Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150128ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, John Whipple, Jim DeFrancia, Nora Berko, Robert Blaich and Gretchen Greenwood. Sallie Golden was absent. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of January 7, 2015, second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of January 14, 2015, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Willis welcomed our two new members Bob and Gretchen. Patrick reiterated the purpose and intent of historic preservation which is to ensure the preservation of Aspen’s character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center. 28 Smuggler Grove Road, Final Major Development Review, Public Hearing Jim True said the applicant did not provide the list of mailing addresses. Jim said the applicant said they will submit within 24 hours the information. If it is not provided their approval would be deemed invalid. Sara Upton, Liz White, Gyles Thornely and John Rowland presented. Sara Adams said the project is for final development review. Final addresses materials, window and landscaping, lighting and details of the project. Smuggler Grove road is just off Midland Ave. There is an historic landmark in the middle of the site and during conceptual approval HPC granted approval to relocate the landmark and to construct an addition to the landmark. There was a FAR bonus and a new single family home approved for the lot. We are essentially dealing with two single family homes on one lot. Staff is in support of the materials for the new home. We had concerns ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 2 about the proposed materials for the addition behind the landmark and we voiced those concerns to the applicant and they proposed two different material options for the portion of the project behind the landmark. Guideline 10.11 states on a new addition use exterior materials that are compatible with historic materials of the primary building. They should be similar or subordinant to the original materials. We felt that some of the materials were a little too modern and stuck out to be directly behind the Victorian so the applicant softened that by proposing some wood. We are supportive of option B which meets guideline 10.11. As far as windows go we are supportive of the windows and landscaping. There is also a fence proposed. We need a little more information about the drywell as it is in the front yard. It is an engineering requirement. We are supportive of the lighting plan and fixtures. We do recommend that one sconce be added to the front door of the historic resource. The fixture style can be approved by staff and monitor. Sara Upton said the historic house will be moved and the non-historic addition on the back will be removed and the house will be relocated to the east side of the lot. A new house will be added to the west side of the lot and spaced a minimum of ten feet away from the historic resource. The driveway will be 36 feet for 2 parking spaces. With regard to materials the historic house has painted lapsiding. Brick will be applied to the foundation. The roof will have replaced shake shingles. The two story addition behind the historic house will have fiberboard, (Fiber C) that will be applied in a rain screen fashion. The gable volume is clad in wood lap siding so that it is a little more in character with the historic resource. On the addition the widows will be clad with annodized aluminum and the roof will be a corrugated metal with a dark gray powder coating. Sara Upton said on the new house we will use cedar lap siding and reinforced ceramic tile for the base. We will use a dark brown anodized window frame and a powder coated standing seam roof. Gyles Thornely, landscape architect, Connect I There will be a privacy fence and the driveway for the historic house is a pervious system with pavers which is being reviewed by the Engineering Department. The fence is allowed to be six feet in height but we are proposing five feet and it drops down to 42 inches at the setbacks. There is a privacy fence between the two lots, stained cedar with a green wall. We are doing minimal lighting and there are step lights. The historic house ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 3 plantings will be hollyhocks, hastas with an adaptive natiave palate. There will also be native aspen trees. You see Snyder Park that is behind the houses. The drywell has a grate and a man hole at grade to comply with the Engineering standards. We are lowering the house and at the step up it will be six inches or less which makes for a smoothe transition to the house. The front porch will be improved. We will be detailing the posts with the help of staff and monitor because none of the existing posts are original. Sara Upton addressed the fenesteration. On the historic house addition we are mimicking the historic windows and we are keeping harmenous proportions between old and new. In the new house we have a gabled end and some corner windows which are not prominently placed. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Steve Hawks said he has no opinon about the landscape or finishings but he would like to make sure that the lighting is low lighting. Tom Whitehead said he lives across the street. This property is the only negative thing on the street. I welcome and look forward for this property to be developed. How can people park and how wide is the access to get their cars in and I would hope that you keep the construction to a minimum. Gyles said there is no restriction on the fence in the front, it is completely open. We are providing two spaces on the lot with the historic house and the new house has a garage and one outside parking space. Presently there aren’t any parking spaces onsite right now so this is an improvement. Warren Kohen said he bought the house next door 55 Smuggler Grove Nov. 15th. This will be a major improvement over the site that is existing right now. I appreciate the historic preservation commission that exists and you face a lot of challenges. What is it that allows them to do what they d id such as the encorachments into the setbacks. Sara Adams said it is directly related to the landmark and you can have more density on the lot. The project complies with our code. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 4 Sara Upton said lighting is required at every exit. We are casting down or out and we chose simple lights. All the lights are LED. Jim True said everyone has rights through various venues. This body is pursuing this per the code. Willis said this is a great presentation and the landscaping is a huge benefit and it was presented at a high degree. The fenestration and material selection is great. Willis identified the issues: Sconce that has been added to the front door. Option A or B Front Porch Willis said Option B has a better dialogue with the historic resouce. Jim also said Option B is a better choice and he agrees with the conditions recommended by staff. It is a great solution and a good project. Bob said he is impressed with the solutions and can support Option B. John said he agreed will all of the commissioners statements. Staff and monitor can work with the sconce on the front porch. The application is well thought out especially the landscaping. Gretchen said the results are excellent. I agree with staff’s recommendation. I don’t think recessed cans are an historic solution to lighting. There are so many more options available and that would alleviate some of the concern of the neighbors. Some of the other Victorians downtown have wall sconces that shine down on the side of the front door. This is a great project. Patrick said he agreed with the board and downward lighting would be preferred rather than a jelly jar so it doesn’t send light out and sends the light down. Sara pointed out that the applicant presented materials and if those changed she would bring it back to the board. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 5 MOTION: Jim moved to approve Resolution #4, 2015 for final major development subject to the conditions recommended by staff specifically calling out Option B and adding condition #8 to study with staff and monitor the lighting fixture on the front porch. Motion second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Motion carried 7-0. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Nora, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Gretchen is the project monitor Copeland Twining Pioneer Park – Minor Development – Public Hearing Amy said Pioneer Park is an estate with a second empire style house in the middle and an elegant carriage house. It is well preserved and a beautiful property representing that period of Aspen’s architecture. In the 80’s there was a subdivision that cut off the last most eastern 6,000 square foot lot of the property preparing it for development. There was a proposal for a house that caused controversy. Citizens in the community came together and fund raised the money to buy this property and then turned it over to the city for a park. The only structure on the site is a hexoginal shed and we don’t know when it was built, maybe in the 40’s. There was seating added and landscaping added within the last ten years. For you tonight is the proposal for a marble sculpture. The sculpture will be close to the front of the site facing the street. It is about ten feet tall and five feet wide across the base. This is a donation to our community and staff recommends approval. Paul Taddune presented for Maggie DeWolf who was instrumental in purchasing the sculpture through her foundation. The sculpture is an expression of altruism. The statue, “pioneer spirit” would be a nice compliment to the Pioneer Park. Greg Tonazzi is the stone sculptor. City Council had asked the applicant to go through the proper approval process. Jim True said council authorized the applicant to proceed and go forward. Amy said this is a departure from what the character of the property is now but public art is very common in our Parks and there is no impact on the historic resource. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 6 Chris Foreman said they are on board with the project. The art program has been handled on a case by case basis and then Park’s reaches out to other departments for input. We have reviewed how it is to be installed. Gretchen inquired about the landscaping around the sculpture. Greg said we would like to center it in the existing red sandstone patio. We would take the stone up and have an earth buffer between the stone and marble so that there would be some plants growing around the sculpture to give it a nature feeling. We would put rock underneath and reset the stone. Greg said the marble was freshly quaried 5 years ago. Willis said the process that public art comes to fruition is very underdeveloped. Bob said art is very personal. When someone wants to donate a piece it is very hard to make a judgement. John said the art comes from the earth and it is very fitting and it is a very refreshing application. Nora thanked Maggie and we are all honored to have the piece in Pioneer Park. Willis opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. MOTION: Jim moved to approve Resolution #5, minor development for the installation of the marble statue in Copeland-Twining Pioneer Park; second by Bob. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Nora, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0. 