Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150311 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015 Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancia called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Patrick Sagal, John Whipple, Nora Berko, Sallie Golden and Gretchen Greenwood. Willis Pember was absent. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Gretchen will recuse herself on 134 W. Hopkins Jim said he has a business relationship with CCY which is totally independent of this project and nothing inhibits me from making good , judgement. HPC congratulated Willis ori'his award for the Carbondale Library! 134 W. Hopkins Ave. — Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing Jim True said the affidavits are in order and the applicant can proceed— Exhibit I Sara said the property is a 3,000 square foot lot zoned R-6 and was created from a landmark lot split. The landmark is in its current location. The request is for relocation of the historic home, demolition of non-historic additions, construction of a rear addition and extensive restoration to the historic landmark, setback variances and a portion of the FAR bonus. The proposal includes a roof deck on the new addition on the back. There is a one story connector piece between the old construction and new construction. Staff has some concerns about the proposed railing on top of the connector which shortens the distance that the connector is a one-story. The guidelines are clear that a one-story connector piece should be ten feet. We are recommending that the deck on top of the connector be removed. There is still a deck on top of the second story new addition which find to be appropriate. A glass railing is being proposed so it is minimal as far as the massing. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015 Relocation: There is a proposal to move the historic home off-site down the street a few blocks to a vacant lot that is across from the Boomerang lodge. Putting houses off-site has challenges but leaving it on-site when you are doing a big excavation has more consequences and we are supportive of the move. We have required a $30,000 letter of credit. HPC might want to discuss whether this amount is appropriate or not. The applicant is requesting the remaining 116.4 square feet of the FAR bonus. We find that warranted with the restoration they are proposing. The space between the two homes will be increased. We are also supportive of the variances outlined and staff is recommending approval with conditions. Chris Touchette, CCY architects Chris said the owner is prepared to bring the house back to its historic form. We are moving the house 2.6 to the west and 6.10 inches to the south. It will be closer to the corner in a more prominent location. The other idea is to get it away from the neighboring building. We focused on a contemporary addition that is compatible with the historic resource. The patio skylight is west of the connector in-between the addition and resource. We have proposed a non-reflective skylight that is broken up with interspersed beams. It will not be viewable from 1 st or Hopkins. We have been working with staff and have eliminated a roof skylight, eliminated a non-historic window in the gable end of the resource. We are supportive of staff's recommendations except for the condition of denial of the small roof deck over the connector. There is precedence for the use of decks over connectors. Exhibit II - elevation of roof deck Chris said the roof deck is 8 x 6 wide facing 1 st Street and 72 square feet in area. The connector is 17.6 long. There is a fascia. The small roof deck in no way encumbers the character of the connector and we would appreciate if you would discuss the roof deck. Vice-chair Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. Exhibit III— Sara said the e-mail came from David Melton who lives at 135 Hopkins. He requests that the bonus not be granted because the lot is already developed with two homes. Use the FAR that is allowed by code. Traffic and noise on the street constructing the second level basement will be 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015 significant and unwarranted. There are no two level basements in.this neighborhood. Vice-chair Jim DeFrancia said there were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Jim said we should focus on the condition and add or delete them. Patrick said he agreed with Mr. Melton that the second level basement is not necessary in that neighborhood. It can cause more people, more traffic etc. in that area. Sallie said.the double basement has nothing to do with what we look at. Jim said lets discuss the conditions and then come back to the double basement. Nora said regarding La. we have had lengthy discussions about the activity on top of connectors. Nora said she would support staff on the connector. Sallie said we have approved two story connectors recently with glass filled in. This seems a lot more in keeping with the project. Sallie said she has no issue with the connector. Bob said he agrees with Sallie that the connector is not obtrusive and you won't see it and it has a glass protector. John said the connector separates the two homes and it should be a low iron with no reflectivity to it. Patrick said he agrees with staff and there are already two decks. Jim said he has no issue with the connector and would approve it. Sara said there will probably be stuff on top of the deck and that adds mass. Railings on top of connector are not the most successful approaches to having a connector piece. The purpose of the linking element is to separate the mass and we are trying to learn from some of the mistakes that we have made about allowing the space on top of the connector to be usable space. 3 i ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015 Nora said this is on a corner lot and is more visible. Sallie said she has seen a lot of decks that aren't successful but this isn't in that category. Chris said the deck it is 8x6 wide facing First Street and 72 square feet in area. Jim said we have the majority that would favor the connector. Jim said condition #2 was to provide details of the fence along First Street; provide details of the grade skylight and Hopkins St. shall be the primary entrance. Chris said they are fine with everything but there needs to be discussion on the double basement. Jim brought up the double basement and said it is permitted. Sallie said it was allowable by code at the time the applicant applied. It doesn't affect anything that we are supposed to use judgement on regarding the historic resource. Nora said there are impacts of noise and stability going down 40 feet etc. and the number of dump trucks every day and the impacts on the pedestrian right-of-way. Is it going to increase the number of cars for a two car garage? Sara said the issues were impacts constructing a double basement and how long it takes to build up the soil. John said one property probably didn't use the best method of soil stabilization and that upset numerous individuals. The Bldg. Dept. and construction management have guidelines in place to achieve stability. Bob said for us to go back and revisit this when it has already been dealt with we would have a whole new process. Patrick said he feels the construction management is half of it and it impacts the neighborhood. The volume will affect the neighborhood. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015 Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancis opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Chris said what is inside the envelope isn't necessarily part of your purview. There is one bedroom above the addition and three bedrooms in the basement and the second basement is dedicated to uses such as a spa and theatre, wine cave and mechanical room. The density is limited to the first level of the basement. Jim said the construction and digging can often be unpleasant but it is also temporary. There is not a majority to add a condition. Chris said we would like to have 1 a deleted. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #10 for 134 W. Hopkins in accordance with the staff recommendation and striking in 1 a, (the not) . The character of the connector should be low iron and no reflectivity. Motion second by Bob. Patrick said the continued repetition of flat roof additions is destroying the historic character of residential Aspen and is contrary to the intent of the guidelines. Chris said there will not be visible connections. Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, no; Bob, yes; John, yes, Patrick, no; Jim, yes. Motion carried 4-2. 110 E. Bleeker Street— Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances, Public Hearing cont'd from February 11, 2015 Gretchen was seated. Exhibit I—Updated elevations. Amy said this is a 6,000 square foot lot close to the yellow brick. It is an 1887 brick Victorian. The brick has been painted which isn't healthy for the building. The front porch was enclosed and a door obliterated. The front bay window has been removed. There is a small addition on the back of the house and a large structure along the alley that sits in the alley and on the 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015 neighbors lot which has caused some distress over the past few years. The applicant plans to demolish the problematic garage and also the non-historic addition on the back and make a new addition. They are not picking up the house and not moving it and not excavating a basement under it. They are proposing a total restoration. The paint is to be stripped from the brick and the front window reconstructed and porch reconstructed etc. Amy said the proposed addition connects to the back of the Victorian with the standarad one story element and it touches the building that has already been altered and it can't be seen from the street and we feel it is an .appropriate place to ad on. There is a deck on top of the connector that we did not object to in this case because it is really invisible. On the new construction there is a basement underneath it. There are some setback variances requested. There is a request to reduce the east side yard, rear side yard and the combined side yards. There is also a request for the 500 square foot bonus which is well deserved by the restoration work that is being proposed. Staff recommends approval with the approval of the bonus, side and rear yard setbacks and a combined side yard setback. When it comes time to remove the paint from the brick they need to be careful and not make the situation worse. We will also need specifications for mortar repair. The applicant has proposed to reconstruct the historic fence on this property. We need to make sure it is being built with wood posts. We have spoken to the Parks Dept. and the applicant.can remove the street trees out in front.of this house. The trees are pine and scruffy and block the view to the house. There is an existing skylight to be replaced and staff is recommending that it be eliminated. When the brick is stripped the applicant would like to do some window replacement on the west side of the house. The original windows are gone and we need to make sure that is done in the most informed way possible and that we look for actual physical evidence to see how the windows were placed. Gretchen asked about the FAR bonus being used as TDR's. Amy said a more recent incentive has been the TDR program where you can sell some of your development rights. In this case they will use the FAR as part of their project and one TDR, 250 square feet will be sold to a non- historic site. Sallie said the TDR program is a good incentive because it keeps development off this piece of property. It gives them a monetary incentive 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015 not to have more square footage effect or be a burden to the historic resource. John said it also off-sets the restoration costs. Patrick asked if the trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. Amy said the Parks Department will identify the tree replacements. Kim Raymond, architect said the goal is to restore the house as closely as they can back to its original state. The existing garage is 2.6 outside the property line in the alley and 5 feet onto the neighbor's property. Our plan is to tear the little garage down and move our garage which is part of the building 3.1 feet in from the site so we are actually moving it over 8 feet and bringing it off the alley and four feet off the property line. The Victorian will remain in its original location. There is a one story linking element with an exposed corner of the original building and then the addition. The addition in the back has the same simple gable link. Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Jim said staff is recommending approval with 8 conditions. The applicant has no disagreement with any of the conditions. Gretchen said she feels the dormers look very high and possibly the architect would consider removing the large arched windows on the west side which would make the building simpler. In that way the Victorian would take a more dominant visual appearance from the street. The additions on the back of Victorians need to be quiet, clean and simple. The roof addition should be simplified and maybe the dormer on the south could be removed on the roof. Just have the two dormers on the north side and nothing on the south side. Nora and Patrick said they would support Gretchen's suggestion. Sallie said they are trying to bring in the south light. Jim said the board is offering the removal of the dormers as guidance and to restudy it for the next meeting. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015 John said dormers are fenestration and that can be looked at for the next meeting. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #11 granting conceptual major development demolition and variances with the conditions as recommended by staff and with the notation that the applicant has been given guidance to restudy certain elements when they come back for final. Amy said there would be a 3'1 inch east side yard setback. The rear would be 3'8 inch. 5'11 inch side yard and a 9 foot combined. Amy said the applicant pulled away from the east property line and pushed it toward the west. Jim said the motion would include the dimensional requirements. Motion second by Nora. Patrick asked the board to discuss the setback on the garage. Amy said it is up to the applicant to determine if they have movability to get in and out of the garage. Gretchen said she feels there is no issue getting in and out. John said the garage moving is a big improvement. Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora,yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Jim, yes. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk. 8