401 "" Proposed: ~$10
% Open Space: Existing: Wt- Required: ;/.{iT- Proposed: ~
Front Setback: Existing: /b' Required: 101 Proposed: /$ ,
Rear Setback: Existing: Nt Requir'ed: /0' Proposed.101 d
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N. S. E. W Existing: Required: ./ Proposed:
Existing:~Required'l 0 If' 5" 1
Side Setback: j../ Proposed:
'7 ~ /0 I ID '
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides: EXisting:~Required:W~Proposed: IS-'
/0/
111I-
4~'70
M-
/0 I
~' V'
'j~4
jVf-
Distance between
buildings:
E . . ".. I d'f I I' h b . d 7ltC ftI>lO/ltC
xIsting nOI)-conlormlties or encroac llnents an note I encroac unent Icenses ave een Issue :
~7i7}&E f Cltf3rf/5 S7lZf1tJfjLE fPofff?7'f UH65 ()uE: 70 N!'fcwfl;1--7E t&ZGf.tfflLoX/.
Variations rl"quested (identify the exact variances needed):
St~ (' /$;fJ1L Y#UJ :t::~ V/J1l{lhItPS tPfe.- 7/IC 7mt-e ~
, 5rre (C::O~ V/J12.tI9Ncc=-- ()f! p~ 3 fflr- T~ 7l11J~ ~.
Existing:
Required:
Proposed:
"CI...."'i
'" <:>..,
(JCl ~ ..
'" '" C'"l
tH "C .,
-..,
'" '"
i3 f!l.
0'=
~(JCl
N~
<:>=
<:>0'
..i:l-
-.
-<
_.
'"
-.
<:>
=
>
"C
"C
-
-.
..,
'"
...
_.
..,
=
: .
:J ~
!2(D
c ,
g.;;;!.
fJ> ~
010
0'
00.
000
,,-
I-l!l
'1J::i:
o
0'
o
::>
c
fJ>
-to \2-
'U
III
,
^
CD
o
.t-
.t-
.
CD
o
.t-
.t-
I
00
~
.....
01
o
o
.....
01
~
.....
~
~
(J)
'"
~
o
C
'0
If
'"
0>
.t-
o
CD
(J)
CD
.t-
01
~
(J)
CD
....
01
~
00
"
'"
'"
(J)
(J)
0>
(J)
.....
....
!D
o
0>
(J)
.....
....
!D
o
0>
en
"
'"
'"
'"
0>
.....
(J)
o
o
.....
:..
'"
(J)
o
o
.....
:..
'"
00
"
w.
'"
.t-
O
~~<;u>>
(J)
(J)
o
(J)
~
w
~
(J)
o
(J)
~
'"
~
00
"
-
I
(jj
'"
.....
.t-
O
.
.
01
(J)
o
~
!'11
(J)
'"
.
(J)
o
~
!'11
(J)
'"
en
"
;];
00
'"
.....
.....
o
.
.
--~~-(IJ
o ~ 8l
o (J)
--w-- -W-~"'~N-'--'W
c..> N """" ...... I\J
(.0) ~ ~ ......, ,J:t..
CD a a 0 0
~
.....
01
o
o
o
01
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
....
(J)
o
~
9
'"
....
(J)
o
~
9
'"
....
00
"
'"
'"
....
o
o
o
'"
(J)
o
o
!D
~
(J)
o
o
!D
.....
....
00
"
'"
'"
.t-
o
'"
'"
.t-
o
o
o
'"
.....
01
o
o
.....
01
o
o
o
C
'0
CD
X
'"
0>
.t-
o
....
'"
.t-
o
o
01
o
o
~
0>
.t-
.....
!'11
01
o
'"
'"
9
'"
o
C
'0
CD
X
'"
CD
0>
.t-
.t-
.t-
O>
.t-
o
'"
o
o
zr-
00
.-i
r-
o
-i
)>
;;0
m
)>
r-
o
-i
)>
;;0
m
)>
::;!
"ll
m
"'II
)>
;;0
"ll
;;0__
-----0.
