The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19940713.. AGENDA C. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE July 13, 1994 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITY MEETING ROOM SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Committee and Staff Comments Approval of May 18, 1994 minutes II. Public Comments III. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. 935 E. Hyman Avenue, U.S.L.M., Ute No. 4- Worksession IV. NEW BUSINESS /0 1 ' 5:45 A. 709 W. Main Street- Landmark Designation Re,Â·y.0 , CÂ·Â·â‚¬ 5 ,(u..e..,u.2 , 5:55 B. Collins Block- Minor ke~ 3, Al,11-> 1 to 9 <'r- , P G 0 4 6:20 C. 303 E. Main Street, Conceptual (Public hearing continued from June 22) 965.3/94 6:50 D. Main Street sidewalks- Discussion item 7:00 V. Project Monitoring 7:10 VI. ADJOURN Lie i'Sk/.)6 <Ac 24 6 /1 ~L 11 Zt CCIN. 7 6,-lit *.<_, f, 1.lu,<b O 1 ki A Â£:1] R e -0 F '- 10 0 5. 4 I C/ HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Project/Committee Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 617 W. Main 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) Highway Entrance Design Committee Donnelley Erdman The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley Wheeler-Stallard House 624 E. Hopkins 304 E. Hopkins 234 W. Francis 204 S. Mill - Collins Block 220 W. Main - European Flower Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Museum (alt. ) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) City Shop - 1080 Power Plant Road 506 E. Main - elevator Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 205 S. Mill Larry Yaw 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) 232 E. Hallam ACES City Shop 1080 Power Plant Road St. Mary's Church windows Roger Moyer CCLC Liaison 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 409 E. Hopkins 303 E. Main 311 W. North Farfalla lights outside 210 Lake Avenue (alternate) Marolt Museum Karen Day Rubey Transit Center 334 W. Hallam (alternate) Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North 304 E. Hopkins 121 S. Galena Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 132 W. Main 520 E. Cooper Unit 406 715 W. Smuggler Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Tom Williams 130 S. Galena - City Hall 300 W. Main - fence McDonalds Scott Samborski 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 dll 4, R MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 935 E. Hyman, U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4- Worksession Date: July 13, 1994 PREVIOUS ACTIONS: Discussions on Landmark Designation of U.S.L.M., Ute No. 4 were initiated in May 1993 when, through the Sund lot split application, the Planning Office was informed of the existence of a potential historic resource and the applicant's intent to demolish it. Staff reported the situation to the Historic Preservation Committee at their next regular meeting on June 9, 1993 and the Board made a motion directing the Preservation Officer to begin research on the historic significance of this monument. After sufficient information had been gathered on the background of this marker, the City initiated the landmark designation process and on July 28, 1993, HPC held a public meeting. The Committee unanimously found that Ute No. 4 has sufficient historic significance to be declared an Aspen Landmark, but continued the public hearing twice to allow the applicant an opportunity to evaluate the impacts of preserving monument and to complete conceptual development plans, as HPC would review the project. By working with the applicant rather than landmarking without his consent, Staff and HPC intended to attempt to accommodate the proposed development and eliminate any potential hardship which might be caused by the designation, while still preserving the public view of Ute No. 4. With the applicant's consent, the landmark designation proceeded to the Planning