Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150408 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Gretchen Greenwood and Eric Sechrist. Absent were Sallie Golden, Jim DeFrancia and John Whipple. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Nora will recuse herself on 211 E. Hallam MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of March 11, 2015; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. 211 E. Hallam St. — Referral comment on tree removal request Amy said the applicant requested a tree permit removal and it was denied. This is an appeal process which first goes to the City Manager, Steve Barwick then to City Council. Steve Barwick started the discussion that in the tree ordinance there are criteria that deals specifically with historic preservation. HPC needs to review the criteria and tell the City Manager if there is something he needs to consider regarding the criteria. Amy said there are five criteria. Criteria A talks about whether a tree could be removed if it is physically harming an historic resource. In this case we cannot find that criteria is met because the studio is being moved away from the tree in question. Criteria B talks about that a tree can be removed if it is an inappropriate element of a historically significant landscape. As an example lets us the Herbert Beyer,works at the Aspen Institute. If a tree grew up in the midst of the marble garden that would be a good reason for Parks to say that the tree needs removed that it is negatively impacting the historic resource. This site has not be identified as an historic landscape so we do not find that criteria met. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL S, 2015 Criteria C is that the tree can be removed if it is blocking the visibility of the resource. In this case the studio is to be removed which is partially solving the problem. Criteria D is that the Parks Dept. could allow the tree to be removed if it is inappropriate or not consistent with landscape on the property or around the architecture of the building. The applicant argues in the information in the packet that this tree which is very tall is out of character for the Bauhaus modern architecture philosophy. That may be true but we don't see this as a designed landscape and the applicant is moving the building and it could create a more sympathetic design around the building. We are not assured that this is one HPC would find to be met. Criteria E is the one we think has the most basis for discussion here. It has to do with whether the tree is negatively affecting preservation opportunities for the site or not creating the best project that we could get. The site plan is an L shape design with the studio on the front and an addition along the west side of the property. To some extent it is working around the tree and it is possible that the tree could be preserved in this plan; however, the applicant does not desire to preserve the tree and this is an negotiation for a voluntary preservation. We do find that there is some concern there. This isn't the same as other sites that have a mandatory designation and there is nothing to be discussed. It does appear that it could jeopardize the success of this negotiation. This is the criteria that HPC should focus on. Debbie said the tree removal ordinance is a separate section of the code. This section indicates that the manager of Parks and Recreation makes the determination. He can make the determination based on the advice from the Historic Preservation Commission. Your purpose tonight is to provide advice. The Parks Department already said no but the advice will go to the City Manager. Ben Carlson, City Forester said the spruce tree is in the south east corner of the lot. The tree has no signs of disease. The tree is healthy. The tree fits the criteria for preservation. The tree is an important part of the community and spruce trees last around 200 years. Gretchen asked about taking the braches off from the ground up. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Ben said we typically discourage that but it has been done. It doesn't allow for the trunk to develop in the way it should. Excavation of the current project if the tree should stay should occur within the current foundation where the building currently sits. That has to do with the root structures around the foundation. Excavation could occur under the canopy of the tree but to not go in any further than the current foundation. The tree removal permit is in section 13.20 of our code. Gretchen commented that every situation regarding trees is different. Willis asked how many specimen trees there are in Aspen. Ben said this is a specimen tree and he doesn't know how many exist. This tree is in an environment where it can grow and has room to grow and strive. Willis said there are specimen trees and there are legacy trees. Ben said a specimen tree is a value to the community. Heritage and legacy trees have more to do with historical preservation. Howie Mallory, 1230 Snowbunny Lane. Regarding the longevity of the tree there will be a significant development to the Victorian property to the east of this property that will involve a large basement. The conditions will change The studio will be moved and a large building will be built 15 feet away. Howie said staff has made themselves available to us which is greatly appreciated. The tree is 90 to 95 feet high. City codes despite their best intentions are often in conflict with one another. HPC's primary goal is preservation and not to be at odds with the intent of the tree removal ordinance. We have taken the intent of the five sections of the ordinance very seriously and in good faith when developing our final design. We are asking HPC to support our appeal. Exhibit I — Bill Stirling's letter Nora Berko also thanked Ben for his hard work. The architecture, the livability and the landscape are one in the same and they are intertwined. They are all part of our AspenModern proposal. We have tried for 9 months to come up with a project to achieve our family objectives and goals and to preserve the studio and keep the tree. Unfortunately we can't do all three. If we keep the tree and our family objectives then we cannot preserve the 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 studio. We want to keep the studio. It is not a garage that is driving the tree it is the necessity of a one story program element right behind the studio. 