HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050824ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 24, 2005
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON - Please site-visit 308 E. Hopkins Ave. on
your own time.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - June 22, 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 #32)
IX.
OLD BUSINESS
A. 710 N. Third - Major Development (Conceptual) and
Variances, Public Hearing continued from July 27, 2005
(25 min.) % ~
NEW BUSINESS
A. 52/~W~ Francis Street - De-listing from the Aspen
InventoYy of Historic Sites and Structures (Public notice
was not fully completed for this item. It will be rescheduled
and noticed prope~ly-f~future agenda date.)
B. 701 W. Main Street - Minor Development, Public Hearing'
(25 min.) ~..~
C. 310 Park Avenue - Major Development (Final), Public
Hearing (15 min.)~£(
WORKSESSION
A. 308 E. Hopkins Avenue (30 min.)
XI. Adjourn 6:45 p.m.
'V1f'\ A.)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
710 North Third Street, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Demolition,
and Variances- Public Hearing continued from July 27, 2005
DATE:
August 24, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject of this application is a large two-story Victorian era house located on
Unit A of the Martin Condominiums, abutting Gillespie Avenue to the north and North Third
Street to the west. The entire 11,500 square foot parcel where 710 N. Third Street sits also
includes a Victorian era carriage house. The property was divided into Unit A: a 7,350 square
foot lot, and Unit B: a 4,150 square foot lot. Together the two structures exceed the total
allowable FAR of 4,230 square feet by more than 1,000 square feet. The total FAR for the large
Victorian house on Unit A is 4,041 square feet, which includes 135 square feet of deck that
exceeds the allowable amount. The current application is related to the house on Unit A.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing non-historic, post-World War II addition and to
create a new addition and garage by re-configuring the existing FAR. The historic portion of the
home will remain intact. The application requires setback variances, a waiver of one on-site
parking space, and variances from the "Residential Design Standards."
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."
HPC continued the application from July 27'h to restudy moving the garage back behind the
fayade of the historic house and to see a better expression of the southeast corner of the
historic house. Staff finds that the southeast corner issue has been resolved, but remains
concerned with the location of the garage in front of the primary fayade of the historic house. .
Staff recommends Conceptual approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: Suzarme Leydecker, represented by Rally Dupps of Consortium Architects and
Mitch Haas of Haas Land Plarming, LLC.
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-27-002.
ADDRESS: 710 North Third Street, Unit A, Lot 1& 2, Block 102 of Hallam's Addition, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
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:
The July 27th staff memo indicated a number of concerns with the design of the new addition.
These were resolved through the architect's revisions, presented to HPC at the meeting. The one
story addition is recognizable as a product of its own time and the applicant has consciously
broken the addition into different modules as recommended by the design guidelines.
With regard to the additional amendments that the board requested, the applicant proposes a 4
inch trim band that nms vertically between the historic house and the new addition to delineate
the old back corner of the house. Staff finds that this element sufficiently addresses HPC's
concern and is in compliance with section 10.4:
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.
The architect has moved the garage back 6 feet further from the street than previously proposed.
Even so, the garage still does not meet the minimum setback required by the "Residential Design
Standards" or zoning. Variances are discussed later in the memo. Staff also finds that the
position ofthe garage may conflict with the following guideline:
14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene.
See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures.
DEMOLITION
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing addition on the historic Victorian era home.
Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the
following criteria:
""'"
,.,.p'
. 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 marmer,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure carmot 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 stmcture 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.
""
Circa 1950s photograph of south elevation
Staff Response: Based on this photograph, presumed to be circa 1950s, staff finds that the
addition on the south side of the historic two-story Victorian home is not original or
""
,fi
3
architecturally significant, and its demolition will not impact the integrity ofthe historic resource.
As per section 26.575.020(E) of the Municipal Land Use Code, the applicant is requesting a
"partial demolition" which is defined as demolishing less than 40% (applicant proposes 37.7%)
of the existing structure and therefore is permitted to re-configure the existing 4,041 square feet
of FAR. The applicant proposes a total of 4,033 square feet of FAR. Staff finds that the
demolition of the non-historic addition is in compliance with Section 10.2 of the design
guidelines.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project requires variances to the Residential Design Standards related to the lightwell on
North Third Street and the detached garage. 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.
Lightwell:
The applicant proposes to have a basement level beneath the new addition with two lightwells:
one located on the primary west elevation and the other on the south elevation. The lightwell on
the west elevation requires a variance from the Residential Design Standards
26.410.040(D)(4)which requires that the lightwell "shall be entirely recessed behind the front
most wall of the building." The proposed lightwell will be 6 inches above grade and will have a
metal grate for egress. The lightwell is located in line with the fayade of the historic house. Staff
finds that the lightwell does not distract from the reading of the historic house and recommends
that HPC grant a residential design standard variance.
Detached Garage:
The front fayade of the detached garage is 3 feet in front of the historic house, in violation of
section 26.410.040 (C)(2) of the Residential Design Standards that states that "the front fayade of
the garage.. . shall be set back at least 10 feet further from the street than the front most wall of
the house." HPC was particularly concerned about the garage location at the last hearing. Staff
recommends that, at the least, garage be in line with the fayade of the house, not in front of it.
However, HPC may want to require more of a setback.
