HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20020213ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
FEBRUARY 13~ 2002
950 MATCHLESS DRIVE .....~ ............................ ~ ......... ~.~ ............................................................................ 1
CONCEPTUAL, TEMPORARY RELOCATION, VARIANCES .....~ ..................................................... 1
110 E. BLEEKER- CONCEPTUAL, ....... .................................................. ~.~ ............. ~ ......... ~ ............. ~"..3
PARTIAL DEMOLITION, VARIANCES .................. ".....~ ........................................................................ 3
513 W. SMUGGLER - CONCEPTUAL, LOT SPLIT, VARIANCES ..................................................... 8
118 E. COOPER AVENUE - LITTLE RED SKI HAUS...,~ ............................................ , ...................... 10
CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION & VARIANCES"; ............................................................ 10
420 E. MAIN STREET - WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVIEW ................................... 13
ELECTION OF OFFICERS ..~".....~ ........................................................................................................... 15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATi~ON~CO~IssION MINUTES OF,
FEBRUARY 13~ 2002
Chairperson, Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at $:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffi'ey Halferty, Rally Dupps,
Melanie Roschko, Michael Hoffman, Teresa Melville and Neill Hirst.
Paul D'Amato was excused.
Staffpresem: Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie
Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland
Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer
MOTION: Melanie moved to approve the minutes of Dec. 12, 2001; second
by Neill. All in favor, motion carried.
Disclosure: Suzannah will recuse herself on 420 E. Main
Michael will recuse himself on 420 E. Main
950 Matchless Drive
Conceptual, Temporary Relocation, Variances
Klm Raymond and Alan Becker were sworn in.
Amy relayed that the architect revised the drawings. The connector has
been revised so that it slips under the back gable of the house more so than
it did before. Staff's issue is the deck, it is still problematic and staff
recommends that the deck be moved onto the side of the tower. It would
still have the same exposure desired. It is recommended to find another way
to resolve the little roof piece that comes into the back shed of the historic
house. This is important because the applicant is asking for a 500 square
foot bonus. It is a good design and a small addition and in order to get the
bonus it needs to go to the next level of excellence and resolve whatever
problems are being brought up by the new construction. If that were
resolved staff would support the variances and bonus.
Klm said they could restudy the deck and possibly make it a little smaller
and have a separate roof underneath the deck. The deck acts as part of the
connector downstairs. Klm said they intend to use vertical wood siding.
Regarding the east elevation windows mullions were added to divide the
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION C~OMMISSION MINUTES OF,
FEBRUARY 13~ 2002
window up so it doesn't look like one big mass of glass. Kim also stated on
the west elevation the window was made smaller.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing.
Commissioner con'n~ents:
Teresa relayed that she likes the project and at the last meeting her concern
was the French door on the east elevation and the new proposal is much
better.
Neill agreed with staff regarding the deck treatment.
Rally also agreed with staff's comments regarding the deck and guidelines
10.9 and 10,10. Guideline 10.9 says roof form should be similar to those of
the historic building. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on
a residential structure with sloped roofs. Part of this deck is a roof and he
feels it is in conflict with guideline 10.9. Guideline 10.10 says design
addition to an historic structure should not obscure important architectural
features, Rally said the deck obscures on the line of new and existing.
Regarding the two story connector, guideline 10.7 says a one-story
connector is preferred and he is not totally sure that is appropriate in this
instance.
Gilbert asked about the window well in the basement and how it relates to
the French door entry at the connector up above it? Kim relayed that a grate
would have to be placed over the light well. Gilbert also agreed with staff
regarding the deck and the real issue is that the deck projects to the east
beyond the existing house. In plan it looks like there is an opportunity for it
to be pushed back.
Jeffrey said the restoration benefits the entire community and he also agrees
with staff regarding the deck. The deck coming out to the east is
problematic for the historic resource. The architectural treatments of the
tower in the previous application was more successful because there was a
relationship from the ground level to the different elements. The vertical
siding proposed might make the tower feel taller than it should be and also
2
ASPEN HISTORIC pREsERV.~TIO~ CO-MM~SSioN ~i~UTES OF,
FEBRUARY 13, 2002
might be competitive to the historic resource. The addition' is very modest
for the size of the lot.
Suzannah said getting the smaller connector worked out nicely. Her only
issue is the deck and notching it back to where the lower wall ends may
help.
MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve resolution #2, 2002for 950 Matchless
Drive with the following conditions:
1. ?or fina[ review, continue to restudy the upper floor deck.
