Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010321ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 21, 2001 213 W. BLEEKER ......................................................................................................................................... 1 515 GILLESPIE AVENUE ........................................................................................................................... 2 332 WEST MAIN STREET .......................................................................................................................... 3 328 PARK AVE. CONCEPTUAL-PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ONSITE RELOCATION, VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING .............................................................................................................. 5 ART-TEE GALERY ON THE MALL ........................................................................................................ 8 KATIE REED COTTAGE ............................................................................................................................ 9 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 21, 2001 Chairperson Suzannah Reid said this meeting was the March 14, 2001 meeting that was cancelled due to a storm. David Hoefer, city attorney stated that all the public notices that were noticed previously are noticed for today. Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Suzannah Reid, Lisa Markalunas, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko and Jeffrey Halferty. Gilbert Sanchez and Rally Dupes were excused. 213 W. BLEEKER MOTION: Lisa moved to reconsider the adopted findings of fact and recommendation that we considered, now three weeks ago, for 213 W. Bleeker; second by Melanie. Yes vote: Suzannah, Lisa, Susan, Melanie, Daivd Hoefer, city attorney relayed that the applicant's attorney, Doug Allen has passed out a recommended stipulated order, which may or may not be endorsed by the board. We are not representing by this that it should be. David said he met with Doug Allen, Tim Whitsitt, Suzannah Reid and Lisa Markalunas formally to discuss if there were other possibilities for resolving the sanctions at 213 W. Bleeker and the order presented is what Mr. Schelling is representing through council. Doug Allen, attomey stated that the order tracks the previous recommended order and things that have been added. We all have been involved in this for five months. His hope is to reach closure. There is a significant financial penalty plus the cost to the city to be reimbursed by the client. David said the order has been noticed for city council on April 9th, regardless if this is amended or not. David said it is important that HPC make recommendations that they feel are appropriate and that send the appropriate message. It is the board's responsibility to make that decision. Tim Whitsitt, special counsel said what Doug Allen has put together reflects the discussions that we had and the stipulated order is what the Schelling's are willing to put on to the table and accept as their penalty. There are some ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 21, 2001 things in here that HPC does not have the ability to impose. You have the opportunity to changing your recommendation to council. A letter from Gilbert Sanchez, HPC member and e-mail from Rally Dupps, HPC member with there commends have been entered into the record. Melanie asked if the proposal is not accepted by council what is their recourse? Tim Whitsitt stated they would have to go to district court and it is called a 106 action which questions whether the council acted either in abusing its discretion or beyond its jurisdiction. Commissioner comments: Susan stated she would stick with the original proposal Lisa would not replace the original with this stipulation order due to irreplaceable resources. Suzannah said she could accept the new proposal. This is a no win situation for everyone involved. Jeffrey said he is concerned about precedent setting. We need to be very clear with the remedial plan that it has clear direction on the reconstruction and we do not want to see an abandoned site. He is on the fence regarding the amount of the fine. He also wants to see closure. MOTION: Lisa moved to confirm the HPC recommended order from the prior date; second by Melanie. Motion carried 3-2. Yes vote: Lisa, Susan, Melanie No vote: Jeffrey, Suzannah 515 GILLESPIE AVENUE MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue 515 Gillespie to April 25, 2001; second by Lisa. Jeffrey, Suzannah, Lisa, Susan. Melanie Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue 629 W. Smuggler and 501 W. Main until March 2& second by Lisa. Jeffrey, Suzannah, Lisa, Susan, Melanie. Motion carried 5-0 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 21, 2001 332 WEST MAIN STREET Fred Jarman, planner stated that the issues that came out of conceptual were the two story connected hallway; the size of the garage bedroom; the glass infill on the facade facing the street. There was also discussion about the connecting piece to the mud room and the new addition and showing some kind of break in the wall to promote basically "building evolution" so that the reader could see the change. Regarding the rehabilitation to the porch, staff's concern is why would the porch have to be completely detached to be restored. Fred said the basic proposal is to demolish a later addition to the rear of the property, lift up the house, and put the house back down into its current footprint. There are a few setback issues. Staff recommends approval. Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Harry Teague and Jason Lapointe, architects for the project. Harry stated regarding the windows on the front facade they agreed to return the upper window to a solid and return to the original. The chimney is to remain in its existing location. The chimney is separated from the building and the mover desires to have the chimney dismantled. The proposal is to take and dismantle the chimney and rebuilt it with the existing brick. The joint at where the old house joins the new will have a jog in the wall. The current addition is flush but they agreed to move it back and have an edge in the molding to make it more distinct. With reference to the porch the intent is to leave it and as much as possible keep it original. Various elements of the deck have been replaced over time and Boise Cascade is stamped on some of the lumber. Some of the members are rotted out. The original need to taking the porch off was to allow us to build the foundation but they do not need to do that anymore. The porch will be kept attached. The intention is to go in and make it structurally sound. Jeffrey asked for clarification on the chimney. Harry said the tie-rod would be put back and the chimney rebuilt. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 21, 2001 Susan asked about the garage door. Harry said the door would be vertical wood and patterned off the garage across the street. Lisa asked if the new foundation would be under the porch. Harry said they have to pick it up to see where it needs secured but it will be under the porch. Melanie asked for clarification on the light wells. Harry said the light well steps down for egress of the bedroom. Melanie and Susan stated they hope the light well is not visible from the street. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Jeffrey commended the applicant for addressing the boards' conditions from conceptual. The project is sensitive to the historic resource. The comer board detail 6-inch genuflection to the old structure is great. The door accenting the window on the garage from the west elevation works well. The mass to the rear of the property leaving the historic resource favorable to Main Street is commendable. The foundation detailing could be handled through staff and monitor. On the comer board where the clapboard stops possible look at that area when the landscape plan is presented. The outrigger for the chimney should go back to the historic joist. Regarding the windows on the south elevation either scheme could be acceptable. Jeffrey stressed to the applicant that the contractor thoroughly understands the agreements etc. with staff and the approval. Lisa stated in general it is a good project. Her major concern is over the west facade, particularly the horizontal window. It is too contemporary. She also recommends a larger jog than six inches. Six inches encompassed with the entire scheme is not enough, but is a good attempt at what we are trying to accomplish. She supports staff's recommendation to restore the porch in its location. Whatever is salvageable on the porch is worth doing. She agreed with Jeffrey on the tie rod and chimney restoration and also dittoed Jeffrey regarding the south elevation windows. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 21, 2001 Susan dittoed Lisa and Jeffrey regarding the chimney and tie rod. The porch should remain attached and be renovated. She also agreed with Lisa that the jog should be deeper than six inches. Melanie relayed that she understands that the project has evolved considerably. She stated that the six inch jog would be appropriate if there was a change in material. Suzannah stated she had nothing to add. The window replacement and the porch issues can be dealt at staff and monitor level. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve Resolution 1 O, 2001 approving the request for 1) restoration of the existingfront porch, 2) partial demolition of a second addition in the rear of the main house, 3) construction ora new addition in the rear, 4) 500 square foot FAR bonus, and 5) setback variances for a property location on Lot K and west half of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen with the following conditions from staff's memo dated March 14, 2001: 1 - 17 and adding 18 that the restoration details of the water table and foundation and porch can be worked out with staff and monitor as well as the landscape plan, chimney restoration and window restoration to be approved by staff and monitor. For clarification on #17 the south elevation window is to remain as proposed on this date March 21~', 2001 Motion second by Melanie. Motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Suzannah, Lisa, Susan, Melanie Lisa stated for clarification on #17 there is not glass infill. Jeffrey and Susan are monitors for 332 W. Main St. 328 PARK AVE. CONCEPTUAL-PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ONSITE RELOCATION, VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Paul Nicoletti Susan stepped down, potential conflict as a neighbor. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 21, 2001 Amy Guthr[e, planner stated that the property is commonly referred to as the Shady Lane property. It was owned by the Lane's since the 60's. The proposal involves taking away everything that is currently on the site except for one miner's cottage, which would be relocated to face Park Avenue and restored. There is another building on the site but the board approved demolition and staff's recommendation is to allow that to happen. There is a detached accessory dwelling that will sit next to the miner's cottage on Park Ave. and a new single family house that is an L-shape back against Midland Ave. Setback variances are being requested due to the City requesting taking some right-of-way along Park and Midland. A FAR variance will be addressed at the next meeting. Paul said he gave 18% of the site to the city Eng. Dept. It will