Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutordinance.council.021-88 ORDINANCE (series of AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING 334 W. HALLAM STREET, 300 W. MAIN STREET, AND 134 W. HOPKINS STREET AS H, HISTORIC LANDMARKS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE 7, DIVISION 7 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, owners of the real properties described as 334 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 42; 300 W. Main, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 44; and 134 W. Hopkins, Lots K and L, Block 59, all within the City and Township of Aspen, Colorado have filed private applications for H, Historic Landmark designation pursuant to Section 7-704 of the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, each of the three properties were listed in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as amended in 1986, and two of the properties received historic evaluation ratings from the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (hereinafter "HPC) as follows: 334 W. Hallam - "5" rating 300 W. Main - Not evaluated 134 W. Hopkins - "2" rating for existing house and "1" rating for house to be moved from 120 N. Spring St. ;and WHEREAS, owners of the real properties did voluntarily make the following commitments as inducements to the city to accept historic designation: 334 W. Hallam Conditions: 1. No changes will be made to the south, east and west elevation windows of the original house with the exception of the lower level east elevation window as amended and approved by HPC at final development review. 2. The carriage house will not be demolished but rehabilitated utilizing as much of the historic fabric as possible. 3. Proper maintenance and preservation of the original facade and architectural details shall be accomplished. 1 300 W. Main Condition: The attached residential unit shall be an accessory use to the restaurant, primarily for use of the restaurant owner/manager or an employee, and will not be condominiumized; however, the owner will have the right to rent out the unit primarily to permanent employees of the community. 134 W. Hopkins Condition: The asphalt siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed and the original siding restored and replaced as necessary within one (1) year after historic designation. ; and WHEREAS, HPC recommended historic designation of 334 W. Hallam on March 8, 1988, 300 W. Main on February 9, 1988, and 134 W. Hopkins on January 12, 1988 subject to the conditions volunteered by the owners, with the exception of the condition on 300 W. Main; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic designation at duly noticed public hearings for 334 W. Hallam on May 3, 1988, 300 W. Main on April 26, 1988 and 134 W. Hopkins on May 3, 1988 subject to the conditions volunteered by the owners; and WHEREAS, City Council wishes to pursue those recommendations and complete the designation process. NOW, T~RREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the structure at 334 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 42, Townsite and City of Aspen, be granted H, Historic Landmark designation upon the conditions that: 1. No changes will be made to the south, east and west elevation windows of the original house with the exception of the lower level east elevation window as amended and approved by HPC. 2 2. The carriage house will not be demolished but rehabilitated utilizing as much of the historic fabric as possible. 3. Proper maintenance and preservation of the original facade and architectural details shall be accomplished. Section 2 That the structure at 300 W. Main, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, be granted H, Historic Landmark designation upon the condition that: A deed-restriction shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office by the owners, or their successors and assigns, restricting the attached residential unit to be an accessory use to the restaurant, primarily for use of the restaurant owner/manager or an employee; however, the owner will have the right to rent out the unit primarily to permanent employees of the community. The property will not be condominiumized. Section 3 That the structures at 134 W. Hopkins, Lots K and L, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, be granted H, Historic Landmark designation upon the condition that: The asphalt siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed and the original siding restored and replaced as necessary within one (1) year after historic designation. Section 4 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezonings described in Sections 1, 2 and 3 and the Planning Director shall be authorized and directed to amend said map to reflect said rezonings. Section 5 That the Planning Director shall be directed to notify the city Clerk of such designations, who shall record among real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Section 6 That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or 3 unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7 That a public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of ~'~-~L , 1988, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, ~Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~/~/./ day of William L. Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn ~'Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this /~'~J" day of ~--~ , 1988. William L. Stirling, ~ayor ATTEST: ~athryn ~ Koch, City Clerk sb.designation 4 TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager ~ FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office ~ RE: Historic Designation and Auxiliary Reviews for 334 W. Hallam St., 300 W. Main St., and 134 W. Hopkins St. DATE: June 13, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of Ordinance ~l (Series of 1988) on Second Reading. Additionally, there is one consolidated development application, the condominiumization of 134 West Hopkins, which we recommend the Council approve. INTRODUCTION: During the last several months three historic designation projects have been reviewed by HPC and P&Z, resulting in recommendations for historic landmark designation. A single ordinance has been prepared that would accomplish designation of all three properties. Case reviews for each application are presented below. On May 9, 1988, Council passed this Ordinance on First Reading. STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION: Section 7-702 of the Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance 5 (Series of 1988), states the following standards for designation of historic landmarks. A structure must meet one or more of these standards to be eligible for designation. Staff's comments in response to each standard are in the case review section of this memorandum. Standard 1: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historic significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Standard 2: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or traditional Aspen character. Standard 3: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique " architectural type or specimen. · Standard 4: The structure is a significant work of an '_. architect whose individual work has influenced the character of 1 Aspen. Standard 5: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood. Standard 6: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or site of historical or architectural importance. CASE REVIEWS: 334 West Hallam Location: Lots K, L, and M of Block 42, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. Zoning: R-6 Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting historic landmark designation of 334 W. Hallam St. The owner intends to make alterations to the original house including removal of the newer two story addition, which would be replaced with a new addition and greenhouse. The owner also intends to partially demolish and reconstruct the carriage house, integrating historic fabric into the new where possible. The applicant has also developed plans for restoration of the original historic main house. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic landmark designation of the subject property on May 3, 1988. The conditions to their recommendation, volunteered by the applicant as an inducement for designation, are: 1. No changes will be made to the south, east and west elevation windows of the original house with the exception of the lower level east elevation window as amended by HPC. 2. The carriage house will not be demolished but rehabilitated utilizing as much of the historic fabric as possible. 3. Proper maintenance and preservation of the original facade and architectural details shall be accomplished. HPC: On March 8, 1988 the Historic Preservation Committee recommended historic landmark designation of the structure at 334 W. .Hallam St. subject to the same condition as stated above in P&Z's motion. HPC approved conceptual development review on that 2 date subject to several conditions. On April 12, at the request of the applicant, HPC again reviewed and approved portions of the project, specifically the greenhouse/"sunspace" addition, which required a minor change to the east elevation, lower level original window, reconstructing the opening into a door to permit access into the sunspace. In HPC and staff's opinion, this minor change does not negate the historical integrity of the structure and the recommendation for historic landmark designation stands. Historic Evaluation Rating: "5" Note: This property has been deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Response to Standards: 1. The home and carriage house are associated with Eugene Wilder of the Aspen Lumber Company (one of Aspen's oldest establishments). 2. This home was constructed c. 1885. The front elevation of this two story home is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small panes of stained glass. The quality detailing throughout the front facade and its highly visible corner location make this entire property exemplary of "Victorian" residential architecture. This home is featured on the cover of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element. The carriage house and simple fenestration of the east and west facades of the main house blend together well. Carriage houses are commonly found throughout the West End, most being original and renovated in such a way as to maintain their integrity yet be utilized for modern living. 3. The Wilder House embodies the characteristics of the gabled "L" lwith Victorian detailing elements, identified in the Guidelines as a historical architectural style in Aspen. 4. The Wilder House was constructed from local lumber and may have been built by The Aspen Lumber Company, established c. 1880- 1885, according to Barbara Norgren, preservation consultant who prepared the National Register nomination for this property. The house displays a high degree of craftsmanship which was available in Aspen at the time of its construction. Through careful restoration of the original elements, this house retains a great deal of its original integrity. 5. The special architectural features of this home and carriage house represent the historic character of this neighborhood and Aspen at the turn-of-the-century. Its high rating ("5") expresses 3 the important relationship this structure has to the neighborhood. 6. The Wilder House is situated near the very center of the historic "West End" neighborhood on a prominent corner. Its size, location, and architectural features present an excellent example of Aspen's history. It has special prominence because it is viewed by summer visitors enroute along 3rd Street to the Music Tent. Historic Designation Grant: Because 334 W. Hallam received an evaluation rating of "5", it is eligible for a grant from the City of $2,000. The applicant has requested this grant. We have included this grant within the Ordinance. 300 West Main Location: Lots Q,R, and S of Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Zoning: 0 - Office zone district. Applicant's Request: Scott and Caroline McDonald request historic designation of the log house property. The project includes conversion of the existing 1400 square foot house into a fifty (50) seat restaurant. A two story addition, approximately 2300 square feet in size, would be attached to the north and west sides of the existing house for a four bedroom residence, garage and restaurant kitchen. A one bedroom employee unit was initially proposed within the addition, but has been deleted as a response to HPC's concerns about the bulk of the addition. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic designation of 300 W. Main on April 26, 1988 recognizing that the attached residential unit is an accessory use to the restaurant, primarily for use of the restaurant owner/manager or an employee, and will not be condominiumized; however, the owner will have the right to rent out the unit primarily to permanent employees of the community. The applicant volunteered such restriction on the property as an inducement for historic designation and agreed to prepare a legal instrument establishing the restriction for review before City Council. HPC: HPC recommended historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main on February 9, 1988. On that date HPC also gave conceptual development review approval to the addition subject to several conditions. HPC continued conceptual development review to ascertain whether the conditions of approval had been met. Design changes have been made following each hearing to address concerns raised. After five meetings, HPC has directed staff to prepare a resolution of conceptual development approval referencing 4 specific plans for adoption at their May 10, 1988 regular meeting. It should be noted that HPC is able to grant a requested encroachment into the rear yard set-back at Final Development approval through Section 9-103.C.2 of the Municipal Code as amended. Housing Authority: In an April 4, 1988 memorandum, Jim Adamski noted that the new code would require housing for 35% (* Changed to 60% in Ordinance 5) of the employees generated from expansion or change in use of an historic landmark. The existing code does not require any employee housing mitigation for changes in use of historic landmarks. While originally the applicant had proposed an employee housing unit, this commitment has been dropped and no employee housing mitigation would be provided. At the April 7, 1988 meeting the Housing Authority recommended that the applicant mitigate the employee housing impact that the restaurant will generate in accordance with the intent of the new code. Historic Evaluation Rating: The log house was not given a rating by HPC in January, 1987 because the evaluations focused on mining era structures. Response to Standards: 1. The applicants researched Assessor's records and concluded that the original structure on the site was built prior to 1893 and torn down some time between 1930 and' 1940. The log house was built around 1944. There is no documentation that the house or site has significant historical association. 