HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19930310•. f Pla# AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MARCH 10, 1993 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM CITY HALL 5:00 I. Roll call II. Committee and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Continued Public Hearing - Conceptual Development 210 Lake Avenue Attached is Roxanne's memo from last meeting for your background information 0- Wit.~~1> ·0~L<Mk.'17 V. NEW BUSINESS NONE 5:30 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring B. Sub-Committee Reports C. Neighborhood Character Guidelines 6:00 VII. ADJOURN f + Gf ; P 14 /1 2 C (~f c B 1 € Li- r 21 2 0 + l + L D-1- 1- 4% 1~2 £.3,- ,' c (41 Li, 9 6/,Lfc 'L-->00-) 91·<.._~..~
HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Prolect/Committee Bill Poss 413 E. Hyman County Courthouse Highway Entrance Design Committee Character Committee-AACP 601 W. Hallam (app. liaison) HP Element-Community Plan Aspen Historic Trust-Board Member 534 E. Hyman (P.C. Bank) CCLC Liaison 214 W. Bleeker St. Mary's Church 533 E. Main PPRG 715 W. Smuggler Ann Miller 700 W. Francis Donnelly Erdman 501 E. Cooper (Independence) 210 S. Galena (Elk's) The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley 620 W. Hallam Wheeler-Stallard House 700 W. Francis 624 E. Hopkins Leslie Holst 215 W. Hallam 212 Lake Ave. 210 Lake Ave. Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 17 Queen St. 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum HP Element-Community Plan Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 414, 401, 413 E. Cooper Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 824 E. Cooper 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.)
204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) Roger Moyer Holden-Marolt (alternate) CCLC Liaison 214 W. Bleeker 215 W. Hallam 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 302 E. Hopkins - Beaumont House 409 E. Hopkins 520 E. Cooper (storefront remodel 303 E. Main 311 W. North Karen Day 716 W. Francis (alternate) Rubey Transit Center 334 W. Hallam (alternate) Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) Linda Smisek 316 E. Hopkins (salon - La Cacina) 134 E. Bleeker
' To: The Aspen City Council. From: Scott and Caroline McDonald Date: March 8, 1993 Subject: #1 Creation of a hierarchy of commercial uses . #2 Revision of 0-Zone conditional uses. #1 Today there does not exist a hierarchy of uses , for example restaurant use requires more parking and employees than does retail and so Is a higher use. If an owner of a historical property wishes to change use of his property without development he presently must go before P&Z even if the proposed use is equal to or less than before. The fundamental purpose of P&Z Is to be a mechanism by which the Impact of a development on the community may be assessed by ordinance. Based on this assessment P& Z Is to determine what requirements by ordinance are needed by the developer for the specific use. If a business Is proposing a use change equal to or less than the original granted use and Is not proposing development which would add to the properties use load that business should not be penalized by government and required to go before P&Z again. We are requesting City Council for a listed hierarchy of uses to facilitate business use change without P&Z Involvement. #2 The fundamental purpose of granting conditional uses to historical designated properties Is an Impetus to the preservation of those properties and the Historical character of the town. Without conditional uses many Historic properties would disappear due to the inherent high maintenance, Inefficient use of area and low Investment return. In the past decade the business profile of Aspen has changed drastically. Chain stores have moved In and high end merchandise and T-shirt shops have displaced local businesses and
general retail. Commercial Core business must pay their rent from $80 to $200 per ft. and so their trade mostly caters to the tourist, not the aspen resident. Consistent wRh the new Community's Plan Design Quality and Historic Preservation recommendations we are requesting City Council to revise the current conditional uses listing Incorporating general retail for historic structures In the O - Zone. Today's conditional use listing for Main St. Includes mortuary and day care centers as acceptable, clearly not in tune with the present community needs and Is limited in scope. The conditional use listing should be general In what is acceptable and specific In what Is unacceptable such as; porno shops, fast food franchises and T-shirt shops , and so giving some latitude for business choices. Reguards, 6 c,Per B e /23 \1/ 41/26 -of 0-60;4
MEMORANDUM To: Historic Preservation Committee From: Kim Johnson, Planning Date: March 10, 1993 RE: 210 Lake Avenue - Continued public hearing for Conceptual Review Summary: This item was tabled on February 24, 1993 due to a notification error regarding the request for a variance to the side year setback. The public notice has since been accomplished. The project architect, Doug Graybeal, has also submitted drawings showing revisions made since the February 24 meeting. Staff Comments: Please remember to bring Roxanne's February 24 memo and the original application packet to the continued public hearing as it contains the project's background information. Although Roxanne recommended against approval, it appears that HPC is more supportive of the project as long as certain changes are made to enable the design to achieve compliance with review standard number four. Mr. Graybeal will be discussing the updated designs particular to the HPC comments made at the first meeting. Please refer to the attached letter and sketches. The Applicant requests a 3' variance to the 19' side yard setback along the eastern property line to allow for a stairwell. The HPC may grant a variance if it is found that the proposed variance is more compatible with the historic resource than compliance with the code. Staff believes that given the depth of the required setback along this side of the parcel, and that the variance request is for an underground feature, the variance does no harm to the resource. One concern however is that the stairwell will need a railing or wall around it. The design of this element must be reviewed prior to final approval.
