Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20090128ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28.2009 Project monitoring - 214 E. Bleeker roof material and walkway ....................................... 1 621 W. Francis -Ord. #48, 2007 -Negotiation ................................................................. 5 219 S. Third -Historic Landmazk Designation, Historic Lot Split, Conceptual Development, Public Hearing ............................................................................................ 7 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Ann Mullins, Nora Berko and Jay Maytin. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of Dec. 10`"' 2008, second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Project monitoring - 214 E. Bleeker roof material and walkway Dave Rybak, architect; Kris Church, owner. Nora recused herself. Jim pointed out that there are two directions to go with regarding the issues on 214 E. Bleeker. One is the monitor and staff making an insubstantial amendment to the previous approvals. The technical procedures would be that the monitor would make a determination and that would be appealed if the owner didn't like it or it could be appealed directly to the commission or file a substantial amendment. If it is appealed to the commission it is heard as a substantial amendment. The substantial amendment would require an application with appropriate noticing for a public hearing. If the monitor is looking for direction from the commission as a whole the commission could give the monitor authority to pursue in an informal way as an insubstantial amendment with staff. If the commission isn't comfortable giving the monitor informal direction to proceed then it would need to be processed through an appeal. Amy pointed out that all the issues are enforcement issues. The work has already been done. Michael said we are talking about three things: roof, sidewalk, stairs and decking. Sara said in researching there was not aright-of--way permit or parks permit issued or granted for the walkway. We are recommending that the walkway ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 stay since it is snow melted. Ripping it out and making it a straight walkway will do more damage to the existing trees. We already talked about the front steps to remove the tiered steps and making them sandstone or something that would be reviewed by staff and monitor. The steps should relate to the sandstone around the building. The porch decking was discovered between the last meeting and this meeting. All the decking was removed and replaced and reoriented. It was originally perpendicular to the front far~ade. They were replaced parallel to the front facade. There was a note on the building permit that said any material that needs to be removed staff and monitor need to do a site visit to make sure the material is not salvageable. Unfortunately, none of that happened. It is disappointing that we could not have gone over there and made the determination on site with the architect and contractor. The issues are the roof, steps, curved walkway and porch decking. Dave Rybak showed samples of the corrugate tin that was on the roof of the house. He also showed samples of copper in a patina fashion. We feel this house is unique and different and that the copper roof is appropriate for a one story Victorian in the West End that is more elegant and graceful. Dave said he did not talk to the city forester. The contractor had an onsite inspection with the forester and city engineer. As to the walkway alignment we are required to replace the sidewalk that was there. There was a lengthy discussion between the three parties as to how the process of replacing the walks were to be done to protect the root structures. The porch was an add on to the original building. It was not built in the same method as the original structure. The previous owner said the porch was replaced in the 80's. Photographs show when the concrete sidewalk was placed it was poured under the stone steps and it flared out to receive the steps as our design does to receive the brick steps that we have installed. Our theory for the restoration of the house as discussed with the board was to remove the walls from the floor so that we could then build a new floor on which to set the house back onto. Included in that was the removal of the front porch decking and flooring. I did not see Sara's notes on the plans. The porch boards in the photograph are tongue and groove 3/a inch milled and they show warping. A tongue in groove decking system traps the water. The way we have framed the porch, the framing members run perpendicular into the house and the decking boards run parallel. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 Roof Michael said he is still concerned about the series of judgments that Dave made based on the code and our guidelines and they seemed to get further and further away from getting the guidance of the staff and that Dave was acting as a free agent. I am willing to look beyond that in order for the HPC to reach a solution. I can accept the copper roof installed. Brian said because the transition on the roof was from one metal to another he could accept the copper roof in this instance for this house. Ann said she feels the copper roof is not the best materials. It overshadows the rest of the house as it is a rich material and the color is inappropriate. The appearance between copper and corrugated is completely different. Jay said for the integrity of the commission the process should have been followed. We follow our guidelines and the applicant should have come back to us. That doesn't seem to have happened in this case. We should uphold our original decision. We should not set a precedent that the applicant can change the material and then come back to the board. The integrity of this commission is important. Copper is not appropriate even though corrugated metal and copper are metal materials. The reflectivity is totally different and the color. Sarah said she will vote for approval of the copper roof as it follows the guidelines. MOTION: Sarah moved to direct the monitors to approve the copper roof for 214 E. Bleeker; second by Brian. Roll call vote: Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Brian, yes; Ann, no; Jay, no. Motion carried 3-2. Steps and landscape walk Sarah said in the resolution there was a direct statement about the steps. The replacement of the steps is not appropriate nor is the walk appropriate. Dave said they can change the steps and replace the brick with the stone. Sarah said it is clear that they did not read the paper plans. Ann said the communication is unclear and there was no communication with staff. