HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050413ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 13, 2005
5:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT:
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - Jan. 26th and March 23ra minutes.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commissioner member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
Assign monitor for 640 N. Third St.
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #13)
IX.
OLD BUSINESS
A. 529 W. Francis St. - Major Development (Conceptual),
continued public hearing from March 9th. Continue to
April 27th.
B. 629 W. Smuggler St. - Major Development (Conceptual),
On-Site Relocation, Demolition and Variances, continued
public hearing from March 9th (30 min.)
C. 435 W. Main St. - Historic Landmark Designation, Major
Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition and
Variances, continued public hearing from March 9th.(1 hr.)
NEW
A.
VIII.
BUSINESS - Receive affidavits of postings and mailings
310 Park Avenue - Major Development (Conceptual),
Public Hearing (30 min.)
X. WORKSESSION
A. NONE
XI. ADJOURN at 7:00
"1{[ 15- J
MEMORANDUM
',,-
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
629 W. Smuggler Street, Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation,
Demolition and Variances- Public Hearing continued from March 9th
DATE:
April 13, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 4,500 square foot lot that is listed on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The property contains three buildings; a
Victorian era house and shed, and a non-historic detached garage.
The proj ect before HPC involves lifting the house to construct a basement, demolition and
replacement of a non-historic addition, demolition and replacement of a non-historic garage, and
adaptive re-use of a 19'h century outbuilding. The project requires setback variances, an FAR
bonus, and a variance from the "Residential Design Standards." During staff review, it has also
been determined that a waiver of one on-site parking space is needed, and a setback variance for
..... lightwells may also be required. These requests can be noticed as part of the Final review
hearing.
HPC has held two worksessions to review the overall concept of the new construction. Staff finds
this to be a sympathetic rehabilitation of the Victorian building, in keeping with the design
guidelines. Conceptual approval, On-Site Relocation, Demolition, and Variances are recommended
with conditions.
The project was continued on March 9th because of a minority opmJOn regarding the
appropriateness of the new garage. The applicant has provided additional information as to why
this design is the most appropriate option, including the fact that there are still development rights
in place for a 2002 design that was denied by HPC but overturned by City Council. Staff agrees
with the applicant that the garage as proposed complies with the guidelines.
APPLICANT: Robert and India Wardrop, owners, represented by I Friday Design
Collaborative.
PARCEL lD: 2735-124-09-001.
ADDRESS: 629 W. Smuggler, Lot A and the west II, of Lot B, Block 21, City and Townsite of
Aspen.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
I
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: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
\...,
In general, stafftinds that this will be a successful project, in keeping with the design guidelines. It
is achieving a number of HPC goals, including restoration of the Victorian home, preservation of
the building in it's historic location, and construction of a sound foundation. The new addition is
separated from the historic house with a one-story connector, and the scale and form of the addition
is appropriate and secondary to the landmark. Exceptions are required to allow the garage to
continue to face 6th Street, however given that this is a corner lot, the generous exposure of the west
fayade of the Victorian is an appropriate result.
Staffs only issue in terms of Conceptual review is the gable end that faces the alley. This gable
will be entirely glazed. One will only be viewing new construction from the alley perspective, so it
may be an area where the relationship between the new and old construction can be more
permissive, however staff has some concerns with the large overhang and boxed in eaves being out
of character for the property. The guidelines state:
10.9 Roofforms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
'. This guideline is also relevant related to the flat roofed garage. It does, however, help to
minimize the height of the building and to downplay it in terms of competing with the strong
2
~,~..-.".
gable ends on the Victorian house, therefore staff finds the roof acceptable in this instance.
Further discussion of the street-facing placement of the garage will be addressed later in this
memo.
"""..
The application contains detailed information about window locations and restoration moves that
the applicant plans. This information is useful for evaluation of the FAR bonus discussed below,
but is not being addressed in the staff memo as it is material for Final review. HPC may make
general comments if desired. In particular, the architect would like feedback on the skylight
proposed for the east side of the Victorian. Based on the guideline below, and strong precedent
set by previous HPC decisions, staff finds that no skylight is appropriate on the historic building.
The east facing roof slope is not an obscure location.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
D Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure
location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof
plane is not allowed.
D A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be
positioned below the ridgeline.
