Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20140423 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2014 Chairperson, Jay Maytin, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, John Whipple, Jim DeFrancia and Patrick Sagal. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Sara Adams, Senior Planner Amy Simom, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Jim moved to approve the minutes of March 26" and April 91h; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Debbie Quinn went over procedural changes to the HPC and P&Z meetings. HPC has discussion and then applicant rebuttal. The applicant is supposed to rebut the evidence that is presented at the hearing not HPC's individual points of view about what the evidence has shown. We change and let the applicant rebut before HPC has their discussion. Your role is not to present the evidence but to hear the evidence and they make arguments based on the evidence then HPC considers that and makes a decision. HPC is not part of the evidentiary production process other than questions that need to be asked during the presentation. 206 Lake Avenue — tree removal — project monitoring Sara said the proposal is for the removal of one of the cottonwood trees on the property that was originally represented as staying intact but as the applicant worked on their construction documents it became clear that they needed to request a tree removal permit to remove the cottonwood for the driveway and for utilities to run through the driveway. We talked on site with Chris Foreman about the health of the tree and other options for the utilities that would allow the cottonwood to remain but would require removal of other spruce trees along the side property line. At the site visit Jay asked if the water line needed to be updated. The line needs updated because they are required to do fire suppression sprinklers for single family homes. They need to increase the size of the water line to meet the fire code requirement. HPC should focus their decision on the tree and is it important to the historic nature of the property and leave the details as to how it all gets worked out to the referral departments. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2014 Don Carpenter, Project Resource Company representing the owners. Don said it was represented that a driveway can fit between the western most cottonwood. There are four big cottonwoods on the property. The challenge is not fitting the paved portion of the driveway in that space, it is related to the utilities and water line. There is a way to get the driveway in by preserving the cottonwood but the down size is what we would be installing for the property owner. If we could have gotten a variance from the fire department and just had to sprinkle we would be good to go but that is not the case. We spent 90 days talking to city departments. Don said if the tree remains in place the driveway pavement itself has to shift over and the water line and the utilities requires a cut too close to the property line. You can't cut a seven foot trench vertically and have a sheer wall because there is collapsible soils. You could bore it or dig a line with a trench box and pull the trench box through as the water line is installed. As you unroll the copper line in that tight confined space you run the risk of crimping the line. You open the property owner up to potentially having a failure in that line down the road. We would prefer not to take that route. It can be done but it isn't our preference or the preference of the water department to have that water line so close to the property line. If we keep the cottonwood and end up moving everything over we end up moving approximately 20 trees. Don said if the tree goes it is a much more constructible area and safer for those in the field and it is a much better location for the water line and we wouldn't have to cut down 20 trees. Sara said if HPC decides to keep the cottonwood the details need vetted through the different departments. Jay asked about the other 20 trees. Sara said they are subject to the Parks Department approval. Jim asked what the health of the tree in question is. Willis said he did a walk through and the tree is not healthy. Jim said he also looked at the tree and it did not look healthy. Chris Foreman said the tree has some structure integrity in the canopy due to decay in some of the larger stems up top. In the main trunk of the tree there is a canker that has formed and while that isn't a huge structural issue it will play into the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2014 longevity of the tree based upon overall health. The tree is probably in the five to ten year range for life. You can do some things to mitigate the issues of the internal decay in the upper canopy. Jim said if the tree comes down will it be replaced with another tree. Sara said it seems like there would not be space for another tree. Jay asked Chris if the mechanism wasn't there because of the development would the Parks Department permit that the tree come down. Chris said there needs to be more analysis done on the canopy of the tree. If no mitigation could be done the Parks Dept. can issue a permit for those sorts of scenarios. It would take additional work to define if a permit would be granted on that tree. Jay asked Chris if the city would put more value in the cottonwood tree or an aspen tree. Chris said we need more diversity in our tree species. We do not place any importance on one tree vs another. All are evaluated on their own merits. The spruce trees on the north have not been around as long as the cottonwood. Willis asked how Chris would characterize the cottonwood. Chris said it is a mature cottonwood that is showing typical issues. These trees are notorious for having internal decay and cankers. All trees are evaluated on their own merits. I would say this tree is in the middle of the road as far as health is concerned. It is right where every mature cottonwood is heading or already there. Jay said the question is whether we allow the tree to be cut down. MOTION: Jim moved to allow the cottonwood tree to be removed; second by Willis. Sara said she feels the cottonwood is important to the historic property. Nora commented that cottonwoods are part of the West End fabric. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2014 Sallie said you get a better view of the historic resource without the cottonwood. It is more appropriate for the property to have the driveway off the fence line and give the softness on both sides which it would have had originally. The cottonwood is crowding the driveway right now and looks out of place. Everything as a whole, the tree has five to ten years left and the tradeoff is putting the driveway in an awkward situation by the fence line. Willis said he agrees with Sallie. From a carbon footprint point of view taking down the cottonwood is the proper way to go. Jay said he feels the cottonwoods are iconic in the neighborhood and he would not support the motion. They are all evenly grown and I would like to see it saved. John said that he wants to stay as objective as possible. That tree isn't going to be here long and if the wind takes it down it could fall on the historic resource. The longevity isn't going to exceed ten years. I am in favor of the removal of the tree. Patrick said he agrees with staff and Jay. The historic resource is the cottonwoods and that is what we are here to deal with. The spruces can be replaced rather easily but you can't replace a mature cottonwood. I feel strongly that the cottonwood should be kept. Jim said all living things die and that includes plants and trees. John put it well that we want that house to be here in 100 years. The tree won't be there in five to ten years. We need to put some practicality to these issue. The primary concern is the historic resource. Jay said the reason is for development to destroy the historic resource to not move the driveway 8 inches. It was represented to this board that they could do it without removing the tree. We are cutting down a 60 year old tree so that a driveway doesn't have to move 8 inches. John said with the tree gone you are show casing the historic house more. Willis said as the site design starts to unfold and the carriage doors become apparent we are doing a service to remove the tree as it currently looks awkwardly placed. Sallie pointed out that the tree is not in alignment with the other trees. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2014 Nora said she is not clear why the tree couldn't be replaced so that the rhythm of cottonwoods could be maintained. Chris Foreman said if there is room a tree could be placed there father to the east. If another cottonwood should be planted you need to know that they have an aggressive root system. Sara said there are a series of spruce trees planted in the right-of-way in front of the cottonwoods and you could recommend that those be removed since they are on city property and that would help the visibility of the house. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Sallie, yes; Nora, no; Willis, yes; Jay, no; John, yes; Patrick, no. Motion carried 4-3. 407 E. Hyman Ave. — Minor and Commercial Design Review, continue public hearing MOTION: Jim made the motion to continue 407 E. Hyman minor and commercial design review to 6/25/2014. Motion second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. 1006 E. Cooper— Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval, Public Hearing Debbie Quinn said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I. Amy said last year this property got approval and is now in the process of being sold. The new owner would like a slightly revised plan. It is actually smaller around 667 square feet. There are minor changes to windows and materials. The house is to be picked up on the lot and moved forward slightly with new construction behind it. The landscape plan is similar but there is no longer a fence and some of the materials might be changed. There are light fixtures shown but on the front porch we need something a little less industrial and we are recommending that a cut sheet be provided for staff and monitor. For the historic building it should have wood siding and a wood shingled roof. There are some windows on the house that are absent that need restored and we would need to see cut sheets so that they are wood windows and not clad. Amy said on the new addition the proposal is wood siding and galvalume. It is a steel coated with aluminum and zinc alloy. Staff is only concerned about the 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2014 reflectivity of the material and the applicant will show you the material. The residential design standards don't allow reflectivity to be used on a residential home. The window behind the historic resource is a little more square and we are suggesting that it be modified slightly to be in keeping with the original building. The setback variance above grade has been eliminated but the basement still extends closer to the alley than permitted. We are recommending that the variance be adjusted to four feet. Staff recommends the substantial amendment. The unused allowable FAR would be used as 2 TDR's. Sara Upton represented Rowland Broughton. The new owners do not need the expanse of the project so they basically want to shrink the project and sell the TDR's to finance the house. The original proposal encompasses about 2,500 square feet and a 160 square area bonus to allow for a large roof deck. We are asking for a smaller roof deck. The entire house is scaled down. The courtyard remains the same. We will maintain the 42 inch high wall around the courtyard and we will remove the existing fence. We originally proposed a galvalume siding for the house and the gable ends will be a corrugated metal with a powder finish. The roof and sides would be a standing seam. The siding now will be corrugated metal. The historic house will have wood shingle and clapboard siding. We will retain the chimney and match the brick as best possible. We will use concrete pavers of varying sizes. The new addition will have anodized windows. Nora asked about the window that is becoming narrower. Sara said they are looking at bringing the window up higher. John asked if they will use tumbled brick if the chimney needs redone. Sara said it would be tumbled brick. Jay said he is concerned about the chimney and the idea that it could be destroyed. Amy said anytime a house has to be lifted the chimney has to be dismantled. We always ask applicants to reuse the salvaged materials. The chimney is not internal to the house, it is applied to the outside. More can be determined in the field. The expectation is that if the chimney is original they need to use the existing bricks. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2014 Jay asked the applicant if there is any rebuttal. Sara Upton declined a rebuttal. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #I I related to the property located at 1006 E. Cooper Ave. Motion second by Jay. Jay asked for a friendly amendment that requires that the large square window to be changed and approved by staff and monitor. The windows needs to be more vertically integrated rather than so square shape. I am not approving any sketches. MOTION: Jim accepted the amendment and Jay second it. Willis said he will not support the amendment. What is in the packet is much more approvable. Jim, yes; Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; John, yes; Patrick, yes; Jay, yes. Motion carried 7-0. Work Sessions —301 Lake Ave. — TDR code amendment referral Debbie Quinn said this is a work session and it is just a mere exchange of ideas and is not binding in any way on this commission. Derek Skalko said he is aware. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. OF Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7