Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20131009 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 Vice-chair, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, Jim Defrancia, John Whipple and Patrick Sagal. Nora Berko, Jay Maytin and Jane Hills were absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sara Adams, Senior Planner MOTION: Jim moved to approve the minutes of September 1 lth and 25th; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Willis said there has been a formal complaint from the meeting of September 25th. Apparently the meeting has to be redone. Debbie Quinn said based upon the complaint from the attorney representing the condominium association whose members should have received notice it appears that there are a number of people that did not receive mailed notice. Rather than run the risk of having any procedure challenged the attorney's office determined that we would be better to start over and the applicant is agreeable. We will reschedule conceptual approval for 201 E. Hyman on Nov. 13th. It is scheduled for less time since you already heard it once. There will probably be members of the public who wish to participate at that time. Commission member comments: Patrick said he enjoys being on the commission and the staff and the commissioners are successful and intelligent. From a public perspective and hearing from the public it appears to be a non-representation or insufficient representation of the lay public with four people from the same industry on this board. The people that came to me said there is a direction that is non- historic preservation oriented because there are 4 developers on the board. Sallie disclosed that she is not a developer. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 Patrick said Jim, Jane and John are the developers. The public feels it directs the decision making not in a necessarily preservation oriented direction. Jim said he doesn't understand the point. Patrick said they feel the decisions are being made in a development oriented way rather than historic preservation way. Jim said the public should come to the HPC or City Council to discuss this. Willis said we just had a public comment section on the agenda item and you should encourage them to come. John said he feels the developers are objective rather than subjective. Jim agreed. Patrick said he understands where the public could get that opinion. City Council could look at this for any future decisions. Monitoring issue: 204 S. Galena Amy said when reviewing the tenant finish etc. it was determined by the Planning Department that there were items that were not approved by the HPC. The eave on the second floor of the building was approved for an 11 foot eave. Apparently during their permit preparation they determined that there would be some height limit problems with that because of the way we measure height and look at the topography across the site. They had to make a decision to reduce the eave height and didn't tell us. It was not caught when the main permit was submitted and the eave has been constructed. There are also a few other changes in the Exhibit I highlighted in red. Jay, Willis and Patrick are the monitors and could allow the changes to go forward. Exhibit I— elevations 11 x 17 Charles Cunniffe and Brian West from Cunniffe and Associates Charles said the eave is a combination of the height limit and the sidewalk change from the Engineering Department. Also we now have a tenant for the second floor who wants to push the restaurant further out which we have applied for through the GMQS approval. We pulled the eave back a little 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 and the restaurant pulled out a little. It went from 11 feet to five feet. When we came back with the changes in the bays on the Hopkins side from four bays to five bays we actually showed the eave reduction but we didn't have any direct discussion about it. Brian West went over the elevation changes and tenant changes that were handed out at the meeting Exhibit II. The planters were removed on the second floor per the request of the tenant. Some of the store fronts were made opaque. There is also a second door for access from the patio close to the entrance of the restaurant. Charles said the tenant should be here but we are helping them out. Brian said on the back alley they are proposing a stucco change which originally had brick. On the store front items they originally went to the soffet and the tenant has asked us to reduce them by one foot. The finish of the alley wall was stone and now it is a seamless cmu block painted. Amy said she feels the tenant will want to represent themselves on some of the changes. Charles said our intent is to keep the construction going as it is moving quickly. Amy said nothing about the size of the building has changed since your last meeting. The reduction of the eave could be a massing change but everything else is removing elements such as the planters and possible material changes. Amy said she feels the project is still in the monitor realm. Willis said if the eave got pulled back five feet and the restaurant came out another six there wouldn't be a overhang. Brian said the window wall is further out than the eave was from the original submittal. The eave has been brought back to the 15 foot threshold so that we are within the building height that the city requires. Willis said the restaurant wall has moved substantially closer to the street and the overhang has moved back from 11 feet to five feet. The north and south eaves have also moved. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 Mak Keeling, Summit Construction Centaur team Mak said we are trying to focus on the stucco wall on two of the three sides of the second floor and get the shell finished. If the cmu wall is not acceptable we can still do a stucco finish on it if that was appealing to the board. Charles said we are proposing to use a six inch smooth face block and I would be afraid if we made it stucco it would be a constant repair. The first bay in the alley is stone all the way around. Amy summarized the issues: Eave reduction, removal of the planters on the upper floor deck, changing the siding of the restaurant from stone to stucco, changing the stone on the alley from split face cmu to smooth. On the upper floor restaurant there are some door and window changes. The windows are one foot lower than approved. There are fewer windows and there is a new door. Patrick said he is in favor of keeping the stone instead of stucco which is in keeping with the original historic intent. In the alley the change from the split face to the smooth, the smooth will also get smashed by trucks. Charles said the alley wall is already built in six inch smooth. We feel the smooth is a better solution for an alley situation. Amy said the eave reduction is better at five feet and not such a dramatic element on the building. The removal of the planters is not an issue. I do not think that you should approve the removal of the stone and replace it with stucco. For this particular permit you should stick to the stone that was approved. On the alley it is very typical to have a secondary material. On the upper floor door and windows I don't think this is something that the board should hold up. Patrick said he agrees with Amy's recommendations. All members agreed with Amy's recommendations. Willis said he feel this is an insubstantial amendment and agrees with all of the recommendations that Amy outlined. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 Amy said the tenant finish will have to be discussed further with the monitors. Willis commented that he doesn't like the lower windows. Charles said the tenant wants sun shades and that is why the windows are lowered. Willis also commented that he would like to discuss the lighting at some point. 610 E. Hyman — Extension of Conceptual Amy said the applicants are expected to come back to HPC for final within a year so the project makes progress within a reasonable time frame. Conceptual was granted for a remodel Oct. 24, 2012. Charles Cunniffe's office is not prepared to do a final right now so they have asked for a six month extension. The building is their office. HPC is allowed to grant one extension. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution 31 for a six month extension for 610 E. Hyman which would extend conceptual until April 22, 2014. Motion second by Sallie. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. 206 Lake Avenue — Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review Sara Adams said this was reviewed August 28t' and continued for a restudy of a few different elements. Sara thanked the applicant because they did almost everything that HPC asked for. The garage is incorporated with the house. They figured out a mechanical system to make the existing garage work. They took the elements out of the Hallam Lake Bluff area. They have done an excellent job in answering HPC's concerns. The house is over the allowable floor area and by incorporating the garage into the house you have your 250 square foot exemption that now applies so they are able to apply a light well for their basement that they are proposing to dig. They are still proposing new window and door changes on the east elevation and we support that. The deck has been pulled out of the setback and the landscape plan is to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Staff and monitor can review the new door styles. They are proposing some new windows in the rear elevation and we believe that is an historic elevation and staff is not in favor of that. For the roof they are now proposing wood shingles. They are still 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 proposing to pick up the home and dig a basement and add a light well. For the Hallam Lake Bluff review we are supportive of the proposal. There are a few small items in the setback which is a small corner of a lightwell with a lip and you won't see it. There are two existing steps in that setback also. HPC is also being asked to establish a new top of slope as part of the Hallam Lake Bluff review to the fence line instead of having it go through the house. Stan Clauson and Associates Stan said the lot is 12,000 square feet. We have modified the project considerably. The garage is entirely within the footprint of the building. The western faeade is essentially unchanged. The driveway would be re- established in its historic location. The foundation will be replaced to ensure the stability of the house. Certain doors and windows will be replaced. The front porch is to remain unchanged and we are proposing cedar shingles. The deck will be outside the Hallam Lake setback. We will maintain the existing large cottonwoods. Stan said the site is quite flat then falls off. There is an intrusion, a walkway into the bank from other properties and how that was established is unknown to us. The setback does run through the existing house and there is nothing we can do about that. The deck is behind the setback. There is a sidewalk that runs along the right-of-way in front of the house and that will be removed because it serves no purpose. A couple smaller pine trees will have to be removed due to the driveway. The new door will be part of the staff and monitor activity. The north elevation is the rear elevation and there is clearly an addition that took place. We are proposing additional windows to match the existing. Having light and ventilation on this side of the house would be a good adaptive reuse. Greg Tankersley said the view is incredible and the client has asked us to add more windows in order to take advantage of the views on the back elevation. This elevation is not visible from the street. Stan said the garage would replace an existing spa area. The attic skylights have been eliminated per the HPC request. The new foundation will be similar and the existing brick facing will be