~ kift-- MEMORANDUM 1 1 To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Diane Moore, City Planning Director Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer /UL_ Re: 210 Lake Avenue: Conceptual Development for rear addition and request for parking reduction of one space, demolition of outbuilding, temporary relocation on-site; Public Hearing Date: February 24, 1993 (Note: A second public hearing is scheduled before the HPC on March 10 to review a sideyard setback variation request for h rear (below-grade) egress stairway. This variation request was missed by staff as it was not included on Attachment #1 in the application. A second public hearing notice was prepared to cover this variation request.) SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Development approval for a rear 1-842_ sq. ft. addition to the landmark at 210 Lake Ave., a parking reduction of one space (from five to four), the demolition of a detached (non-original) outbuilding at the rear, and a temporary on-site relocation for construction purposes. APPLICANT: Betty and Lloyd Schermer represented by Cottle, Graybeal and Yaw, Architects LOCATION: 210 Lake Ave., Lot 19, Block 103, Hallam's Addition, Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: None are necessary, as the lot meets the minimum size requirements for a duplex unit. Ordinance #1 impact mitigation applies, and the applicant is reminded to meet with the Housing Authority regarding this. Provided the ESA height and setback requirements are met, no further P&Z review is necessary. Development Review Standards REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval 1
for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, beginning on page 47 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 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 an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The proposed duplex addition is being added to the rear of the landmark structure. Our primary concern and responsibility is in either the contribution or deprivation the development impact has to the landmark, neighborhdod and community, within the context of historic preservation. The addition is large (1,842 sq.ft.). In a pre-application meeting held previously between the applicant and the HPC, suggestions were given to the applicant to reduce the impact of the massing and height of the addition in relation to the cottage. Connecting the addition to the main structure via a hyphen would significantly lessen the impact. Although the landmark is not particularly noted for its pristine architectural quality, it is a strong representative example of vernacular cottage architecture, a critical component in reviewing the appropriateness of this addition. It is also immediately adjacent to one of Aspen's more significant National Register resources, the Newberry-Shaw House. In addition, Lake Avenue is the summer pedestrian route, which greatly highlights historic resources. The HPC should exercise great care in reviewing this addition's compatibility to the principle structure, the adjacent landmark and within this immediate Lake Avenue neighborhood. Staff disagrees with the entire addition approach shown in this application. We find that it completely disregards the cottage, its historic integrity (vernacular form) and small scale. We feel strongly that this proposal is completely wrong for this parcel; we are barely able to discern the original resource from the addition which is a complete violation of preservation principles. We find that the proposed development is not compatible with the designated parcel or the adjacent structure, and that this Standard has clearly not been met. We also find that a simple tabling is not appropriate due to the major number of design changes that 2
must occur. We are, therefore, recommending denial, and ask that the HPC support the Planning Office in this. This proposal illustrates a significant misunderstanding of "compatibility in addition design" and will require substantial revisions. We conceptually support the parking reduction request from five spaces to four, however, cannot support the setback variations due to the incompatible design. We find, however, that the applicant has not made the argument to support this Standard, i.e. that the proposed development is more compatible to the historic landmark... In order for the HPC to grant approval for any variations, a more thorough discussion of this standard must be made by the applicant for the HPC to consider. We find no information regarding the temporary relocation of the structure, which requires bonding or a letter of credit prior to the issuance of a building permit. . 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We do not disagree with the applicant's argument in favor of a duplex on this site, however, their design approach must be entire reconsidered before Planning Office support can be given. The HPC should again study on-site the project at 620 W. Hallam and 700 W. Francis and remind themselves of those design review errors (as discussed in numerous previous HPC meetings) while considering this proposal for 210 Lake Ave. Mistakes previously made should serve only to teach, not to set precedent. We find this standard has not been met, and are recommending denial. 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 adjacent parcels. Response: The cultural value of this landmark is found in its vernacular contribution to the history of Aspen. It is representative through both form and style of the mining era' s family home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen of this community. To expand that small scale form completely out of proportion is to deny and detract from the historic cultural value of this landmark to our community. We find that this standard has also not been met, and are recommending denial. 3