"'II "ll
)> 0
;;0 en
m
c
en
m
z
-i
;;0
m
o
m
<:
m
o
-i
C
;;0
-i
o
-i
)>
r-
c
::e
m
r-
!:
Z
G)
)>
r-
r-
o
::E
-i
o
;;0
I
I
I
I
"
o
X
o
::0
o
en
en
z
G')
"
)>
::0
-t
)>
D:l
C
r
)>
-t
o
Z
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-,---1
I
I
I
I
I
.
~"""'1
.':.;1 = =
"" (1:>"
'" '" (')
....." ...
"'0
'" '"
e ~.
cr'=
~""
",(I:>
oC
ocr'
....~
~.
<
~.
'"
~.
o
=
;>
."
."
-
~.
'"
10
...
~.
o
....-....--.-=-....
-I
o
-I
>
.
Ul
'" '" '" Q
'3'S ro 2;!
~1 x ~ "Tl
~ "Tl
:::::j
~ ::J:
.
0
-I
Ul
~ ~ '"
9' 0 -'" CD
0 0 0 Q)
Q) 0 Q) ....
?' 9 ?' CD
'" 0 '" :...
Z'
00
.-1
.
o
-I
>
;:u
m
>
.
o
-1-.
>
;:u
m
>
'T1
'~'-'-O
o X
-I
> 0
· :;0
o
CIJ
CIJ
Z
(i)
'T1
>
:;0
-t
>
m
c
r
>
:::!
o
z
~
~
~
'"
'"
Q)
CD
'"
~
~
'"
..t\j
'"
?'
CD
'"
~~'"
--'--"-~'-'9"--p-__Ut~---co----- ----
ooe (Xl
0>00> .t:o.
01001 co
wow ~
::;1
"'ll
m
"Tl
>
;:u
en "'II
;:u
.... <I> 0
'" .... ....<1> '" "Tl
"....t '" "'0' '" > "'II
'" "'<I> 0 0
CD '" 0_ Q) ;:u Ul
CD ~
m
0
'" Ul -I
'" 00 . 0 m 0
'" z ;:u
0 -I
;:u
m
'" '" '" '" 0 -I
'" 0 0 '" m 0
'"
0 0 0 0 <: ;:u
m
0
o
enenc en
"'T1"'T1"'2. "TI
<I>
X
....
-'"
'"
CD
CD
~tuJ:lo. UJ
Q-..J(O -..(
1\Jl\J~ 0
woo CD
-.----1
o
:e
m
.
.
:z
Q
>
.
.
o
::e
\De-
~ss \j-0
"-'
6. Proposed Code Amendment to Section 26.710.040
Medium-Density Residential (R-6).
Provided below is the proposed code amendment that allows reception of two Historic
Transferable Development Rights on a single residential unit or parcel when approved by
the HPC and City Council as part of a comprehensive project application.
11. Floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size
(Square
Feet)
0--3,000
3,000--
6,000
6,000--
9,000
9,000--
15,000
Allowable Floor Area for Single-
Family Residence*
80 square feet of floor area for
each 100 in lot area, up to a
maximum of 2,400 square feet of
floor area.
2,400 square feet of floor area,
plus 28 square feet of floor area
for each additional 100 square
feet in lot area, up to a maximum
of3,240 square feet of floor area.
3,240 square feet of floor area,
plus 14 square feet of floor area
for each additional 100 square
feet in lot area, up to a maximum
of3,660 square feet of floor area.
3,660 square feet of floor area,
plus 6 square feet of floor area
for each additional 100 square
feet in lot area, up to a maximum
of 4,020 square feet of floor area.
Allowable Floor Area for Two
Detached Dwellings or one
Duplex*
90 square feet of floor area for
each 100 square feet in lot area,
up to a maximum of 2,700
square feet of floor area.
2,700 square feet of floor area,
plus 30 square feet of floor area
for each additional 100 square
feet m lot area, up to a
maximum of 3,600 square feet
of floor area.
3,600 square feet of floor area,
plus 16 square feet of floor area
for each additional 100 square
feet in lot area, up to a
maximum of 4,080 square feet
of floor area.
4,080 square feet of floor area,
plus 6 square feet of floor area
for each additional 100 square
feet in lot area, up to a
maximum of 4,440 square feet
of floor area.
Fox Crossing Subdivision Application
10 September 2004
Page 29
"'""".;.""
