HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050309
c
f"""
""'--
,"
........
/
/'
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 9, 2005
5:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NONE
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - Jan. 26, 2005 ~ 7'-- 0
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#9)
B. 629 W. Smuggler- Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site
R~~ocation, Demolition and Variances, Public Hearing (30 minutes)
~~~
X. WORKSESSION '
XI. ADJOURN at 6:45
'0~..
~
MJIIS1GIYIt'liESEIWI11IGIJCGMIMIISSIIGII
MEETING DATE: 3 -q - 5'
NAME OF PROJECT: 5.:t q 0-1. ?-J~~
CLERK: '~<:::.---
STAFF: '::A-m'1
WITNESSES: (1) S+aV\ Vt~S
(2) C hy\~ +t-CLUd1
(3) Ted Gu~
(4)
(5)
EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report Y) (Check If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable)
3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check If Applicable)
4
5
MOTION: ~ ~ S2J1 W -Fr~
40fr 131)JJ()~~
VOTE: YES -4- NO 11 U. ,
VALERIE ALEXANDER YES /' NO _ JEFFREY HALFERTY YES~O
DEREK SKALKO YES ~o SkfuJdI BK8UcuTnN V1;'~ N8
MWHAFLHOFFMAN YES NO .JASON LASSER YES 00 =
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
HPCYOTE
"'""",,,
~
-
-Vllf -A-.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
529 W. Francis Street, Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variance-
Public Hearing
DATE:
January 26, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 4,500 square foot lot that was created as a result of a
Historic Landmark Lot Split. The site is vacant except for a portion of an adjacent historically
landmarked home that encroaches onto 529 W. Francis by approximately one foot.
The applicant proposes to construct a new single family house, which is limited to 2,570 square
feet in size per the lot split ordinance. A variance from the "Secondary Mass" requirement
within the "Residential Design Standards" is requested.
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Staff finds
that the proposed new house is not in compliance with the guidelines at this time and requires
restudy. A continuation is recommended.
APPLICANT: Christopher Hewett, represented byStan Mathis Architecture and Planning.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-25-102.
ADDRESS: 529 W. Francis Street, Lot 2, Historic Lot Split at 533 W. Francis, Block 28, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6. Medium Density Residential.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
~
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
. Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a . Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: The proposed new house is to be constructed on a lot which is 45' wide and
100' deep, sandwiched between two landmark designated miner's cottages.
HPC held a worksession on this project in late 2004. The board appeared to appreciate the
concept of having a one story mass at the front of the site. Staff agrees that may be an
appropriate direction, but has a number of concerns related to the massing and site plan for the
project at this time.
The first set of guidelines to discuss are:
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 ate 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.
.-
As already stated, the architect has voluntarily created a one story mass at the front of the site.
This element, however, is not entirely in scale with the Victorians with a plate height oJ almost
12 feet, and a ridge height of 21 feet. The building does not include a porch as defined by the
Land Use Code. A porch must be completely open on at least two sides. In addition, the #"~
2
proposed porch is not as broad across the front of the building as occurs on the adjacent houses,
which may be missing an opportunity to create a clear relationship between the structures.
The project as proposed does not meet a "Residential Design Standard" which requires a new
house to have a primary mass and a secondary mass. A variance is requested, however staff
suggests that it might be preferable for this project to be designed as a two story structure, with a
conservative upper floor plate height at least at the front, in order to meet the "Residential Design
Standard." More information about that standard is provided below.
An additional concern with the proposed design is the roof. Our concern is two part; first that the
plan is considerably more complicated that what exists at 533 W. Francis, and second that the
flared roof eave is not consistent with the adjacent Victorian structures as addressed below:
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 are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
Staff has consulted with the Chief Building Official for his opinion on the proximity of the
proposed new structure to the Victorian that encroaches onto the site. From his perspective, and
the Zoning Officer's, a minimum distance of 6 feet is required between buildings on the same
site. The applicant must provide a larger sideyard on the east, while remaining sympathetic to
the building on the west. Because the lot is 45 feet wide, this can be accomplished, even within
the existing design proposal.
During this review, staff has determined that the proposed house is over its allowed floor area by
approximately 144 square feet, which must be corrected.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project requires variances to the Residential Design Standards related to garages and
"secondary masses." 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 of fairness 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
promoting the development of accessory units off of the city alleys, and by preserving solar
access.
I. 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 jinking 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 idea of this standard is to break down the size of large houses into at least two
pieces. The applicant is finding that to be a challenge if a one story mass at the front is desirable.
Staff will reserve further recommendation on this issue until the board has discussed the massing
comments made under the historic preservation design guidelines.
---
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 HPC continue Major Development (Conceptual) for
529 W. Francis to a date certain.
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
-
4
.
