Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20090311ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Project Monitoring -Greenwald tent landscape -informational ........................................ 1 Project Monitoring - 214 E. Bleeker ................................................................................... 1 219 S. Third St. -Conceptual Review and Ordinance #48 negotiations/historic designation (public hearing cont'd from Jan. 28`~) ............................................................. 2 601 W. Hallam St. -Conceptual Review -public hearing ............................................... 15 21 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Ann Mullins, Nora Berko and Jay Maytin. Sarah Broughton was seated at 5:30. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Ann moved to approve the minutes of February 11, 2009; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Nora will recuse herself on 214 E. Bleeker Project Monitoring -Greenwald tent landscape -informational Jim Curtis presented a landscape plan for the tent. Council approved the tent and recommended some adjustments to have less impact to the Pitkin Reserve residences. Council recommended that the tent be located off the utility easements. The city will give the institute an encroachment to slide the cart path back 13 feet onto the cities property which creates more breathing room for the tent. Council also asked that we add more landscaping so we added 5 more aspen trees on the back side of the tent. The fire marshall agreed that we need four exits two will be on the north side and two on the south side. We have one additional improvement for the back of the tent. We the exit points on the two flaps we can have two 20 foot bays with see through material. The center bays need to be opaque. Jim will work with the Parks Department, Ann Mullins and the neighbors. Project Monitoring - 214 E. Bleeker Sara said she received an e-mail from Ron Anthony, leading wood scientist in the country regarding decking on porches. At the last hearing it was pointed out that the decking had changed on the front porch. HPC gave direction to contact the contractors etc. What was there before was perpendicular to the facade. His e-mail states if the porch is short and extends less than ten feet or so from the house the porch joists can span parallel to the front with one piece of lumber and not require intermediate footings. If that is the case then the decking would be placed perpendicular to the house. In the building department files it indicates that the deck is ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 five feet from the house and the length 20feet and the length of the house is around 36 feet. Staff feels the decking was perpendicular to the house. Dave Rybak said he got an e-mail from Christine Brumner who said the porch was relocated in the 1980's. The porch we took off was 20 to 25 years old and we removed the joists. Sarah said a twenty foot long length joist would run perpendicular. Ann pointed out that when the decking was removed photos should have been taken and the contractor should have contacted Sara or the project monitor. Jay also mentioned that the contractor blatantly didn't read the instructions and it is troubling. The contractor needs to know that his actions are not acceptable and it made more work for the architect and the HPC. Amy agreed that there is a need to account for people not carrying out what their obligated to do through licensing. The board recommended that the deck remain parallel to the house as approved in the resolution. 219 S. Third St. -Conceptual Review and Ordinance #48 negotiations/historic designation (public hearing cont'd from Jan. 28`h) Suzanne Foster, owner: My family has been coming here for five years. We live on the east coast and one of our issues is to raise our five year old son in a gentler environment. We have been trying to identify a property so that we can raise our son. At the last meeting it was determined that modern chalet is potentially a viable historic resource for Aspen and that this particular property did fit within those parameters. With that endorsement it is our intent to voluntarily designate the existing duplex under Ord. #48. The original density was a duplex, eight bedrooms and a single family with three bedrooms. The revised density is to convert the modern chalet into a single family which would have three bedrooms and to have a single family home on the empty lot that would have three bedrooms as well. We originally had 12 bedrooms and now we have six bedrooms. The original building height of the chalet addition was going to be 25 feet but we decided to keep the building height of the addition in line with the current roof height so nothing 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 sticks up higher than the original roof line. The original variances were for all four sides. We are asking for two variances, five foot between the two buildings and 8'6" on the front. The original FAR bonus was 500 square feet plus an additional 1900 square feet. We have revised that and are asking for the 500 square feet and 493 square feet as an economic incentive. That would be 2625 square feet for the chalet 2400 square feet for the single family. Those kinds of square footages are consistent with the neighborhood. If we did not landmark this property and build a single family home and build an affordable housing unit next to it we would sell the affordable housing unit and when you do that none of that counts as FAR on the property. If you build a unit that is 1200 square feet you get a 600 square foot bonus. If you take the 1200 or 1500 square foot unit you take the existing FAR that is available for the single family/duplex and add the 600 square feet that is actually 700 more square feet than what we are proposing. Asking for the 493 square feet is less than what would be allowed. We would like the ordinance 481ot split approved, approve 2400 square feet of FAR for the single family, approve, 2625 square feet of FAR for the duplex