15,000-- 4,020 square feet of floor area, 4,440 square feet of floor area,
50,000 plus 5 square feet of floor area plus 5 square feet of floor area
for each additional 100 square for each additional 100 square
feet in lot area, up to a maximum feet ill lot area, up to a
of 5,770 square feet of floor area. maximum of 6,190 square feet
of floor area.
50,000+ 5,770 square feet of floor area, 6,190 square feet of floor area,
plus 2 square feet of floor area plus 3 square feet of floor area
for each additional 100 square for each additional 100 square
feet in lot area. feet in lot area.
*Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot
shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one duplex. Total external floor area for
multiple detached residential dwellings on a lot less than nine-thousand (9,000)
square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall
not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling.
,
Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate
extinguished, pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall
allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel,
excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, shall be eligible for one
Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one Historic TDR. No
more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence. with the
followin!! exception. Properties within the same subdivision or PUD
development as the sendin!! site mav request and be !!ranted two (2) Floor
Area increases, when requested as part of the initial subdivision or PUD .
approval. receivin!! sites are not directlv adiacent to an historic resource. and
all Transferable Development ril!hts are extin!!uished within the proposed
proiect. ADProval mav be l!I'anted pursuant to a findin!! bv the Historic
Preservation Commission that the \!I'llntin!! of an additional TDR would
further enhance historic preservation !!oals and final approval bv the Citv
Council E:ristin!! subdivisions or Planned Unit Developments are not elil!ible
for multiple Floor Area increases. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic
Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-
conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase.
Fox Crossing Subdivision Application
10 September 2004
Page 30
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
J1A
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall- Specially
Planned Area (SPA) Amendment, Referral Comment
DATE:
September 22, 2004
SUMMARY: The Aspen Institute, Music Associates, and Aspen Center for Physics received
approval in 1991 to make certain improvements to the Meadows Campus through its designation
as a Specially Planned Area. The Aspen Institute acted on some of its development rights, but
did not construct the last of the series of lodge buildings that had been planned. This building
was to be located between the structure known as the Wexner Building and the Health Club. The
Institute has recently determined that they need better conference facilities in order to improve
overall occupancy of their existing lodge units and amenities, and therefore has applied for an
SP A Amendment to convert the unbuilt lodge approval into a Conference and Meeting Hall. '
The Historic Preservation Commission participated in the review of the original SPA, and in
1995 certain parts of the campus were designated historic. These include the Trustee
Townhomes, Meadows Restaurant, Health Club, and Bayer gardens. Only these immediate areas
were designated, and not the entire campus. As part of the requested SPA amendment, HPC is
being asked to evaluate the proposal based on our guidelines in order to make a recommendation
to P&Z and Council.
Although this is not officially a Major Development application, staff proposes that the HPC
review this important project in two steps, similar to a Conceptual and Final hearing. Timing is
very important to the applicant, who hopes to break ground in the early spring, therefore staff has
allocated time on upcoming agendas to complete this review. A group site visit is scheduled for
September 22nd at noon, so that the board can review the building corners, which will have been
staked.
HPC Staff has no concerns with the concept of replacing of the approved lodge building with
a conference facility, but does have some concerns that the site plan of the new building
impacts the visibility and character of the historic Health Club. Suggestions for restudy are
made within this memo, and the applicant is invited to return to the board on the October 13th
agenda.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by Jeffrey Berkus Architects and Jim Curtis.
I
PARCEL In: 2735-121-29-008.
ADDRESS: 845 Meadows Road, the Aspen Meadows SPA, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: SPA.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: The Aspen Institute for Humanistic was created in 1947 by Walter Paepke and
formed the foundation for the Aspen Renaissance period after World War II. The Meadows
campus is very significant as the center of activities related to Paepcke's "Aspen Idea." Paepcke
brought Herbert Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design consultant for the Institute, a role
in which he served until 1976. Bayer, with assistance from Fritz Benedict, was offered the
chance to design a planned environment, where the goal was total visual integration.
