HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20140723 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
Chairperson, Jay Maytin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, John Whipple, Patrick
Sagal and Jim DeFrancia. Absent were Nora Berko and Willis Pember.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
Justin Barker, Planner
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Patrick said he would like City Council to look into changing the rules so
that they can have the opportunity for review after final approval. Things
are being changed between conceptual and final and an elected body should
be able to look at them if they wanted to. Historical vegetation should be
looked at. Flat roofs should also be looked at. In the past 3 years HPC and
put flat roofs on Main Street which does not go toward the intent of the Main
Street plan.
Amy said call-up used to be at final but it was changed because council and
others felt it was too late to express an opinion about the project so it was
moved to conceptual and that seems to be working well.
Jay suggested an early November retreat for HPC to discuss issues.
Disclosure:
John will recuse himself on 601 W. Hallam
Amy said the City of Aspen received the HPC commission award. Sara was
present to receive the award. Jay congratulated the Community
Development department and the HPC for receiving the award.
601 W. HALLAM— Conceptual Major Development and Residential
Design Standard Variances, Public Hearing
Debbie confirmed that the public notice is appropriate and the applicant can
proceed.
Justin said the property is on the corner of 5th Street and Hallam Street. In
1991 this property was delisted. During the hearing the applicant voluntarily
1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
agreed to grant HPC mandatory review of any future redevelopment on the
subject parcel in terms of mass and scale. Basically this means HPC has
conceptual review on this property but no final review. The applicant is
proposing to demolish the house that is currently on the property and to
build a new two story single family home. As part of that they are
requesting Residential Design Standard variances. In terms of mass and
scale staff finds that this is a very successful project. They have done a good
job breaking down the masses of the building through pitched roofs and
connecting element. The pitched roofs do match those in the neighborhood.
The scale of the doors and windows match the historic properties around the
area. Staff finds this proposal completely compliant with mass and scale.
Residential Design Standards
Justin said the first one deals with the street facing fagade with the living
area. The guideline says the width of the living area on the first floor shall
be at least five feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. This is
on the side that faces Hallam Street. The proposal has the garage at 23 feet
in width and the living area 14 feet and it is 9 feet narrower than the garage.
Another one is the front fagade of the garage. The guideline says the front
fagade of the garage or the front most supporting column of the carport shall
be setback at least ten feet further from the street than the front most wall of
the house. This again is on the Hallam Street side. The garage is about 2 %2
feet in front of the living area instead of being behind it. Staff feels there the
opportunity to meet these standards given the scrape and replace of the
property. The lot is 60 feet wide and 100 feet deep. Staff has provided a
few suggestions as to how this standard can be more closely met.
Justin said the last variance needed is for a street oriented entrance and
principle window. Looking at the neighborhood there is no real pattern as to
which side the front door faces and in fact the door on the property right now
faces 5' Street. Staff can accept either side for the door. Overall staff is
recommending continuation of the application in order to restudy the garage.
Jay said Hallam Street is a longer block line and the address is Hallam
Street.
Alan Richman represented the applicant Steve Whipple owner of the
property. We are here for a mass and scale review and the other is
residential design standard variances. The covenant gave clear definition to
what we are supposed to be compatible with in terms of mass and scale.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
Mass means the residence needs to use appropriate roof pitches and not be
designed as an interrupted box. The scale addresses window and door
dimensions and consistency with the other buildings on the block. The roofs
are compatible with the surrounding buildings. We used one and two story
elements to break down the mass. Two of the residential design standards
relate to the garage and the third deals with the entry to the house. We do
have unusual factors on this property and site specific constraints. We
believe the design is appropriate for the site.
Alan stated the factors they are dealing with and one is that there is no alley
in place behind this property. The alley is behind the Wheeler Stallard
House which is not open and contributes to the park like features around the
Wheeler Stallard museum. If we were to try and have parking back there the
impacts would be quite significant. Since we have no alley we only have
two locations where we can put the garage, 5th Street or Hallam Street. The
Engineering Department did not want the driveway on 5' Street. They also
preferred that we not cross the irrigation ditch with a driveway so we placed
the driveway on Hallam Street and that is where the garage is located.