4
SETBACK VARIANCES
The notice included setback variances to legalize the existing location of the house and a front
yard setback variance for the garage. A side yard setback variance for the garage was overlooked
in the conceptual notice and will be discussed at Final Review. The criteria for granting setback
variances, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows:
""
-,",.,.o;t
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: Staff recommends that the variances to legalize the house be granted. It is
beneficial that the building is not being moved. With regard to the garage, it is set back 8 feet 1
1/8 inches where a 15 foot front yard setback is required. As stated, it is 3 feet in front of the
house. It needs to move back 7 feet in order to meet the front yard setback requirements Md 13
feet in order to meet the "Residential Design Standard" discussed above. Staff recommends that,
at the least, garage be in line with the fayade of the house, not in front of it. However, HPC may
want to require more of a setback.
ON-SITE PARKING
""'"
'-#'
The applicant is requesting one on-site parking waiver. 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.
Staff Response: Three parking spaces currently exist in the grass portion of the public right of
way along Gillespie Street; Unit A occupies two of the spaces and Unit B uses one. The City
issued a revocable Encroachment license which can be removed at any time. The applicant on
this project is asking for exceptions to be able to create a garage on Third Street. These
exceptions are generally valid because there is no alley and no other options for an on-site garage
given the location of the house. Nonetheless, staff finds that the creation of a garage on Third
Street should result in the elimination of Unit A's Gillespie Street parking on public property.
As a condition of approval, the City will require Unit A to remove their two pull-in parking
spaces, and the associated curb cut, and to restore the grass.
""
.....lI"""
5
The applicant will have one garage space and may be able to stack a second car in the driveway if
desired. (This actually needs an encroachment license, if Engineering will allow it at all.) Staff
recommends an on-site parking waiver of the second required space due to the constraints of the
property.
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 grant approval for Major Development
(Conceptual), Demolition, and Variances for Unit A, 710 North Third Street with the following
conditions:
1. The position of the garage must be resolved with minimal variances and compliance with
the design guidelines.
2. HPC grants the necessary setback variances to legalize the historic house in its existing
location.
3. HPC grants a waiver of the "Residential Design Standards" for the location of the
lightwell on Third Street.
4. HPC grants a waiver of one on-site parking space.
5. Remove the two parking spaces occupied by Unit A on Gillespie Street, and the curb cut,
and restore the grass prior to issuance of a "Certificate of Occupancy."
6. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC
within one year of August 24, 2005 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null
and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code.
7. 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:
Resolution # _, Series of 2005
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
6
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 710 North Third Street, Unit A, Conceptual
Review" "".
'...,~
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.
9.7 A Iightwell 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.
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.
7
........
'...,,'"
"""""
..~. "","
"-.,,,. _.....,....~._.
~-----------
N
J--
------
D
~\~
<~
.1"
.'
~
I\~
.I~
.;~
;~
tl
I
I
"
!
/ I
'.
. ,:
~
~
~~ 9
~ r -:;
~lfl'
R-l ~
.."
Ii
~~
\
~I~
.8
~~
~
~
~
@
,
~~ \
I~
~I'
.'
.;'
~
ISb.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
701 W. Main Street, Minor Review- Public Hearing
DATE:
August 24, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures and contains a cabin constructed in the early 1900's.
HPC has granted a number of approvals related to this property, including on-site relocation for
the subject cabin, demolition of a non-historic shed along the alley, construction of a new
detached carriage house unit, and a Historic Landmark Lot Split.
The project proposed for 701 W. Main Street is in general an excellent plan that is allowing a
very modest cabin to be retained as a free-standing building. The new unit behind it is well
designed, and presumably the house that will be proposed in the future will be as well. The
applicant has received a number of landmark benefits including an exemption from Growth
Management so that there is no employee housing mitigation for any of the development on this
site (a substantial monetary savings), a variance from the minimum lot size required to complete
a Historic Landmark Lot Split, setback variances, variances from the "Residential Design
Standards," and a parking waiver. It has no doubt been a challenging process for the owners,
who have undertaken the applications themselves, but they are to be commended for "rescuing"
this property.
As the final phase for the re-development of the corner lot at 701 W. Main, the property
owner requests HPC approval for alterations to the exterior of the historic cabin. Staff has
a number of concerns with the specifics of these alterations, and proposes that some of the
actions be altered or eliminated as conditions of approval in order to meet the design
guidelines.
APPLICANT: Marshall and Susan Olsen, owners.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-46-004.
ADDRESS: 701 W. Main Street, Lot A of the 701 W. Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split,
Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use.
1
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures setforth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to make a number of exterior alterations to this
designated building. No photographs or historic maps have been located, however a history is
provided in the application and staff has conducted a site visit to view the building after removal
of interior plaster. It is agreed that the center portion of the cabin is probably older than
originally thought (circa early 20th century) and there are additions on the front and back that
appear to be of a slightly later vintage, pre-World War II. The changes proposed, and staffs
review, are as follows:
North elevation
No changes are proposed to fenestration on this wall. On all sides of the house, the applicant
proposes to remove the existing asphalt siding and install clapboards over the exterior sheathing.
Staff has concerns about the change in materials because we do not have any evidence that the
cabin originally had wood siding. As noted above, the building was built in at least two phases,
and all of the existing construction should be considered to be part of the historical record of the
building, and therefore are significant. While the center portion of the building might have had
clapboards or board and batten siding at some point, it is entirely possible that there has been
asphalt on the exterior from the time that the front and rear additions were built. The applicant
has provided an interesting history of the use of this material. We have more evidence that the
building had asphalt siding than we do that it ever had wood siding. Staff recommends that the
applicant be able to replace the existing material, which mayor may not have been the original,
but new rolled asphalt is available. In fact, this material has been used for a number of new
homes in Aspen and will help the cabin maintain its rustic character. The relevant guidelines,
which are somewhat difficult to address because we do not know the original material, are:
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials
on primary surfaces.