The key features of the property are the campus plan and the relationship between the
architecture and landscape. A number of original Bayer buildings remain, and new structures,
such as the Physics Building, the Music Tent, and Harris Hall, have been designed in a manner
that is sympathetic to the Bauhaus aesthetic. It is very important that this careful stewardship of
the property be maintained. Staff has provided a number of historic photographs at the end of the
memo to provide the HPC with a sense of the campus aesthetics from its beginnings.
This application proposes a new structure which will be central to the Institute. It is 11,917
square feet above grade, primarily one story in height.
2
Desil!:n Guideline review
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those guidelines which staff
finds warrant discussion are included in the memo.
Staff admires the amount of analysis that the applicant has given to the history of the Meadows
and Bayer's work. This will be conveyed to HPC through the application materials and a
presentation. Although we have some concerns with the proposal that may warrant restudy,
overall we find that the philosophy of the project, and the intent to distinguish this building from
the surrounding Bayer work without totally departing from it, is in keeping with HPC policy.
The proposed location for the new project is sensible because it completes an established pattern
of buildings that line the edge of this bluff.
On a conceptual level, staff s concern with the proposal is the footprint of the new structure in
terms of its length and proximity to the Health Club. The lodge building that was approved in
the 1991 SPA was somewhat closer to the Wexner structure, and was not quite as deep, which
prevented it from overlapping the southern view of this key Bayer building, including the "HC"
mural. In staffs opinion, the new Conference and Meeting Hall is not as successful in this
regard, in part because of the need to keep the meeting hall to mostly a one story level and
organize it in a specific manner for functional reasons. The HPC site visit will be important
because it will be the first time for everyone to see how the structure really lays out. It is possible
that locating the top of the bank in the field may show that the building can slip back slightly and
still allow the outdoor decks to sit on grade. Staff would like the applicant to explore the
possibility of an even greater setback by allowing some of the decks to project over the bank.
The applicant has suggested the possibility to staff that the meeting hall can move up to 10 feet
closer to Wexner through the removal of an Aspen tree, which should be discussed. Any other
possibilities to tighten up the footprint of the project so that it feels less crowded into the location
would be beneficial.
The building displaces a portion of pond area that mayor may not have been part of the Bayer
design. This particular pond is more naturalistic than the landscape features that Bayer is known
to have created on the site and its elimination is unavoidable if the meeting hall is to be sited as
planned. The new building does incorporate water as a primary element of the entry. HPC will
note in the application that the project includes the installation of a piece by famed environmental
artist Andy Goldsworthy. Staff finds that this is an exciting addition to the campus given that
Herbert Bayer's "Grass Mound" pre-dated the "earthwork" movement in landscape design by 10
years and was one of the first environmental sculptures in the country.
In terms of the architecture of the new building, staff has discussed the form at some length with
the applicant and raised a concern that it is somewhat complex compared to the immediately
adjacent, rather boxy, flat roofed buildings. Considering the guidelines though, staff cannot find
that the composition, massing, or roof are out of character with the campus, because it has many
strong relationships to some of the seminar buildings that are east of this location.
3
Staff does not find conflict with the design guidelines, but does believe that there are impacts on
the Health Club that need to be re-visited.
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 provide feedback on this project, which
can return for review as early as October 13th.
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated September 22, 2004
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Application
4
"Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for the Aspen Meadows Restaurant, Conceptual
Review"
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
D The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
D Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
D The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
D The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those ofthe historic property.
D They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
D Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
D Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
D On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
D Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.9 Use buildiug components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
D These include windows, doors and porches.
D Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
D This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
D Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
5
HISTORIC PHOTOS OF THE MEADOWS
6
The tent, Seminar
building, and Race
Track
The Health Club
and Pond
7
Grass mound, looking
from the location of the
new Wexner building that
replaced this lodge?
Sculpture garden,
looking from the
location of the new
Wexner building that
replaced this lodge?
8
Seminar building
Outdoor conference
gathering
.
August 20, 2004
Jon Busch
548 Race Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Dear Commission members:
J am located directly across Race Street (alley) from the proposed historic site of the
Angie Griffith cabins and historic house. Developers have promised me that they will not
ask for any setback variances along Race Street and that they will slightly lower the roof
of the cabin's garage. I realize that the developer now is in compliance with zoning
regulations along Race, and I support the application.
Sincerely,
-8
Jon Busch
548 Race Street
Aspen, Colorado