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 Sarah pointed out that the reconfiguration of the path should have come to the HPC. Michael pointed out that the alignment of the path was not approved. Ann recommended that the steps be replaced. Regarding the path HPC did not specify the material. Jay said in the future, in our resolutions we need to be specific. Sarah disagreed with Jay's comment. Sarah said it is not HPC's job to specify materials, it is the applicant's job to present that to us and then the board reacts. In this case we didn't get presented any materials. Sara also pointed out that she redlined the permit. Michael said the steps need to be replaced with the sandstone material but the walkway can stay as discussed at the last meeting. The walkway can be handled through staff and monitor. Decking Dave said the decking was not original. Sara said the existing decking was perpendicular to the front fapade. Jay pointed out that the decking should reflect what was existing. Brian and Ann agreed. Sarah said she would like to discuss with the contractor what he found and what was there historically before making a judgment call. Sara said she researched and most of the homes in the West End had decking of that fashion which was installed perpendicular. Michael suggested the decking can be handled by staff and monitor. Dave said he is willing to do whatever staff and monitor recommend. Jay said if Sarah's investigation is not definitive that the deck come back to the HPC. Sarah agreed. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 621 W. Francis -Ord. #48, 2007 -Negotiation Marsha and Bob Cook, owners Nora was seated. Sara said the owner submitted building plans for some exterior changes that we found significantly altered the character of a potential resource. HPC will review the property and made a recommendation to council whether they should negotiation for this to be a designated landmark. Marsha is chair of the criteria committee on the Historic Task force. They are fully aware of the benefits to landmark properties and are aware of the process and criteria. At this time they are not interested in negotiations. The house is a 2 Y2 story A frame duplex in the West End. It was built in 1968 by a local Aspenite. The style is Modern Chalet. It has traditional chalet influences, balconies and deep overhanging eaves with modern esthetics of glazing in the gable end. Modern chalet is important because it signifies progression in Aspen as a ski destination, vacation resort. These modest homes represented the life style in the 60's and 70's. One thing important about this house is its location. It is across the street from two modern chalet style houses. It is great to go down the block and get a sense of the type of construction that was going on in that period of time. Michael asked Marsha and Bob what their plans are for the property. Marsha said when we bought the property our plan was that we would rebuilt a duplex there but as we go into the process we are proposing an exterior remodel at this time. Jay asked why the decks are being removed off the front of the house because historically modern chalets all had them. Removing the decks have an impact to the exterior. Marsha said we purchased the property in order to take the house down and rebuilt a duplex. It was not our desire to buy an historic property and then all of a sudden we have a potential resource. There is an opportunity that we can preserve the flexibility of the house and if at an appropriate time if it isn't an involuntary situation and a voluntary situation we would be happy to negotiate. If we were to determine once we got through the task force that these houses are in fact potentially historic we would study that but that has yet to be determined. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 Jay says he sees historical value to this property. Ann asked about incentives for the property. Marsha said a lot of the incentives do not apply to this type of house. We don't have a true basement because the first floor is about four feet below grade. It is at the max FAR and is a duplex..To increase it you technically could do a lot split but that wouldn't be fair to the neighbors. There are two residences right now and parking would be unbelievable. We didn't purchase it to live in it, we purchased it to redevelop it and then live in it. Bob Cook said the house is a money pit. It is about 5,000 square feet and has one 100amp box to service the house. We can't turn on two appliances at one time. Ann said this period is important in Aspen and these structures need to be saved. The improvement proposed would diminish the value of the historic resource. I would like to see this structure saved with the exterior in tacked. Jay said he finds value in this home as a Modern chalet style. This house in the public's view could be considered historic. By doing the remodel, it would take away any historic value which essentially would take it off the inventory list and therefore accomplish the original goal of the applicant. My recommendation would be to negotiate this property with council as historic. Brian said he doesn't see this as a good replication of the Modern chalet style. The roof pitch is very different than most chalets. I would need a strong case to recommend negotiations with council. Sarah agreed with Brian's comments. There is validity to retaining this history within our town, however we need to be careful about the examples that we choose. This is not an example that we should be using. We need to go down an objective path with the right tools. Nora said we are mandated to keep the best but right now we don't have the right criteria to make a judgment. I am hesitant to recommend to council to go forward. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 Michael commented that Marsh's contributions to the task force have been tremendous. The task force appreciates all that she has done. Michael said he feels the same way as Nora, Sarah and Brian. This is not a clear example of modern chalet. Ann pointed out that we have a diminishing resource and we should save what we can until the criteria are set. Amy pointed out that we do have criteria in the land use code. We could provide you with more of a context paper and more examples to illustrate Modern chalet if needed. MOTION: Ann moved to recommend to City Council that this is an historic resource and to go forward with negotiations for the property at 621 W. Francis. Fails for lack of a second. MOTION: Brian moved to recommend to City Council that no negotiation should occur on 621 W. Francis for designation; second by Sarah. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes; .lay, no; Ann, no; Nora, no. 3-3 split vote. 219 S. Third -Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Lot Split, Conceptual Development, Public Hearing Amy said this property also falls under Ordinance #48 negotiations. Ord. #48, 2007 identifies a list of potential historic resources. There are approximately 80 potential resources that preliminary met our designation criteria and there should be some evaluation significance before the properties were lost. Aspen has a 30 year old preservation program. For the past ten years we have been discussing what besides Victorians are important. A task force is actively working on trying to give city council recommendations on how we can move forward on the long term. 219 S. Third is on the list and the building was built in 1965. When someone's property is on Ordinance #48 they have a few options. If they have no plans at all they can sit tight and see how the task force develops. If there is something they want to do they can come to HPC and ask for HI'C approval. This applicant is interested in negotiation. They are interested in volunteering for designation and negotiating with City Council with some of HPC's input on a package of incentives that would persuade them that designation is something that is appealing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 The application will be continued as the applicant is uncertain about the architecture selected and she is changing architects and needs time to make revisions. Before you is designation, historic lot split and conceptual development for the architecture proposed. Historic designation: The application has to meet one of three criteria: a. An event pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state and regional or national history. b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and the specific contribution is identified and documented. c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. Staff feels 219 S. Third meets criteria C. It is a representative of a modem chalet style. Photographs of the Classic chalet have been provided. Chalet buildings were built heavily influenced by the Europeans who were coming here to begin our ski resort. They have a lot of European decoration and detailing. Photographs of Modern chalets have also been provided. These are a unique combination of the aesthetic influences in town such as Herbert Bayer with his Bauhaus flat roof very box like modern structure. Most of the Modern chalet houses have been built as second homes and tourist accommodations. Staff has been trying to do research on the house but the owner and architect have both passed away. We do know they were both from Wisconsin. Staff finds that the designation criteria are met. Surrounding the parcel is the St. Moritz lodge and a number of Victorians. This area is significant of the Post War Era and there are quite a few chalets and pan-a-bodes in that area. The property is zone R-15 which means the minimum lot size is typically 15,000 square feet. This lot is 9,942 sq. ft. so it is considered non-conforming, smaller than the minimum required in the zone district. The duplex on the site is not permitted and would not be allowed to be constructed today because the lot is not big enough but it is considered legal because the permit issues in 1965 said duplex and the city issues the permit. If the owner demolishes the house they still have the right to go back and build a new duplex. The proposal is to retain the house. With Ord. #48 the applicant has the opportunity to negotiate and request a 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 package of incentives that are needed to secure designation. They also have every right to apply for a demolition permit. This is a cooperative discussion. An historic lot split is also being proposed which is allowed in the R-15 zone district for an historic landmark. The landmark designation makes the property conforming and a duplex is allow on at least 6,000 square feet in this zone district. The lot split would be on the west side of the house and a new house would be created on the other lot. Whether or not they do the lot split they have a right to the duplex or two detached units. If they do the lot split they have the option to keep the duplex and another unit. The ultimate outcome could be two or three units. Variances are also being requested. There is also the possibility of an addition on the side of the duplex. The owner is also requesting an FAR bonus for the property that is beyond the 500 square feet. Council would have to approve that request. The owner is asking fora 1,900 square foot bonus for the empty lot. Amy said through the area is the old right-of--way for the Colo. Midland railroad coming across the bottom of Shadow Mountain. There has been discussion that the right-of--way bisects the applicant's property into two pieces. Michael asked for clarification on the FAR. Amy said a duplex of 3,652 sq.ft. is allowed without designation. With landmark designation the FAR can be 4,542 sq.ft. The duplex could remain and there could be up to three units