and the award of 500 square feet and 493 square feet for economic incentives and exemption from grown management for employee housing. Susan asked the board to look at her model and make comments that can be addressed at the next HPC meeting. Amy clarified for the board that staff is not asking HI'C to grant approvals tonight. We are asking feedback for council on the negotiations: Is the building worthy of landmark designation and worthy of council discussing the kind of benefits that the applicant has asked for. The property was built in 1965 and on ordinance #48 as a potential historic resource. Designation criteria were applied. There are three criteria and HPC needs to make a finding that the building is a) Associated with an event, pattern or trend that is significant to our history. b) People who are significant to our history. c) A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristic of a type, period or method of construction. A handout was give on the modern chalet style and how we used other examples in town that this was a common building type in the 50's and 60's. Staff feels it is a representation of the evolution from the classic chalet alpine architecture, the decorative architecture that was brought here by Europeans in the 1940's and the modern influence of architects Bayer and Benedict. This is a natural evolution of vacation homes in particular that were being built at the time. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 The building has not had a lot of alternations it was a vacation home that was owned by the same family for over 40 years until Suzanne's family had purchased it. We feel it meets the designation criteria and has integrity. Amy identified areas where HI'C should make a statement to council if they are in support of these benefits. 1. Support the landmark designation. 2. Support the lot split. 3. If the chalet is being kept as a duplex and has another single family she needs an exception to the minimum lot size for a duplex. 4. 493 square feet of FAR above and beyond the 500 square feet of FAR is being requested. Variances are being requested for the new vacant lot that HPC cannot grant. Front yard setback so that the new house can align with the setback of the existing modern chalet. Five foot interior side yard setback. 6. Waiver of the secondary mass requirement of the Residential Design Standards. 7. Waiver of cash-in lieu for affordable housing. 8. Longer period of vested rights. 9. Neighbors are asking for story polls to be installed. l O.Friends of Shadow Mountain -letter expressed concern that the project be sensitive to the Midland right-of--way and the trail that exists behind the site. Amy said she talked to Brian Flynn from the Parks dept. and he feels they have more than enough of a buffer near the trail. Amy also pointed out that HPC will look at the addition and the new house on the vacant lot. Suzanne said they calculated the square footage for the property differently due to the slope. Brian inquired about the square footage available as is. Suzanne said if we tore the building down we could build 3,652 square feet for a single family home or a duplex. We can build a detached unit, the ADU unit that would be 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. We would sell that unit. If you sell the unit you get up to 50% or 600 square feet bonus for your duplex. We would actually have 4,252 square feet for the single family/duplex and about 1,500 square feet for the ADU unit which comes to about 5,700 square feet. We are requesting about 5,025 square feet for the single family. It is actually a net reduction. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Brian ask how large the addition could be if you added on. Amy said it could be doubled. Sarah said it would be about 3,600 square feet all together. Amy pointed out that the building permit was issued for a duplex so they can keep a duplex even if they tear the building down and their FAR is 3,600 square feet. Nora asked if there is a way to accommodate the neighbors with story polls. Michael said this application will come back to us at conceptual and at that time we can discuss story polls with the applicant. Jim pointed out that this is a negotiation under the historic preservation ordinances that are set forth in the statute and this property is on the list. Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Herb Klein, attorney for the neighbors, Paul and Angela Young The land use code has provisions that are possibly being violated or we need to pay particular attention to comply with them. Exhibit I -Copies of the land use code submitted by Herb Klein. Herb said in the general code historic lot splits are a subdivision exemption and it is covered by the subdivision standards in the code. This was not pointed out in staff s memo. There is a feeling around town that if you are designated historic you get this lot split by right and that is not the case, as the code in another section says it is not by right and that is not the case. Maybe this is an example where a lot split should not be approved. Michael said if we didn't grant the lot split why wouldn't the applicant be able to condominumize and what difference would it make. Amy said two detached units is an allowed use. The lot split is a form of different ownership. Instead of condominumization it is fee simple. Herb said he would think you needed a GMQS exemption to build the second house. Amy said as an historic landmark it is exempt from GMQS and affordable housing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Herb said section 26.480.03 2 B discusses lot splits and it references mitigation for affordable housing. I don't believe that there is any authority to grant FAR beyond the 500 square foot bonus. We have heard about this negotiation issue. I think it is a defacto in zoning to grant any square footage otherwise authorized by the code. Michael clarified that the HPC has no authority to grant extra FAR. We are only here to make a recommendation to City Council. Amy said she is suggesting that the