Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20040728 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 2004 5:00 P.M. CITY MANAGER MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO . \, SITE VISITS: Please go to the properties being discussed for HPC awards on your own. I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - June 29, 2004 III. Public Comments IV. CommissiO'ber member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificate of NoN egative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #23) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 701 W. Main - Contt.n~ublic Hearing to August 25, 2004 B. 470 N. Spring - Discu~on of condition of approval on FAR bonus -I"~' +h, "1")" (iln" 'n"o p) '1' I( . IX. NEW BUSINESS " ~H/5i A. 710 S. Aspen - Conceptual- Public Hearing -1'2~ ""-1<)..,, S B. 114 Neale Ave. - Conceptual- Public Hearin~ -<7 ~~ X. WORKSESSION ~ A. 2004 Awards selection ) XI. ADJOURN , PROJECT MONITORING -" Mike Hoffman 213 W. Bleeker (Schelling) 101 E. Hallam (Gorman) 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus) 922 W. Hallam 110 W. Main (Hotel Aspen) 525 E. Cooper - monitor for the awning 939 E. Cooper 950 Matchless Drive (Becker) 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Valerie 513 W. Smuggler (Harman) 640 N. Third 21 Meadows Road Jeffrey Halferty Valerie Alexander 216 E. Hallam (Frost), with Mike 533 W. Francis (Gibson) 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) 114 Neale Ave., with Derek 304 W. Hallam - Pan abode 1295 Riverside 735 W. Bleeker ~ Derek Ska1ko 135 W. Hopkins 302 E. Hopkins 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) 331 W. Bleeker 114 Neale Ave., with Valerie Sarah Broughton 135 E. Cooper - Dave Gibson project 514 N. Third 311 S. First 409 E. Hyman CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 2 William's Way, Visitor's Center, 470 N. Spring, 233 W. Main .--.... JlU- ~. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 470 N. Spring Street- Discussion of condition placed on FAR bonus DATE: July 28, 2004 SUMMARY: On December 17,2003, HPC granted Conceptual approval and variances for an addition to the landmark house at 470 N. Spring Street. In order to make a finding that the criteria for an FAR bonus were met, the board required a number of restoration efforts be undertaken on the Victorian, which has experienced some inappropriate alterations. The applicant was amenable to all of the conditions except the one which requires them to remove a non-original bay window. The board agreed to continue the public hearing so that the owner could present additional information about this piece of the building. On March 10, 2004, a presentation was made regarding paint analysis of the bay window. The analysis confirmed the idea that some parts of the bay may be quite old, and other parts are probably not of the same vintage. HPC had a split vote on whether or not to allow the bay to remain in place, so the condition stood. The owners have now located the contractor who moved the subject house from the West End to Oklahoma Flats. It appears that the bay was originally on another side of the house and was relocated, and reconstructed, possibly to a significant extent. The applicants are requesting that HPC reconsider the condition of approval related to the bay window again in light of this new information. Information from the previous meetings about this project are attached. Staff does not find the concern that the bayis not an original feature (at least to the side of the house where it currently exists) or that it has any particular integrity as a piece of Victorian era construction has been resolved. As was discussed in earlier memos, the HPC have specific criteria to use when allowing an FAR bonus. They are: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be" considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design. guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the I addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. - -""'."'-" 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.4I5.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. From the earlier discussions, it is apparent that a majority of the board feels that the bay window has changed the character of the building. It would appear that moving the bay back to the west side of the house, to the extent that we can determine where it was located with any accuracy, might be the best compromise and might still provide the owner's with some extra light in their front room. The original double hung window that was located on what is now the south fayade was large enough so that, if it were restored, views and sun would still be readily available. "'--"'>h,. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC maintain the conditions of approval. Attachments: I.Letter and new information from applicant 2.Staffmemo from March 10,2004, addressing request to retain bay window 3. Minutes of March 10,2004, denying request to retain bay window 4.Resolution #24, Series of2003, granting Conceptual approval 5.Drawings approved at Conceptual on December 17,2003 6.Minutes of December 17, 2003, granting Conceptual approval r''',"""" 2 1111 IUIiI 23400 Two Rivers Rd. . 