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
a 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; Q!
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; Q!
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; Q!
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated properties; and
Additionallv. for aooroval to relocate all of the followine: criteria must be met:
I. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
witbstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and
3
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 applicant will be lifting the house to construct a foundation, and then
replacing the building where it was. The shed, which is partly off of the property and into the
alley and neighboring lot, will be moved entirely onto the 629 W. Smuggler site. The guidelines
state:
8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.
D A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic
integrity.
See Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations.
Staff finds that relocation of the shed is appropriate because it will be required by Engineering at
the time of building permit in order to correct an encroachment.
DEMOLITION
The applicant proposes to remove a non-historic addition at the back of the Victorian, and a non-
historic garage. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application
meets anyone of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
'h
Staff Response: There are Building Department records that indicate the areas proposed to be
demolished were constructed in the past 50 years. They are not from the period of significance
for the house and can be removed.
4
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to
an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.IIO.E:
I. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
'v"
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
Staff Response: Based on the review provided earlier in this memo, Staff finds that criteria a,
b, d, e, f, and g are being met, and that granting an FAR bonus 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 an outbuilding is being re-used.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The application requests a variance of up to 10 feet along the rear property line for the historic
shed and new construction, up to 6.33' along the west property line for a new garage, and up to 5
feet along the east property line for the shed. The criteria for granting setback variances, per
Section 26.415.1I0.C of the Municipal Code are as follows:
HPC must make a finding that the setback variance:
5
........
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: As discussed above, the shed is currently over the property lines, so the
variances represent an improvement to the current situation. In order to preserve the character of
the shed, it should remain an alley structure that sits against the property lines. This is the
historic development pattern for outbuildings throughout town.
A garage also needs to be located off of the alley. In this case, the applicant proposes to maintain
access ofT of Sixth street, which is in opposition to some City standards and results in the loss of
the FAR bonus available for garages. However, worksession level discussions about this project,
as well as the previously approved redevelopment project proposed for this property, ended with
a conclusion that having a one story, single car garage face the street is preferable to placing the
garage with it's broad side to the street in this circumstance. As a result, staff supports granting
setback variances to tuck the garage as tightly into the southwest corner of the lot as possible.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project requires a variance to the Residential Design Standards related to garages. All
residential development must comply with the following review standards or receive a variance
based on a finding that the variance would:
'.-,
1. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting,
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints;
and
Garae:es. For all residences that have access from an alley or private road, the following
standards shall apply:
A. Parking, garages, and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road.
Response: The idea of this standard is to avoid having garages and parking dominate the
streetscape since they can be lifeless areas of a home.
This property has had a street facing garage for some time, so no new curb cut is being created.
The garage is single story and single stall, and has a deck on top which will likely result in some
animation of this part of the building. There are a few HPC guidelines that discourage the garage
being street facing. They are:
"
6
14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene.
See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures.
14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, iffeasible.
D Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be
placed on the alley.
14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area
rather than paving an entire driveway.
D Using minimally paved tracks will reduce the driveway's visual impact.
D Consider using a porous paving material to reduce the driveways visual impact.
D Also consider using modular paving materials for these tracks to provide visual interest
along the street.
This is a relatively small lot and the applicant is facing a number of challenges including needing
to avoid impacts to trees, to preserve the Victorian in its original location, to create a one story
connector between the old and new construction, to keep the width and height of the addition
sympathetic to the old house, and to preserve an outbuilding. Flexibility is important on some
review criteria to create a successful project. Granting the variance is appropriate under criteria
"I" and "2," above, as is an exception to the HPC guidelines related to garages.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
"-''>
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development (Conceptual),
On-Site Relocation, Demolition and Variances for 629 W. Smuggler Street with the following
conditions:
I. HPC should evaluate the appropriateness of the gable end of the new construction that
faces the alley.
2. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot FAR bonus.
3. HPC hereby grants setback variances of up to 10 feet along the rear property line for the
historic shed and new construction, up to 6.33' along the west property line for a new
garage, and up to 5 feet along the east property line for the shed, as represented on the
conceptual review plans.
4. HPC hereby grants a waiver to the "Residential Design Standards" related to garages.
5, A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information
from the housemover about how they will be stabilized must be submitted with the
building permit application.