HPC let Council know if they are in support of that but it is council's decision. Herb said he feels the general subdivision standards have not been addressed and not in the application and not in the staff memo. Another criteria is suitability for land subdivision. This refers to life safety issues. You have to determine that it is no located on land unsuitable for development. Michael pointed out that there are a lot of things that City Council needs to be aware of in order to make their decision. Herb said you are making a recommendation and before you do that you should consider the subdivision standards because you don't want to make a recommendation on something that will become a hazard. Also 26.415.026 mentions voluntary designation. This owner is requesting that which means you are at conceptual level. The code is very vague. MOTION: Michael made the motion that this application is not a conceptual hearing; second by,7ay. All in favor, motion carried. Herb said everything here you do is hypothetical. Jim said the owner has not submitted a request for conceptual approval yet. Herb said at the last meeting the 621 W. Francis property had more valuable features than this one. You are doing the best you can with the tools available but you don't have sufficient guidelines. You said 621 W. Francis could be demolished and we come up next and you say we should preserve this one. I don't know how you reconcile that. The difference is in that one that owner wanted it demolished and this one, the owner wants to get the benefits of not demolishing it. The point is shall or shouldn't it be ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 designated. I don't see how you can proceed without the standards. I feel this should be tabled until you get adequate standards and score sheets in place. The floor area bonus is for exemplary properties. It is not a matter of right you need to make findings that this is exemplary. It also says that a work session needs to occur and I don't know if that occurred. Also in the code you need to determine whether the variances,will have no negative impacts. There are serious procedural questions as to where you are in this process and whether you are in a position to act on it at all tonight. Exhibit II -Lisa Purdy letter Exhibit III -full list of buildings that might be worthy of designation Herb said the issue of single family or duplex and which one it will be, it seems that the applicant wants all the benefits and density and wants the ability to go back to a duplex. It seems that the applicant wants to keep the duplex until such time she wants to develop. I would like to see a commitment to keep the bedroom count as submitted which is three in the single family and three bedrooms in the vacant lot. That is what is being proposed to you. In closing there are serious procedural problems. Nobody is served well without action that does not have guidelines. Jake Vickery, architect Jake said he has been engaged by a few of the neighbors to represent them and more importantly to be a watch dog. This is a whole new territory and a complicated process. On top of that in terms of the property it is complicated. We all need to work through this in a systematic way. Jake said he is more focused on the landmark and whether or not this property is worthy of landmark designation. I would request that the commission look at Lisa Purdy's letters and address each point for the record. I have been struggling with this application for three days. The spread sheet that Amy did at the last meeting is very valuable because it compares what you can do with the property once it is landmarked and what bonuses are available and what is the lot split concept. There are too many loose ends to make a decision on this property tonight. Jake said the survey should have the actual grades on the diagram because when you transpose it onto a site plan you can see where the buildings will go and the setbacks. If you take the 16 properties on the list of modern chalets and rank them I think you will find that this property would be at the very lowest end of the list based on definitive characteristics of the structures. If you redevelop the property so that it crowds the historic resource and impacts the neighbors then you unwind the benefit that you have created by the historic landmark. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 David Bentley, Exhibit IV -letter Exhibit V -photographs of what the alley looks like in a snow storm. David said he has lived here for 27 years in the little house off the alley. The real object is the lot split and the vacant lot. This is a dead end alley and the plows have no place to push the snow. Angela Young, neighbor Angela pointed out that David Bentley has had his home hit by the city snow plow due to the illegal parking spaces. There is nowhere for tenants to park. We have had our alley blocked so that we couldn't get out. It is a dead end alley. John Staton, 431 W. Hopkins. I have been the owner of the house since 1993. The applicant said at the last meeting HPC said the modern style was worthy of preservation. In staff's memo page 7, 8 the photographs show balcony treatments and window designs. All of them are rectangular. When you look at the model any similarities between these 7 mountain chalet photographs and what is presented is purely coincidental. None of the photographs have a side building with a roof line that is above the original building line. This building is not rectangular so there are some real differences. Assuming you designate this building historic then it seems to me once you make additions it still has to be historic and should fit the p7 and p8 pictures. The model does not fit those pictures. Carol Bloomquist, member of the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood group. The Midland trail is historic and the integrity needs totally responded too. It seems to be eaten away with cement buildings going up. Cheryl Goldenberg, 430 W. Hopkins I looked at the site and it was beautiful over there. I have a 9,000 square foot lot and a duplex of 4,000 square feet. Each half has 2,000 square feet. Every time I want to expand I am told we can't do anything. When I looked at this they have much more square footage and it doesn't seem fair. Everything should be done within the law.