Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20140709 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 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. Nora Berko and Jim DeFrancia were absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant Attorney Sara Adams, Senior Planner Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of June 25th second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Brian McNellis talked about the Red Butte Cemetery and its inappropriateness to have a review in front of City Council without HPC approval. Brian requested that the HPC submit a letter recommending denial of the application of the Red Butte proposal for an ADU. The ADU diminishes the character of the cemetery. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director said HPC doesn't get involved in use. City Council is reviewing the use Monday night. Amy said there are no exterior changes to the proposed ADU building. Patrick asked that the commission continue to ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and culture center. John will recuse himself on 435 W. Main Street. Debbie Quinn said there is a quorum but to proceed three 3 affirmative votes are required for approval. 435 W. Main Street— Substantial Amendment to Major Development approval— cont'd public hearing. Amy said there is an approved design for the parsonage building. Now that the sanctuary building is up there is concern that the parsonage building will 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 take away the view from the view out of the sanctuary. There is now a gabled element over the entry into the structure. We would like to see a longer ridge line but it doesn't work well with their program. The footprint of the project has not changed. We are only looking at a height reduction and some changes to the materials. Staff supports the gabled roof option and that the stone be held to the foundation level like it is on the sanctuary. The design does have a nice relationship to the man building. We are also suggesting that one set of windows be reviewed by staff and monitor. Arthur Chabon, architect presented comparisons of the different designs. What was successful and is carried through all the design is the scale. We achieved a good relationship between the voids of the cabins. There is a descending scale of the mass from the sanctuary, parsonage and down to the cabins. The building is three or four feet away from Main Street and the interior floor plan is identical as to what was approved. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Exhibit I— Colored rendering Patrick said the design has morphed from Aspen's character as a mining town. From the distance of the peak to the gable you would still see the mountain. Guideline 10.09 flat roofs should be avoided. The horizontal windows are also not in keeping with the guidelines. Sallie was seated at 5:30 p.m. Willis said he is willing to approve this and the design works well. The same detailing and thickness of the wall on the sanctuary should carry over to the parsonage. The windows can be worked out with staff and monitor. Sallie agreed that staff and monitor should take a look at the stone and windows. Jay said he also believes staff and monitor can handle the windows and cladding and I would include the entire building. The approved project looked like a home and this looks like a mixed use building and that confuses what is going on. The matching gable works well. I would 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 request that staff and monitor look at all the cladding on the building to make it more like a residence rather than a mixed use building. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #19 and to change condition #2 that staff and monitor would approve all exterior materials. No second. Motion died for lack of a second. Debbie suggested a language change: exterior material to be approved by staff and monitor. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #19 as written; second by Sallie. Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Willis, yes; Jay, no; Patrick, no. Jay said Willis wants the stone used at the foundation level of the building to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor and mine was to include that part but expand it to include looking at the entire building exterior. Willis said if you give them the ability to restudy siding the monitor will get confused and it will end up coming back to the entire board. If you lessen the stone it will feel more residential and I propose we approve it as written. Sallie said if you allow the siding on the entire building to be reviewed again it is opening up too many problems and you get the same thing accomplished if we approve it as written. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #19, 2014 as written; second by Sallie. Roll call vote: Patrick, no; Jay, yes; Willis, yes; Sallie, yes. Motion carried 3-1. 301 Lake Avenue — AspenModern negotiation for voluntary landmark designation, conceptual major development and variances, continued public hearing. John was seated. Debbie Quinn said letters were received regarding this application, one in particular from Paul Taddune on behalf of the Block's raised an issue of improper ex parte contacts based on a work session and a site visit by members of this board. Mr. Taddune did not request that anyone step down. He did raise the issue that it was arguable an unsalvageable ex parte contact and I felt it necessary to inquire each member of this commission whether or 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 not anything was said or done at the site visit or at the work session that would keep each of them from being fair and impartial in connection with the public hearings being held tonight and at the last meeting. Each one assured me that they could be fair and impartial and make their decision based upon what is presented at the public hearing. Based upon that there will be no further discussion about work sessions, site visits and ex parte contact. There is nothing else that this board can do to resolve the issue. Amy said the previous meeting was June 11th. Amy said the architect will give specifics of the project. There are about 300 designated properties in town out-of 2000 properties. 