and Zoning Commission and was approved on September 7, 1993. On September 13, the date when Council was to hear first reading of the landmark Ordinance, Planning Staff was informed that the initial offer to purchase the land had fallen through and that a new person had immediately stepped forward and bought the property. The new owner was aware of the pending historic designation when 2 he purchased the property and did not express opposition to A landmark designation. However, he did request that the process be postponed until he finished other projects and could be "brought UP to speed" on the benefits and implications of landmark designation. SUMMARY: At this time, the property owner wishes to move ahead on this project. A worksession has been scheduled so that HPC can review the initial development concept, express any immediate concerns and discuss the potential "incentives" which may be granted when a development application is filed. (A description of the dimensional variations HPC has the ability to grant is attached.) The applicant is seeking some assurance that the HPC incentives r will mitigate for the impacts of preserving the monument and, if satisfied, will presumably agree to landmark designation. However, until such time that the designation is complete and a formal application for conceptual review is filed, HPC can state what incentives they believe would be appropriate, but is not bound to any agreement. It is hoped that this meeting will result in a level of confidence for the applicant. The City is able to proceed with the designation without owner consent, but this is of course not the solution that staff prefers. The attached plan represents the general concept for development adjacent to the rock, although the design is by no means finalized. The applicant has indicated that the incentives which will likely be requested are a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, a sideyard setback variance (on the east lot line) and a one space parking variance. Staff has informed the architect that, given the recent discussions on reducing building size (or at least perceived building size) these bonuses may be somewhat contradictory to HPC's goals. Nonetheless, the Board should thoroughly discuss the merits of awarding these bonuses. L Financial Incentives $2,000 "Designation Grants" are available to residential property owners from the City of Aspen, without condition. We recommend the grant be used for some form of maintenance. $10,900 zero interest "minimum maintenance" loans are available from the City to historic property owners who indicate financial need. These one-time loans are repaid at time of transfer-of-title or at the,end of ten years, whichever comes first. The intention of the Minimum Maintenance Inan Program is to reduce the incidence of "demolition by neglect". Waiver. of Park Dedication Fees are allowed by City Council, which begin at $1300 for residential projects, and are calculated Â¤r square feet for commercial projects. 20% State Rehabilitation Income Tax Credits are availabld for Landmarks 50 years old or older. Modest application fees are changed to process these applications. 20% Federal Income Tax Credits are available for income producing properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Competitive *State Historical Fund" preservation grants will be available after July, 1992. Processing fees are waived for Landmark Designations. Small flat- rate fees are charged for other preservation project reviews. Creative Zoning - Residential Dimensional variations are allowed for projects where the HPC has found that the variation is more compatible in character to the historic resource than would be according to underlying dimensional req~iirements. These consist of: o Side, rear and front yard setbacks o Minimum required distance between buildings o Maximum floor area may be exceeded up to 500 sq. ft. o Site coverage up to 5 % and height variations for "Cottage Infill" (affordable housing) projects Two detached single family dwelling units are allowed on smaller parcels than permitted by zoning in some residential zone districts Parking reductions are permitted on sites unable to contain the required number of on-site parking spaces required by underlying zoning. Special uses such as Bed and Breakfasts and Boarding Houses are allowed in residential Landmarks in zone districts. ( 91 '/IF 1 4-01 ., L I ' # Dpi. .4 .' ' .A -- 4 1 , r 4~...14/.1219 CL. 