The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20051012 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 12, 2005 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISIT: on your own: please visit 640 North Third Street and 202 North Monarch I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - Sept. 14th, 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 #37) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 332 West Main - Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variances continue to October 26. 2005 IX. NEW BUSINESS 'c, ~ol'f{. -ftt" 'rJ v~ A.640 "lad L_l (30 min.) / B. 202 North Monarch Street - Demolition of Shed, Public Hearing (20 min.) X. WORKSESSION A. NONE XI. Adjourn 6:00 p.m. , , ! MEMORANDUM ~A. TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 640 N. Third Street- Setback Variance, Public Hearing DATE: October 12,2005 SUMMARY: This project received Major Development approval, On-site Relocation, Partial Demolition, and Variances in 2002. At that time, a Historic Landmark Lot Split was proposed to place the historic house on the southern half of the property (a 5,707 square foot lot), and to create a future development site on the north lot (a 6,000 square foot lot.) The applicant never went forward to City Council to execute the lot split. The applicant recently submitted for building permit. All projects which receive an approval or a "Development Order," as this one did, have "vested rights" for a period of three years. Vested rights protect the project from any changes that may occur in the Municipal Code. After that time, the approval is still valid, but subject to any new regulations. This project has vested rights for the architectural design, a rear yard setback variance, and a 500 square foot FAR bonus. During building permit review, the Zoning Officer pointed out that the proposed rehabilitation of the house had received the proper setback variances that were needed when it was envisioned to be constructed on a 5,707 square foot lot, but since the lot split was not carried forward, the proper setbacks were not being met for a house on the 11,707 square foot fathering parcel. The applicant has requested that HPC award a south sideyard setback variance so that they can place . the historic house where they had originally planned. It has been represented that they intend to come back to HPC and City Council for a recommendation on the Historic Lot. Split. HPC's previous recommendation has expired due to lack of action. Staff recommends that the setback variance be granted based on the fact that the proposed sideyard is similar to the neighborhood pattern. APPLICANT: Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. PARCEL In: 2735-121-08-002 ADDRESS: 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) I i CURRENT LAND USE: 11,707 sq. ft. lot containing a single-story residence, garage, and caretaker apartment. - SETBACK VARIANCES A 15 foot south sideyard setback is required to develop this project on an 11,707 square foot lot. The applicant requests a 7 foot variance. 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: Houses in the R-6 zone district are typically as close as 5 feet to the property line, therefore providing a 7 foot sideyard setback is in character with the neighborhood. This project involves demolishing portions of the existing house, relocating it 8.5 feet to the east and 7.5 feet to the south, re-using a non-historic carriage house on the site and building a new basement and addition. This house was remodeled in the past and has additions that have affected its integrity as a historic resource. Some of the exterior materials have been replaced. ...... There is an opportunity to retrieve the original character of the structure and to improve its '- . relationship to the other remaining historic buildings along Lake Avenue. That said, there are many aspects of this project that staff identified as being in conflict with the design guidelines at the time that HPC granted Conceptual approval. The board felt that the impacts of the addition, which has little separation from the historic house, and some other features, such as the large lightwells, were mitigated by the fact that the house sits about 9 feet above the street level. A warding a setback variance does allow the proj ect to sit close enough to the south lot line to create a 6,000 square foot lot on the north, and does capitalize on the opportunity to create space between the new and old houses. For that reason, the board may wish to grant the variances. However, this project allocates more of the floor area, and less of the lot area to the historic resource, which is not the pattern typically favored by HPC. As stated, the applicant has indicated that a lot split application will be filed again. If the lot split. is approved, the south sideyard variance will likely no longer be needed because the project was in conformance when subdivision of the property into two smaller lots was proposed. The applicant's other option is to ask HPC to approve the house being located so that it adheres to the 15 foot south sideyard setback requirement for an 11,707 square foot lot and either adjust the new lot line when they come in for review, or ask for a variance on the north side of the house. A third possibility is that they could forgo the lot split and build two detached houses in - ""..... 2 confOlmance with the setbacks and owned as condominiums. The issue is of importance now because the owners are in the building pennit process and wish to build in the location they had originally planned. Staff finds that a setback variance could be supported under criteria "a," but not criteria "b." There are no design guidelines that speak directly to the issue of the setback variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the setback review criteria "a" is met and recommends a 7' south sideyard setback variance for 640 N. Third Street. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #_, Series (lf2005. Exhibit: Resolution # _, Series of2005 A. Application " ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 640 N. THIRD STREET, LOTS 4,5, AND 6 (LESS THE SOUTHERLY 3.2 FEET OF LOT 6), B AM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND OWNSITE OF ASP , OLORADO ... RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES O~~05 ''',,- " " \ \ WHEREAS, the applic t, Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cuv.niffe Architects, has requested a setback varian for the property located at 640 N. Third Street, iLots 4, 5, and 6 (less , the southerly 3.2 feet of L 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the ity and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and PARCEL In: 2735-121-08-002 - '.....' /1J WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 the Municipal Code states tha 'no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlar d, altered, repaired, relocat or improved involving a, designated historic property or district til plans or sufficient i ormation have been submitted to the Community Development Direct and approved i accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the C must review the application, a