15% of the lots in town are carrying the honor for everyone and it is a big responsibility. HPC is here to work with property owners to make sure we get the best outcome that we can under the development pressures that we encounter. The preservation program has been here since the early 70's. Designations were with or without the owner's consent. Designations from the forties, fifties and seventies are voluntary only. It is a voluntary discussion and we can either work out an arrangement that is the best we can do for everyone or they can proceed with other options for the property. Historic properties have development rights. The property on Lake Avenue is just over 9,000 square feet and the minimum lot size in the West End is 6,000 square feet. This is a little bit bigger than normal and is oddly shaped. There is a house on the lot that was built in 1972 and designed by Victor Lundy who is considered a very important modernist. This is the only building in Aspen that he designed. We would like to see this building remain intact. The building is set on the west side of the lot and it cannot be moved. The addition is placed on the alley and it is the only reasonable place to do a project that allows the applicant to use the development rights. The project does have variances and most projects in the last 25 years have requested variances. Amy presented elevations for the public to see regarding site coverage and the proposed addition and the building envelope. Exhibit I. If this building was demolished someone could build approximately 4,500 square feet with two detached structures and they could also land TDR `s and they could have two garages along the alley. It is unusual to see a one story addition, usually they are two-story additions. The building is just under the height limit of 25 feet. The addition is subservient and staff supports the proposal as designed. The applicant has also made some height reductions since the last meeting. Council will be the final decision on this project. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION -- - - - - - - - - MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 John said if this is demolished there would be no hearing and the ridge line could be 35 feet tall. Amy pointed out that the floor area allowed on the lot is 4,094 square feet above grade. The owner could also acquire 2 TDR's at 500 square feet each. Derek Skalko, presented 301 Lake Ave. Derek said this is an unmovable building. We are only touching the south fagade of the building. We are only requesting removal of the glazing area that extends out from the masonry wall. If we could move it we would. North Street and Lake Avenue are the major view planes and we tried to leave those intact. Our emphasis is on the southern region of the property which is the alley. The majority of the building is 12.9" tall and it is not a continuous wall that runs along the alley. The story polls are very clear defining the property line and where the additional work will be done. We intend to retain the fire place and we have brought down the height further which is a concern of the neighbor. Typically there is ten feet separation from old and new. The Lundy house is 22 feet tall on the highest point the north elevation and it goes down to 20 feet on the alley. We are also situated in a hole. We have further reduced the garage height 3 feet and we are subservient to the neighborhood. Another concern is the sight lines from Triangle Park. The house was never intended to look out to Triangle Park. Our building is lower than the children's playground set. We are preserving Lake Avenue and North Street. There is 23 feet between the neighboring property. The trash and electrical box are not on the property in the alley. Mitch said they would still like the discussion with council about the encroachment into the right-of-way. The addition is a one story. The above grade square footage is less than the allowable. We are 3,930 above grade and the allowable for a duplex is over 4,000 square feet. Derek said in regards to how the square foot ratio works in the City of Aspen it is essentially exposed vs. unexposed. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Jay reviewed the issues that were brought up at the last meeting. Martin Block said he respectfully submitted as a physicist the calculation to find out what the proposed garage would do in terms of light and air from my property. The amount is 21.35 degrees of light. The sun rises in the east 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 and sets in the west and I am the neighbor on the north south line and on the west of the property. In the morning I will have 22 degrees of light cut off. I have submitted violations of city ordinance 28 for the Lundy house. Gail Block submitted photographs from the south to the HPC. Due to the various zoning variances requested I feel there is competition among historic homes surrounding the Lundy house and I feel that staff gives the trophy to Victor Lundy over Herbert Bayer and the Queen Ann Victorian. We all need to co-exist happily. There shouldn't be a competition in Aspen. We are a previously designated historic home in Aspen. I feel that good setbacks make good neighbors. The way this structure will be built we will end up with a view that looks like an alley in the commercial core of Aspen. The characteristic of the West End has not been discussed. We aren't allowed to build fences that are 15 feet tall but you are allowed to have a 15 foot solid wall in a residential neighborhood. The West End is different than the East End in terms of setbacks. Mrs. Block said we have been threatened and were told