The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19951025AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 25, 1995 REGULAR MEETING 5:00 I. Roll Call and approval of August 23, Sept. 27, and Sept. 13th minutes. II. Commission & Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:10 A. 500 W. Bleeker Street- Minor ' -~+ 6 . L--- i-LUU V. OLD BUSINESS Â£. st 5:30 A. 706 W. Main- Final fog e., O&5 l~C, 0,4(m}t<~~4<2 4 6:00 B. 123 W. Francis- Request for approval of alternative conceptual development plan, PUBLI C HEARING R<>19 + Oes 6 4 6:45 C. 820 E. Cooper- Request for reconsideration 6:55 D. Ordinance #30 training/ discussion of "volume" standard 7:25 VI. Project Monitoring 7:30 VII. Adjourn A SITE VISIT IS SCHEDULED TO 500 W. BLEEKER STREET AT NOON ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING TO DISCUSS THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT ISSUES ON THE SITE. MEET IN THE CITY HALL ALLEY IF YOU'D LIKE A RIDE, AND IF POSSIBLE, CALL TO CONFIRM THAT YOU WILL ATTEND. A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE SCHEDULED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR DISCUSSION OF 610 W. HALLAM. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: October 25, 1995 RE: 500 W. Bleeker- Minor HPC is to make a site visit to this property at noon on October 25. The applicant would like an on-site discussion about their plan to build a privacy fence between their house and the new structure next door. The new structure has created a very close condition between the two buildings, diminishing privacy and causing lights from the building windows to affect each owner. Ben Hall and Casey Clark, owners of 500 W. Bleeker wish to construct a privacy fence and request that the Board of Adjustments allow them to build over the 6' height limit. This will require a recommendation from HPC at tonight's meeting. In addition, there will be an on-site discussion of development options for the site given the recent joint HPC/PandZ meeting to discuss the property owner's proposals. J --1- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 706 W. Main- Final DATE: October 25, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicants request final approval for a redevelopment of the site. This structure, the "Celestine Bourquin house", was built in 1894. It is an Aspen Landmark and is located in the Main Street Historic District. Conceptual development approval was awarded on April 27, 1994, after several meetings. An extension of conceptual approval was granted on June 14, 1995, with some recommendations for restudy. APPLICANTS: Joseph and Susan Krabacher, owners. Architects are Baker, Fallin Architects. LOCATION: 706 W. Main Street, Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Development Review Standards 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 or 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: During the review to extend conceptual approval, several items where noted as possible areas for restudy, namely the flat roofed area at the rear of the structure, the character of the east and west elevations, and the alley ' elevation. The applicant has made an amendment to the proposal to include a gable roof form at the rear of the building. This has resulted in a new element on the north elevation. Staff finds that this change is in keeping with the HPC's recommendations. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Fewer and fewer people are choosing to live on Main Street, for a variety of reasons. The future of the neighborhood will be continued expansion of office space as the Commercial Core is no longer able to handle the demand and its rents are unaffordable for many businesses. Main Street is the entrance to Aspen, and HPC should encourage new development in this area to be residential in nature and to distinguish itself from the Core. By highlighting the historic residential building, this project does attempt to maintain the character of Main Street. 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: Numerous changes have been made since the initial proposal to try to reduce the perceived mass from the street and therefore maintain the value of the structure. In addition, demolition of significant portions of the building has been limited. 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: Most issues related to preserving the architectural integrity of this structure were covered through HPC's review of relocation and partial demolition. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: j 1) Approve the development proposal as submitted. 2) Approve the development with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table the final review. 4) Deny final approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant final approval as submitted. Additional comments: / T t \ 1 , 4- S - . -0,- - e . . . 3\ --0-. ./ 4 --,1 .- L - 0 c- -1 . I ..251-'.-- - : 4 /9-LibimeÂ»-_ . -4 .- 1 'F L - 1 - 4 r..trh - - - -- 1 1,4 1/4 1 - h - - -4 -- 6----- 77.7' J , ----- i - . -i - - -3 3=11- E U -2 0- / %1 --4 -5 - =N =r ....= " i OL, -7.-r ===9 - , 7 - 'L- --7 v T i - -- - 11 0 =7- - 11 - - . - 1 - 1 1 1 1 ~. -- 1 *.-2 -Â·.17-r.-7-m~ , J .. - 2/ 44-fe-a-* A (37=td A 0 Â¢- F 1 6 2 .13:> u ]1-P.:3_-N _6 r-m-=zz==PA,*-Nzl.2.16-12:..1+LG--------- --n--=-s-2*P-4*4 1-- ._ -1- ..I. .i 1 4 -i -1 2 1 11.' 1 . 1 '/ 1 4- i . i -3{ 4 i WA,EN -5[2-KVILE- --~ i"i j -I-----ELEELB I - zi g i 1 U .f'-e,Ae, l~KE --1 flr- :C a a a <21- MÂ».11-101Â£ I - .. A L- L E Y . 95 - 5 F 5----0 fe -Â· O- ,-Il O 00 Â»a ELECT-FZICAL- 1-INE >2 .-. 4----*-~ -.1 - I -Ill- a e E- Ill a H .MI, 1 SANITARY 5E WETK 'Grm#*M I u D-1 1 1 - 1 2 1 00 1 Zi=:wiGf!-Br".&Â·.... : - 3 v.x.xI:.:/6:.......-/:-'.:.r..:.:. ' ! 438**mxÂ¢iÂ¢3iÂ·iÂ¢512::R C cn !38*3%9.Â·'....55Â§5565f::::> I r.*:Â»tex+Fi2*i~WkÂ·:*Â»: - EXI :fINN<31 Ext STIN<a .. 8 - , .............................:*REE sTRU 4-1 URE - ' 1 Â·- 66%%#60Â§22*3 Â· , 2I EXIDTI INa Z. 51~JCTURE .............. . I - Fl 4 r - E%%23*1.2- k 4. - 0 :re:504.*8: t.1 Â· .. 4, -3 17-3=i>*%*kÂ¢Â§ 1 ~ m is I i L:=i:~=i 43\ '; 87 :11*15rINA SORUcluFREE - ' i.1 .' >- 1 â‚¬ 4 -2 4- 31'.: 2 :1 it .6 -1 r . ff ?4*80#49Â§1 - # IN,Â· r r -0 - I. '0 - .i. . 1 --- -0 1 43 f. 1 9.8 - ./7/ 1 L rf , I . 1 \-4.. N I i: \1 , -- - / 14 6 - i /4 - 1 1 , 1 3' . ELE,r;OCAL-, 1-ELEPHGNE / US LINE _. 1 4 6.01-6 -Pv: 1-1NED 0 0 0 - 1%1995 j MAIN S TEE ET < str .:4:z**207-~ 06+.be -76Â· 00 1,- -1-2 r . i EXHIBIT 7 i \ MARcH 1 9,1994 1 ..CKRABACHERI-61.211[LE)_lt<la_2__21- --EXLSI_IN-G-TrCONDIT]-DNS- .MAP-_--2. i" - -AJ - L, V' Â£4Eg - FAL-LIN INC. *74 . 4,Â·. Â·Â· â€¢rÂ«,.Â»â€ž2,2:~gÂ»*0/48*A-- SEVE ST 1 . i --tsÂ¥ 1/7/i i ._ 1 LAMf' ear L.231,4 914ttle - E-1.e 'zzâ‚¬.L ----7 . .0 2 3/. / 1 , r, â€¢ u....05\.-i GEE- 1 . , 1 1 - 0 . U.1 9-. C../: 4...4/ja?2-3: .Â· Â· ....... I . ..1. . I ... .. . . . . 1. . . I .... .... ... e I.- 1.4 M <*I-: .,iw*49.3.. :.4,77#Â»>7Â»...,fZh Â· 4. . . .-Il. \ j n Exer'n .32-13 1 %$0'.... 0:1**44,4/N 4246Â»24Â«93 , ..=. 1 4 I . I.-- il till- 1 4 ,/ - -Tz.eee JO Â·Â·.-( ; '9/.4, -...... .. '89- " 122 .... ...../ i .. , 18 1 JEIVE 2.1 1 :. 11 0Â»k.64 :2*2602+C[22 -4- - - I. 11 4Â· - ~ _FAZE.INM -- _ 7 . rl 'lf: 3*g_IANCEZZL -2 -Utr-; L . r - 52/4459_ ..-*.--2 'tand=o~r-- -- . . -'42091)A-in-- - 1-j < : Taxl _ - _ -t-,-- , 344: 3 , .c Fr,SeeIA_--MP - l; .. F , . 1 - ' zaerr,60, a -1Â·. 4 - - 4 - i .lir . -- 0- Â· Â·23 iali. I .1 , i .'.EA:2,1 - f . f / ./. *=:145/ 2 9-C **4 r-**2 :: 6 - , . W 1- 1 5 1 -: 4-4 Ie. . ---'. - _ - TWOF 1 -,2 I -7 -6.12.2-0 -0.-5-P - . --4 . , , * i fAE,-8,142.iri --31-_17 -.- --1(644Â£1-v 0. 0 . , . -,. ,- . -~ye=:1 -,9---17 '. . .. .a .2 : , - ; .1 / 121\1 - . X t ASÂ·-ULI KILT-IJ> 114-0-11-22_._*--_ _ . _ --_ - - 2 -- W . ... 242Â©U// /41~. -.~~ ~ .t.... ; & 41 45 - . 0 "' le /'3\ 9 - . - 11\ 1 -1 - 44 - -Mt.4/buinte . Â· -.-_- 2 - . - W..... . .1. r Â· - -4 .4 t,4 Ft.6/trE:4 . .. l ' .. 77. 1 -f-..') .. 3 2--15)01;~ ' Flw- I. . , a . . 1 r -impE- pLC Ckle 2 -IZEE#.. s i / .- 18 , qifi iii N ipÂ· ,k\ 4? -''D 'it I s , 4Effltif A .,~8 .4,1 k' ' , ~4.2Â¢21 94 . .Â·:1221/ Â·. . - ~ 21 Â· 1 .- ----3,5- Irfimi,- .*.-- - - ~- .-*-- 1 --- 4. - 0 ..1 3 1 ' I 1 .Irow -*Ague.. 4 4 32 --_12 COF-Ele H (NCRLAN H ELL __(14 f'~7214â‚¬0<6&CHER. 13,UILDINC ~ LAN PE:CAFE. FLAW -*- 111 = to' . JUNE '20 1 101(14. 1 1 J ..it: t . -:: ... 1 74*jÂ· 3.*34 -93 1--Â·:.t.- ..Â· . Cf...7 4Â¢. f:t:{2; ~.:Â·.-*.44'Â·04'46.:.:.,i~;.f.-Â·,~it{0.X;1*11.:9'Â·*' 44 1 . I -1 1*~i-- r Jlm ol -L -113[I- U 1 - V- | / -t ' '=NEN_-=- 44 :Lf*i~ c#L--2-, f 11 38 .- = f.:4 j 1\4141 4. M . .Â·1 -.4-' 4 04~7-f,ArN,}Al--- -~ 295-=Ea=M=@Ek 1 -.. 1 2~7--ZIÂ·taÂ»'44-- ---i i - 1 -- lf .1 * f - 1~Â»EYA'_ *i_ IfÂ°~ - - /4-:1- Elo- r . - 1 464, 1 - X r.: . --4:442.1- - z=Zzr*fezE#ce.-- 1 __ ft,r10 rzzz=- ---1 F.14'r-, 1 Â·i- .-0 ..ALE-=*F-i-* - }i -*2*41<IMEÂ¢Â·2_-1 - 1.-2-tki --- 11 1 11 - . I 1 Fr=- ..e *. 4-3 â‚¬,4 - - I .- 2 . - 2 6. -Keadjiiak--kuILDI bill-.UILOPNEE LEVEL Â·FULe. RAN !12)~A.K. -- - Ju L.>K Je 11194 72*210;-7-- -- -t - -'- ---u-- . GAR& ----- NEE LEN,AEÂ·LE -0[36/ MEal .ft:Sele:LGELCTMiNA FLAN 1 , AD.UU--71.19.EzÂ®--OFF:ICE ---9Â¢34.---T_ - 199 4 Â£21 * NOVS:262_ -01 1914 - -'01&.-- bul UL~-NDZ=J--- -i-------01-69*--i +CE .Di~ Â¢ : -- 1010!p \/1 A.P.U. 11-19.@P =1* f . t . 1 - C 4- -4- -4 + .- r.i t IF. -- 1 to t- 1 4 1 1.1 4f/fir,Â»1~f;~1-p-- 0 - .< 44 fF=1 1 W I k . 1 ' r ./. . 14EN**E-GiJ -- xi | 4 y .. -Ek,sidst|_'s>xr-~__ *=4 1 1 1 . - 0 / LUT |PJE)(1~M 0 ~,/~~Â£~:~- =tz.5,4,5 75~ L - . 1 1- , L WAr[]NA 71-- -Â·-0 I.J. .1 . , + . . 11 9 â€¢ 7 '-7771 1 â€¢ 1 t:L? 1.-d . O I .-% "- -- . 1 -/0 *k NON/ :C=t r 1 I [- .1 - . r ..... ./ 1 - - '17 1..I fl - / 8,0 I Â·. _1 _- 1 -1 A 4 --r -1 Â· . : J 3- -3Ciz f . -------n . -1 - *'r - ..2 *i, 4 .- .0 1. - . .: 14--5 - ....1 .... ..1 . 4 .....' '. =3:Iditte.Eltriti -=.-1 1 X.112,1/ CHI- 0 1 -El - --- .m 1, Li--+ UTT, . . - Â· e k Z+3~4#9)16â‚¬ -=-trÂ· - i r-1 1 +. 1 .. 47 - Ri - --. 0- I I 1,6 K>-V -11-. / 1; - : .4 + I-' . - . 1 , _ L,61 --tt-%14-4 1 .*1--U EL , Â·1 -02. - I 1 45 ---f- 1 11:lt - - 4 ! Â· 1 .- ...1 1 3 &74 -â‚¬Z- --*11- 4 117 1 *' 1 1 1 | 1% . - 1, 11 $ 1 -1 . - -lili -447- U # 4 t - f Â·t=:11~fi~ l tr -4--13 -- KENE66.11â‚¬2 EUILDINO ENTe/ Le/EL.-r LOOR fLAM -- 20 2Â£22'eÂ¢lfiaÂ·e. ~ 3 U Ly f 9 i 1114 ------- ARCÂ»0 -_. Ner LEN.baa-5 6126.4 86NUm'44 - ..1 -1142,Â£*TEâ‚¬; TPNANT--2,-U.U.~ '-i 4 -4.- - * * rÂ¥.1 j ; .1 c~'LE--72 '202* @75-7 -- 1996 Â¢LFE-J.-7 - C.Zb# r.-- 2--gENEKI.P4&UAU--1- â‚¬4UHI; 8* -~fÂ£*91431-2 _.1-Ea,9/MEL-fl.AlÂ« NOVEMBEEL..21 *1494.gE.VilpEC) 9%f'r 1,&, 144 9 - / A...440,4442.-Â·44 .C j 1 .. .r 7 .. -4 Â· .Â· t : . Â·,/ .,Â· '. .:-0. 2'K. 1 ... '1" ..9...%?k J ....:. 1.1,9. 3,. 3.,12; .:12......;~.9,69.....1, ..Pilt,%4149-'.. L . 1 -- 1 1 4.: 1 11 11 1 1.--7-, 1 1 - 1.1 1 11 - 1 -- oFFICE 1- li.-1 - L!- 1 LI-l T.T~i-Â«Offl~ 2.-_~ -2 4Â¥FIGE .._.. fl 1 -*-- -!; lit- ri. !1!r 1 37- --TZ ,< rz.6 - B 3711.0Â¥ 11 - 4= -. ie.42-31 l 1 - - -- . ..1 -/ I Â·Â· . 1- + L - 0' -J- M - 4., p If / i. I -*.-/4.- .2 -= /-5 :-: --2.-7./. '4:2 7 n - 1 ....C- # . 73â‚¬~2 ~-iLLEN---ff z# - - :-Â·-Â·' . .-fi f..2-27 :4# I'-Â·:'4*fi- i; '-; f .. ''41'.Ay.Â·..9~1~f' 4ts..,%%.iÂ·.:fi-21 - 521: m \ It--' . m . 0.1-1- :-1 --,- 4- -:.,22-LE 6 -.-i.L: jUE .' . Â·'G .'. :-f.ki.-Â·3?t-t-72/- -p~ t.Â·42.â‚¬,.4 ~*> -Â·f '- - 0 - - irill 1.. Â· -/1 :.141 - All P *- HÂ· 1 ' ' HT 1 11 1 1 ' . 01 . - , ' --720UE-22_ 7 - , -'" t -,6 3-KIM-IDLy F.:- --- __ 1 -- -- Or - 1 , 1. 1 7- 1, 11 - 4 . 11. 1 1=TiLL..I- 1 -- -; 1 -- i-, -- -- 1141.94BAZ. --- -- - -3 l~Il..>Â¢0'. 145 l'~1Â£1'1Â· - -Pt =nrpt *- -- -. - - ------ -- -_. REOPD ... - _ MEI- L.EyÂ£-QUE - 612Â¢ULÂ·b:noN /77:y . . -214.2 }42#.q.EXHIBITL ---irÂ»561et.E. -126Â·t,044 rt-AN/NG#'EMIES:Et. C~i I;;114 KEÂ·'A~9â‚¬C> 175.rr' 12,1495 - ..._ .._ - j_ 2 ..: 7.....,4 ~.~ 4,1 2 \6 9 4 <*--4.4 - 1413-4Â·22J 4 - Ai. : :/ .. I I .. . 4 Â· . . 2 41- - 4..:33.2 40 . ...991/:Al %3 f ,?-4 jâ‚¬ ~ I Â·;Â·j.Jâ‚¬-i '.2 4-' 23, 0 1. . -,>w,'Â·-4.RÂ·'s '5~;h.Â·' 9 lr fl b:-â€¢fÂ· c ,-.Â·44* :A Â·Â·. ~ ;t'. 6..4.~-~ Â·EÂ¥~':, 7,Â· Â·~â‚¬1 if-:t. :,0Â·--4. r-â€¢ r. :'.~'%441.:2.:.--.64.1%:f At:#*4Â£+ A,~144.2,440..41#pey.*,- . . 4-4- ble-ke:'? bi-r 4{430_ij.4.441~,~f.Ft~:. 3 4.-- 11Â·0 . A.-1 ....1-2 -,t.-1..:_ri*t':.411*,~.ff0- : --:Â°:r.4.-li. Efi.= Â·~ ~; - #~ *- ~..-' - I. . I . .:.t. , , . -./ fl M -~- - .9--1-- QN f-toirl)331*231*ENEE*Â»E%EEEIE*ef*=5Eit , 0 -/::-i . - 14Â¢01.lvAE-1 9 1-t-1-no-Gr ti-02-1-117-/\ 21 Zl-I611 rti , -I-...Ill---.Il--0- ./ -.ill-.--I--I.I.I.- - Ill-.Ii.--.Il-- 1 1- 1 1 I 1 . 1 t . ME#'1 '4 w -mm-*ILI ~42. T -;' 1 1:7=17*~=- 11- 1 421[~Il[-11~lot=12, - h+ril-m!*:\ - 1-- -1 -I 9--- - - - , .et-. - -- - - - 29===41-11 - ELI i imm -. i ./ r----11 11 1 m i mim 3 1 LjiLLI - Iii 1.11 I ' il j lit=3 - - BEE .1 Â«1031, - - I.-=-'ll;. -.'=....~t-- 4 ki-714 : -- - -----i--i- - .-I \Â» \ - 0 0 \\--I - 1 Ell ,. . .fy<--- 7 ... .. D . - - -! LE[LtlII.EÂ·-f -....... 5- ~ -3 - \\ 5- S . ~n.-6-â€¢.--Ll mnlilt - i m Bl==1 1 =011-Ii 1 - L,- .-- -'>- c3 11] 1 -Â· Â·+ 1 1- 70 1 U 1 L ---- - iT- - 4 3-Ji ;. , , 1 -1 i i EL , it 11 :1 ' -i 11 , . 1 14 k :1 : ,+ It-: . 2 1 1 qi*! i -CTI111 Ill-[1-; u 8% i.Un -7-11 5EE <~144---IL- 1 72 0 , 9 - LU Â»d' 1 hu-I- -I 0 Ii., 1 .t I , UU=-1 -111[ Ul. 1 ! t. ! 