with the lot split. Sarah clarified that the property is on the north side of the railroad right-of- way. Susan Foster, owner said they recently purchased the property and as part of the negotiations we would like to deed the property to the south to the city. After the models were done we determined that we wanted to make changes. The building has a couple changes. The roof has been changed and two little window treatments were added. The other four windows are existing. The porch is not the original porch, it is pressured treated wood. We want to rebuild the porch to something more historically correct. Originally we thought about keeping this a duplex but believe we want to create a single family home with an addition off the side of the building. We are also ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 proposing a single family home that would include the 1,900 FAR requests from council. I am looking for today is HPC's feeling about the worth of this structure as a historic resource. If HPC feels it is a worthy resource then we have plenty of time to figure out what specifically the structures will look like. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Herb Klein, attorney for Angela and Paul Young who are neighbors across the alley. The Young's would suffer impacts if this is developed as proposed. Lisa Purdy is also representing the neighbor to discuss the landmark question. It is a threshold issue because no one wants to see the applicant go through plan redesign if it appears as though this board doesn't feel the property is worth of designation. Lisa Purdy said she was asked to look at the historical significance of this property. I have been to the site and looked at the context but there are no scoring sheets for specific criteria for the Modern Chalet. It is premature right now to make a decision on this with the lack of criteria and lack of an adopted context paper. In regard to staff's memo, staff found that the building meets criteria C and that it is part of a collection of buildings that uniquely illustrates cultural and design influences that significantly changed the built environment of Aspen as it developed into a ski resort. I have done designations all over the country and my feeling is that it does not live up to the standard of what you should be looking for. It is not unique and the design is all over mountain resorts and across Colorado. It is a fairly standard design and does not have any unique qualities that would make it stand up. The period of significance goes from 1936 to the mid 1960's. This was built in 1965. In my opinion it is too far removed to have had any kind of influence. It is almost a generic version. The building doesn't have any scalloped edges on the eaves and the windows are not horizontal. There is nothing with the building that raises it to the top of collections of chalet buildings in Aspen. It meets the scrutiny but it really does not hold up and doesn't have enough artistic merit, cultural merit or architectural merit to qualify for historic designation. You need to have a high enough standard for historic designation that it really creates something significant with real architectural merit or some other kind of merit. Other cities and in Aspen if you have a collection of buildings that have some merit you usually put those in an historic district because the buildings themselves don't have enough architectural merit to stand up to individual designation. Most 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 development of the aspen ski area took place on or before 1965. This building is sort of a stripped down version of a chalet style. I have had over 30 years of experience in the field and I do not see enough evidence in the staff memo and I did not find enough evidence in my research to really merit historic designation of this building. Herb Klein said he came here to talk about the integrity of the process at this point in dealing with these 30 year old and Post War properties. You don't have a scoring paper and no adopted context paper. Staff's work has been very good in defining this context although we disagree with their recommendation of this particular property possesses the characteristics that worthy of land marking. Ordinance #48 has opened up the process where people can come in and see if they can negotiate with council. One of the things they want is 1,900 square feet of FAR for the out parcel that is bisected by the trail. They have bought into something that has a title dispute with the city and through ordinance #48 they can negotiate and preserve the house if allowed to have 1,900square feet of additional FAR. It has turned into issues that have nothing to do with historic preservation and they now have become part of the negotiations. My feeling is that there is no provision in the code that allows for the transfer of floor area from two parcels that are not contiguous to each other. HPC should look at the property and see if it is worthy of landmark designation with the understanding that if it is landmarked that opens the door to significant additional development. It is not necessarily a win win situation here when the historic resource is kind of the pawn in the game when it is not worthy of designation. The impact of density is very significant and adverse to the neighbors, the Young's. The parcel is an odd parcel and its access is off an alley. You are talking about loading up the alley with a two single family homes and a duplex on the dead end alley which has maintenance and parking issues. Under any normal planning it is not an area for a lot of density. The fact that it is on ordinance #48 list does not mean that it should be landmarked it means it is potential and the pros and cons should be weighed. Four letters entered into the record -Exhibit II opposing the project. Lisa Purdy letter -Exhibit I Herb Klein read a letter from John Staton basically stating that he has lived here for 15 years and no one ever referred the house as a chalet and he is opposed to the project. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28.2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Jack Wilkie said he is a member of the task force. One of the committees is on incentives. One issue is whether we should even have lot splits and I would recommend that you post pone a decision on all this. There are only 6 houses that are Modern chalets and there is no continuity from one to another. I own one of the six remaining. This is the weakest category and we don't have incentive rules or integrity rules. Mark Johnson, attorney for Suzanne Foster. We need to focus on whether this is an historic landmark. All HPC is doing is allowing the process to go forward if they feel it should be recommended historic. Mitch Haas, planning consultant for Suzanne Foster. Ordinance #48 originally had quite a large list and based on the recommendations from staff and historic preservation consultant's input the list got down to the final list that is in Ordinance #48. In that process the properties that remain deserve to be on that list because they are potentially worthy of being landmarked. All we are asking is that still the case, that it is potentially worthy of land marking. The city council will decide the benefit package. Paul Young, 413 W. Hopkins. In our opinion the building is not historic. Historic designation provides the ability for a lot split and for all the variances requested. We are talking about going from four bedrooms to twelve bedrooms. We are talking about an alley that doesn't work. There is no parking in the alley because it is a dead end alley. Chairperson Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Jay said the lot is non-conforming to the zoning. If the house is not designated and the owner decided to tear it down how much FAR is allowed? Amy said 3,652 square feet is available in the form of a single family or duplex. In this case the lot split could increase density by one unit if she wanted to keep modern duplex and do a new single family but it doesn't sound like that is necessarily what she has in mind. The nature of an historic 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 lot split is to simply separate ownership where someone might have a condominium they would have fee simple ownership. Michael asked the board if Modern chalet style is worthy of designation. Brian, yes, Jay, yes. Ann said chalets represent skier architecture and this is a very important era in our town. This is a very important style to preserve. Sarah also agreed that Modern chalet is a style that should be designated. Nora and Michael also agreed. Michael asked the board if 219 S. Third is a good example of Modern Chalet. Jay said there are only six of these left on the list. We have the opportunity to preserve these buildings that are already in Aspen and these buildings have significance. We need to start protecting the Modern chalet buildings. Each Modern chalet becomes more significant to the history of our town. We need to decide what we want to keep as our history or it will all be gone. The building is very interesting as it relates to the mountain and the way it sits on the curve. It is time this commission should definitively protect the chalets. Jim True said there is discussion about no criteria but section 26.415.030B adopted ordinance #48 that sets forth the criteria. Amy also pointed out that you are not required to write a context paper for every style of building that you might want to talk about. Ann said if we recommend designation it doesn't mean we are agreeing to the incentives. Brian said he is having a hard time differentiating the potential greater planning issues, density, FAR, affordable housing, neighbors and impacts to the Midland trail etc. Jim said it is his understanding that you are determining if the building has historical significance under the criteria and directing council to continue negotiations. It would be in HPC purview to say if this applicant is recommending certain incentives as part of that negotiation and HPC felt it 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 is inconsistent with the historic aspect of it and that it would be detrimental to the historic nature and historic preservation you certainly have the purview to say that. Jay pointed out that the HPC does not know what the applicant wants to do at this time. Amy said the applicant is coming back March 11`" and we would like to send an entire package to council that is good. Jay said at the conceptual public hearing we will know what the applicant is searching for as far as incentives. Brian said we can give direction to the applicant if this piece of property has the quality and we as a commission would like to see preserved. Suzanne Foster, owner said that is the only direction we need tonight. All the other negotiation is down the road. Without knowing that this is a structure that you all believe needs to be preserved I don't know what to do. Michael asked staff what they think is the significance of the car port. Amy said the carport is very significant to the design and it is a dramatic roof shape. It would detract from the building if it was demolished. Nora said her concerns are the trade offs and it is difficult to separate the two issues. Brian said if there is a particular incentive that you feel jeopardizes anything under the historic umbrella then we can state that. Ann mentioned that the additional square footage seems a little excessive on the lot to the south in this development. Ainy pointed out that HPC does not approve the lot split or designation, council does. MOTION: Jay moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 219 S. Third until March 11, 2009; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009 Angela Young said they are full time residents. Her concern is that historic preservation can become an unruly tool by seasonal land developers. That bothers me if there is a marginal situation and where there may be a negative impact on a marginal designation with over development. Paul Young said it is known in the real estate community that there has never been an historical designation for a lot split that wasn't granted. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meetin adjourned at 8:30 p.m. -; ___--, G~~C~ ~ Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 15