D If the original material is wood clapboard, for.example, then the replacement material must
be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and
finish.
D Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only
those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
12.17 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically.
D When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and
their placement.
~
"'"'
~
East elevation
The applicant proposes to eliminate a window in the front section of the house, to replace the
existing door, to replace two original windows, and to remove a door and window on the rear
lean-to in favor of a new window.
With regard to the windows, staff recommends that as many as possible be left in place, even if
they are covered with drywall on the inside. This project is "adaptive use" of a modest
residential structure. According to the design guidelines, a good adaptive use project retains the
historic character of the building while accommodating new functions. To the greatest extent
possible, original features, especially on street-facing elevations, should be retained. The
guidelines state:
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building
wall.
D Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate,
as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades
where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature.
D Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls.
D Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or
increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades.
The applicant proposes to replace the historic windows that are to be retained on the east
elevation. Staff does not support replacement of the windows, which can presumably be repaired
if needed, and improved with an interior or exterior storm window as necessary. The guidelines
state:
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
D Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions,
sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows.
D Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit.
D Preserve the original glass, when feasible.
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic
window.
D Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the
original window to be seen from the public way.
D If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of
the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need
for sub-frames or parming around the perimeter.
Staff is not opposed to the replacement of the existing doors, which do not appear to be historic.
However, the door design should be simple in design. At least on the street facing elevation, a
door that just has glass in the upper half may be more appropriate than a full light door. The
guidelines state:
3
4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original
door or a door associated w.ith the style of the house.
D A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
D A historic door from a similar building also may be considered.
D Simple paneled doors were typical.
D Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless
photographic evidence can support their use.
The applicant proposes to replace the existing non-historic roof with a new standing seam metal
roof. The board will need to review a material sample.
South elevation
On the south elevation, the proposal is to eliminate three windows and install a pair of doors.
Staff is in support of the addition of the doors, which are not particularly visible from the street
and are important to the new function of the building. Glazing on these doors is also less of an
important issue than on the primary entries. Staff does not support eliminating the three
windows, one of which could be dry-walled from the inside, and the other two would provide
light into the restroom.
West elevation
The west elevation is to be the new main entrance. It is not entirely clear to staff why the door on
the east is not serving this purpose. It appears that the main entry to the building, when only the
central portion existed, was on the front, parallel to Main Street. Since the additions were built,
the entry has been from the east. Although a secondary door could be placed on the west, some
discussion of this would be beneficial. The guidelines state that the historic front door on a
primary fayade must remain operable and must remain in use as the main entrance into the
building. In addition, a sidelight alongside the door is not in keeping with guideline 4.5, above.
The applicant proposes to eliminate the one existing historic window on this fayade and to install
four new windows. There is some flexibility possible for glazing in this wall. Staff is not in
favor of the three proposed skylights and would prefer to see more or larger windows as a
possible alternative. In general, HPC has disallowed skylights on historic structures based on the
following:
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 stmcture. 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.
The applicant proposes access to the basement on the west side of the house. The staircase is
pulled away from the building in order to avoid an FAR penalty for exposing the basement wall
to view. Staff has no concerns with the basement proposal.
4
-
~
.-
""
Landscape plan
The application mentions the intent to plant aspen trees in front of and around the cabin, and also
to alter the historic ditch. Staff has concerns with both of these actions based on the following
guidelines:
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
D Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer
than the mature canopy size.
D Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features
or block views to the building.
D It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
1.17 Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an integral component ofthe streets cape.
The character of an irrigation ditch should be maintained.
D It is inappropriate to use an irrigation ditch as a planting bed, or to fill it with another
material.
D Ditches carmot by culverted except where crossed by a walkway or driveway, and a
culvert must be approved by the Parks Department.
lt appears that the aspens could screen the cabin more significantly than HPC would prefer and
also may interfere somewhat with the character of the street trees. As far as the ditch goes, it is
on city owned property and should not be altered. There has been an on-going issue with
enforcement of other property owners undertaking to alter these historic landscape features,
however this is a landmark parcel in a historic district and the need to preserve the ditch in its
original condition is clear.
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 Minor Development approval for
701 W. Main Street with the following conditions:
I. The applicant may replace the existing asphalt siding with new rolled asphalt. The exact
material must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor.
2. The historic windows on the north, east, and south elevations must remain in place, even
if they are covered with drywall on the inside. The historic window sash themselves can
5
be repaired as needed. Staff and monitor can review and approve wood storm windows
on the exterior if the applicant desires storms.
3. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve cut sheets for new doors. The door on
the east, and the door on the west if it is approved, should only have glazing in the upper
half of the unit.
4. Staff and monitor must review and approve a sample of the new roof material.
5. The applicant is approved to install a pair of doors on the south elevation as planned, but
carmot eliminate the three windows from the exterior of the building.
6. HPC and the applicant must discuss the need to establish the entry into the cabin on the
west side, instead of the east side of the cabin.
7. The skylights on the west side of the roof are not approved. The applicant may submit
revised (larger) windows in that wall for review by staff and monitor.
8. The applicant must revise the landscape plan to avoid screening the front of the cabin
from view on Main Street.
9. The applicant does not have approval to alter the historic ditch in the publicly owned
right-of-way.
10. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of
exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the
fixtures.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
15. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
Exhibits:
Resolution #_, Seriesof2005
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
6
...fll"...."'..,,,. ~._
-
"'"
'-
-
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 701 W. Main Street Minor Review"
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
D This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in
the "private" spaces beyond.
D Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
D Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
D The front yard should be maintained in a traditional marmer, with planting material and sod,
and not covered with paving, for example.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
D Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
D If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
D Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
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.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
D Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer
than the mature canopy size.
D Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features
or block views to the building.
D It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
1.15, Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
D Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on
walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features.
D This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks
in the public right-ot:way.
1.17 Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an integral component of the streets cape.
The character of an irrigation ditch should be maintained.
D It is inappropriate to use an irrigation ditch as a planting bed, or to fill it with another
material.
D Ditches cannot by culverted except where crossed by a walkway or driveway, and a culvert
must be approved by the Parks Department.
7
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
D Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
D Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced.
D Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornIces,
pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved.
D Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction
may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials
on primary surfaces.
D If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must
be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and
finish.
D Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only
those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
D Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions,
sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows.
D Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit.
D Preserve the original glass, when feasible.
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building
wall.
D Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as
is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where
the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature.
D Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls.
D Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it
to receive a larger window on primary facades.
3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade.
D Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively
affect the integrity of a structure.
3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
D If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, or
at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of
glass panes.
D Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades.
3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.
DUsing the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining
facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the
window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish.
3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
D Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive
a larger window is inappropriate.
D Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered.
3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that ofthe
original window.
D A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash steps
back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which
8
-
,-.,
-
individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They
distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic
window.
D Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the
original window to be seen from the public way.
D If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of
the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for
sub-frames or parming around the perimeter.
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.
o If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must
remain operable.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
D Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
DFor additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of
Historic Properties".
4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door.
D Match the frame design and color of the primary door.
D If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be
wood.
4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original
door or a door associated with the style of the house.
D A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
D A historic door from a similar building also may be considered.
D Simple paneled doors were typical.
D Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
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.
7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to
those used traditionally.
D Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled
buildings.
9
D If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone
and have a matte, non-reflective finish.
D Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
D If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective
finish.
7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is
compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building.
D A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish.
D A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative.
D Seams should be of a low profile.
D A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate.
12.5 Provide a walk to the primary building entry from the public sidewalk.
12.16 Use roofing materials that are similllr in appearance to those seen historically.
12.17 Use building materials that are similar to those us~d historically.
D When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and
their placement.
14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws.
D All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fullest extent possible, while
also preserving the integrity of the character-defining features of their buildings. Special
provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting
the ADA standards.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
D The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
D All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
D Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
D Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
D Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the lengTh of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
D Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
D Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
D Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street.
D When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with
commercial and multifamily developments.
D This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks.
D Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists.
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public wllY.
D Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not
create a negative visual impact.
10
.._...,,__.u
-
"'"
-
D Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooft.op units are visible, provide screening with materials that are
compatible with those of the building itself.
D Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges.
D A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does
not create a negative visual impact.
D Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or
alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use
smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards,
significant building facades or higWy visible roof planes.
D Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize .
their appearance by blending with their backgrounds.
14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will
not damage historic facade materials.
D Cutting charmels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is
inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade.
D If a charmel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall.
11
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 701 W. MAIN STREET, LOT A OF THE ""
701 W. MAIN STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, BLOCK 19, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2005
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-46-005
WHEREAS, the applicant, Marshall and Susen Olsen, has requested approval for Minor
Development in order to alter the exterior of their cabin at 701 W. Main Street, Lot A of the 701
W. Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado;
and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. 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; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 24, 2005, performed an analysis of
the application based on the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines, and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting of August 24, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was inconsistent with the review standards and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with
conditions by a vote of _ to _'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC approvess Minor Development at 701
W. Main Street, Lot A of the 701 W. Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split, Block 19, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
~
~'liPf
1. The applicant may replace the existing asphalt siding with new rolled asphalt. The exact
material must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor.
2. The historic windows on the north, east, and south elevations must remain in place, even
if they are covered with drywall on the inside. The historic window sash themselves can
be repaired as needed. Staff and monitor can review and approve wood storm windows .-...
on the exterior if the applicant desires storms.
3. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve cut sheets for new doors. The door on
the east, and the door on the west if it is approved, should only have glazing in the upper
half of the unit.
4. Staff and monitor must review and approve a sample of the new roof material.
5. The applicant is approved to install a pair of doors on the south elevation as planned, but
cannot eliminate the three windows from the exterior of the building.
6. HPC and the applicant must discuss the need to establish the entry into the cabin on the
west side, instead of the east side of the cabin.
7. The skylights on the west side of the roof are not approved. The applicant may submit
revised (larger) windows in that wall for review by staff and monitor.
8. The applicant must revise the landscape plan to avoid screening the front of the cabin
from view on Main Street.
9. The applicant does not have approval to alter the historic ditch in the publicly owned
right-of-way.
10. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of
exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the
fixtures.
11. 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.
12. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HP<;: staff and monitor, or the full board.
13. 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.
14. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
15. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at their regular meeting on the 24th day of August,
2005.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Land Use Application
.
""
THE CITY OF ASPEN
PROJECf:
Name:
Location: ~re
~ 0~ ~,]rtx
(Indicate street address, lot & bock number or metes and bounds description of property
ParcelID# (REQUIRED) d- '7:3 ':)/)-.c.;YG>c:x3t/'
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
E-mail: \jV\.
Phone #:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
"""
Fax#:
E-mail:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: lease check all that a I
D Historic Designation
D Certificate of No Negative Effect
D Certificate of Appropriateness
~ -Minor Historic Development
o -Major Historic Development
o -Conceptual Historic Development
D -Final Historic Development
D -Substantial Amendment
D Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
D Demolition (total demolition)
o Historic Landmark Lot Split
w
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (de
REf- fOR PERMAMEN'T ReCORD
A,>~_".~",",_~"'" .,
Historic Cabin, 701 Main Street
Owner: Marshall and Susan Olsen
Architect: Dirk Danker
Proposed changes to exterior and interior.