1 + $ I. ! ! '1 1 ' r L.I ; ,.. r--9 ' T A . . :,1 i $ L 'I + ' 1 - ill AÂ·: .1 11 -F- lk=,- 1. 4 4; i 1 4 7-~ u-1-:1 ?,1 30 i-, 1 :04 f. 1 . -. Â·Â·Â·-- el: 21 1, '1 . 6 I - 7 ILL * -512 , .62 ks *2 ' 0 ..... H.J : 18_- J[F--]L_; > :44 1 4 . 04 69-Ir - D u m 531 1]"1"--~~- 11 , 7 r i i' 4 1 - Flt#t Illip _ 312/35 ~ 1 t5 â‚¬ -6 4,1 -jiw-U-u_U. 1 1 1 R~ 43 0 ..0 111 JINT[E Â£ _ 1 -_.- - .- Z -u i 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14. 1995 MOTION: Melanie moved to deny the application and request they restudy and come back with a sample of the exact material and fastening system. Possibly wood siding would be a better solution. Motion died for lack of second. Susan: We have not seen this work at this altitude. MOTION: Roger moved to table 301 E. Hyman, Prospector Lodge with the request to the applicant look at all alternatives including wood and give us samples of materials, fastening method and any references of those materials being used in our environment and longevity; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. 706 W. MAIN - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL Sven was seated. Amy: It has been one year since the application was approved and there was discussion previously about the project. It is my feeling that there was a substantial time and effort spent in the discussion and for that reason we should extend the conceptual until Sept. 30, 1995 as requested. From the street facade this project is very well done but I do feel the east and west facades do not have a very strong connection in terms of mass and form to the historic house. g Joe Krabacher, owner: I did not realize the time had lapsed and usually Amy calls the applicant but I was in Hawaii. I also had a lengthy process at P&Z. HPC granted us an FAR bonus and P&Z didn't like that so we didn't go through special review. Jake: There has been changes and do the plans reflect that? Joe Krabacher: I am not sure as Dick isn't here but if there are concerns we can talk about them today and I would like them addressed at final. The plans from P&Z are about 400 sqft. smaller. There was a struggle when we went through this approval as to whether you should have something bigger behind and we kept the maximum height to 23 feet which is the ridge line. The flat portion is probably estimating 21 ft. The building next door is the same size as my building above grade but there' s is 1000 sqft. more. In any case that is what propagated this design as we are squeezed in between the hickory house. We tried to create a courtyard and break up the massing of the new building. It is true that it is massive in the back but we tried to keep, it as low as possible. j Melanie: I have a few problems with the east and west elevations in the way the back flat piece ties into the rest of the building 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14. 1995 I find very objectionable. Is there anything we can ask for a restudy. Amy: You can put that as a condition as part of the extension of conceptual. Melanie: That flat area does not relate to the rest of the building. It looks like it will just fall off into no where. Joe: You have to put the mass somewhere and we moved it back away from the historic house. The stapleton bldg. is right next to it. If we take it off the back and put it on the front it will overpower the historic house. It was kind of like a trade off that we struggled with. Linda: Is there anyway that roof line could be changed somewhat to make it more compatible with the roof line look of the entire structure? Joe: The roof would then have to go up. We could do a dormer or cross gable. Linda: Something to tie the building as a whole. Jake: I am more concerned with the alley scape and the impact of this elevation on the alley. Is there a way to break that down with architectural elements on the back. The east wall will be buried. I do not mean give up space. I mean breaking it up a little. Sven: One thing that the board should keep in mind is that the design protects the rear entry. There is Severe ice buildup on the north and the overhang helps the rear entrance. The front of the building has columns and possibly the back could have brackets to make it a little more attractive. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the extension for five months to September 30, 1995 for 706 W. Main; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: Joe, make sure Amy has the revised plans from P&Z. , Roger: At final the design changes such as a gable will be addressed. Joe: When we come back your concern is the west and east elevations i.e. the relationship of the roof line. J Melanie: Yes, that flat relationship does not fit to the rest of the building. Detailing should occur around the back. 14 1 (EED I 4 , 1 - 1 - \/ I -. 1 'f ' : .$ 2 14 . , 1 1 1\3 -- 1 . ' 0 - .. 1 11 1 I i u - - -- 1 - & .C C:lt=t \1\ . c 0- ' . * 4 l * 1 AS-Fl~.1~grA I . e t 1 ' 1 .1 + + t. : 4 . . . 4 . . 4., - >\4\ f . Â»34 .. 4+.. ... r.'41 4 ' â€¢ â€¢ , Â· .UP . 4 ' 7 4 . . ' p..:tr 44 .... r , 7 i 1, I . I + I I . 1 . 1 c. /* '' -: ; fif.5.*9 '..; .4 -, 1- 4,74*fa 7 , * I y .71.. .. 0.1 , , + .1 . . 1 037 '51'. 9 4/1,4 ' E + ' .,3 ~~*9 9 255; 414 arÂ· 0, " E .2 ...,,-~.,.,.,. ,.,. ,-....,.,-.....0- vu#.,c,Â·,A:i.2&~>dakl,iham,GUIAU:UGSUAWAQWS;4â€žAi;ititi#AdMIhuhAANdiiikR:Wa *Uikiht;%*BU , le.o' ' 1% 40 1 1 11 .. SEETaa,M ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 '18 . 1 1 7 1 1 I t A I r R F z . 0-~--4 . & 016 h . & 1-7- i.t eli . Z R -. ti r . .gill mI. 4 i . 15 .1534. f . r. 1 . . . 4 12 m'll R IC & P Â· Â»L LP %11 1* /2 A I Â£ 1 - -1 , ...1 +. I 5*igilite'~.121%:.il 3- 11- 11):= (6jt:.E , ' 2 * ~. 1 1 9 . .1 99:,28~,:,:c~.f44..............*..........19*%Â§%1!E 1 -I--I- ; 1â‚¬7.* .m j~ ~~119*Ef~fi9~~~ar,rf,~E~T 1 1 %0%20%44Â»09$3*,t. 1: t . 4 Â· . .--h SER:240<I ~ 31 ~ 1 0 ..i...Eli:.t . , . + ./. .1 CD I. L b ' /SE.rni i +:...6 . . 1. ..... CA.:,2 8 40 5 <,1 4 .. Â· Â· 1 0 - ... h-,4 k,i - C r â€¢IN a 1 rv 1. C ~ L c. Â·-*zi .. L/, s I x -r H 61 4 4 1. ''.'llm./.MI. E I . 1. . - 1 r I '. A. 1- 1.- 4,t~ t 1 ' 11 liM - . 1 48/01..... ma - 1 --Trk/5.6>' ErrE~661< . . I '1 1 id 2%.m~ I. . Â¥ .â€ž1'4 ./ - cz i . ;00, 1 ' ..,- ,2,, .. ,. .. i, i. i.-,~i...3.,~i.iNC,u.i 1,> NuLNWA ,O,0.,O,2,*NOJAR,wARRU~ Ja:&.w*&.IU.*audh , ce,muwAA&JG~WikkWWRGAMOhaMWWbayQbhh~idMpÂ£AA ,-,Â· ~ .....,/.-/;,aÂ·C..,~,~,/-,00u~,w,,4i,iâ€žO,i/0,h;OUU,aO,4,806,66#84*66&8618ik~WhWW&88644 -,./ -1-â‚¬ ' 0 ''--' ~ ~Â· Â· Â·Â· ~ -'~ ~'' . ~ ....; Â·'Â· m~te~r-â€¢9'2 I . . 1.k I ': I. .. ' . . B. 1 1 . 1 1 / 9.- , ..f . -- axeria .Ile:*e.aer tl:ZM *421.187 - ~ 4 WA} 2 -1,Â·UX>l..~ - - -23-2 1-EPLZEL@46Â·EL. - . -t-=Jif5Ii EMC.lÂ£Q.1128 . I . , 6 -- <fi . .ir.'..B./ B.fier.:igfir' . 2. 1 ..- ../. . . Â· . 4,/'fl 4 Â· .. I . . I .. ....... . Ill . . . . ...... ... ._Ill. .- 7_*,4--:49 -. Â·:Â·.Â·10Â¢00*37Â»wl_:A*72*Â»44*:<.,m.RP~0~2@9Â»7992*200~3;;*k///GY ~ ' i= ,-7.Z==~~~. : . ~ *-! ... . , 1- I . -- 1 It'. .. 1 ... Â· 1! . - E i 1 . 4 , - --Emp . -r-=EN=44 2.1 -* 0 - 1 :21 0 1 â€¢ 2-1*-1*ONf-~ . , 1 11' . F. 1 , ; i.,0 1 -1 .... 1 1% 1 .R ..9., - t. 6 1 .1 > ... 4 -K . . . I , 14 - . --JI' . - 1 1 1 1 L .. . . I r __--7 -lK-0. P..O S. 2 -D- 1,2, 1 -. 1 .F: . .. - & 1-,- , ". /.*1-_t. i. --een,Â©E- 1 * * 76 51503~12:1Â£.I .:.-2-- . 30 1 .' ; 01 ~ &89%04*24%.bh . Â· .. t>JUUKE--12 7.-8-0----3.-1.1.-.....0 .. .... .. .-. 1 .rir i .. >1 : : 1. 1 1 1 .. ..> .qu'*Emague-- Â· 1 . 10 . I ..' I ..- 4-44 / Â·Â·Â·, m rh~1*-*.rn,IX*=~ :~ - - â‚¬2Â»2 1../ 1{~1/ 1/14!ikin #ilimm --- .22355/4 9Â»2-464///ju,-M n. -a :--4.--.14#K-'91///#1-,/ /#Nt# |//1,| 111 1#jlil K N#:W/i/-/ #141 . NU# #W W #A *vr- m =2.; :// PÂ». - - . .4 . - Ir--I ' -1-3 :' | - -~-2 - -:.- + -.-270' - 1 - 1 1 -- - - 7 =fÂ»(24*Fiedei. - m .: .. ..22Â¢AKESS WINCD,4 IN EU, N / ' tii .... â€¢ .' ...~~i.~.."-.", Â· -,.,.,-.,.1.,.i.,2,2,. Â· ;Â· r~ i ,..~4-~Â·1~'~0~1~ ~Â·--i ~';i,~i.i~i~â€¢',I]'1~~I};~ill;liQIGWI~,~2~2:J~illU,UU;,Itlla;,!2,Â¢~~iCAAUdkddd9il,Ci;;~i;,14,;~ii14,4~1 - ... . I - . - . . 4 -h I . - /:Ii: . . - . 1.r= Rl 0 mi rl ... 100[ U .7- Pal . A 1 / -#SM.H/*r=*. A+Vt>*6--~tu-~*4 f :_i' 7661 ,-Â·Â·: l. i ... . ..: - . -_1.642AVEL --11-10!4Â£N;--r- - . . 1.H . 044 0420 a EE 49/ \ 1 f.71-444 -t V k, "A V St- :t .... . 1\0 :4 33- irÂ· 1 . -111. -1/3-Me<A Â· ,--itz,==,uBM -Â· - h#El Z .5 -IT - b ... . - 1 1- . . 1 :1 1 11 ! L -?Mt ... u=*M*-27.1 --. . - - 117 -- t. le-7 * JNTE.-1-11 03. . - - \2'. 2 1-1'*gt-En_ ..- . . i .-1- , . . \ . . i - 74 - ti- ~ ~ ~~ . 0- . I - .. -Kesclaz. - filll-DINgi - 1-ONEe LEVEL Â·IR.Â£02. -R.AN *1184.4-- - .: -- - -" 1 Lkle . 111:M: 11132-1 0 , c.;!04*-3-. WET:LEM,ABLE'-- - 4126/56:FUÂ« .m:*leUE-IENSiilCf-flaN - 4-760[P .. -ROVEwle:522-'24-1444 - ....1,Â·.-Â·-â€¢M.W,., 1,21-.16 - 4'4&.3 aJJb.,<AR.#4. .u.â€¢â€ž-,â€¢- .0,8,- .JI#,$16.â€ž,/thâ€žAbluvidul,2,1,~9~02â€¢.:0,2 4/,i>.ilia.lib,id)/ihh/,2,2%,i.21 .291,2.2. :hi#.alÂ·â€¢. ;d/' - 1&6Â£52;.C.Ni Â·re . ..-. -mr :-12 A- , '% : 1 k -- 1 11 1 1. f I , -.El - lil - ,-- - 1 . 6 iC[- - 71_ /[=11! 11 - tu . ' -1 - - 1 1 -- i -~~,331*-- - im I. Icial' | I 4 - 1-0.9-427(- 11-4. - i. . 1 3/ZE .. .. 4=.-Ii-*- 1-.I-Il /- 1. 4 . .1 tj. Â· Ati,p-- -~Oxtlxi~ . L. UfLE Y do - - n Â· 0 11 .. 1 - .--i.-... - - -Â·==25 - B//=* t- -t Â· =rcr,P- - r-â€¢--r' 4 ~ "--' ~ ~~~' ~ ~ Â·t- - - - T J Al -'j-,-1 1 I , -x. - I -- , -4.. - 7 z-7-1.-- --TT . I â€ž, ELEV *3- Â· '' '. . . 1 1 - - 3 . -- ... P 1... P Vy - : 1 1 . . 2 ---1 1 .. 1- 1 -F ...1. . _L i -- I .:. 11 11 -4 1 Â·Â· -~2--22!EE:Lia_.. _. - -_-*3*JL.ts-~/ 1..1--: R._m=-- 4 -Â·---- - 115'X=Ft.=7 -TIlt-*x] 7 -1 - ~ *. I P - 04 I T-1 -j \U 1 2, . 4 . - . 11 6 . .4 : 1.Â· 1 1 .1-61.17 --- 12- _--2-1 -2- e. 1 -4 1 UJ-U . 1 L. 1 11 + 6 - I . 1 -- 94 . , , t. 1224566Uge El-11!-IDINCI ENI-Im' LEVEL-FLOOK. fLAM-- '20247.6*fiaÂ·â‚¬. -- ' Jul-Â¥fe, 1114 - . - .I -I . -- . -..~ ~ . ...1~.~,..**,1-.#~...,-a-,-1-~.k~~~~~~~a- L .9- bAA-2.-4..w., .. -,.~â€¢..*- â€¢,Â»â€¢, ~~ â€¢,.Â· -â€¢ -â€¢~â€¢ ~â€¢.â€¢ .. ,. ., -.-, ,.i. ,. ,v,. ,. ,a:,2,2,+u,iâ€žii,..Â·,4*:;24:,w,:,.,:â€ž,*8:,.,2,.,Lâ€ž,2,2,M:,6,A,L -hh,~4~.k,~d,actiz,Uh%,1,ikERIbt&/ihEJASH&688;862&4~Z;k&2*tr~41*3262,4,2352>d&~i*i~i;itilht,11214,110 .hl- * .., - 2.4*5Â¥Â·Â· Â· 1.4.f . 11 1- 1-. 3 . I . ---utlice.=-2. - ----1 - I.--2184Â¢52 -22.1 0 1-amcia .Â· i -g 1 -711;9 x 520 . JU U . ... Â·Â· .1- - - 1.1129%.C.e-21.21 -- =rt.â‚¬9x [1 .9 -=L. -3.2 -2 . 1 1 C -7- 2 . l. *ILzEIBumpi,wzinEL+--=4lk-~PN ~==,=2~4< , 01 \ : m.//. ./. . Ill ' M -4*6)%* * 0_~ ~ *5 Â«lot - ..... - 6.- .Â· rt= - -- - Ii,DA--20...__.-/ . : -~meal L . .. 2F -1 - 1 . li I. -~%-2- - ~ ./t?Fi Câ‚¬*7- 7 1 | ' ' --17%%4359 11.~ --44Â£3;rae 17. 11 1 - ... -- ZIKEDEer-WEK .BUILPINCi .UFFER-1.-EVEL - 11Â·2-9.94F.A.g.. - --- -~ * -- - July .-18 1114 -tw E-1 r, 1 Â· - Â· U... 4 .lillill . R.:4~ *i I -V.*rh ./1 . I - ... .......4 I k.'t.=24 . I . 1 3 I -:- :. -7 n .* . 15 k ,~EkE/102=/S6557-V- 4/Â· 11Â¤00=m=mnmmmE 1 . E===r=================:~Z~~:N 111E1 l ill i 111 1 !11=it â€žCIGI ,!L-1,1 111-11| |14-411 1~-tel I~M<-----lill 10 ~1 1~2---~-12â€¢>V -, - -# - ==14 1 26....Jeiffill!:Slizill'MELJA:,izi,261ML===IN&=41*=:='~ 1-----1~rn--_.r~~~~:c~=:s~enlm~~n7~=== /U--r----r1 rrw-rli==11:4:r~,Blr-r'11Hli-rlit~1-flt===:t#--9- aâ€¢ 1 /EMIN=11 EN,14'E'Mal Ill[Ull' IM T Â· - " -ll'! 0 "IZZIZEZZZLE~ IL--11.-tRi 1 Ir- -o#MEMMEmall[1]1101[Nt . ./ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 ------ - - -r 39_OUT N E LEVATI ON --'.. ~INE.* T ELE VATION 1.- -5 - I =-9.-Â·j *u cr.-11 9 -il,lf;14?... -1-2-J--3UL_.2-1.L_rn_ _ . .+42-1-72 â€¢------- --.._..... -------2--0-- * .- 4 1 4.4,4 ........r Â·2 .. tvt#kiES.. 5:k *4 . . Ficat . . t 1 \ *-- . I -/ 4 ' . i 16= i - 231-Â«/ - d rn Â· lili lili :1 0 4 13-1 Â· r 5 E UJ / . ~111! fi; EL LIU i t 12:Lli *!UNIE $ 6 - _1: t li li 1 Â· -. -Ihi====E 2 - - - .lb=-1 C:,c El<t o g . T- H E 1.- E V AT I O N . B A 15' T E L E Â¥,5.T l c:44 ~...1 li-r.