if we don't approve of what we are going to do we will simply tear it down and do a duplex. Paul Taddune said there is a practice in play here and a tradition in play. The practice is that you come in and ask for as much development as you can attain and the tradition is that you try to reconcile and harmonize the relationship of the properties to each other which is not being taken into account here particularly with regard to the box like garage structure. If you put a 15 foot structure that has no relationship to the Lundy house what you will be doing is impeding into the little space light and air of the Block property. Focusing and harmonization which can occur in this case and we are only talking about the garage I request you provide your expertise and try to work toward a solution on that one component. We are all in agreement that the Lundy house should be salvaged. This design, the box like structure has no humility. It should be a humble project in relationship to the Lundy house and it has no humility. R. Stephen Barry said he came to Aspen in 1946. The Lundy house and its property surrounding it are certainly clearly worthy of historic designation. It is a beautiful addition to Aspen's own relics. The pattern with the addition will convert the green semirural area, the setting into a building. As it is that setting makes the Lundy house worthy of the historical designation. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 Paul Orville said he came to Aspen in the 60's. I looked at the plans and the property and walked along the alley. There is no reason at all to accept the setback for the garage and it is an un-neighborly thing to do. The Block's should have to give written consent for that variance. Linda Calitsky said her concerns have already been discussed. Bill Stirling said he has been involved with a lot of preservation in the West End and the process is an art and science. It is critical that we preserve AspenModern because it tells Aspen's story. Incentives are awarded and lot splits are available. They could do a lot split here but they are not asking for one. There are a lot of giant trees in back on the Lundy property line. The vegetation would keep the new structure from have negative impacts on the Block property. The yard is wild and un-kept but it is not a park. The upper half of the duplex that was built a few years ago compromises their winter sun that they used to get. We want the decision to be in the long term best interest of the community as a whole. R.J. said he lives in the 1893 Queen Ann Victorian which is designated. I am a former member of the HPC. Lets not be duped here. The threat is that they will tear it down if you don't give them these things. HPC has to weight what it is worth to set a precedent that every other developer can come in here and say you gave them this and we have to have it too. The Lundy house is a nice house but if it gets torn down it gets torn down just like Mrs. Paepcke's house go torn down. They are developers and are not going to live in this house. Mrs. Block said she resents being threatened by the three people at the table. Jay identified the issues: Setback variance Mass and scale 140 foot wall on the south side Impacts on the Block's property Landscape being part of the historic fabric. Willis asked Amy to identify what the setbacks are. Amy said on the west the applicant is providing five feet where ten feet is required. On the east they are requesting a 0 yard setback where ten feet is 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 required. Because this is a single family home instead of two detached structures or duplex they are subject to a combined side yard where the two side yards which are ten feet each add up to a larger number they are providing five feet where 31 feet is required. Derek said whether it is this scenario or another scenario there will be a wall of construction on the south. We are at 12.9 in height for 70 % of our building. We are ten feet under the building height limit. Let say it gets demolished. We could come back with up to 30 feet in height. We are strategically trying to push ourselves out of the view plane of the existing Lundy house and that is why we are to the south of the property. Mitch Haas said along the alley we have 1.6 setback by the garage and up to 4 feet elsewhere with undulations. We are not having a six foot fence along the alley. You will have architectural undulations. On Lake Avenue there is 35 feet of landscaped right-of-way between the actual road and our property line. Derek said he has met with the Block's on their property twice and I was only extended kindness. I asked the Block's what would make them happy. The conclusion would be that the garage move forward on the site or vacate any kind of structure to the rear of the property. What that means essentially is vacating 40 feet behind the house to do nothing. In reality some of that area would be used. One of the driving reasons we have not gone to the front of the property is from the standpoint of the Parks and Engineering Department. They are very protective about the vegetation off the right-of- way along the north side of the property. Adding another garage at a three- way stop would not be approved. They referred us back to the land use code and said there is an alley and that is what they are for, to use it for your garage and service utilities. Exhibits: I. Letters II. Paul Taddune's letter III. Additional letters IV. Colored photographs submitted by Gail Block V. Amy's elevations Patrick said he is only talking about setback, mass and scale. The setback from the Block's property is 5 feet and the building height has been reduced. If the Lundy house was torn town it could be 10 feet and they could building 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 a 25 foot high house and that would block all their light. From the Block's back yard there is a pine tree that would take out most of the light anyway. With