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 529 W. Francis, 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.
o 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 tbe historic property.
D They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
D Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
D Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
D On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
D Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
5
I
""''''''''''
-..
'...e.'.
-
,
~
Ml11S1GI{ltt 'I.ESElalIIIJCGMIMIISSllGII
MEETING DATE: :3 -Cj ~ ~
NAME OF PROJECT: ~ 3.30 Ek5r KAt-,J
CLERK: ~~c. ~ .:Terovne-.--
STAFF: ~
WITNESSES: (1) ~ .
(2)~
(3) (}?f-A
C/~
)~J
(4)
(5)
EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( ) (Check If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable)
3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check If Applicable)
4
5
w
VOTE:
VALERIE ALEXANDER YES t NO_
DEREK SKALKO YES ~ NO_
"'~ """'11' J8YF~1 "1AJ- rES Nt}
YES NO
JEFFREY HALFERTY YE~ NO_
....Q~ - ~ ~........., ..........u- -- I;
JASON LASSER YES X- NO_
YES NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES NO
HPCVOTE
""""
""'"
.-.
-, ~ A-.
-----
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
...JAAs
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
330 E. Main Street, Hotel Jerome- Minor Development, Public Hearing
DATE:
March 9, 2004
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures and the National Register of Historic Places, and is
located in the Commercial Core Historic District.
The Hotel Jerome proposes to construct a trellis over existing outdoor seating decks. The
trellis will include a retractable awning in order to provide shade and rain protection for
diners. A new entry structure is proposed at the gate into the garden seating area, and a
winter time airlock is proposed beneath the entry canopy so that guests may enter the
restaurant through the west door year round.
Staff recommends HPC approval for the trellis, with the condition that the portion
abutting the historic building be raised in height in order to fully clear the windows. The
airlock cannot be reviewed without additional information. Staff recommends that the
entry canopy at the sidewalk is acceptable under the guidelines.
APPLICANT: The Hotel Jerome, represented by Poss Architecture and Planning.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-21-001.
ADDRESS: 330 E. Main Street, Lots A-I, & O-S, the easterly 20' of Lot N, and the
easterly 170' of the vacated alley, Block 79, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the
submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes tile 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 tile application, the staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The
HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to
obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the
application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the
Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC
decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three
hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth
in Chapter 26.316.
"""'"
Staff Response: A list of the design guidelines relevant to this Minor Review is attached
as "Exhibit A."
During a worksession about this project, the board expressed a preference for keeping the
trellis detached from the historic building and had some general concerns with the
proposed new entry canopy. .
The architect has modified the design so that the trellis will be supported by pilasters
along the west fayade of the hotel. Additional verification is needed that these pilasters
will not be attached to the historic masonry. Along with this issue, staff has a concern
with the fact that the trellis cuts across the transom windows on the west fayade. This is
in conflict with the following guidelines:
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
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.
-,
10.10 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.
Presumably, the height of the trellis is being driven by the height of the Garden Lobby
that was added onto the west side of the Hotel Jerome. Staff recommends that the trellis
transition up in height when it crosses onto the historic building in order to fully clear the
original windows.
The application mentions an intent to install a winter airlock under the trellis. The intent
is to emphasize a year-round entry point to the restaurant from the west side of the
-
2
---~--_._-'~"~~"'-'---^--"- .,..~-,--_.'._-,._-,.. --'-'-<--~~'-~-
building, rather than through the hotel lobby. Staff finds that there is some conflict in the
guidelines related to this idea in that 4.1 calls for maintaining the original functions of
primary entrances (which will still generally be the case in this project) and 13.3
encourages the creation of secondary public entrances into commercial spaces, as follows:
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
o Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include
the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware,
detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights.
o Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
D If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible
so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place,
in its historic position.
D If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade
must remain operable.
13.3 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
D Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial
buildings, this should be a recessed entry way.
D Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
D Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on
larger buildings.
HPC has not been supportive of airlocks in recent discussions, because they are typically
constructed of materials that are inferior to the affected building and do not meet the
criteria for an appropriate addition, temporary or not. The hotel design included an
airlock in its design ofthe main entry, and the heavy drapes inside the door to the J-Bar is
one of the best models in town for how to deal creatively with the problem of cold air
entering the building. No information has been provided about the airlock that is
proposed, so further discussion of this request will be needed. Staff finds that conflict
with guidelines 10.3, 10.10, and 10.11 is likely. 10.11 reads:
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the
historic materials of tbe primary building.
D The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
The last aspect of the project that needs approval is the new entrance canopy at the
sidewalk. This is proposed as shelter for the restaurant hostess during the summer and
also as a gateway into the space.