There are other pre-existing driveways on Hallam. The second factor is
where do you enter the house. The code states that Hallam is the longer
block line and that would be the front of the house. We believe that 5th
Street is the right place for the entry and there are three reasons why we
believe that. The primary purpose is to promote pedestrian friendly
environments and contribute to the neighborhood streetscape. We totally
agree with that principle. One way to achieve that is that you don't put your
garage and your entry porch on the same side of the house. That would be
the classic suburban design. If the garage is on Hallam then the porch
belongs on 5th. 5th Street is the heavily traveled street. The porch on 5th
street would interact with pedestrians. For those reason we would ask you to
vary the standard and have the porch on 5" Street. Alan said in the design
the Parks Dept. wanted us to step back from the drip line of the large
cottonwood trees. There is no alley on this property and it is a corner lot and
there are large trees on the site.
Steve Whipple passed around a model of the house. The garage door
doesn't have to be a garage door. We have fabricated a door on the garage
door to make it look like a living space which will require a lift system. We
feel our design is better than having two doors next to each other. I have
done two houses on 5" Street and both have the front doors on 5` Street.
The linking element reduces the scale of the building and breaks the fagade
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
up. The garage is a little forward and if it is moved back the mass starts to
compress and loose the separation element.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing.
Kelly Murphy, Executive Director of the Aspen Historical Society
Mr. Whipple has been working with us as a good neighbor to get our input
to what we thought and what our needs are. We have seen the drawings and
model and we are pleased. The driveway entrance off of Hallam is where
our driveway entrance is and our parking lot. That is the industrial side of
the property. We have a lot of weddings and very particular brides. From
our standpoint it would be better to have vehicles and garages on the back
side where we have our own coming and going activity as well.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public comments.
Jay identified the three issues:
Width of Hallam Street fagade compared to the 5t' Street fagade being nine
feet shorter. The width of the garage to the width of the house.
The garage setback being in front of the smaller fagade.
The entrance on Hallam as compared to 5th Street.
Jim said he has no problem having the entrance on 5th Street. The garage
may have the appearance of disproportion to the house itself. Maybe it
should be pulled back instead of pushed forward.
Sallie also agreed that the front entry should be on 5' Street especially after
we have heard from the museum representative. I think I like the garage
being a garage. The fake garage is strange looking. I have no problems with
the entire project but feel P&Z should be looking at the design standards no
US.
Patrick agreed that the entry should be on 5th Street. The design is pulling
the house as far back toward the corner to leave more green space to the east
and north because of the trees. The design that was suggested by staff is a
good design because it is a dual purpose if the door is functional then people
parking in the driveway wouldn't have to walk around to the front door but
rather walk right into the garage and connector. There might be potential
moving it five feet to the west since there is a five foot setback and there is
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION - - -
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
ten feet of space between the lot line and garage but I don't favor that
because it makes the house wider and more massive.
Jay said staff received a letter from Richard Greenberg. He doesn't
understand why the Engineering Department would recommend against one
more driveway crossing the ditch. The vacated alley could easily be
reopened. The majority of homes are constructed on an north/south axis.
The elimination of parking spaces on West Hallam due to the siting of the
two car garage will further exacerbate parking issues.
Jay said he agrees with Sallie that the garage should be a garage and not
confuse another entrance. A lot of corner homes have their address
east/west street but yet the front door is on the numbered street. The
argument stands strong why the entrance should be on 5th Street. I agree
that the garage can sit in front of the house to protect the trees. The garage
in front of the fagade makes for the view to the Stallard house behind it. The
shed roof eave of the garage makes the garage doors look smaller.
MOTION; Jay moved to approve 601 W. Hallam as presented in the packet
and to grant the 3 variances requested. Motion second by Jim. Roll call
vote: Jay, yes; Sallie, yes Jim, yes; Patrick, yes. Motion carried 4-0.
Amy pointed out that when they submit for a building permit they could
submit for different materials such as glass garage doors etc. because HPC
was limited to the shape of this project and the footprint and location of the
garage and entry door.