'We want to be able to see the studio from Hallam Street and the alley. That is why the mass is pushed to the west. .We feel our proposal is supported by section D & E and B. B states that it detracts from the integrity of the landscape and in this case Aspen Modern. With the tree it is not an AspenModern landscape. We as a family would like the support of HPC before going to council for the entire project. The tree has been limbed up and it has a large predominant top which makes it vulnerable and the growing environment will not be the same. It will be impacted from both sides. We feel the life of the tree is limited and the studio is one of the 5 Bauhaus resources in the Wes End and this is one of them. We also feel the studio is part of the cultural fabric of our town. We would like HPC to support criteria B, D and E so that we can all move forward. Harry Teague, architect What is the relevance of this to historic preservation and what is the relevance to the architecture. The tree is very big and the resource is very small. You will see the small house with 100 feet of evergreen behind it. You also won't be able to see Aspen Mountain. The building has important geometry and unique shapes. Stan Clausen, landscape architect. We discourage clients from planting spruce trees because of the'eventual growth pattern of those trees particularly on small lots. Criteria B & E maybe useful to the HPC in evaluating this and should be the basis of a recommendation that this tree can be removed. Criteria E talks about a specimen tree which is a tree that has been able to grow in its natural habit. The location of this particular planting close to the studio has been required to be limbed up at least 20 feet. That liming up has changed the natural habit. ,Because this tree has had to be limbed up because it was planted to close to the house. In short this is not a specimen tree and it does not achieve its natural habit and has been limbed up and you will never re-generate those bottom limbs. This is not a tree that should be considered for preservation. This tree overpowers the lot in terms of sunlight and the livability of the property. Harry said they were hoping the determination could be as a whole. Bob said the image clearly defines one of'the problems of the tree. The tree has been trimmed up 20 feet or so. What would happen if the tree stays? 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES-OF APRIL 8, 2015 Nora said the studio would be gone and it wouldn't be a good area for parking. Harry also said from a constructability state it is very difficult with the drip line of the tree etc. Eric asked about the tree planting. Nora said she remembers the tree being there when the studio was built. It w was probably a XMAS tree size. Willis said in terms of deterring the decision until after the presentation we have been advised by our,assistant attorney to take these one at a time in a linear way. Debbie said three criteria have been identified by the applicant that you could advise, B,D,E. You are not asked to take a position just give advice. D is whether the tree is inconsistent with an established historic landscape pattern in the area or landscape practices associated with the period of significance. On E you do not need to decide if it is a specimen tree all you have to decide is whether or not you agree that the protection of the tree conflicts with the redevelopment,of the to be designated historic property. Willis said this boils down to a cultural resource on one hand and an environmental resource on the other. It would behoove us to take the side of the cultural resource. The tree is so fall removed from the right-of-way it won't distinguish itself and doesn't have the aesthetic charge that the Sardy house tree does. This comes down to the fact that the studio is not replaceable. As a board we need to support the cultural resource which will be a very green project. I would not want to risk the loss of the studio. Gretchen said she concurs. That block has a lot of specimen trees on it. I feel this tree is completely 100% replaceable. 