- We shouldn't give people things that stretch it. Paul Young, neighbor and owner of 413 W. Hopkins 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 The original application was all based on the exchange of a piece of property that was a separate parcel. That has dropped out of the equation. For that reason there should not be all these incentives for additional FAR. Another thing you talk about is no alterations. There is an alternation to 217- 219 Third Street which happens to be the deck. In the application they want to tear the deck off, Part of it was part of the original structure and this is not in keeping with preservation. Exhibit VI -letter from Sally Matkin -opposing the development Exhibit VII -Jennifer Sherwin -opposing the development Paul said he had Ed VanWalraven, the fire marshall come out and look and he will review this at a later time. His concern is the variances that the applicant is asking for. There should be 20 feet between structures and the applicant is requesting ten feet. On the duplex the overhang goes out four feet and the snow would fall on the other property. I have had problems with illegal parking from day one on the duplex. They are parking indeed on the alley right-of--way. At the present time the applicant is asking for window wells to be there and where does the parking go that is part of the duplex. Michael Beherendt, 334 W. Hyman At 315 W. Hyman a gentlemen came in and wanted to build a house and get an exemption on his non-conforming lot for his family. This is a small neighborhood and we do get together and want to welcome the Fosters. The problem is the historic development that is happening which is your purview. I know the intention and staff's intention which is to try and preserve that part of our history. We do not have enough information to form an opinion on modern chalet. The building has been employee housing for over 40 years. Tom Cleary was the owner and built the building cheap so he could have a mountain cabin. He lived elsewhere. The trail itself is about 35 feet from the corner of the proposed structure. With enough screening in the summer it would not have an impact as long as they don't go very high. I think the neighbors are saying you have what you have by right but we really do not see this as a valuable historic structure in the neighborhood. We don't even know what the other structure would look like. Would it be possible that this be delayed until we have a report back from the task force on ordinance #48? Exhibit VIII - 5 letters with signatures opposing 219 S. Third Street development. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Michael went over the Ordinance #48 negotiation period. #2. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the potential historic resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. Michael said this section doesn't say we have to take any action. Jim True said you don't have to take any action. What we are asking is that you make a recommendation to Council as it proceeds through the remaining steps. #3. The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding the proposed building permit, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the resource and the effects of the building permit upon the resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the city council. Jim True said this whole process can be initiated by an applicant seeking a building permit that would totally remodel or demolish an historic resource. This owner is choosing to negotiation the process and we are taking this step by step. We are concurring with the HPC about incentives that she is requesting and the appropriateness of those incentives as it relates to the designation. Michael said what is to be reported to City Council is our assessment of the resource and the- effects of the request upon the resource. What do we think of this resource? Ann said there was consensus at the last meeting that we thought the modern chalet was a type of architecture that should be saved in town. This is a good example of modern chalet architecture. It is a representation of the transition of European Swiss chalet into a more modern self confident Aspen style which has its own character. The task force keeps honing in on what the score sheets and criteria will be but in the meantime we have basic historic designation guidelines that are applicable to his and it should be designated. Michael said at the end of the last meeting HPC members agreed that it was worthy of designation. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Brian said from an architectural standpoint this is something worth negotiating. Sarah said she stands by her original decision. Nora said she is having a hard time separating the incentives from designation. Jay and Michael also agreed that the property should be designated. Michael said the next thing we are asked to provide is guidance to the City Council about the effect of the building permit and the benefits that are being sought on the resource. Sarah said she is having a hard time agreeing or recommending incentives without understand the impact to the historic structure. When we are asked to give FAR bonuses it is based on the merit of the project and that is not what we are being presented with tonight. Jay said this is not a conceptual view but it was in the memo, the intent. The applicant has given their intention for the property and therefore it is appropriate to comment on. Sarah said we do not have many of the items for conceptual to do a proper review. Ann said we are here to recommend whether this property should be designated or not. Nora said the intention of ordinance 48 was not to marginalize the resource but to preserve it. The listing of all the incentives are really development dreaming. We are getting more density