530 W. Hallam Street – Conceptual Major Development, On-site relocation, historic landmark lot split and variances, public hearing Bob Blaich recused himself. He received notice. Exhibit I – public notice ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 7 Exhibit II – revised elevations Amy said the property is on a corner lot. It is a 9,000 square foot lot with a Victorian Era house on it. The applicant is proposing a lot split, subdivision of the property into two lots and the corner lot is about 4,200 square feet and the interior lot is about 4,800 square feet. The same amount of square footage that could have been built for one home gets divided into two. They are not increasing their development rights in terms of mass but they are building two homes instead of one. The lot split takes a lot of pressure off the Victorian and puts a lot of the construction into the detached new home. The 1950 photo provided by Nora shows the house in its original design and that will be used as a reference in any of the restoration work. The historic house has two additions on it, one to the side and one to the alley. The proposal is to remove all the non-historic construction, pick the Victorian up and move it 15 feet forward and 6 feet over and make a new addition behind it and take the rest of the square footage and build a new house to the east. The applicant is asking for some variances. The Victorian is somewhat buried behind trees on this site. The tree in front absolutely needs to be protected but there are two more trees but one is open to discussion for removal. The trees are crowding each other. There are also trees running along the side street. You received revised drawings addressing staff’s issues. Staff is recommending approval of the project. Amy said the addition that is proposed to the Victorian does have a connector element and that has been simplified. The roof design has also been simplified. In terms of the new house we asked for some effort at the front part of the home to make sure it wasn’t taller than it needed to be, that the scale was appropriate. Because of the input from the Parks Dept. and staff’s concerns there are a few setback variances being requested. There is also a request for the FAR bonus. We feel the bonus is earned with a few additions such as putting a wood shingle roof back on the historic house and restore the chimney and put a window back in that is missing. The architect is planning on doing all of the above. Staff is supportive of moving the building forward and the RDS variances. In this new house the linking element is a little wider but because of the large tree there are constraints. The porch is not the depth that is required but we don’t want that changed so a variance is needed. Amy said the setbacks are generated by the tree situation. Kim Raymond, architect presented ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 8 Kim said we are doing the lot split and creating a new home. A link will be added and an addition to the back. We will put the window back and restore all the trim. We will bring the porch back to the original appearance as much as we can. We will also put the wood shingles back on and rebuild the chimney. We will reuse stone as a veneer and match all the trim. We have simplified the back gable. There are two diagrams with the stairs: one is going east to west and the other north to south. On the east west stair orientation we feel it reads better because the link is 15 feet long and the area that faces 5th street is only 6.5 feet wide and gives more of a distinction. The stair element sticks out 2 feet to the west of the Victorian. The north south stair version you don’t see the stair element but there are 3 windows visible from 5th Street. Kim said regarding the trees we are 7 or 8 feet past the drip line. The trunk of the tree is 46 inches in diameter. The Parks requirement is that the new building not come any farther forward on the lot than the existing addition on the house. We will excavate from the back. That line is 29 feet back from the property line which requires a variance. Willis commented on the east west stair. Why have the two feet out because this is a new design and you can put the stair wherever you want. Kim said she was trying not to re-design the entire project. Kim said seeing into the lot is a good idea and the owner is not opposed to having one of the trees removed to let sunshine and light into the space. John asked if the two houses could fit on the lot without setback variances. Kim said we are not asking for much and it is important for us to have the bonus. We are going to a great extent to restore the Victorian. That is how you earn the bonus with the restoration. Nora said the irony is that you can’t see the building. The only thing you see is the new addition because of all the trees. Kim said when we move the Victorian over it won’t be exactly right behind the tree. Willis opened the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 9 Jack Wilkie said he lives on the next street within 300 feet of the property. Basically I don’t have objection to this proposal with one exception. I deeply resent the use of the term historic which then reflects into incentives. If you pay attention to what is going on in that neighborhood builders don’t need any incentives. The incentive program has gone crazy. When I walk down the street I can’t tell if the house is Victorian. The idea of reversible is ficticious. Sara Oates, attorney representing the neighbor to the east, Ted Louvine and Lusha Swanson. I am concerned about the changes in the plan and the variances requested. Amy said to the east house there has been no change. The sideyards are still complying. The combined sideyard should add up t o 11 feet and they are at 10.1 feet. They are asking for a 9 inch reduction. They are asking to go to the zero lot line for the garage. Sarah said her client lives in New York and is not able to review the plans that are being approved tonight. Amy said projects revolve quiet a bit during the process. We could post an addendum to the packet. Jim said it is somewhat difficult as projects can get modified when they come to the HPC. We try to make sure the notices are consistent with the constitutional requirement for due process. We do the best we can under the circumstances to make sure all the procedural steps are met. Jim said there are circumstances that the changes may be significant and it be deemed a new application. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Kim said the changes we made were making the house simpler. Kim said the variances came from the meeting with the Forester. Gretchen said clearly the trees are driving some of the design to a negative especially the site plan itself in terms of putting the garage right on the alley. My garage is off the alley five feet and the snow just piles up. I think the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 10 zero setback is the wrong thing to do for the city. I love trees but I hate to see these projects get compromised by maintaining a tree. Why do the trees take precedence over a better project for the community. Amy said we met with the foester and the other trees were planted on city property so in theory the city owns them and we didn’t talk about the side and he was open to removing one more on the front. Gretchen said the Victorian is getting lost with the large addition on the back and it has a lot to do with the constraints of the property. There is a lot of development around the Victorian. Willis identified the issues: Trees Setbacks Mass and scale Which stair option Willis said guideline 10.6 and 10.9 are still on the table for discussion. Design an addition that is compatible in size and scale. 