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 applicant makes the argument that the cottage has been significantly altered in the past, therefore, additional architectural changes will not impact its integrity further. Due to the significant nature of the proposal, staff disagrees, and reminds the HPC, the applicant, and the community, that what was wrong is the past should not set the course for the future. Actually, we find that the previous changes that have occurred to this structure did not disrespect its small scale, cottage form - they merely altered its original vernacular integrity in ways that are commonly "Aspen-like", i.e. larger porch and additional detailing. The HPC has strived for many years to keep the appearance of additions smaller than the original resource in order to meet basic preservation principles. Numerous good examples of this are found throughout the West End and elsewhere. 126 W. Francis, 201 E. Hyman, 1004 E. Durant, 17 Queen St. and 100 E. Bleeker afford the HPC good design solutions from which to learn. In order for the original resource to read through and not become secondary to the addition, issues such as height, massing (bulk), scale, proportion, fenestration, materials and detailing must be carefully considered - always with the preservation of the landmark foremost in mind. Conversely, it appears that the material choice is compatible to the resource, and that the general fenestration proportions meet the Guidelines. To conclude, we find that this proposal diminishes and detract from the architectural integrity of this resource, and therefore, the Planning Office finds that this Standard has also not been met. In summary, the Planning Office cannot support this proposal as presented, and asks that the applicant work with the HPC, the Design Guidelines and Development Review Standards to redesign an addition that will be compatible. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 4
1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met. The Final application presentation shall include material samples. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny the Conceptual Development proposal for 210 Lake Avenue, finding that all four Development Review Standards have not been met. Additional comments: hpc210LA 5
/35£2~EE~ )TTLE 1 RAYBEAL YAW i ARCHITECTS I LTD February 26,1993 City of Aspen Planning Office Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Planning Officials, and Committee Members: Thank you for your time and input during the Conceptual Development Review of the Schermer residence at 210 Lake Avenue. We have reviewed the Developments Review Standards and comments again and propose the enclosed design revisions. The concern we heard from the committee was the application meeting the development review standard number four. This standard reads as follows: 'The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." We have examined many different options for the project based on this standard and your comments. The options studied included separating the building into three different structures with thin connections, to exploring the use of different materials such as brick and stone for the three components of the design. After several late nights, reams of flimsy paper and many faxes to our client, we offer the following design changes. The addition to this historic structure has been moved as far back from the existing building as possible to reduce its visual impact, without violating the Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards or adversely impacting the existing large evergreen trees. The dormer element on the east elevation that encroached on the existing structure has been removed and the adjacent wall area recessed to become part of the addition, not a separate element on the roof of the existing building. We also carefully examined separating the addition with a hyphen. This was discussed with the client in both graphic and verbal forms. We both strongly feel JOH\ COTTLE. ALA the best way to create this hyphen is by differentiation of the parts such as DOUG GRA\BEAL ALA RY YAW ALA K HENTHORN AIA 510 EAST H\MAN SUTE 21 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303 92i-2S67 FAX 303.925-3.30
Page 2 material sizes and detailing rather then an actual physical break between the parts. I know of one residential structure that has successfully created a physical break. The residence across the street from the Baptist church. This is a corner lot and the break is clearly seen from the street. The break is very appropriate for the scale of the structures on that lot. Our lot is larger, mid-block and pie shaped which creates little sideyard visibility. Such a physical break would not be seen and is not appropriate for this project. One of the other review standards is "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development." A physical break is not in character with the neighbors. We strongly feel by changing material size, detailing and possibly direction, an appropriate hyphen will be created between new and old. Similar or no differentiation in materials were used on the neighboring properties, which we are endeavoring to relate to. The change in material and proportions separate the building into three parts. Siding direction can be vertical, or horizontal on the rear two masses. This change adds order to the original randomness of parts creating unity of masses and clarity of old and new. It also, breaks down the whole, eliminating the feel of "big fish eating little." A hyphen is used to divide or connect two elements (words). The division of the old and new elements of this design is the change in material scale, design and color. The connection is the physical abutment of the structures together but with a change in plane for separation. Wood siding and trim were milled smaller during the construction of the original builder. Today, wood is milled in larger sections and profiles. What better way to separate old from new then a historic material separation. We have also revise our study model and look forward to showing the design to you. We believe you will agree with us the design has improved and the addition does not diminish or distract from the architectural unity of the historic structure but enhances that structure. Attached are revised elevations showing the change for your review. If I can provide further information, please let me know. Sincerely, 09»Oj Doug Graybeal AIA Principal DG:kj Encls.
11 - H -Etj- -if- . -11 t - r - I I-1171 \ 44 - 1 1[ I . + 11 , 11- - NORTH ELEVATION 21 - 4 '1 *I ft 21 9 + _- » '· i - 1-1 i --- J3 I_ 1 - - 4 -- I 't.:44 4 T - SOUTH ELEVATION l' 11'iii i h:h Il' Pittilii:lii;: 7,il: tii [1 1 .11.1 - li ii.· i 1~; 1.
-1 -1 "i -1 - - ~ . 1:r 1 ./. . ....~* -* 2-» p. ~- - - r -f -3& 8 1 -- It H ..1,1 1. 1 1 1 11 H 111 11 1 1 1 - - 1 ./.-11.. ... ff -- L==33 - - E Al===1 -1 i .01 p 11 *· ----- - Ll=3 - 1 01.1.11 =12 1 j - I ..11 1 -1.- -- - _IL_ -- 14-11 U EAST ELEVATION O-
- 1, 19\ - .2-4.Vial# . 2'*5 - 2.02 - 4 2 N · 4 --- i ~ - ~ i~~~-i BE- ~ ~~ 4%# I ' 1.03 J - -- 0 0 ' ' 0 11 Ill 11: 1 1 11 9- --'I 111 1 1 -- 11 1 1 46<+0 - 510--- 2 223<0~ 1 1-2 ) 4 31 0 WEST ELEVATION