......
7
~,.",..
6. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the
house, and $10,000 for the small shed must be submitted with the building permit
application.
7. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected
during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
8. Final review will require noticing of a request to waive one on-site parking space, and a
setback variance for lightwells.
9. The skylight proposed on the Victorian is to be deleted.
10. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC
within one year of April 13, 2005 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and
void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code.
II. A landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new materials, and
technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all be addressed at
Final Review.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
....'-
"
8
'\;'.' ,~
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 629 W. Smuggler"
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
D When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These
include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural
details.
D If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure.
D 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.
8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.
D A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic
integrity.
See Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations.
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.
D 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.
o It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building
in front of it.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
D Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
D Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it
enhances the resource.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
D In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards ).
D The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
9
\~
D A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be
surrounded by a simple fence or rail.
10.2 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.
o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
D For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene.
See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures.
10
'''',~
\",
'..-
14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, iffeasible.
D Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be
placed on the alley.
14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area
rather than paving an entire driveway.
D Using minimally paved tracks will reduce the driveway's visual impact.
D Consider using a porous paving material to reduce the driveways visual impact.
D Also consider using modular paving materials for these tracks to provide visual interest
along the street.
11
!JJL c ~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
435 W. Main Street, Aspen Jewish Community Center Historic Designation,
Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, and Variances- Public
Hearing
DATE:
April 13, 2005
SUMMARY: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen requests approval to construct a
Community Center on the property that is currently occupied by L' Auberge.
After many meetings to discuss this project, staff finds that one of the two schemes being
presented to HPC (Scheme I) has enough merit to be supported in terms of site planning,
although we suggest some restudy of the massing for the new building. Historic Designation,
Relocation, Demolition, and setback variances are all recommended.
The applicant is asking HPC for only one significant landmark benefit, which is a parking
waiver. HPC has the authority to waive all on-site parking required for the redevelopment of a
landmark property (along with cash-in-lieu fees), however, in this case, the number of spaces
not being provided is larger than HPC typically deals with. Up until the recent adoption of new
zoning for Main Street, the proposed civic and daycare uses on this site would have required
Planning and Zoning Commission review for neighborhood impacts. Since they have become
uses by right on a site where HPC can also waive parking mitigation, staff has some concerns
that HPC is in a position of determining the "carrying capacity" for the property. We feel
strongly that HPC's ability to vary parking requirements in the best interests of historic
preservation is important and valid, but request that this project be sent forward through the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council hearings that are required in order to have a
sense that the intensity of use on this site is acceptable. P&Z and Council will review the
project for Growth Management exemptions and will be asked to give it status as an "Essential
Public Facility." An Essential Public Facility involving a non-profit will likely receive relief
from affordable housing mitigation, but there may be debate about the size or impacts of the
proposed development.
BACKGROUND: HPC held a work session on this project in February 2004. Discussion
centered on the size of a proposed new structure and its relationship to the small cabins.
Following the work session, the applicant made some adjustments to the plan and had a formal
Conceptual hearing on July 14, 2004. The staff recommendation at that meeting was a
continuance and removal of all of the non-historic cabins on the site in order to restore the
I
setting. HPC expressed continued reservations about the proposed massing. At the time, all nine
historic cabins were being retained, in their original locations.
For an October 27'h, 2004 meeting, the applicant revisited the entire design, and brought on a
new architect. The plan evolved into two detached structures. A new pre-school building
proposed for the east end of the site displaced three original cabins, which were discussed for off-
site relocation. The concept received positive feedback in terms of improved relationship to the
scale and architectural character of the Main Street District, but there were concerns expressed
about the loss of cabins and obstructing views of the remaining units with new construction. In
addition, a pull in/drop off access from Main Street was debated.
The applicant returned to HPC on November 17'h with a plan that did not include a staff memo
due to their late submission. This plan removed another cabin off of the alley, and placed it, and
one of the Third Street cabins, at the front of the site. Two Third Street cabins were still slated
for off-site relocation, two cabins were relocated, and five cabins were preserved in their historic
locations. HPC continued to show some enthusiasm for the overall concept, although staff
expressed regret that the board was discussing further compromises to the historic cabins without
the applicable review criteria before them.
