Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20140611 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11 2014 Vice-chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, John Whipple, Patrick Sagal, Nora Berko and Jim DeFrancia. Absent was Jay Maytin. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Disclosure: John stated that he will recuse himself because he was public noticed on 435 W. Main Street. Sallie said she has spoken to some of the principles of 301 Lake about contracting work and has not been engaged in anything. She can be impartial and has not had any financial gain. Nora said Derek did a collective family lot split and it has nothing to do with these projects. 435 W. Main Street— Aspen Jewish Center - Substantial Amendment to Major Development approval, Public Hearing Exhibit I —Public Notice Amy said the proposal is a substantial amendment to the project. Half of the project is currently under construction. We have six original tourist cabins that are being preserved as part of this project along the alley and on Third Street. We are here to discuss the parsonage house which will be the residence for the Rabi and his family and other functions with the congregation. HPC granted approve a year ago for this new home. The approved version was a very steeply pitched gabled roof which is around 38 feet high. The applicant would like to look at ways to drop that height down. In the packet are concepts for a flatter roof and a flatter but still gabled roof. Our concern is how the building is ending up reading. Staff suggested the possibility of a flat roof building which could be the lowest profile solution but it is also different than the other structures on the site. Staff is concerned with the material and detailing. We are looking for some 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11 2014 kind of residential expression, possibly a porch. Staff is recommending continuance until July 9th. This is a residential structure and needs to read that way. Rabi Mintz said when construction of the main building happened and we looked out the second floor we found fantastic views that we didn't have before to the east. The changes in the roof are being triggered by the people in the community. Arthur Chabon, architect Arthur showed the approved footprint of the parsonage. The footprint to cabin 19 is 27'4"and the front has an added porch. We developed a shallow pitch design with a gable that is entirely in stone. Another design was to have the gable entirely in wood. Both of these schemes retain the idea of double gables, the main gable of the sanctuary diminishing down to the scale of the parsonage and the smallest scale the cabins. The porch is now applied to the front instead of a wrap around. Another design we explored is a flat roof which is an expression of the parsonage. It unifies the parsonage to the sanctuary. It ends the length of the sanctuary and repetition of the gables. We also feel the flat roof relates better to the scale of the cabins. The detailing would be the same as the sanctuary, the siding is the same siding and the stone would be the same and the windows the same. The fagade of the flat roof design relates to the sanctuary and it keeps the block unified. Willis said it is admirable to want to collect the views and bring them into the sanctuary. Jim asked staff what specifically should be restudied. Amy said a little more work on the fenestration and materials to make sure they are related to the fact that this has become a modernized flat roof with the heavy lintel posts on the front porch. Arthur said the building reads as a modern building. You can now see into the building from the courtyard. Willis said the eastern window of the sanctuary has been enlarged. Amy said it received staff and monitor approval to slightly enlarge that window to become a view window. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11 2014 Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Jim said he fundamentally supports the requests. I would defer to staff to sort out some of the details. Willis said the existing construction looks very good. The design is close but not there yet. I agree that some of the rustic detailing in a modern structure is a little conflicted. If the flat wall and flat roof is western I am confused. Here we have stone representing Western as opposed to being contemporarily expressed. It looks a little unauthentic with the heavy timbers. I'm not sure Western should be pursued. The scale is there. Sallie said she agrees with staff that the primitive Western detailing is confusing because it is not on the main building. Nora said the board struggled hard to make the block cohesive. I am feeling a huge incongruity. Is the benefit to the congregation of having a view at the expense of the public who doesn't go in there. The windows do not relate to the cabins. The stone is also a concern. I do support the scale as it steps up. Sallie said it could be accomplished with more glass and less stone. Willis said staff mentioned that the fenestration should relate more strongly to the synagogue. Nora said guideline 11.2, 11.3, 11.6 and 11.8 are not met. Patrick said the pitched roof really fit in well and was designed well. I see the compromise because of the views wanting to lower the roof. The low pitch is more in keeping with the guidelines. Flat roofs are discouraged in residential areas in the guideline. It might flow better if there was a soffit around the parsonage. The stone looks too non-residential. If you look at the east end of the sanctuary one sees the tall window with the wood and the stone below it, the stone doesn't overwhelm. I would like to see a wrap around porch that was originally done. Willis said he supports staff recommendation and they are very close. There are minor tweaks such as cladding and I think with a lighter touch and 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11 2014 maybe less stone this would be successful so that it doesn't look like the Alamo you will get the residential vibe that you are looking for. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 435 W. Main until July 9" to allow dialogue with staff and the applicant; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Arthur asked for a little more definitive direction. HPC direction: - - - - Less stone Windows to look more residential and relate better to the sanctuary. The flat roof is OK. Jim said staff knows what the HPC is looking for. 301 Lake Avenue —AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development and Variances, Public Hearing John was seated. Debbie said the affidavit of notice has been provided. Exhibit 1. Amy said the AspenModern program has been in place since 2011 and it is on a voluntary basis. The Lundy family has owned the house for 40 years. This is a negotiation to keep this building as part of the community. We have an application for voluntary designation and then we will talk about the design review for the proposed addition, variances and incentive to be proposed to City Council. Council will make the decision on the entire package. Designation: Amy said Victor Lundy lives in Texas and is a highly respected master architect. He set up his practice in Sarasota Florida and made a huge impact on the architecture in Florida at the time. He then moved to New York City and did work for the Smithsonian and world's fair. Two of his buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1980 this building was photographed and it was only 8 years old. The building is completely unaltered and the family has just recently made the decision to sell the property. The building meets all of the designation 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION-COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2014 criteria. We would like to see this house preserved and not lost. The integrity scoring rated 18 out of 20 points. It is one of the best examples of modern architecture in Aspen. Regarding the design review staff supports the placement and this is an excellent addition to the building. The structure cannot be moved. The east facing curtain wall is very important and an identifying feature of the building and staff would not support any addition that crossed in front of that plane. There are variances being requested. The overall scale is low and sympathetic to the building and it is a quality piece of architecture. The addition is slightly elevated off the ground as if it is floating and that is a nice contrast and a good relationship to the more massive important historic building that is being preserved. Staff recommends conceptual design review. We have suggested a modification in the length of the addition for two reasons: It is too close to the west property line and requires a variance. On the east end of the property it projects slightly over the property line and it is also close to the alley lot line. We have suggested a reduction in length to some degree to provide a better setback where it impacts the neighbor. Benefits requested: The applicant is asking for a waiver of permit fees in the calculation around $200,000. And the FAR bonus of 500 square feet. Staff feels the project is worthy of the bonus. Some maintenance and restoration work on the building is needed. There is also a request for a square footage bonus of approximately 420 square feet. They are also asking for a slightly larger garage exemption. The existing chimney is costing them 200 square feet of floor area and they are asking for an exemption on that. The additional square footage request is around 750 square feet. They are also asking for a site coverage bonus from City Council because they are trying to spread out their square footage onsite instead of going taller. Staff appreciates the fact that this is a one story. They are also requesting permission to cantilever out into the public right-of- way. They have a triangular property and have an enormous right-of-way of 80 feet in depth. The cantilever might be a controversy because the city would have to vacate and deed the land to the property owner. They are also asking for a ten year vested rights rather than the 3 years. There are also some orientation issues that need to be dealt with. Staff is recommending approval with the reduction of the length of the addition. Amy said four letters are in your packet and a letter from the Lundy family which was sent to the HPC separately. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11 2014 Derek Skalko, architect William Barrenger, one of the managing partners of 301 Lake Derek said they feel this project is a win for the community. Derek said he met with Victor a few years ago and he is an incredible human being. It is a triangular lot and essentially situated ten feet off of the west side yard. The primary views are from North Street and Lake Avenue. The mass will go to the south, the alley fagade. The view planes of the property are intact from the west, east and north facades. The use of light and shadow is important to the project. The house itself is at 22 feet and three feet under the height limit. As it moves to the alley it is 20 feet high. All the predominant masses are no higher than 1'x.6-inches in height. We are retaining the - - - existing building and the fire place entity is unchanged. We pushed back the massing three additional feet in the garage. We also pushed the building back one foot further from the alley. We are not encroaching in the alley. We are also requesting a side yard variance. There is also an internal court well that produces the amenable light that we are seeking to drive the majority of the mass below grade. We are integrating the existing architecture but not overwhelming the architecture. We were trying to look at materiality that was light. We are floating the building to lighten the experience of it. It is elevated 2'6" inches off the yard. This house was originally designed as a pavilion in the park. From the easterly side it is all open and airy. All of our massing is at least 8 feet below the height limit. You have 35 feet between the old and new with a connecting entity. The addition will be more prominent to the Lundy residence. Willis asked about the light well. Amy said there is only one section that exceeds the height limit that council will have to review. Patrick asked if a railing would have to go around the light well. Derek said we are thinking about a low metal glazing 1/2 inch tall around the light well. John asked about the glazing on the historic building. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2014 Derek said we need to consider that the glazing is failing and structurally it is also failing. We can replicate it but will work with the HPC. Willis said the applicant is asking for a lot and we haven't see a request like this before. Mitch Haas said you haven't seen the crown jewel of the AspenModern program before either. A lot of the requests are technicalities. Nora asked if all the square footage allowed is being asked for. Derek said we are asking for the square footage to develop an amenable below grade area. Above grade we are not near that point. William said assuming we get the 500 square foot bonus from HPC the square footage would be 4,174 square feet of FAR. We have 3,937 habitable FAR. Patrick asked about covering the light well. Derek said if we cover the light well we get more square footage. Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Martin Block, profession of physics and astronomy. Martin said he has not been privy to the revised model and he is a neighbor. The model doesn't show where his property is. One concern is safety issues. We really support the historic nature of the Lundy house and it should be declared historic. All my comments are on the addition. You can' t get through the fence but I hear it has been moved back from 1'10' to 5 feet. Why it isn't moved back to adjacent where the Lundy house is I don't know because it would make a lot more sense. It is 8 inches from the alley. The roof is flat and there will be a pile up of snow on the roof. As it melts there is only 8 inches from the alley the water will flow off in the morning and in the afternoon it will freeze and we will have a skating rink. There is not enough setback. The setbacks keep the alley amenable for transportation. With an 8 inch you can't even put a garbage can out. Every setback is being violated. There is a west setback of 11'9" and required ten feet and the proposed is 1'10". On the east side existing is 11'6" required 10' proposed 8", which is the alley. That is an incredible thing to ask for. We live in a 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2014 Bayer house, an historic designated Herbert Bayer BauHaus and we are the only adjacent neighbor. We voluntarily became historic some 20 years ago and we are the first modern historically declared house in Aspen. We are delighted with historic designation. When we built our duplex we situated it in a way that our house wouldn' t be blocked by view, light and air. This vertical structure, the garage, takes away the light from our bedroom windows that are slightly below ground. It blocks the light from our windows. We object on the basis that it diminished our property value. All houses should have fundamental access to light and air. Martin said he sent the plans to Samuel Kaplan who is a retired architectural critic for the Los Angeles Times. After seeing the plans he said the historic land use designation here seems to be used as a fagade to build a Trojan horse. The design reflects pernicious and avaricious intentions that ignore the scale and character of the neighborhood. For modern architects including Lundy light and air were the by words of their movement. This addition which flawns every zoning setback to crowd an irregular shaped lot at the expense of all its neighbors expressing architectural intentions diametrically opposed to those of the modernists. We, the Blocks strongly oppose the addition on safety grounds, deprivation of our rights to light and air and consequently de-evaluation of our property. It is like robbing Herbert Bayer to pay for the Lundy addition in the developer's pocket book. Willis said the Block's are the neighbor to the west. I would guess they are five feet to the property line. Martin said they do not have one variance and comply with the code. We are the only unmodified BauHaus that Herbert Bayer built in Aspen. This structure will cut off our morning light completely. Paul Taddune, attorney commended Derek for an excellent presentation. Neighboring property owners should be given the opportunity to be part of the process from the beginning in the work session. If they were able to participate you could see what the potential impact might be. I would request that you come over to the Block house see what the impact is going to be. You are asking for every concession from the City. What is the final square footage of the property? Mrs. Block said they bought the Bayer house in 1965. We have been in Aspen since 1962 when the Center of Physics was created. Martin created winter conferences, made public lectures' possible in the Wheeler Opera 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2014 House and Paepcke Auditorium. We live at 309-311 North Street and it is an historically designated modern Herbert Bayer BauHaus. We are the only next door neighbor. The BauHaus movement survived the Holicost through the effort of Herbet Bayer to keep the modern architecture spirit alive here. Our house was designated about 20 years ago and it is our good fortune to live in this BauHaus. The proposed addition and many variances are unnecessarily destroying the beauty of the Bayer house that we live in. We plead that the developers conform to the setback codes. Loyal Durand one of the neighbors a block and a half away. The problem is the crowding of the lot which is partly due to the setbacks. There is much mass toward Triangle Park. I feel the architects could trim things back a little more without losing to much. Converting the garage to a smaller garage would talk care of the problem on the west side. It is a park like setting. A fence would destroy the general appearance of the lot. R. J. Ciccero said he served on the HPC many years ago. I live in the Lamb Schilling house which