Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010808ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 8~ 2001 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Theresa Melville, Rally Dupps, Lisa Markalunas, Gilbert Sanchez. Excused were Jeffrey Halferty, Melanie Roschko and Neill Hirst. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minutes of May 23rr 2001, June 27th 2001 and June 13th, 200; second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried Disclosure Suzarmah stepped down on Wagner Park Rally stepped down on 735 W. B1eeker an 515 Gillespie MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue the public hearing on 735 W. Bleeker until Sept. 12th; second by Lisa. Motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Gilbert, Suzannah, Lisa, Teresa 515 GILLESPIE -FINAL - PH - Reso. #34, 2001 Affidavit of posting presented to the deputy clerk. Fred Jarman, planner presented. The lot line dispute which was part of the discussion has gone away. The project as proposed was not affected. The dispute ended up in favor for the Collins. Teresa said she read the packet and minutes and is ready to participate. Fred gave some history of previous approval and where we are now with the project. On June 13t~ conceptual approval was given which included the relocation of the structure to the western portion of the Iot, pa,'la1 demolition ora later addition and a 500 square foot bonus. City council approve the landmark designation for the house and approved the historic lot split. Fred ran through the changes from conceptual to final The garage has been moved slightly to the east and stairs located on the other side. 1. On the elevation the south facing deck is slightly larger. 2. The south facing entry vestibule has moved five inches to the west. 3. The proposed window on the second floor of the south elevation has been removed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 8, 2001 4. On the south elevation some of the materials that were metal have been switched to wood and vice versa, specifically the vestibule. 5. More windows on the south elevation are operable. They previously were fixed. 6. On the garage the stairs have been moved to the west wide. 7. The garage roof has been reversed and is slipping down to the west. 8. The garage has moved eastward toward the setback. 9. The door and windows on the west elevation have been slightly reconfigured. Fred said staff recommends approval of the project. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in John Kelly and Jim Block. John Kelly represented for the owner Randall Bone with the law firm of Oates, Kenezevitch and Gardenswartz. Mr: Bone is on his honeymoon. It is his understanding that the board will hear the changed as presented in the memo by Fred. Gilbert asked if there were any samples of the metal siding/roofing. John Kelly said it was non-reflective but they have no specks on any of the materials. Lisa asked that the relocation of the lilac bush on the southwest corner to be a condition of approval. Amy relayed that in the minutes Randall said he would relocate the bush if need be. Lisa felt that the relocation of the bush was meant to be on the property, not off the property. John said the metal will be a non-reflective grayish zinc type of metal that could be approved by staff and monitor. Regarding the lilac bush it is the applicants believe that the bush is on the Collins property but if it is not it can be relocated on site to a place that is satisfactory to the monitor. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, AUGUST 8, 2001 Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Chief deputy clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Charles Collins and Jan Collins. Suzannah informed the Collin's that only the architecture will be discussed tonight as the FAR was settled at the last meeting and with city council. Charles said he didn't have much to say about the architecture but he does have concerns about the FAR and how that is derived. The total build out of the FAR should only reflect What is allowed for a duplex lot and that is misleading. He also asked if the water department released the ditch relocation agreement. Jan Collins said the addition that is proposed to be removed was built in 1933. At council they said yes it was built in 1933 but was not part of the original. Jan said it still is historic. She feels the proposed addition is not compatible. Fred stated for the record that none of the discussion is applicable with this hearing. The ditch relocation agreement has been signed. The FAR is compliant with the existing code. Fred entered a letter into the records from Neil and Pamela Beck Exhibit II. The Beck letter requested that the board approve the proposal set forth and also gave the history of the house. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Gilbert said this proposal complies with the conceptual approval. The modifications of material actually will enhance the architecture. Lisa relayed that she is against the project. She felt that the lot split was handled poorly and could have been done it a much better sensitive fashion m the historic house. Pam Beck's assertion that moving the house will enhance its historic value, she finds that not to be true. Moving the house to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, AUGUST 8, 2001 the west actually decreases the historic value. The architecture on the rear of the building is out of character with the historic house, it is too extreme. Amy said their requirement is not necessarily to enhance the house as much as to not diminish the prominence o£the house. Teresa agreed with Gilbert and felt moving the house to the west was appropriate. The back of the house is pleasing and you can tell what is new and what is old. The project is very pleasing. Suzannah said she was pleased with the size of the addition to the historic house. She is in support o£the resolution as written. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution #34, 2001 approving the request for Final Review for 515 I~. Gillespie Ave. with the following conditions: 1. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 2. That Lots "A " and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval jCor all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well as Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards:" 3. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A " receiving 4, 639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,57] square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, that maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A " will be 1, 753 square feet t?ncluding a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot "B ". The information specific to exact allocated FAR as indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, AUGUST 8~ 2001 4. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the F,4R to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 square foot bonus) to be 4,093 square feet in total. The applicant shah appropriate this F`4R in the following manner: Lot "`4" as having 1, 753 square feet and Lot "B" as having 2,840 square feet prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). 5. That the applicant shah record a fna] plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot.4 of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6 Block 99, Hallam .4ddition, City and Townsite of .4spen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall fle a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 6. That the applicant shaH submit a demolition plan, as part of the b~tilding permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 7. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan ,as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, win be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 8. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than which has been specifcally approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 9. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of aH exterior lighting fxtures; 10. That there shah be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 11. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATIONCOMMISSION MINUTES OF, AUGUST 8, 2001 sheet of the buiiding permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 12. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC Resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying.for the building permit; 13. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 14. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 15. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 16. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; I Z The applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 18. Adequate protection of building elements including but not limited to windows, doors shall be provided. The means of protection shall be reviewed by staff and monitor. 19. The applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's of J~ce thereby representing a burden running with the land which shall also be recorded on the Plat and subdivision exemption agreement; 20. All new materials shall be submitted to staff and monitor for review and approval of J~nish. 21. Monitors will be Teresa and Suzannah. Motion second by Teresa. Motion carried 3-1 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, AUGUST 8, 2001 Yes vote: Gilbert, Teresa, Suzannah No vote: Lisa 620 W. BLEEKER - MINOR REVIEW - PH - Reso. #35, 2001 Rally was seated. Amy said the elements of discussion are the design of the gazebo and the design of the fence which are considered structures added to the site. The landscape plan will be presented. Staff has no concern about the gazebo as it is a freestanding structure and the wrought iron fence is typical of the period. Staff recommends approval. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Grace Gary, Sarah Oates, and Julia Marshall. Julie Marshall said the Historical Society wants to create more intimate spaces on the inside but still creating that wonderful "block" feeling that the society currently has. Due to the numerous parties they need spaces that are a little more closed. They still want a fence around the property and they are trying to make specific areas with gates to come into the lawn areas besides the front walkway. Shrubs and trees will be used throughout. Julia said the gazebo will have circle benches on the inside and an open lattice type feeling to it. Lisa asked about the canopy materials and color selection. Julia said she think the canopy will be there full time due to maintenance. Grace said the gazebo would be some kind of transparent Lucite or Plexiglas. They do not know how this will work but they do want to convey a light airy sense of a garden structure. They want to use the gazebo for children's programs. Julia said they are going to work with a metal person in Carbondale to look at a light iron structure. Hopefully there will be panels in between. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, AUGUST 8, 2001 Grace said the wrought iron fence will probably be phased due to expenses but the goal is to replace the picket fence and have wrought iron around the property. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Comments Gilbert said the proposal is fine and his only concern is what really does the gazebo look like, as it is very conceptual at this point. Rally said he has a concern of approving things no knowing precicely what they are. Lisa has no problem with the fence design or gazebo but they should be required to bring back a final plan as to what the gazebo is before approval. Suzannah agreed that staff and monitor need to see whatever they come up with regarding the gazebo. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minor development for 620 W. Bleeker resolution #35, 2001finding that the review standards and design guidelines are met with one condition that the final design of the gazebo be approved by staff and monitor; second by Rally. Motion carried 4-0 Yes vote: Gilbert, Rally, Lisa, Suzannah 629 W. SMUGGLER - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - PIt Amy said staff is very pleased with what has been presented tonight. At the last meeting this is what we landed on as a good solution. The architect has very successfully presented it. Staffrecommends approval with the condition regarding the variances for the garage and that can be handled at final review. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Steven St. Clair. Steven said they addressed all of the things that they talked about at the last meeting: siding reduction, remove the deck, lower the connector, reduce the chimney width, and make the back deck a usable deck. He feels they 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, AUGUST 8, 2001 accomplished all of those conditions. On the colored rendering the one thing that is not on the drawing is the siding. There is much smaller siding on the original historic structure. The firm did not have time to redo the drawing. Questions Gilbert said there are no floor heights on the elevations and are there any adjustments in the dimensions? Steven said there were none and he apologizes that Catchi couldn't be here. The only thing that was changed was the reduction in the connector, everything else stayed the same. The rear deck was moved out further but he didn't have the dimension but it was accommodate deck chairs. Everything else as far as elevation is identical. Rally asked if they considered the possibility that the chimney be made of something other than siding? Amy clarified for