Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20141022 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 Chairperson, Jay Maytin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Willis Pember, Sallie Golden, and Nora Berko. Absent were John Whipple and Jim DeFrancia. Patrick was seated at 5:30 p.m. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Jay Maytin announced that this will be his last meeting. Jay is moving into the county. MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of 10-15-2014; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Sallie will recuse herself on 28 Smuggler Grove Road 101 E. Hallam Street— Minor Development and Temporary On-site Relocation — cont'd public hearing Amy said this Victorian house has been greatly altered with a total replacement of the roof form. We are talking about the existing addition being increased in size slightly. This is a minor review. The lot is about 3,000 square feet and on the corner. The footprint of the existing condition will remain and a one stall garage will be added. They are also proposing to add a little more space on the upper floor. It got continued due to setback concerns and variances. Staff wanted to also make sure the shed in the back was being treated properly and not being overly crowed by the addition. Staff was also concerned about the roof form of the addition and its materials. The applicant has revised the plans and the addition has a pitched roof and wood shingles. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Setback variances are being requested for the below grade construction for the basement. A $30,000 bond is also a condition of approval. Forum Phi, Steev Wilson Steev said the roof has been replaced and the existing front porch has been replaced. The original brick is intact. The existing addition will be increased 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 in size slightly. We tried to integrate the new design with the existing. We are generally making a better use of the addition. The scalloped shingles on the front will remain and the windows have been unified. We have also matched the roofs and the shed will remain and be restored. Each neighbor will share half the shed. Chairperson, Jay Mayin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Nora said the underground setbacks are appropriate and the project looks more harmonious. The roof line is now more in line. Jay identified the issues: Foundation Side yard variance Variance for the shed on the back. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #31 with conditions. Motion second by Jay. Roll call vote: Sallie,yes; Jay,yes; Willis,yes; Nora,yes. Motion carried 4-0. 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. Second — Conceptual Major Development, On- Site Relocation and Variances, cont'd public hearing Debbie said she reviewed the affidavits of notice and they are appropriate. Exhibit I. Amy said this house and is on Triangle Park and has an addition that was built in the 1970's. It is also on a corner lot. That addition is linked directly to the back of the house and has an entry that faces the side street. The proposed addition to the Victorian attaches to the east side of the building and it is not properly placed. The guidelines allow for the possibility of an addition that connects to the side of a house but that is not our preference. HPC has.a strong history of acquiring additions to attach to the back side of an historic home mostly because that is often considered a less primary fagade particularly when you are dealing with an interior lot as it helps conceal the new construction at the back of the lot and allows the walls that are visible from the street to remain as untouched as possible. HPC asked the applicant to look at their options and look at the site plan in general. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 Amy said the new proposal is to demolish the 1970's second unit on the site. The replacement unit is detached and oriented in the direction of the side street and a two car garage on the alley. The proposal to the Victorian house is unchanged. They are still adding to the side of the Victorian. We acknowledge that this is a small addition and the proposed new architecture is great but we feel strongly that the addition should not be on the side of the house. In all of the cases that the applicant showed those cases were unique. They don't have an alley and not the typical lot depth and have something else going on. We feel HPC has leaned toward additions on the back and that is the most discrete impactful location. In order to do the addition they intend to pick up the house and move it and we are not sure that is the best purpose for relocating buildings. Staff is also concerned about moving the house toward the drip line of the cotton woods. The Parks Department has not commented on the tree issue. Staff has no problem with the removal of the non-historic addition. They are required to have a street oriented front door and that means that it should face Smuggler but they have it facing the side street. They could slip the porch in the direction of Smuggler to resolve that issue. Staff recommends continuation because the addition is not appropriate for the Victorian. Mitch Haas said the addition is about 230 square feet and we aren't using all the allowable floor area on the property and not asking for an FAR bonus. There is 300 square feet left on this property that we are not using. The applicant is not interested in maximizing the square footage. It is about livability. We have made the roof a shed roof dormer