Staff has attached some historic images that illustrate the use of the courtyard area over
time. (See "Exhibit B".) There has never been a structure built in this courtyard and it
has served as the hotel's outdoor recreation space for many years. Interestingly, there is a
history of visually cutting off this yard from public view dating back to at least 1911, as
can be seen in one image that shows a wall across the whole street frontage. By the
,
~
1950's this wall was replaced with a solid wood fence that provided privacy for the new
pool area. It seems fair to say that the garden that is in place today provides a valuable
contribution to the streetscape that is a vast improvement over previous conditions.
-
HPC had some debate at the worksession about the entry canopy. In general, staff finds
that it is acceptable as a free-standing structure that has limited impact on the hotel. It
may be that the height of the canopy will need to be adjusted in order to create a better
relationship to the trellis. The pitch of the roof on the canopy should be as flat as possible
since the shape is somewhat foreign to the historic building. One guideline to consider is:
10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a. bistoric district, preserve
historic alignments that may exist on the street.
D Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at
approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where
these relationships would be altered or obscured.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Minor Development approval
for the Hotel Jerome with the following conditions:
I. Restudy the height of the trellis in order to fully clear the historic windows on the
west side of the hotel.
2. VerifY that the trellis will have no attachment to the west wall.
3. Provide further information about the proposed airlock, which is not approved at
this time.
4. Re-study the height of the entry canopy to align to better address the height of the
new west trellis.
/'-"
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
4
"Exhibit B, Relevant Design Guidelines, Hotel Jerome- Minor Review"
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
D Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include
the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware,
detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights.
D Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
D If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible
so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place,
in its historic position.
D If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade
must remain operable.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
ofthe priniary 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 ofthe primary building also
is inappropriate.
o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
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
teclmiques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic
alignments that may exist on the street.
D Some roof lines. and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at
approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where
these relationships would be altered or obscured.
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.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original
proportions and character to remain prominent.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will
not alter the exterior mass of a building.
D Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions
and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary
structures is recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
5
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.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the
historic materials ofthe primary building.
D The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
13.3 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
D Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial
buildings, this should be a recessed entry way.
D Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
D Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on
larger buildings.
-
~
" ....1
-'1""''''',
6
7
Circa 1890. The area on
the west side of the
Jerome is not developed.
Another building
(probably the Aspen
Times building,) can be
seen towards the edge of
the picture.
..
Circa 1911. A wall with
posters on it has been built
on the west side of the hotel.
-
"""'
....w'
/"'......
-OCr:,-
..---
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
....lPtA
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
629 W. Smuggler Street, Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation,
Demolition and Variances- Public Hearing
DATE:
March 9, 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 project before HPC involves lifting the house to construct a basement and then returning it to
its original location, demolition and replacement of a non-historic addition, demolition and
replacement of a non-historic garage, and adaptive re-use of a 19th 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 issues 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:
APPLICANT: Robert and India Wardrop, owners, represented by I Friday Design
Collaborative.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-001.
ADDRESS: 629 W. Smuggler, Lot A and the west Y, of Lot B, Block 21, City and Townsite of
Aspen.
ZONING: R.6, Medium Density Residential.
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
I
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, staff finds 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 Roof forms sbou1d 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 help to minimize the
height of the building and to downplay it in terms of competing with the strong 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,
-
.......,.
2
but is not being addressed in the staff memo as it is material for Final review. HPC may make
general comments if desired.
ON-SITE RELOCATION
The intent of the Historic Preservation ordinance is to preserve designated historic buildings in
their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical
relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to
particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a building may be
appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on
the attributes that make it significant.
26.415.090.C Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets anyone of the following standards:
1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation
will not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; .!!!
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; .!!!
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated properties; and
Additionallv, for approval to relocate all of the followinl!: criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding tbe physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
Staff Response: The applicant will be lifting the house to construct a foundation, and then
replacing the building where it was. The shed will be moved onto the 629 W. Smuggler site
from its current location, which is partly off of the property and into the alley and neighboring
lot. 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 this relocation 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 tbe 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.
""
'_I'
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.
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to
an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The. new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings; and/or _
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
4
g. The project retains a bistoric outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
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, and 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 26.415.110.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: 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 off 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.
5
--
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:
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
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
Garal!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:
14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene.
See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures.
14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible.
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 the large tree at the front of the site, a desire for the Victorian to be preserved _
in its original location, the need for a one story connector between the old and new construction,
the need to keep the width and height of the addition sympathetic to the old house, and the need
6
to preserve an outbuilding. Flexibility is needed on some review criteria to create a successful
project. Granting the variance is appropriate under criteria "1" 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:
1. 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.
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. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC
within one year of March 9, 2005 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and
void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code.
10. 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.
7
Exhibits:
....--",
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
-
....~...,
8