the reduction of mass and scale the application is appropriate. John said the height of 12'9" is very respectful. If this home is not preserved in some manner there will be a double loss of sunlight to you. I got involved with this commission to preserve structures and my charge is what is going to be here in 50 years. If we don't preserve this structure now it won't be there. The incentives will be handled by City Council. Willis suggested a ten foot setback between the Block's and that dimension would not kill the project. To see a zero setback at the east and south east corner particularly could be addressed. The articulation of the walls is busy compared to the Lundy house. The northeast corner of the master bedroom is the tipping point for cutting off site lines. Sallie said she is in support of staff's recommendation. The route taken keeping everything back is a good design and the most sympathetic design. Regarding the triangle point it should be decided by City Council. In reality something much bigger could go there. The gain of saving the Lundy house offsets the loss that some of the neighbors might get. Jay said the alley side is really the back yard. Preservation additions should go in the back yard. Because the house is not physically movable you have to work with what you have. Not one person thanked the applicant for reducing the height, mass and scale of the building. The building is a one story addition and is respectful of the neighbors and the historic resource. The foliage that creates the border of the alley makes it different than the actual condition that is there. If you removed the shrubbery that is overgrown and encroaching into the alley it would be like another lane a car could drive down in some places. Our job is to look at this project and how it affects the historic resource and the neighborhood that it is in. The structure as proposed is a good outcome. I went to the site and the impact that was implied to the Block's was blown out of proportion a little bit. There is so much foliage between the two homes. I struggle with the garage but support the cantilever system into the public right-of-way. This project basically preserves the primary facades of the property with the landscape design. The alley is the place we should be removing trees and building additions. If you moved this addition to another spot on the property you would change the streetscape more than this does. As far as view, sun and 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 sight there are only a few protective view planes in the city and none of them are near this area. By bringing the garage down to 12'9" is something that should be celebrated and not discouraged. The design is a great way to preserve the Victor Lundy home and preserving the primary facades of it and the landscape. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #20, 2014 and strike out part of condition #4; second by John. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; John, yes; Willis, no; Sallie, yes; Jay, yes. Motion carried 4-1. 28 Smuggler Grove Road — Conceptual Major Development, floor area bonus, setback variances, parking waiver, demolition of non-historic additions, relocation, residential design standard variance, public hearing Exhibit I —Affidavit of posting Sara Adams said overall we are recommending continuation of the project. The project is for two detached single family homes. 28 Smuggler Grove was designated in 2008. We feel there should be a 10 foot connector between the homes instead of the 9 1/2 foot that is proposed. A ten foot connector is necessary in order to push a two story addition far enough behind the one story historic home to have it subservient. We all recommend that the applicant look at reducing the width of the addition to help it be subservient to the landmark. The proposed new home needs a common thread between the new proposed architecture and the historic home. The applicant is requesting demolition approval to the non-historic addition to the rear of the home which we are supportive of. They are also requesting relocation of the historic home and we are supportive of that. They are also requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus. There are some changes that need to occur in order to get the bonus. The front porch was removed and could be reconstructed. They are also requesting setback variances and staff is supportive of those variances. The size and shape of the lot make it difficult to gain a 25 foot setback. They are also requesting a waiver of one parking space. Because there are two single family homes they are required to have two parking spaces per home. Right now there is no on-site parking and there is no alley access. They are proposing three parking spaces and request the waiver of one and staff is supportive of that. John Rowland, Sarah Upton, Brian Rubenstein presented. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 Sarah said the clients vision is to separate all of the allowable square footage into two modest homes that could fit onto the site. We will preserve the historic structure and remove the addition on the back. It sits squarely in the center of the lot and our intent is to push it over to the east and provide enough breathing room in between the two structures. The historic resource houses the living room, office and entry area. The linking element is comprised of a dining room. The addition includes a kitchen and a stair to get to the addition on the back. Sarah said the new house has a garage and parking for one additional car. It has a front porch and a master suite that encompasses the rear of the house. The setback on the sides are ten feet for each side and our request is that we be allowed to use the five foot utility easement that exists on either side of the lot as our setbacks and we will push the window wells up to the utility easement. In reality the mass of the building is 7'9" back from the property line. The area where