and loosing resources or marginalizing them; however one sees it. This is about preserving what we have as a town resource. Jim True said HPC could be constrained by what Council grants. Sarah said in order to come up with the incentives it needs to go through the proper review process. Michael said there are potentially some serious health and safety issues here and how do they play out. Ann said how can they approve anything until they know what is going to be done on the site. Some of these incentives can't be set up. Jim said Council has various mechanisms in which it can address incentives for historic designation. The incentives are part of ordinance #48. The concept of ordinance #48 is that HI'C accept the property. I1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Amy clarified that often HPC does not see the development that is proposed for the vacant lot and HPC is often asked to grant a FAR bonus at that point even if you don't see the development with the understanding that the lot split takes pressure off the historic resource. We also need to understand that Ordinance #48 is a completely new process for us and the properties on that list can be demolished. The idea is a deal of a guaranteed development opportunity based on her offering to volunteer. Jay said basically this is a negotiation with City Council and they can go way out beyond their boundaries to save a piece of property with incentives. If we as a commission give them the recommendation to protect this property we are opening City Council up to give whatever they want. Brian said his problem is we either give a red light or a green light to the council with no indication of how strongly we feel about the preservation of this building or the incentives proposed. Jim said HPC can convey their concern to Council. Ann said we can indicate which incentives can protect the property and which incentives diminish the value. Nora said we haven't seen the development. Brian said we have only seen part of the development. Susan Foster said you will have HPC review over the property. Michael said we should summarize how we feel about the historic resource. Michael said he feels the same way Nora does. Brian said our vote will formalize how we feel. Michael said he could support a motion that says this resource is a good example of the modern chalet style and the modern chalet style is worthy of preservation. We encourage council to negotiate in good faith toward the preservation of this resource. Michael said he doesn't have a strong basis to go any further with the motion. Sarah said the determination was made from our modern chalet style paper that we have. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Jay said he can support the designation of the home. To assume a lot split will happen is premature. Looking at the structure itself and what the applicant is proposing for square footage of the two lots etc. and the size of homes of some of the neighbors this seems quite appropriate. I would stand strongly behind the designation. MOTION: Michael moved to recommend to City Council that this structure be designated as historic and added to the inventory as a good example of the modern chalet style which is a style that the Historic Preservation Commission deems worthy of preservation. We recommend that City Council negotiation with the applicant toward the preservation of this structure. Discussion: Sarah said she feels what has been presented tonight is not an acceptable negotiation. Ann said we could add respect the scale and patterns of the neighborhood so we are giving City Council the message that we don't want the density of the site overwhelming and we don't want the massing out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. Jay said this lot is 9,900 square feet lot and they are proposing 5,000 square feet between the-two homes. On the assessors site there is a 5,200 square foot home on a 7,500 square foot lot in the neighborhood which is bigger and denser than what is being proposed. We need to define the size, mass and scale. Sarah said the assessor site is square footage not FAR. We purposely did not go through all the incentives because that is not what we are here to talk about. Sarah said she is basing her decision on the land use code Letter C and the modern chalet paper. Council should not think we are on board with all of the incentives. A lot are inappropriate without a proper review. Michael said that sentiment should be forwarded to City Council. Further we urge City Council not to over burden this neighborhood with additional density and we advise council that we are uncomfortable with the package of incentives which has been proposed to the HPC; motion second by Sarah. Discussion: 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Jay said he feels the motion implies that HPC doesn't want a second structure on this property. Michael said he doesn't want to see the site over burdened. Sarah said her concern is the density portion. What does that mean? Jay said someone could argue that one more house is over burdening the neighborhood. Brian said the motion needs to be simple and general. We aren't experts in land use. Our job on this commission is to review historic resources. Sarah recommended that the historic resource should not be over burdened. Amended motion: Michael moved to amend the motion: Further we urge City Council not to over burden the historic resource. We are uncomfortable with the package of incentives proposed. Amy said of the incentives there are only 3 or 4 that are special that the applicant is requesting. The applicant is asking for designation and a lot split which is allowed. The 500 square foot bonus and the 493 square feet is an exception. Perhaps you should add something about the end result. Michael said that is the problem. This has not been analyzed by staff and the board is uncomfortable about making a recommendation as such without the full analysis. Jim said you can express that you are uncomfortable. It is different making a statement that you are uncomfortable with all eight items. Michael said Jim and Amy are asking for specific recommendation regarding each of the incentives. Is the board willing to give that specific direction? Brian said we are not going to come to consensus about that. Ann pointed out that we can't pick and choose, this is a whole package. We need to tell City Council that it needs to be designated and a valuable historic resource for the City and that the incentives should be developed in a way that maximumizes the historic resource and respects the character of the neighborhood. Brian said we are uncomfortable with certain parts of the package of incentives proposed and City Council needs to sift through it. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 MOTION: Michael moved to recommend to City Council that this structure be designated as historic and added to the inventory as a good example of the modern chalet style which is a style that the Historic Preservation Commission deems worthy of preservation. We recommend that City Council negotiation with the applicant toward the preservation of this structure. Further, we urge City Council not to over burden the historic resource and respect the character of neighborhood . HPC is uncomfortable with the package of incentives proposed. Motion and amended motion second by Sarah. Motion carried 5-1. Nora voted no. Nora said she feels the integrity of the historic preservation is really being held hostage to these huge development incentives and for that reason I do not feel comfortable voting. Sarah clarified that she based her decision on the land use code, Letter C on historic designation and the modern chalet paper. 601 W. HALLAM ST. -CONCEPTUAL REVIEW -PUBLIC HEARING Proof ofpublication -Exhibit I Sara said the property is located on the corner of 5`h and Hallam St. in the West End. This property is unusual. In 1991 HPC adopted a resolution that delisted the property from the historic inventory. This is not a landmark. The reason you are seeing this project with review over mass and scale is because during the delisting hearing the owner voluntarily said that HPC can have purview over mass and scale. Mass and scale was defined in the covenant on the property. There will be no final review. One thing clearly in your purview is that the applicant is requesting four residential design standard variances. We are consolidating this application so that they don't have to go to Planning and Zoning. In terms of mass and scale we find that the proposed residence does meet the mass and scale criteria. It is going to be a 3,200 square foot two-story single family home. Mass: Any new building will be designed so that it is not one big interrupted box structure and will use appropriately pitched roof forms for residential buildings as opposed to flat roofs. Scale: Window and door dimension and building scale shall be consistent with the scale of other buildings on the block. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Sara pointed out that the applicant is proposing a flat roof. Staff feels the flat roof is appropriate for this neighborhood in the way the scale is done and combined with all the other elements. Staff has concerns with the linking element. There are solar panels on top of the deck which is the linking element. The link is only aone-story element and when you add solar panels, kind of like a ceiling and a deck you start to blur the line of the one- story connector piece. Referencing policy staff could not recommend in favor of three of the variances. We could recommend in favor of the variance for secondary mass. That has to do with the exact size of a linking element which is intended to be one-story and break up the mass on the property. The standard for street oriented entrance and principal window has to do with how far back the door is. It is located 14'6" back and it can't be back more than ten feet from the front fagade. The design standards are pretty specific. First story element: There can't be accessible space above the first story element and they have a deck above so it doesn't qualify. Windows: You can't have windows between 9 and 12 feet on the front fagade. The purpose of this standard is to have a clear distinction between the first story and second story and that is the historic pattern in the West End. They tried to dictate that through having windows in specific areas on the front fagade. One window was between 9 and 12feet and we are suggesting that be omitted. Staff, overall feels this is a good project and will fit into the neighborhood and enhance the corner. Jim said there are two reasons why a flat roof could be considered in this case. A goal of the document was addressing an uninterrupted box which at the time was occurring. The flat roof was an aspect of that. The other reason is this is a covenant that was granted to the HPC for review and as the recipient of that covenant as long as the applicant/owner and the HPC are agreeable they could at least accept a portion which would be the flat roof. Sarah Broughton, chaired Sara said for secondary mass they need a variance because they are proposing 10 x 14, so they don't meet the 10x10 requirement. If they removed'the solar panels it would still read as a secondary mass and linking element. Residential design standard a) could be met. Street oriented entrance and principal window. On corner lots the entry door needs to face the street and be no more than ten feet back from the front wall of the building. Their door is set back 14' 1/2" feet from the front wall. Regarding the first floor element standard decks are not allowed over the 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 first story. They have a deck proposed for over the first story element. The other issue is the window. Harry Teague, architect Harry thanked the client and owner David Newberg from Texas for wanting to build a "green" house and even providing food on the roof. This is zero energy and we have very aggressive goals for this house. This house is going to be the future in houses and how we deal with it and fit it in