staff analysis repOlt and the evidence presented at a he g to determine, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, that the variance: ...... ...."",. a. Is similar to the pattern, features and char er of the hi ric property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impac to the historic Sl 'ficance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining desi nated historic prope or historic district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her st report dated October 12, 2 5, performed an analysis of the application based on the stan ards, found that the review stan ds have been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regul meeting on October 12, 2005, the toric Preservation Commission considered the pplication, found the application was consiste with the review standards and approved the pplication by a vote of _ to _' NOW, THEREFORE, E IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby app oves a 7' south sideyard setback variance for the project proposed at 640 N. Third Street, Lot 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the Cit and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as represented to HPC on October 12, 2005. - ~e. - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 202 N. Monarch Street- Demolition ofa Shed, Public Hearing DATE: October 12, 2005 SUMMARY: The subject property is a 15,000 square foot lot which contains a large Victorian era home built circa 1886, and a shed, for which there is not a documented construction date. The applicant requests HPC approval to demolish the shed. The exiting shed is not the one that was on the property during the Victorian era, the "period of significance" for the house. No documentation has been found to suggest that the shed has historic importance itself, therefore staff finds that the review criteria are met and demolition is supported. APPLICANT: Blu Vic, LLC. PARCEL In: 2737-073-17-005. ADDRESS: 202 N. Monarch Street, Lots K-O, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: A portion of the property is zoned R-6 and a portion is zoned Mixed Use. DEMOLITION The applicant proposes to demolish a shed. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: I a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic ...... district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: The existing shed is not the original one constructed on this site evidenced by the fact that it does not match the location or dimensions of the outbuilding depicted on the 1904 Sanborne Fire Insurance Map. In addition, a photograph supplied in the application shows a different shed than exists on the site today. Today's shed was constructed sometime before 1969, because it is visible on a 1969 aerial photograph of the neighborhood that is available in the City Engineering Department. Staff contacted the son of the long time owners of this property. (The property was owned by the Elder family from 1917 until now.) According to this family member, the original shed was used for a chicken coop and was destroyed by a fire. Nels Elder built the shed that is proposed to be demolished using whatever building materials he could salvage. A construction date is not known, but is assumed to be sometime in the 1950's or 1960's. The shed that is proposed to be demolished was not constructed at 202 N. Monarch Street during the house's "period of significance," which is defined in the Design Guidelines as the time span ...... during which the property gained architectural, historical, or geographical importance. Frequently, this begins with its construction date and continues through the peak of early occupation. Building fabric and features that date from the period of significance typically contribute to the character of the structure. Staff finds that no documentation exists to support or demonstrate that this shed contributes to the historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance of any property. Its loss does not affect the integrity of any designated property and would be inconsequential to historic preservation needs in the area. In addition, the proposal meets the following design guideline, therefore staff supports demolition of this shed. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. o When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. o If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optionaL -- ~h,'" ' 2 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 Demolition approval for the shed located at 202 N. Monarch Street, Lots K-O, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as proposed. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #_, Series of 2005, approving demolition of a shed at 202 N. Monarch Street." Exhibits: A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. 1904 Sanborne Fire Insurance Map of 202 N. Monarch Street C. Application Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 202 N. Monarch Street, Shed Demolition 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. o When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. o If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. " ~ RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF A SHED LOCATED AT 202 N. MONARCH STREET, LOTS K-O, BLOCK 78, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO ---------.. RESOLU)1O"NNO. , SERlE~ 2005 // - ---_\ / PARCEL In: 2737-073-17-005 ...... -,. WHEREAS, the appli t, Blu Vie, LLC, represented by Stan lauson Associates, Inc., has requested Demolition or a shed located at 202 N. Monarch Street Lots K-O, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen, olorado; and WHEREAS, Sectio 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code sta s that "no building or structure shall be erected, co structed, enlarged, altered, repaired, r located or improved involving a designated historic p perty or district until plans or suffici nt information have been submitted to the Community velopment Director and approve in accordance with the procedures established for their rev w;" and ~ city to be an imminent hazard to public safety -, and the owner/applicant is una]) to mak the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structur s nd despite evidence of tile owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be ed to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to su ort demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engin ring or c mg to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of that the application meets anyone of the WHEREAS, in order to a horize a demolition, accor designated historic propertie it must be demonstrat following criteria: Additionall for a a. The structure does not contri ute to the significance 0 e parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, s ucture or object would not adver ly affect the integrity of the historic district or it historic, architectural or aesthetic re tionship to adjacent designated properties an c. Demolition of the struc e will be inconsequential to the historic pr ervation needs I of the area; and i I WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated October 12,2005, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and -,