,..'
The January 12, 2005 meeting saw another revision that built upon the November 17th scheme.
A staff evaluation was presented, along with referral comments from Debbie Abele, author of
Aspen's Historic Preservation Ordinance and a consultant who has a lot of experience dealing
with post-war resources not dissimilar to 435 W. Main Street. Ms. Abele's evaluation of the plan
was that it would no longer allow for the historic designation of the property. Most of the cabins
(7 of 9) were retained, however, all were moved from their original locations. The five cabins
that had been retained along the alley were moved forward to accommodate parking. Four of
these five cabins were joined together to create affordable housing units. The two cabins that
were being relocated to the front of the property are linked to the significantly larger new
buildings proposed for the site.
.....
On February 9, 2005, additional discussion led to an HPC determination that one of two site
plans would be acceptable, either retaining the cabins in place along Third Street, and as much of
the alley as possible, or retaining only the alley cabins in place. Cabins were not to be moved or
linked together in an obvious manner. The applicant has submitted two plans as directed by
HPC.
APPLICANT: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman
Planning Services and Arthur Chabon, architect.
PARCEL In: 2735-124-81-001.
ADDRESS: 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: "0, Office." As of April 27, 2005, new zoning, called "MU, Mixed Use," will go into
effect on Main Street.
...
2
CURRENT LAND USE: A 27,000 square foot lot containing 13 lodge units, an office, and a
manager's house.
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 significance of the property located at 435 W. Main Street will be evaluated
according to the following criteria:
1. The property was constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which
the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity
of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to one
or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and can be identified and
documented,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff Response: According to the Assessor's office, the cabins on this site were built in 1940.
Quoting from the white paper that has been prepared by the Community Development
Department titled, "Aspen's 20th Century
Architecture: Rustic Style Buildings,"
"In Aspen, Colorado, Rustic Style cabins
used as lodges and residences, began to
be built in the 1930's, though the tourism
industry was still in its infancy. The
Waterman Cabins, built in 1937, and
once located at the corner of 7'h and
Hallam Streets, have since been
demolished, but were one of Aspen's first
group of small tourist cottages. The
Swiss Chalets (now L' Auberge, and suffering from the
"chalet" misnomer- as they are indeed, in the rustic
style) are located at 435 W. Main Street, and were built
during roughly the same period. Prescient, and
perhaps with a nod to the automobile's growing influence in American society, a motor court
configuration at the Chalets allowed guests to drive right up to the individual units."
Circa Mid_20th Century photo
of 435 W. Main Street
......
3
Staff finds that 435 W. Main Street helps to illustrate the trends related to early development of
tourism in Aspen and therefore meets "Criterion A."
"Criterion B" can be difficult to apply for recent past properties because for the most part they
are associated with persons who are living and whose contributions to history cannot be
evaluated without bias. 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 435 W. Main Street exhibits all of these fundamental characteristics and meets
"Criterion c." These small cabins are hand-built, rectangular frame structures with board and
batten siding, which was a common material for the style along with log. Each building has a
chimney and 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
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.
In general the L' Auberge cabins are well preserved. Two are connected together. It is not clear
if this is an original condition or not. It dates from at least 1969 based on aerial photographs.
Staffs integrity assessment for 435 W. Main is that the property warrants 85 out of 100 points,
which is above the 75 point minimum requirement. The least successful aspect of the property's
,.. integrity is preservation of the setting, which has been greatly impacted.
4
Staff supports landmark designation for this property. For clarification, designations are always
defined by the entire boundary of the property, and not limited to individual structures on a lot.
HPC may recommend approval or disapproval of the landmark request, or a continuance for
additional information necessary to make a decision. The board may choose to accept the
integrity analysis provided by staff or formulate its own rating for the property.
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.
';c, y
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: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
435 W. Main Street clearly faces a number of redevelopment constraints despite its large size.
About % of the site is occupied by small cabins that HPC would not like to see relocated or
obstructed any more than necessary. In addition, according to an agreement made between the
previous property owner and an adjacent neighbor, no development or parking can take place
along the western end of the alley. This restricts an area that would otherwise be a good location
for a structure or parking.