2. HPC approves a 500 square foot F~4R bonus (subject to a PUD
Amendment approval by City Counci]) a combined side yard setback
variance of l J ' and an east side setback of 5 '7'.
3. Restudy the faqade treatment of the lower.
Melanie second the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Neill, Teresa, Melanie, Suzannah
110 E. Bleeker- Conceptual,
Partial Demolition, Variances
Sven Alstrom was sworn in.
Amy informed the board that a motion was made at the last meeting
indicating five points that needed addressed. All have been addressed
except the placement of the addition. The addition has been pushed back
in a minimal way~ only one foot and staff feels it does not meet guideline
10.8. The board looked at the stow polls and there is an historic house on
the other side. Stafffeels the project should not go through and the
project does not meet the guidelines as required.
Sven said the FAR bonus request is 304 ½ square feet. The building has
been lowered. The other element that has changed is the connector on
the front, it has been pushed back further and the plate height has been
reduced. With the reduced plate height we have less windows, which
was a concern Melanie's.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PREsERvATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
FEBRUARY 13, 2002
Herb Klein pointed out that 10.8 guideline has no specific dimensional
requirement except that a minimum setback of ten feet on primary
structures is recommended. They are now at 15 feet from the faCade of
the house and ten feet to the front part of the balcony. The internal floOr
plan will not work if they move it back any further. Herb felt that staff
has wanted the design to be more like a carriage house from day one and
they cannot do that.
Sven said the addition is only 18'6" wide with a five-foot connector. It
is currently recessed from the front property line more than the lot is
wide. Amy's memo requested a 48-½ foot setback, which is almost half
of the lot width. You need to also look at what the user is trying to get
out of this, which is a compatible addition to their house. The house
needs to connect in a certain way. In the floor plan they want to read the
old wall of the house so there is a sense of orientation, a sense of passing
through and sense of history. To reiterate, the plate height is 6'8".
Jeffrey asked Sven if they ever studied the idea of moving the historic
house closer to the west? Sven stated that they wanted to maintain the
Sanborn map footprint.
Michael Hoffman was seated at 6:00 p.m. but declined to vote.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing.
Carl Schindler was sworn in and informed the board that he has been to
all the meetings and listening to all that has gone on. From the very start
every generation of drawing has been based on the recommendations of
the committee and tonight he finds it unbelievable that someone would
actually move to deny the project at this point. They have gone through
a metamorphous of drawings based upon the recommendations of the
committee and now asked to start over again.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing.
Commissioner comments:
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
FEBRUARY 13, 2002
Jeffrey said the ridge height seems a little tall~ His concern is the
contextual nature to the structure to the west. It is so close to the
property line and lowering that form maybe the s~tback W0Ul~t be so
important. Leaving the western wall intact helps with keeping the
historic record intact. Restoration of the porch and resource is
commendable.
Gilbert said the project has gotten better and he is satisfied where the
front setback is and if it is moved back another foot there will not be
much overall improvement. The way the existing house remains
dominant is successful. It seems that the board has made an error in
omitting the discussion of the impact of this on the neighbor's house.
That never entered his mind until he went to the site visit today. The
way to mitigate the impact is to loWer the volume of the addition. The
plate and ridge height need addressed.
Rally said he appreciated the heroic efforts that the applicant has gone to
in order to conform to what the board wants. The plate cannot.be lower
and the connector cannot be more unobtrusive. Guideline 10.8 is
complied with. Keeping the west wall intact is a great element in the
design. The restoration and landscaping is exciting.
Neill felt that from the beginning possible we should have said the
concept of the addition is unacceptable~ The design presented is
acceptable and the front facade is more proportioned to the historic
structure. Neill said he shares Gilbert's concern regarding the adjacent
house and the board needs to be consistent in the future regarding their
recommendations.
Teresa said all of her concerns have been mentioned.
Melanie said she appreciates all the changes to the connector. Maybe the
jog on the front of the addition that is four feet could be taken out and
added to the back of the house and still get the connection through the
existing structure.
Michael said he is satisfied with the setback and feels it meets the
guidelines. He also feels the height of the addition is acceptable.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY i3~ 2002
Suzannah said the scale and the way the addition connects to the historic
house is all working better. She does not have a concern about the
setback of the main faqade that staff does. 15 feet is substantial and will
recede visually from the street. Suzannah said she has a concern about
requiring this project to address the scale of the house next door because
that is not something that we have touched on in a consistent manner
before. The lot is very narrow. If this were flipped and the existing
house were closer to the neighboring house we would be in the same
situation.