and shrunk it east/west and shrunk the height. The skylight has also been removed. We were asked to restudy the location of the addition. We did do that. Every option of putting the addition on the rear we found that it was less sensitive and less appropriate in this case. Mitch said the guideline that we were told we were not addressing is 10.8 where it says additions should be placed to the rear. It says place the addition to the rear of the building or set it back to minimize the visual impact of the historic structure. Our proposal sets the addition back 27 feet from the front fagade which is set back ten feet from the property line. Our take is that the back is very prominent as it sits on a corner. It was our intent to keep the corner open. Putting the addition to the back doesn't function properly. This plan is the most sensitive place to put the addition. We are detaching the two buildings that exist today. You can only see the addition from straight on. We intend to fully restore the historic house. We will pick ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 the building up and put a basement under it and move it five feet forward and five feet over which helps with the siting and prominence of the building. We feel there needs to be a balance between the guidelines. Owner, David Dowler said this is a 90 foot wide lot. The back yard is important and we want a private back yard. We have talked to all of our neighbors. With the addition your eye will follow the access. We don't want to shut off the neighbors by putting a large addition to the back. With the balloon frame the first floor ceiling height is 10.5 and the second floor you feel compressed. With the balloon frame you can do a 9 foot ceiling on the first floor and open up the second floor ceiling. I feel we have worked hard and we have respected history and the architecture. Melissa Mabe-Sabanosh said with our studies we determined it better to do something subservient to the historic asset. There is a wonderful separation between the two houses. If we put the addition on the back wall of the historic house we would destroy more of the houses fabric. The mild hyphen is quite small and humble as opposed to putting the addition in the back. Patrick was seated at 5:30 p.m. John Scheme from CCY said the historic house is at 25'6" to the ridge which is lower than the height limit. Willis thanked the owner for his enthusiasm for architecture. David Dowler said originally they wanted to sell the 1972 unit. After much thought they decided to take off the 1972 addition. The new addition is very simplistic. Jay commented that the connector is 4'6" and HPC likes a bigger connector. David said that was brought up at the last meeting and because of the problem that we have with the east setback that the 4'6" would be an acceptable type of accommodation. Jay said the constraint is on the east side. The requirement of the garage is creating a problem. Jay said the drip line needs to be confirmed by the Parks Department. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 Melissa said we are also moving the house away from the drip line. We will make sure no trees get harmed. Sallie asked if the connector could be ten feet. Mitch said if the HPC wants to give a variance for that we could have the connector ten feet. The house would then align with the garage. Amy said when you have something small I wouldn't suggest making the connector larger. John said they can study and adjust the entrance. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Jay identified the issues: Side addition Residing of the historic home Drip line of the trees Garage New home Nora said she is struggling with the historic fabric being taken out. Nora concurred with staff's recommendation that this is an historic resource that is unchanged. Nora said she is not sure side additions have been successful in the past. Willis said the biggest issue is the addition. Willis said another concern is the shed dormer which is in violation of the historic fabric. Guideline 10.8 and 10.10 address the addition. Not all additions have to go behind the historic structure. Conceptually the addition to the side is appropriate. It is pushed back as far as it can go and it is small. The project is:well done. Willis suggested site diagrams for the next meeting. Jay said his issue is the integrity of the site and the fact that the historic resource is being moved. The original site is important to preserve. On top of that you are adding an addition to the side of the historic resource. I can't support moving the building and putting the addition on the side. The 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 eastern wall is prominent and exposed. Two uncovered parking spots may allow for a better site plan. Sallie said which is more important keeping it in the exact location or making the historic house more visible. Melissa said they can leave the historic house in its original location. Willis said he is OK with the east addition but his major concern is the violation of the existing fabric and minimizing that. The dormer is a big deal and it is an appendage on an historic resource. Sallie also said her biggest concern is the dormer and the historic fabric being compromised to the east. Patrick recommended continuation. Mitch said the cold roof has to come off so it will not be the same as you are looking at today. We don't know what is under the roof. The skylight has to be removed and the proposed dormer is necessary to make the second floor space livable as opposed to an addition in the back. One way or another somewhere on this building to do an addition the historic fabric has to be touched. The back is visible from the alley and 2nd Street. If it is in the corner where we are proposing it is the least visible location. We are also doing a lot of restoration on this building as well. We are fixing the roof and the entire front porch. We are doing all of this without asking for a FAR bonus. We are increasing the integrity of this building. The.charge of the board is to balance things. MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second to November 12`h, second by Jay. All in favor motion carried. Jay said he feels the project will get better and the balance will be more in the middle than it is now. The board gave you sold direction. 