replicated. All of the foundation will be as it was originally. There were alterations to the foundation from the additions but the intent is to go back to what was there originally. The micro-piles will extend slightly beyond the foundation and I think staff is 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 understanding of that request. That would be a minor amendment to the resolution. When you go to the site you can clearly see that the top of slope is not where the GIS map says it is. The corrected top of slope would reflect the actual top of the bank. The area where the fence is effectively represents the top of slope. Willis said on the porch the horizontal window seems out of character. Sara said she feels the porch was reconstructed. Patrick asked the applicant if they met with the city to determine the appropriate codes for the basement. Sara said this is a non-issue now because they are putting the garage within their house. The floor area exemption is going to be used for the basement. Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Chris Lane, CEO for the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies. Chris said he is here to ensure the ecology of Hallam Lake 26 acres is protected. Chris thanked Sara and the applicant for protecting Hallam Lake and eliminating the encroachments. All of the elements have been taken out of the 15 foot setback. Another question is the top of slope which was established some 40 years ago. Sara said the two existing steps that are on-grade are encroaching into the setback and there is a small lip for the light well which is 8 to 12 inches. There are movable items within the setback. The top of slope is only going to be moved on this property. It is about protecting the view plane of Hallam Lake. Patrick said if you did core samples you might find that it was back filled in the 1800's and that is why the GIS line is there. There would have been a slope down to the lake and now there is a terrace. It probably was a 45 degree angle before the 1940's. Chris said the pessimistic side is wondering if development has moved the line historically over time and it caved in one piece at a time or if there was an actual mistake or not. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 John pointed out that surveying has been improved over the 40 years. Chris said no one in this room would want to see the ecosystem compromised. During construction there will be a lot of water fowl flying down for the spring water and hopefully wildlife will not be shut down at a critical time during the winter. Willis said he feels this is a minor application and we should go forward. Sara said she is comfortable elimination condition 7a and allowing the applicant to work with Engineering and they can figure out what is appropriate for the site. We can strike it and I can provide the minutes from the meeting regarding the construction. Willis said the other issue is the north elevation and the difference in the windows regarding the historical character. There are no historic photos. Patrick agreed with staff's recommendation except for two points. The north elevation should be kept the way it is. If there were windows there they wouldn't have taken them out. Changing something from historic to convenience is inappropriate for historic preservation. Regarding the GIS map we should keep the line where it is. The two houses next the line remains the same. There is no negative impact in keeping it where it is and no benefit. John said he agrees with the changes of the top of slope. You have lost more top of slope over the years with erosions and the photo proves it. I am in favor of condition #I to add the new windows. Ok on eliminating condition 7a. John thanked the applicant for listening to everything the HPC had to suggest and making the changes. Keeping the carriage house door is very important. Sallie said she feels the top of slope should be changed. I have been on too many projects where it has been wrong. In this case it is very evident that it is wrong. On the windows I am not in favor of taking an historic fagade and changing it but on the other hand if you were adding onto the house we would probably let you change part of the house. I am up in the air about the windows. I do understand staff's comments about not changing something historic. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 Jim said he is OK with changing the top of slope. The house is an historic structure and changing the windows changes the character of the building and the appearance. John said he would agree with his colleagues if we had a photograph of the house. Sara since we don't have an historic photo and they are going to pick up the house which include mostly gutting the interior we could verify in the field whether the windows are in their original configuration or not. If they are not then we can say the board can approve the configuration presented. We could do that at staff and monitor level. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #32 with the change to condition #I saying the 3 windows on the second floor of the historic house are not approved unless verified in the field that current configuration is not original. Also elimination 7a condition. Motion second by Jim. Roll call vote: Willis, yes; Jim, yes; John, yes; Sallie, yes; Patrick, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Sallie and Patrick are the monitors. 