'T'7:7~1 ' ~ 9,14 4- L 0 - r I k _1 -f Â» Av i r - _ _Mot._._ C. 91 4 1 '0719Â¤Xi 'Tl<lrl ~ 1- H LL , 1 14 )1\ /L,E<\ 2 1 11 1. 1 11 1 3,11-10 A =21 3-1 pro 1 1,4 -N / NX / r I _-.L 019 Â· 4 Â·540. 11011 ~.1-,6 111 ' 01.~ 4 t A , " t.1-4/ 1 -rgr' 47'Plt 11,1 4\1 0 .,15Â»4Â«87 03 15,Â«7JVL:7 ll-##- P '10; L i 1-=Â« ul,a,Â«an 6 Â·Â· j Â«ruÂ·g, 1.43 16 Â»814Â·V 1 1../.11241-VI J 4 // 1-311Â« Â« 6 j/Lf-1/ U 02Â£9'-O" 41 Â·9,1 n.r n A-Â¥S +Mviff, G r=Vacy-61 x 93.-In--4 1**,3 211,47~-111:, ' 1 4- 01 3 -1-el f, Â·Â· * 3. I W â€¢ 0 '/ iLL--1 -1--7 G - -- - - 1.3 L U - I. 3-- 1-0-URl 9-0 1 LJT U-0-Li P / 35 9/--9 1/ 9 \forsy l f -4 - 611 C[E- 95) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 709 W. Main Street, Landmark designation DATE: July 13, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation of the property at 709 W. Main Street. There are three structures on the site, the Stitzer House, built in 1886 and two livestock sheds constructed sometime before 1904. This site lies within the Main Street Historic District. b APPLICANT: Robert Weien, owner. LOCATION: 709 W. Main Street, Lot G, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearings), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at --- second reading. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The Stitzer house is a simple Victorian miner's cottage with some alterations. The original house had at least two rear additions built before 1904, which are still mostly intact. A small rear addition with 1 '-'-,r-m~memÂ·Â·u,- a porch apparantly has been demolished. The house also originally had a shed roofed front porch which ran the length of the building and has since been removed. A corrugated metal roof was added and the house was stuccoed. Some of the traditional Victorian features retained by this house are the gable roof form, tall double hung windows with decorative lintels and double arched lites in the front door. C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The architect or builder is unknown. E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The house is one of only a few historic residences on Main Street which remains relatively unaltered and still functions solely as a residence. F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. t Response: This site is representative of the modest scale, style and character of homes constructed during the mining era, the community's primary period of historic significance. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation of Lot G, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Additional Comments: 2 0- 1--3 lot 5 0 5 T It 1,+ L 9 04- ( 9>all 66#u/l Â£ CAA,Sk F Af#f l- L.f----- lok slid l 191- , -f- ~or -707 u.-1, t-1- &1 99Â©: '12-4>25:-- X ..3 7.t : 741 4.- 1 * ... ~ +*44.70 #.d~ -2-L.-".-T.--1-11 -9 4 . :f 4.3,16.* /F'Me'll./9.Flill/"49/" . i:-2/J- - / 9 .... . U I t - E.- -- 31 ./ 1> /1 1 .I 14: - - 7 - *21111 Â·Q q --- 4 .1 1 I 4 1 I. U 4 4. 1 ..... I .>11.j F .*: 1 5. 9 1 5 . f 1 0 , A . I I . ew 11 I , C.1 1.. d. 1-" ..6 -'I.Il.- -- - - -. 9.z: cfi I . = I - 1 . - -ir; 1619/7/*M~-i~â„¢ - *- 1.- .f' 2 ' *.'..#./ ./.