2. The house is one of the only log structures remaining in Aspen, along with the cabins at 205 S. Third Street and 527 W. Main Street. While it is newer than these other two cabins, it is in a more prominent location and setting. Log construction with chinking, the cross gable roof, and the square windows with small panes are typical of the Pioneer (1850-1930's) and Rustic (post 1940) styles now rare in Aspen. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures considered the log house to possess distinctive characteristics of "type, style of architecture, and construction,, and to be "a noteworthy surviving example of a style becoming rare in the locale or is identified with a street scene or other landscape.,, The fact that it was built so recently (1944) makes historic landmark status questionable. However, given the structure's unique status, we feel we can support the viewpoint that it meets this criteria of architectural significance. The State Historical Society's architect, Jay Yanz, reported verbally on April 5, 1988 that he · considered the log house to be a "classic". The HPC will review the proposed alterations and addition to the log house at Final Development Review to assure that the historic character of the property which is deemed worth preserving is 5 maintained. 3. The log house embodies the characteristics of the rustic residential building type, which is identified in the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" as an historic architectural style in Aspen. 4. It is unlikely that a house of this type was designed by an architect. The applicant's research indicates that Leo "Pope" Rowland, an old-time Aspenite and the brother of "Red" Rowland, was the primary builder of the house. John Parsons, a mason who did work throughout the Valley, is credited with building the stone fireplace and chimney. The stonework in particular is outstanding; and it may be that Mr. Parsons' work influenced other use of moss rock in and around Aspen. No research has been done to confirm this. 5. The log house is considered visually contributing to the Main Street Historic District, according to the 1980 Historic Inventory. The major spruce trees give a special, rustic character to the site and contribute to a sense of maturity, permanence and visual relief from buildings on Main Street. 6. The log house has a special prominence in the community because of its visibility on Main Street, in staff's opinion. Employee Housing Issue: Both the Housing Authority and P&Z expressed concern over the effect of this project on affordable housing. Working with the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant agreed to volunteer a restriction on the owner's dwelling unit to make it an accessory use to the restaurant as an inducement to the City for historic designation. P&Z stated that with this agreement, the applicant has essentially mitigated employee housing impacts. The concept of this restriction has been stated in Section 2 of the attached Ordinance based on P&Z's motion. The deed restriction document has been completed by the applicants and is attached for Council review. The document specifically restricts the attached residential unit as an accessory use to the restaurant, for the use of the restaurant owner/manager, or an employee. The owner, however, will have the right to rent out the unit to other permanent employees of the community. Further, the property can not be condominiumized for as long as the owners, their heirs, etc. enjoy the conditional use granted hereinabove. The covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding for the period of fifty (50) years from the date of the covenants. 134 West Hopkins Location: Southeast corner of Hopkins and First, Lots K and L of Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. 6 Zoning: R-6 Applicant's Request: Julie Wyckoff and Peter Carley, contract purchasers, request historic designation of the subject property, conditional use approval and condominiumization to undertake the following project: restore the existing house on Lot K, move the house presently at 120 N. Spring Street to Lot L, add a two story addition and garage to the rear of Lot L, and create separate ownerships of the two houses. Special review for reduction in required parking from five (5) spaces to four (4) spaces is also requested. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: On May 3, 1988 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic designation of 134 W. Hopkins subject to the following condition volunteered by the applicants: The asphalt siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed and the old siding restored and replaced as necessary within one (1) year after historic designation. P&Z recommended approval of condominiumization, subject to five conditions discussed in the condominiumization section of this memorandum. Conditional use approval and special review for parking reduction were also granted. HPC: On January 12, 1988 the Historic Preservation Committee recommended historic landmark designation of 134 W.Hopkins Avenue subject to the condition volunteered by the applicants as stated above. HPC gave conceptual development approval for the exterior changes to the property subject to a number of conditions. It should be noted that variations from required sideyard set-backs and site coverage may be approved by HPC in their upcoming Final Development approval. Historic Evaluation Ratings: 134 W. Hopkins: "2" 120 N. Spring: "1" Response to Standards for Designation: 1. The chain of title changes presented in the application for 134 W. Hopkins gives no indication that the existing house is associated with a person or event of historical significance; however, we note that the Anderson/Loushin family has lived here since 1950. There is no documentation that the house at 120 N. Spring has significant historical association. 2. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures states that 134 W. Hopkins possesses historic importance by 7 "illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle(s) of the silver mining era." HPC gave the structure an historic evaluation rating of "2" considering the asphalt siding, the possibility that the second floor dormers were added, and the assessment that the house does not make a strong contribution to the historic character of the neighborhood, already substantially rebuilt. Hazel Loushin, one of five owners, attended the meeting. She reported that the dormers are original and the front porch had been altered. She also emphasized that the block has a mixed historic/contemporary character. The small dimensions of this house, its cross gable/hipped roof and original windows and dormers make 134 W. Hopkins a good example of a miner's cottage. Removal of the asbestos siding, as intended by the applicants, would better expose the original architectural style of the house and increase its historic significance. It is likely that portions of the original siding are damaged and will need to be replaced by new siding. We think that removal of the asbestos siding is a desirable commitment on the part of the applicant. No information on 120 N. Spring was found in the 1980 Historic Inventory. The house appears in its present location on the 1886 Willits Map. HPC considered the house to have a few alterations negatively effecting its architectural significance, including partial enclosure of the porch and adding of several new windows. The primary reason for HPC's low evaluation was its location in a neighborhood no longer considered at all historical, overshadowed by the Concept 600 Building and out of scale with the nearby industrial Obermeyer Building and the Eagle's Club. 120 N. Spring possesses some architectural significance because of its simple one story gable end "shotgun" style, largely original porch, and several original windows and doors. Moving the structure into a neighborhood with other miner's cottages would actually make the house more visible to the public and increase its prominence in the new context, as we see it. In addition, this house is imminently threatened by demolition because of the 700 E. Main multi-family residential project proposed for the site. 3. These houses embody two different styles of miner's cottages. Both are unadorned structures, most notable for their simplicity, harking to the relative austerity of the working class of the silver mining era in Aspen. As part of HPC's conceptual development review, the concern was discussed whether the proposed alterations and addition would negatively effect the distinguished architectural characteristics of .the houses and property. Conditions for HPC's approval were established with respect to the shed dormers, siting and height 8 for follow-up at final development review. Staff believes that the project will consist of compatible alterations and additions not detracting from the distinguished architectural type and character of the two houses. 4. No evidence has been presented that these houses meet the standard of being significant works by influential architects . 5. The West Aspen Mountain (Shadow Mountain) neighborhood, as delineated in the 1980 Historic Inventory, contains some 16 scattered historic structures within 22 blocks. Seven of those structures are within a block from the intersection of First and Hopkins. We think that the preservation of 134 W. Hopkins and adding another historic structure next door does help maintain and enhance the neighborhood,s historic character, even though this is a very mixed neighborhood with low overall density of historic structures. Additionally, placing the two houses on 6,000 s.f reproduces the pattern of small houses on single lots typical of working class areas of town during the mining era. 6. The typical size and architectural styles of these two houses possess some general community significance, in our opinion. Condominiumization: 1. Referral Comments: a. Engineering Department: 1. There is a platting requirement for condominiumization. The applicant should agree to join future improvements districts. 2. A final condominiumization plat must be submitted that depicts both structures and complies with Engineering Department requirements. 3. The applicant has agreed to join any future special improvement districts. This project is in the district that requires sidewalks be installed on both frontages. b. Housing Authority: The applicant has requested to pay the affordable housing impact fee for condominiumization rather than demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate housing. The fee approach is allowed in the new code, and may be allowed by the Planning Director prior to its adoption if deemed appropriate. $11,175 would be required according to the schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the new land use code. (* The fee schedule as adopted in Ordinance 5 (Series of 1988) would require an assessment of $14,075.) On March 31 1988 the Housing Authority recommended acceptance of the employee housing impact fee. 9 2. Planning Office Comments: We have reviewed this application according to Section 20-22 of the old Municipal Code, with the exception of the affordable housing issue. Standards for review are as follows: (a) Standard: Existing tenants shall be given written notice when their unit is offered for sale and right of first refusal to purchase their unit. Response: The present tenants are also the sellers of the property. This requirement does not appear to be necessary. (b) Standard: All units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. Response: This rental restriction must be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception: (c) Standard: The applicant shall demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. Response: The existing unit would appear to fall under the low and moderate income rental guidelines. If so, the old Code would require a five year deed restriction to the appropriate income guidelines. However, the concept for employee housing mitigation has changed to an impact fee system. Consequently, charging low rent is not a disincentive to condominiumization. The Planning Office agrees with the Housing Authority that the new fee schedule should be applied to this project. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the affordable housing impact fee only apply to the existing dwelling and not to the house to be relocated on the property. The Commission believes that a determination should be made that no impact on affordable housing results from moving this house so to justify that this provision of condominiumization be partially waived. The new code is quite clear that the affordable housing impact fee applies to all condominiumized units. There is a waiver provision in Section 7-1008.c(2) if the applicant demonstrates that "the unit will remain available to employees of the community.., in the form of a permanent restriction placed on the unit that the unit will only be sold to or occupied by qualified employees...,, We understand that one of the co- applicants is a permanent employee of the community; however, she is not willing to make this restriction on the property. Without this commitment the Planning Office cannot support partial waiving of the affordable housing impact fee. Additionally, we do not concur with the applicants' argument that because the unit to be moved (for which a GMP exemption was granted for 10 reconstruction as part of the 700 E. Main project) is pre- existing, that there is no impact on affordable housing and therefore, there should be no impact mitigation. (d) Standard: The applicant must agree to undergo ~n inspection of the building or buildings by the building department regarding fire, health and safety conditions. Response: The applicants intend to do significant interior work to both units. For this reason, no inspection has been done thus far. If the units will not be renovated prior to recordation of the condominiumization plat, then the applicants should agree to have such inspection and abide by fire, health and safety requirements established by the building department. RECOMMENDATION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumizing the two residences on 134 W. Hopkins subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall file a condominiumization plat with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office meeting the requirements of Section 7-1004.D(3) of the Municipal Code and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. b. The applicant shall file a statement of subdivision exception to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to recordation of the plat including: 1. Agreement to join any special improvements districts formed in the future. 2. Waiver from the "purchase rights of existing tenants" provision. 3. Six month minimum lease restriction with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. 4. Finding that no impact will result on affordable housing from the house being moved, assessment of the affordable housing impact fee shall only apply to the existing house on the property (three bedrooms) according to the fee schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the Land Use Code. 5. Agreement to relocate the existing evergreen on the property and to replant a tree no less that one half the size of the existing tree if it does not survive. c. The applicant shall agree to have the structures inspected by the Building Department for fire, health and safety conditions and to abide by the Building Department's requirements prior to recordation of the plat if the 11 applicants do not undertake renovation of the two residences before condominiumization. If Council agrees with staff's recommendation on Condition b.4 it shall read as follows: ' 4. Payment shall be made for the affordable housing impact fee according to the fee schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: "~-~-te rca~ ~?ncc (,Ca~--~ 1988)." "Move to approve Ordinance ~l (Series of 1988) on second Reading." ciTY sb.134.2 TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager ~ FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office ~ RE: Historic Designation and Auxiliary Reviews for 334 W. Hallam St., 300 W. Main St., and 134 W. Hopkins St. DATE: June 13, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of Ordinance ~l (Series of 1988) on Second Reading. Additionally, there is one consolidated development application, the condominiumization of 134 West Hopkins, which we recommend the Council approve. INTRODUCTION: During the last several months three historic designation projects have been reviewed by HPC and P&Z, resulting in recommendations for historic landmark designation. A single ordinance has been prepared that would accomplish designation of all three properties. Case reviews for each application are presented below. On May 9, 1988, Council passed this Ordinance on First Reading. STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION: Section 7-702 of the Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance 5 (Series of 1988), - states the following standards for designation of historic landmarks. A structure must meet one or more of these standards to be eligible for designation. Staff's comments in response to each standard are in the case review section of this memorandum. Standard 1: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historic significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Standard 2: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or traditional Aspen character. Standard 3: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique " architectural type or specimen. · . Standard 4: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of 1 Aspen. Standard 5: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood. Standard 6: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or site of historical or architectural importance. CASE REVIEWS: 334 West Hallam Location: Lots K, L, and M of Block 42, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. Zoning: R-6 Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting historic landmark designation of 334 W. Hallam St. The owner intends to make alterations to the original house including removal of the newer two story addition, which would be replaced with a new addition and greenhouse. The owner also intends to partially demolish and reconstruct the carriage house, integrating historic fabric into the new where possible. The applicant has also developed plans for restoration of the original historic main house. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic landmark designation of the subject property on May 3, 1988. The conditions to their recommendation, volunteered by the applicant as an inducement for designation, are: 1. No changes will be made to the south, east and west elevation windows of the original house with the exception of the lower level east elevation window as amended by HPC. 2. The carriage house will not be demolished but rehabilitated utilizing as much of the historic fabric as possible. 3. Proper maintenance and preservation of the original facade and architectural details shall be accomplished. HPC: On March 8, 1988 the Historic Preservation Committee recommended historic landmark designation of the structure at 334 W. Hallam St. subject to the same condition as stated above in P&Z's motion. HPC approved conceptual development review on that 2 date subject to several conditions. On April 12, at the request of the applicant, HPC again reviewed and approved portions of the project, specifically the greenhouse/"sunspace" addition, which required a minor change to the east elevation, lower level original window, reconstructing the opening into a door to permit access into the sunspace. In HPC and staff's opinion, this minor change does not negate the historical integrity of the structure and the recommendation for historic landmark designation stands. Historic Evaluation Rating: "5" Note: This property has been deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Response to Standards: 1. The home and carriage house are associated with Eugene Wilder of the Aspen Lumber Company (one of Aspen's oldest establishments). 