Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20101208 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Chairperson, Sarah Broughton called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Ann Mullins, Nora Berko, Jason Lasser, Jamie McLeod and Jay Maytin. Brian McNellis was excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jamie moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 11 second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Jason said he has worked with Chris Bendon, owner of 920 W. Hallam, in the past but feels he has no conflict. Chris said he had no problem with Jason sitting on the board for the agenda item. Amy will recuse herself on 920 W. Hallam — Amy previously owned the property. 920 W. Hallam Street — Substantial Amendment to Major Development, Public Hearing Gilbert Sanchez, architect Amy recused herself. Sara said the application is an amendment to the development order. A site visit occurred today. Nora, Sarah and Jamie were present. Exhibit I proof of public notice. Sara said 920 is an 1888 designated residence. It includes an historic outbuilding which has been converted to a garage and is located at the rear of the property. In 2006 HPC granted minor development approval to dig a basement under the rear garage, modify a breezeway and add some light- wells and they were granted a 0 setback for the basement space. Proposal: 1. Minor modification to the breezeway roof and stairs between the home and garage. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 2. Eliminate at -grade skylight. 3. Relocate the garage toward the north to the 5 foot rear yard setback boundary. Sara presented background information on the garage. The garage has been moved twice and the request is to shift it back about three feet toward the rear property line. Staff finds that the criteria are met and recommends approval. Gilbert Sanchez said there are modest changes that will improve the historical character of the buildings. Jamie asked about the height of the breezeway. Gilbert said it will be lower than the ridge of the garage; probably about a foot higher than the current ridge. Chris Bendon, owner said they have approval to pick up the garage and relocate it temporarily, dig out a basement and connect it to our existing basement. When we do that we want to move the garage back two feet so it can comply with the five foot setback on the rear. It will give us a little more space between the two structures. We also do not want the skylight and we would reconstruct the breezeway and the back stairs that are not historic. Gilbert said there is a light well and skylight and the light well provides for the emergency access. Sarah said the 5' setback is per the zone district. Jamie asked about the material in the area where the garage is not covering. Gilbert said the foundation will be concrete and there is a metal flashing that will come down over it. Jamie said the basement plan extends 3'10"1/2 . Gilbert said there is dirt over that 3'10"1/2 inches. Between the house and garage is concrete. Jason asked about the roof of the breezeway. Gilbert said presently there are three planes and we are proposing two planes which reflect the roof of the garage. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Chris said they are working with the neighbor about the location of everything and are happy to get rid of the sky light. The neighbor might want us to move the light well north along the property line. We don't want to do that but if that occurs do we have to come back to HPC or can it be handled by a monitor. They may want it pushed closer to the alley. Sarah inquired about the light well. Gilbert said a grate will be over it. Chair - person, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Lizie Towenfeld said she is the neighbor who lives across the alley. Lizie asked where the garage would be located. Gilbert said we hope to keep it on the property to the west but it that isn't possible we might have to move it down the alley. Chair- person Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Comments: 1. All board members were in favor of removing the skylight. 2. All board members were in favor of the relocation of the garage to the 5 foot setback. Chris said we will leave the garage where it is and lower the floor. The garage door would then need to be deeper. Gilbert said if we lower the "garage" which is not the proposal it would impact the breezeway. Jason said he preferred the garage be stored onsite if possible. Chris said the garage will be off -site for about two weeks while the basement is being dug up. 3. All board members were in favor of the modification to the breezeway. Chris said we won't vacate the variance and possibly the basement might be into the variance but that was approved in 2006 and we have approximately 1 '/2 years left on the vested rights. Jamie said the breezeway needs to be lower than the roof of the garage in order to have the break in elevation. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Sarah said in the drawings the breezeway is lower. Chris said the breezeway is about 15 inches lower so we don't have a lot of play. We would like to get as high as we can. Jamie said per the two drawings the ridge is exactly the same and we need to make sure the breezeway is lower and that condition should be in the resolution. Ann said regarding the light well, it would go to the project monitor first and if they are uncomfortable it would then go to the board. Jay said he recommends that the public come and address the commission at the time that it is offered. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #15 as proposed. Sarah amended condition #1: The reconfigured breezeway is approved to be below the ridge and eave of the garage. Motion second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 6 -0. 610 E. Hyman Ave. — Landmark Designation, Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Ordinance #48 negotiation, Public Hearing Public notice - Exhibit I Photo of bldg. — Exhibit II Drawing of the building — Exhibit III Amy said 610 E. Hyman was built for Patricia Moore and her well known Aspen Gallery in 1963 and it was designed by Ellie Brickham, Aspen's first woman architect. She attended the University of Colorado and worked with Herbert Bayer before opening her own firm. Charles Cunniffe is the owner of the building. He is here to discuss voluntary designation and an addition to the back of the house that adds a penthouse element. Staff finds that the landmark criteria are met, particularly criteria C. This 1960 building relates to new formalism. As part of the designation we need to look at the integrity scoring process. Staff scored 75 and the assessment was due to the alternations in the front of the building. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 There is a removable canopy at the top of the building that has created a cover that was previously opened to the sky. It has a barrel vault shape to it and it changes the light in the space and affects the way the space looks. It is reversible but scoring points were removed due to the change. The ground level previously had arched openings similar to the top level and they have been changed to a more of a squared off transom. The entry doors were originally centered in the building and now moved to the outer edges. The garden level did not exist historically. In the integrity score we brought points down because the stucco appears to be originally white. Staff feels this building is worth saving because we don't have very many examples of Ellie Brickham's work. Amy said in terms of the HPC guidelines the addition is sympathetic and not visible from the street. Some of the incentives are standard and some are new ideas that can be brought up for voluntary designation of a modern building. 1. 500 square foot FAR bonus is being requested. Staff feels some of the previous alterations should be considered to be taken back to the original Ellie Brickham design. Staff is not suggesting changing the floor plan of the building. 2. A parking waiver is being requested. A site visit occurred today and there doesn't seem like there is any additional space for parking. As a landmark incentive we are suggesting that the requirement be waived. They should not have to provide anything on -site and they should also have the waiver of the cash -in -lieu fee which has the value of about $28,000. Landmark buildings are exempt from affordable housing mitigation. The two new offices would generate around $250,000. They do not have on -site trash storage right now and they share with the building next door. This might be concerning if there is an addition being made and we don't want to end up with a dumpster in the alley in the future which is not an acceptable solution. On a free market residential unit in the downtown there is a cap of 2,000 square feet and they would like to exceed that. Typically the only way to do that is purchase a TDR, transfer development right and they do not want to do that. TDR's are worth around $250,000. and they would like to have the development right without having to pay that. There is a request to not provide an elevator in the building. This would cause a significant challenge in accessibility. In talking to the Building Dept. this would probably not be waived. The applicant is requesting rights for 12 years. This gives the applicant the time to decide 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 when to build. At the final review we should discuss restoration efforts. They are also asking for a one foot in height increase for the addition which is allowable for any building historic or not. The standard is no more than 36 feet tall and they are asking for 40 feet on the elevator. On the addition we are requesting that it be set in a foot or so, so the facade isn't just up three stories. Mitch Haas, Haas planning. Mitch said we are land marking the building in exchange for incentives. It is not our intent to landmark and undo changes that were done for very good reasons in the first place. All the changes proposed are on non - historic portions of the property and they are fully set back from the property some 40 feet from the street facade. Asking for the height is allowed through the Commercial Design review. There is an existing free market studio in the building and the allowable FAR is 13 square feet more than what is already there. The building has a lot of common space due to the split levels so a good chunk gets pro -rated into the free market floor area. The only way to expand the apartment is through the Ordinance #48 negotiations and we feel we have done that where it is in the back on the non - historic part of the building. Charles has off -site offices which are being rented. The proposal is to ad a bedroom. We feel it is not much to ask in exchange for forever having this property designated and HPC will have purview over the property. Charles Cunniffe, owner On the trash service needs I have an agreement with the neighbor that has a dumpster that we use and their recycling needs come to our building. In the covered back we can always add a trash can. Council approved the addition with the recycled cans as being adequate for our building. Almost everything we do is recyclable materials, glass, newspaper and magazines. Regarding the minor setback from the alley we can explore that but it does cut into the bedroom space. Regarding the restoration the awning serves as a valuable purpose. It serves as a snow removal area. There is no place to throw the snow that collects there and having the awning allows the snow to roll back to the roof and then melts and goes down the roof drains. I can control snow management by virtue of the awning. The facade location has not changed and the window line has always been there. Splitting the entries allows the downstairs to be open when the upstairs isn't. Adding the light well allowed light to the lower level and ventilation. This is an improvement that doesn't detract from the history or look of the building. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 The monochromatic look makes the building hold together. The columns by themselves look like sticks. The white stucco with brick columns doesn't hold well together. Questions: Jamie asked about the height. Charles said there is a slight slope from sidewalk to alley. On the street side the height would comply but on the back there is a one foot height difference request. Nora asked Charles to explain the evolution of the changes of the building by date. Charles said he bought the building in 1989. The first change was a tenant request which was moving the door from the center to the two sides. It was important to not alter the columns and we stayed with non - structural changes. The light well was done in 1991. When I moved in the space in the late 90's is when the windows were changed. The awning windows now double the view and light coming in. The existing stucco was painted at that time. In 2002 the garage and lower level were added. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Land marking: Jay said the changes to the door specifically affect the landmark. The addition of the awning is not in the spirit of the original design. If we vote for land marking I would prefer to have input on color to preserve the original intent. Charles added that this building is a good example of a single occupant and business residence and there aren't many of those left. It is a mixed us building that was designed as a residence and a gallery. Ann said she feels the building is modified way beyond land marking it. You have lost the essence of the design. There is real lightness with the arches on either story and the transparency of the top. The original was a very graceful looking building. If you had the open roof top garden that would be fabulous. Changing the arches and moving the entrance I couldn't support designation of this building the way it is right now. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Nora said if this building is landmarked how far back could the changed be removed. Charles said except for the door being moved it is not that much different. The door has been pushed to the side but it is still within the arched definitions. I don't feel that is a negative at all. The atrium inside was totally dysfunctional and a waste of space. Nora said land marking is because it is a building that has historic value. Charles said he thought the changes were in the spirit of the Ellie Brickham building. I tried to do nothing evasive structurally. The taking of the lower arches does not denigrate the building. Jason said Ellie Brickham was trying to duplicate aqueducts and show the verticality of a downtown building with brick columns with the lightness and transparence of an aqueduct. She had a one -story building on the ground with a transparent light structure above. She was taking a one -story building and making it look like a two -story structure. The lightness of the upper piece makes the building special. When you cap it and get the light out that transparency is lost. I need to see an effort to make this a great project. A light weight solar panel collecting PV roof that is semi - transparent like the one in Wagner Park so you get light and see through the entire thing is a suggestion. You need to get back to the original reading of the building. Jamie said she is in agreement with the rest of the board members in getting the facade back to the original state. For designation it is getting the arches back and the light and dark coming back instead of monolithically. Sarah said in order to recommend historic designation under criteria C you need to do significant restorations of the building in order to get it back to the period of significance. I would be curious to see how the bringing the door back would work. Charles said the door is in the middle of the conference room and can't be changed. Sarah also commented that the arches are significant. The proposed back is incongruent to the original design. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Jay said it also needs to be mentioned if we designate we would be preserving mass and scale of the building. With the new land use code height can go to 46 feet. The idea of restoration is good but by preserving what is left is preserving mass and scale in town. Mitch said a good portion of this commission is taking the approach of all or nothing. Unless you restore it back we aren't working with you. Jay said we have the opportunity to preserve and work with these people. This is not an exceptional piece of property that would warrant all the requests and incentives. I don't want to see this die immediately and would like to see what can be done. Maybe there is a medium that we all can work with. Charles said with the appraisal etc. he is giving up a lot if this is designated and he is willing to do it. A bedroom is needed for his family. The doors are just window infill's between columns. The architecture is the form of the building which within are infill's. Amy said this is the first time the HPC is dealing with a Post War designation application in which the building is somewhat altered. This building has gone through changes. Charles came here tonight to designate the building as is and the HPC is on the opposite of the spectrum where you want to see the building as it was. The applicant needs to determine if he has any flexibility and the HPC needs to think about flexibility. Charles said he is the second owner of this building since 1962. The building is relatively unaltered. The alterations I made are non - invasive and non - structural. I understand the merit of what this board does and as an applicant it is painful to weight what you are giving up and I am asking for flexibility. The awning is a removable device. Jamie said she is fine where the doors are because I agree that it is more of an infill. The lower arches and upper awning should be gone in order to make that an airy two building approach and to restore it back in order to do the designation. Charles said Jason mentioned the roof and translucent solar panels. You would get the best of both worlds, the light coming through plus the solar energy. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Jamie said she would be willing to look at that. With the stairway going up to the next level what would the head clearance be and would it be fully covered or not. Charles said it could probably be done with a hatch. Jason said there would be a flat panel over the entire thing like what they are doing for the art museum. Ann pointed out that the building in its current condition doesn't qualify for designation and it doesn't meet any of the three criteria. Ordinance #48 is a whole different program. With the task force they would not have considered this building because it has been so modified. Ann said the building is fine but it is not an example of Ellie Brickham's work. Jay said possibly we should recommend to council to take this property off the Ordinance #48 list. Sarah said in the current state it doesn't fit the criteria for designation. That doesn't mean that there isn't a middle ground. I would be willing to see a solution keeping the doors where they are. We need to see something come back so that we feel we are meeting the criteria. Mitch said it is about the opportunity of keeping this building and work with doing some preservation. Sarah said she is willing to look at a middle ground. The middle course of arched is critically important to the historic significance of the building. Charles suggested the doors stay where they are and the translucent awning /solar panels add light and put the arches back above the awning window so that it is in a panel. You would still get the arch but the transom window would stay and the arch appears. Nora said if we are designating an Ellie Brickham building it needs to look like an Ellie Brickham building. You need the light coming into the building. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Charles said emotionally he doesn't agree that it has been transformed because he tried very hard to do things in keeping with the architecture and not alter the building to where it is unrecognizable. I made it more livable in the spirit of her work. I was trying to improve her building to make it more functional. Jason said he is willing to look at options in order to make this an exceptional project. Jason said he is flexible on the door but likes the exhibit that was presented. The transparent view up through the roof is good and the color is important, the vertical columns are one color and the white infill for the arches. Back of the building comments: Jason said he would like a response to the rhythm of the columns. Sarah said she would like to see original drawings of the back of the building before the alterations occurred. Jay said the translucent roof would lessen the mass of the building from the front view. Jamie suggested a little more relief on the back due to the vertical wall. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 610 E. Hyman to 1/26/2011; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk t /( c C c_ 2 z_A— -41 11