Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150923ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Jim DeFrancia, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal. Absent were Nora Berko, Sallie Golden, John Whipple, Bob Blaich and Michael Brown. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Jim made the motion to approve the minutes of September 9th as amended by Willis. Willis second, all in favor, motion carried. 209 E. Bleeker – Major Development Conceptual review, Demolition, Relocation, FAR Bonus, Residential Design Standards and Variations, Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavits of posting are in order - Exhibit I Photographs - Exhibit II Sara said the building was owned by the Hayes family for a long time and it has been heavily altered. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the miner’s cabin and add an addition. This is a designated landmark site. They are also requesting the 500 square foot bonus and some variations to setbacks and approval of partial demolition for the removal of the non- historic additions that have happened over time. It is a 6,000 square foot lot zoned R-6. The proposed site plan and the amount of mass that is being proposed for the site is a concern. The new addition wraps around the landmark in a way that overwhelms the one story landmark. The applicant has pushed the addition to the rear but there is a piece sticking out adjacent to the landmark that is two stories which is a concern of staff. Staff is recommending a restudy of the site plan and massing. There are two different concepts. One is to shift all of the mass to the rear so you don’t have the “finger” sticking out next to the Victorian. The other approach is to create the look of a lot split with two separate buildings from the street facing façade and do almost an invisible addition behind the landmark. Maybe use a one story connector that you can’t see. What is being proposed is new construction next to it and also a two story behind the landmark. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 2 Staff feels there is too much mass on the site. Guideline 10.6, 10.8 and 10.14 are not met. The applicant is proposing a gabled roof which is more in keeping with the Victorian. Staff is in support of removing the non -historic addition. There is a shed but it cannot be linked to the Sanborne Map or any documentation. Sara explained that the bonus is in two parts. We are talking about a reconstruction of this building with limited information and whether that makes the FAR bonus appropriate. If there is a lot of guess work does that mean they should get the bonus or is it even appropriate. The bonus should be linked to preservation and maybe not re-creation. Sara said if HPC feels the bonus is appropriate and the criteria met then we recommend that the bonus be conditioned on two TDR’s being applied for. Again, we feel there is too much mass on the site. Variations – They are requesting variations for the east, west, combined and rear yard setback. The variations requested are a product of too much mass on the site. We are OK with legalizing the current location of the home because they are not moving the home. The below grade space is a great way to have mass underground. As far as the combined variances and the east setback we felt that the project could get closer to meeting those requirements. There is a 15 foot combined side yard setback and they are providing about three feet. Residential design standards – They are requesting a variation for the size of the original front porch which doesn’t meet the six foot depth requirement. Staff is absolutely supportive of that because it will recreating the existing condition. Staff is recommending continuation to restudy the mass and the site plan to meet the east side yard setback of 5 feet to get closer to the combined setback of 15 feet. Kim Raymond, architect The proposal is an addition to the east and rear. We will take the gable window out of the rendering because it is not there. We will put the dormer back and restore the roof. We don’t feel the shed that Sara mention is old but old wood has been used on it. A new roof was built over the existing roof and a fireplace was added over time. We will put a small dormer that existed back and restore the roof. We will refurbish the existing doors that were found in the basement. They were probably the two doors that were on ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 3 the front porch. Jim and Mary Hayes who lived in the house were prominent members of the Aspen community. Kim did a context power point of different buildings on the block and explained their density. Kim said we are at 45% site coverage on the lot. We feel the density is appropriate on the lot and is in keeping with other projects approved by the HPC and what is going on in the neighborhood. If the building was by itself it gets overwhelmed by the large building beside it. The addition steps back 18 feet and then the two story element starts back another 5.7 feet. It would be very hard to see the addition from either direction. The little shed will go away and we are restoring the front porch. We have the five foot setback for the garage. There is 9’10” between the cabin and the addition. The cabin will be the main living room. We are trying to keep the same forms, flat roofs and gables. The cabin is a very simple structure. The gable in the back of the addition is 15 feet behind the back of the historic building. We are going to great lengths to figure out what the cabin was and put it back as close as we can and we feel the bonus is warranted. We are losing high ceilings in order to re-create the little cabin. Aspen’s history is important to this board and