The redevelopment schemes being presented to HPC range from approximately 20,000 to 21,500
square feet of total FAR. The maximum allowable has been increased from 20,250 square feet to
that plus an allowance of up to 6,750 square feet of affordable or free market housing under the
new zoning. Both of the applicant's plans comply. There is precedent on Main Street for large
buildings, including 7th and Main Affordable Housing and the new Christiania Lodge, however
this project is particularly challenged by the fact that it needs to be respectful of historic cabins
that are very small.
5
As noted in the staff summary, the initial concern with this project was an imbalance created by
placing one large building at the western end of the site. The board suggested that the mass be
broken up into more than one building, which led to many studies over the last several months.
In staffs opinion, the site plans which placed a new structure on Third Street, including the
current "Scheme 2," have significant impacts on the ability to call this one of Aspen's historically
important properties and should not be pursued any further. By contrast, "Scheme I" retains 7 of
9 historic buildings in their original locations with no additions. Some of the open area courtyard
that used to exist facing Main Street is re-established. The historic integrity of the cabins is
preserved. Staff finds that compromising and allowing the applicant additional building area by
removing the two westernmost cabins along the alley is acceptable.
Staff has a number of concerns with the design of the new building as it is represented in
"Scheme 1." They are: the large footprint of the building relative to the structures on the site and
surrounding blocks, the fact that the entry does not face Main Street, the location of a light court
adjacent to the cabins, the placement of the tallest part of the building next to the historic cabins,
and the somewhat complex roof plan.
",,..,
In looking back at some of the previous plans submitted for this project, a February 2nd, 2005
study might still have potential as a better proposal. This plan put the pre-school, which is
primarily one story, adjacent to the cabins. The February 2nd design shows all of the historic
cabins remaining, but if the two on the west end are removed, which appears to be an acceptable
direction, there is adequate room to create the same amount of south facing play-yard as shown
on tonight's "Scheme 1." The eastern-most pre-school classroom could be adjoined to the
central classroom, creating more of a buffer to the historic cabins, or the pre-school could be
free-standing. Staff recommends placing the lightwell in the un-buildable garden easement along
the alley, if possible. There is ample area to construct a south-facing lightwell here, in a location
that does not have much public visibility. The February 2nd floor plans (no elevations were
provided) and a schematic representation of the changes proposed by staff, are attached.
DEMOLITION
The applicant proposes to remove all of the non-historic buildings on this property, including the
1990's cabins along Main Street, and the manager's house at the corner of Main and Fourth
Streets. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any
one of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
.......
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
6
\'"
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
Staff Response: The buildings proposed to be removed are more recent construction than the
cabins and do not contribute to the historic significance of the property. Staff supports their
removal.
RELOCATION
The applicant proposes to relocate the two western-most cabins. The plans seem to indicate that
these cabins will be moved to the southeastern corner of the site, replacing two cabins that are
currently linked together. The linked cabins would be moved to a off-site location which is yet to
be determined. Relocation shall be approved if HPC finds the following with regard to the
subject structure:
I. 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. lt does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; 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 following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security; and
Staff Response: The best way to preserve the historic cabins is to keep them in active use.
Their potential to serve the needs of the Hebrew School program, which is an after-school use
that does not occur on a daily basis seems entirely possible, as is their potential to serve in some
way as functional spaces for the coffee shop/gift shop (which mayor may not be an allowed
accessory use on the property), employee housing, office space, or pre-school functions. Plans
currently show four of the cabins being converted into affordable housing through an
underground connection.
7
Because this is such an unusual circumstance, with so many buildings involved in the historic
......... significance of the site, the board has indicated willingness to allow a small number to be moved
off~site. Staff supports that idea and recommends that approval of the exact location for the
buildings be deferred until Final review. The applicant has additional work to do to find a
suitable home for the cabins. However, staff does not recommend that the western-most cabins
replace the linked buildings on the south-east corner. It is not known how long these units have
been linked together (this may be a historic condition) and they are easily adapted to affordable
housing use in their current configuration. To maintain as much authenticity as possible, the
fewest number of buildings possible should be moved.
SETBACK VARIANCES
As a formality, staff recommends that HPC grant variances for the historic cabins in order to
legalize their location with the required setbacks. This entails allowing a zero setback along the
east and south property lines for the cabins only. The criteria for granting setback variances, per
Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows:
HPC must make a finding that the setback variance:
."",...."