417 & 421 W. Hallam Street— Correction to Historic Designation,
conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances, Continued
Public Hearing
Sara said the subject project is a duplex property where half the duplex is
designated historic. There is a proposal to designate the entire property. In
staff's opinion the applicant has addressed all of HPC's concerns. We really
appreciate the applicant working with staff and the HPC. We feel this is a
great project and staff is recommending approval. The applicant did ad a
front door and front porch to the historic resource. They actually reworked
the entire floor plan to make the front entrance through the historic resource.
The connector has been lengthened from 8 feet to ten feet and now meets
our design guidelines and also pushes the two story mass further back on the
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF July 23, 201
property. The overall height of the addition has been reduced. The
applicant proposes two options for the mass of the construction. One would
be one single gable which is simple and elegant. The guidelines ask for
breaking up two story masses into modules which would be option two.
Staff is supportive of both designs. HPC can decide which works best with
the guidelines. The applicant is meeting the parking requirement and they
have an on-site parking space and a garage parking space. They are also
requesting demolition of the non-historic additions. They are also
requesting relocation of the historic home. They will pick up the home and
dig a basement. They are also requesting the 500 square foot FAR bonus. In
addition to adding the front porch and restoring the front door they will be
doing some window restoration and possibly some roof restoration that will
have to be verified in the field. There might be some siding replacement
also. Setback variance are also being requested. There is a new variance
needed for the front porch. All the variances are appropriate and meet the
review criteria. The applicant measured off using the 1904 Sanborn
dimensions. With the amended designation and restoration it will increase
the integrity score.
Patrick asked if all the FAR would be used. Sara said the 500 square feet is
going to be used.
Patrick said the guidelines say the windows should be similar to the rest of
the historic neighborhood. With no windows how does that fit in with the
character.
Sara said the intent of the guidelines is meant to be the simplicity of the
design and having no windows helps the addition to recede and it is an
exciting design for the property. HPC needs to apply the guidelines and see
what they are comfortable with.
Sallie said a simple design might override windows and pitched roof.
Sara said it is all about finding the balance and focusing on the purpose and
intent which is to highlight the historic resource.
Derek Skalko of 1 Friday Design Collaborative and Jake Bittner of Thomas
Pheasant presented for the owners, David and Marcia Kaplan.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
Jake said they are going to talk about four issues. They have reintroduced
the historic porch and placed a door facing Hallam Street under the porch.
Secondly they have revised the interior program. They have also increased
the link element to the full ten feet which establishes the mining cabin as the
prominent structure on the property and in doing so we reduced the mass of
the addition and lowered the pitch of the roof. We scaled off the Sanborn
map and the door is perfectly centered. The new volume is very distinctly
separated.
Jake presented a power point identifying all the changes.
Jay pointed out that the historic house will be lifted and re-sited.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Jay identified the issues:
500 square foot bonus
Rear yard setback
Combined yard setback
Front setback
Patrick said he prefers the broken roof line which better meets with the
guidelines option B. It helps create less mass and scale.
John said he is in favor of the variances and likes option A. The continuous
roof line is a backdrop to what you are showcasing in the front. John
thanked the applicant for presenting an outstanding project.
Sallie said she can approve all the variances and setbacks. Sallie
commended the applicant for sticking with the HPC and she can't think of a
better design for this property. The little house in front is very small and if
they tried to do something more than what is there now it would look too
gimmick. There is no way to put windows or a roof without competing.
Sallie said she prefers option A.
Jim said he supports the bonus and all the variances and setbacks
recommended by staff and he likes option A.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
Jay said this design really tells the story. Jay thanked the owners and
architects for sticking with historic preservation. It is amazing how you can
make your program work with a one story addition on the front. Jay said he
supports the bonus and setbacks and variances. Jay also said he supports
option A.
MOTION: Jay moved to approve 427/421 W. Hallam resolution as written;
second by John.
Sallie said the one story is totally in align with the guidelines. It is very well
balanced.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; John, yes; Sallie, yes; Patrick, no; Jay, yes; Motion
carried 4-1.
MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meet'ng adjourned at 6:35 p.m /
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
8