Sven thanked Jeffrey for the SuggeStion of the roof change for the
drainage issue. Sven said he would look at the overall project and
keeping the same kind of roof SlOpes that work with the neighborhood
context.
MOTION: Rally moved to approve the application for conceptual
design, partial demolition, variances, and landmark designation for 110
E. Bleeker Street, Resolution #3, 2002 with the following conditions:
1. In order for this project to qualify for the Far bonus, the porch
and front window should be restored to original condition.
Removal of paint on the masonry is also recommended.
2. As part of an overall restoration of the historic character of the
property, staff recommends the owner work with the City Parks
Department to remove and replace the existing trees, on the city
right-of-way with more appropriate trees. The current trees
disrupt the relationship between the front of the house and the
street. If the owner is in agreement, this will be done at the City's
expense.
3. Maintain as much as possible the west wall of the historic house
utilizing the existing historic openings.
Melanie second the motion.
Amy said there is a residential design standard that requires inflection
toward the one story house next door. The HPC can grant a variance
for that and address it at final review. At final we would have to
public notice.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
FEBRUARY 13, 2002
Sven said they are agreeing with the 6'8" plate height on the second
floor and modifications of the packet.
Amended motion to include:
4. The need for ordinance #30 regarding inflection requirements
needs addressed at final.
5. FAR bonus approval of 304 1/2 square feet.
Melanie amended her second.
Discussion:
Gilbert said handling inflection at final seems backwards. Conceptual
approval is about fundamentals of the design and Ordinance #30 addresses
those topics.
Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer relayed that no neighbors are here to
object to the design.
Motion denied 4-3.
Yes vote: Melanie, Rally, Suzannah
No vote: Teresa, Neill, Gilbert, Jeffrey
MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue 110 E. Bleeker until April 10th, 2002
with the following condition; restudy the plate height and ridge height of
the addition; motion second by Neill.
Neill suggested we discuss inflection at the next meeting.
Herb Klein said if the design meets the HPC criteria and inconsistent with
the residential design standards HPC has the ability to grant the variance.
Gilbert amended his motion to include a discussion on inflection.
Neill amended his second. All in favor of mOtiOn and amended motion.
Yes vote: Melanie, Teresa, Neill, Rally, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
FEBRUARY.13~ 2002
513 W. Smuggler - Conceptual, Lot Split, Variances
Ryan Sturtz and Harry Teague were sworn in.
Affidavid of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit i.
Amy relayed that the addition that exists on the house is completely out of
character with the original structure. The lot split means that less of the
addition is being put On the original h0Use~ There iS a request for a 500
square foot FAR bonus and that is warranted due to the significant amount
of reconstruction/restoration that is being done on the building. There are a
few setback variances being requested. Staff's concern is that the proposed
addition is still somewhat overwhelming in height immediately behind the
historic building. Possibly some of the massing could extend toward the
alley and the entire second floor slipped back. Also there is an opportunity
to fill in or relocate some of the courtyard that is shown on the east side of
the building.
Harry Teagne gave an overview of the project. The entire building was
moved so that the garage portion comes up to the lot line. In doing that it
allowed an increase in the separation of the two buildings to six feet. The
non-original materials surround the existing addition from the street. The
separation new from old was addressed by placing the addition directly
behind the existing house. There is one elevation that is currently not there
and it will be restored according to the historic photograph. All the window
proportions were derived from the window placements on the historic
building.
Gilbert said one concern was the proximity of the addition to the historic
house and possibly that mass could be pushed back. Harry said they pushed
it back 3 more feet but it still isn't ten feet.
Harry said the plate heights floor to floor are ten feet from the main floor to
the upper floor and the next plate height is 6'6".
Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing.
Comments:
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
FEBRUARY ,13~ 2002
Rally said retrieving the historic resource from all of the appendages is
exciting. Guideline 10.8 says a minimum of a ten-foot setback should be
maintained. Rally feels even though the ten-foot has not been met this deck
is on new construction not the historic house and the setback is acceptable.
Rally said his only concern is the ten-foot separation.
Harry said from the east elevation there is a deck that extends on top of new
construction to the south. He also stated that they are recreating the gable
end according to the historic photograph and continuing the wall back but
instead of having a pitched roof we have a flat roof.