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
'.,,]
Staff Finding: The cabins are historic buildings in their original locations and therefore
variances are appropriate.
ON-SITE PARKING
It is not clear how much on-site parking is required by the proposal since the Municipal Code
states that parking requirements for both civic and daycare uses are established through Special
Review at the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant can accommodate 6 spaces
along the alley. While three additional spots between the alley cabins are usable, they are not
represented as formal parking areas because of their narrowness. In fact, they will likely be used
as staff parking. The applicant is asking that HPC waive on-site parking and cash-in-lieu
payment for everything in excess of 6 parking spaces.
In order to grant a parking waiver, HPC must find that the review standards of Section
26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are met. They require that:
""
1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a
finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the
historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an
adjoining designated property or a historic district.
8
Staff Response: The property cannot physically accommodate any more legal parking off of the
alley. Staff supports HPC granting the parking waiver, as well as waiver of the cash-in-lieu
payment, however, as stated above, we would like to defer the variance until input has been
received from P&Z and Council as to the overall appropriateness of the project's impacts.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines" have not yet been met with regard to the height, scale, massing
and proportions of the proposed Aspen Jewish Community Center and that further discussion
between the applicant and board is needed. We recommend that HPC give its support to
"Scheme I" as the appropriate direction, and that additional revisions to the new building be
pursued, as shown in the staff mock-ups. The applicant is welcome to bring additional drawings
to the HPC meeting.
Staff recommends that at this point the project be sent on to Planning and Zoning Commission
and Council for review before finalizing the parking variances. Historic Designation, Relocation,
Demolition, and Setback variances are appropriate as proposed, although the board may wish to
grant all approvals for the project at one time. The case should be continued to a date certain,
after the other reviews.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue Historic Designation, Major Development
(Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, and Variances to a date certain."
Exhibits:
A. Relevant guidelines
B. February 2, 2005 drawings and staff recommendations
C. Current application
9
330 West 38th Street
New York, NY 10018
2122169268 Tel
2122169269 Fax
",-" ARTHUR CHASON ARCHITECT
April 6, 2005
lvIs Amy Guthrie
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Aspen Jewish Community Center
Dear Amy:
I am pleased to enclose for the consideration of the Historical Preservation Commission
new drawings of the Aspen Jewish Community Center. At the Fehrnary 9, 2005 meeting
we were instructed to present two new schemes. One was to preserve the cabins on
Third Street and some along the alley and the second was to consist of two separate
buildings. A minimum of six cabins were to be preserved and the committee would
consider the removal of the cabins on Third Street. Cabins were to remain in their
current locations with prime consideration given to preserving the space between the
cabins rather than the space in front of them.
-
Scheme One consists of a single building with three cabins preserved along Third Street
and four preserved along the alley. The basic strategy of this scheme with respect to the
preservation of the Historical Resource is to use the "L" formed by the cabins on the
south and the east to define two "walls" or limits of a semi- public space. In the center of
this resulting plaza is a sunken court that brings light and air to the basement Library.
The building is entered through the primary fa,ade that fronts this plaza on the west.
The spaces between the cabins are essential components of the composition. The entry
foyer of the building is cenlered between the Third Street cabins. The framed views of
the Plaza and building as seen between the cabins from Third Street and from the alley
are key to the pedestrian experience. From within the Plaza looking outward, the spaces
between the cabins give it a sense of openness and link it to its surroundings while not
undermining the perimeter. It is our intention to create a vital and active relationship
between the cabins and the new building and to insure-- without compromising their
historical integrity-~ that they become not mere relics but functionally, aesthetically and
conceptually linked to the complex as a whole.
The fa~ade along 1-fain Street is expressed as an amalgam of distinct volumes. The
building, while clearly onc complex, breaks-down into separate components with each
form an indication of the volume and function of that which is within. The heights are
varied with the luwest portion being the Pre-School on Forth Streel. Proceeding to the
west, the massing then steps up to the auditorium and fInally concludes with the
Sanctuary which fronts the Plaza. Along with the variation in heights, the frontage along
Main Street is also modulated. The pre-school is set back 10 feet from the auditorium so
that it appears clearly distinct. Varieties in plane and volume serve to weave this new
building into the texture and scale of Main Streel.
