HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050209
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 9, 2005
5:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
c
SITE VISIT: NONE
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - Jan. 12, 2005
III. Public Comments
IV. Commissioner member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #4)
r
"
'~
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 233 W. Main Street - Major Development - Final - Public
Hearing (5min.) no memo Y
B. 114 N eale Ave. Major Development - Final - Public
Hearing (15 min..) .s-
C. 701 W. Main Street - Demolition, Relocation and
Variances, Feedback on amendment to Lot Split, Public
Hearing (40 min.) ?
D. 435 W. Main Street - Historic Designation, Major
Development - Conceptual - Demolition, Public Hearing -
(lhr. 30 min.) no memo
IX. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
X. WORKSESSION
NONE
,.... XI. ADJOURN at 7:30
'.....,,,..
.~g
,1St' -
.,~ irl: ::J
~.. Cl ::s
!!;~ (J)
'J~- C"
i':~ ~ ""
i;~~ C
e "-
;, '1> ..,
. "l::~
'fls -
!.E~ ::s
H"'Jll ::s
h~!Z
l::n
-
;;
<
Iii::
CD III
Q. -.
~~
0-
U1Cil
- CD
~-
~m
U1a
~
I
~,"'-:
\' \.-:,
f~~
r ~
C'.
" "
~
~
f.
4'-0"
...
..
q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
--
N
10'=! 1
10 .
10 ()
10 ~
10 ~
10 -s
10
10
10
10
10
4' -7"--.J 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
I 10,!
I 10
I 10
I 10 "'T1
I 10 ~'~ 11<0
I -' '"
10 ~,,' ~~
I 10 ~~ "'ct
I \:>.0
10 ~ ~ ~ 3
I 10, 2i 3 '"
I _.ct
::s ()
10 2-~ C:s-
I 3...,.,
10 ~r ~'"
I ::s
10 ct ()
I o' ,,'
10 " <S:>
I , ~
"
10 ~ '"
" ()
'" "
()
"
~
'-
'l
~-
~
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
~A
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
TO:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
114 Neale Avenue- Major Development Review (Final) and Residential Design
Standards Variance- Public Hearing
DATE:
February 9, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is a vacant parcel that was created through a Historic
Landmark Lot Split. Final approval is requested for a new single family residence and accessory
dwelling unit, along with a variance from a "Residential Design Standard" related to windows.
HPC granted Conceptual approval for 114 Neale Avenue on November 17, 2004, with no
conditions other than that Final review be submitted within one year, and that the application
address landscaping, lighting, fenestration, detailing, and selection of new materials.
",","
Staff finds that the material palette proposed for the new house, in particular the predominant
use of stone, requires restudy. That issue should be reviewed by the full board which is one of
the recommended conditions of approval. Staff is in favor of granting the "Residential Design
Standards" variance,
~""'.""
APPLICANT: Alice Brien, represented by John Muir Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-83-002.
ADDRESS: 114 Neale Avenue, Lot 2 of the 114 Neale/17 Queen Street Historic Landmark Lot
Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-15A.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is asfollows, Staff reviews
the subm ittal materials and prepar es 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 t,/"
/
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'
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.
Desi2n Guideline review
Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection
of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
guidelines which staff finds the project does not meet, or where discussion is needed, are
included in the memo.
This property is 15,160 square feet in size. The maximum allowable floor area that was
established through the lot split is 3,945 square feet. Much of the square footage that could have
been added onto the adjacent Victorian era home was transferred onto this lot and, as was
discussed at Conceptual review, the proposed new building is approximately 3 times larger than ........,
the Victorian that it is meant to relate to. Some of the potentially negative impacts on the historic
resource are mitigated by the fact that the subject parcel is at a lower elevation, ensuring that
views towards the miner's cottage at the top of the hill will be protected. In addition, the new
house is 57 feet away from the landmark house.
The area of the new house that is closest to the old one is low in height for a distance of 52 feet,
also helping to create a sympathetic arrangement. The architect has divided off a portion of the
house into a distinct mass which is linked to the main body of the building in order to break
down the scale, and he has also designed a detached accessory dwelling unit. These choices all
help the project to meet the guidelines.
The architect is faced with a difficult design challenge because there is such a large difference in
the size of the homes involved in this lot split. The board and staff previously stated a desire that
the project move towards being a "compound" of masses that are more related to the Victorian.
During the course of the Conceptual review, there was significant improvement in this regard
through the use of building forms and roof forms that are compatible with the Victorian.