Neill said his biggest concern is the nine-foot ridge height. He is also
concerned about the enormous mass behind the miner's cottage and as
presented, is not in favor of the project.
Teresa relayed that she supports staff's comments in her memo regarding
being consistent with the ten-foot connector.
Melanie relayed that she appreciates the efforts to restore the historic
resource but the proposed addition still overwhelms the historic house. One
issue that is disturbing is the zero lot line.
Michael remarked that he agrees with Melanie's statements.
Jeffrey also stated that he commends the restoration efforts. His concern is
the proximity and the connection seems too close. Possibly the mass could
shift toward the alley. What Neill said, if we are recreating a mass or form
on the east elevation, we should respect its massing and location and the
deck coming across.
Gilbert agreed with Jeffrey that this is a great project with only one problem
and that is the proximity of the addition to the historic house. This is the
one thing that prevents the project from being exemplary. The height of this
addition is the exact same height as Matchless Drive so there is a
discrepancy in building height here. There is also the proposal to have the
addition closer to the historic house than MatChless was. What you are able
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
FEBRUARY 13~ 2002
to take advantage of is thc fact that you don't really have a side view and a
large house next door. Gilbert also agreed with staff's recommendation.
Suzannah said her issue is the six feet and the guidelines ask for more than
that. The starkness of the architecture of the addition accentuates the size of
it. She also agreed that the ten-foot setback needs to be respected,
specifically because of the nature of the architecture of the addition.
Harry said they could make the wall continuous and set it back with a
pitched roof with two windows just like they have in the photograph but he
would like direction.
Suzannah said her only concern would be the length of the addition. Harry
agreed that the wall could be reduced.
Melanie left before the motion was made.
MOT[ON: Gilbert moved to continue 513 ~ Sm~ggie Stl to March 13,
2002; second by Rally; Motion carried 7-0
Yes vote: Michael, Teresa, Neill, Rally, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah
118 E, Cooper Avenue - Little Red Ski Haus
Conceptual, Partial Demolition & Variances
David Fiore and Carl Darr were swore in.
Affidavit of posting was entered into the record
Amy informed the board that the front of the house has been significantly
altered; particularly the porch and the additions that were added are to be
removed. It is very important to get the front of the house back to what it
once way. There are three proposals for thc ADA ramp. There is a
proposed bathroom addition on the east side of the house and it overlaps
one of the cave lines of the gable and staff is recommending a restudy of
that bathroom. Some variances are proposed for the back of the property.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM~SSION ~NUTES OF~~ ·
FEBRUARY 13, 2002
David Fiore, managing partner of the LLC gave an overview of the project.
They are increasing parking and decreasing the room count. The intent is to
preserve the lodge and bring the building up to code.
Carl Dan' explained the three designs for the ADU requirements.
Landscaping the front with a walkway; ramp with a railing and a ramp with
a railing and covering to provide shelter as you come up the ramp. The
building department preferred the minimal slope, scheme A. There will be
three parking spaces in the back and in order to do that the small shed will
be removed. The mechanical will be in the basement. The proposed area
for the bathroom works the best for the program. They are trying to
minimize it and the visibility will not be high.
Amy said P&Z will review setbacks but HPC can make comments regarding
them and she will forward them to P&Z.
Neill expressed his concern about the 36 inch width of the handicapped
ramp and possibly that is not wide enough. Carl relayed that the dimension
was approved by the Building Dept. and they will comply with the ADA.
Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing.
Rita Rassmusson, adjacent neighbor that lives at 109 E. Hyman was sworn
in. The back of the historic house has been her view for the Past ~en years.
She is thrilled that the renovation is occurring on the building. Removal of
the lean-too shanty is commendable. She understands that part of the deck
will still remain and that a hot tub and tables will be placed on that deck.
Amy said they are required to have their building no closer then ten feet to
the rear property line and it already encroaches into that area on the first
floor.
Chairperson, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing.
Commissioner comments:
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
FEBRUARY 13~ 2002
Regarding the ADA ramp the board accepted Scheme A with the
recommendation that the landscape plan does not get overdone. The entire
board commended the applicant on the proposed restoration plan.
Gilbert said the bathroom addition is a problem and possible that area could
become a suite and the bathroom goes somewhere in the back where you do
have more flexibility to change the walls. Adding the bathroom element
where it sits up on iffs own legs attracts a lot of attention to itself.