~ 0---r---~-r..R--.9 J ULY' . [â‚¬7 ~r!1*Â£1 4--7--Â· c Â· fft< iE r MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: October 25, 1995 RE: 123 W. Francis, request for approval of alternative conceptual development plan, PUBLIC HEARING HPC granted conceptual approval for the redevelopment at 123 W. Francis Street on May 24, 1995 (minutes attached). At that time, the Commission granted approval to relocate the existing historic house to the east and to construct a new house adjacent to it. The Commission discussed a proposed code amendment which would allow a lot split so that each unit could be separately owned. The historic house was to sit on a 4,500 sq.ft. lot and the new house was to be built on 6,000 sq.ft. (original parcel size is 10,500 sq.ft.) Issues #1 and #2 The applicant has been attempting to find a buyer for the new house. At this 1 time at least two parties are interested, one of whom prefers the site plan as approved by HPC and one of whom has proposed a new alternative, which locates the historic house to the west of the lot and places the new house on the east. In addition, in both cases, the applicant now wishes to divide the original parcel into two equally sized lots of 5,250 sq.ft. The applicant requests HPC approval for the revised site plan, with the option to place the historic house on either the east or west half of the parcel. Justification for the change in lot size and location of the historic building are addressed in the applicant's letter (attached), but in essence,.the equal division of the lots relieves most of the setback encroachments which were previously created and, if the historic house is located to the west, places two historic buildings next to each other and gives the applicant the ability to retain an existing shed (which HPC has approved for demolition) in place if he so desires. Attached is a copy of a resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommending the City adopt a Â«Historic Landmark Lot Split" provision, as discussed by HPC in relation to this project. The resolution allows all HPC incentives to be available to the lot which contains the historic structure, but requires the new parcel to conform to all area and bulk requirements (except for those allowed under cottage infill for aclu's), even though both parcels will be considered a historic laAdmark. In the proposal before you, under both "Option A and B," assuming that the lot split is allowed, no variances are needed for the entire project except for a height variance to allow 16' to the midpoint of the garage/adu (approved on May 24), possibly a rear yard setback variance for the adu to be dealt with in the future, and a parking variance of one space(more info. below). Under "Option B," if the applicant chooses to retain the existing shed, variances needed are: 5' rear lot line 5' east lot line (interior lot line) 4' west lot line for a lightwell If the "Historic Landmark Lot Split" is not approved by City Council, the applicant will be subject to the setback requirements for a 10,500 sq.ft. lot (which requires much larger sideyards than a smaller lot), therefore in addition to the abovementioned variances, the following are needed: 10' on the east and west sideyards 26' for the combined sideyards 5' rear yard variance for a balcony (new house) combined front and rear yard variance of 13' (old house) 5' rear yard variance for an existing shed, if the applicant elects to keep it 4' west setback variance for a lightwell (These are similar to what was approved on May 24.) Issue #3 The proposed development creates nine bedrooms on site, therefore nine parking spaces are required. The applicant is also proposing two adu's, and, although typically not required to have parking spaces, the Planning and Zoning Commission has requested one space be provided for the adu in the historic structure. The applicant prefers not to provide this space because, if the historic house is on the east side of the property a grove of aspen trees will be affected, and if the historic house is on the west side, the applicant may be forced to remove a shed he is considering retaining. Of the nine spaces required by the bedrooms, HPC has already waived 5 (leaving four spaces on site). The applicant now requests that HPC waive one more space so that even with the one req6ired by PandZ for the adu, the net number of parking spaces on site if 4. Issue #4 There are three large conifers at the front of the site. In the conceptual review of this project, HPC made a condition that the trees could not be relocated. On June 14, the applicant approached the HPC to request reconsideration to be able to move the smallest tree, because it is directly in front of the new house. The Commission agreed to allow the tree to be placed further back on the lot, probably between the two houses. At this time, the applicant would like to request approval to relocate the tree off of the site entirely. The Red Brick School has already agreed to take the tree and place it along their streetfrontage. The applicant's argument is that once the tree is moved off of the front of his lot, it does little for the streetscape, but does interfere with the established building envelopes and takes from the limited amount of open space available on the site. Issue #5 The conceptual approval included a condition that no fence could ever be built between the two structures because the historic house was only going to be 2.5' away from the lot line between them. Since this condition is relieved by splitting the lots equally, the applicant would like this condition removed. Issue #6 Partial demolition and on-site relocation reviews are essentially a one-meeting process and do not require a public hearing. Because HPC voted at the conceptual approval to allow the historic house to be moved on the site and portions of it to be demolished, the applicant would like permission to act on those portions of the project immediately. The current location of the house, straddling the potential property line, makes it difficult for a potential buyer to gain financing. The applicant would like the option to move the house in either direction (east or west) if HPC approves that change in the site plan. The applicant must provide a relocation and bracing plan and bond before submitting for building permit. Issue #7 Section 4 of the attached P&Z resolution requires that HPC approve the division of a historic landmark parcel into two lots under the "Historic Landmark Lot Split" provision. At this time, HPC is asked to formally approve the division of this parcel into two equally sized lots of 5,250 sq.ft. J RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the following: L 1 1. Allow the locatiobs of the structures to be as shown on either revised site plan "Option A or B." 2. To grant the following setbacks to the property: Under "Options A and B" as represented to HPC if the lot split is approved: A height variance to allow 16' to the 1/3 point of the roof of the adu unit on the new house A rear yard setback variance of 5' if the applicant elects to keep the existing shed A east (interior) sideyard setback variance of 5' for the shed A 4' variance on the west sideyard for a lightwell Under "Options A and B" as represented to HPC if the lot split is not approved: 1 -14' Vuir 10' on the east and west sideyards 26' on the combined sideyards 5' rear yard variance for a balcony on the new house 13' combined front and rear yard on the old house 4' west sideyard variance for a lightwell 'A-pafking variance of one spaeeÂ· 3. Allow the tree to be relocated to the Red Brick School. The Parks Dept. requires a bond to ensure that the tree will survive or be replaced in kind. 4. Remove the condition that no fence may be built between the structures. 5. Allow the partial demolition as approved on May 24 and the relocation of f the historic structure as shown in either Â«Option A or B" to proceed immediately. The applicant must submit a relocation and bracing plan and a bond (Staff recommends $10,000) before submitting for building permit. 6. Formally approve the splitting of this landmark parcel into two smaller parcels of 5,250 sq.ft. each. Both parcels will be considered historic landmarks and will be subject to HPC review in perpetuity. \ J -4)4-62-<-- 6)264Vt,Â£ 4(-1,â‚¬_ 4, : 16/nut-- /0 - ~Rp<03 toÂ»- \\L, Iffl,t-~ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24. 1995 Chairperson Linda Smisek opened the public hearing. Amy: This is a 10,500 sqft. lot and the historic house is in the center of the lot. This application also involves the P&Z. They would like to relocate the historic house and propose to do a lot split creating a 4,500 and 6,000 sqft. lot. This is a code amendment that would only be allowed for historic landmarks because you are creating a non conforming lot you usually have to have two 6,000 sqft. lots and part of the idea is then less FAR would be directed to the historic house and the 6,000 sqft. lot could be developed as a normal 6,000 sqft. lot. The code amendment is not under your purview but if you have comments P&Z needs to take them into consideration. Even without the code amendment you would be able to do two separate structures on this property. You can do that on 9,000 sqft. or larger. The difference here is that ownership can be attached to two separate people. The total FAR for the lot is being held to the duplex FAR which is 4,170 sqft. If these were two legal lots the total FAR would be about 6,000 sqft. and that is not what is being proposed under the code amendment, they are restricting it to what the duplex would be to the original site which is good. I am recommending HPC support the landmark designation as it meets standard B, E, F. CONCEPTUAL Amy: We are being asked to review an addition to the historic structure and a construction of an entirely new house. I find the two designs compatible and sympathetic to the neighborhood and the historic resource. I am interested in the resolution of the front corner of the house. The house is essentially in its original form. There is a front door that has been closed and you can see bead board that was the roof of the porch inside a closet. The proposal shows replacing the porch and building on top of the addition and it would really involve removing the roof. The applicant is adding a minimal amount of space. The total addition to the historic house is 587 sqft. and they are asking for a FAR bonus of 500 sqft. so that they can add on. Katherine Lee: What would the total FAR be on that lot? Amy: 1450 plus the 500 bonus which is 1950 sqft. That does not include the garage at 500 sqft. There are three outbuildings on the property, barn, shed and a garage stall. The barn will be turned and made into a garage stall. I feel that is an interesting solution. One of the trees is proposed to be relocated. The house j ' has a FAR of about 2900 sqft. which is small than what is usually allowed on a 6,000 sqft. lot. The applicant has revised the plans slightly and added an octagonal element to address the street. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24. 1995 Katherine Lee: What is the size of the second house? Amy: $2,900. sqft. The project meets all the neighborhood character guidelines. They are asking for a side yard setback and it is on the interior. They are also asking for site coverage variances of 5% on each lot. They want to keep the open space and I support that. Also if you put an ADU above grade you get the cottage infill variance of 5%. If they don't get the variance the ADU will go into the basement and Staff supports that. They are asking for parking variance of 5 spaces. I recommended tabling because I did not have the new design to review. The issue of the porch may not be resolved until a little demolition occurs. Les: I am worried about someone coming in and saying my house is not historic take it off the inventory. Amy: That occurs when there is a lot split but we are designating this from the start. Greg Prickrell, architect presenting for Jake Vickery: One of the ADU's is required and one was suggested. Melanie: Visually the interior setback is on 2 1/2 feet. Someone could go and put a fence up and then you have 2 1/2 feet to the fence. Is there a way that you could get five feet. Amy: Not unless we demolish part of the historic building. They have created a 45 foot frontage. j Greg: You are not supposed to create non conforming lots. Melanie: We are creating a squeeze in the past in allowing houses to get close. Can't we build in a variance of a couple of feet. I am opposed to only seeing 2 1/2 feet to the lot line. Amy: We could put in a condition of approval that no fence can be built. Susan: It seems to me that is destroying the character of the neighborhood by squashing the houses together and loosing the side yards. Roger: If another developer comes in and buys the property what is the maximum square he can put in with the two buildings? Amy: He can build a duplex or two detached buildings or stay with one building and add on. ' Roger: If it is a duplex 4170 sqft. is the max and one per unit. i If the lot split is allowed what is the maximum square footage allowed? 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24. 1995 Amy: 4,170 sqft. plus 500 sqft. bonus from HPC. Roger: By doing the lot split you will have 500 sqft. In your opinion with the neighborhood does the lot split offer a better project? Amy: Yes, in my opinion. There used to be another house there and this is re-establishing the neighborhood pattern. Jake's wife Della presented their history of living in Aspen. Greg Prickrell: The due diligence on the property terminates June 15th. We would like to know if HPC feels this project is viable. We have done a thorough investigation of the project. We desire to landmark and we have broken down the massing into smaller scale modules creating smaller ownership modules which preserves the small scale of the neighborhood. We want to reduce the historical forms to basics with the topology of a cross gable miners cottage. Each historic part has to be evaluation for the extent and nature of its historical value and contribution or detraction to the character as a whole. There also has to be architectural integrity. We want to put the new development on the adjacent parcel. We want to add new accessory functions to accommodate today's need to the cottage. We are asking for the 500 sqft. bonus for two bedrooms above grade. Lot A will have the historic cottage on it and we will utilize the outbuilding as part of the two car garage with new construction. To the rear of the cottage we are doing a second floor for a master bedroom. We are proposing an ADU above the garage. On lot B, 129 W. Francis the ADU will be below grade. QUESTIONS Roger: Why should we encourage the code amendment? Amy: It is another incentive for landmarks, that you could do a lot split even though it is less than 6,000 sqft. and have separate ownership. It does not result in more FAR. Katherine Lee, neighbor: There is a garage right across the alley and I do not feel there is enough turning radius where you have turned the shed. Greg: I will check it. Roger: I want to be clear on the code amendinent? j Amy: It will include how the FAR will be distributed for each area. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24. 1995 Martha: If the person sold the house could they get more FAR. Amy: There would be no more FAR available. Melanie: The other lot could come before us and ask for a FAR bonus. Amy: Yes they could but only if you found it compatible. You could also state in this approval that that would not be allowed. Greg: We are getting 250 sqft. reduction for doing the cottage infill. If we were not doing the ADU we wouldn't need it. Les: They could do the same thing with a PUD. Roger: I would rather hear public comments before our comments. Linda: We can change the agenda to reflect your concern. Martha: I am concerned about the bulk of the project. Roger: By making it a landmark we can control the bulk and making findings that the bulk is not compatible with the historic structure. PUBLIC QUESTIONS & COMMENTS 4 Brenda Bigelow: I live on the corner next to house B and I am here representing the landlord. I feel much better knowing if it is designated the board has more control of the size. Roger: They could have asked for a setback and moved the house closer to you and instead they moved it in. Katherine Lee: The old house is moving east. Do you have to have the ADU on the new house? Amy:- They are creating a new unit so they have to build an ADU for this property. Katherine Lee: Which is the more desirable of the two as it creates more mass. Amy: Only one creates mass as it is above grade the other is below grade. Martha: Except for cars and the impact to the neighborhood. ~Those are considerations that should be discussed. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24. 1995 Melanie: It is a two bedroom ADU so the possibility exists that two more cars will be there. Amy: There is an income restriction but I do not know how many people can live in one. They are small. Della, owner: We are doing the ADU on our house for income to an employee. Roger: Are the new elevations sufficient information for Staff to not have to table and we could grant conceptual? Amy: I do not have any design issues with the project. I am more concerned with the restoration aspects of the historic building. Della: Jake is really concerned about the restoration himself. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Martha: My concern is the second story to the historic house. I am not comfortable with the design and feel it detracts. Roger: With the information so far I would encourage the code amendment. I would also recommend that conceptual be approved with conditions. The concern of the neighbor can be addressed by moving the house forward and thus having enough turning radius. All the design aspect are fine. We need to address the tree removal and make sure that it can live. To address Martha's comments if the trees are left alone you will hardly see the addition. The impact would be greater if the trees were not there. I would demand restoration of the original right porch. I would also put the window well someplace else possibly on the west side. Landscaping between the house should be addressed in the motion. Susan: I am also concerned about the second story and do not like the height from the front view of the old house. I certainly wouldn't want to see the trees moved. If there was another house on the property it had to be a small house. I hate to see the sideyards disappearing. Amy: I totally agree with you but I would make the argument that having a number of smaller structures is better than having a structure with four times the mass added on which really disrupts the rhythm. Linda: I am in agreement with Roger on the front porch. When I site visited it looked to me that bomeone in past history might have taken on a border and that entrance was for that use and I feel it has a lot of significance to the time and to the house. I highly recommend that be restored and the lightwell moved further 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24. 1995 back to give the ADU in the basement some space. I feel comfortable with the massing and scale. I am a little concerned about how satisfied a new owner will be with the new house plan and what we will be up against. I feel Jake has done a good job with coming up with new ideas and introducing a new concept for historic preservation and restoration. Les: I feel it is a good plan and it will work. I have difficulty recommending the code amendment until I see it. I am not concerned about a new buyer as they will have to work with us. Final will not be easy as everyone has considerations such as the tower. If there is not a worksession before final I don't want the applicant coming in and saying we got conceptual now we need final. We are granting conceptual with a lot of considerations. Amy: There is an existing addition and it shows up on the 1904 map and has the original windows and doors. There is a back porch and we have debated whether it should be retained. It will not be visible from the street but Linda made a good point recognizing the boarding unit. We little by little are not going to have examples of the evolution of an historic house. There has to be some way to indicate that there was a one story element there. Katherine Lee: I have been here 14 years and the entire back has been changed so many times that I couldn't begin to tell you how many. What are the side yard setback requirements? Amy: In R6 you have to have 5 feet on each side with a combined 4 total of 15. Katherine Lee: Is the new one 5 feet? Greg: It is at 5 and 10. Chairman Linda Smisek closed the public hearing. 0 MOTION: Roger moved to recommend landmark designation to Lot C, D and E and the East 1/2 of Lot B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval as submitted to include partial demolition of the rear addition as show by the removal of the model at this meeting and that we grant the interior sideyard setbacks and site coverage 5% variance on lot A and B as requested with the following conditions for conceptual approval: 1) A worksession with a monitor will be held before final. 2) No moving of tree or trees on the front side of the property. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24. 1995 3) That the restoration of the right porch occur to as close as possible to the original. 4) No fence of any kind either structural or landscape between the interior division of the two properties if in fact they are divided. 5) Study the rear garage access to determine if there is sufficient space to enter and exit a garage on the alley. If the study shows that the rearyard setback variance is applicable then we will grant 2 feet on the rear and 3 on the alley side. 6) That we grant the 500 sqft. FAR bonus to Lot A. 7) We waive the 5 parking spaces. Motion second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 130 S. GALENA - CITY HALL - MINOR Amy: We approved a lightwell in the back of city hall so that we can build a basement. The basement will contain city council meeting room and the Sister City meeting room. What is being proposed on the south side is to cut the wall back and light would drift down to the sister city room. There is a sidewalk and traditionally you bring light into a lightwell and if you cut into R the sidewalk and relocate it you will put people right into where the roof dumps snow off. I do not find this a compatible solution as it does not respect the rhythm of the windows. Possibly this could be a trade off of the basement as one of the rooms does not have natural light. Someone has suggested a lightwell with block glass across it and that would be my recommendation. Les: This is a landmark building and I do not like what is going on. I went to Breckenridge and they just finished their city hall and it has no windows in the room and they did it on purpose. The lighting was designed well and I talked with members of their council and they indicated that their meetings actually work better. They do not need the natural light for a city council meeting with people distracting them from the outside etc. Cris Caruso, Engineer: Council likes the feeling of the light shining in the room. Council said if I could provide natural light to that room they would consider having the present sister city room moved to the basement with the council chambers otherwise they are against it. If that doesn't occur we can use the space as storage space or office space. It gets difficult working a full week without natural light. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14. 1995 staff and or project monitor. 2) The historic house cannot be relocated even temporarily. 3) HPC, Staff and monitor will need to look at samples of stone veneer, brick and roofing materials. 4) The material between the window and the brick mold will be of a substantial materials so that it will not deteriorate and can be approved by Staff and monitor. 5) Clarify roof drainage problem with staff and monitor. If an elevation or design changes are necessary applicant must return to HPC. 6) Applicant may be allowed to remove the window on the south side and replace it as he asked. 7) Applicant may be allowed to move the stairs as he has asked on the west porch. 8) Applicant may be allowed to have or not have a door on the south side to be determined by code. Motion second by Melanie; all in favor, motion carries. 123 W. FRANCIS - WORKSESSION M Jake: At conceptual there was a condition that I could not remove the tree and I am interested in moving it. A lot of the front property line is obscured by trees. I had an expert look at this tree and it will take the biggest caliber in the area and possibly I will have to rent one from Denver. He assures me it can be moved and will be out of the ground 20 minutes. Sven: Where and why do you want it moved? Jake: I was thinking of between the two houses .to buffer them. The reason I am moving it is not to put it somewhere else it is to get it out of the position it is. It blocks a portion of the front and forms a barrier to the street which is neither good for the streetscape or the house. We want houses to have a direct connection to the street. We have gone to links to connect porch elements to the street. One of the thoughts was that the trees would mitigate the building but I feel the building will be a good one and the tree is a barrier. I have to be able to anticipate moving the tree in order to design the house. I f. the tree stays there I have to design the house in a different configuration. 2-0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14. 1995 Roger: You need to sell the lot and have someone pick up the design. In this situation and any situation is the life in the house going to orientate toward the street or orientate toward the view of Aspen mountain which is to the south and east. Realistically it will not orientate to the street. Jake: I am already using the south L to sell this house and it is an inverted house with the decks up above. I still do not want the house to turn its back on the street. The tree is dead center in the middle of the site. I truly love this site and the corner and I want this house to have the relationship to the great intersection that is there. Melanie: Moving it over will allow you to do more with the front of the house. I would hate to see it moved off the street though but can see where it is impacting the house. It is making the house dark. Roger: What about the far corner where the garage is. Amy: The Parks Dept. will make him bond the tree to make sure it will not die. Roger: You want us to state that the tree can be moved. Amy: I feel this is important as the house is not participating in the street scape as is and you are denying the person of the view of that wonderful neighborhood. Martha: I have trees that are 35 years old now and if I could move some I would and it is a problem if you don't look a head 35 years from now. I am not sure if it is fair to lay down these hard rules. Jake: I can give the board more information. Roger: A straw poll was taken and the board is in favor of moving the tree. Jake: The second issue is I am trying to crete more of a side yard and to do that I have to destroy a portion of the historic house. It is old but what is the historical value of the shed. Linda: I feel it is really unique. Sven: It makes the house what is a cross gable on a little victorian as opposed to a little miners cottage and that is why I would hate to get rid of it. Linda: You could do something real creative with that. 21 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14. 