2. This home was constructed c. 1885. The front elevation of this two story home is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small' panes of stained glass. The quality detailing throughout the front facade and its highly visible corner location make this entire property exemplary of "Victorian" residential architecture. This home is featured on the cover of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element. The carriage house and simple fenestration of the east and west facades of the main house blend together well. Carriage houses are commonly found throughout the West End, most being original and renovated in such a way as to maintain their integrity yet be utilized for modern living. 3. The Wilder House embodies the characteristics of the gabled "L" with Victorian detailing elements, identified in the Guidelines as a historical architectural style in Aspen. 4. The Wilder House was constructed from local lumber and may have been built by The Aspen Lumber Company, established c. 1880- 1885, according to Barbara Norgren, preservation consultant who prepared the National Register nomination for this property. The house displays a high degree of craftsmanship which was available in Aspen at the time of its construction. Through careful restoration of the original elements, this house retains a great deal of its original integrity. 5. The special architectural features of this home and carriage house represent the historic character of this neighborhood and Aspen at the turn-of-the-century. Its high rating ("5") expresses 3 the important relationship this structure has to the neighborhood. 6. The Wilder House is situated near the very center of the historic "West End" neighborhood on a prominent corner. Its size, location, and architectural features present an excellent example of Aspen's history. It has special prominence because it is viewed by summer visitors enroute along 3rd Street to the Music Tent. Historic Designation Grant: Because 334 W. Hallam received an evaluation rating of "5" it is eligible for a grant from the City of $2,000. The applicant has requested this grant. We have included this grant within the Ordinance. 300 West Main Location: Lots Q,R, and S of Block 44 City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ' Zoning: O - Office zone district. Applicant's Request: Scott and Caroline McDonald request historic designation of the log house property. The project includes conversion of the existing 1400 square foot house into a fifty (50) seat restaurant. A two story addition, approximately 2300 square feet in size, would be attached to the north and west sides of the existing house for a four bedroom residence, garage and restaurant kitchen. A one bedroom employee unit was initially proposed within the addition, but has been deleted as a response to HPC's concerns about the bulk of the addition. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic designation of 300 W. Main on April 26, 1988 recognizing that the attached residential unit is an accessory use to the restaurant, primarily for use of the restaurant owner/manager or an employee, and will not be condominiumized; however, the owner will have the right to rent out the unit primarily to permanent employees of the community. The applicant volunteered such restriction on the property as an inducement for historic designation and agreed to prepare a legal instrument establishing the restriction for review before City Council. HPC: HPC recommended historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main on February 9, 1988. On that date HPC also gave conceptual development review approval to the addition subject to several conditions. HPC continued conceptual development review to ascertain whether the conditions of approval had been met. Design changes have been made following each hearing to address concerns raised. After five meetings, HPC has directed staff to prepare a resolution of conceptual development approval referencing 4 specific plans for adoption at their May 10, 1988 regular meeting. It should be noted that HPC is able to grant a requested encroachment into the rear yard set-back at Final Development approval through Section 9-103.C.2 of the Municipal Code as amended. Housing Authority: In an April 4, 1988 memorandum, Jim Adamski noted that the new code would require housing for 35% (* Changed to 60% in Ordinance 5) of the employees generated from expansion or change in use of an historic landmark. The existing code does not require any employee housing mitigation for changes in use of historic landmarks. While originally the applicant had proposed an employee housing unit, this commitment has been dropped and no employee housing mitigation would be provided. At the April 7, 1988 meeting the Housing Authority recommended that the applicant mitigate the employee housing impact that the restaurant will generate in accordance with the intent of the new code. Historic Evaluation Rating: The log house was not given a rating by HPC in January, 1987 because the evaluations focused on mining era structures. Response to Standards: 1. The applicants researched Assessor's records and concluded that the original structure on the site was built prior to 1893 and torn down some time between 1930 and 1940. The log house was built around 1944. There is no documentation that the house or site has significant historical association. 2. The house is one of the only log structures remaining in Aspen, along with the cabins at 205 S. Third Street and 527 W. Main Street. While it is newer than these other two cabins, it is in a more prominent location and setting. Log construction with chinking, the cross gable roof, and the square windows with small panes are typical of the Pioneer (1850-1930's) and Rustic (post 1940) styles now rare in Aspen. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures considered the log house to possess distinctive characteristics of "type, style of architecture, and construction" and to be "a noteworthy surviving example of a style becoming rare in the locale or is identified with a street scene or other landscape." The fact that it was built so recently (1944) makes historic landmark status questionable. However, given the structure's unique status, we feel we can support the viewpoint that it meets this criteria of architectural significance. The State Historical Society's architect, Jay Yanz, reported verbally on April 5, 1988 that he considered the log house to be a "classic". The HPC will review the proposed alterations and addition to the log house at Final Development Review to assure that the historic character of the property which is deemed worth preserving is 5 maintained. 3. The log house embodies the characteristics of the rustic residential building type, which is identified in the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" as an historic architectural style in Aspen. 