417/421 W. Hallam — Final Major Development, Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavit and public notice are in order and the applicant can proceed. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 Sara said the applicant is asking for final approval. The entire property is now designated. At conceptual setback variances were granted, a 500 square foot FAR bonus and residential design standard variances related to windows. Staff recommends approval with conditions. There were two conditions to be reviewed for final. The first was to provide more details about the restoration of the front porch. The restoration will be a very simple proposal using the measurements off the Sanborn map to make sure the footprint of the porch is correct. The second condition was to specify the foundation profile material and style on the historic home. They are proposing brick. This will be left to staff and monitor to address when they pick up the house and dig the basement. At that time we might have a better idea of what was originally there. Staff feels both conditions of conceptual are met. Sara said the landscape needs discussed. Staff is concerned about the low stone wall that is proposed in the corner of the front yard. Guideline 1.3 states that a new replacement fence should have a transparent quality and allow views into the yard from the street. There is currently no fence there and no retaining wall. The applicant sent HPC a fence design and the discussion should be Whether or not the fence should go all the way across the property or just where the stone wall was. Staff is supportive of all the materials which is a mix of wood, stone and glass. There was a concern of the cooper roof which is not something you typically found on historic houses. The applicant is amenable to some other material. If the board feels the glass back drop is appropriate then HPC could support the Residential Design Standard variance. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Derek.Skalko — 1 Friday Design Collaborative; Jake Bittner of Thomas Pheasant; Valerie Yaw, Blue Green Jake thanked staff for working with them on this project which resulted in a better project. The front porch and door will be recreated. There will be a ten foot link with a new two story addition to the rear. The historic cabin will have wooden double hung windows. On the addition the glass will be glazed with an anodized aluminum frame. The roof of the miner's cabin will be cedar shingles. We will work with staff on the exact locations of the historic windows. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 Derek said with the return of the historic porch the dialogue between old and new has been more strengthened than it was before and it defines old and new. Valerie Yaw, Blue Green Valerie said there are very mature trees along the east side of the home. We work with Aspen Tree service and do air spade. Air spade is a giant air hose that blows out the soil so that you can see the roots and you can honor what is below grade. We will do this in collaboration with the Parks Department. We will use natural stone paving bringing you to the front porch. We are also adding a street tree. The intervention of plant material is limited. Along the alley is a modest patio enclosed by a privacy screen. The fence would slide for guest parking. A green roof is also proposed for on top of the single story element. The perennial landscaping is very low and consistent with the neighborhood character and the historic patterns. Along the entrance path are three simple fixtures. Derek said when they looked at the aesthetic makeup of the planning of the house there is a large open area to the west of the property. The wall amenity could make a great deal of sense as proposed for this project. Valerie said the wall clearly represents new construction. The low definition draws your eye and honors a 2014 interpretation of a fence in the context of contemporary modem architecture. The wall is not continued.in front of the miner's cabin to ensure that the views are open and clear and the historic progression from public to private was maintained. We don't believe a fence was there and it is not a Victorian. The wall would be constructed of basalt 4 inch gray stone. The wall is 30 inches tall and the guidelines allow up to 42 inches. It is drawn as 12 inches wide. Jake said if the copper roof is accepted it would have a mat finish. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Patrick said he would not recommend a copper roof and the applicant is favorable in changing the roof material. There might be too much glass on the front which might distract from the historic resource when people are driving by. Maybe use a non-reflective glazing. The wall makes the historic resource less visible as one drives by west to east. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 Jay identified the issues: Copper roof Window locations and sizes Light Fixtures Front door material Foundation style and profile Landscape wall Variance for the residential design standards Jay pointed out that the project has evolved and he appreciates the applicants flexibility with the front porch. The improvement to what is there is unprecedented. We will be able to see our historic resource in all its glory. The wall is small and will have shrubs in front of it. Jay said he agreed with staff and is not concerned about the copper material but is concerned about the reflectivity. That condition 1 B should remain that the copper needs treated. Willis said this is a fine project and the wall extends the vocabulary of the contemporary addition. Nora said the lot has taken on a transformation and it will be nice to see the house. There are so few front yards and this lot has a huge garden. Nora also agree that the roof should have some kind of matt finish. The repetition of the wall material to the back is well done. Sallie said this is a great project. I am totally opposed to the copper roof as it is out of character for historic buildings. Regarding the wall it fits in well and it gives balance. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #32 and change 1 B to say no copper metal roof shall be on the front porch and it will be approved by staff and monitor. The metal roof shall have a matt finish. Remove condition 42. Material mockup to be provided on site for all the materials prior to purchase so staff and monitor can see what they look like. Nora second the motion. Roll call vote: Patrick, no; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; 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 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 additions, Relocation, Residential Design Standards variance, cont'd public hearing. Sallie recused herself. Sara said at the last meeting it came down to the roof form of the new garage. Patrick said a flat roof was not appropriate and wanted to see a pitched roof that would be more similar to the historic landmark. The applicant has studied that and nothing else has changed. Staff is still supportive of the flat roof and we fell it keeps the scale of the new home down. It also differentiates between new and old and it meets the design guidelines. The applicant has shown several possibilities of garage roofs. We feel that the applicant has worked to make this project better and respond to the neighbors concerns. Exhibit I - drawing Sara Upton, Liz White, John Rowland Sara said the massing addressed staff s concerns regarding bulk and mass. There is a shared vocabulary between the historic house and new house. Alterations to the roof over the garage would deter from the overall fapade of the new house. Sara went over the diagrams with different roof designs. John said the purity and clarity of the original design is what we are presenting. We have done the exercise and looked at other options. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Marty Ames said she lives at 23 Smuggler Grove and the neighbors take issue with the overall scale of the project. This lot runs almost the whole north side of Smuggler Grove. It is pretty much lot line to lot line and within 9 feet of the setback. The other issue is the rather large roof top deck which has the potential to be even larger with the flat roof. Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public hearing. Sara Upton clarified that this is not a lot line to lot line project. There is a minimum of ten feet between the two structures. We feel the project 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 provides for modern density on the lot. The deck is at the back of the lot. The planter on the roof keeps the size of the roof deck small and it also keeps the mass of the front fagade set back and it is not an item that is visible from the street. Patrick said guideline 10.9 says roof forms should be similar to historic buildings and 11 .6 says roof forms should be similar to those on the block. Option 43 would be more beneficial and fit the guidelines better. Nora said her senses are that the houses on that street are big and these two houses are separated and they have breathing space. Staff's assessment of the flat roof seems to take out one more confusing element. Nora said she would support the project. The buildings are being sensitively placed and there are many trees around. Willis said the original scheme is appropriate and he would support the project. The glass size of the windows are inappropriate on both buildings and they need some elegance. There is a four square window on the new construction that has smaller glass sizes than the historic resource. There are too many different proportions going on. The addition on the historic structure master bedroom windows look cheap and they don't reflect to the public side of things. Jay thanked the applicant for presenting the different exercises. Jay said he still supports the flat roof. Having two properties on this property rather than one is appropriate. The parking requirement has also been resolved and it originally was a major contention in the neighborhood. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #33 as written with the clarification of the original option flat roof on the west property is appropriate. Motion second by Willis. Roll call vote: Patrick, no; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Jay, yes; Motion passes 3-1. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathy, Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk �� S 11