we are requesting a side set variance on the historic is the corner of the house and the window well to get natural light into the basement. On the driveways we discussed with Engineering that typically only one curb cut is allowed and if we were to have one shared driveway for this entire lot the cars would be forced to park in between the new and old home and would create a parking lot effect that would detract from any prominence given to the historic resource. Engineering has said they will allow two separate curb cuts. The new house has a basement with two guest suites and a family room, powder room and laundry. On the mail level there is the master suite, garage, entry and guest suite. Upstairs there is the kitchen dining area with views to Smuggler and a back deck and a living room. John Rowland presented new elevations - Exhibit II John said the floor plans have not changed with the exception of a stair. Sarah said the rationale for the setbacks are that the lot is very shallow and our intention is to provide as much prominence to the historic resource as possible. We are requesting a variance 7.8 back to the property line where 25 is required. The resource has a very long front gable element that is uncommon and we want to give it prominence to view as you come down Smuggler Grove Road. We are also requesting a front variance on the new house but it is modest. 25 feet is required and we are providing 17 feet. We are changing the proportion of the two story mass in back of the historic 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 house. Most of the changes can be seen in the roof plan and elevations. The stair to the roof deck has been moved to the west side. The decks have been reduced in size 15% of the allowable. Our intent is to restore the historic house to its original condition as much as possible. We will look at the windows and determine what was there. The chimney has been removed from the two story addition. Almost every house on Smuggler has gable ends so we feel this house fits into the neighborhood. The existing condition this property currently generates is five on-street parking spots. Our goal is to alleviate some of that but not to the detriment of the historic house. It is our intent to retain the large tree. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Michael Hoffman, attorney Michael said he represents Tom and Diane Whitehead, Steve Hach and Marty Ames. Letter— Exhibit III Michael said the neighbors do not object to the preservation of the resource and they don't object to the re-development of the property. They have objections to the parking and setback variances requested. There are two subdivision on either side of this street, East Meadow and Jukati and they were established in the late 60's. The street was deeded to the owners of the parcels as a private right-of-way. The driving surface is extremely narrow, around 17 feet in width. If everyone parked on the street we would be left with a one lane road. Even the loss of one off-street parking space has an impact and we ask that you not grant that waiver. The other concern are the setbacks. This property was in the county and annexed into the city in 1987. At that time it was zoned RI 5A and it is a sub-urban zone district. The front setback requirement is 25 feet and the city has consistently enforced that setback requirement. It would be a violation of that fabric to allow this setback variance request. Steve Hach said he lives across the street and there have been 6 renovations and we have not protested any of them. We realize things change. When you have the two structures and maintain the tree there will be no visibility between the two properties because the tree is too large. It will look like one structure to the lot line. The majority of us park our vehicles on our own property. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 Marty Ames said the street is very deceptive. The fences on the north side were pulled back to allow for parking on our properties. The deeded easement is for 8 lots that share the egress and ingress. The blue spruce tree will impede the view of the historic structure. Mr.Buff, said he owns 43A next door to Marty Ames and he will be doing the snow plowing. We do have a parking issue and the street is narrow. The house has been a rental and has had a lot of traffic. In the winter the street gets really crowded. Letter from Richard Conant— 55 Smuggler Grove — Exhibit IV Sara Adams entered the letter. Mr. Conant is strongly opposed to the project and in reality it is a lot split. Chairperson Jay Maytin closed the public comments. Michael Smith, owner Michael pointed out that 73 Smuggler Grove in 1972 was granted variances to that house for front setbacks. Setbacks are not precedent on Smuggle Grove. John Rowland said we might be able to move the two houses closer and then the connection would be less than ten feet. We acted to what we though was a good plan. The street is a quirkily and fun street and good vibe. Jay identified the issues: Setback Parking New plans Jay said staff has not had a chance to review the plan and it is his recommendation to continue the hearing. Patrick suggested the owners go to the city and request no parking on that street and that might be something to consider. John said the changes are good and the neighborhood is going in the right direction. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 Willis said the setback and parking and the two things the public cares about. Michael said this might be a good opportunity for the City, neighbors and applicant to sit down and figure out the parking. Willis suggested John Rowland show plans of the implications with parking two cars on each property and what does that do to the resource etc. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 28 Smuggler Grove Road until August 6th; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. - - - - -1x�az'ki� Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14