Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20140528 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014 Chairperson, Jay Maytin, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, Willis Pember, John Whipple and Patrick Sagal. Absent were Nora Berko and Jim DeFrancia. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Sara Adams, Senior Planner Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Patrick reiterated the purpose and intent of the historic preservation commission that we ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining time, early ski resort and cultural center. Disclosure: John said he works with Allen Richman and he can be unbiased in his decisions. Jay said he has a customer who leases the space at 420 E . Hyman Ave. but there is no a conflict. 120 Red Mountain Road —AspenModern negotiation for voluntary landmark designation and Stream Margin review, Public Hearing Jim True said the public notice is satisfactory and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Amy said this is a voluntary landmark and conceptual approval for a remodel and stream margin review. This house is one of our pristine AspenModern styles. It is a 1962 house designed by Ellen Harland. The house has been in the same ownership until recently and the only remodel occurred in the 70's by Rob Roy. Both architects are covered on the AspenModern website and both have made significant contributions to Aspen's history. The house is more stream lined and there is no decorative glass. The glass box projects over the slope of Hunter Creek and it is quite beautiful. Staff finds that the designation criteria A & C and the integrity criteria E are met. We recommend that HPC support to council designation. In terms of incentives there are no variances being requested other than an exception to the stream margin. The applicant plans on building 500 square 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28 2014 feet less than is allowed on the site and they would like to convert the rest to TDR's which is a council review. They are asking for an expedited permit process and the waiver of related fees. Staff is in the process of finalizing the fees which is a city council determination. The fee waivers are in the ball park of$85,000. The house will stay as it is today. It does appear that there was a car port on the far east end of the house that was enclosed at some time and replaced by a garage on the west end of the house. The applicant would like to turn the garage into living space and build a third garage in the series of transitions of this house and that new garage would be linked to the original building with a connector that will touch on the former car port area. It is sufficiently detached from the building and low profile in detailing. Staff recommends that HPC support the proposed garage. There really are no better locations on the site. There is a small bump out addition that is proposed for a bathroom which would sit on top of a current deck area and there is a small tweak to the roof line. Stream Margin: Because the property is located close to Hunter Creek the Engineering Dept. established top of slope. The existing house was built before we had the concept of top of slope. There is a required 15 foot setback from top of slope. The regulations say that you can do nothing from top of slope and you are also prohibited from construction unless you go through a process such as this. You are to stay under the 45 degree angle. The new garage sits slightly into the 15 foot setback and the new bathroom sits into the 15 foot setback area but it is only a cantilevered element and does not come down to the ground. The roof line of the new garage projects slightly into the 45 degree angle. Staff's recommendation is to support the proposal finding that the review criteria are met with conditions. A re- vegetation will be a requirement to indicate how the top of slope is protected. The applicant will also be required to do a building envelope to protect the site now and in the future. Jay asked what the potential would be for redevelopment. Amy said it is possible for another remodel but they would need HPC approval. Willis asked about the square footage analysis. Amy said the allowable is 4,623 square feet and they are proposing 4,100 square feet. Kim Raymond, architect explained the site plan. The deck will be cantilevered off the ground for the bathroom above it. The existing stairs will be taken out. We are encroaching slightly because we are trying to 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28 2014 preserve the trees in the center that are existing. We will still have to build a retaining area to be able to back out. There will be a glass link. The existing chalet roof went all the way across. In 1972 when Rob Roy added the art studio space he also extended in front of the car port to create what is now the dining room and that is where the head heights are. We are trying to preserve as much of the original character as possible. The existing garage was added in 1972 which will be turned into the master bedroom. Above the new garage will be a new bedroom. The existing building has vertical siding and we are going to horizontal siding on the new building. It will be of the same scale just in a different direction. Jay asked the dimension of the new proposed garage. Kim said the garage is 24 x 25 feet. Kim said the siding on the original building will remain. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Jay identified the issues: Designation, incentives, 2TDR's, $85,000 waiver fees, stream margin impact for the variance on the garage on the north east corner. MOTION: John made the motion to approve resolution #15, 2014 and in favor of the financial incentives and hopefully City Council will approve the TDR's, motion second by Sallie. Jay asked about the garage size because he was wondering if it could be made narrower and not create the need for the variance. The little bathroom is not a concern because it doesn't touch the ground. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; John, yes; Willis, yes; Sallie, yes; Jay, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 420 E. Hyman, Final Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Cont'd public hearing Sara said this is final review and the project was heard by HPC on March 26th. The two main issues that HPC brought up for continuation were the second floor windows. The applicant has restudied the second floor 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28 2014 windows to make them more consistent in size and shape. The applicant has furthered studied the brick coloring so now it is less dark than what they were originally proposing. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. There was mention of a glass railing and that it be a low iron glass so that it doesn't have a green appearance and that is included as a condition of approval. Another condition is that staff and monitor approve the brick coloring onsite and that the applicant will provide a brick mock up onsite. Materials always look different in a room with artificial light. When this project went through subdivision with city council, council put a condition in the ordinance that they have the ability to call up on HPC's final decision. Typically city council does call up after conceptual. At conceptual Council's main concern was that the building was looking like a glass box. When they heard that materials were handled at final they requested a call up after final to make sure the building is not a glass box. Obviously it is not a glass box. Patrick asked how Sara applied the purpose and intent of the historic preservation manual to having a first floor that is completely glass when there is nothing else on the block that is glass when it is the most historic block in Aspen. Sara said she wouldn't say it's the most historic block in Aspen but the proposal meets the design guidelines. It is consistent with the purpose and intent of the program which has to do with ensuring the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center. They are proposing a very prominent store front that is a lot of glazing but in line with the guidelines about having a primarily glass store front and is consistent with what is happening on that block. We do not want to imitate the historic buildings and we think it does a very good job at fitting in and not imitating what is around it with kick plates and things like that. We feel the building is primarily brick. Patrick asked if the guidelines are under the purpose and intent or subservient to the purpose and intent. Sara said there isn't a hierarchy for the purpose and intent and the design guidelines. They are separate tools that HPC and staff and the community uses to inform development on a landmark site or within an historic district. The purpose and intent is inspiration for the guidelines. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28 2014 Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe architects Charles said they restudied the windows and agreed internally that a more respective rhythm of windows on the second floor would be good. We have brought a sample of the brick that will be used. Willis commented that the second floor window head material is now brick. Charles said we were going to run the glass down and now it is brick which will be reviewed onsite. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #16 second by John. Patrick commented that he finds the glass on the first floor and the glass railing to be out of character with the neighborhood and with the historic mining character of Aspen and would request that City Council review that. Jay said the building has come a long way and fits in nicely. Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Willis, yes; John, yes; Patrick, no; Jay, yes. Motion carried 4-1. Jay and Jim are the monitors. MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of May 14th second by John. All in favor, motion carried. 417 & 421 W. Hallam — Correction to Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances, cont'd public hearing Derek Skalko, architect Jake Bittner of Thomas Pheasant Sara this was heard by HPC on March 26th and continued to tonight. HPC is being asked to address a correction to a landmark designation. The property is a duplex and they designated the wrong unit which we think was a clerical error. The entire parcel will be designated. Conceptual review, setback 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28 2014 variances and the 500 square foot FAR bonus is being requested. Relocation is picking up the house and digging a basement and then putting it back in its original location. There is also the proposal for the demolition of the non- historic unit. HPC directed the applicant to pursue exploratory demolition to shed some light on the lack of a front door on the front fagade. There have been changes to the front fagade. There was a bay window added. Staff and Derek looked at the area and there was evidence of a front door being in the location of the east double hung. Staff recommendation on the March 26' hearing saying that the project did not meet the design guidelines regarding mass, height, scale and length of the connector piece and lack of a primary entrance on the historic home. We raised concerns that the FAR bonus criteria were not met and setback variances were not met. Also the residential design criteria were not met. The applicant has studied the connector piece and added four feet to the length so it is now 8 feet and ten feet is the minimum. If HPC approves the eight feet they would need a variance. The height of the east west gable has been reduced. Staff does not feel the changes go far enough to meet the design guidelines. We are concerned about that there really isn't a preservation aspect to the proposal especially asking for the FAR bonus. They are proposing to restore/reconstruct the siding which is great and to restore the roof form which will be field verified. We feel the project does not go far enough compared to other projects that HPC has recently reviewed where you granted the 500 square foot bonus. We think that there are opportunities on this property for the applicant to pursue to achieve the bonus. The applicant does not want to pursue the path of adding a front door into the historic home. There was a front door in the general location of the front porch in the 1904 Sanborn map. The door in the current location is on the side of the house. This is a tough house to review because we don't have good documentation. We have two maps one shows no front porch and then a few years later there is a front porch that appears. There was a front door in the location of the double hung and there is evidence in the framing. We also know that there was a door somewhere when this was originally built. This house was not connected to anything when it was originally built so there was a way to get in. The photograph that was represented is not to be used as a means to allowing a front door to be on the side. We are not sure that 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28 2014 the photograph is of this house. In the past we have required project to actually use the historic home as the primary entrance. We want the historic home to be the focus of the property. When you remove a front door and remove that interface on the property you are no longer highlighting the historic home. HPC has a tough job. You have to find the balance between the incentives that are offered in the code and also preservation of the historic property. We don't feel there is a preservation aspect that is strong enough to support all the incentives that they are requesting. Sara pointed out the level of preservation that HPC is required to review and approve to get the FAR bonus. An example is the Blue Vic 202 N. Monarch and they completely restored the front porch in order to get the bonus. 