4. It is unlikely that a house of this type was designed by an architect. The applicant's research indicates that Leo "Pope" Rowland, an old-time Aspenite and the brother of "Red" Rowland, was the primary builder of the house. John Parsons, a mason who did work throughout the Valley, is credited with building the stone fireplace and chimney. The stonework in particular is outstanding; and it may be that Mr. Parsons' work influenced other use of moss rock in and around Aspen. No research has been done to confirm this. 5. The log house is considered visually contributing to the Main Street Historic District, according to the 1980 Historic Inventory. The major spruce trees give a special, rustic character to the site and contribute to a sense of maturity, permanence and visual relief from buildings on Main Street. 6. The log house has a special prominence in the community because of its visibility on Main Street, in staff's opinion. Employee Housing Issue: Both the Housing Authority and P&Z expressed concern over the effect of this project on affordable housing. Working with the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant agreed to volunteer a restriction on the owner's dwelling unit to make it an accessory use to the restaurant as an inducement to the City for historic designation. P&Z stated that with this agreement, the applicant has essentially mitigated employee housing impacts. The concept of this restriction has been stated in Section 2 of the attached Ordinance based on P&Z's motion. The deed restriction document has been completed by the applicants and is attached for Council review. The docttment specifically restricts the attached residential unit as an accessory use to the restaurant, for the use of the restaurant owner/manager, or an employee. The owner, however, will have the right to rent out the unit to other permanent employees of the community. Further, the property can not be condominiumized for as long as the owners, their heirs, etc. enjoy the conditional use granted hereinabove. The covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding for the period of fifty (50) years from the date of the covenants. 134 West Hopkins Location: Southeast corner of Hopkins and First, Lots K and L of Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. 6 Zoning: R-6 Applicant's Request: Julie Wyckoff and Peter Carley, contract purchasers, request historic designation of the subject property, . '~ conditional use approval and condominiumization to undertake the following project: restore the existing house on Lot K, move the · house presently at 120 N. Spring Street to Lot L, add a two story addition and garage to the rear of Lot L, and create separate ownerships of the two houses. Special review for reduction in required parking from five (5) spaces to four (4) spaces is also requested. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: On May 3, 1988 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic designation of 134 W. Hopkins subject to the following condition volunteered by the applicants: The asphalt siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed and the old siding restored and replaced as necessary within one (1) year after historic designation. P&Z recommended approval of condominiumization, subject to five conditions discussed in the condominiumization section of this memorandum. Conditional use approval and special review for parking reduction were also granted. HPC: On January 12, 1988 the Historic Preservation Committee recommended historic landmark designation of 134 W.Hopkins Avenue subject to the condition volunteered by the applicants as stated above. HPC gave conceptual development approval for the exterior changes to the property subject to a number of conditions. It should be noted that variations from required sideyard set-backs and site coverage may be approved by HPC in their upcoming Final Development approval. Historic Evaluation Ratings: 134 W. Hopkins: "2" 120 N. Spring: "1" Response to Standards for Designation: 1. The chain of title changes presented in the application for 134 W. Hopkins gives no indication that the existing house is associated with a person or event of historical significance; however, we note that the Anderson/Loushin family has lived here since 1950. There is no documentation that the house at 120 N. Spring has significant historical association. · 2. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures states that 134 W. Hopkins possesses historic importance by 7 "illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle(s) of the silver mining era." HPC gave the structure an historic evaluation rating of "2" considering the asphalt siding, the possibility that the second floor dormers were added, and the assessment that the house does not make .a strong contribution to the historic character of the neighborhood, already substantially rebuilt. Hazel Loushin, one of five owners, attended the meeting. She reported that the dormers are original and the front porch had been altered. She also emphasized that the block has a mixed historic/contemporary character. The small dimensions of this house, its cross gable/hipped roof and original windows and dormers make 134 W. Hopkins a good example of a miner's cottage. Removal of the asbestos siding, as intended by the applicants, would better expose the original architectural style of the house and increase its historic significance. It is likely that portions of the original siding are damaged and will need to be replaced by new siding. We think that removal of the asbestos siding is a desirable commitment on the part of the applicant. No information on 120 N. Spring was found in the 1980 Historic Inventory. The house appears in its present location on the 1886 Willits Map. HPC considered the house to have a few alterations negatively effecting its architectural significance, including partial enclosure of the porch and adding of several new windows. The primary reason for HPC's low evaluation was its location in a neighborhood no longer considered at all historical, overshadowed by the Concept 600 Building and out of scale with the nearby industrial Obermeyer Building and the Eagle's Club. 120 N. Spring possesses some architectural significance because of its simple one story gable end "shotgun', style, largely original porch, and several original windows and doors. Moving the structure into a neighborhood with other miner's cottages would actually make the house more visible to the public and increase its prominence in the new context, as we see it. In addition, this house is imminently threatened 'by demolition because of the 700 E. Main multi-family residential project proposed for the site. 3. These houses embody two different styles of miner's cottages. Both are unadorned structures, most notable for their simplicity, harking to the relative austerity of the working class of the silver mining era in Aspen. As part of HPC's conceptual development review, the concern was discussed whether the proposed alterations and addition would negatively effect the distinguished architectural characteristics of the houses and property. Conditions for HPC's approval were established with respect to the shed dormers, siting and height 8 for follow-up at final development review. Staff believes that the project will consist of compatible alterations and additions not detracting from the distinguished architectural type and character of the two houses. 