Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080625ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 204 N. Monarch -Conceptual Development (cont'd from 5/28/2008) .............................. 2 406 E. Hopkins -Isis .......................................................................................................... 3 612 W. Francis St. -Historic Designation ......................................................................... 4 541 and 541 '/z Race Street -Conceptual Development and Variances ............................. 6 Holden Marolt Shed and Ski Club building ...................................................................... 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Sarah Broughton and Brian McNellis. Nora Berko was excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Michael will recuse himself on 541 541 '/z Race Street Jon Bush lives directly across the street at 548 Race Street. He supports the variance and the reason is they are backing the house up from five feet to ten feet from the alley. He also pointed out that Fox Crossing has monster homes. They have repaved the alley numerous times and they have raised it numerous times. It is now 12 to 18 inches higher than it was before. Jon said staff is recommending that the cabins be kept at the low profile and close to the ground. Jon supports staffs recommendation. 204 N. Monarch -Conceptual Development (cont'd from 5/28/2008) Stan Clauson, Clauson & Associates Jeffrey Halferty, Halferty Design Sara pointed out that scenario C is the most sensitive to the historic context. Staff recommends approval with a few conditions. We need clarification that the proposed house is not higher than the Blu Vic. Staff is also concerned about the one-story bump out on the south. It has come to our attention that the Blu Vic will have a wrap around porch put back on and we are concerned that the bump out will be competing with the porch. The eaves proposed should be restudied for final. They are a little deep as compared to the historic context which typically had shallower roof eaves. We also recommend that the front porch be review for final as it is a little bulky. In terms of site planning the new house should be pushed back five inches so that it is in line with the Blu Vic. In reference to the variances requested staff feels they are appropriate for this site. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Stan Clauson said option C provides for the one-story wrap around element and the emulation of the same gable form of the Blu Vic. The client would prefer the wrap around element. Exhibit I - Option D is the elevation without the one story element. Stan said the height is not an issue and the setback can be adjusted in the front so that the house does not go out beyond the Blu Vic. Jeffrey Halferty said option C genuflects to the historic house. The wrap around breaks up the south side of the building. There are two skylights also proposed on the wrap around. We have tried to balance the design so that it fits in well with the historic resource next door. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Sara pointed out that all e-mails and letters are attached in the packets. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Ann said option C works well with the scale and mass. The wrap around is a great improvement over the blank wall on the south. As a suggestion for final there could be a little more detail on the front posts. Ann also said she is opposed to the all setbacks in the rear. Sarah added that the eave overhang on the south gable should be restudied for final. Jay pointed out that the proposal fits our guidelines and he would support the variances. The variance on the north side is needed. Michael said the applicant is willing to pull the house back in front and they are willing to adjust the depth of the eaves. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #13 for 204 N. Monarch, Option C with the following conditions: Add to #3 that the applicant will study the depth of the eaves on the entire house and striking condition #4. Motion second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 406 E. Hopkins -Isis. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 406 E. Hopkins until July 9`h; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. 612 W. Francis St. -Historic Designation Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I Amy said this is a corner lot and there are two properties owned by the Silverman's. In 2000 there was a 3,000 square foot lot and a 9,000 square foot lot. The 9,000 square foot lot contains the pan-a-bode in which we will discuss designation on. In 2002 the owner went through a subdivision for two 6,000 square foot lots. At this time the owners are interested in reversing the situation back. There is a new home now and the pan-a-bode. What is being proposed is to landmark the 12,000 square feet and allow them to do an historic lot split for 3,000 square feet and 9,000 square feet. The pan-a-bode was constructed in 1956 and it has two additions. One made in 1957 and one in 1969. The house is contributing and very consistent with other pan-a-bodes in town. The alterations that have taken place are entirely reversible. Before landmark designation the property has to meet the criteria related to historic significance and it also has to have architectural integrity. Staff recommends that the property meets two of the historic significance criteria. The early owners of the property where Whip Jones who established Aspen Highlands ski area. This property has been historically rented to skiers. It was a kit log house and originally used for affordable