135 W. Hopkins is another example of the front porch being rebuilt and 320 W. Hallam. They had to remove a dormer which changed the interior layout of one of their rooms because there was evidence that the dormer was added. We do not find that the proposed work meets the bonus review criteria A-H. If the proposed project is approved the next step is to go to council to remedy the designation issue. We do not think that it will meet the criteria for landmark designation. We are concerned that the lack of preservation and the integrity of the site will be in jeopardy and we will be recommending a de-listing. The property barely meets the review criteria right now for integrity but we see the potential that the integrity score could be increased with the restoration of the front door on the front fagade and restoring the siding which they are proposing. Sara said if it is de-listed the FAR bonus would be off the table and their variances would be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Jay said staff is saying if this gets approved it is not worth listing for the reasons mentioned above. Can the city correct the designation without the owner's consent. Jim said the listing itself was in error and the city could fix it. In 1992 it was listed and there was an error as to which side of the property was listed. The whole property should have been listed. Jay commented that the Victorian on the property will be protected and we will change the clerical error as a landmark. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014 Sara said if this is conceptually approved we don't think it meets the designating criteria because the integrity score would be lowered so much that it wouldn't qualify for designation in our opinion. Sallie said Sara said if we approve what has been presented to us she feels strongly that she will recommend that it be delisted. She can recommend that on any property. Derek Skalko, architect Jake Bittner of Thomas Pheasant Marcia Kaplan, owner Derek said the addition was done in the 1970's or early 80's. We are proposing to remove the addition in its entirety. We feel this is a huge step forward in getting the scores to raise the scale of preservation. The historic house is 1888 situated on the Sanborn map with no porch. By 1904 there was a porch added or some indication of that. On the west side we will repair the historic siding. We will also remove the bay window that is not historic. We also agreed to flatten the roof if we find evidence of that. The mass is allocated to the rear of the building. Derek did a power point on how the project has changed. We have further pushed the massing away from the structure. The primary east/west gable entity of this property now situates itself 85 feet from West Hallam which is significant. The separation between buildings is 8 feet so we have from the alley the ability to physically use the alley for construction purposes. It would allow for drainage engineering. Anytime I have gone to a 0 lot line you physically can't build to a 0 lot line anymore. The height of the addition came down and lightwells are no longer encroaching. We believe in the direction we are going. Regarding the demotion we did not rip out the entire wall due to tenant occupancy. What we found was inconclusive and there was no definitive results. J.D. Black did the demolition and said there is no ceil plate, no trimmers and nothing that says that you have X. With the penny nails found and wood alteration did not occur in the 70's it probably occurred pre 1930's. The wood was aged consistently from both sides. If something was shifted or moved in history it was done a long time ago. We just want to do a project that is great for the property and addresses a great deal of historic preservation and is a win win for everyone. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014 Jake said the restoration we are representing is a viable restoration. This is a unique building and we feel it is a worthwhile thing to preserve. From the street view the massing is complimentary and very simple. Marcia Kaplan said when they came to buy they looked for something that had historical significance. We liked the idea that there was something on this property that existed from 1880. Jake has done work for us on our Maryland house. We wanted to construct something that reflected us. We were trying to capitalize the view of Shadow Mountain which is only visible from the second story. We put the living space on the second floor. The simple historic structure would be our bedroom. We wouldn't want the project de-listed. We want the historic nature of it. Willis said there seems to be a disagreement about the outcome of the investigative demolition. Jay asked why the front door wasn't put on the historic structure and what is the unwillingness to do so? Derek said after the conclusion everything is inconclusive and there are no photographs found. We are all guessing and this is very gray. That has to be understood here. We are all trying to do the best that we can. We can't absolutely verify 417 W. Hallam. Jake said he has worked in a lot of historic towns and if you are going to weight that there is lots of evidence that this house had a side door. There is no support for the front door/porch. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Issues: Connector not ten feet. 5 foot rear yard setback variance when ten is required. 4.2 setback variance for the living space 500 square foot FAR bonus Front door Demolition and relocation Mass and scale height of the addition 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014 Patrick said there is lots of potential for this project. I agree with staff and their assessment. Hopefully the applicant will make the historic area the primary part of the residence. Possibly a fake front door could be put on the front. John said he loves the delicate nature of the design. The house is an anomaly and I do not want to see the house delisted. There needs to be some kind of compromise whether it be the addition of the front door. I understand their desire to use the second floor views and if it was my home I would want my bedroom their also. There are a lot of constraints on this particular property. Possibly it could be an entry that was never used. Pulling back the non-historic portion and show casing the small cottage is worthy of consideration for a lot of the things you are asking for. Everyone is stuck on the front entry. The