- 6,~ i. 1Â£ O MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 204 S. Mill Street, Collins Block- Minor Development Date: July 13, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to add two skylights to the roof of the Collins Block. The Collins Block is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is located in the Commercial Core Historic District and is an Aspen Landmark. APPLICANT: Harley Baldwin, represented by Peter Kuntz. 4 LOCATION: 204 S. Mill Street, Lots A and B, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The Collins Block sits in the heart of the Commercial Core Historic District and is one of the most significant historic structures in Aspen. In 1989, HPC reviewed Phase II of the Collins Block project, which entailed the addition of a third floor loft space. A number of meetings where held and a great deal of discussion focused on lowering the height of the loft and totally minimizing it's visibility. The loft was allowed to project 14" above the parapet wall and no development was to occur any higher. In 1992, a number of skylights were proposed to be constructed on top of the loft (see attached roof plan). The skylights were primarily needed to bring light into spaces which had no access to exterior walls. Some of the skylights which were approved in 1992 have apparently not been built. One of the skylights which is shown as "proposed" was previously approved and sits above the eastern master bedroom. The other two skylights are over the dining room and bath. e Staff proposes that these new skylights be approved in ' lieu of the three which have not been constructed. The master bath and master bedroom skylights, which sit on top of the loft must have the lowest profile possible and should match the existing skylights. The rounded skylight proposed above the dining room may not exceed the height of the parapet wall. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: From previous site line studies, elements which are 14" or lower will be well hidden below the parapet wall and elements which are setback from the edge of the building may be a little taller and still be "invisible." Staff finds that this development will not be visible from the street and therefore will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic 0 structures located on the parcel proposed for development t i or on adjacent parcels. Response: If the proposed skylights are constructed in lieu of the three which were previously approved, there will not be an additional impact on the cultural value of this resource. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The roof has been reconstructed, so there will not be an impact on the architectural integrity of the structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the minor development application for 204 S. Mill Street, with the conditions that the proposed skylights replace those that were previously approved but not constructed, the dining room light may not exceed the height of the parapet wall and the bathroom and master bedroom lights must be as low in profile as possible. The proposed skylights should match the existing ones. Additional Comments: 73- 9.-31"I f-Up LÂ¢ 1,76 ~fuL___j.Â«=-0....i~ t.9,4.:.0 - -: -Â·I *g~#&-Flip.Tzir11~.4 cu â€¢Ve*41.4--\ V j 1 . - '-/ A 04- /* 11*# 11 ' .lk r-r- CA)*'~/\,4.1 I. / v-ros,6.9 L=:Ut 7 \N $ / Xe-t,1-- *14T â€¢*16~1.41*T tr==11 -evâ€¢leÂ¢ll#or/_ 7 1*HAIN J . r-r-lz:t- LL.L i NEW 01*wl Z Â» .Irrl-lai*1 16 1"1 1 1 14Â¥ 4)- 7 +01#2Â·.1 LÂ·Â·1'Â· lillitn--7., !11~ 1110&=2-- -1 / 1. .-Il j.-1.- /1./ I '-I 1, 4- - -- :,=pr r'+A + HAV Â·Glerl-k:2~1+T L+Prou 7 A H Â«r aiwed 4/ 20 -72- YER & ASSOCIATES debl,1 Hi ei.036 DETAIL HE*021:110#+ SHEET ARCHITECTS 4Â»1:DMIHIUHS SCALE ~. 11-0 11 NO. 415 E. Hyman Ave. #205 DATE - 2Â· 8- 91 - 5 I< Aspen, Colorado 81611 004 + M I U,â‚¬0 DRAWN BY - g. D.P. ~ 303/925-7149 Ah FE H j co B 14.1 1 REVISIONS Ow i 6 0 /64ln~ 1 7 9 V Â»9 - , . I Vr #- 7'+Â·'-I t _ I-' ' I.'/ I 4, . ; .-I i: 1 t ... ..4-. . . 1 - - 9:4~;It,- j 11 1, . . 1 ... 4./i'*''' /~.*.tr.ip*&~44*/PATT~F-,.M /&~Armi= ' 1 / 4 .