Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20130911 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 Vice-chair, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were: Sallie Golden, Nora Berko and Patrick Sagal. Absent were Jane Hills, Jay Maytin, John Whipple and Jim DeFrancia. Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer MOTION: Nora made the motion to approve the minutes of 8-14-13 second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Sallie said she has worked with Kim Raymond on other projects but not on 624 W Francis and she feels she can be fair and impartial. 602 E. Hyman Ave. — Amendment to Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing Debbie Quinn said the public notices are in order and the applicant can proceed. Amy said this is an amendment to conceptual. The primary appearance of this building is attributed to Ellie Brickham, the first woman architect in town. The owner has re-thought some aspects of the project which has conceptual approval. In the process of reconfiguring some space they are addressing some of the conditions of approval that were placed on the project before. HPC had previously approved a one story addition in the back of the building along the alley. The applicant has some net leasable space and they would like to put a second story on top of the approved garage. Staff feels this revision has its own character and it is actually better than the one story. Another condition was to restudy a deck proposal on the south east corner of the front fagade. Staff felt that it might be interfering with the architectural character of the building. The entire deck has been dropped from the project. On the opposite corner of the front fagade there is a proposal to slightly enlarge an existing deck and change the staircase that is related to it. Staff is not concerned with the stair case change but staff is not in support to changing the size of the deck because we are not sure if it is an original feature or not. The applicant restudied the monitors that pop up on the roof that were meant to give a little more head height and light to the upper floor spaces. They were brought down one foot from four feet to three 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 feet. They also took off a hot tub that was on the monitor and it has been brought down to the main roof level. There are some window changes, landscape work and added planters that will be addressed at final. Patrick said the hot tub being moved to the main deck has a glass railing. Is that detrimental and would it be seen by people on the street? Maybe a solid railing would be better. Amy said we have accepted some visible deck from the street and a solid might look more bulky. Dillon Johns, Zone 4 architects Dillon went through the changes on the building. The exterior stairway on the southeast courtyard has been removed and relocated within the building to meet our egress requirements. In the southeast courtyard we are replacing some of the windows on the south edge with doors. We removed a door and replaced it with a window. On the Hunter Street side there is a door that will remain and we would like to change the landing as it doesn't meet building code compliance. On the north side of the building we are filling a notch and providing a building maintenance shed. On the upper level the deck will be removed and there are slight changes to the roof top element. The hot tub is located behind the elevator overrun. The lower deck is 9 square feet bigger and that might change due to the large tree. On the south elevation we have changed the sliding glass doors into a window. Three doors have been added to the ground floor level. The south west deck has been added within ten years as it has a trec fabric base. Patrick asked about the additional square footage for the deck. Dillon said the existing is 217 square feet and the new deck is 226 square feet. There is 9 feet difference. If we are too close to the tree the deck will shrink. Patrick asked about the additional mechanical equipment on the roof and what would their heights be in relationship to the popups already there. Dillon said they would be in the neighborhood of three to four feet tall. They would be similar in height to the popups. Nora said her concern is how visible the popups are from the street? 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 Dillon said they are lower now and look more like a building element. Willis asked about the material on the monitors. Dillon said the monitors will probably be sheet metal. Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public comment section of the agenda item. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the agenda item was closed. Willis said with the amendments the project is much better and it fabricates some of Ellie Brickham's work. The window changes on the courtyard will draw people into that space. Willis said he sees the brown siding on the new addition and it looks interesting the way it is detailed but I would ask for an explanation between the two different fabrics for final. I would also like to see the monitors and the addition read as one element which would satisfy the intent of the guidelines. The south east deck and the notch needs restudied. The detail of the glass stair guardrail seems over articulated. The roof top is great. The benches on the corner should also be shown for final. Dillon mention that the overhang is 3 feet and it isn't coming out any further to the west. It is just extended north into the deck. Nora said she loves this building and is happy to see this happening. The only concern is with the popups and how it stays within the integrity of the building. The expanded deck is also confusing. Willis said the ceiling height is 7.8. Sallie said the diagram looks like what we asked for. Dillon said we can change the color to offset it to make it clearly different. Patrick asked if the glass railing detracts from the overall building. Sallie said the railing is of this era and it is less obtrusive. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 Dillon said we could do a sharp railing but it would look more of a Bauhaus period. Sallie thanked the applicant for listening to what the board said. The cut out on the deck might need more study for final. I also like the idea of changing the colors of the popups. MOTION: Patrick moved to approve resolution #27 with a restudy of the south west deck for final condition #2. Motion second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Willis, yes; Patrick, yes; Sallie, yes; Nora, yes 624 W. Francis Street Unit B —AspenModern negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation and Minor Development Review Debbie Quinn said the affidavit of postings are in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Amy said this is a voluntary designation of one unit in the West End. The unit is located on a 9,000 square foot lot that has a duplex that was built in 1964. The building represents the modern chalet style. The applicant will ask of council some negotiations and HPC is also asked to do a design review tonight. Landmark: Amy said staff recommends that the property meets two designation criteria. It is a classic example of the Modern Chalet style and has the traditional low chalet pitch roof form. Instead of the cut out and decorative railings it is done in a much more modern way. The windows on the front fagade go all the way up to the eave line and the railings are more of a square post. There are only a small collection of these buildings in town and most are residential but there are a few commercial buildings in downtown. This example is pretty unaltered. It was scored 19 out of 20 points and we do feel it qualifies for designation. There are examples of duplexes being designated instead of the entire site. In addition to designation the applicant is asking for some incentives: They are asking for waivers of permit review fees such as zoning fee, application fees and possibly tap fees. We need more explanation by the time this gets to city council on the value. There are also impact fees for parks and transportation which are usually in the 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 range of$10,000 or less. The property is already eligible for those if it is landmarked. An important aspect in this project is an expedited review. They want the permit issued within a reasonable amount of time. There are some trees in front of the house which are declining. There are two that the applicant wishes to remove and the Parks Department calculated a mitigation fee of$3,600. and the applicant would like to have that fee waived which is a council decision. There is also a floor area bonus requested. The new owner would like to make some minor changes to the building. On the front there is an existing important strong deck and they would like to make changes to the railing. They would also like to replace the window system on the front fagade and bring the basement level out underneath the deck somewhat. On the western side of the building they would like to add a closet as you enter into the mud room space. On the east side they would like to make a bay window projection near the kitchen area. On the north fagade of the building the alley side they would like to make an addition that is approximately six feet straight out on the gable end and they would like to enclose an existing car port and add a trellis. The most characteristic contribution portion of the building is the front fagade. In general staff is not raising concern on the smaller alterations around the building. I did make a suggestion with the six foot extension at the back that perhaps they tuck the new roof under the eave of the existing roof. That would be a way of distinguishing new vs. old. There are not many examples of this style of architecture. We are supporting changing out the window system and we are not supportive of changing the deck railing. We would like to see the existing railing maintained as is. We are also concerned about the basement expansion under the deck as the deck would not read as a projecting element anymore. You will see a revision for an expansion going out half way. Staff is recommending continuation. Usually the floor area for a duplex is shared 50/50 and this project is taking a little more than their half and we didn't want to cause an unfair situation. What has been clarified now is that-this applicant would like to use their half and then receive 133 square foot FAR bonus from HPC as part of the negotiation to cover the expansion that they are proposing. This was not addressed in the memo. The applicant is offering to enclose both sides of the garage to benefit the adjacent property owner. Elevations — Exhibit II Photograph of the front—Exhibit III Kim Raymond, architect presented 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 Kim said the deck is 3 1/z feet above grade. We would like to extend the floor area underneath the deck. Originally we wanted to pull it out to the edge of the deck but that takes away from the Modern Chalet look so we pulled it back a few feet. On the lower level we want to install three tall windows. Amy pointed out that the deck comes out 6. 