scale is very subordinate and it speaks nicely to the resource and I wish there was concrete evidence to show what was going on. Willis said he generally agrees with John. There is a fundamental disagreement on the excavation. I would hope the applicant would put the front door on in order to proceed. Amy said if you have a front door it should be functional. Sara pointed out that in the 1904 map there is an entrance and a front porch. Design guideline 4.1 talks about the primary entrance. John said there is not enough evidence to solidify one way or another. The function door would be good but maybe the use of it is something to discuss. Sara said they feel there needs to be at least an entrance. Willis said if there was as front porch there would be a front door. Mr. Black could argue any side of the equation. I would side with Sara that there is evidence and hopefully the applicant can make that work. Sallie said she has to listen to staff if it is important to them then it is important to us. I understand why the applicant wants the historic house the bedroom. If you look at our guidelines what you are doing is turning the historic house into the back of the house and the addition the main part of the house. The guidelines want the life of the house to be where the life of 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28 2014 the house would have originally been. Somehow the historic structure needs to look like it is the most important house. Maybe the historic house can be moved forward. Willis said someone needs to stand up for the quality of the design. It all boils down to the front porch, front door issue. The design is good and it has come a long way. Patrick said he heard that mass and scale is also a major issue. Sallie said the issue is how do you make the historic resource special. Jay said he is concerned with the long roof line and flat walls and increased mass. I feel that wall should be broken up with architectural style to make it not look so big. I understand why you took the direction you did because you can argue that there is not enough evidence to say where the door was, but common sense says that that building had a door in it and the exploratory demolition did show evidence that there was a door there. The long sidewalk makes the focal point away from the historic resource. There is great potential for this property but the historic resource need to be prominent on this property. I feel this should be continued for more work and the sentiment of the board is not to approve the project as proposed. Derek said in regards to the exploratory demolition that we did I gave you four physical examples of what is tangibly in existence in the house as it stands today. I would like specific examples pertaining directly to what was observed that made it definitive evidence. Sara said HPC can do a site visit. Jay said the Sanborn map of 1904 indicates a definite porch. John said he feels this project could be great. I am having hard time trying to figure out what the facts are. I do not want to see this delisted. With the unit demolished and the new building pulled away you would see the historic structure. Jim True said the applicant could apply for de-listing, HPC can and council can using the criteria set forth. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28. 2014 Sallie said our charge is to whether or not preserve an historic resource. Marcia Kaplan asked if they added a porch and front door that front door does not go into a living space. Will that solve this problem? Jay said you can do whatever you want inside that house but you should enter from that part of the house. The entrance to be in the historic structure. Willis said the Lake Avenue project had two front doors. Amy said demolition was somewhat limited due to the tenant in the space. I would like to suggest we strip more either from the inside or outside and everyone needs to feel good about the decision of the door etc. Jake said he is hearing if we put a door and porch it is still a no go. Amy said there needs to be a functional entrance into the building and the landscape should read that that is the primary way to the house. That doesn't mean you can't have another door or patio and maybe you don't use it exactly that way but it has to read and function that way. Jim said in this type of hearing you make your decision based on evidence to support your position. There is evidence on the record to support the suggestion that there was a porch and front door. It does not have to be a definitive absolute determination, no it does not. This is not that type of standard of proof. Sallie said there is enough support that you don't have to use that as your front door. There are other cases that we have approved that it looks like a front door and driving by the street you would think it was a front door but there are other ways to get into your house. Patrick said if Valerie Yaw designs the landscape so that it looks like the main entrance and you put a door there how you use it is up to you. A lot of people never use their front door because they come in through the garage. Valerie said the site plan responds that new construction would associate with new construction and the path would follow the new home. I strongly disagree from an historic preservation stand point that a fake sidewalk to the bedroom with a site path to the front door is a bad idea. It is a disservice to 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28 2014 the historic resource when you are not authentic to how people would use the space. Sallie she is not promoting fake anything. I am trying to honor the map. Jay said he wants the door where there was evidence of a door and that should be the entrance to the building. Willis pointed out that there are two maps 1880 showing no porch and the Sanborn map showing a porch. There are two pieces of evidence that we can base our arguments on. Sallie said why would you put a porch on if the front door wasn't there. John said he would prefer to see a slight recreation of the design. Willis asked what does "original" condition in terms of preservation mean. Sara said the period of significance is 1880's to 19 hundred. The board needs to decide where or not a front porch is appropriate. Our argument has to do with the front door. There are certain things that we know, 1904 there was a front porch. The 1880's map doesn't help us with the entrance because it just shows the footprint. Sallie said it would be faux if you put a front door on it. I would prefer no front porch be there. With the design team you could get everything you want. MOTION: Patrick moved to continue the application to July 23rd, second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. -- f �GLjt (.Ci. �_ � Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13