with the neighborhood is the challenge. One of the difficulties is understanding the context. On the lot are large trees with huge trunks that are very vertical. In the summer the trees provide a canopy in the summer. The trees are one of the most important things we needed to respond too. This site is next to the Ruth Whyte Park. Harry presented a slide show indicating the relationship of the design with the existing neighborhood and the context. The house steps back away from the corner. It is a two story element with a one story element connector in between and the gesture is to give the comer back to the street and the house steps away at an angle from the street. At street level you look through the row of trees to the vertical elements and the wall would be covered with a screen so that the outer wall is covered with plants that reflect the foliage. You would see tree trunks, foliage, tree trunks, and foliage. An important feature on the one story element is the railing. There is a sunken yard on the back side of the house that is not visible from the street. There is a roof garden on top of the house. This is a perfect example how a house can be built in a contemporary way that fits with the guidelines. Harry said the window that is in violation can go away but the issue is should it. David Newberger said his plan is to build a house that is zero carbon, could grow food and was a working property to live in. I am here 10 months of the year and this is intended as a home that someone would occupy in the West End. I want to set an example what a contemporary environmental sensitive house with great style would look like in the West End. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Exhibit II -Letter from Mike Weatherford 307 N. 6`h St. in favor of the project. 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Georgia Hanson, Historical Society director stated that they wholeheartedly support the project. Referencing the solar panels, they are something that everyone should be embracing. Where they are proposed is less impacting on the park and the historical society building. David Newberger said there is an advantage having the solar panels on the deck as they can be easily brushed off because they are accessible. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing. Michael said he is in favor of the four residential design standards considering the context of the development. The glass sloped roof represented by the green house is inappropriate. The materiality is inappropriate. Brian said the house is extremely cool and he is always for a green house design that cuts down on our carbon. This house does this in every aspect. The concern is the potential glare from the green roof area and how vast it is. I'm also concerned about guideline 11.6 which indicates roof forms should be similar and the flat roof might stick out. In looking at the vernacular and the fabric of the neighborhood I don't see a lot of flat roofs. The reason it concerns me is that the house is located on one of the most historic lots in town. The vegetation does soften it a bit but does not eliminate my concerns. Ann said the way it is designed with the solar panels it is still perceived as a one story element. The solar panels work well and are less impacted in the proposed location. The area needs to be accessible and you need the activity as it adds a lot to the house and the neighborhood. The window that is in violation of the guideline is fine because it is integral to the design of that entire fagade. Reducing the height of the window we are getting too myopic in the design. On the door depth we are looking at a significantly new house in the way that it is built and you have a very cohesive design here and I wouldn't want to change the depth of the door by four feet. This lot is the perfect place to have a departure from the historic architecture in the West End. It is a great counterpoint to the museum and the variances are appropriate. Brian said if this is the direction the HPC wants to go I have no problems with the variances. 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Jay said he agrees with the board. Jay pointed out that it would be difficult to grow herbs on a non-flat roof. I would like to see this project go forward and support all the variances. This project is forward thinking and should be applauded. Nora said she appreciated the presentation by Harry Teague. It is a counter point to the Stallard house. Regarding the reflection, possibly it could be mitigated somehow. Sarah said the application was easy to review. Sarah said she supports the residential design variances. Possibly the solar panels could be put somewhere else. The windows and first floor element are OK. In terms of mass, it is compliant because it is broken into two elements. Brian said he is trying to review the project through historic preservation and the criteria before us. At some point our guidelines should have some kind of "green" criteria for us to weight against. Michael moved to deny the application for 601 W. Hallam; second by Brian. Michael said he is not in favor of the mass and scale of the project. The house is great but it just doesn't fit the context. Harry said the glass is also a solar collector and the slope of the roof is very important for its function. Vote: Motion failed 2-4. Ann, no; Nora, no; Jay, no; Sarah, no; Brian, yes; Michael, yes; MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #8 as proposed with the required variances 1-4 granted or approved; second by Jay. Motion carried 4-2. Ann, yes; Nora, yes; Jay, yes; Sarah, yes; Brian, no; Michael, no. Sarah pointed out that technology on solar panels is changing daily. A mechanical device on an important facade should be looked at. Brian agreed that the solar panels should be looked at. Michael said the solar panels are part of the design element. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. 19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. - s~ -~~ Kathleen J. trickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 20