Interior Changes:
The interior will be divided into three main spaces. The gallery is at
the front of the building, with two equal studio spaces in the middle.
The lean-to portion of the building will contain an accessible restroom
and a Kiln room. Exits from the building will be at the rear of the
second studio room and the side door on the East elevation. We plan
to remove the ceiling and add beams to reinforce the existing roof
joists providing an open loft appearance.
Exterior Changes:
Beginning with the East elevation, our only change is to the one
window that goes into the gallery and the door. We are asking to
vacate the window in the gallery area, nearest to Main Street,
because it limits the amount of wall space in the gallery area. This
window has been boarded up and not used since the front room
addition was added and does not have a glass light in it now. We
would like to replace the old door with a new one which has a glass
light in the upper half, to allow light into the studio.
On the North elevation, we propose no changes and will leave the
windows in place as they are now.
On the South Elevation, we propose a double door opening into the
Kiln room, allowing the kiln to be moved in as well as adding and
removing pieces from it in the future. The lean-to addition has many
windows which are now inappropriate since they open into the
bathroom or into the Kiln room so we propose these be vacated.
-...
On the West Elevation, we propose adding 3 additional windows
allowing light for each studio, with one existing window, the total
would be four windows, two for each studio. We propose a
wooden/recycled decking entry with a new front door entrance.
A sidewalk leading South from this deck goes to a stairway, made of
concrete for the steps and walls, which will have heat melt, provides
and entry to the basement.
On the West side of the roof, we are proposing three skylights added
so that one is over each studio and one is over the west side of the
gallery, above the entry way.
We will install city specified sidewalks on the Sixth Street and Main
Street sides of the cabin. Our landscaping will consist of several
small Aspen trees at the front south side and east side. We plan to
add rocks to the edges of the two ditches, one on Main and one on
Sixth, and plant flowers and ground cover, in a manor similar to the
lot at the corner of Sixth and Hopkins.
"""
,
We propose the exterior of the cabin walls be covered with the
identical siding used on the coach house. The stain and trim colors
will also be identical to the coach house. Attached is an article which
states that the Asphalt siding now on the cabin was not introduced
into the building trade until at least 10 years after the cabin was built.
We have searched at the Historical Society and the County registrar's
office looking for information about the appearance of original cabin
but have been unsuccessful. We have, however discovered
information which may shed light on the cabin's origin.
......
According to the records, the lot was acquired by J.M.
Conner on August 17, 1907 as a homestead property. In order for a
property to be homesteaded, a building must be built on it and
occupied for a number of years, usually seven. Thus, we conclude
that Mr. Connor erected the first structure. Mr. Connor sold the
property at an unknown date to Mr. Charles Peterson. A long time
Aspen resident, Mrs. Karen Ryman, has told us that she knows for
sure that the Peterson family lived in the building for a number of
years. The property was foreclosed on by the City of Aspen for tax
arrears in 1932. There are no assessor records from 1932 until 1948,
most likely because of the Great Depression. On August 1, 1948, Mr.
Herman Nelson purchased the property for the back taxes from the
City of Aspen. In 1951, Mr. Nelson sold the property to Mr. Ray
Nelson. We learned from the historical society that the Pitkin County
Sheriff lived there for many years, possibly as many as 12 years
during this period when the property was owned by Mr. Ray Nelson.
From this history and the events that transpired from 1907, it is our
conclusion that the original structure was built sometime between
1907 and the time the Peterson family moved in. It seems obvious
that the original structure had some other kind of outside siding rather
than the current Asphalt Siding since the attached article indicates
this siding was not available when the first structure was built. We
know from examining the interior after removing the plasterboard that
there were two subsequent additions, the front room and the lean-to
in the rear. The current Asphalt siding covered all three parts of the
house and was obviously installed at the same time, we assume, at
or after 1948, when this type of siding was available, when Mr.
Herman Nelson purchased the property for back taxes.
iliIlIilifm IKeywords...
Page 1 of2
lID ~,,-~~~,~~
, ~~~~~l:~~__~~
~~~-A~
~~IIJl.,~~I_~I_~IZi~I~I~1l:!:!l~
~ational Register of Historic Places I Arkansas Register of Historic Places I National Histonc Landmarks I A.rkansas Civil
War Sites
NA T10NAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
10) National Reaister of Historic Places
. .. "'!BRoW to 'G"~t a PfoDeftVListet!
IE Artificial Sidina Policv
IE Residential Siding Materials in Arkansas
l IB Survey & Documentation
: IB Search Arkansas National Reaister Listinas
IB National Reaister Nomination Form
IS Determination of Eliaibilitv Forms
. IE Frequently Asked~Ouestions
: IE Related Links
ASPHALT ROOFING MATERIALS
Composition roofing materials using
fabrics covered with pine tar or sand
were in use on the East Coast by the
1840s. This form was later improved
through coatings of asphalt and talc,
sand, powdered limestone or gravel to
add color and endurance. Modern
roofing shingles were formed from
units of felt saturated with asphalt, a
bitumen produced from refined
petroleum, and colored mineral or ceramic granules. Shingles cut from rolls in 8" X 12-
1/2" shapes made their appearance in 1903 in rectangular and hexagonal forms. The
Prepared Roofing Manufacturers Association was formed in 1911 to advance the sales of asphalt products
and to improve upon them while widening the market.f601
While asphalt was not yet sweeping the nation as a wall covering in the early twentieth century, there were
murmurings among the construction industry about applying it as siding in remodeling jobs. Architect
Charles G. Peker wrote In a 1918 issue of American Builder that chipped slate asphalt roll roofing could be
used as a substitute for stucco in the gable end of a house, creating a half-timbered effect. It also served
as an Insulating covering when nailed over drafty wooden drop siding. f.Ql1 Hexagonal and rectangular
asphalt shingles marketed nationwide as wall covering did not appear until 1929. Those shingles can still be
spied on sidewalls of dormers or on outbuildings in rural areas of Arkansas, however such coverings could
have been roofing shingles applied pre-1929. Perhaps as a sign of the times asphalt was primarily offered
as a renovation material that eliminated the need to paint wooden siding. Roofing
companies were left with a glut of material when the Depression forestalled new.