10.9 is roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. This is a corner site and we don’t know how it sits within the neighborhood. There is a 2 ½ story addition to a 1 ½ story historic house. I am generally liking the east/west stair. I don’t mind the two feet coming out but you have the tools to change it. Removing some of the trees will enhance the “legacy” tree. All the setbacks underground are OK. The biggest setback is the zero setback for the garage. There was a comment on the difficulty getting in and out. Nora said the neighborhood context is important even if the project meets the code. Across the street is all small mining cottages. Behind this is a small house. When you come down the street you don’t see the Victorian and all you see is the huge addition. Victorian’s are about gardens etc. which is guideline 10.6. The issue with the garage with a zero setback is not only trying to get into the garage it is snow removal, garbage trucks etc. We need to see the Victorian so taking away some trees is preferable. Gretchen said we are really looking at the addition on the back. The scale and massing against a 900 square foot Victorian is far from being conceptually approved. I don’t think either stair is a good solution. Regarding the new house the concern is the mass and scale of the gable and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 11 entry. The entry of the Victorian has a break down in scale and is small and very compatible with all its forms. On the modern house I don’t understand the roof sticking out past the main building. There doesn’t seem to be any scale and purpose next to the beauty of the Victorian. I am also not in favor of the zero setback on the alley. Even three feet would allow a little snow melt. I have no problem with the sideyard setbacks. My concern is the visual impact with the Victorian. This is a simple Victorian and all additions should strive for simplicity as the goal. Patrick said he would be in favor of the foresters recommendation of removing the middle tree on the front. On the sideyard maybe remove one tree to give light but the trees are part of the historic context. Garages need to be off the alley for functionality. Mass and scale needs to fit the site and because it is on the corner the addition needs to be sensitive and simplified. The homes around it are small. The additions are overwhelming the neigihborhood and need relooked at. As far as the stairs I prefer the first applicaton because there is not much light on the 5th Street side. John said he sympathizes with the applicant who has made a lot of strides working around the trees. You can’t see the historic house and turning it back to its grandure is commendable. We need to find a even ground preserving the trees and show casing the beautiful Victorian. I am in favor of eliminating one of the trees. The alley is a functionality issue. Jim agreed with Patrick on the tree issue. Pulling the garage off the alley is recommended. Regarding mass and scale I have no issue. Willis said the gable form of the new home hitting a flat roof is awkward. There are certain intersections of the roof transitions that aren’t worked out on the modern structure and that falls under mass and scale. There is support for removal of one tree and 3 to 5 feet setback on the alley. Nora said if the house doesn’t fit on the lot I am not sure I can support it. We are trying to bring the Victorian back but the rest of the lot is over built. Gretchen said we are getting back to huge additions on these 900 square foot Victorians. The lot split code amendment was trying to eliminate that. I was under the assumption that lot splits were to maintain the Victorian in a dominant position. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 12 Amy said they are allowed to us the duplex floor area and split it between the two houses. That is 4,080 and there is a bonus request. Patrick said guideline 11.5 talks about not overwhelming the scale of the historic house. Amy said one solution is to shift more square footage from the Victorian to the new house. It is up to the applicant to decide how the floor area is to be distributed. They could have made a huge addition to the Victorian and instead they are breaking it up. In general the board feels square footage should be pushed into a detached structure. Nora stated that the hallmark of HPC’s success is the Blue Vic and the Glidden house. All those were done holding to standards where the ori ginal resource has been honored and not hidden away. Kim said moving the historic home forward actually puts it in line with the other Victorian down the block. The house directly to the east is not small at all. It will tower over the new house. The building two doors down has a flat roof. The flat roof does fit in the neighborhood. Pulling the Victorian west and forward puts it in a more prominent spot on the lot so you can see it. We are also taking off the huge additions and then you have a 15 foot link even before the stairs start. It puts the Victorian out in front. Willis said he respects the 15 foot setback from the historic resource and he prefers the east/west stair. In general the four quandrants are all of equal size visually even on the modern house when you didn’t have to do that. The strategy conceptualy is good and we are just asking for some refinements. Some of the roof inersections are awkward. Nora requested a street scape for the next meeting. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 530 W. Hallam to February 11th; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015 13