44 . P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 LIPKIN WARNLR DESlriN & PLANNING, LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 July 15,2004 Historic Preservation Committee C/o Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Young Residence (470 North Spring Street), South Bay. Dear Committee Members, We have met several times over the last year to work out the best way to accomplish a limited development of Dennis and Andrea Young's property in the Oklahoma Flats area of Aspen. All of this work has resulted in approval for a project which includes significant rehabilitation of the historic house with a small addition on the north side. "*"",,, You might recall that part of the rehabilitation plan calls for the removal of a bay on the house's south fayade. We have discussed the desirability ofleaving the bay for, in a small part, its added comfort to the interior of the home while also supposing, in a larger context, the bay's role in the historic makeup of the original house. In past meetings we have presented paint sample analysis which supports the view that the bay is historically significant. Even though at our last meeting the committee decided there was not enough compelling evidence from the paint samples to support this supposition, I was encouraged to return to you if we uncovered any new information. Recently, the origins of the bay have become less speculative and more definite. We have located the builder who moved the house to Oklahoma Flats, Marvin Moriarty. He has written an affidavit confirming that the bay was part of the original house before it was moved, and that he moved the bay from the present day east side to the south side. Parts ofthe bay framing were lost in reconstruction but the integrity of the design and the windows remain true to the original. I'm also including, along with Mr. Moriarty's statement, historical background on William and Cora Tagert who were the long time owners of the house when it was in - o l.hpc trans and letter re bay.a guthrie.dw Page 2 7/16/2004 1111 IUIiI 23400 Two Rivers Rd. . 44 . P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 LIPKIN \VARN[R DF!SICiN & PLANNJN(i, LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 Aspen's Wets End. The obituary and autobiographical sketch will help give you a historical framework for the original house of which the bay is a part. -... ....*'*. The only remaining obvious objection to keeping the bay would seem to be that it was moved from what was then the view side of the house to what is now the view side of the house. Although this might suffice as a technical objection to the bay's survival, emotionally the argument seems less clear. I can't help but imagine the every day enjoyment the Moriarty's had from these three windows, which opened up their living room to the streets of Aspen. Bays and the like have integrity similar to the rooms they append, so should this space, where the Tagerts lived and occupied, just be discarded? Moving the bay back to its original location seems to be an equally unsatisfactory solution. There would be no consistency of historic purpose if that were to be the result of this discussion. The bay was obviously added to the original house for the very reason that it enhanced the room within and revealed the best views of the neighborhood without. It should be used as best we can imagine the original was used. The bay could have ended up on any of the sides except for the arbitrariness of the house's original orientation. Today, William Tagert very well would make the same choice that Marvin Moriarty made in 1968, and add the bay to the south. I say this to """'" point out that the adding and moving of historic features like this bay was probably not an uncommon occurrence. The look ofthe Young's house today is completely consistent with historic norms for houses such as this in towns such as Aspen. Saving the bay contributes and benefits the architectural and cultural history of Aspen. On the other hand, sanitizing the house by removing the bay for an idealized notion of what is correct architecturally could be considered a loss of another small connection to Aspen's past. We respectfully request that in light of the documented history of the bay and its origins the Committee reconsider its directive to demolish the bay and instead include it as part of the historic resource rehabilitation. Sincerely, David Warner Lipkin Warner Design and Planning LLC """'" o l.hpc trans and letter re bay.a guthrie.dw Page 3 7116/2004 ." ii' My name is Marvin Ryan Moriarty, [am over the age of21 at the time of the execution . . i of this letter and ] am suffering no illness or other infirmity that would affect my 'I' recollection or mcmory or my statements herein. , .j , ,. .;; I currently reside in Vero Beach, Florida i II I: .,' 1 lived and worked in Aspen, Colorado for a period of 22 years, betwee~ 1959 and 198 [. I: [: 1; In 1968 1 purchased a house that was on the lot at 535 West Blecker Str,~i:t in