probably be used in the future for sidewalk or curb and gutter. The lot as 14, 400 square feet of FAR. If he goes through a longer process it would take six months more. Because he is only going through HPC the FAR is limited to 4246. He is 940 or so over that. There are grade issues and if he goes by existing grade he doesn't get a credit and if he went by finished grade he would have enough credit for the below grade space. He hopes its not a big deal to the board because he as 14, 400 square feet if he really wanted it. When he first purchased the property he was going to build three or four spec houses but he couldn't get happy with the layout so he changed his agenda. Everyone in town says the property is an under developed site. No one has said it is a good idea except him. Amy said there is a slope on Midland Ave. down to the site and the Eng. Dept wants to take a certain amount ofland for a sidewalk. Paul's choice is to do a retaining wall and then we would see a fence sitting up there the entire length of the property or to back fill all the way up to the house which is what he chooses to do. Regardless of the backfill the board will look at the building as if the site were flat. He will be requesting a variance to recognize that part of it is buried into a hill. Paul said Amy mentioned the orientation of the miner's cottage and they intentionally put the smaller structures on Park Ave. The intent is to make the entire project look like one story. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 21, 2001 Melanie asked about the parking spaces because 2 & 4 are in the driveway for the garage. In the past this has not worked because people do not want to drive their cars in and out to maneuver them. What happens to the two cars because you cannot park on Midland? Paul said the drawing is incorrect, technically he only needs three stalls, two for the house and one for the ADU. He has an extra one and parking spaces are drawn according to code. Lisa inquired about the curb and gutter and Amy said the plans would not probably come back to HPC because it is not a district and they would be reviewed by Engineering. Lisa also asked if all the research was done regarding the larger building and its age. Paul said he could not find anything of historic value. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Tom Lane said he had no complaints and the property is owned by his dad. He also said his mother owns the triangle parcel across the street and she probably doesn't have any complaint. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Comments: Melanie stated the sensitivity to the historic house is appropriate and the entire project will be an improvement to the property. Lisa: The best thing about the project is that the historic house is visible. It showcases the historic house on Park Ave. She is in support for the backfill off Midland Ave. to give it a single story appearance rather than a moat situation. The small ADU is a nice counterpart to the historic property. In terms of the demolition of the other house there is not enough evidence to warrant retaining it on the site. Lisa also stated that she has concerns about the appearance of the curb and gutter more on the Park Ave. side. Jeffrey said the design scheme etc. off the historic resource and the effort of maintaining it as an independent structure is extremely commendable. The architecture is great and he is willing to talk about the FAR variance. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 21, 2001 Suzannah congratulated the owner on "restraint" of the site. The historic building in its relationship to the new building is commendable. She supports the FAR bonus issue. Paul said he pulled the house ten feet of the property line when they only needed to be five because he thought the house next to it was too big. MOTION: Lisa made the motion that HPC approve Historic Designation, Conceptual Development, Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, Demolition exemption, and Variances, finding that the review standards and design guidelines are met with the following conditions: 1. HPC grants a 5 foot front yard variance for the historic house on Park Avenue, a l O foot front yard variance for the new ADU on Park, and a 5 foot rear yard setback variance for the structures on Midland A venue, a 4foot variance on the square foot floor area bonus, finding that the review criteria are met. 2. A public hearing will be held to review the floor area variance and height variance, which can only be granted with proof of hardship. 3. A more thorough presentation of the restoration of the historic cottage must be presented at final review, Detailed information on how the existing materials will be treated, and the materials for the small new addition will be required. 4. HPC review of sidewalk and gutter improvements. Jeffrey second the motion. Motion carried 4-0 Yes vote; Jeffrey, Suzannah, Lisa, Melanie ART-TEE GALERY ON THE MALL Amy relayed that the entire building has stucco except for one wall that has brick veneer. They want to put the bricks on the entire building and no change any other features. Staff has no problem with the brick. The board had no problem with the brick. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 21, 2001 KATIE REID COTTAGE Amy said Mesa National Bank is in the building and feels the need for air conditioning. On the drawing on the East Side facing into the courtyard they want to put a unit out on the wall and then mn pipes up along the side and along the roofline. You will see this and they are offering to box it in. The board said there are better solutions that could be proposed and denied the air conditioning on the wall. MOTION: Lisa moved to adjourn; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 9