The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19960626AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 26,1996 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITY ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call II. Commissioner and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:15 A. DEPP - Downtown Enhancement Pedestrian Plan update V. OLD BUSINESS 5:50 A. 935 E. Hyman - Conceptual - 0 79 - ,?ry# humeâ‚¬_ - fi--9 7,04 . - 6:30 B. 712 W. Francis, partial demolition 7:00 C. 706 W. Main Conceptual continue to July 10th 7:30 D. Paepeke house worksession 8:00 VI. ADJOURN . PROJECT MONITORING Donnelley Erdman Meadows Collins Block/alley 624 E. Hopkins 220 W. Main - European flower 930 King Street 420 E. Main Galena Plaza Jake Vickery Meadows 130 S. Galena 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 205 W. Main - Chisolm 610 W. Hallam Leslie Holst 303 E. Main Kuhn 930 King Street Roger Moyer Holden Marolt 303 E. Main 520 E. Main 107 Juan ISIS 939 E. Cooper 426 E. Hyman (Curious George) Martha Madsen 132 W. Main - Asia 435 W. Main - L'Auberge 706 W. Main 702 W. Main Stapleton 525 W. Hallam Wyckoff 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf Sven Alstrom 624 E. Hopkins , 712 W. Francis - Orbe residence 918 E. Cooper 820 E. Cooper Sven Alstrom 939 E. Cooper Susan Dodington 612 W. Main 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper ISIS , ftc 4-. 14144 fvu cs Suzannah Reid 320 Lake Ave. Mark Onorofski 426 E. Hyman CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 520 Walnut (Greenwood), expires March 22, 1995 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,1996 123 W. Francis (Vickery), expires May 24, 1996 406 W. Hopkins (Isis), expires August 23, 1996 820 E. Cooper (Anson), expires September 27, 1996 939 E. Cooper (Langley), expires November 9, 1996 824 W. Hallam (Poppies), expires April 26,1996 935 E. Hyman (rock) NOTE: need monitor for 123 W. Francis - .: 1 . 4 . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 0 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director v FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 712 W Francis Street- Partial Demolition DATE: June 26, 1996 SUMMARY: In January 1996, HPC granted approval for a remodel of this historic structure (listed on the Inventory). The approved project is currently under construction. On June 12, 1996, HPC granted approval to demolish an existing outbuilding at the rear of the parcel. In this application, the property owner wishes to add a "carriage house," with a garage on the first floor and ADU on the second. APPLICANT: Lawrence Orbe, represented by Denis Cyrus. LOCATION: 712 W. Francis, 1/2 of Lot P and all of Lot Q, Block 15, City and 0 Townsite of Aspen. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 7-602(C). Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (For the purposes of this section, "partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of that parcel.) 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: Given the rear yard setback requirements, the applicant does not have a reasonable opportunity to build a completely detached garage at the rear of the parcel, therefore the partial demolition is required. In addition, the garage must be attached in order for the applicant to take advantage of the height limit 0 allowed for a primary building (as opposed to the height limit for an accessory structure) and put an ADU on the second story. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The new garage will abut a porch at the rear of the house. There was a historic rear porch in this location which was meant to be preserved in the work currently under permit, however tha porch roof collapsed and the area will be entirely rebuilt. As a result, no historic portions of the house will be directly affected. B. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: With direction from the June 12 meeting, the applicant has revised the proposed garage to bring down upper floor plate heights and to reduce the roof mass. Proposed materials are clapboard and board and batten used in a similar manner to the new construction on the house. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 Staff evaluation: The garage is in compliance with Ordinance #30. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the partial demolition application as submitted. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to approve the partial demolition application for 712 W. Francis Street, as proposed on June 26, 1996, as submitted." 0 j 0 Z_ . 0 - 7 21 X 1 41 f I Â»f\1- ---------- i I - h - i r U V X / L - w 3 1 1-4 1 ------- 0 --- n 1 -. 6] rf] 23 f/~ El F - At,9 - O \, -~------- , 0 / 1 1 /4 $ . , 1 1 \\ LE- i i ' 1 1 i Z ' Ill' 1 t 1, 1 Â»09\ 1 1 1 3, 1 // 1 t, i J 14=f 1 . -9 4 ; ALL~Y 1 '/ - ' 6,2AGE ., 5 gr#WCK i t >1 1 1 1 4 1 i'J P 01/} . R 5 'i k Â§k q....1/ 1 L.i , .t ' ii .. 0.- 4-1 L f ..11 4 -4 1 1 1; o l' Â·4 0 1 . 0 3 0 1 2 kv , i zz~ ,=1-- i , 1 0 1 0 f litet Â·I!1 /:0 ; . /1111 tÂ·Â· i :'1 , --1.It : A 78E 1 2.[A J . , 1 7 2 1 J11 2 1 1 G, /-1 33 C & 0 0 4 3-h X -1 t L 4 1 -- n 0 7Â° 0 C 1 79 10 IO O -1 - t . 1 . wE I T F F- k N C I f iTAger 0 4 NO 51'8 -3490- f'ouloog - 46 3Nor 91 H 1-:i ON. 00 W 4 1--7 0014 I I 46 -awnr â‚¬ 1 C f 1 H11011 4 NOUD(nl19100 -830*10 1 NoillÂ¢109 02%0dO,Id * 49 + 1 0 g 1 1--1 .. ~ . - 2 5 / ..14 --Il--- : 0 a . , 371 7.-79*.. Â¥ W '4 1 2 . It 1 ' â€¢ - Il 1 | >-1 0 - In- - 7 d es* 3001 4 1 - 0,1 ..= '.'-,-/it- ~ --ZE- r 140-1 1106'Â¢222-- & I. . prd.daÂ¥ N 29 --- . .. ~li- - -- ;4441 /\ 1 / -th 1 -a a J R 4/ . '6.110 . I r . C -6-241-WiltÂ·Iil. .16. - *-ir/*79 -*5 99::Â£13,1. i.: 11<1~-4~ Â·-Â·+~*17,4/.Â· ;-- ' /1\.% i /l\ 4 - . ty- 9,m -1 A r. 11 / \ , \; ) L .' 1 - /1 1 Â· 4 41VÂ£8 '~ * T it ' 94 7+ 91 1 1 , -211 411 1- - . ) 1 . - 9. I l. 1 ;111. 5 1 1 I . -i [4~.Lt U 4 111 . F I - i 1 1 66 lovj 0 1 /6 11 AS PM kLT $14 18 Gueb 3 t 9 1 2 8 â€¢'2- /7 U 1 3.'ll (4..11- ~72 4 /- Anft=. 0 I . 91 ': A . Â·tn~FFF-YE:;U I :161.--- --4111<alle.11 - --- io , 4 te. V . tr.74# ip,]1 - -1 t=ZZ2:-1--- - -. .,4 1.:-11--Â«i 1 - It 52 r--- l L- .' t F -l' 11 m,F~ -- - , i r * i ill[ ---- .- 1 11 .i r--- -t : : 1 litt- - NJ 3..12- 1 -Â· I . 1 â€¢ I ~ .-$' - TEY. #11 , -Mp' . ...rn.-'. 1 1:Al .35; 1 ~7-21,4 .- 0[.1 hyll %11'f â€¢ I...... .... - . - â‚¬61 6 V/1 â‚¬ i KE B .214.0'41.....Ab f.1D1MG- -U 1,951: 0;.1 1 - h 1 2-1 J+11+ elli .4 .----' 1 1 J. - _p_2=2:4 El- - - - 1 6/46.---- I : - 4 ..4 u:(Dep- Co.,rru) Grlog L ,Mfo %â‚¬D WorAO,1 - 4â€¢013*- co.0.r. L PROFS'5rf ,(291 noâ€¢1 -6. 1-. te,0,49 1 14 11 0 A- 1. H c i E V b --E--N--1 -T"--- t--lt th--T -1 -ON- 1 1 le -juu-96 0 i 96@800 91 1 - " . '9 14 1 0 hala M 100% 14 0 1-1 4-- A 3 -1 a f-1-34 M --7- n1 0140A39 - Woolonill~NOD -824 *0 ~ NOUICICÂ¥4 035040~84 - - HOUOrrgistvoo -83(1140 T 19WW V - 1 $ - ~-7-7 N . 41 . Â»r-=Fl- 00.15 - 91.'019 ' 2 -i--~ wool .- 4*/ 1 r ti = 15;119 - ' 7~ i -NCEO .1 12+ -.-4 4 ---- 'Z- , /0 --- Â·--I~ .rz. Isit*E-Â·Â·.'~ Will12111 - m i -2- - - 1 i t: -- --*--- *m f Apal ~-- "-Crl- 9-99)UJ?*53 zrwOM -:. _ 1 3â€¢*NE) ' iÂ· .- .....2. .21= ,gmt-~ZI~*.:i.11.~~4 - ---I.-- I- 2:6-]--4..P .. -Tr= - 6=* 8!1~1* IN i - - mit r~ E. -1.- - 1 1*59- **40!-- -Â·- 4 -- I . . - 14*.41 '.- -- 1 , -1,- 7 / .. 01 1 A. * 1 1;! t ,1 -- ' -0Â·4Â·3:TW : 11- 11-1 +41,11-rlt'Â·,-Â·litlt.il.71'6 i!,a=J., 1, flit;:1.1 Â¢ !11 . 1 11 ti. 041' UN .1 : 3 11; 1~ :., iBniatt %41- ~ottot TH ,Â°r=*r _ mol - - L.2.11 : 1~1 . I tit . C.=1.-1=2- , . .: ,-----,a , 1 11 16Â·- 1 i 1 ~]773; :i.9.111 ; r 154] 1 EE=' / 1,1.4. 1 1:dettlÂ®522flo - ..1-19*1 ! $ i 1.1.4. i eli t,=3! 4 wl--~7-~1 - . 1.-li . .4- .1 165'31 1=S:111 ! Ifw! . -Il'==-48*21411 1 f'*31 ' ' + - â‚¬~4.-U d -- 14 7 '0Â·1~Â· fl--4 - - -47 V. - --- ..1 11 14. 