Jeffrey said he could support the variances. He likes scheme A but could
support C, as it is less obstructive toward the historic resource. The
placement of the bathroom is very striking from the east elevation and it
needs simplified or programmed somewhere else. The east elevation is a
very profound elevation.
Michael said he accepts staff's recommendations.
Teresa said it is wonderful that the building will be restored back to a more
attractive place for individuals to stay.
Neill stated that the width of the curve for the handicap access should be
adequate for a wheel chair. The bathroom in its present location is
unacceptable.
Rally relayed that the level of care and dedication is evident in the proposal.
The bathroom is problematic and very prominent and noticeable. Guideline
10.10 talks about designs to historic structures should not obscure
historically architecture features. That elevation is historic and the
bathroom diminishes what is going on.
Suzannah concurred with the other board members. The building is very
delicate and possibly snowmelt could be incorporated in the ADA walkway.
Regarding the bathroom maybe some kind of suite could be built and do a
two-bedroom unit. The bathroom is detrimental to the historic house and
there is so much going on in the back that she would be opposed to anything
else being added to the back.
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
FEBRUARY 13, 2002
David Fiore said they had Carl work on this and possibly he can bring back
some of the drawings and proposals and hope£ully the board will have open
minds in their decisions. DaVid said they are heat melting some o£the
walkways and he will discuss with his LLC members the ramifications and
costs of heating the handicapped ramp area.
MOTION: Rally moved to approve conceptual for 118 E. Cooper Ave. with
the following conditions:
1. Examine the possibility of demolishing the non-historic porch
decking and using the space gained to place the accessible ramp on
the east side of the building. Study an at grade patio or other means
of capping the below grade space.
2. Use the 1980's photograph, or earlier documentation, to guide the
restoration of the porch columns and woodwork.
3. Restudy the bathroom addition. Allow as much of the historic gable
end and eave line to remain in place as possible.
4. Alternate A on the handicapped ramp is preferred.
5. Approval of partial demolition and HPC endorses the variances,
which will be referred to the Planning & Zoning Commission,
Motion second by Michael. Motion carried 7-0.
Yes vote: Michael, Teresa, Neill, Rally, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah
420 E. Main Street - Wireless Telecommunications Review
Michael, Suzannah and Teresa recused themselves.
The affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit I.
Scott Young was sworn in.
Amy said there are two parts to the application: One to allow for a
telecommunication system and the second part is a conditional use to
give a variance because it is over the height limit. Staff feels that the
application does not meet the review criteria. The antenna does not meet
the telecommunication standards because of not being in conformance
with the setback, height, architectural compatibility or screening
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
FEBRUARY la; 2002
requirements. The building is a flat roofed building and there not been
anything done to hide it. The proposal is to paint it.
The second set of standards is the conditional use standard to vary the
height. The building is 20 feet tall and you woUld be allowed to go to
the maximum of 35 feet under the review criteria but they are going to 49
feet, 14 feet over the height limit. Staff recommends denial of the
application.
Assistant City Attorney said the fact that it is installed is completely
irrelevant and it should be treated as if it were a new apPlication.
Scott Young, CEO and one of the owners of BroadBandWest. The
telecommunication will enable large businesses to communicate with
their businesses back in the major communities and cities and live here.
Schools, health facilities and the government use broadband. If the
antenna were to be moved we would have to re-engineer the entire
system.
Gilbert asked why it has to be on top of that particular building and are
there other locations that would meet the criteria that would be
reasonable.
Scott said Qwest invested $150,000 to run fiber to that location because
that is their building. For BroadBandWest to function they had to be
near where they could get them fiber. Qwest picked the location.
Jim Stephens said he has been working with IS, BroadBandWest and
their competitors in conjunction with the city regarding wireless
solutions where they deliver public safety information as well
information for the building inspection department. The Fire Dept.
would also be able to download information. As far as the location it is a
prime location for the downtown corridor. There are limited places
where fiber can go. Whether it should stay on that building or another
building is an engineering issue. Possibly the antenna can be dressed
down. The City supports 'infill wireless coverage.
ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
FEBRUARY 13, 2002
Scott said they can come back with a different design and reduce the
height o£ the antenna and paint it out.
MOTION: Rally moved to continue 420 E. Main until March 27, 2002;
second by Neill; all in favor, motion carried 4-0.
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Neill
Election of officers
A closed ballot was conducted. Suzannah was elected as Chair and
Gilbert was elected as ViCe-chair.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Rally. All in favor,
motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, chief DepUty clerk