construction, so they augmented their manufacturer's lines with offerings that
catered to the current building market and offered the look of traditional materials
at a lower price. Johns-Manville and Certain-teed Products Company offered a strip
shingle with a 2-1/2" exposure and 9-1/2" length in imitation of brick in 1931. Each
strip shingle was divided into individual "bricks" available in red, buff or gray
featuring "mortar" lines in white, brown or black. Faux brick was the prevailing
asphalt siding style during the 1930s. Mastic Corporation reported that 100% of its
sales in 1935 were in the brick design marketed as panels called
Inselbric, but wall shingles were still marketed in a variety of
patterns and colors such as rectangular, hexagonal and
pyramidal in green, tan and blended.[911
Asphalt hexagonal
shingles were used
as alternative wall
coverings in gable
ends and dormers.
, .
II
Asphalt strip
shingles in imitation
of brick hit the
market in the early
Garages and
outbuildings would
sometimes be sheathed
in rectangular asphalt
shingles.
In 1940 Sears, Roebuck & Company catalogues offered brick-type insulating panels in
14" X 43" units, five bricks high and four-point (hexagonal) asphait siding In brown
tone, red tone, jade green and tile red. Advances in the production of roll roofing
introduced heated rollers that pressed detailed patterns into
granulated surfaces, making it possible to offer rolled asphalt brick siding In the early
file://C:\DOCUME-l \ADMlNl-l \LOC ALS-l \Temp\QALIFYF Ahtm
8/2/2005
-
"
.......
Page 2 of2
1940s.~ By 1941 Sears invited customers to "make old houses
look new" by applying Honor Bilt Brick Roll-Type siding in 32" X 43'
sections, which was offered in addition to the four brick double lap siding - marketed by
the company beginning circa 1937. To lend a finished look to the job accessory strips
for inside and outside corners, edge trim and soldier courses were available. By 1943
they included 32" X 43' asphalt rolls of irregularly coursed "ashlar
stone" (also known as lnselstone) in gray.@1l The 1954 Sears
catalogue introduced a new insulating stone design called "Ranch
Stone", featuring elongated multi-colored asphalt units resembling
cut-sandstone in irregular courses on 15" X 48" panels. Color
selections were gray/green and crab orchard. (651 In 1966 the
Sears, Roebuck catalogue featured "Random Stone" as a new siding
product. This was very similar to Ranch Stone but it included
randomly placed raked shapes in imitation of wire-cut bricks among the multi-colored
units. Random Stone consisted of wood fiber insulation board impregnated with bitumen
and thickly overlaid with mineral-stabilized asphalt on the weather side and surfaced
with mineral granules for color. Color ranges became rather elaborate in comparison to
earlier asphalt siding choices. The color selections were referred to as "Holiday," which was brown and light
gray with coral highlights and beige mortar, "Riviera," consisting of shades of gray with occasional coral
and gray mortar and "Lakeside," displaying green overtones with harmonizing gray and beige mortar.[Q2l
1930s.
Rolled asphalt brick
siding was made
poSSible through the
introduction of
heated rollers that
pressed patterns
into the surface.
Asphalt rolls that
imitated irregular
courses of cut stone
could be purchased
by the early 19405.
The popular 19505 look of cut
sandstone could be achieved
through the Inexpensive
application of Ranch Stone
asph81t siding.
"~""-
Mid-1960s Random Stone was
similar to Ranch Stone but: it
featured a wire.cut brick shape
among the "courses" of stone
shapes.
e9: Back to index
GJ "'f'f'UCAIH).lIInQf.l!Rlq~.,IYP);..!;;lRIIIIG!;
"'istC)ri.f:PrO'P,~.!es I Preservati()n.~er"i<<::es I "',aJnS~_rel!tArkCl!nS:Cts I T()~rs,.E~ents:,.W9:r:I<$tlQP$_1 pld>fil::aJi9ns
Frequently Asked Questions I ArchaeQlogy & Section 106 Review I Annual Report &. Action Plan
f.r.~~._~:-.~.~:W.s.I~_t~~r [ ~_~~_ff_Q!!~tQr.y I 8.~~.~~J.,ink~_ I ~J_~__~_~p I ~~~._~,~r!;b I .~9.m~
..
ARKANSAS HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
1500 Tower Building, 323 Center Street - Little Rock, Ark.ansas 72201
Phone: (501) 324-9880 - Fax: (SOl) 324-9184 - E-Mail: info@arkansaspreservation.org
lilt D
-~ 0l.D~)JCIJSE
-~J.isiIriIgI! ""...-
~..:: A
f' -~
,e
Arlca.,__ "'*nI
40_~
..