â‚¬ , e j ~'Â·!.1:Â· ~ '.Â· ,'- L Â·NÂ·-IÂ·';f -'ti <24'Q*#71 i .Â·i ..,-.'.,-0 .\ 0 / . 'Vt.... . , I. '. . / Â· . p. I / f Â· .- 4. Ji~* -w-- : .p: A . c" v. 0.- ,-- : / 21 //'- Â· Vt-'' 'P Â· - ' , I . I 0/14 \L . r .3 - a,Â·,'.0Â£-Â·4'.1-'Â·tâ€¢,1-'lt..Â·â€ž-. 4.0~ -100*M520*900$00000'Â»Â®4000090*%*A: -.Â·.........-â€ž-,fl~,5 ,. â‚¬rf.;*AS ..04'Fly'-=i f..1.431,- f:J-rAN'friÂ·-M-~ 7.:-'-2 1., -3.-1 * -P<.1. 14 . 31 1 2 .~ a. . I, - - . Â· e 1Â·. Â· 4/*LI I.,f~,Z.Trrili.izi,ki , i#liTTT T.rrt , -... 1- .â„¢lfittf'll}11'~Init}111}111 . I n -'11#1<111#1111#}###llMIFIN#(flifIC#111*lf#/Elilli#lit. ... 1 - ... , 4. 1 ..1 . -- . /, \\ ..1 ...7 /0 -N. e - N.. 0-Â»- i i . ... 11 . il 1 1 --",en:7 Z 5-- -~:p#,a,/,tiTiT/â€¢:uilt/144?:,fitul' 1 ~. . C U 7 . 2. 3 f : , a It ~ :~ fl Â· Â· 1 - -- . 6 I . 1 . - - , 4 \ ... F . r. - 4 V , A K . i .0 -9 -,n . 9 - 1 1 .. t fÂ·-1 . ' d Â£ I '' | i' tÂ·X . > ,- 1 .1 ,? 0 -, 1 9 37->% 3 -1 ./ I . 1 .1 .. . 0 rn ' -%; - 1 - 1* . 4 1 34 - . . 4 Â· - i. . Â·i-Il- '/&-).' .' I.'.. ....Â·.I . , % 1 cÂ·L , .- Â· â€¢,1 , ~.,~ :'t.Â·. N ,- .- n: Â·~- Â·Â· Â£ 2.Â·~.~4Â·-' ., k . - ....5. rit,6.....1?ioffiff..413*-9367=32rtar<EK =LAI-trÂ»11:~Alw+,i V74- 7 ;4*ABLc.;.,itt ...=*i _--~jo~ 7.12/1/VWLN~#~~VhYM#AX#944 , 4/ 1 '. 'L , . 2 1 1 1 1 - 1 - * il'l 2. 0 - X. , 1- a ... - r I I , I , -. . <h rip#**Ffyiplf{Lit '- %30 J i.-4- '.-/.1- 0- Â·Â·Â·!'Â·1~ d,N i.,. ~ . .. - 1 - ... , 7" . 1 7.-:.,4 .7 A 1.0,52.4.- 4 22-147 +Gu + - ... 5 5 -Â· ~"m{Ilitllili~lltim*mummmwumubtjllhli#~4umilm#mmwmumti~- -- r . ..2 P /7 1 =1 a. , - .-0.-/ . ~. 1 .~-0-f .- 4.11 -- I. Â¢ J E 2 =he- 1 MON#~12__96% UOH , 1 1Â£ 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee I From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 303 E. Main Street, Conceptual Development- Public hearing, Continued from June 22, 1994. Date: July 13, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Conceptual development approval to construct an addition along the east side and to the rear of the existing historic house, to build lightwells and to relocate the existing outbuilding. This house, the Thomas Hynes house, was built in 1885 and is almost completely unaltered. The rear addition to the building is thought to have been constructed very soon after 1885. The outbuilding was constructed sometime before 1893. This site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is an Aspen Landmark. HPC began review of this project on April 20, and tabled the Â£ application twice to allow the applicant time for restudy. 1. / Overall, the Committee has seemed to be in favor of some aspects ' of the addition, but requested restudy and more information on the form on the addition, the connection/differentiation between old and new, whether or not brick was to be used on the addition, details on the lightwells, a site plan and landscape plan and some justification for why the house and outbuilding were to be moved. A number of issues have been resolved. The historic house is no longer proposed to be moved. An exterior staircase which was to be located on the west side of the building along with a new shed -- roof attached to the existing porch have been eliminated. A lightwell is no longer proposed directly in front of the historic house. APPLICANT: Niklaus Kuhn, owner, represented by Roget Kuhn and Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 303 E. Main Street, Lot A and a portion of Lot B, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please see the attached information, provided by the applicant. L Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on , 1 the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: This site lies within the Commercial Core and is therefore zoned CC. In this zone district, there are no building setbacks required and the height limit is 40 feet. Typically, additions to a historic structure are placed to the rear of the parcel