The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutresolution.hpc.018-2002RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 0tPC) DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 629 W. SMUGGLER STREET, LOT A AND THE WEST HALF OF LOT B, BLOCK 21, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 18, SERIES OF 2002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Steven St. Clair, represented by David Myler, of Freilich, Myler, Leitner, and Carlisle, and Catchi Martinez, of JBZ Architects has requested Final Development and Variances for the property located at 629 W. Smuggler, Lot A and the west half of Lot B, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" 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, the HPC reviews the application, the 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, the application for 629 W. Smuggler Slzeet final review included a request for setback variances. In order to grant these variances, according to Section 26.415.110.C of the Muncipal Code, the HPC must find that the variance: a. Is similar to the pattem, 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; and WHEREAS, the application for 629 W. Smuggler Street final review included a request for a variance fi.om the "Residential Design Standards," related to garages. In order for HPC to grant the variance, according to Section 26.410 of the Muncipai Code, the HPC must find 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, Page: 1 of 4 07/05/2002 IO:17A SlLVIA DAVIS PlTKIN COUNTY C0 R 20,00 D 0.00 C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; and WHEREAS, the application for 629 W. Smuggler Street final review included a request for a Floor Area bonus. In order for HPC to grant the variance, according to Section 26.415.110.E of the Municipal Code, HPC must find that: 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 g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and WltEREAS, the application for 629 W~ Smuggler Street final review included a request for a height variance. In order for HPC to grant the variance, according to According to Section 26.314.040 of the Municipal Code the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result fi-om the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and O$IL¥IA OAVI ' WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 8, 2002, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended that the review be continued in order for the applicant to provide additional information for the HPC to use in making a decision; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 8, 2002, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was not consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code and was prepared to make a motion to continue. The applicant refused a continuation, after which the HPC made a motion to approve which received a vote of 0 in favor and 4 opposed, therefore the application was denied. WHEREAS, the HPC passed a motion, by a vote of 4 in favor and 0 against, stating their findings with regard to a denial of the application: 1. The submitted proposal does not satisfy Design Guideline 10.4 in terms of providing proper distinction between old and new through the way the new addition is detailed, especially the gable ends and trim around the windows: 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. a An addition should be made distinguishable fi.om the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. [] A change in setbacks of the addition fi.om the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are ail techniques that may be considered to help define a change fi.om old to new construction. 2. The hardy plank on the historic building does not meet Design Guideline 2.7: 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and f'mish when replacing materials on prhnary surfaces. [] 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. o Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 3. Absent a material sample to review, there is a question as to whether the proposed vinyl windows in the new addition are of sufficient quality to meet Design Guideline 10.11: 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 4. The guidelines for the FAR bonus are not met for a number of reasons, including concerns with the material palette. The standards for awarding an FAR bonus require Page: 3 of 4 07/05/2002 10: SILVIA DAVIS PITKDI COUNTY CO R 20.00 O 0.00 that all the design guidelines must be met, which is not the case with the current proposal. The amount of FAR bonus needed could be minimized by moving the bedroom over the garage to a basement under the new addition, or by otherwise decreasing the FAR of the new addition to some degree. 5. The proposal does not merit a height variance because it does not satisfy, as required, all three of the criteria set forth in Section 26.314.040(A). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Final Development and Variances for the property located 629 W. Smuggler, Lot A and the west half of Lot B, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, is not approved. DENIED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of May, 2002. Approved as to Form: Davld'Ho~r, Assistan~'Ci~y Attorney Api~r~oved as to content: co SSlO Gilbc~3~anc}i&, Vice Ch~ ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deput~ Clerk