4. No evidence has been presented that these houses meet the standard of being significant works by influential architects . 5. The West Aspen Mountain (Shadow Mountain) neighborhood, as delineated in the 1980 Historic Inventory, contains some 16 scattered historic structures within 22 blocks. Seven of those structures are within a block from the intersection of First and Hopkins. We think that the preservation of 134 W. Hopkins and adding another historic structure next door does help maintain and enhance the neighborhood's historic character, even though this is a very mixed neighborhood with low overall density of historic structures. Additionally, placing the two houses on 6,000 s.f reproduces the pattern of small houses on single lots typical of working class areas of town during the mining era. 6. The typical size and architectural styles of these two houses possess some general community significance, in our opinion. Condominiumization: 1. Referral Comments: a. Engineering Department: 1. There is a platting requirement for condominiumization. The applicant should agree to join future improvements districts. 2. A final condominiumization plat must be submitted that depicts both structures and complies with Engineering Department requirements. 3. The applicant has agreed to join any future special improvement districts. This project is in the district that requires sidewalks be installed on both frontages. b. Housing Authority: The applicant has requested to pay the affordable housing impact fee for condominiumization rather than demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate housing. The fee approach is allowed in the new code, and may be allowed by the Planning Director prior to its adoption if deemed appropriate. $11,175 would be required according to the schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the new land use code. (* The fee schedule as adopted in Ordinance 5 (Series of 1988) would require an assessment of $14,075.) On March 31, 1988 the Housing Authority recommended acceptance of the employee housing impact fee. 9 2. Planning Office Comments: We have reviewed this application according to Section 20-22 of the old Municipal Code, with the exception of the affordable housing issue. Standards for review are as follows: (a) Standard: Existing tenants shall be given written notice when their unit is offered for sale and right of first refusal to purchase their unit. Response: The present tenants are also the sellers of the property. This requirement does not appear to be necessary. (b) Standard: All units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. Response: This rental restriction must be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception: (c) Standard: The applicant shall demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. Response: The existing unit would appear to fall under the low and moderate income rental guidelines. If so, the old Code would require a five year deed restriction to the appropriate income guidelines. However, the concept for employee housing mitigation has changed to an impact fee system. Consequently, charging low rent is not a disincentive to condominiumization. The Planning Office agrees with the Housing Authority that the new fee schedule should be applied to this project. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the affordable housing impact fee only apply to the existing dwelling and not to the house to be relocated on the property. The Commission believes that a determination should be made that no impact on affordable housing results from moving this house so to justify that this provision of condominiumization be partially waived. The new code is quite clear that the affordable housing impact fee applies to all condominiumized units. There is a waiver provision in Section 7-1008.c(2) if the applicant demonstrates that "the unit will remain available to employees of the community.., in the form of a permanent restriction placed on the unit that the unit will only be sold to or occupied by qualified employees..." We understand that one of the co- applicants is a permanent employee of the community; however, she is not willing to make this restriction on the property. Without this commitment the Planning Office cannot support partial waiving of the affordable housing impact fee. Additionally, we do not concur with the applicants' argument that because the unit to be moved (for which a GMP exemption was granted for 10 reconstruction as part of the 700 E. Main project) is pre- existing, that there is no impact on affordable housing and therefore, there should be no impact mitigation. (d) Standard: The applicant must agree to undergo an inspection of the building or buildings by the building department regarding fire, health and safety conditions. Response: The applicants intend to do significant interior work to both units. For this reason, no inspection has been done thus far. If the units will not be renovated prior to recordation of the condominiumization plat, then the applicants should agree to have such inspection and abide by fire, health and safety requirements established by the building department. RECOMMENDATION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumizing the two residences on 134 W. Hopkins subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall file a condominiumization plat with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office meeting the requirements of Section 7-1004.D(3) of the Municipal Code and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. b. The applicant shall file a statement of subdivision exception to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to recordation of the plat including: 1. Agreement to join any special improvements districts formed in the future. 2. Waiver from the "purchase rights of existing tenants" provision. 3. Six month minimum lease restriction with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. 4. Finding that no impact will result on affordable housing from the house being moved, assessment of the affordable housing impact fee shall only apply to the existing house on the property (three bedrooms) according to.the fee schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the Land Use Code. 5. Agreement to relocate the existing evergreen on the property and to replant a tree no less that one half the size of the existing tree if it does not survive. c. The applicant shall agree to have the structures inspected by the Building Department for fire, health and safety conditions and to abide by the Building Department's requirements prior to recordation of the plat if the 11 applicants do not undertake renovation of the two residences before condominiumization. If Council agrees with staff's recommendation on Condition b.4, it shall read as follows: 4. Payment shall be made for the affordable housing impact fee according to the fee schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: ,,~.~-v~ ~ ~-- ~ ~ ~ ~nc~ (Scrie~ 1988) ." "Move to approve Ordinance ~l (Series of 1988) on second Reading." CO N S: sb.134.2 12