'We have a tree mitigation program. The studio is irreplaceable and is important to our history much more so than the tree. I could not vote for keeping the tree. This project is fantastic and is important for Aspen. The tree is a threat to our historical roots and I would vote to have it taken down. Parks can work out a viable program to plant trees elsewhere and where they will be a better asset to the 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 .community. This tree is a detriment to the preservation of history to the family and to Mr. Berko. Bob said he does not see the tree as a public asset because of its location in the alley. If anything it is a detriment. The tree as you can see from the photo dominates the site vs the historic property and therefore it is in conflict with everything that they are trying to accomplish with this historic site. It also obstructs the views of Aspen Mountain in some locations. The additional house is to have solar panels on the roof and I had to remove solar panels from an historic house because the trees were so big they sheltered the light and the panels didn't work anymore. I am in favor of moving ahead on this project and make a recommendation to the City Manager that we as a panel take the position of removing the tree. Eric said there is a very human element that comes along with this but because we are being asked to categorize B, D or E I agree that the tree is not an historic asset in this case. The most important factor is that the Berko studio be saved. Patrick said he agrees with the analysis of Parks from the code and guidelines. This is an interesting case if you can't do the project we'll have to "shoot the puppy". Historically these are intertwined because they are about the same time. My solution is to separate the two and maybe there is somewhere to put the tree somewhere else in a better location. Gretchen said Parks has a good mitigation program. Willis said he has had projects where old trees have been in harm's way due to construction and possibly the wood could be repurposed and include it in parts of the architectural project such as benches and outdoor seating. Memorialize the fact that the tree was there. If the tree is removed the applicant should implement the solar proposal because it is a mechanical system and the two are tied together. Gretchen said she feels the solar is part of the fenestration and we aren't there yet. Willis said based on B, D, and E the HIPC feels E is the strongest criteria met for the removal of the tree. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Gretchen said she feels we need to make a stronger recommendation of the criteria. Gretchen said criteria B,C,D and E are met. Bob said we need to be very clear and not have ambiguous things. Patrick said it will be debated again regardless if it is denied by the city manager and then it will go to council. Gretchen said we need to come from a strong position. Gretchen said the landscape is the building, it is the property and location and history. The tree is inappropriate, criteria B. All agreed on B except Patrick. Patrick said E has been met and we need a win win situation. I want the historic resource preserved and the tree needs to�be moved. Gretchen said she can't agree with that. The historic building is going to have conflicts with the tree as well. MOTION: Willis said the board feels criteria E is the most compelling reason to allow the tree removal. Some of the members thought B and D were met and some members did not. Motion second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Nora said they have submitted a tree mitigation program. 211 E. Hallam St. - Aspenmodern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances — continued public hearing. Amy said the major point of contention was how the new addition physically connected with the resource to be preserved. The guidelines offer two solutions one is creating a one-story link at the back of the resource and then add on. In this case they are going with the guideline that says you can build alongside of the resource but push back at least ten feet so that there is some distinction between new and old. In this version of the plan the studio is two feet east and two feet forward of what HPC saw before which allows the addition to notch back and not touch the roof of the studio and we feel this is successful. They are also asking for the 500 square foot FAR bonus and staff supports that because the resource is being preserved. They need a 5 foot rear yard setback because the garage is placed where it is allowed to be 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 but you are not allowed to have living space on top or below it. They need a 3 foot.east setback variance and a combined setback variance. The combined requirement is 15 feet and they only have 8 feet. They also need a 4 foot front yard reduction mostly because of the balcony that is on the original building and too close to the property line. Staff is supporting two waivers of RDS's, one is secondary mass which is the garage which isn't as big as the standard requires. The front door is not close enough to the street to satisfy the standard which is ten feet and we wouldn't want them to satisfy that by pushing the addition forward. They will also provide a $30,000 assurance to make sure the relocation goes as planned and the applicant has to apply for a final within one year. At council the applicant is asking for some financial relief. Staff feels this is the best example of an Aspenmodern resource and in keeping with the policies of the historic preservation program. In the event that council will not allow the tree to be removed and the applicant does decide to go forward with this plan we would like HPC to say that they could come back, delete the garage and HPC would still consider their conceptual approved. This plan meets the parking requirements of four spaces. Staff recommends approval. Harry Teague said we are breaking new ground and there is negotiation and this is very exciting. We have worked with staff to make changes that are in keeping with the architecture. If we can work through this there is hope for Aspenmodern. The building has been moved forward to the north and to the east. There is now a ten foot setback from the front of the building. There will be a one story basement not quite under the entire resource. Harry went over the changes on a power point. Regarding the solar panels we have not done an extensive study with a consultant. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Mitch Haas said the code says tandem parking spaces cannot be used to satisfy the parking requirement. Amy said tandem spaces are allowed for one unit. At final we can discuss if there are any issues with this plan. Amy said'in the packet there were several letters and two more letters were forwarded by e-mail. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Carla Kelly who is in support of the project, Exhibit II and Bill Stirling's letter, Exhibit L Willis identified the issues: Connector Setback variances Willis said the resolution lays everything out. This project is ready to approve and we are appreciative of the connector change. The connector meets the intent of the code. The variances are warranted based on the improvement to the siting of the resource. The board should consider adding language realizing that the roof plan is only schematic at this time the solar functionality be required to be implemented in the final project because it is based and connected to the removal of the tree. Gretchen said she would agree to that. This is a great project and what you came back with is a great improvement with the connection issue. I feel as though the garage added on detracts from the rest of the building and looks like an afterthought. When you walk down the alley you get a full view of the historic resource from the alley. That alley is used a lot. When that garage is taken away the project is perfect. Maybe a solution that is more transparent. Patrick said he also agrees with the seventh condition. Eric said he agrees with staff's comments. Their approach of less is more was great because it maximizes the design. Bob said he also supports staff's recommendations. Bob raised the issue that the tree was in conflict with the solar panels. MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve resolution #12, 2015 with the six conditions as written and addition condition #7, as part of the negotiation with city council the roof top mechanical system be substantially implemented if council is allowing the tree to be removed. Patrick second the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Roll call vote: Bob, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes, Eric, yes; Willis, yes. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 135 E. Cooper— Minor Development, cont'd public hearing Amy said this is a land mark property and listed on the National Register. In 2003 the current property did an addition and renovation of the property. There is also an historic out building along the alley. In 2003 the applicant was concerned that there was the requirement that the connector be one story. The applicant showed a two story connector but HPC did not accept it. What was approved was the Victorian, one story link and a two story addition. The applicant continues to say that there are livability issues with the down.and up circulation. This is the third public hearing for changing the link. In the previous two hearings staff has not supported the change. We are not improving the situation and moving away from compliance of the guidelines. The two story links either make the link stick out of the back of the house or they come forward or they create a strange stacking relationship which isn't in keeping with the Victorian massing. The proposed alternative expands the link to two stories in the back and wraps up the east side of the new construction so therefore the distance between the new and old has tightened: Staff doesn't find that this is an improvement. Staff feels that the hearing process has run out and recommends denial. Staff has said all along that there are interior remodels that could happen to solve theP roblems. Dillon Johns, architect Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Mitch said making an improvement of the project has never been a criteria it just needs to comply with the guidelines. We feel the most recent enhances the project. Dillon said there are 5 options being proposed. Dillon went over the power point options. Dillon said option #6 shifts the staircase into the house. There is a transparent linkage on the second floor. As you pass by there are large trees that hide the link. Dillon said on option #I the stair is out of the way of the Cooper Street view. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Dillon said option #2 has an additional amount of area because in order to minimize the disturbance of the window and fabric we had pulled the connecting link to the north side of the existing linkage. Option #3 proposes moving the existing linkage and stacking everything into the middle of the fa9ade. We would then lose a window on the ground floor which we would propose to move and reset back in the wall. This proposal reduces the visibility from the Aspen Street side. Mitch said chapter 10 of the guidelines applies to this project. Guideline 10.3 says the design should be able to interpret the historiccharacter of the primary building. A lot of people think the addition is historic. The existing link is too insubstantial and is out of scale. Also the handrails on top of the link look like the handrails on the historic porch. Making the glass connector more substantial and more in scale actually serves to better differentiate between the old and new. Mitch said guideline 10.4 talks about designing a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. The proposal is to put the new stairs in glass. Mitch said guideline 10.6 talks about designing