549 Race Alley— Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variances, Parking Waiver and Floor Area Bonus —Public Hearing Debbie said she review the affidavit of public notice and it appears that it is in order and the applicant can proceed, Exhibit 1. Amy said this is the original home in the center of Fox Crossing Subdivision and it is a Victorian era house. It is probably the most authentic miner's cottage in town. There is nothing that has been changed on it but it is also falling apart. No one has lived in this house for over 50 years. It is very much in need of a restoration. HPC is being asked to look at conceptual design review, on-site relocation of the Victorian house and some variances. Staff is recommending continuation due to design issues but also because as the project review progressed there are some elements that weren't entirely included in the public notice that have to do with how the buildings are being relocated on the property. There is a 1950's log cabin on the lot and it needs to be moved away so the project can move forward. In conjunction 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 another building needs to be moved on the lot and that was not noticed. The Victorian will be temporarily stored on an adjacent property. Amy went over the specifics of the proposal. The Victorian will be lifted up and moved five feet northward of its current location, dig a basement and build anew addition to the house. At this point there is no access to the front of this house. The applicant now uses Race alley as their address and front door. The property slopes so that the Victorian is on the low end of the site so there are a lot of things that needs to be dealt with that are unusual. The site plan has the historic resource, connector and an addition. The connector is longer than required so there is a nice separation between the two pieces. The addition is similar in footprint to the original resource. The addition has a traditional form with cross gabled roofs and really looks like an enlarged miner's cottage and we thought it wasn't distinguishing itself enough from the original building. The applicant has proposed a revision which will be shown tonight. There is an addition proposed on the historic resource, a bump out to make a kitchen area. Staff recommends that that be restudied. We don't support alterations directly to the miners cottage. With the new construction behind they could deal with a kitchen and get more square footage and not demolish a portion of the historic house. In terms of relocation perhaps there is a way to keep the miners cottage in its original location. There is a FAR bonus proposed. An FAR bonus is not permitted to be sold as transferable development rights. In this case the applicant wants to use the bonus as part of their project which frees up some square footage they aren't using to be sold as TDR's. They would like to eventually sell 3 TDR's, 750 square feet away from this property so they aren't proposing to build the maximum which is good. They are also asking for a FAR bonus. The expectation is that the historic building be preserved. Setback variances are being requested. This part of town was annexed in the 70's and at that time bigger setbacks were required. In the West End this lot would require five feet on each side and this lot requires ten feet on each side which makes for a smaller building footprint. The applicant is required to provide two on-site parking spaces and they have one in a garage and they are asking for the second one to be waived. We need more information as to why they can't accommodate a second space uncovered on the site. There is the potential that they cannot meet the residential design standards particularly the ones that talk about how the front of the house should be oriented to the street. It is a little strange as to which direction is the front. There is an upper floor deck on the new addition that has an open gabled roof over it and perhaps that can be reduced somehow to bring down the 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 mass of the addition behind the house. Staff recommends restudy until November 13tH Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe architects Karen Woods, Cunniffe architects Charles said the cabin has to be moved to the adjacent property and the cabin on the adjacent property needs to be adjusted so both cabins can fit. This building would be relocated to lot 4 and excavated and build a basement. Our proposal is to move the house five feet which would give the house more presence and align usable space. The adjacent property will be re-developed some day and that might be a negative thing if we don't give the house some breathing room. We might be able to accommodate an additional parking space along the side given the ten foot setback to the south. There are two main issues, the kitchen and the new element and how its form is behind the historic form. We were thinking the kitchen could be a minor addition to the structure but we also have an option that the kitchen occur within the link if the link is enlarged in width. The idea is not to have the house so disconnected. Karen said the kitchen needs to be in relation to the living space. On the design we opened the proposed closed in porch on the second floor and it now brings in light to the master bedroom and it helps the mass read smaller. Charles said the park virtually becomes the street. Willis said the applicant has taken staff's comments and has acted on them. Jim said this is a very good project. Sallie said the finished materials will be important. Willis said at the work session everyone was in support of accepting the slope as it is. MOTION: Willis made the motion to continue 549 Race Alley until November 13th; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Willis said the board feels the relocation is fine and the variances are supportive. The way you re-worked the kitchen by not adding on to the 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 2013 historic resource is a great direction. You are also working on the mass and scale to be distinct and compatible with the resource. Overall the package is going in the right direction and you have agreed to add surface parking. Sallie said the board agreed with the presentation and changes. Karen asked if the board would be favorable for a variance for the kitchen. Amy said that is not HPC guideline. They worry about the length rather than the width. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12