to minimize visibility. In the case of a corner lot, it is more difficult to conceal new mass in this way. Staff is in favor of the addition as proposed along the east wall and the minimalistic physical connection which is created between the new and old buildings. Because the historic house is not to be moved, there has been a change in the design of the addition along the east. Staff finds that this design is appropriate because it is compatible with the historic structure, the mass is set back sufficiently from the front of the existing structure and the roof form attempts to contain water drainage on the property and direct it away from the neighboring building. Most of the new square footage is placed in the tower structure. Staff has had very serious concerns about the impact of the tower, especially the height and block- like nature of it, on the historic resources. Several renditions of the tower are included in this packet. Tower #1 is the first tower that was presented to the committee. Staff is finding more favor for this design and the architect has indicated that it would be possible to lower the ridge at least a couple of feet. This design shows about three feet of mass cut out at the corners which would seem to decrease the bulk of the tower somewhat. In addition, a strong line is created just below the third floor balcony which seems to draw the eye down a bit. Tower #2 was presented in May. Staff finds that the hip roof form does not relate as well to the rest of the project as does a gable form. However, there is a break in the wall at 22 feet, which is topped off with a transparent (glass) area and a roof which has very little bulk and can have a very flat slope. This solution offers the biggest decrease in height (could be as low as about 28') but again is a big departure from the rest of the existing forms. Tower #3 was presented at the last meeting and is still the proposed design. It is possible to lower this ridge height approximately 2' (bringing it to 34'). There is little break in the wall plane for that entire height. At this time, Staff finds that Tower #1, with at least a two foot reduction in height is probably the best solution proposed. Tower #2 has a lot of positive elements as well. Tower #3 is very compatible with the historic structure but does not provide a lot of relief in terms of bulk. The largest lightwell has been relocated to the south courtyard. Staff finds this location is appropriate. Additional lightwells are still proposed in front of the addition (north) and on the west side of the historic structure. Staff does not object to the north lightwell, but would prefer to maintain a green area along the west side of the building. HPC should discuss whether grates or railings would be have less of a visual impact on the site. y Staff still prefers that the "outdoor" parking space be eliminated and the outbuilding kept in its original orientation (gable end to the street) when it is moved forward. Rotating the shed changes its relationship to the street and exposes the skylights (which were not meant to be visible to the public). In addition, it places roof drainage directly onto the sidewalk. The applicant has asked for a waiver of two parking spaces, with the intention of using the bottom floor of the tower as storage and maybe for parking in the future. Three spaces are required, and the "outdoor" space would serve as one legal space. Staff has recommended to the applicant that the two spaces in the tower be legal spaces and that HPC only waive the one outside space, due to the upcoming GMQS exemption review by P&Z and their recent discomfort with HPC parking waivers. The applicant has indicated however that they only want one legal space on the site and that they will take their chances. As we are all aware, this site is listed on the National Register, and it is HPC's job to make sure that designation is not jeopardized. While Staff finds the design of the new addition is excellent, it represents a very substantial change to this resource. This house sits on a prominent corner and the new addition will be very visible. The applicant has made a sacrifice by proposing an FAR (4,336 sq. ft.) which is only about 64% of what is permitted, but that does not necessarily make the change easier to swallow, as the mass on the site nearly triples. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This house is one of a group of three Victorian residences along Main Street, and lies in the vicinity of a large number of historic structures. The proposal before HPC illustrates not what is typical of this neighborhood, but rather their future potential for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: While staff is not opposed to the design as presented, the possibility exists that the house could be de-listed from the National Register if alterations to the structure compromise its historic significance. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The architectural integrity of this structure will not be greatly impacted, because the new addition , will only attach to the historic house along the roof. The west wall of the addition will abut the historic house, and no wall openings are planned at this time. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: For the review on June 22, Staff indicated that conceptual approval would be recommended to HPC with the resolution of the following issues: 1) The applicant shall return to the flat roof/deck option on the east addition. 2) The basement stairway shall be located inside the existing structure. 3) The shed roof on the west side of the porch shall be eliminated. 4) Lightwells with flat grates may be created in the , courtyard area on the south side Of the existing building, but the area along the Main Street and Monarch ' Street sidewalks shall be green space. 5) The applicant shall study all options for altering the tower including reworking parking, relocating or eliminating some of the living or storage space in the tower or even placing the first floor of the tower slightly below grade (this would result in a change in floor heights between the east side addition and the tower.) 6) The applicant shall study keeping the outbuilding in its gable-end-to-the street orientation. At this time, Staff finds that point number one has been resolved satisfactorily through a new design and that points 2 and 3 have been accomplished. Under point 4, the largest lightwell has been relocated to the south courtyard. Lightwells are still proposed on j the north side of the new addition (previously the light well was placed in front of the historic structure) and along the west side of the building. Staff still prefers that the western lightwell be eliminated, but is willing to compromise as it has been reduced in size. Flat grates over the lightwell might still be preferable to a fence. In regard to point 5, a number of alternatives for the , design of the tower and ways to lower it have been included in this packet. Staff finds that an appropriate solution can be chosen from these studies. Finally, under point 6, Staff is still in support of keeping the outbuilding in its existing orientation (resulting in the elimination of a proposed parking space. With the solution of points 4, 5 and 6 as recommended above, Staff recommends Conceptual approval be granted for this project. Additional Comments: - + i- 9 -4 , 1 Ar , r 4, 1 J ., 4. ' ' , ' 'f. UQ-- Â· 49% ft .â€¢Â·A 'N, . , .,P 4. 1 .F ... ;,i . , -0 F.1/ 4 , , f A.* 73 . 1 ...1,/Â·. â€¢ 4 - *01 '' I . K A 6 \1 Â¥ , 7 . I . 2. ..~ It. I i *d . , 1 , 1 7 . . 91 1 . - , 13 1 ..24 \" -9 1\1 1\ 4 1,4 A I 9 -- li / /1 11 ita I j Mlit' 1 1 If , Ill / 1 1 J -h ./\ . 1 I E 12 i 11 --4- rt, 4 *li/4..9/47 21 4\ ~' 1 - :A. 7 . IA 11 \ |-r 4 ' 1 Fit; i,(~4 -'~ 2% i~g \ 1-p 11 : a ?Ag ': T LA -IN , 19 2.