'~,...
April 6, 2005
Aspen HPC
Aspen Jewish Community Center
Page 2 of3
Scheme Two consists of two separate buildings in dialogue with each other. The two
bUIldings face a common courtyard with two cabins along the alley forming the rear wall
of that court. The space between the two cabins centers on the semi-public court yard
and, similarly to Scheme One, gives it boih openness and definition. Both buildings arc
entered from within this court yard. By thus drawing people into this space, the cabins
become a direct part of the users' daily experience and vitality is thus given to the
Historical Resource. A total of seven cabins are maintained along the alley in their
original locations. The removal of two cabins on Third Street is proposed in this scheme.
An especially interesting aspect of Scheme Two is what conld be called the "parallel
alley"; that is the space accessed primarily from Third Street between the cabins and d1C
buildings. Here the cabins act as a constant datum or foil against which the buildings are
seen. This relationship is dynamic. Rather than attempting to seamlessly unify the cabins
and the new buildings, (a thankless task anyway) the preserved historical resource is left
distinct from the new buildings. The distinction of the new from the old is also
expressed in the courtyard. Here the cabins that form the south wall are of different sizes
and thus do not conform to an expectation of symmetry. They do not snbmit to the
primacy of the new buildings.
.....
With respect to ihe massing Scheme Two is similar to One. The pre-school is on Forth
Street and the Sanctuary/Auditorium building is on Third Street. The single story Pre-
school steps up at the lobby and again at the second floor Rabbi's Study. Across the
court yard, the Sanctuary/Auditorium building picks up Ihal height in the lobby wing and
continues rising in the stair hall finally cuhninating in the Sanctuary. Within the court
yard the two opposing entry foyers are identical and of a scale that relates directly to the
cabins. Again, as in Scheme One it is the variety in massing and the articulation of
components of the building into smaller elements that gives the buildings the appropriate
scale for the Main Street district.
Following is a summary of ihe revised FAR calcnlations for both schemes:
Scheme One
Basement
2,066 sf
}-iirst Floor
11,525.5 sf
Second Ploor
5,947 sf
Office Cabins
684 sf
Affordable Housing Cabins
1,305 sf
Total
20,250 sf
""",,.-
~4"",,.
April 6, 2005
Aspen I-IPC
_Aspen Jcwish Community Center
Page 3 of 3
Scheme Two
Basement
1,167 sf
First Floor
11,535 sf
Second Floor
5,529 sf
Office Cabins
1,098 sf
Affordable Housing Cabins
985 sf
Total
19,329 sf
\,/e are confidant that these two schemes offer the HPC options that arc consistent with
the Historic Preservation Guidelines as described in Chapters 1, 11 and 12. We have
diligently responded to the specific suggestions and requests of the staff and the
Commission over nine months of meetings. We look forward to your approval.
'"
Respectfully submitted,
Arthur Chabon
,,",'-'-
-""-,
~A.
MEMORANDUM
,,-
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
310 Park Avenue- Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variance-
Public Hearing
DATE:
April 13, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is a vacant lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot
Split. HPC has previously granted the approvals for rehabilitation of the adjacent log cabin,
which was constructed in 1949.
The lot dimensions and allowable floor area for this project have all been established. The
applicant proposes a new single family house that complies with all dimensional requirements,
but which needs one variance from the "Residential Design Standards."
Approval of the application, including the design standards variance, is recommended.
....
APPLICANT: Tim Mooney, owner, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Al
Beyer Design.
PARCEL ID: 2737-181-30-047.
ADDRESS: 310 Park Avenue, the North Lot of the 308 Park Avenue Historic Landmark Lot
Split, Block 2 of the Riverside Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: R-6.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
I
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 cabin on this property is significant as an example of the type of buildings
that were being constructed in Aspen immediately following World War II. Rustic style
buildings such as this were common and appear to have been motivated by both practicality (the
use of local materials), as well as a national romance with the American "Wild West." Many
lodges and summer homes that were built in Aspen during this time share common
characteristics with the house at 308 Park Avenue.
Conceptual review for the new house at 310 Park Avenue focuses on the height, scale, massing
and proportions of the proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review
is attached as "Exhibit A."