Aspen, \' , known as the Taggert House., My purchase was 90ntingent upon movil'!f.l! the house to :1 another location as the lot owner was gGling to tear it down to build a ner structure. At approximately the same time. 1 purchased Lot 4, Block 2 in the OklEitioma Flats " I section of Aspen as the location to place the Taggert House The adclre~~ of the lot] ~ 1 purchased was 470 North Spring Street I built a basement and foundatl~n to accept the house. When the foundation was completed, Thomas Brothers House Movers moved the ,. house from Bleeker Street to the new location on North Spring Street al~~ itwas placed on top of the basement foundation. ,\; i When I purchased the Taggert House, Ii was in a very poor state of replllr as it had not been lived in for some time. There were a number ofthinlls that were dqne in preparation for the house move. There was a hexagonal bay window on the south end of the west side of the house that was also in poor condition. I removed the bay window, as I did not b<1i", "," " ~,Id .moly m,'" "" m,'" WblJ, =",",g~' Joy, rot O~,iM w"' " f:OO/ZOC,'c 90\:1# S'X'dCM'::':!.!.SV'Id S1009f:l'S8S 9!;~n 'COZ.9o'rrnr i' I' that both the glass windows and the tf/lllling appeared to be quite old. When the house was put on North Spring Street, the ba.y was rebuilt, placing it on the S9uth sidc of the house to take advantage of the view of Aspen Mountain. In addition, replacing it ill its - ,<-,,,,,_. old location would have [xen far less desirable. I' " , The bay was rebuilt as close to identical as possible to the original usi!!S all of the i' original glass windows and as much of the old framing as possible. HO,wever, much of it , " was damaged or lost in its deconstruction and the move from the old l,,!;ation and was ;: therefore replaced where necessary. Other than the windows, 1 cannot recall cxact]y I: , which pieces were able to b.:; saved and which were replaced, In the r~construction on I the south side, all efforts were made to maintain the original size, shape!, design and look I , of the bay from its prior location on the house. 1 believe these efforts resulted in a bay I. that virtually replicated the original bay. I I have reviewed the pictures provided and attached and recognize the b~y window in the ~... Dated: ~ /?~ /tYl , I pictures as the window that was rcmo\(ed and rebuilt. Subscribed and sworn to before me this go ., I Marvin Ryan Mol1iltrty " I. I: I' day of May, 2004. by Marvin Ryan Moriarty, Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires ~'- - ---~ PATRlCK REEVES, NOIllIy PullIle My Commission Explreo Febtualy 10, t!J1t1T Notary Public - tOO/tOO'c >00# S)l~Cl"t)I:r.~'l"Id steoge ga; ~::~1 gOOZ.90'~n: _",.,t " Mr. Tagert was nine years old when he came to Aspen from Leadville, His father was,XfLi. too tough from him. It was during summer. He slept in the old ice house, sold papers to buy bread, drank from ditches for seven months. A rancher came along and caught hdlm petting his horse and asked him to come home with him. They went way up Capital Creek, last house, stayed there all winter. He would come to town about once a week (the rancher), get drunk and maybe I woul~~'t see him for some time. He was a nice little fellow, His name was Sam Williams, no relation to Harry Williams. In spring a fellow rode in on a nice roan horse and said he heard there was a boy staying up here alone, I said that was right, He said it was no place for a boy, no school, etc. He was Mr. Boorum, He took me back to his ranch and I stayed about seven years. I did chores and helped around. That was Boorum and White's ranch, They took me into their house, wouldn't let me stay in the bunkhouse. I never went to school in Aspen, there was a little log house about a mile and a half from the Ranch. Miss Callicut was the teacher. She was a fine teacher, She was very short with long skirts. In the winter I \~ould get in front of her and take short steps through the snow so she could get to school, I didn't see Aspen for seven or eight years, Ij.lst stayed right there, I went into the livery business when I started driving the livery wagen for Frank Bourg. He took me in as a partner. I only had $110, so I had a l/8th interest. He went to Alaska and I finally made out all right. I uH took JohlVlY Williams in as a partner. We got along fine, but he came to me one day and said "I'm no good here in the business". \.,re had a ranch with some cattle and he said he would take the ranch and I would take the livery business, We shook hands and said all right. (He was Emma Bradshaw's brother) Mrs, Tagert and I met at a 4th of July Picnic. We were just kids. Time went on and we both grew up and got married one day. I bought Tagert Lake in about 1909 from the Callicuts, then they went dOvID in the Cattle Creek country and still have decendants living down there, I wanted it for grazing my cattle. Later on I built some of the road for the State. I built the section around the rock wall, It was all hand work. We used a car load of powder there. "-~ 1..... . h" A .... 'tTi(".h..,.'~~"'. idjC)J$V, S'PG., n.,,",- ,.." .' . A ~^~, Gs--I . cce~,::..I;"""..l.. ",_._"."