the board that materials are to be dealt with at final. Rally asked about the circular window that is on the west elevation, the attic vent. Steven said that is an architectural detail that we like in the structure. It was put there to make it different than the historical house. Lisa asked for clarification of the dimension of the inset between the historic and connector? Steven said it was exactly as was last time and they did not change anything. They lowered the connector. Lisa asked if there was any way to bring down the eave height on the addition? In the pictures the eave height sits significantly higher. Suzarmah said it relates directly to the usable space inside and the plate height. Steven said we squashed it down and the height was higher when we started the process. It is more of an illusion and there was no way to bring it down further. The plate heights were lowered. If you look at the historical house 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 8, 2001 the plate heights are low and if you look across at the addition the plate heights are low as well. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Comments Gilbert said he recalled being concerned about a number of items at the last meeting. The main issue was that the addition was not subordinate to the historic building and in fact brought attention to itself. I recall discussing that it seemed to be that the proportions of the addition were an issue. That in fact the portions were not compatible with the historic house. I recall saying that the garage in fact was much more successful than what is being added onto the historic house because the proportions, that there is a very clear relationship. What is presented today doesn't address that topic in my mind. I appreciate the fact that the ridgeline connector is lower but that doesn't seem to be enough because it doesn't resolve the main issue, which is compatibility of the addition with the historic house. It is unclear to me why there was no analysis or study or at least you didn't describe any about the plate heights because I know we discussed that, and there seems to be some potential for doing that. It is unclear to me why the west elevation of the addition still extends beyond the west elevation of the historic house because I recall discussing with you the fact that with that projection this new element really does dominate the historic house rather than recede. I discussed the possibility of considering some variances if you wanted to push that all into the east but I do not see that being proposed here. In my mind while I appreciate what you have done it still is not meeting the criteria that I think are established to enhance an historic house. I would continue to have problems supporting what is being proposed here. Rally said Gilbert nailed much of my concerns. Primarily my concern, and I do appreciate the connector piece as it seems to fix a lot of problems but the new architecture isn't clear that it is something that is a modem piece of architecture, that it is not historic. If you were driving down the street and saw this house I think that a layperson could not clearly identify what is historic from what is new and what is added. When you drive around the west end a lot of our historic resources suffer a similar problem because there have been a number of additions that are not clearly distinguishable 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, AUGUST 8, 2001 from the historic house and he cannot support this project. As a side note, the position and location of the garage, while I think is a little large in comparison to the house, it seems to me that it is similar in size to the existing but I am not sure but to continue to support it having an entrance that is not offthe alley I would like to see the size of that mitigated to some degree. Lisa said while she agreed with some of Gilberts comments she still finds the addition to be out of scale with the historic house. Dealing with the size of this historic house, it is a difficult proposition. The proximity of the addition to the garage within 9 feet according to the plans makes it read almost that all three, the two structures almost read as a solid line from Sixth Street so I have concerns there. We had talked before above the structure at Sixth and Francis that I had put forward as what I thought was a good successful renovation project of an historic house and there was some discussion about the two story connector and as we go on with this house and I walk by it and look at the other house and ask what makes this successful or what makes it attractive and I think they were actually able to keep the ridge line in keeping and keep the historic house the prominent feature on the property. In that case the first floor of the two-story addition sits in a courtyard configuration so it is partially sub-grade, at least the portion that goes on 6th Street is sunk into the ground so it allows you to not have that massing of the structure over the historic structure. I do not know if that is a possibility here. It really adds to that particular project. In terms of compatibility I find a more compatible architectural style to the historic house to me is more pleasing than a radical more extreme contemporary architecture like we have seen on an earlier project this evening. I think they both have their place. Materials are issues and there are other ways to make the distinction but not necessarily reading extreme differences in architectural style. Teresa said she is not real familiar with the project but she was surprised at the size of the garage, it is rather large. Amy said to be clear Teresa would not vote on this project because she is a new member and she is not up to speed on the project. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 8~ 2001 Susannah said the link has done a lot to improve the relationship of the addition to the existing house. She can appreciate Gilbert's concerns about the proportions and position on the site plan of the rear addition and in terms of the floor plan that seems like something that can easily be slipped back although I don't know that will make all that much difference in the long run and I think the issues for me now have boiled down to materials and the proportions of the windows and doing some things that make a sense between the old and new. We just need to reinforce those a little stronger. Right now almost all the detailing is very close to the historic house and makes it all the more confusing. I can see some material choices and some other things happening there that will make all the difference without changing the form of the architecture. Suzarmah said she can conceive a conceptual approval of the presentation tonight with the condition that some of the issues are restudied and that