1995 Susan: I agree that something fun could be done. Roger: I could be a double porch. Jake: It is a very strange deal. It doesn't line up and the windows are different. Roger: It doesn't line with the cross gable. Jake: The porch is in front of this piece which is 8 feet wide. Amy: The front wall is historic but the other walls are changed. Roger: I would prefer that you left that and remove some of the rear. Jake: By not having that piece I can move the house over and create a nice sideyard condition with regard to relationships. Melanie: If you take the piece off can you have a larger side yard setback. Jake: I could and it would give me five feet. I would ten have the total separation between the two structures of 15 feet. Even if I moved it over 2 1/2 feet I could have 12 feet separating it. Roger: Is anyone in favor of removing the addition. Straw poll taken and board is not in favor of removing the addition. 939 E. COOPER - WORKSESSION Bob Langley: I want to talk about moving the barn on E. Cooper court project. I have a letter from Bill Bailey the house mover and essentially it says in order to move the barn intact it would require extensive bracing and even when it was moved because there aren't right angles in there that when we put it on the foundation to try and build inside of it there is a chance of collapsing. The south wall is shorter than the north wall. When you put it on the foundation it would tilt. We would like to move it a wall at a time which will give us the opportunity to replace boards one at a time and it would be much safer and cost efficient and preserve the integrity of the structure. We would like to have your approval to move it in sections. Marsha Goshorn: Even if it stkys on the same site it has the same problems. It was built with scrap lumber. One corner is held up by a tree stump. 22 .r TO: AMY AMIDON FROM: JAKE VICKERY RE: 123/129 WEST FRANCIS DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1995 This letter is to document and describe possible amendments to the Conceptual approval for 123/129 West Francis. This letter replaces and supersedes my letter of October 4, 1995. SUMMARY Three optional revisions are proposed to the conceptual plans: 6 1. To "split" the lot into two equal sites, each 52.~ feet wide. 2. To move the Historical cottage to the Westerly site rather than the Easterly site. 3. A variance of one additional parking space for the Historical cottage. These optional revisions are represented on the attached site plans entitled "OPTION A" and "OPTION B: They have been initiated in response to the needs of a potential buyer and are placed before HPC to see if they are acceptable should the applicant chose to move forward under one of these options. The intention is to keep all other approvals associated with the respective 'Units" of the original configuration otherwise intact and applicable. Further, these proposed revisions are a positive response to some concerns raised at Conceptual and improve and are consistent with the application as initially proposed. 1. SITE DIVISION Instead of the 45 feet / 60 feet split contemplated in the original application (see attached - similar to option 'A"), the split is revised to be 52.5 feet / 52.5 feet. HPC required the front west porch be preserved which required the building mass of the historical house to be the full 37 feet wide resulting in very narrow sideyards. The HPC questioned the narrowness of the sideyards and suggested restudying them. This increased site width for the historical cottage would provide more site area and a better setting for the Historical resource. The proposed "split" results in fewer and less severe variances and brings the project more into conformance with the underlying zone requirements as well as proposed provisions in the new Historical Lot Split Code Amendment as passed by P&Z. 2. UNIT SWITCH JThe second alternate revision change is to relocate the historical structure to the west instead of to the east. Unit "A" and Unit "B" essentially switch places. This shift has the following advantages: MI This landmark structure and its neighboring landmark structure to the west will be next to each other. Historical structures work best in sets of 2 or 3 and mutually support, compliment, and protect each other. This location also protects the historical structure from unknown development to the east at 111 West Francis. Site specific studies show that this shift may provide as good or better sideyard relationships and open space between structures and improved inter-play of massing volumes and windows locations. The secondary facade (East) of the 123 cottage is better exposed to the street. 3. ADDITIONAL PARKING VARIANCE Further, P&Z wanted an additional designated parking space for the ADU associated with the historical cottage. This additional space would require greater width across the rear of the site. This space can be provided, however, due to the single story nature of the existing cottage, we ask that HPC waive one additional space for the old house to allow the second parking space to be assigned to the ADU. This is requested on the basis of 'more compatibility" to the historical structures and setting. This variance would provide additional usable open space for the Historical structure and greater preservation of the existing grove of aspen trees which is an strong character element of the setting of this historical resource. An FAR exemption is not available to this voluntary below grade ADU, therefore it does not result in any additional floor area than would otherwise be allowed for this site. The allowable FAR of this site is already significantly reduced below a lot of record which would still only need 2 parking spaces. More important, from an HPC point of view this parking variance is also conductive to maintaining the feel of the alley and alley fences and alley structures. OFF-SITE TREE RELOCATION In any event, the center spruce tree will need to be relocated off site. Adequate space for the future growth of this tree can not be provided on site and meet other preservation, site planning, and usable open space goals. The existing tree sits on the "build-to" or "facade line" and is centered on the building site. The tree has no particular historical importance. (George Washington did not sleep here!). In additional to two very large street trees, there exists over thirty other trees on this site that will provide excellent landscaping options. This issue was discussed in a worksession on June 14 concluding with a straw pole supporting moving the tree (albeit on-site). A permit has been granted from the Parks Department allowing this tree to be relocated and donated to the Red Brick School as a public street tree where it will be enjoyed by many people. This relocation effort has been coordinated with the Red Brick school and they are very appreciative of the contribution of this tree to this public property. H o h , l, Hous â‚¬ ' N ew 'rli v je 1 11 1, 1 1 1 5' 1.- -7- . , 11 .1 11 1 1 T ---1-T 1 11 1 1 - I 1 1 1 1 1 1 .-1 1. 1 1 ' LE': 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1. 1 r 1 1.1,1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 It .4 1 11 1 i i 11 1 l L 4-2 0.1.-1-4-i.1 : 11 1/ 11 . 1 1 1 1 /1 1 L 1 / 1 1 /L . 1 /1---- 1 1 1 '1 1 1 1 1 4 1 \ 1 1 1 ! 1 ~------4 1. i. . 1 \ 1 / lili I --1-1 1 17 In .1 4 1 ," it 1 ------- 1/ 1,\ 1 \1 - 51 ' 2 ././1 \ p -14 l 1 1 1 1 1 t, 1-7 1 1 IL-1 i -R---7 , Â· Â· 1 16=------ 111 ..1 L B Ir 1 1 . T- 1 - ---- 11 1 1/ - I . 4 --1-L----9%-7 - â€ž ..I. -- -11- -----I L.- --=L 1661--1 ~ . 1 1 . r-- --4 | / \ 4 -7 / // \ . 1 / 0 -i -I-- / 128 \lit --.- 1 4 /1 ; 121 4 \1 , ORIGINAL SITE PLAN 5/8/95 , / 4 rm R.AN \ 0/ / 123 WEST FRANCIS / JAKE VICKERY Crs ~ MAY 8, 1995 -- IllilitilliNA 1 . 52.5 FEET . 52.5 FEET ~ ., . t 1. . . .. 123 WEST FRANCISi ' 129 WEST FRANCIS r IJNI:CZAL . .- le .UNItat Â·Â· LIMrrED COMMON ELEMENT LIMnED COMMON ELEMENT ~ . 5,250 Se. Fr. 5,250 SO. 14. APORTIONED BASE FAR: 1,450 S.F. ..8 APORTIONED BASE FAR: 2,720 S.F. . SPRUCE TREE TO BE I. 1 RELOCATED TO RED BRICK SCHOOL â€¢ -. '10 . . r.~ . . .8 - - 4 -- **:r!=,19--Le -4. 1 - AN Â®- 1 1 Â· SEP 2 8 1995 . \ . 1 \ p . 1 I l ! 105.0 FEET ' + ~ Â· Er,ts,) 7-1,-es Annoval; mmood PROPOSED SITE DIVISION 10/ 16/95 .14\ I PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM .PROPOSED PLAT {DRAF11 VICKERY 12371-29'WEEr-FRANCIS . '10â„¢1 ' TO U)Â¤*RlnÂ»O R- JAKE VICKERY ARCHIECTS L / 100 SOURI SPRING STREEr #3 -I.. ....... .. ...... . ....-ASPEN..CO.8181-1-070-9:M;-3660 SUBJECT TO CHAN(}E 3 WEST FRANCIS STREET . .. . 52.5 FEET . Ult 1 - -I--I -1. -Â· 1- 1. ! - . 1 . 1 liE ,. .. @11Â« 1 1 . 1 47-- -- --- tz:zi - '1 r 1 . i .4// 1 ... #-4- ---- , 1 . .1 . 4! ' 1 Nip, 1 1 i----:-j-~-i'Â·-~.--ir~ I ,~J 0 . M! 4 1 1.6.Â· 1.1 ' 3 --7: 1 . .. ., 1 1 li , 1 L,- 3.61. 1 . .li / 1 - -14.\ i ,/ 1: ; .-- 11 ) itl---W'-4 ! - ..i- 1 . .1 . It . 1-1 . ..... ,. I. . .4 5,11 /1 . 1 . J 1 . .. :i_14 Â· ~ ; 1- 1 1 1.-1 L+ 1 , 1: i 1 1 1 1 1 -- ./. 1 . Â· :L - -Â·t-'~6'*b=-r,tf~pi~ 1 / . r---- /. \ . 4 \ *- -- 1 1 ..... .. \ il . , - - --../... \ -.- 1, . S EP 2 8 1995 105.0 FEEr' + REVISED SITE PLAN - OPTION A- 10/16/95 ~ ~ ~ t~ Â· . I UnSED 7/15-03 15/9.111~39/9 . . STUDY NEW HOUSE - "A" '\ PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM Â· VICKERY 12371-29*WEST-FR]INCIS \ 0 . a . Nom Au :*vnong=r O,1 nus Mion,ru :s suan:cr I / UWDOWDâ€¢o R.. 201,0.0 .3,0 0,11*,1 Can, RECUIRE=WINTS ' JAKE VICKERY ARCHITEC1 =VAnow Â©060â€¢=,ow o. on=# crrT .unio m=L Â· 100 SOUT}i SPRING SIREE I. . I. ASRE,4.(20,81614--0*)-025- ~UBJECT TO CHANGE WEST FRANC.., STREET 100 FEET I i . - 52.5 FEET ' ' . 52.5,FpET . 01 Â¢ 7- -2, .-7 1 4- 1 -- -- . 11 - Â· 12 Â· I - a. . . im U====== . Â£= L. L--41--g- .. i - t- I - .. 0 Â· A- lIT -- \ .e.3- - CC 6-- = 1 Â· Â· 1 i-Â· rTÂ· -2 k--iÂ»,Â»Â·- Â· I. r-- - -- . 1 .. -1-. ---- 1 . 1 L #Jil*e. i d '8 1 i.l'!]M 1. . . 1 1. 1 1 11 1 3. ./.. 1, 1 1---11-1 . i .6. .. 1 \ 1 / it -1, . 1/ It , I . .. 1 A- --'.1- 4 r 7 ./ 5' 0.1 1 rr- â€¢[ 3. t I -, b 1 1 1; 1 Â· ,~r Z: -Z.:~ n-~6= +1,4..L-2*~==1 / r.---- . / . \ 6 / 61 C *-3 / 1 \. 1. 5 EP 2 8.1935 . I . 41 ' 1 105.0 FEET ' + REVISED SITE PLAN - OPTION B - 10/16/95 + . 1 STUDY NEW HOUSE - "B" ' ' ) 6 PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM Â· VICKERY 7237129'WESrERKNCIS i , . . 10 UllÂ©,al:nÂ»O R-* 100,0,0 8,10 011[22 CITT RIQUIRIUZMN . EXCIn AS â€ž0Â©OmÂ£) DY ArrROVALS,ROU nm AS,IN SUSTOR,CAL .%*- .-*...â€ž. --- JAKE VICKERY ARCIUTECTSÂ· rusâ€¢avano,Â¢0000=310,40#oritaarliurnoarnts. Â· 100 SOU SPRING STREET #3 SUBJECT TO CHANGE -- I. I ., â€ž ........ ---ASPEN,-CO.818140*1025-3680 . WEST FRANCB STREET .=I Resolution 95- A Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado Recommending to City Council an amendment to Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, Land Use Regulations, to Create a Procedure for the creation of Historic Landmark Lot Splits by amending Sections 7-1003 (A) (5) Subdivision Exemption, 8-105(A)(2)(e) GMQS Exemption, 5-201(D) Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district, and Section 7-607 Development in an H Historic Overlay District or Involving a Historic Landmark WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides that amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive from Jake Vickery an application for an amendment to the land use regulations, and reviewed and recommended for approval, certain text amendments to Chapter 24 relating to Sections 7-1003 (A) (5) Subdivision Exemption, 8-105(A) (2) (e) GMQS Exemption, 5-201(D) Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district, and Section 7-607 Development in an H Historic Overlay District or Involving a Historic Landmark; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment on August 8th, September 5th, and September 19, 1995 at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission j recommended approval to City Council by a vote of 5-1; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the text amendment will allow and promote compatibility of zone districts and land tises with existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics and will be consistent with the public welfare and purposes and intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission further finds that the applicant's request will: o provide a historic preservation incentive to create non- conforming sized parcels and allow fee simple ownership of these lots; o be available to approximately 21 parcels in the R-6 zone district; o permit a lot split between 9,000 sq.ft. and 12,000 sq.ft., in the R-6 zone district, with Planning Director approval; o provide the Historic Preservation Committee all physical planning review authority over both parcels created in the Historic Landmark Lot Split; o permit the Historic Preservation Committee to grant historic variances to the parcel that contains the historic landmark, no variances will be permitted on parcel proposed for the new residence; and o provide an incentive to Historic Landmarks by not restricting the number of these lot splits per year, nor by taking them out of the specified growth pool. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 7-1003 "Subdivision Exemption" of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby recommended to be amended by the addition of a new section (A) (5), to read as follows: 5. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one 2 new single-family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 7- 1003(A)(2), Section 8-105(A)(2)(e), Section 7-607 and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R- 6 zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. C. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel which contains the historic structure. Section 2: Section 8-105 "GMQS Exemption" of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby recommended to be amended by the inclusion of a new paragraph 8-105(A)(2)(e) which shall read as follows: e. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new single family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 7- 1003 (A) (5) . Section 3 Section 5-201 "Medium Density Residential (R-6)" of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby recommended to be amended by repealing and reenacting the following Sections to 5-201(D): 1. Minimum lot size (square feeth: '6,000. For lots created by Section 8-105(A)(2)(e) Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3,000. 3 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by Section 8-105(A)(2)(e) Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. e Section 4 Article 7 "Development Review Standards" of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby recommended to be amended by the addition of Section 7-607 to "Development in an H, Historic Overlay District or involving a Historic Landmark" to read: A. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of all lots created pursuant to Section 7-1003(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on September 19, 1995. Attest: Planning and Zoning Commission: Sharon Carrillo, Sara Garton, Deputy City Clerk Chair reso.apz.textamend.vickery j 4 1 23/12Â· 9 W&91- FIZANCIS Arh 9-,v DED OWA Cte 70 4(., 10-26-99 6 4 09 44/ 0 4 (+ f WELLS Pec? VES-t- AFFO-oVAL OP 64(2,9 69/l...14H-'P wel-(-5 AG APPRO X/'VIAÂ·'ret-4 LOCA,rE-D ON A-nlb.OMED 9 1 -PLA,00 .tÂ».iED iD- 29- 99 Vv ll-*- 1>1 w M, 9 12Â·B j SH-'A-Â·P B J AN't> .DES:Rl 4 A> -It 150- 0,Â·~f>Â¢P r>Ov et> 134 97*Â¥f Â¢ 1/\A w (9011 0 . . I 1 .1 . 62.6 FEEr . 52.5,~ET . 1 01 . AH 1-1 1 1 . . . ~ YEBBEBE~ tria : . 0 .lei 1 1 iEE .1 I= 1 10 OICATES .\7. - 1 - . L- -11--It-4. : AFFBOX} mAlE I ... L. LocAlun a F l-//- __~-rT-~r~-Â·1-1,1 4.- 124Â¢&991050-6 f 2 ' : 1\1/1 1 A *Â»922!SIX Jâ‚¬) . . 1 -2-.-142:3 . -- .. , * A 2-4- - 1. Loc*[613 IN L-}4614-k--7JJ i 8 1 SerE+014 1.1/ ,Â», -1 1, . *EASI - -- O 0 . 1 : 1 (APpu 8 - M --- 1. . 1 . Â·MI 1 1 k . 7. ,-3. 1 11 70 El THEK 1-- - 1 \ 1 / 1 1, OpllÂ® I . I. 1 / 1\ c# 1 " 1 . . S.1 \\ , l:Â·14 101-- IAI EU,5.,1 Â· , 5,, 1 - . 1 /1 16Â¢15*p ..14.: 11 ' . 4 I 1 1==it.. 10Â· 26: 94-, -1 - 1 11 415/../.2*11...1 0 4/ . ~- - - 7 0 -~- 1 1 r---4 . ./ .. N , / ' 01 ./*---.0 1 1. . . SEP 28 .1995 ; 1 .. \ /1 ... . t 41 i 1.05.0 FEET Â· + i REVISED SITE PLAN - OPTION B- 10/16/95 + , Â· .1 . , Â· PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM STUDY NEW HOUSE - "B" C / * ~ VICKERY *12371-29*WESrFRANCIS I. I \ , NOTE: All <Â¥IlÂ©niI*r 041 nal r,OFERTE ES SUBJECT 0 / ~ 0/ on=a=/unloarnis. Â· ,+ . JAKE VICKERY ARCHrTECT~ 100 SOUTH SPRING STREE0--~ ~BJECT TO CHANGE .. ASREN.-CO-8161-1-020*25'-I- I . WEST FRANCIfi~MFREEr , 7 I . 8202 - Au,Ft, 0 . . -14- - OF- 5 * p Welt' -' 13Â© -4--- -- ,l . 1 0.41 1- 13 - ---- / / 1 . f A.t:7.4 4 .b 1 %994 / 4%12/DeM/ -t ,UVIN 4 -- - a /TMÂ¢ .-FLÂ® 1 04* St b 4 1 4.i 1 1- r -fl.. . :i w:.6Â« 7 \2Â· ' 1 1-- t H %41- 1 + 13#Â¢ - . .f- : Lt, 0 1 . 84Â£ 9.k. 6410 k\ 0 BO, 2 -1- ~70Â»4 eepelf, . r. 1 1 ' -' - - -1- ; - .zEtrj 91 - 1 , 1. ,I PIN) p )mar' UNF U IN P - &,4Â»1 %*11' 84&, 8Â»14 *1 m DIP *-_ -- 9 EST- 71Â¥Ndlf 57 4 Â»<Rl 4 two 90$89 cal-AAS A 123 WEST FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS ~) -AL._r--89*EC lo' 24, 0,1 1 ed) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 820 E. Cooper- request for clarification of finding or reconsideration of motion DATE: October 25, 1995 HPC granted conceptual approval for the redevelopment of 820 E. Cooper Avenue on September 27. At that time, the proposal showed an airlock porch entry and two lightwells added to the front facade of the house. HPC unanimously voted in favor of the conceptual approval, but specified that the lightwells and porch were not to be constructed in that location. Comments found in the minutes of that meeting include statements that these elements are out of character, attempt to make the historic resource a more complex architecture than it originally was, disturb the facade that best represents the historic resource to the public, and that a visual problem is created in the adjacency of the lightwells to a public sidewalk. At this time, the applicant requests a reconsideration of HPC's finding to deny the lightwells and porch, amending the condition to say"restudy the location and treatment of porch and lightwells." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC not amend the condition of approval, finding that the previous decision was based on a sound finding that this area of the proposal directly conflicts with review standard #4 which requires the proposed development to not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. As a policy, HPC generally pursues the restoration of a historic structure to the extent possible. The porch is not an original feature, and lightwells along the streetscape are found to be inappropriate enough to have been disallowed by Ordinance #30. To temper this strong recommendation, Staff does note that HPC would not want to discourage creative solutions to design problems. Rather than dilute their findings by a request for reconsideration such as this, perhaps the Board should take a policy that they may be persuaded to make a new finding at such time that a new proposal in drawn form which meets the standard is brought forward. The applicant is free to restudy the~situation at his own volition at this time. NOTE: As a procedural issue, in order to reconsider a decision, one of the members who voted against the opinion of the applicant must make a motion. Any member may second the motion. If the motion to reconsider passes, then it 0 is as if the first vote was never taken. 0 0 RCHITECT 1 VA JAKE VICKERY TO: AMY AMIDON POST OFFICE BOX 12360 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3 FROM: JAKE VICKERY ~ 4 ASPEN.C0LORAD081612 TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE RE: 820 EAST COOPER, RECONSIDERATION (970) 923-3660 DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1995 On behalf of the owners, this letter is to request, at the Commission's pleasure, a reopening of the September 27 HPC Conceptual Approval for 820 East Cooper regarding condition #3 pertaining to the front entry vestibule and the front light wells. This request is made to allow the applicant a chance to prepare and present additional information for the Commission's consideration on this Item. Simple removal of the light wells is impossible without providing alternative light well locations which may require additional variance considerations. Such action would require the applicant to renotice and delay and complicate this application. Further, the applicant would like to address these issues with more site specific detail. Specifically we would request that wording of Condition #3 be changed from "remove" to "restudy and consider options to..." or some such similar language the Commission may be comfortable with. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 500 WEST BLEEKER .......... 3 706 W. MAIN - FINAL APPROVAL ....... 5 123 W. FRANCIS CD - PUBLIC HEARING ..... 9 820 E. COOPER - REQUEST OR RECONSIDERATION ... 15 WORKSESSION - ORDINANCE #30 ....... 16 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Donnelley Erdman with Les Holst, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington, Linda Smisek and Roger Moyer present. Excused were Jake Vickery, Melanie Roschko and Sven Alstrom. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes of Aug. 23, 1995; September 13, 1995 and September 27, 1995; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Amy: Regarding EIS there will be a meeting Nov. 15th where there will be a formal detailed presentation of the realities of alternative H. I believe the end of the comment period is around XMAS time. Les: After we see alternative H we need a worksession to evaluate all the alternatives. I got everything from the trolley people and a tape. Donnelley: Four and a half years ago we approved the tennis townhomes at the Aspen Meadows and Savannah was the developer of that and they have plans in for approval but the elevations on the Meadows Road side are significantly different than what we approved. They have switched architects, Finholm was the original for the tennis townhome and the renovation of the trustee townhomes and Savannah gave the contract document phase to Striker/Brown. In the process there was not enough communication about what was approved and what was not. When we approved May 8, 1991 the plans for the development of the tennis townhomes opposite the tennis courts. Amy: How did you find out this was happening? Donnelley: They are listed for sale and they are in the building department and I happened to see the drawings. Amy: Those reviews were mandatory and I pulled the plans this afternoon and what I can tell is that HPC never saw those plans in 1994 as they were not highlighted and never went past me. I can see that the elevations don't match. Donnelley: It may be solved by Staff and monitor. Martha: Was that at the time when Fred Smith presented? Donnelley: No this was when Dave Finholm presented. Les: On 801 E. Hyman Amy stated that they want to take away any single story aspect of it. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 Amy: What was discussed at the site is that they would like to remove that one story form that~ was to represent the house that used to be there and instead 94*. the porch all the way around the house. They are free to bring that drawing in. I knew from reading the minutes that it was an essential part of the design to have that. Les: I stand to say no unless it is wonderful. Linda: Stan had his original plans from 1987 at the site and he was showing us what he wanted to do and it is a user unfriendly place because it is screaming with trucks and construction. That house that Amy signed off on across the street they are livid about that and there is dirt in the street and it is a filthy mess. Amy: I signed off on it? Linda: Well that was the statement at the site. Amy: I feel the Kraut project is a good affordable housing project. Linda: The tree that was there laid there all summer long and no one had any idea of what was going on and it is dead now. ~ Les: Unless they bring in something that is considerably a better asset for the community I do not feel they should get approval. Linda: They will bring a plan in. Amy: I will supply the minutes. Roger: With regard to Jeff that resigned, first of all it is very hard to get good people and secondly if Jeff was encouraged to stay on the boars and that the time he is in Korea we fax him what is going on so he is aware and when he is in town he could remain on HPC. Some of us have looked at the slides from the Federal people and that should be ongoing. At some point we should go around town again and look at how to deal with lightwells. Possibly we need two worksessions to have an overall philosophy of what we are trying to do. We all need to operate with the same terminology and provide members with the educational materials needed. Amy: We have a number of qualified people who have applied to the Board. We need to call a special HPC regarding training sessions etc. because our agendas are full and we need to figure that out. We need to discuss our design guideline book that was done in 1987. I just went through them for a major revision for a grant. Donnelley: I also feel it is important that we all understand the 0 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 language of a residential structure and that is approximately 50 words. Amy: As far as publications I have them all in my office. The city subscribes to numerous magazines. Roger: I find the blend of mass and scale at Seaside is extremely interesting but what is more fascinating is that when the hurricane came through two communities were leveled because of total disregard of any real type construction that would resist natural disasters. 