an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Both the existing structure and addition are substantial in size and scale. The existing link is too small to be compatible with or to facilitate differentiation. Mitch said guideline 10.7 states if it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than an historic building then it should be set back substantially from significant facades and use a connector to link the historic building. The addition is not taller than the historic building. The guidelines state that a one story connector is preferred but it doesn't say required. The entire structure has been mistaken as being historic. Mitch said guideline 10.8 addresses that the addition should be at the rear of the building or setback from the front to minimize the visual impact. It should be setback at least ten feet. None of the options are at the front of the historic resource. The neo-victorian rail lends to the confusion in what is old land new. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Mitch said the historic wraparound front porch was fully restored. There is a master bedroom and if a child is in another bedroom the adult has to go down the stairs across the house and through the connector and up the stairs. The function lacks. The guidelines are about striking'a reasonable balance. It is impossible to make the design of this home and the addition work together without some minor alterations to the resource. It is felt that one of the 5 options should be agreeable. The changes are barely visible from Cooper Avenue. As viewed from Aspen Street it is difficult to tell where the historic structure ends and the new construction begins. They are too similar in design, color, massing and scale. The existing connector is too similar and too insubstantial in size and scale to aid for the needed differentiation. The proposed linking element will help improve this. The applicant is trying to strike a balance between her property rights and the city's interest in protecting the historic property. We will be using non-reflective glass to link the old and new. The single staircase will unite the family living in the house. Gretchen said as an applicant you should come in with one option. This is the same solution but just being moved around. Have you looked at remodeling some of the interior changes to make for a more appropriate link? You do see this proposal from the street. Perhaps the solution is wrong from the start. Mitch said the client would be happen if any of the plans were approved. Amy said the options have accumulated and this is their third meeting. Willis said we should take off the table the original application. We can discuss 1,2,3 and 6. I recall supporting #3 but others felt it was too much disturbance to the historic fabric. I feel #3 meets the intent of the code. Bob said separating the two structures is important. A two story solution is a good solution. The front perspective is the strong point. With the one- story you don't get any read as it is almost invisible. Patrick said the submissions before were undesirable because they were two stories. By going with a two story connector we are pushing the two together and losing the effect of separation. Redesigning the interior makes more sense. 12 J ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Gretchen said she agrees with Bob. A two story glass connector looks nice. I can see remodeling some of the interior to accommodate the stairs and reduce the mass. Option #3 looks the best from the street. When glass is purposed we should have purview over what is behind it. Willis said he could approve #3 if the stair was the code minimum width. Bob said he could support option #3. Eric said he could accept option #3. Eric said option #3 has the least impact on the historic resource. Patrick said they could have remodeled the two structures but they don't want to do that. They already have it approved as a single connector. I also agree with staff and we should deny all of them. MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve Option 43 with the minimum width of the stairs to meet code to increase the separation between the historic resource. and the new construction. Materials to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Bob. Amy pointed out that no materials were submitted and she is concerned what staff and monitors role is regarding materials. Can we tell how thick the mullions are from the drawings? Bob said they could be approved by staff and monitor. Gretchen said we could ask them to come back with,a completed application. We do not know the roof line or materials. Roll call vote: Eric, no; Bob, yes; Willis, yes; Gretchen, no; Patrick, no. Motion failed 3-2. MOTION: Willis moved to continue 135 E . Cooper to June 24th with the recommendation that riserless stairs be used as represented in the renderings. One application with a fully developed set of details including material palate, dimensional drawings etc. Motion second by Eric. Roll call vote: 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Eric, yes; Bob, yes; Willis, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, no. motion carried 4-1. 101 W. Main Street aka Molly Gibson — Lot 2 of 125 W. Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split— Planned Development Detailed Review, Final Major Development and Commercial Design Final Review MOTION: Bob moved to continue 101 W. Main public hearing to 5/27/2015; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Debbie said at the 27' meeting we will review the affidavit. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. trickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14