The choice of material palette is also be important in strengthening the relationship between the
new house and the Victorian. Although the materials do not need to be used in an identical
manner, the overall scale and finish are important. Staff is concerned with the predominant use
of stone that is proposed, rather than wood siding. Most of Aspen's Victorians, including the
house next door, used stone only sparingly, if at all, as a simple foundation material. It is .......
'hot'<
2
recommended that the architect prepare a restudy which significantly reduces the proposed stone
in favor of wood. Mixing the application of horizontal and vertical siding is an appropriate way
to break up the building.
The board must also approve the particular stone that is selected. It would be preferable to use a
material that is similar in color or coursing to what was traditionally used in Aspen. In general,
staff is concerned that the material palette has diminished the connection between the two
buildings which form the historic lot split project. The guidelines are:
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale,
D Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are
encouraged,
D Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
11.9 Use building 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.
A cut sheet for the proposed light fixture has been provided in the plans. These fixtures are
placed sparingly around the building and staff has no concerns with them, other than that the
glass may need to be frosted to meet the lighting code,
Minimal information has been provided about the landscape plan. Staff does find that the
approximately 10 foot wide front sidewalk will need to be reduced based on the following:
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
D Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
D Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
D Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project requires variances to the Residential Design Standards related to windows, All
residential development must comply with the following review standards or receive a variance
based on a finding that the variance would:
I, Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
'"",,-
o
~
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
Windows: Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level
would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above thefinishedfirstfloor.
For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A
transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard.
Response: The idea of this standard is to avoid negative impacts on the streetscape that could
result from windows expressing large building volumes that might be out of scale with the
surrounding residential development.
The window which requires a variance is on the south elevation, facing Queen Street, and it is
located within a dormer over the great room. Staff finds that this small window does not create
the impact that the "Residential Design Standard" is concerned with. The great room is a distinct
one story volume set on top of the garage, Granting the variance is appropriate under criteria
"1," above.
-
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.
".",j
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Final approval for 114 Neale
Avenue with the following conditions:
I. A restudy of the material palette must be provided for review and approval by the full
board, The restudy should include the use of materials that are more similar to what is
found on tile Victorian next door, for instance, wood siding, Stone should not be the a
primary exterior wall material. The particular stone that is selected for use as a foundation
material must also be approved by the full board.
2.' A complete landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. This plan
should include the reduction of the front walkway to 6 feet or less in width.
3. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
-
4
4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
5. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
5
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 114 Neale Avenue, Final Review" """"
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
D Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
D Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
D Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally.
D Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish,
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
D Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are
encouraged.
D Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
11.9 Use building 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,
-
--
6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Joyce AIl~r~Deputy Community Development Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
701 W. Main Street, On-Site Relocation and Setback Variances- Public Hearing
DATE:
February 9, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures and contains two buildings, a cabin and a shed along the alley. Neither building
exists on the 1904 Sanborne map. The year of construction on record with the Assessor's office
is 1935.
HPC has granted approval for the demolition of the alley structure, and approval to move the
cabin towards the northeast corner of the site. HPC has recommended that City Council approve
a Historic Landmark Lot Split which creates a western lot of 2, 765 square feet, and an eastern lot
ofJ,OOO square feet. Final review of the Lot Split is pending before Council.
Since HPC's last discussion, the property has been sold. The new owner would like to adjust the
position of the relocated cabin and to receive approval for setback variances. Following that
determination, the owner would like to seek a few minutes of board feedback about plans for new
construction on the property, and a possible adjustment of the lot split line. At this point, they
are focused on beginning construction on the cabin as soon as possible. Please note that the
application includes a request to demolish the rear portion of the historic cabin, which has been
taken off of the table.
Staff recommends that HPC grant front yard and sideyard setback variances for the
historic cabin as part of its on-site relocation.
APPLICANT: Marshall and Susan Olsen, owners.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-46-004.
ADDRESS: 70 I W. Main Street, Lots H and I, less the west 2.35 feet of Lot H, Block 19, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: 0, Office.
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.
ON-SITE RELOCATION
~
........<.
26.415.090.C Standards for tlte 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; !l!
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; !l!
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic HardshiP;!l!