housing. It also meets the basic criteria and has all the original windows and the window configuration in place and it is a single story. There are no new openings that we are aware o£ In terms of the integrity scoring we scored it 86 and the minimum is 75. Staff recommends that the HPC support designation. Mitch Haas represented the applicant. Mitch said the Silverman's bought the 3,000 square foot lot, Lot P and built their house on it before 2000. Then the Doremus family owned the pan- abode and a separate house on the 9,000 square foot house. The Silverman/ Doremus lot split was a joint application so both parties owned a 6,000 square foot lot. Since then the Doremus sold their lot to Silverman. The desire is to keep some space around the pan-a-bode structure. As far as a development I would never recommend this but the owner desires space around the house and can do that by putting it back to a 9,000 square foot lot and putting the newer house back on a 3,000 square foot lot. The 3,000 square foot lot is fully built and no additions can be added. The 9,000 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 square foot lot would allow a second home or duplex with HPC review. That would allow 4,080 square feet total on the lot. As is the total build out would be 6,480 square feet and two homes and no HPC review and the possibility of demolishing the pan-a-bode. From a preservation standpoint this is a win win situation as the pan-abode would stay and anything that happens on the 12,000 square feet is subject to HPC review. We have no issues with the scoring and agree to everything. Brian asked staff if they reviewed the property. Amy said she met with Jack and actually got to go inside the house. The pan-abode structure has not been altered on the inside. Amy also looked at the additions and they where done close to the same time period. Michael inquired about the allowable square footage for the pan-a-bode lot. Mitch said the lot can have a duplex of 4,080 square feet or two single family homes on it. If you are staying with one dwelling unit on the 9,000 square foot lot the allowable is 3,600 square feet. The existing pan-a-bode has around 2,000 square feet. Under the existing conditions they could have a 1,600 square foot addition. Jack Silverman said as it is now a buyer could buy two 6,000 square foot lots but he is hoping HPC will approve it as a 3,000 square foot lot and he will sell it as that. He approached Amy months ago and said he wanted to sell one house or another. Jack said he likes the old style and it is the only thing left. Amy said what is on the table is designation. Council will review the lot line. HPC in the future would review the new house if it ever was to be replaced. Amy clarified that there is no increase in the floor area unless HPC would grant the 500 square foot bonus down the road. Mitch said the total FAR area on the 12,000 square foot parcel does not change. What changes is if we landmark we have the potential for one more unit. Ann commended the applicant for coming forward for designation. Anything that happens to the lot would have HPC review. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Alison said she finds that the proposal is eligible under our criteria and it is a good example of Post War Aspen. As long as the current owners have it, it will be kept in the existing context. MOTION: Ann moved to approve Resolution #14 for designation of 612 W. Francis; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 541 and 541 % Race Street -Conceptual Development and Variances Michael recused himself. Sarah chaired. Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I Colored photographs -Exhibit II Sara said the discussion is about Lot 6. There will be two 1960's cabins located onto the parcel and this was all approved through the subdivision. The request is to discuss adding an addition to one of the cabins that will be a free market residence. They want to convert the other cabin to an ADU and they are not proposing any changes to the cabin, possibly asub-grade space but no external addition which is favorable. HPC will be looking at the residential design standards for accessory dwelling units. They are also requesting the 500 square foot FAR bonus and some setback requirements. Overall staff feels the guidelines are met especially guideline 10.3 and 10.4. The scale and size of the addition do not overwhelm the cabin. They are one story in height and appropriate. Staff is concerned about the connection of the connector piece to the historic cabin for the addition. We are recommending dropping the height if that is possible or shortening the length. It is difficult to distinguish the gable roof form of the cabin with the connector piece intersecting right into that gable. Another concern is the relationship of the free market porch to grade. There seems to be some changes in the floor of the free market porch, it seems to be a lot lower than the accessory dwelling unit. Staff feels the relationship to grade of the front porches remain as existing. They are identical right now and should remain that way. In terms of the porch guideline 5.1 and 5.2 take about preserving the original porch and avoid removing or covering details of the historic porch. They are proposing to take off some of the horizontal logs that are part of the front porch and putting in stone columns and staff feels they are not appropriate for the landmark. In terms of the FAR bonus we think that they meet the criteria and the design guidelines with the condition that the front porches remain the same in terms of the relationship and also design. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25.2008 We also think the FAR bonus should be granted if the connector piece is brought into a little more compliance with our guidelines by having a differentiation between the original roof form and where that connection is for the addition. Sara also pointed out that the front yard of the house is actually facing the park not Race Street which was part of the subdivision approval. They are requesting two front yard setback variances for each of the cabins and two side yard setback variances and a distance between buildings variance. This site is a 6,000 square foot lot and they are trying to put the two cabins on the site as part of the subdivision approval. The cabins are detached which staff supports. Staff is in favor of the setback variances in terms of the site planning. Keeping the cabins detached is preferable than having them attached. Stan Clauson presented. Stan said the original approval had the two pan-a-bodes brought together in one single family residences. That ended to being an unfeasible design. There where three historic resources on the overall project, the Victorian house on Lot 5 and one pan-a-bode on Lot 5 and one on Lot 6. In laying out the subdivision Walnut Street extended which became the park and that is the front and Race Street or alley is the rear of the property. Charles Cunniffe, architect did a power point on the project. The park slopes from the pan-abodes down to the other houses. The power point showed the relationship of the porches to the park. One of the pan-a- bodes porches steps down because the floor level in the building is lower. In the back of the pan-a-bode the head room is six feet. The top of the plywood on the roof height is nine feet on the connector. We don't want to expand the already below space as it will be uncomfortable. On the connector we could have the connector look like a cricket rather than a sloping roof. The addition looks bigger on the pan-a-bode because it is so small. In allowing the free market unit to be lowered and discussing the lower porch it lets the pan-a-bodes step up to the Victorian. At grade you wouldn't see the sloping roof because each house blocks the other. Sarah asked about the slope on the south of the cabin. Charles said there is a grading change to the house next to the cabin. To avoid having a foundation wall there is a grade change from the house to the right up to the cabin. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Sarah said so there is a hill there. Charles said we are trying to mold it so that it looks natural rather than having walls. The hill and drop off is true to the way it existed. Sarah asked about the grading between the two cabins. Charles said it is basically a slight swell for drainage. Charles said it slopes from back to front so we are draining from the alley side of the house into the park. The park was designed to be a drainage area. The cabins will be moved slightly together. Sara said as part of the subdivision approval both cabins are designated and they are being relocated to Lot 6 and it is up to the applicant to figure out how the design should work. Charles said in the earlier approval the cabins where combined to have one large free market. Sarah asked about the porches. Charles said they are one step to grade now. The grade has been moved around during the construction of the site. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. L.J. Elsperman, neighbor said he supports the project. L.J. asked if they where taking away space from the park and is the FAR being increased. Stan Clauson commented that the park will remain as is. The previous approval created a single family free market residence. This proposal is a single family free market plus an ADU. The ADU is not considered in the density. In terms of the land use code there is no increase in density but there will be two residences instead of one and it is the same FAR. Sara said the ADU is going to be deed restricted for sale. Charles said on the site the FAR is lower than previously approved. L.J. said the cabins are 840 square feet. Sarah closed the public hearing. Sarah said basically we are being asked to look at the porch, connector, FAR bonus, setback variances and grading. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Alison pointed out that the setback variances improve the situation. Sarah said the porch and the connector go hand in hand because it is a grading issue. Alison said you wouldn't bring the porch up and step up to it. Brian said he is more concerned about seeing the connector from the alley side. If it can't be seen the sloped connector would be preferable because that design would be better for drainage. Alison also agreed with Brian. Applying the cricket would make the roof lines more complex. Guideline 10.4 supports a product of its own time. Ann and Sarah agreed. Jay said he feels we should try to find innovative ways to make the design parameters work and maintain the integrity of the historic resource. Sarah said she has a lot of concerns about the grading that is going on and the siting of the house. We are creating real issues with drainage. Depending on the height of the cabins then goes into the height of the connector piece and the roof. We need to be siting the cabins as per our guidelines which talks about keeping them in their historic relationship with the site. The existing conditions has a much gentler slope. Alison said part of the problem is the house to the south was sited lower. Charles pointed out that originally the cabins where to be pushed together as a single family home and it had a different approach to the site. Charles suggested bringing the grade across and not creating the swell and that might work. We could do an area drain to the center of the two cabins and drain it out to the park. The park is the drainage pond for the entire site. Ann agreed with Charles recommendation. Brian said do create the abrupt change in the landscape to make the park more usable or do you taper it out. Sarah said the grading should not be falling on the historic resources. Charles said we need to find balance between all the sides. Brian suggested designing retaining walls and use shrubs on the sloped area. This grading is essential to the 500 square foot bonus. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Sarah said the two cabins need to be seen on the same level piece of land. Jay said the grading is directly connected to lowering the porch. How do we feel about lowering the porch. By allowing that to happen the bonus would be less warranted. Guideline 5.1 and 5.2 deal with preserving the original porch. Brian said if there is something we could do to maintain the same level of facades on the two buildings he could grant the bonus. Alison said the ADU is well done and it complies with all the guidelines. The problem is they are trying to force it into something that it is not by lowering the floor grade. Jay said this is a designated property and it is clear that the porch should not be changed. I've been in both units. Part of the person who is going to buy this unit will have the quaintness of owning an historic piece of property and that will be incorporated as to how they live in it. This is a major issue. I would have a problem offering the bonus as designed because of lowering the porch. Ann said she doesn't have the same problem. The site plan has been approved. The importance here is that the cabins are separated and they are being preserved. Sarah pointed out that we are not here to compare the two applications. Sara said in reference to the FAR bonus in the future the applicant was thinking about establishing TDR's. Amy said the bonus that is provided for the ADU and the 500 requested, not all is needed to build the project that is proposed so they can sell some as TDR's. Sara said they are not required to do any affordable housing mitigation on this lot because it is designated. They are doing it voluntarily. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25.2008 Charles said the cabin is being brought up to code. I don't think you can meet every guideline 100%. Guidelines are guidelines and they are to guide the HPC to come up with the right solution or something that compromises. Sarah it is great that the cabins are being preserved and they are now five feet apart. The cabins do need to function for today but I still have a lot of concerns with the grading. We all concur that the site is working well and the stumbling block is this elevation puzzle. Stan said possibly the approval could call for a restudy the grading at final. Ann said they are close enough to getting the bonus. The bonus is granted at conceptual and the grading is reviewed at final. Ann said she would made a motion to approve the project contingent on working out the grading. Jay said something needs to go in the motion about the porch. Sarah said the porch in its relationship to the grade is the concern. Ann said isn't the issue that the porch got lower. Sarah said yes. Sarah said she is fine with adding the condition. Jay said grading detracts how the cabins where set there to begin with. Again, the people who live in these cabins have to live with park activity right out there front door. The grading from the cabin to the park should not distinguish a property line. It should encourage people to come up to the cabin. MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve Resolution #15 as written for 541 and 541 % Race Street. Ann pointed out that the condition on the front porch and the free market are in the resolution. Motion second by Alison. Sara asked if condition #2 should be changed. Brian said the applicant will restudy the grading. Sarah said the motion needs to be clear as to what we are asking. Alison said the relationship to grade of the free market cabin is the issue. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Sarah said we are trying to say that the existing relationship to grade that these cabins have is what we would like to see in the proposal because we don't see it right now in the free market. Brian said the grading needs restudied to help maintain the existing relationship between the two buildings. Sarah re-phrased the condition: Applicant will restudy grading to maintain existing relationship to grade as appropriate and to be reviewed at final. Amy asked the board if they are asking that the porch not be dropped on the free market. Sarah said yes, that is what we are asking. Condition #1 states that the front porch on the free market residence will not be altered. Right now the porch is being altered in this proposal. Amy said she just wanted to make sure that it was built in the resolution. Amended motion: Ann accepted the change to condition #2 that the applicant will restudy grading to maintain existing relationship to grade as appropriate to be reviewed at final. Alison amended the second. All in favor, motion carried. Holden Marolt Shed and Ski Club building Brian Flynn pointed out that the Parks Department prefers to tear down the Marolt Shed. That area should be used as open space not storage. We let the Historical Society use the one bay. It is a public safety hazard right now. HPC needed more information on the Ski Club building. MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. M/ee/ting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12