there is a little more ora distinction between old and new not necessarily radically modern, things could be handled in a slightly different way. She has no concern about the garage as it is the size of the footprint that is existing. In a way I find that to be too close to the historic house and my materials issues would extend to the garage as well. In terms of volume and the locatinns of the structures on the site this project has come a long way. Amy said there are ways that this project could be better and she agrees with some of the ideas about proportion, the taller skinnier portion is not as closely related to the historic house as we might like but she does think we need to make some progress on this and recognize the good points of this project: The completely detached garage is not something that we always see which takes a lot of mass offthe building. They have created a connector with the basic character that we are looking for and the .overall sense of the addition is that it is very small. What the applicant needs to do is meet our guidelines not create the most excellent project that we might dream of, even though we always try to reach that point there is a threshold of meeting our basic guidelines that staff feels this project is accomplishing. She agrees with Suzannah about materials that can be held for final to try and make a better distinction but I would hope that we can take a step forward on this project. She also feels that the applicant has responded to a lot of good comments. Lisa said the shed has suddenly disappeared from the site plan. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, AUGUST 8, 2001 Steven said it is on there and the shed is not going anywhere. MOTION: Rally moved to approve Resolution #36, 2001for 629 W. Smuggler with the condition that HPC will hear a request for variances related to the new garage at final review; second by Gilbert. Discussion Rally said he is not looking for a radical piece of architecture but looking for something that clearly identifies this as not being historic because a lot of structures in the west end that is not So clear. This is an opportunity to make that distinction. Amended motion. Clarity of materials and detailing be presented at final. Motion second by Gilbert. Discussion Gilbert said what is disappointing about this process sometimes is it really does go through a mill and often times what comes out at the other end we sit around and try to figure out if we are tired off turning the handle of the mill. I am tired of being in that position of going through so many meetings and making some good progress but sometimes in my mind it doesn't make up for some of the elements and criteria that are not met. In my mind there is a fundamental issue that is not being met here and while there are certainly a lot of good things happening they just don't make up for missing that fundamental criteria. I continue to have a difficult time saying that I am ready to accept. Yes vote: Suzannah No vote: Gilbert, Rally, Lisa Motion denied 3-1. Mike Hoffman said there comes to a point where your deliberations to reach the arbitrary and capricious standard. That applicant must reach the design guidelines and not to reach every individuals ideas ora perfect project. In our appeal you will see in a document how this process works and how we view it as arbitrary and capricious. This is not the first time you heard me say that. I am disappointed that it has to come to that again. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 8, 2001 Steven said he feels at the last meeting we were asked to do certain things and we did them. We addressed materials and we addressed everything. WAGNER PARK PUBLIC FACILITIES - CONCEPTUAL - PH Affidavit of posting was presented to the chief deputy clerk. Chief deputy clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Scott Chism, Willis Pember. Suzannah Reid recused herself. Amy said this is a proposal to improve the public facilities along the east side of Wagner Park and no one would disagree that we are desperately in need of better bathrooms and other facilities in that area. In regard to how it complies with our guidelines and standards there are really no historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. She reviewed the proposal on the general policies about the district and it talks about creating vitality and referencing our mining past and things like that. This project successfully pulls a lot of those ideas together. There will be a display area that shows the history of Aspen, materials that relate to buildings that were built in the past. It creates an entry point into the park and makes viewing sports much more enjoyable. Staff recommends conceptual approval with no conditions. Scott presented a site plan and photo rendered board of the material selection. There was a design competition to select an architect and Willis Pember and Suzannah Reid were selected. Willis stated that there will be a storage facility for the snow removal machine and bathrooms. The design draws people into the park. There are a series of three units in each restroom that can be closed offduring off- season. The clock tower will have a mesh screen/steel. The murals can change periodically which is a direction that council asked us to go. There will be opaque glass over it. Scott said an impromptu circular space would be incorporated. Gentle lighting in the evening will be incorporated. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, AUGUST 8, 2001 Vice-chairman Gilbert Sanchez opened and closed the public hearing. Teresa felt the accessibility to the park was well designed and opened to the public. Lisa said the favorite component is the circle area and it is a focal point. The circular bench is a nice feature for street performers. Rally said this is the most exciting project that has come across the HPC. Rally indicated that he was "gushing" with excitement and approval over this project. Gilbert agreed with Rally that it is appropriately scaled and the imagery is right on the money. MOTION: Rally moved to approve Resolution #37, 2001without conditions; second by Lisa. Yes vote: Gilbert, Rally, Lisa, Teresa INFILL WORKSESSION- NO MINUTES MOTION: Gilbert moved to adjourn; second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt AUGUST 8, 2001 515 GILLESPIE - FINAL - PH - RESO. #34, 2001 .................................................................................. 620 W. BLEEKER - MINOR REVIEW - PH - RESO. #35, 2001 .......................................................... 7 629 W. SMUGGLER - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - PH .......................................................................... 8 WAGNER PARK PUBLIC FACILITIES - CONCEPTUAL - PH ....................................................... 14 16