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 ~
''''w.V
Additionall for a roval to relocate all of the follow in 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: HPC has already endorsed the concept of relocating this cabin to the northeast
corner of the site. This was found to be more appropriate than other possible locations because it
maintains the building's public exposure on two sides, and positions it prominently on the lot. In
addition, the northeast corner is thought to be the best location to facilitate rehabilitation of the
building for commercial use, ideally as a detached structure. Based on the guideline below, staff
continues to support the on-site relocation of this building. The standard assurances that the
building will be moved safely are included as conditions of approval.
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 rust phase of any improvements.
'"
2
._,-
o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
o 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.
o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The approved location for the cabin is represented in "Exhibit c." The owner at that time
proposed to set the cabin 15 feet back from Main Street (10 feet is required), and 7 feet from the
east sideyard (6.33 feet is required for a Corner lot). No variances were needed.
The new owner intends to rehabilitate the cabin for use as an art studio, and to construct a
detached residential wlit behind it, along the alley. Front and sideyard setback variances are
proposed. The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.1l0.C of the
Municipal Code are as follows:
HPC must make a finding that the setback variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
~~r .
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: Staff has provided a GIS map of the immediate neighborhood to indicate the
surrounding setback patterns. Although there is some variety, most buildings at this end of Main
Street have a meaningfully sized front yard as a important feature, with side yards and rear yards
appearing to be of somewhat less significance in terms of creating a sense of open space.
The guidelines below all discuss the importance of respecting the Main Street front yard setback
patterns when relocating a historic building.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
o 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.
12.1 Respect historic settlement patterns. (Main Street Historic District)
o Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes
consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space.
-
o
~
12.8 Provide a front yard that is similar in depth to its neighbors.
12.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings
during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. The building should be
oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block.
o A structure should appear to have one primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to
the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street.
~
'-'
Currently, the cabin has a deep setback of 24 feet, as it is nearly centered in the lot. The
Victorian to the west is approximately 12-13' from the front lot line. Staff recommends that, at
the least, the building be allowed to sit on the front yard setback line. Even with the cabin this
far forward on the lot, the board will need to consider allowing a waiver of the rear yard setback
in order to afford some space between the 42' long historic structure and the proposed alley
structure. The rear yard setback required for the alley house is 15', but it is proposed to be more
like 5' on the attached worksession plans, which indicate 18 feet remaining between the historic
cabin and new construction. Staff recommends that HPC grant a variance to allow the front yard
setback for the cabin to be in the 8 -10' range in order to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, while providing some flexibility for the redevelopment of the site. A five foot
front yard setback as requested may not be enough, but in general the project is going in a
positive direction since a significant portion of the new corner lot is being left undeveloped or
developed only with a one story structure, which will be a benefit to the mix of building scales on
Main Street.
~
With regard to the sideyard setback, the applicant is showing 10 feet on the west sideyard, and "'"
1 '6" on the east, or street-facing sideyard. A larger west sideyard may be appropriate to provide
some usable outdoor space around the building, and also to buffer it from the new, taller house
that will be built next door. There is also some benefit to keeping the cabin away from the large
tree on the northwest corner of the site. Staff is somewhat concerned with this very minimal east
sideyard setback, however the adjacent right-of-way will give the impression of more open space
around the cabin.
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 work with the applicant to determine an
appropriate front yard setback of the cabin, which may be as little as 5' based on the public notice
that has been issued. Staff recommends that HPC approve a setback of as little as l' 6" on the east
sideyard. As part of the approval to relocate the cabin. the following conditions should be adopted.
4
-
I. On-site relocation of the cabin to Lot A (the corner lot) is approved. Relocation of this
building onto a new foundation, and rehabilitation of the structure must be the first action
that is taken to redevelop this property. It will not be acceptable to move the building and
"mothball" it, in favor of undertaking construction on the vacant parcel.
2. 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.
3. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the
structures must be submitted with the building permit application.
4. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected
during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. GIS map of neighborhood
C. Previously approved cabin location
D. Application
E. Worksession drawings
~-
5
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 701 W. Main Street Relocation and Variances"
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.
o 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.
o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district
should be avoided.
o The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered.
o In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than
moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects
patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to
other historic structures in the area.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
o 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.
o 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.
12.1 Respect historic settlement patterns. (Main Street Historic District)
o Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes
consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space.
12.8 Provide a front yard that is similar in depth to its neighbors. (MSHD
See the guidelines chapter: Lot and Streetscape Features.
12.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings
during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. (MSHD)
o The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the block.
o A structure should appear to have one primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to
the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street.
6
""'"
"'~"./
"'"
',.,..v'
-,