~ Â·r 1.9..1 v.r,: f.4 , 12= '., 7/\ i 3~3 \ + /4- <4 11 - i- r . 2 : , 80; ~' I 1 4 1 '-- -4.-------AL---- 1 PL -1,1 . .. '11 . Â· r: . U 3 . 7 , 2. 4 1 / ttil eÂ» C l CE JN '9 |' r f 11 -4. il (4 1.W\ . - 4- 1 . 1 P . 1 1 1 ti 1 NIVP\I ISVE[ 808/NHAN 1â‚¬Eld ' 3- (46'L, L 03Â»1/\,3 1449 3,58) 04'Â» i Â· 17--:f - --â€¢â€¢ Ti 111-1 11*tl-1-Tr-Z~TfAII It l' it 1 i ~t-ri 1 F ini li T E- 3-Blja==21'Â¢ff ~ _fip~Â· 41 4 1 11 . '*6=91 . 'Al /7 1Â»~3 1 4.- --- , ']t;L Il t <l'l| Fit -37 0-9 - 84 i Il 1 4 11 f 1111 I 1 \ , 41.- 2 - 1 k> 1 6. '94211 \\\11 1 + 4. ..il 1 - '11, . 1 0 -Â·7- 1, 4 $ I , 11 --r 1 1 11:1 -4 442 4 ->33- 114 6 --712 La_LA Â·Â· r j A 6 2-].Â»'f' 1 .-' 11111111111111 NIVW ELSÂ¥3 COE/NHAN A32/j)-7 7-1-40/1_*49 - ?11-210 r, 1- / I 112 1 j #12 17'f~ i 1 -1nn~ 3=20 -4 11141 21-1. 1-- -- 4 Â· ----- - --- , , 11. Â· I . . 1 i -ter ---------- 1 r - -,'21 1 : lunlge~ I *dit~, -d~%, .2 11 I . .... /!lit-lit~ -ifti ~I!.i:=:i- :ide *MA-i:-~=i . . 1 ~1 !111 11:~ .11~~P=ZE~Ir=====r 1/1 . - m==:mil :1" i':13 Fc======11 11~-b :11 1 A 1111 ;,1 9 2 3.1 4 11 1. - '11 . 1 11!111111!11,11111!11 111-lilli Il l'il lit'111 1 1 11 11: z 11.1 . - - , :. 11 1111- i'i Â· ''U- - , < $ lu..__~ ' ---'--~i=:.=:2~ CE :111111[ 111:11'llilit,111 Ii;it:ti!i . 1 1 r--1 ~_ ~ ! . 1 - MONARCH-STREET ELEVATION (WEST) 4,4 @BU'90 1,-1,519 11 ! Il 1 KUHN/303 EAST MAIN-~___ , U - 12 1 A ~\ 0/00\ :*Im--2=~ / 1 tz--= - - 1Â¥f le i 6============th. /. 0.- 7--r,=-X====T.=====~ 1 / 1 . I ---411 11 /1. , .t Â«1_1-11Â»~ REal , dr===1 - \ k================1=1====1- i- $ 1-3 ,-' 44 i - ,-Â·A9:Zil=.T. 7 -I'==.0--I.- --Cm-'---Il~*ti--I'~~-7-1--9-I-'.*--~Il-~-+ - 5551 4.-9.-27 tr~~ttlu~i~r---Fr~~~* i i il ' 1 1 1;:i 1 1 1 E N ' / ~341 r -....rtl F __.-111 11 r---1, a -71 P-7/p__10--p'L_lit:7- 1 Ill. - 1 (f =.== Ir--11 I - iii lii i ' ?;1 1 -- 11 1, : /'11 -:i Ii,i r=rl ,-1 in ' - Ikill -- 2 11 -- 1 1.11 - i ihi 1 1-- ~ Â·mmt 1 1 ~--4 -I-/- Wil][1-t=-~-~r-- Iti lili; - I-----Il - -1 [r 1 1 , 4 li 1 'wip j.#l'.<**11.1 I fli?' li li 1 ~ dll ' 4119.11 3 r 1 1.1 1 / 11 i i 11 11,1 i : 1, i 'lil 1 Ilitillo I 4 11 illil ili : 1 1 tji)),-,:,<1li ii d iildrfflvisj' I il 11" 1!!11 i' 1,!H' 11.11 - Vt,#*0r 40,=i\+ 95253_ JEOfffatte*3~93-1= ( FEV I 46,0 1,-7,94~ -/5 ------- - L .KUHN/303 EAST MAIN O/ 4 8 IG -- - 4 fABT -- , I 1 -%7-3\ 1 / A 14. .044 : h 46- 6=4//, 7-3- E-1[1 [t - --RIf I i 11 1 11 ' 1 1 ; 11 lk--4 -~- ~ 16:4 ~ ! 1--7 4 - V.- : ~ I; ' 11 11. : -:~t :..ill 1 ;:i -3 0\ ... - .-1 42 Â·phi 1 7.- :- - 0 Â» 81 :.Â· ., . #/1 44 3- --#---- -- i :i 1 1~ !1 1 Â«=Cl'.==0 1 : 11 - , .i 4 '~-Â· i 1, , 11 1 i! 11 11 1 1. 1 i:1 100 1.11 '1 Iii '14 i iii! IiI f i , hi! 1, 1:: hlii, 11! ' . 11']ii i ulili i i L- 2 :1 I it i'.1 ji 1 1 1 1 , ti ; .'ll i . i 1.lil -r--qll- 1 !:Ill ' MONARCH STREET ELEVATION (WEST) , i . 1 , </. 9 f l - 67 t 4 /i --4-0 , /4 Vi 1. '- - 2= -. 1 - 1 , - 11 ',1,/ i 14! -0\ 1, f-[ 19:5* 1 - \\ - t:'.Ali, 't (b h :"Â·,:liti--*-It-1,Â·ii:,Â·-0-11' i,..4 - -- . 2 :11[1 ivt}!!i 1 - -Lk- 61 .. . . . ' - . . . . i ' â€¢ L 1 1 â€¢:i 1,1 I Leel: I 1 . i i 1 .- I V I:!11224'41'r. 1 --- : L,@C.2.F.'A.k 11 - 39 - 1 - :i ! . lili f 3 i! i r I 1!1 0 --1 - ;9: |1 11[Ii 111-111'll'll'L,u'll lh~ ---- .lili ~ 11 : - 1 . â‚¬:1*1 lp~ 614'>F 91/ELL MONARCH STMEET ELEVATION (WEST) 5-1 6-94 41}4 F~ 4 Z .... t .1 Al , ___ fi ~i L H *9.. - ,=4 0 4111:* 1- -27-JaZZ.Z-_22-23 -=LIZ_1 ---4~. AiNg - -- -------7-----2 ----- ---- .- /~20497==Ile==EfiEFEEE=====~=un~=r==== -- - --- AL z.._1_. -zi__u~zzlil -- -- - --- - - a ---- --2.-7- U- --.- ' f==1 1 1 -,11. il ! Ill - 1 4== A ! r, -22===~ . Â·L 4 1 111 i - i 111.11 -0 - Il !11 1 - :T li=-1 111 U===Ij! ~1*====z@, -11 11 . i 'll - , , A-r 1 - 1 1 UPi 1 1 i . 1 -- 1 - MONARCH STREET ELEVATION (WEST) . : i - , 'bk:,0 (%019 0 1.-1,99 1 11 KUHN/303 EAST MAIN~__ ~*+ 1 - \ O(4-Â£-,v-U -2.-- ~0 '< ~1 0 -.RAC