500 WEST BLEEKER Donnelley: We site visited this today. Amy: Casey Clark is representing a 7 foot high wood fence and then it will drop in areas down to 6 feet and then pick up again. We would need a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to allow them to go to seven feet. The historic house has been raised to have a higher floor level and the exact opposite is happening to the building next door. Roger: One of the issues we deal with is not to look at a long wall when we walk up. The new house to the left was not reviewed. The fence does not have to be continuous and could be split so you are not creating a solid barrier between the two. Donnelley: Side yard fences are very typical in the west end and they do not stagger back and forth. I would rather see a fence that has some use as they might have an animal to keep in there. All fences in the west end areÂ·continuous. Amy: And that is what she tried to do by stepping it down. Les: What about coming down at an angle. Donnelley; You could do an average of six feet but no greater than seven feet so that the fence would have to average out to six feet. Martha: We do not have seven foot fences. Amy: That is why they have to go to Board of Adjustment. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the privacy fence at 500 W. Bleeker on the west side between the existing historic property and the new structure to the west with the following conditions: 1) The south end of the fence will be no further to the street 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 than the wall of the front porch of the existing victorian. 2) That the north end of the fence will be no longer than the rear corner board of the.new house to the west and that no portion of the fence can exceed seven feet and that the average height will be six feet. Roger: The reason is so that the fence will step down in the center where there is no need for the full seven foot height. 3) The recommendation to the Board of Adjustment is to please allow the privacy fence to be installed as outlined by HPC for the following reasons: The historic house years ago was raised therefore the need for the extra foot on the fence is that it is higher than the newer house next door and that there is a true privacy problem from window to window. We find by allowing this it is not taking away any view plane by the neighbor or disrupting any solar loss or gain. Motion second by Susan. DISCUSSION Susan: What about the spruce tree that was to be added. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to add: 4) That a new blue spruce tree be planted at the junction between the existing wrought iron fence and the new wooden fence on the south end and that the tree to be at least six feet in height. Second by Susan. DISCUSSION Donnelley: I believe we should not define the limit of the fence to the north because that has a lot to do with the ultimate plan and development of the back rear of the alley. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion that the north end of the fence can be extended further toward the alley at the discretion of the applicant. This amends #2. Second by Susan. Amy: They are dropping it to six feet at some points and I feel we might be making this too complicated. Donnelley: It may help with the Board of Adjustment that the average height of the fence is. six feet and parts are seven. Martha: I feel this is too complicated for the applicant. It 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 needs worded so that it is simplistic. Amy: The applicant originally wanted to ask for an eight foot fence the whole way across. We can suggest adding inflection. Donnelley: How about stating maximum height of seven feet where necessary and the rest six feet or less. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion stating that the maximum height of the fence seven feet where necessary and the remaining fence to be six feet or less; second by Susan. All in favor of motion and amended motions. 706 W. MAIN - FINAL APPROVAL Amy: There was one extension given to conceptual recently and at that hearing the committee members made comments for restudy and what it mostly focused on was the flat roof section of the new addition and a change has been made and there is now a gabled roof in that area. Jake brought up the point that he would like to see more character at the alley. I am recommending approval as submitted. We will need more indications of material but that could be worked out with Staff and monitor. Donnelley; It is nice to have the 1/4 scale drawings. Joe Krabacher, owner: I myself liked the flat roof. David Panico: The intent of the original was to have the building understated. We dressed up the rear and created a pitched roof that runs the length of the flat roof area. There was an issue at the last meeting about the location of the windows on the upper floor and that is a function of the interior floor plan. There were some statements that indicated that you wanted some more play in that and I have always thought that especially on the rear in the back of this building the more understated the better you are. The materials will be an asphalt roof in keeping what is presently on the cottage and the dimension of the clapboard size on the lower level banding will be in keeping as to what is happening on the cottage. Roger: Why would you keep the same size siding on the new as on the historic building. David Panico: To carry portions of the element through and tieing the two together. Roger: What is the fence going to be made out of? David: Metal. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 CLARIFICATION Amy: Regarding the historic house what is original in terms of siding and windows? Joe Krabacher: The front porch element is not original. The siding is aluminum siding and underneath is asphalt siding and under the asphalt siding is clapboard. We haven't pulled off big sections but when we changed the door you could see underneath. David Panico: Joe went through the lower section to see what was there. Joe Krabacher: My plan is to restore the original clapboard siding. Roger: Is the original clapboard siding painted? Joe: Yes. The roof is new but there are beams inside that are old. The window on the east L is an original window and we will keep it in there even though it doesn't work. The front door is not original. Amy: Has a structural engineer looked at it. Joe: I think so. Amy: Since you are moving the house forward as a condition of conceptual you will need to provide a replacement plan and relocation plan while excavating and we need to set a bond. Donnelley: On the E, W and N elevations all the new work has fenestration that is two over one and then you get to the south which is the street L the fenestration is two over two which is the same as the historic resource. The band of four windows. Why do those windows look like the historic resource as I feel we should try and make the new work different. Joe Krabacher: I agree and it should be two over one for a slightly different treatment. David Panico: Those windows were to be easement. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. No comments from the public. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. Roger: On the west end which is now a door will you replace the door with the historical window? 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 0 Joe Krabacher: I feel that window is in the basement and that is what we would do. We want to fix the windows and make them work. Roger: When you take everything off the historic house will you use as much as that as possible even though it is beat up? Joe Krabacher: Of course, I like it like that frankly. It adds character. Amy: If the siding must be replaced would we really want to have it the same exposure to weather as the new building since then it has no real distinction? Donnelley: On the older buildings there is less to weather because that is the way it was done and now people tend the clapboard to weather as you don't have to use as much material. When we make our recommendations for approval that if there is not a significant distinction in terms of texture and age of the existing material because it all can be used then you might increase the amount to weather on the new work. Joe Krabacher: What is the purpose of that? Donnelley: Just to differentiate the corner between old and new. 0 That increase might be 1/2 inch. Martha: Basically we are here to approve materials. Donnelley: And the roof form on the alley, materials, fenestration, bonding and a affidavit that the building is structurally sound. Chairman Donnelley Erdman entertained a motion. MOTION: Les moved grant final approval for redevelopment of the site of 706 W. Main with final conditions: 1) Upper south windows to be changed to not copy the windows of the cottage. 2) The salvageable siding on the historic structure to be determined by owner and monitor. Siding on the old not to be replicated on the new structure. 3) That a bond for $15,000 be provided with information on the movement of the old resource. 4) Historic windows to be retained and if possible the door on the west side be replaced with the original window, the 0 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 window that is stored. Second by Roger. DISCUSSION Amy: If the original siding on the cottage can be salvaged then the new building can match that exposure. It is only if that siding cannot be salvaged and it has to be replaced that the two buildings have to have a different kind of exposure. Donnelley: If all the old siding is salvageable you will notice upon inspection that one is definitely old and the other is new and smoother. Les: I feel the monitor and owner can solve this. Roger: I always thought we wanted to show the new from the old so why have the same dimensions. Amy: If one is old materials lt is clear that one is different. David Panico: I feel carrying that one element from the old to the new gives some continuity of the buildings. Donnelley: Another thing we never discuss is the painting and I have always favored having slightly different shades between the old and new and it is never done. Roger: I have brought that up in the past. In the Elli's building it was painted blue and then a lighter blue for the historic and then all of a sudden they came back and it was all the same color. We didn't put that in the approval. Amy: If the first owner is willing to do a slight color change as we do not want the building in the back to look like an addition. It would be nice if they looked different. Les: I see this house as a growing living organism and feel there will be excitement when we pull off all that old stuff and see what is there. Roger: On the Crocket house they left the historic house almost untouched. They put a clear sealer on it and it one of the most charming things around. Joe Krabacher: To clarify, the bond and relocation permit should accompany the building permit. Amy: Ideally before you submit the building permit I should receive it so you won't be held up. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 VOTE: All in favor, motion carries. Les is the monitor. Donnelley: What is the construction schedule? Joe Krabacher: About two years. Amy: You have vested rights by default for a year and a half and three years if you want to come in and ask for it. To do vested rights it is a public hearing.Â· Joe Krabacher: I need to do that and it goes from today. 123 W. FRANCIS CD - PUBLIC HEARING Amy: We approved this project in May conceptually and it was to relocate the existing house on the lot and then build a new structure next to it and at that time we granted several variances because for such a large parcel there were very large side yard setbacks required but this proposal involves two small buildings and in order to fit them on the lot you can't meet those setbacks so we approved that previously. Amy: Since then the owner has found a potential buyer and that buyer is interested in flip flopping the plan you approved. We approved moving the historic house to the east and building the new house to the west. They want to switch those and there are a lot of advantages to it actually because then you have two historic resources, two one story buildings next to each other. Then you have the new structure and the next door parcel is not historic. We are here to readjust the variances in order for this to happen. I have listed the new variances. Amy: The next issue is the tree. There are three large trees on the parcel two of them are up near the city right-of-way and one is within the parcel. That one is the smallest of the three and we have had several discussions about it. Originally the motion said that the tree cannot be relocated. Then the applicant came back and said can you reconsider that a little as it blocks the facade of the new house and it is within the building envelope and not working so the approval was granted to move it to the rear of the parcel. Now what is being asked is your approval to take it off the property. The Red Brick School is interested in having the tree and will put it on the street scape. By putting this at the back of the lot it isnrt doing much for the streetscape anymore and it is a very big tree and we have small yards for these buildings so the applicant is asking for that. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 Amy: Before, the old house was on a 3,000 sqft. lot and you put a condition on that no fence could be built between the two houses as the old house was only two feet from the lot line and you said no fence. I am going to explain why that situation has changed and they would like that conditionÂ·taken away. We discussed before an historic lot split. This is a 10,000 sqft. parcel and you are allowed by right to build two detached buildings on it. Those buildings could be owned by the same person or condominiumized. Jake has brought forward a text amendment which will allow an actual lot split. This is not typically allowed and two separate owners can own this property. We need to give formal approval for a lot split of the property and it makes no difference to HPC as we will still see visually the same thing. The houses are now both on 5,250 sqft. instead of a small lot and a large lot. There is a lot more room for each of the houses and I do not feel the fence is necessary anymore. This may be a policy discussion: Partial demolition and relocation approvals are generally a one step review and it is not a public hearing. Because of all the other aspects of the project and the fact that it was conceptual everything is grouped together and rides with the entire project. In order to allow the sale to go through on the property Jake would like to relocate and do the demolition on the house now. It is difficult for a new owner to get financing for a property that has a house half sitting on it. You have already given the approval for partial demolition and relocation and I do not see any reason why 0 we would change our minds about that. I am asking for you to do that now even though we have not gone through final approval. Martha: This plan makes more sense to me. Linda: I also agree that it makes more sense. Roger: Suppose this sale doesn't go through, does this plan remain the plan or is he allowed to go back to the previous plan and work that out? Amy: They would like to keep an option A and an option B. We already approved the others so there is no reason to change our minds and this one is even better. Roger: This is a better plan. Suppose we approve this and the deal doesn't go through and they go back to Option A do we still allow the tree to be moved? Amy: Either way it doesn't change the situation. In either case you will have two lots of 5,250 sqft. and in the applicants mind the tree will be a burden on the property in either way. Roger: Is there any problem with the tree being moved? 0 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 Amy: They will require a tree removal relocation permit with the Parks Dept. and they will have to post a bond. If the tree does not survive they will have to replace it with a equivalent. Roger: If that tree is dug up and removed what is the impact to the two larger trees. Greg Prickrell: With equally divided lot splits and when you look at the size of the tree and how you are going to fit that on it is difficult to fit in. We figured with the life of the tree it would be better utilized in a public space and we have gotten consent to move that tree to the south west corner of the gym of the Red Brick School House. It will be public facing right on the street. They are happy to have it. It will cost about $2,000 to move it. We could pay $685. to move it; however, if the tree dies we will pay for the replacement of the tree which is $4,900. We are taking extra precautions to dig up the root ball which is around 20,000 1bd. and wrapping it with chicken wire and securing it. Donnelley: If it is accuratdly represented you can see it is crowded by the other trees. Susan: If he moves these things now and the partial demolition and the deal falls through what happens then if it is already partially demolished? Amy: There lies why we usually keep everything together. Martha: He would have to find another buyer the way it sits. Susan: It seems that we are jumping the gun by letting him do it right away without finalization. Martha: I do not have a problem approving this plan and the next buyer would have this plan. Amy: A new buyer cannot get financing to make a offer when there is a house sitting on part of the parcel. Donnelley: What we are talking about is not allowing the option to retreat back to the previous approval if this house is moved and we approve the lot split approach of 5,250 sqft. then we are saying you cannot retreat to the other option so we could allow Jake to move the house onto the one lot. We do not want to leave the other option open. Roger: You need to leave it open right now because he needs this in order to see if he can close the deal. Lets say he moves the house and the deal falls how is he going to afford to move the house back. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 Donnelley: He has already been granted all of the legal means to have two lots. Greg: We want the flexibility of either scheme as it opens it up to a broader market. Amy: Before you move the house you are going to have to know who is buying it because that determines which direction the house is going. If we can make some sort of finding so that the bank is confident enough that this encroachment is being removed. That is difficult. Linda: We are putting the cart before the horse and we are not here for developers. Roger: You could approve this as written with the condition that once the house is moved the applicant cannot move the house back without the consent of HPC. Les: The best scheme is that he moves the house to the right , the tree gets removed and he moves the house onsite and does the foundation. Susan: We are approving the demolition and plan as submitted. Greg: Jake is close on this contract but wants the flexibility of moving the house, scheme A and B. Amy: I feel the problem is resolving the partial demolition/relocation with the concern if this entire thing fell apart and Jake went away and this property didn't end up being an historic landmark even we may .not be very happy having the house where he is suggesting moving it. Les: Is he going to move this if he doesn't have a contract. Roger: You won't move the house yet until the deal is done? Greg: Yes, that is correct. Donnelley: For financing you are required to have a survey made etc. and then the house is moved after the survey is completed. Between the time the lot goes under contract and it is closed Jake is at risk. Roger: In regards to the demolition and moving of the house it is to be worked out with Staff and City Attorney. Amy: To protect ourselves we should say the house goes back to 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25. 1995 where it was. Linda: Maybe someone would do one house in there. It should be left where it is until the deal is done. Martha: He doesn't need any variances for this new deal. Amy: He is going to have to have a bond to relocate the house. We could say that the bond has to cover if the deal falls apart the house will be put back. Les: What makes sense is that you build a foundation and move it and set it on the foundation. At that point we don't care what happens. There is a lot split and all we need is historic preservation review over the new building that is going to go on the adjacent lot. Greg: The house is in the middle of the two lots. Donnelley: Once the house is moved to either lot that it remain there. Linda: Not move it at all until the contract is signed. Donnelley: No, we don't care about that. That is the risk of the owner. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Amy: I got a phone message from Phil and Sue West who live adjacent to George Vicenzi and they had just received the public notice yesterday as it had the wrong zip code on it. They have not seen the plans so I feel they do not understand the project at all. They have asked me to express that they feel the variances should not be granted and that the applicant should work with the rules. I have tried to contact them again. Susan: If we approve this are we approving the original plan that Jake had for his house as there were several things that were not finalized. Amy: We have already approved that with conditions. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. Amy: There were two small additional points that need to be covered. One of which is that in the variances there is a request for a lightwell. The other isÂ·that each house is required to have one space for bedroom in this plan and there were nine spaces required for this project and we waived five of them so that left 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 two spaces per unit. Jake went to P&Z to have his ADU units reviewed and although they almost never require for an ADU they required one for him because they thought that there was a lot of density on the site and were concerned where people would park their cars. On one of the sites there needs to be three spaces. Greg: We will have to put the additional space as an offset beside the garage. Amy: The other solution is for us to say we will waive one more space so that they would only have to have one space for the ADU and one for the residence. My concern is that there is limited open space on the site and they want to turn it onto paved surface. Grasscrete can be used. Donnelley: There is some validity of trying to get the cars off the street. Roger: You could have pavers with lawn in between. To satisfy the requirement of P&Z it was put in that manner. Donnelley: Do you all agree about the applicant providing the space but having it primarily grass. 4-2 to provide the space. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC allow the applicant at 123 W. Francis to: 1) Allow locations of the structure to be as shown on either revised site plan Option A or B. 2) To grant the following setbacks to the property: Under "Option A & B" as represented to HPC if the lot split is approved: A height variance to allow 16' to the 1/3 point of the roof of the ADU unit on the new house. A rear yard setback variance of 5' if the applicant elects to keep the existing shed. An east (interior) sideyard setback variance of 5' for the shed A 41 variance on the west sideyard for a lightwell Under "Options A and B" as represented to HPC if the lot split is not approved: 10' on the east and west sideyards 26' on the combined sideyards 5' rear yard variance for a balcony on the new house 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 13' combined front and rear yard on the old house 4' west sideyard variance for a lightwell 3. Allow the tree to be relocated to the Red Brick School. The Parks Dept. requires a bond to ensure that the tree will survive or be replaced in kind. 4. Remove the condition that no fence may be built between the structures. 5. Allow the partial demolition as approved on May 24 and the relocation of the historic structure as shown in either "Option A or B" to proceed immediately. The applicant must submit a relocation and bracing plan and a bond (Staff recommends $10,000) before submitting for building permit. 6. Formally approve the splitting of this landmark parcel into two smaller parcels of 5,250 sqft. ech. Both parcels will be considered historic landmarks and will be subject to HPC review in perpetuity. 7) Once the historic house is moved it remain on its new foundation. Second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 820 E. COOPER - REQUEST OR RECONSIDERATION Amy: This is the little red house over by City Market. The plan that was shown to us showed two light wells and a entry airlock added to the front facade and they do not exist there now. Your motion included a condition that they be removed. The applicant is asking for either a clarification or reconsideration of that motion. The property owner feels that they need these lightwells and entry airlock. We are always asking people to put space below grade but then we never want to see the lightwells. I am recommending as a policy that you do not reconsider a motion that you made based on a strong finding that those changes were not compatible with the original character of the building until such time as a drawing or option was presented to you where you could say now that the standards are met. We do not have a drawing, all we have is a request from the applicant that there might be some solution considered. Amy: They have the ability to do a plan that you can make a finding on. Greg: We are interested in the investigatory process and we have found lightwells that seem to work for us and we want to be able to pursue that without having the closed door policy. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25. 1995 Roger: Do we need a motion or can you pass this information on to the owner? Amy: You could do that but you really don't have to say anything because you have already made your finding. Susan: These pictures of other houses are quite different, the simple miners cottage. It is also close to the street. Donnelley: These lightwells are also forming other duties such as egress. Roger: I have seen lightwells on the side. Susan: On the side of the house is OK. Greg: We would like to withdraw this and suggest that we come to a worksession. Linda: I feel that is a good idea. Jake: It seems like the discussion here has gone beyond what it should be...are lightwells "bad". We are not prepared to address this. Jake: Someone has to make a motion to reconsider a motion and nobody did that. Donnelley: I feel it is premature to do that. We need to schedule a worksession. WORKSESSION - ORDINANCE #30 MOTION: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Worksession ended 8:00 p.m. 16