is across the alley form this building. Pushing the show down the alley when you only have 8 inches will push the snow toward us. I would like to see that the guidelines are followed about plantings along the alley, setbacks etc. Patrick excused himself. Bill Stirling said he was the broker for the sons of the Lindy family and sold the house to the current owners. My goal was to seek a buyer that would landmark the house. All the people who have spoken have made valid and interesting points. It is a balancing act with the goal of land marking and balancing that with the requested incentives and that is where the HPC comes in. It is in your wisdom to determine what is in the long term best interest of the community. Martin's changed situation occurred when the duplex was built which blocked southern sun. HPC needs to figure out how to keep the Lundy house as an icon because it is probably the most internationally acclaimed single family house almost in Aspen. Jim Weaver said he came here in the mid 70's and rented 311 North Street form the blocks. I am familiar with the neighborhood and ambiance of the neighborhood. I am also well aware of the openness from Triangle Park. The corner of the addition obscures visually the Lindy house including the 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2014 light well if you need a railing around it. Maybe the garage could be lowered. Derek said there is a huge amount of inaccuracy. The Block's were informed of the five foot sideyard setback and so was Paul Taddune. In regards to the alley the Blocks have a 7 foot high fence along their property. From a standpoint of light and air there are trees on the Block property that are situated probably 50 to 60 feet in height and we do have story polls erected that are very difficult to see. We took photographs from the Block's downstairs. The story polls are not visible. We are physically blocked by their own vegetation. We are considerably below the 25 foot height limit. Mitch Haas said the garage is 14 feet tall set 5 feet off the property line. The Block's property sits about two to three feet about this property. If their trees weren't there they would see is about an 11 foot tall structure. Along the alley frontage our setback is reduced but we are not going to put up a fence because the house is so close to the alley. The City won't allow drainage into the alley because they have stringent stormwater and drainage requirements. Willis said this is a complicated proposal and has many moving parts. We all want this project preserved. It is a fantastic house. Derek did a great presentation and we had valuable comments from the public. From Triangle Park the house is a pavilion in a park. It captures the views from the two story windows. When walking around the park one would never see the front of the building of the historic resource. That fundamentally goes against guideline 10.3, 10.8 concerning about keeping the character of the historic resource to remain prominent. We need to see how this design affects the terrain outside of the footprint of your property. The vertical dimension is somehow off. I can't believe that the garage has to be between 14 and 15 feet tall. Also the one story element is 17 feet tall and the master bedroom is 14 feet tall. I don't see the proportions being sympathetic to the master piece Lundy did. Sallie said the addition is pushed back and respects the Lundy house. I agree with Willis about the 14 foot garage and the concern of the neighbors. I am looking at the overall balance of being able to keep the Lundy project vs not having it at all. What could go there would be two huge duplexes instead of saving the Lundy house. Maybe the master bedroom doesn't have to be that tall. I am also OK with the ten year vesting. The open area in the front 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2014 lowers everything around the Lundy house and makes the house more prominent. I also have no problem with the requested setbacks. Protecting the view from Triangle Park will be impossible. Willis said when you are in the house and look out you see the meadow and when you are in the park you see the pavilion in the meadow. Sallie said she doesn't know how you keep the Lundy house prominent in the front of the lot and keep the view from the park. Jim said the garage height could come down. I would not be concerned with the drainage because Engineering will address that. There should be some sensitivity to the neighbors. Some of the views are already obscured by shrubs and trees and I am not sure buildings with adjustments in height will be any less offensive. It is a very important piece of architecture and the architect has done a good job so far. Nora thanked the public for their comments. We want to keep the house and the addition should be subservient and quiet. The height could be brought down so that it doesn't impact the Block's house as much. There is no point in designating the Lundy house if you can't see it because there is a new building in front of it. It is a nice addition and you would see the Lindy house more if the bedroom could be lowered. The interior courtyard is almost like a water feature. John said he sympathizes with the neighbors and applicant. What will be there in 50 years from now is important. If we are able to protect this house that is the goal. I am in support of the application and with some minor adjustments we can all become happy. At some point the meadow could be gone. The garage could be lowered a bit. William said allowable single family FAR with the 500 square foot bonus would be 4,174 FAR and we are proposing 3,937 habitable FAR above grade. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 301 Lake Avenue to July 9th and I would encourage the applicant to take into account the comments received this evening and make the appropriate modifications and submit them to staff. Motion second by John. All in favor, motion carried. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2014 MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. , Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12