~ ,~_. in the Week's TiulCS that tne vat. Llle,one ing places have been selected- a' petition For Ward 1, (Aspen East side). grave who at the Armory Hall and for Ward costs and 2 (West side) at the E. E. Bascom jail in .Jw One 'of Aspen's pioneer women, home at 130 East Majn. :J.nd B.attc;r Mrs. Cora A1lceTage~ wife of Judges and clerks have been ,Hargrav, WllIiam .. C:tJragert, '" d1~ last selected and for the two Wards tor release Wednesdai,"OOt; 19th litter-an ll!. are as follows: per day c ness .of~seV\U'Al/inci"tiUt\iFunerat Ward 1. Judges: Mrs. Mary that speeH servlce,l'was,.p.el(j ;at.:.tlie~.Com. Babick, Mrs. Rita Loushin and, ant has n rllUnJtY~.h ur~j3. a~. '. ~Q.et. 22, Ann Slavens. Clerks. : Miss Mar)- any perso, Rev; '.BiO.' nst.' il.ir....'tI~. ~." . i'Of, arie Ann Conner and MI'S. Helen he cab be flclatjng;*wlth.:.<lnte~JJjt~e Gordier. pauper's 0 Elk.s,l'l<ltjn1ROd'~\1tte4qiil!iJttery. Ward 2. Judges: Miss Borgeson, lowed the .~torA'~~llc:QrlTager("~1'bom Mrs. Marjorie Jenkinson, and to release Marcli'9/'1876'atEureJ<a;'::Kansao, M.... Florence Preehtel. Clerks: The foIl, the daughter ,of E,'K, .and Helen Mra Ethel McCable and Mr.s. phyllis J Louise ,TofI'1lDce~..&be . came with Loulva Stapleton. J her, par~,n~it~~ep, she~alt ,five .voting places will be open ~tear~~~t a; ye~s'of'~age b).'GUnnlson',whete irom 7 a. m. tOt'T p. rn. . Da- h" ' ' " 1S, ~uagE t, e~)lv~d)for,,'a, !1ug1ber'of,years The law provides for the first 'vs. Albert before',Jnoving' to., '.the Woody time that absentee ballots must sory Note' Creek. area:'-,,;' . ..'. " ,~ be pfovided:.and accordingly Mrs'. ,vs. Albert She'was married to William C. Frost has ordered these ballots tion; iGeo Tagert'on Dec.. 15, .,1895. They which have already been deliver- Thom&s 0, h~ve I\v.ed.ln -Aapen continuously ed. Citizens who find that they en l\I. Me: ~ihee:"'.", ' I"~ "/ ~" ,1". wA\1~~()f. town on election Lamb... Dn . Mrs. Tagert was a member of day may ap~ Mrs. Frost for stcn <it al .tlIel;;o!"munity Church and fo~. the proper ~.\Iot\for the ward aI., QUiet mA~~years\,engaged, in" 'choir ~ wh1ct: theY'" live. Ballot ~.hus Shaw vs. worl( She.wos a member of the vpled WJll be counted by the Quiet Till '\Tomen's L!terary' Club and the regular ward electionofflcals Petftidner Hospital Benefit Club. w~n the regular votes are count. land 20. B~ She is survived,by her husband, ed. I Schejerma William C~ Tagert; two daugh8 . _ Fredric A. ters: Mrs. Nellie F. Zackcr Den. MAN,,!-GEMENT THRIFT SHOP ell. Mane:. vet; and Mrs. Wilma C. FUdge, CHANGES EFFECTIVE OCT 31 C. .MoLa;, Tungsten, Nevada; and one s1&- A new group of volunteers will Petition; J tel', ~rs. Lulu Bourg, Chenalis, operate The Thrift Shop begin. vs. Al)toni Washington. ning Monday, Oct. 31. Mrs. Fred JohnZolll: - Glidden and Mrs. Rose Crum8 nor et' a1 packer will coordinAte the activ8 V: N. 'Jo~: ities of the shop. Policies remain Co. et all the sam.e in' that profits will be Glenna W given to the eommunity projects. et al.,~, Qui Donated merchandise will be Oblock et appreciated. Consignments of a1., QUiet articles (except clothing) wUI be Charli!s B, handled by the shop on a basis Georg~ E- of $1.00 minimum commission or SpecifIc 15 per eent of the total price. Louise Ch~ An}ong those volunteering to Jr.; D!vorc help arC' MrJi. Henry Stein, Mrs. a1 VS. '.TQh Curt Baar, Mrs. William Staple-- F:redri'e A ton, Mrs. Michael Marolt, Mrs.. George C. David. Gallagher, Mrs. Joe Arms- Title; Ray bury, Mrs. Stewart Peck, Mrs. B. Stitzer i Mary Barbee, Mrs. Harold Row~ Vorhees, 1 land, Mrs. Georgia Voorhees, Halla~, < Mrs. C. B. Simons, and Mrs. Cousfns v James. QUiet Titlt The Thrift Shop hours remain' Wate :et ; the same; Monday through Sat~ Howel,l vs. urday, 1:30 to 4:30. aI., Quiet ~ Eugen~ II forma nee. Don'ld .J Criminal r Mrs. W. ..C. T agert Funeral Oct. 22nd School Carnival to Feature New Events The Annu!t School Carnival sponsored by the P. T. A.' will begin at G','o'clock with. a supper !ollowed by a Costume Parade at 7 o'clock ill. the ,hall; Jiellirlning, at the. gym'dor;:;l'riz~.w:1ll be given. fbr~the"beIt.\~~~" In tour dltfer~t age ~ Jrl'oup':' pre- school, grade:; school. hlgh"sChool. and adults;~.>;.'~.:. ., '?''';!'... ~ .. ,'.J .1: ' Booths of aU.',k,lnds' jneluding many new ideas and old favorites most of which. wlU.-be' 10 cents admission.' ';l'he C White . Elephant Sale where you can buy anything you want at 20 cents and the sup-- per which ~Ut cQst 80 cents. PIe . Throwing".amovl-ej.' ,4 wl(cel of I fortune; a-fisb pond;;"a~,cake: walk, a country store.' a house ()f'hor~ rors and a 'game room' and 'many others wlll keeplhe wholef.mily busy and happy all"evening. ' ~ ~,~ -. "..,. The flowers are nature's jewels with whose wealth she decks her summer beauty. -George Croly. - ".,,,.f" .:oc A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 710 S. Aspen Street- Major Development Review (Conceptual)- Public Hearing DATE: July 28, 2004 SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and is recognized as a Chalet Style lodge constructed beginning in 1953. The owner requests HPC approval to complete a rehabilitation of the building which will entail demolishing some portion of the existing construction and replacing it with a larger new addition. , HPC was introduced to this project at a work session and was generally supportive. Staff finds that all of the applicable review standards are met. Approval of the proposal as submitted is recommended. APPLICANT: 710 S. Aspen LLC, Greg Hills Managing Partner, represented by Haas Land Planning and Oz Architecture. PARCEL ID: 2735-131-21-001. ADDRESS: 710 S. Aspen Street, Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 8 of the Eames Addition to the City of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: LlTR, Lodge Tourist Residential. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve I with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. - ~.~. N.{ Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. . Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not serve as Jormal decision making criteria at this time): 1. Why is the property significant? 2. What are the key features of the property? 3. What is the character ofthe context? How sensitive is the context to changes? 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? 5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? The lodge on this property is significant as a vital piece of the Aspen's original ski base. A center of activity due to the presence of a restaurant serving skier's waiting in the lift line, this building was certainly at the core of any skier's experience in the early days of the resort. - The apparent motivation for constructing Chalet Style buildings in Aspen after World War II is discussed in a white paper written by the Community Development Department. Quoting from that paper: "Comparisons to European ski resorts were (evident in the town's architecture and) also evident in advertising: Sun Valley's brochures boasted of Austrian ski instructors and appealed to elite visitors who traveled both by train and plane. The Aspen Chamber of Commerce's advertising throughout the 1950's and 1960's had this character as well. In a brochure promoting lodging and accommodations, the Norway Lodge notes "the intimacy and charm of an old world inn, at Aspen's No. I chairlift." In the same brochure the Skier's Chalet and Steak House and Edelweiss also emphasize their "chalet" accommodations. In a multi-page pamphlet, entitled "Aspen, Wonderful Ski Town," created by the Chamber, there are several passages that emphasize Aspen as an international resort with a European flavor. "In fact," the brochure states on the opening page, "Aspen knows few rivals. No European resort today can advertise a larger, more elaborate, more luxurious ski village right at the foot of the slopes." - 2 Like some other lodge buildings of the period, such as the Mountain Chalet and Holland House, 710 S. Aspen Street acquired the Chalet character that is appreciated today over a period of a few years, as the owner was able to expand the structure and the style became more and more important. By 1965, the year the final upgrades to 710 S. Aspen were completed, the then owner built a "sister" lodge at 233 Gilbert Street. This second building was designed with a pure understanding of the style, and because of this is arguably one of the most significant examples of the Chalet architecture in Aspen. The 710 S. Aspen building maintains a great deal of its historic character because ,the setting is very intact. No building has been built directly in front of it, so it has great prominence on South Aspen Street. The remnants of the old ski lift are still in place next to it and will be preserved as they are in City ownership. In terms of remaining potential for future additions to the property, lodges are eligible for a number of development benefits, including review under a PUD process which can vary most of the dimensional requirements. It is possible that additional construction could be proposed in the future, however it seems unlikely that it can be physically accommodated on the site. Desil!n Guideline review Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." The applicant plans to demolish the one story portion of the Skier's Chalet. Constructed in 1965, this piece of the building does not have the same architectural detailing that was applied to the rest of the structure. This circumstance, combined with the fact that it is located in the only area where new construction can be added without significant detriment to the rest of the lodge, staff can support its replacement. The guidelines to consider are: This property is 5,400 square feet in size. The existing structure is, for the most part, set on the western side of the lot and actually encroaches into the City right-of-way. The open area on the east side of the parcel is encumbered with a ski lift easement. Skier's Chalet, circa mid- 1950's 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 3 With regard to the design of the proposed new addition, staff finds this project meets the spirit of the design guidelines and the goal of allowing dynamic additions to happen when they can be accommodated without taking away from the character defining features of the resource that is being preserved. The footprint, height, and form of the addition are very sympathetic to the Chalet and allow it to continue to be read as the dominant, more highly decorated portion of the building. The staircase that separates the two pieces of the lodge is a very effective way to limit demolition, and the effort to keep the height of the addition low is appreciated. ~, Staff has minor concerns with the proposal as it effects some of the existing window and balcony layouts, which will be addressed at final review. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: . approve the application, · approve the application with conditions, . disapprove the application, or · continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ......., ....,.""/ RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this is an appropriate project and recommends HPC grant approval for Major Development (Conceptual) with the following conditions: I. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within one year of July 28, 2004 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. 2. A landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all be addressed at Final Review. Exhibits: Resolution # _, Series of2004 A. Staff memo dated July 28, 2004 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application """ ,-" 4 ""0 "Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 710 S. Aspen, Conceptual Review" 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. D Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. D Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. D The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. D Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is n'ot historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. lOA Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. D A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. D An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. D A I -story connector is preferred. D The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. D Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. 5 o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. - "h '-"', 6 ~)(- B. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 114 Neale Avenue- Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Residential Design Standard Variance- Public Hearing DATE: July 28, 2004 SUMMARY: The subject property is a vacant parcel that was created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. Because it was part of the property included in the designation of the adjacent Victorian era miner's cottage, HPC has review authority over any proposed development. Conceptual approval is requested for a new single family residence and accessory dwelling unit, along with a variance from a "Residential Design Standard" related to windows. Staff finds that the proposal does not meet the design guidelines in terms of providing a compatible relationship between this new house and the Victorian miner's cottage. The guidelines related to height, scale, massing and proportions are not sufficiently met to allow for a Conceptual approval. Staff recommends that the project be discussed and then continued to a date certain to allow the architect time for restudy. APPLICANT: Alice Brien, represented by John Muir Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-83-002. ADDRESS: 114 Neale Avenue, Lot 2 of the 114 Neale/17 Queen Street Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZeNING: R-15A. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed projec( and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve I with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Desil!:n Guideline review Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." This property is 15,160 square feet in size. The maximum allowable floor area that was established through the lot split is 3,945 square feet. Much of the square footage that could have been added onto the adjacent Victorian era home was transferred onto this lot. The floor area allotment may be reduced subject to a calculation of slopes over 20%. The architect will need to confirm this issue with the Zoning Officer, along with the methodology for calculating the area of building that is only partially below grade. As stated in the application, the property is subject to a reduced height limit through a private agreement with the neighbor. ..