1,/. : i 11 1 9 .t 1 ': . ~~N ~- l'37&%1 t: 1 11 511 C. j 0 -14Â¥403 1/23Bn ->Â»---- # O.:>Aigi 4-0 5179,1 05 , 144}gL#12 - -*-- - Â¥139riOW'/ 1- _11 ---14O41Ofrt/JSROO--/.1915/1/10 - 15.jErvv.2/Cric/227 flotll 86+-4905/dGiael-- 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 935 E. Hyman Avenue- Conceptual review, PUBLIC HEARING, Continued from May 21, 1996 DATE: June 12, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests conceptual approval for the development of two units on a 6,000 sq.ft. parcel. The units are completely detached from one another and are restricted to the FAR allowed for a duplex on this lot. The property is a designated historic landmark due to the presence of Ute No. 4 (the rock). APPLICANT: Kentco, represented by Kim Raymond. LOCATION: 935 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot 1 of the Sund Lot Split, East Aspen Addition to the Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: RMF, historic landmark. Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. 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 1 area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The property is bordered on the west by a large condominium block. On the east is a property which is intended to be redeveloped in the near future. Three other inventoried properties exist in the neighborhood; two minefs cottages across the street and the pan abode cabins on the comer. The two structures proposed for this site are 1,600 sq.ft. above grade each. The applicant has requested sideyard and rear yard setback variances. At the last review, one building was set on the east lot line. Now the buildings have been more or less centered on the site to provide a minimal setback on each side. The applicant must provide a list detailing the exact setback variances requested at this time. The ADU's have been moved above grade, resulting in an FAR bonus of approximately 150 sq.ft. per unit. The applicant expects to revise or eliminate the request for an HPC FAR bonus. In HPC's previous discussions of potential development on this site it was stated that the Commission wished to preserve a clear view of the rock from the street, as well as a radius of open space around the rock. Comments were also made that the designer should attempt to integrate the rock _ visually into the development, making it an asset on the site rather than an obstacle. On May 21, HPC reviewed the project and tabled. See the attached memo and minutes of May 21. The HPC indicated a desire to see the units be more obviously detached from each other, or to be combined into one building. If the units were detached, there was discussion that they should not be identical to one another. The new plans do show a greater north-south separation between the units, and therefore they will more easily be perceived as individual units. In addition, material treatment and roof forms of the two units are different. Staff finds that the overall massing of the proposed units is acceptable. Major areas of discussion that remain are the very small distance between 2 unit 'A" and the condominium building to the west, and the material palette. On unit "A" for instance, the drawings show clapboard (visually a "heavier" material) below stucco, which is a light material. In addition, there is still no obvious "primary window" as required by Ordinance #30 and there are still windows in the "no window zone" on the south elevations. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The neighborhood has some single family, some duplex and some multi-family development. The two detached units crowd the site, but do create smaller structures which are compatible with the neighboring minefs cottages. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parceIs. Response: The survey rock is preserved for public view. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: This standard is not applicable. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. 3 . Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC table the application, taking into account any input from property owner's to the west about the shortened sideyard setback, for further study of material selection and for revisions necessary to meet Ordinance #30. Recommended motion: "1 move to table the application for 935 E. Hyman Avenue to July 10, 1996." 4