Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20140806 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 Vice-chair, Willis Pember, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were John Whipple, Patrick Sagal and Jim DeFrancia. Absent were Nora Berko, Sallie Golden and Jay Maytin. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Sara Adams, Senior Planner MOTION: Jim moved to approve the minutes of July 9, 2014 second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Patrick congratulated the staff and commission for the HPC award. The purpose and intent of the commission is to inform the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center. HPC needs to look closely at that when we are making decisions. It seems that we are ignoring the guideline that have to do with flat roofs. Disclosure: Jim said he is working with Michael Hoffman jointly on a project and consider himself un-conflicted and can be objective. Willis said he is working with Mitch Haas but it has nothing to do with what is being represented tonight. Willis said he can be objective in his decision. 712 W. Francis Street— Continue public hearing to September 24, 2014 Debbie Quinn said she reviewed the notices and the posted public notice on the property remains on the property and this matter is appropriate to open and continue. Affidavit of notice — Exhibit I Motion: Willis made the motion to continue the public hearing on 712 W. Francis until September 24, 2014; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014 120 Red Mountain Road — Final Major Development, Public Hearing Debbie Quinn said she reviewed the affidavit and the notice has been appropriately provided and the applicant can proceed. Affidavit of notice —Exhibit I Amy said this is final review for 120 Red Mountain. This is a voluntary designation of a property that is tucked away off of Red Mountain Rd. It is an authentic fairly unaltered representative of the 60's and 70's residential construction here in Aspen. It was designed in two phases by Aspen Modern noted architects Ellen Harland who did the original design and Rob Roy made some modifications to it. The new property owner voluntarily designated this house historic and it was accepted by city council and there were a couple of TDR's created and sent away from the site. HPC approved a new garage addition to the house. It has a garage now that will be turned into a bedroom and the new garage will be lightly linked to the house with a connector. Other than that the existing building will remain as is. There is a small bathroom addition and repairs and maintenance to the structure. For final we are talking about landscaping, lighting and materials and the details of the restoration. Staff recommends approval but a few things need to be visited during the building permit review process. The existing windows in the house will be replaced but we need to be absolutely sure that we are replicating the existing openings and not changing configurations. The only exception is where the existing garage is being turned into a bedroom. We need to see more information about any new lighting. We recommend that the two fixtures from the 60 era be reused. The landscape plan is minimal with re-vegetation with grass and some low plants. If large trees or shrubs are being planted we need to know about it and if they impact the historic house. The roof is tar and gravel and will be replaced and we would like to see something of that same character. Kim Raymond, architect presented Kim said they are altering the driveway in order to get into the garage. A walkway will be added to the existing patio. All the landscaping is at grade and will be re-vegetated natural and some grass right in front of the house. Flower gardens and low shrubs will be planted next to the house. No trees will be added. We are trying not to lose any of the existing trees. Shrubs will also be planted where the garage doors are being taken out. On the roof we will keep the fascia and it is our plan to keep the flat roof on both aspects 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014 which include the studio room. We will do the tar and gravel roof and it will be insulated. We will be leaving the one light that is existing by the front door and since the garage doesn't have garage doors anymore we will take the other light and will use it somewhere else where it is appropriate. The rest of the lighting will be down lights and small. The existing windows are wood frame and a 1 1/2 inch frame. The trim goes into the window but not on the face of the building and we will keep the same detail on the restoration. The existing house has board and batten siding and the new garage will have horizontal siding and there will also be wainscoting. Willis asked that the pendant on the balcony in the back of the house on the deck be kept. Kim said they will retain the pendant. John asked what kind of siding will be on the bathroom addition. Kim said it will be horizontal siding so that it can identify that the addition is new. Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Replace the windows Capturing the original trim Lights Landscape Roof tar and gravel Garage fascia Willis said he likes the approach that is being taken on the existing windows. Keeping the pendant is a good thing to do. I would encourage the developer to hire a landscape architect as it is difficult to understand the plans and there is concern with construction activity. Kim said the existing driveway will be our staging area and we will back our way out with vegetation. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 Willis said the garage fascia should be left alone and cleaned up as it is more in character with the 60's. Patrick agreed with Willis. MOTION: Jim moved to approve Resolution #23 for final approval for 120 Red Mountain Red with the conditions delineated in the staff recommendation and an additional condition of preserving the balcony pendant and retention of the garage fascia. We approve the link roof height and that the roof fabric appear to be tar and gravel like EPTM. Motion second by John. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; John, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-0. 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second — Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing Debbie Quinn said the posting is in order and Melissa Mabe attested that the posting is still up. Debbie said with that confirmation the applicant can proceed. Amy said this is a duplex on a corner site next to Triangle Park. The lot is 9,000 square feet. There is a large Victorian home on the property built 1888 and in the 1980's an addition was made that is accessed facing Second Street. The new property owner would like to make modifications and detach the homes so that there are two free standing homes. On the non- historic home they would like to remove the connection to the historic house and clean up the hole left behind and create a one story link to a new garage on the alley. They are supposed to have four parking spots and they are providing two which is acceptable. There is a setback variance requested on the east side of the garage where it comes too close to the property line but it is otherwise conforming. With regard to the Victorian staff is appreciative of the idea of detaching the two homes from each other but there is concern that the new proposal to the Victorian house is in a location that has never been touched before. The Victorian is to be picked up and moved forward five feet and westward five feet. We don't have a problem with the forward movement because it does create separation and that could be beneficial. Staff is not supporting moving the house westward. The reason to do that is to slide an addition alongside the house that we do not support. The little one story piece alongside the Victorian is the proposed new construction and it is touching a side of the house that is currently pristine. We would prefer 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014 that they continue to work with the hole behind the house. The front porch has been changed slightly and we have some historic photos that can be used for the restoration. There is a dormer on the west side of the roof that will go away. They would also like to do a better rendition of the historic windows. There is a cold roof on the house that will be removed and a thin roof profile would be a great improvement to the building. On the other hand there is a proposed new gable end on the back side of the house that doesn't exist there now and a skylight that doesn't balance out with the restoration they are proposing. We think it is not a net gain. Staff recommends a restudy and continuation: We feel the new construction should probably go in the back of the house even if all the homes touch each other. Don Ruggles, architect and Melissa Mabe presented. Don said the owner Mr. and Mrs. Dahler have a commitment to restore the historic asset to the absolute very best quality they can. They own both properties. They need to add a little bit of square footage to make this work for them. We are trying to make the addition of its time but still have a sense that it respects the main body of the historical asset. It will have a zinc roof. The owner would like a dormer on the back side to replace the skylight. We can certainly work with staff and find a different shape for the dormer. We feel the dormer is an important ad to make the square footage work for us and getting rid of the 1960's sky light. Melissa said there is a basement in both houses. The basement in the Victorian will be a little larger and a better basement. Willis asked what the drive is to separate the two houses. Don said where the two houses join is in need of cleaning up etc. There is a porch that doesn't fit, ice buildup etc. If it is separated we can clean it up and get better sun and we are letting the yard come into the rear. It will create a cleaner expression to the historical asset. There might be an ownership issue down the road having separate owners. Mr. Dahler said the addition was done in 1972 and it was classified as a duplex. In 1979 it was converted to a two unit condominium. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Patrick asked if the addition was looked at being placed behind the house. Don said we looked at a number of options. We are willing to work with staff on that matter and find the right balance. Mr. Dahler said this plan gives us a private yard in the back as part of the scheme. I'm surprised people don't live in their Victorians. The gable allows for a master suite on the second floor. Don said they are supportive of all the guidelines. Melissa said there are many precedence in Aspen that have a much greater impact on the Victorians that have passed through this board. We have really pared down the addition as minimal as we could. John asked about the siding on the addition. Melissa said the addition is designed to be very clean and succinct and the form is respectful of the asset but it feels different and of its time. John said staff brings up some valid points and you have more land to play with. Melissa said we are trying to preserve the openness on the corner by not proposing an addition on that side so the link to Triangle Park is as strong as ever. With the dormer we were trying to let the two buildings communicate and provide David with an upstairs that he can use. I feel we have been very sympathetic to the historic asset. We can try to make it a little smaller. Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: On-site relocation Setback variances Residential design standards are off the table Mass and scale of the addition 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014 Willis said the strategy is sound for this project and it meets the intent but not the letter of the guidelines. I understand staff's concern about the amount of disturbance to the original fabric on the historic building. The addition is very small. If the Victorian is movable so is that linkage and volume. For us to pass this tonight we would have to believe this is the best ultimate solution to this problem and you have some latitude to work with that would get staff on board. The section in the guidelines on linkages say ten feet long and no wider than 6 feet. That serves the purpose of minimizing the intrusion into the original fabric. Relocation, demolition, setback variances are all manageable for this commission. Jim said the fundamental approach is very sound and attractive. I particularly like the fact that they are not trying to do a lot of stuff below grade and it keeps the historic structure quite distinctive. There is probably room for a little refinement. Patrick said he agrees with Willis and Jim. It is a good start and the design is coming close. I would recommend getting together with staff and flush out the details. Amy pointed out that we want to see some other concepts as to where the office can go. What is your tolerance to moving the house a little further or perhaps putting a little more construction on top of the garage. John said he likes the delicateness of the addition in the back and subordinate to the front. Adding more square footage doesn't seem like that is necessarily the program the applicant wants to achieve because you are going to be living in the historic resource. There is a lot of good in this project and a restudy is always beneficial. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second public hearing and conceptual development to September 10, 2014. Staff and applicant to re-visit and refine the placement of the addition to the Victorian and review the new position of the Victorian; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. John said the consensus of the addition of the dormer on the back is possibly altering the historic fabric a little bit too much and maybe there is a way to achieve a less dramatic transformation of the roof line. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6. 2014 Willis said the more minimal alteration to the historic property the better. 28 Smuggler Grove Road - Conceptual Major Development, Floor area bonus, Setback variances, parking waiver, demolition of non-historic additions, relocation, residential design standards variances. Continued public hearing. Sara said there are some requested setback variance; 500 square foot FAR bonus; a technical residential design standard variance; relocation of the historic resource; partial demolition of the non-historic addition and a variance from the required width of a parking space. On July 9th, the last meeting UPC requested a restudy of the new single family home that is proposed for the site. This property has a landmark that was moved at some point to this location in 1976. In 1987 the entire area was annexed into the city and the property was added to the inventory in 2008. The proposal is to pick up the historic home and move it on the site and to construct a new single family home that is detached on the site. There were concerns voiced by the neighbors regarding the parking situation. There was a request for a waiver of one parking space and they are required to have four on-site parking spaces and they were proposing three. The applicant has looked at the plan and has moved some things round and now they are proposing four parking spaces on-site and one space is four inches off the required width. Because of the four inches they would need a parking waiver from that standard but they do have four on-site parking spaces. Staff confirmed with Engineering that they are approved for two curb cuts for this property. On July 9th it was suggested that the applicant look at reducing the width of the addition behind the historic resource a little more to be a little more subservient to the width of the historic resource. They could research this and bring it back for final. Staff raised concerns with the second story deck that is located between the historic home and the new residence. We are recommending that be removed for final review. There is space at the rear of the historic resource and to have the deck extended back there. We are supportive of the re-design and they are pulling architectural features from the historic resource and they are not imitating the landmark. They have gable roofs and forms reminiscent of what you see on the historic resource. Staff is concerned with the roof top planter box that seems to add un- necessary mass to the front fagade and we recommend that be relocated for final review. Staff is supportive of the demolition and relocation. Staff 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 finds that the amount of restoration and preservation proposed does warrant the 500 square foot bonus. The re-design of the new single family home meets the design guidelines and this is a project worthy of the bonus. The review criteria A-F are met. A site visit occurred today to review the width of the road and understand how the existing conditions are situated. The applicant is requesting front yard setback variances for the historic home and an east side-yard setback variance for the historic home. For the new home a front yard setback variance and a west side yard setback variance are being requested. The property is zoned such that it needs a 25 foot setback variance in the front. This property is more wide than it is deep which in our opinion having a historic resource on the property and trying to meet the setback variances does not work in terms of meeting the guidelines. We think that the solution they have proposed meets the review criteria for granting a variance. Having a rear addition to the historic resource supports the preservation as opposed to a side addition to the historic resource. Having a detached single family home that absorbs most of the floor area on the property that is available is supportive of preservation rather than having everything attached to the side of the historic resource. Staff finds that the review criteria are met for the variances that are being requested. The residential design standard variance is a technical variance and has to do with building orientation and site plan and whether or not the historic resource is angled to the side and we feel the site plan is appropriate because both houses are parallel. The parking variance is needed just for the width. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Exhibit I—Michael Hoffman, attorney sent a letter representing four neighbors who are opposed to the setback variances and that they also feel there is too much development on the site. Patrick asked staff what the allowable square footage is and what is the applicant requesting. Sara said they are reaching close to their maximum. The historic home required front yard setback is 25 feet and they are proposing 7 feet. They are also meeting the 10 foot distance between the two buildings. This zone district requires ten feet on either side of the buildings. They are proposing 8'2" on the historic home and on the west side five feet instead of ten feet. Patrick said the planter is on the new house. It is to separate so that there isn't a deck on top of the garage. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014 Sara said the planter adds mass that is unnecessary. Sara Upton and Brian Rubenstein from Rowland Broughton Architects presented. Sara Upton said the original massing is the historical resource with a two story massing behind and a linking element. The new house has a gable form that also possesses a rhythm that relates to the historic resource next door. We were instructed to look for common elements that could be shared between the new and the historic house. Sara Upton said the historic house is a three bedroom with a bedroom upstairs in the addition and two bedrooms in the basement with a linking element on the first floor attaching to the addition. Sara Upton said the new house is a four bedroom house with two bedrooms on the main level, two in the basement and the upper level is the area for the living spaces. There is a deck off the back of the house. There is a gable roof and a 134 square foot roof deck that is separated from the remainder of the flat roof by a planter box. The roof deck and the flat roof are in the same plane. If we remove the planter box we are effectively removing the roof deck because it is the planter box that creates the separation and keeps us from having a larger roof deck than is allowable. Regarding the FAR we are maxed out and have 24 square feet remaining. The total FAR proposed is 1855 square feet for the historic house and the new house is 2247 square feet. We have increased the linking element to ten feet and shrunk the width of the two story addition behind the resource by 10 I/4 inches. With regard to the planter box it is approximately 25 feet back from the front fayade of the house. It is very hard to perceive the planter box from street level. The only place you would have a great vision of it would be from a second story of the neighbor's house. We could restudy the planter box but the end result would be getting rid of the roof deck because we need to have a physical separation in the roof deck and the flat roof area. We felt this was a respectful way to create those boundaries. Sara Upton said we are requesting the front setback variance because if we are to restore the historic resource and place it completely within the setbacks with the ten foot linking element that only leaves us with 2 feet to spare in between the setbacks so it makes it difficult to take advantage of the 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 allowable floor area. The second item for the request of the variance is the lot itself which is shallow. It is 91 feet wide and 76 feet deep. The third is that the historic resource front gable volume is much longer than you typically see anywhere else in town. If restoration and preservation of the resource is our number one goal then we need to do that in a way to keep it visible and allows us to have a connector link behind it so that any additional development does not dwarf the resource. While we are requesting front and side yard setback variances 85% of our development is taking place within the setback and that does include the ten foot separation in between the building. By moving the window well off the east wall and into the courtyard where the linking element is we are managing to fit a parking space. HPC made comments about the deck on the historic house that is maybe not appropriate between the two houses. The deck is 46 feet back from the historic resource so we don't feel it is in a position of prominence. The setback encroachments are also being requested because HPC requested that the two porches on the houses be aligned to create the street front rhythm. Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Steve Hawk, 23 Smuggler Grove said he is representing several of the neighbors. We do appreciate that the applicant has updated the plan to include minimum parking and we wouldn't object to the width variance either. The applicant said HPC is making us do this and do that. The site is 20% smaller than any other site on the road and it has always been a shallow lot. They bought an expensive piece of property that just doesn't contain the magnitude of what they want to do and that is the cause of the setback variances. Another solution is don't put a program on the back of the historical site and then you wouldn't have a setback variance problem. It is an economic decision not an aesthetic decision. We have supported other redevelopments over the past 25 years. The developers have the right to make a profit but not to the detriment of the other neighbors. All the lot owners are against the significant setback and the scale of the improvements. We did a redevelopment and had a four foot encroachment of a corner of our structure into the setback. When we asked we weren't allowed to put any living space into the existing encroachment. 