-., The proposed new building is approximately 3 times larger than the Victorian that it is meant to relate to. Some of the potentially negative impact on the historic resource is mitigated by the fact that the subject parcel is at a lower elevation, ensuring that views towards the miner's cottage at the top of the hill will be protected. In addition, the new house is 45 feet away from the landmark house. The area of the new house that is closest to the old one is one story in height for a distance of 35 feet, also helping to create a sympathetic arrangement. The architect has divided off a portion of the new house into a distinct mass which is linked to the main body of the buildi:1g in order to break down the massing, and he has also designed a detached accessory dwelling unit. These choices all help the project towards meeting the following guideline: 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. The architect is faced with a difficult design challenge because there is such a large difference in the size of the homes involved in this lot split. Additional effort to design the project as a "compound" of masses that are more related to the Victorian would be beneficial. In particular the size of the central element of the building does not comply with 11.3. - 2 Staff also finds that the "vocabulary" used III the design IS III conflict with some of the guidelines, for instance: 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those ofthe historic property. o They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. o Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. o Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. o On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. o This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. o Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. Without getting into a discussion of materials, which is a topic for Final review, the roof forms, the central roof, and the entry are all in some conflict with the scale of the Victorian. The forms are also more complicated than is typical of the designated building. Staff recommends that HPC and the architect discuss the project, followed by a continuance for restudy of those elements which are not meeting the guidelines. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: . approve the application, . approve the application with conditions, . disapprove the application, or . continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that 114 Neale Avenue be continued to a date certain. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated July 28, 2004 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application 3 "Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 114 Neale Avenue, Conceptual Review" >...''', 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. D The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. D The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. D A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. D In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. D Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. D The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. D The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. D They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. D Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. D Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. D On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. D Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. D This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. D Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. ~ ~ 4 " .... July I, 2004 Ms. Amy Guthrit:, Historic Prt:Servation Officer Aspen/Pitkin Dt:partment of Community Development- 130 South Galena Street. . (Aspen" CO 81621 Dear Amy: On behalf of mY Client AliCe Brien I would like to initiate conceptual HPC review. pursuapt to the develoPment of a residence and accessory dw~lling unit at 114 Neale Street. Application materials and fee payment check are littached. . I ~- ~ ,"".., ,.:.j. I have met with James Lindt for a pre.applicationconference. Per his revi~.w an,d interpretationoftht: rt:sidt:ntial design stllIidards wt: art: also ~equt:sting a variance to.tht: "no window zone" between 9 & 12 feet of finish floor on any street facing window. Window in question is on the south wan of the great room (pkase see drawings). As y~u know there is a height agreement on tile recorded plat thafdescribes a maximum building height plane. We understand that the building height critt:ria contained in the residential - dt:sign statidards, where more restrictive, will 'govern. Floor areas are as follows: Actual floor area FAR floor area .' - Upper level . 2,727 s.t: - 2,636 s.f. Lower level . ! 3,115 s.f. - 542 s.f. Basement . 942d 135 s.f. . ~ . '. '. Subtotals 6,784 s.f. 3,320 s.f. . - Accessory Dwelling Unit 500 s.f. . 500 s.f. i . Garage . 500 s.f. . 125 s.t: '. _.. --I - . Grand Total 7,784 s.t: . 3,938 s.f. 201 Main Street; Suite 304, Carbondale, Colorado 8162~. . Phone: (970) 704-9750 Fax: (970) 704-0287 E-Mail: jma(aiftll)ris.net The maximUlll allowable floor area is 3,945 s.t: as set forth-in the subdivision exemption agreement. Reductioris from actual f100r area to FAR floor area are accomplished by the manner in which grade is retained against portions of all three floors, per City standards for below-grade floor area exemptions. Reduction factors are as follows: - ,....,. Upper level: Lower level Basement 3.3% reduction 82.6% reduction 86.7 % reduction ~Per our e-mails my understanding is that fhe project will be on the agenda for the 7/28/04 meeting of the HPC. -- . Thanks for your help :Amy. I - Sincerely, ~~ ',' ~, 1. John Muir JI: . ,.......... i ~ ~