'.'.,
The lot is 4,803 square feet in size, with an allowable FAR of 2,493 square feet. Staff finds that
the applicant has done an excellent job of designing a new building that relates to the historic
cabin in the manner promoted by HPC's guidelines. There is clearly a sympathetic relationship
between the buildings, but the new construction does not mimic the old. Staff finds that all
guidelines relevant to this conceptual proposal are met by this excellent project.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project requires a variance to the Residential Design Standards related to "secondary mass."
All residential development must comply with the following review standards or receive a
variance based on a finding that:
A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area Community
Plan (AACP); or,
B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or,
C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Standard: SECONDARY MASS. The intent of the building form standards is to respect the scale
of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing, by
2
promoting the development of accessory units off of the city alleys, and by preserving solar
access.
1. All new structures shall locate at least ten (10) percent of their total square footage above
grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it
by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and
accessory dwelling units are appropriate uses for the secondary mass.
A subordinate linking element for the purposes of secondary mass shall be defined as an
element not less than six (6) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length with a plate height of
not more than nine (9) feet.
Response: The project complies with this design standard, but the linking element is on the
second floor, rather than the ground level. Because this is a departure from what has typically
been expected, staff found that it would be appropriate for the board to review a variance request.
We find that the second floor bridge still creates a project that meets the intent of breaking the
massing into two distinct pieces. The bridge is narrow in width and has a nearly flat roof pitch.
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 and recommends that the
HPC grant approval for Major Development (Conceptual) and a Variance with the following
conditions:
I. The HPC hereby approves a variance from the "Residential Design Standard"
related to "Secondary Mass."
2. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the
HPC within one year of April 13, 2005 or the conceptual approval shall be
considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code.
Exhibits:
Resolution # _, Series of 2005
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
,~..,
3
'"-",,",<>
"Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 310 Park Avenue, 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.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
D The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
D A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
D In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that
orients to the street.
11.3 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 of the historic property.
D They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roofforms 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
arc discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene.
14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a
primary structure.
Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure
has along a block.
4
Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
/~)roject:
~pplicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
~\C
""""
qi\"~ f\.,{,.,^v c... COV'.L'Lf\.....' O~<~f~....j;. ((e'.."......,
",,",oC\t\.O'\,.\
\
q o.,,~ fwe-",,Jc.
? \C>
Commercial net leasable:
Number of residential units:
i':umber of bedrooms:
(L-l.
~'?Jo '7" $,\ ~\ .
I-\~o~ .,,\. H.
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for meas within
the high water mark. easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot
Area in the Municipal Code.)
Existing' ,,\ "-
Existing: 0
Existing: 0
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
\
\\'5'"
[)rnposed (Yo of demolition: Q
DI'IE\SIO\S: (\\Tite n/a where no requirement c:\ists ill the zone district)
!.llll)rArc.l: J:"xiSlill,l!. .0 ,1/hJ\l'((/!/e' ~'\'\ 3_!'m!)(}S("r 'J."\'\'S
lJ~j~hl
1. S' ,
lJrlll\..'111;li Illd".: /~'ri\lil/g .-1//1/11"0/1/(" /Jr()/}().\cc!: '2.S ....11.-..
---,.---
",-'
~ ,l(L'~~lHY 1~ldg.: Exislil/g,__ '^ \" .//i<!II'uh!c. /J/'oj}()sed _~_____
On-Site parking: 1.::.riSliJlg: 0 R['(fUired: ~ Proposed: \.\
% Site coverage: Existing: i\'''' Required: Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing: 1'\1\. Required: Proposed:
Required: 'co ' Proposed: ,
Front Setback: Existing: \0
\..~\...O"',:)(. " a "\"'0"'- ')L
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: $'~"\Ac-fU.:iI.~ Proposed: s' ..I\~
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N. S. E. W Existing: ~\p. Required: Proposed.
Side Setback: Existing: Required: 0) Proposed: ~
-S ,
Side Setback: Exisling: Required: ~ Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: \0 Proposed: \ co .
Distance between Existing: -{I\!>. Required: Proposed:
buildings:
Existing non-conformities or encroaclunents and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
\/,o'^lt.
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): 'l\O'i'-e.
.......
'-