73 Smuggler was granted an encroachment since the annexation. Based on the noise and activity I can't image 7 feet from the property line. It is very clear where the property line is and everyone has to drive by it. We need better planning and involve the neighbors that are impacted. Just because someone owns the ground it is not 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 the city's responsibility to make it possible for developers to make a huge profit. If approved we feel this project will be the "Aspen Art Museum" of Smuggle Grove. Marty Ames, 23 Smuggler Grove Marty said he has been studying historic preservation rules to understand it better. HPC has to make tough decisions and some might not be appreciated by the neighbors to save and preserve the real valuable properties and structures. On the other side this is not a contributing structure, it was moved here to this lot from somewhere. It is a sweet old house and we watched it be renovated four times. How do you differentiate what concessions you give to the very valuable resources vs the non-contributing resources and how do you make those decisions. I am opposed to the setback. Our street is an easement and not a city street. It is 40 feet wide instead of 60 feet wide. It is hard for me to imagine this property being ten foot closer than it is now. It is already in the setback. It is also hard to imagine one of the structures being 7 feet from the property line. I would ask the HPC to consider the front setback variances of that magnitude and perhaps suggest that the rear setback of ten feet doesn't have to be ten feet. A previous proposal was to encroach five feet on the back. It would be more respectful to the neighborhood and neighbors to have the setback further back on the front. Exhibit I —Mike Hoffman's letter Vice-chair, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Sara Upton said with the HPC guidelines we are bounded by a ten foot utility easement then that does not leave a lot of depth to create an addition behind the house. Sara said we consider two feet as a hardship. We have a shallow lot with a connector. We think the historic resource is worth preserving. It would be difficult to do any kind of addition without a front setback. The house is already situated at 16 feet from the lot line. The new house is moving east and it will be ten feet further from the Hawks. We have taken measurements in this area and it is very normal to see from one house across the street to another to be 70 feet. If we don't bring the historic house forward it will have no prominence. We don't want to build a large appendage on the side 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 of the historic house. We are pleading for the setback variances and they are important to historic house. Willis identified the issues: Reduce the width of the addition Remove the planter Narrow the addition in the back of the historic property Variance regarding setbacks Willis said all variances are not created equal. The rules for historic properties are different. We need to determine whether the site plan is contributing to the character of the historic property. We are here to respect the historic resource. On the site plan on the historic footprint there is at least five feet in the rear of the property that is not utilized for architecture. You can build right up to that ten foot utility easement. The applicant should explore that. I applaud connecting the porches but there doesn't need to be a stairwell, it could be a porch talking to a porch. There is an opportunity to adjust and tune this in a way to have a better site plan. The project is very close and we appreciate the input from the neighbors. Patrick agreed that the project needs continued. I agree with staff that the width of the second story addition behind the historic home should be reduced further. The second story side deck on the historic home could be moved around to the back. On the new home the roof top planter if it was removed would only take away a deck that was 9x 12 and that wouldn't be a hardship because there is already a larger deck below about 12 x 30 and it would also take away the staircase which was in the setback. The front of the new home could be looked at. There is also three feet in the back of the historic home that could be looked at to pull the house back. The historic house should also be more prominent. John agreed with staff's comments and the commissions comments. There maybe some way to get into that three feet in the back of the house. Maybe the porch could encroach over the utility easement. Moving it back will not do a disservice to the historic structure. Willis said the FAR is fine and the bonus is achievable and it is just the matter of fine tuning it. You need to bring back something that resonates more with the neighborhood and the board. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 Jim said what was presented today is quite commendable. Some issues raised here today will fine tune the project. MOTION: Jim made the motion to continue Conceptual Development and the public hearing for 28 Smuggler Grove Road to September 10th to allow the applicant and staff to make some minor adjustments and bring it back to the board. Motion second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn; second by Willis. Roll call vote: Jim; yes, Patrick, yes; John, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14