~
~
Mcun:'TIlMPo.Amo
Cut.'IUR.U. CIlrn1lR
Copyright @2D04 Arkansas Historic Preservation Program - Web Services by Aristotle Web Design.
file:l/C:\DOCUME-l \ADM1NI-l \LOC ALS-l \Temp\QALIFYF Ahtm
8/2/2005
~
~
~
l!
!;i
~
Iii
~ I,
l~ Ie
....
~ I
!;i II
~
-==/l
r
I
I
-=OJ I
L..-J :
'- I
r-'ll __L
i\J --
- -
L-j]
/
...
-~I
-"
D
D
~
~
l!!
"
z
!;i
~
J'
-------- I
:::.:.-------~~.J
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
_ ___J1r~
:.::--------l...J
I!
II
J'
--------- I
::.--------'lLJ
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
I _nJL
L:.::.::.:_____-c.J
I
II
~
..~
Ie
.-
-
Q)
Q)
...
-
"'0
c'C
.- '"
"'...
::2:..Q
_08
:OU ~
5Ct;
Q) =>
r-a.g
0"'<
.....<( N
-
w
~~
~
~
ill
ul
'"
3
z
o
I
III
C
o
..
III
>
CII
jjj
011
III
C
III
ii:
c
:c
l'Cl
o
-.
""...~
~
i
~
!
IS
l hU
~ I.~~
i ~\4,.;...
-.
f!I
~
I
em'-_ d
i -U
,------" ~
o
.1
II
E8
"',~,.,~
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
rO
,
,
,
,
~
~
J!
~
~
~
,
I
f/j
~
'"
~
!Z
w
iii
::
I
~.
-----------L~T~
-- r.:t:'1
, ,
, ,
: :
"""1 ::
.-"11 II
..... II II
..... II 'I
I"" II I,
S \\ //
,...- ,,'I
: ::",'
r-' I?(
.... till
r" I ~ I
,.... a:
"I,
11'1
11'1
" ,
"II
""
" ,
1111
"II
ilL I
II) I
:1, :
" ,
'"
11'1
II"
11'1
""
" ,
" ,
" ,
""
" ,
" ,
IIII
" ,
'. ,
11"
'. ,
__nn____J}i
-----------'-J
~
~
~
i
'"
;;;
i
__________Sj
1:LJ
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" 0
:: w
"
n_nnnJLnS1 B
~~~~~~~~===I==~~ ~
niTnlriliTint--,--{
''''''''11\1\1\1 I
J.1LUHU.ll.u.JL_.r1
,
'"
li
~
~
~
I
I
i
;
.
-~
Q)
III
...
-
VlO
c'C
"ctj E
~o
_0
~u ~
5aj ~
.-O-~
O"'~
,.....<( ~
.
J~
'"
~~
~
it
III
Ii;
w
~
~
51
...
III
C
o
:;:;
III
>
III
jjj
oil
III
C
III
0::
c
:c
III
CJ
:z
o
~
~
j!;
~
lUll
~ lit
i ~~l-''''
0
, 1m
,
, ~.
, Ilm tIl
,
, - '" c
-- -------~ I , <D ~.
, 0
, ~
, =
, , tu !:
, , CI)
I , ~.
, ~ 0 Ql~
,
, iij c
, .il 0
: s:ai
,I , ,
, i
, .c>
, CIl (J)
,
'L--J , Ow
I ,
, 011"0
,
,/, , ~
, E
:
~I , .2~
,
, .5 ~
~: ,
, '"
, Ee:.
I:; I ,
, 0..-
, ,-y
, I 'C
,
, ~ c c
, 0 0
I ,
, 0=
,
, -Q.
, ,
, , QlO
I , l!!
,
,
, -
, , (/)
,
, , .c
___J ,
, iD
,
,
,
,
(]). "ml.o-.g
Aall'rf .
~
----------------- ----
J8fllJS u!ew
!
l
.~
~
Ql
Ql
....
~
(1)0
t::"C
-'"
"'....
::;:,2
~O
:Gu l!
~ c:;;
>QlU
r-a.~
0"'''
,,<C ~
-
.
..!g
w
.~
I r
,
I
i~ g )188
- I JJ~~ -
.t.
Revision #2/22 July 2005
Site & Building Data:
ALLOWABLE FAR 1 MIXED USE LOT
Site Area:
FAR
Allowable Building Area:
COACH HOUSE BUILDING AREA:
I I I I I
NagleHartrayDankerKaganMcKayPenney
rillilriGlDDmriDl!IlJll13
2.565 sq. It.
0.75
1923.75 sq. ft.
Basement Floor Area:
1 sf Floor Area:
2nd Floor Area:
3rd Floor Area:
Gross Area:
557 sq. ft.
576 sq. ft.
426 sq. ft.
402 sq. ft.
Zoning Area:
sq. It.
366 sq. ft.
426 sq. ft.
402 sq. ft.
1.194 sq. ft.
TOTAL AREA:
1.961 sq. ft.
ADDITIONAL BASEMENT AREA CALCULATIONS:
2nd Floor Deck Area: 144 sq. ft.
percent of area (144/1230) 12.1%
Additional Zoning Area:
Basement Light well:
percent of wall (37 sq.ft. 1 966 sq.ft.)
Additional Zoning Area: (3.8% x 557 sq.ft.)
3.8%
21.33 sq. ft.
o sq. ft.
21.33 sq. ft.
TOTAL ZONING AREA:
1.215 sq. ft.
HISTORIC CABIN BUILDING AREA:
Basement
15t1l00r
TOTAL AREA:
Gross Area:
684 sq. ft.
684 sq. ft.
1.367 sq. ft.