10 feet. Kim said they want to come out 4 feet under the deck and have landscaping under it. On the back there is a car port and we want to enlarge that and make it a garage for both sides and we would keep the same roof pitch. We also wanted to bring the deck railing down a little and put a cap on top of the railing. We will keep the same slats. Sallie said if you change the windows in the front down below it will look different than the adjacent unit. Is it possible to take the square footage off the back? Kim said there is no way we can get the space in the back. The room in the front is very dark and we would like some light and there are already windows under there and we were just going to make them a little bigger. The front will look a little different but it is difficult to see because it is so far back and dark. Kim said the lot is 4,080 square feet. If you divide it in half they each get 2,040 square feet. By adding on we would end up with 133 square feet above our half. We would have 2,173 and that is why we are asking for the bonus and if ever the other side wants to add on they still would get their 2,040. After our side in done we won't have any FAR left. The existing is 1,632 and the total would be 2,173. The lot is 9,000 square feet in the R-6 zone. Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Jack Wilkie said he lives in the A half of the duplex and the owner is in the process of buying the other half. I have no objections and the addition under the front porch doesn't bother me at all. It will not be apparent from the street. I have lived there for 9 years and we have changed things inside. We have no intentions of changing the house. Being a condominium, my 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 attorney is revising the condominium regulations to make the units more of a stand alone unit. I want to be totally independent of the B unit and still stay a condominium. Hopefully this will be done in a few weeks. I am asking for assurance if he gets designated that I can stay outside of it. I do not want the designation. I am willing to agree to the garage. Mark Friedland, buyer of unit B. My attorney is also working with Kurt Sanders to change the documents. If we receive the 133 square feet of bonus it would allow Jack's side to have their equal half of what is left in the future. Kim persuaded me to move back the windows under the deck and still maintain a viable project. My partners don't want me to do this but I am willing to do what helps Jack and Amy to achieve their goals. I bought Ellie's house in Starwood and re-did it. We didn't touch the outside at all and we honored her legacy. If there are minor things that can be done to stay within the confine of AspenModern I am happy to do it. Sallie asked if you didn't get designated how many square feet would you have left to develop the property. Kim said we could do everything we want including taking the basement as far out as we want and still have leftover square feet. Amy said they would not get the 133 square foot bonus that they are asking for. Kim said we are asking for the 133 square feet for the other units benefit. Mark said he wants it clear that in no way does he want to infringe on Jack. Jack said I do not feel I have been taken advantage of. Willis said condominiums often are designated on one side. What your lawyers are doing should also satisfy your separation. Mark said we are changing the windows in the front to match what Jack has now. My wife also wants me to match his flower boxes. Kim said the siding will be painted so that it looks new and we will have the new windows in the front. We will pull the basement back in. We are using 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 all the same materials except the deck railing and we can have that discussion. Willis said this is a great project and a great example of AspenModern. I whole heartedly support designation and the benefits that come with it. There are all kinds of fee waivers that council will weigh in on. Vice-chair Willis Pember closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Designation: Willis, Nora and Sallie agree that the property meets the designation criteria. Patrick said this is a great candidate if the proposed design doesn't change it. Proposed changes on the south: Nora and Patrick said they are ok with everything except the front. Willis said the requests on the south elevation are to change the head height of the windows to match the other side of the duplex. Kim said the head height right now on the windows is 6.8 and it is going to 8 feet. Willis said the second request is to change the upper balcony rail. Sallie suggested that the top rail be taken off and do nothing else to it to bring it back to the original. There are some instances where it doesn't meet code and because it is historic and important the building official can ok it. Kim and Mark said they would agree to the taking off the cap and bringing it back to the original state. Willis said the third request is moving the basement wall four feet to the south leaving 2.10 feet for the overhang. Willis said the fourth request is enlarging the windows for more light in the lower area. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 Sallie said the applicant can plant bushes all the way across there and you wouldn't see it at all. If the windows are moved forward it is the difference of being able to save the house or not save the house then we need to consider it. Nora said given the magnitude of the incentive being asked for I feel we have no problem with 3/4 of the changes happening but what you do see from the street is what is being designated. I totally get the need for more light. I am having a hard time supporting moving the windows forward. Patrick said he agrees with Nora. If the applicant get 99% can he leave the wall where it was to begin with because that is what makes it historic. Willis said in the criteria the cantilever would qualify as an aesthetic or technical achievement and I would hate to see that diminished. I don't mind seeing more glass in the lower area on the south because it is in the shadows all the time. I would support the head height change and adding windows in the basement and the hand rail the way it is. I wouldn't support moving the basement forward. Sallie said she disagrees with Willis's comments. Mark said if you go to the bottom of the house it is like a dungeon in that space and the room is almost unusable and if I don't punch it out a bit it is just a dark space. It is more than 1% to me. If I were to lose the punch out I would have no additional square footage which means I could go to the Building Department who will let me do it. I can do everything I want to do without asking your permission and go out further. I am willing to go out less and retain what you all want. The value of the building by being on the register and the inability to change it in the future is diminished far more. On an economic basis if I can't do anything, there is no incentive to designate, I am depreciating the property. I totally respect your point of view. It is the space that is not functional. Willis pointed out that we have up to 500 square feet for a FAR bonus that can be discussed and that might be of a benefit. Patrick asked if the board agreed that the building is worth saving, they all agreed. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 Willis said he would rather talk about other incentives. Kim said if you push the wall forward it isn't going to change the way it looks. Maybe we pull the deck out a little further. Sallie said she thought of pulling the deck out further but it would look different than next door. Sallie asked the applicant if they get a 500 square foot bonus can you use it in the back rather than altering the front. Willis said by not moving it out you are losing around 100 feet. We are trying to work this out and give your options. Mark said the front yard is large and if we were to use the 500 square feet in the back we would basically lose the small back yard. Mark also said he appreciates the HPC working with him. Amy said another idea would be to use the extra square footage and create a TDR which can be sold or moved elsewhere. Mark said the deck is 6.10 feet out. What if I came out three feet? Amy said we are trying not to lose the effect of the balcony. Mark said HPC wants to keep the front as is and then we would receive the TDR's. I need to decide if swapping the TDR's is better than losing the bump regarding the value of the house. Amy asked the board if there is any additional compromise. Willis said it aligns with the living room wall which is the character of the building and he wouldn't move the basement forward. Patrick said he could accept the basement moving forward two feet and it would look better. The applicant needs a bigger room. Sallie said you are changing the glass anyway. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 Mark said I was asking for 4 feet but could go back to three feet with one TDR. Mark said he really wants to do the right thing. Kim said the HPC is trying to restore the front of the historic building and Mark's dilemma is that we need some direction. Sallie said he is about to spend a lot of money on re-designing and he wants to come back with something that we will approve the next time. Mark said he is trying to do something that benefits the community more than it is benefiting him. Sallie asked Amy's opinion about coming out three feet if it saves the building. Amy said it would be a shame to lose the designation opportunity over a foot. It is difficult to discuss the AspenModern because we are discussing changes that wouldn't be allowed on other building types. Usually the other buildings we discuss are landmarked. Kim said the front is so much in the shadow you can't see how far back it goes. We pulled it back so it is still cantilevered out and it is not visible from the street. Sallie feels this building is worth saving. Give them the TDR and pull the basement back. Sallie asked that they pull the building back another foot. Mark said he would agree to the foot and the TDR. Kim said we would ask for the 250 square foot TDR plus less than 133 square feet. Amy said the decision is for a three foot projection out under the balcony in exchange for enough floor area bonus to cover the new square footage and one 250 square foot TDR. Sallie said and we save the building. Jack Wilkie said his overhang is filled with flowers. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #28 finding that the designation criteria are met and that HPC recommends council award the incentives listed. That HPC grant the minor design approval with the amendment that the infill under the deck projects no more than three feet out from the existing basement wall and everything else is acceptable. HPC supports a FAR bonus that covers the expansion and an additional 250 square feet which the applicant can either use on the site or make it into a TDR. The railing is proposed to remain as is with the removal of the cap pending approval of the Chief Building Official. The windows in the basement are to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Motion second by Sallie. Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Sallie. All in favor, motion carried. Meetin&adj ourned at 7:3 0 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12