ADDmONAL BASEMENT AREA CALCULA nONS:
Basement Light well;
percent of wall (32 sq.ft./1091 sq.ft.)
Stairway well:
percent of wall (37.8 sq.ft./1091 sq.ft.)
Additional Zoning Area: (3.8% x 684 sq.ft.)
0.0%
3.5%
3.5%
23.69 sq. ft.
Zoning Area:
sq. ft.
684 sq. ft.
684 sq. ft.
23.69 sq. ft.
707 sq. ft.
TOTAL ZONING AREA:
TOTAL ZONING BUILDING AREA:
Coach House Building Area:
Historic Cabin Building Area:
Zoning Area:
1.215.3 sq. ft.
707.3 sq. ft.
difference:
1.922.7 sq. ft.
1.08
DO(}f1e 312.425.1000
f<lX 312.425.1001
_.nhdkmp.com
3OWesl:MonroeStreet
Chic.. illinois 60603
comments:
remove fireplace bump out
remove fireplace bump out
remove fireplace bump out
& reduce building length by 4 inches
remove fireplace bump out
& reduce building length by 4 inches
reduce light well size
omft light well
reduce exposed wall by moving stair
west away from buUding.
".
.Oh~
. I
.O-,~
9;
'"
<(
i ~~ ~
;g ~~ ~
~ h ~
-~ ~
~. ~.
"-
"
;;:
9
mj
U(
il:: Z
<(
.-1
0...
;,- --'
-' <(
ill I-
" W
'- 0
.. a:
~ <(
I-
CJ)
!D a:
0
a:
w
l-
X
W
-
""'"
...-......
--
o
~
I
;...
"
1:;
~
flllillriTI1Mil'lffi' l\TI)jj\rrlMm)jjrillilf~r)jjT 1 f:::
... ,_",IlL~". ~~ ><
~g w
i t~ ~~ H~ I 'lI~
- -2 ~l!t
n U ~ gij N
<~ ~~ Hi l<
~~ ..
N <;0
::1<
i s~ i ~~ <Xl ~ <D
<<: "
-
~
~
I-
'" Z
W
~ '"
"- W
l- V> ....
:" <
~J 8.., .9-,G
I II
~o '!!O
0
1-+ Zm
i G:+
g ~b-,b r T------
" I .
I I
;,. . ' " . . 'I
. ." ~ , . '.
~ I
l, , <D
~ I
I
. I- ,
'!z ~
;-
)t:~ .
\ "'
'..',<-'
'" I
<( , Z
, ,
, 0
,
, I l-
I , 0
,
I W .,.
I
, CfJ
I
I , -1
I <<:
,
I Z
, I
I 0
I
, :J
, l-
I
I CJ
I
, , Z
, 0 '"
I
I -1
I I ~
I.
I a:
I
,
, <<:
,
I l-
I
I CfJ
I
I a:
I
, 0
, . :!!
I
I :'I" a:
I ;~
I W N
I
I ~~ l-
I
I ><
, u
, w
....
( " , I II ~j
. .
, " , I "I
~~ ' <;0
~~~ NOh t~ ::I ~~ ~ ~
, "' Ii: '" <<: " -
~iil 11q-1~. .~ ~ i::J
j'" t
:!~
1Y:
c...
MEMORANDUM
-
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Joyce Allgai~uty Community Development Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
310 Park A venue- Major Development Review (Final)- Public Hearing
DATE:
August 24, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is a vacant lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot
Split. HPC has previously granted approval for rehabilitation of the adjacent historic log cabin,
which was built in 1949. It will be under construction soon.
Conceptual approval for the proposed new house was given in April 2005, with no conditions for
restudy of the design. The new house complies with all dimensional requirements but received
one variance from the "Residential Design Standards" because the connecting element to the
garage happens on the second floor plane, rather than on the ground.
Staff finds this to be a successful project that meets the design guidelines. Approval is
recommended.
-
APPLICANT: Tim Mooney, owner, represented by Alan Richman Plarming 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 ofthe Riverside Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: R-6.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
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 an'd 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 -
'~;~'F"
1
"""__"'__~"'~'~"_""_ _ '~___"o~"'_'~.~4~_
.>
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guillelines. 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 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.
Final review for the new house at 310 Park Avenue focuses on landscape plan, lighting,
fenestration, and selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines 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 marmer 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 final proposal are met by this excellent project.
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 (Final) with the following conditions:
2
1. HPC granted a variance from the "Residential Design Standard" related to "Secondary
Mass" at Conceptual review.
2. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve the type and location of exterior lighting
fixtures prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures.
3. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve the landscape plan prior to any
installation.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
.
"""
.....,jOiV'
Exhibits:
Resolution # _, Series of2005
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
".-
-
3
"1.:<,
,.,....,.
"Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 310 Park Avenue, Final Review"
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
D This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in
the "private" spaces beyond.
D Provide a walkway rurming perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
D Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
D The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod,
and not covered with paving, for example.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
D Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
D If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
ofthe 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.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
D Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer
than the mature canopy size.
D Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features
or block views to the building.
D It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
D Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on
walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
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.
4
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.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
D The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
D All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
D Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
D Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
D Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
D Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
D A void placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
D Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building.
D Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that
direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within
the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged.
D Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off
the property or into public rights-of-way.
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way.
D Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not
create a negative visual impact.
D Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are
compatible with those of the building itself.
D Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges.
D A window air conditioning lmit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does
not create a negative visual impact.
D Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or
alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use
smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards,
significant building facades or highly visible roof planes.
D Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize
their appearance by blending with their backgrounds.
5
''''"'"-'~ "-'-~-.
-
~,
-,