that is why we are re-creating the roof back to where it was and another reason for granting the bonus. We also feel the cabin needs something behind it to back it up. 417 421 Hallam is a similar project with the building in the middle of the block and has a very similar site plan with an addition that wraps around like our which is another example of what has been approved by the HPC. We feel the FAR of 3,750 fit nicely on a 6,000 square foot lot. City Council does not want us to create TDR’s and sell them or take them off the property. City Council wants us to keep them on the property. Design standards 10.6 - design an addition to be compatible with the size and scale of the main building. We feel we have accomplished that here. Guideline 10.8 says place an addition at the rear of the building or set it back from the front to minimize. The two story addition is 23 ½ feet behind the cabin and out link is off the back instead of off the side. Sara said there are ways to move the mass around so that it doesn’t feel like there is a two story mass all the way around the cabin. If you are having the addition in the back make sure the side yard is much more subordinate to the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 4 landmark. If the addition is to the side then the rear absolutely needs to be subordinate to the landmark. Don’t do both is what we are trying to say. Jim said this has an addition to the side and rear and has the propensity to overpower the cabin. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Willis identified the issues: Mass and scale and the disposition on site Demolition of the shed FAR bonus Setback variances being requested. 15 foot combined side yard setback which is now 3 feet Rear yard setback for a deck on top of the garage Willis said he shares a lot of staffs concerns about mass and scale. There seems to be two “nested” L’s. Willis said he appreciated the analysis presented. You can’t see the connector piece. The underutilization of the southwest corner of the lot could be addressed. The mass is usually back toward the alley and have a more open area to the front of the house. The three stacked windows on both floors is quite a lot of volume. Not being able to see through to the connector is also a concern. Patrick also agreed that the mass could be moved to the southwest corner and they could still have the stone patio. The gable roof is desirable to keep the historic character. Gretchen said sometimes it is a value to discuss windows with respect to mass and scale because they can significantly affect the perception of the height of the building. Jim agreed about the concern of the mass and not wanting to overwhelm the historic structure. The FAR bonus is OK because they are going to a considerable effort to restore an historic property. Taking the TDR’s off the site would be preferable and that is the intent that the TDR’s are transferable so you can do a better job preserving the site. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 5 Gretchen agreed with Staff and Willis regarding the mass and site planning. This project doesn’t meet 75% of the guidelines in terms of preservation in Aspen. The addition overwhelms a significant building for the community that is not only an historic resource but also important members of our community have lived here. The site is over developed. You are asking for variances at the back of the building which could be avoided by re-designing the space. The two story massing wrapping around the building is unsuccessful from a preservation standpoint. Small cabins are not deemed to have large additions. The lot split ordinance was adopted to try to prevent this exact type of development. The site plan coverage needs restudied. The bonus is not worthy in the current form. If the massing was taken down to a one story structure next to the historic building and pushed back on the site that might work. Setbacks should only be for historic resources not additions when you have this much land to work with. Willis said he would support a 6’10“combined side yard setback. Five foot on the east and 1’10” for the resource. Willis said Jim and Mary Hayes were a legacy and possibly a plaque could be done in memory of them. MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 209 E. Bleeker until Nov. 11th with guidance that the board has given; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Draft revisions to HPC guidelines, Chapter 2-7 Amy Simon, Sara Adams, Sarah Rosenberg are the team working on the guidelines. Amy said they are changing the guidelines to be simplified. All the photographs are from Aspen. Sara mentioned that the goal is to make the guidelines more user friendly and more concise. Below are the proposed changes. Chapter 2 – Building Materials Victorians have clapboard siding and Aspen Modern has other materials. The section on aluminum siding has been pulled out. Also pulled out was information on building maintenance and a chapter at the end of the guidelines will be added about painting and maintenance. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 6 2.5 Alternative materials: Added: you can’t replace wood siding with synthetic materials. 2.2 Finish of materials. Added: Finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. Patrick suggested putting the original pictures up first and then the altered photographs. Chapter 3 – Windows 3.1 Preserve the original glass. If Victorian era glass is broken consider using restoration glass for the repair. 3.4 Replacing of a historic window. Use materials that are the same as the original. 3.7 New guideline: Adding new openings on a historic structure are generally not allowed. 3.8 Use storm windows exterior or interior as an option. Chapter 4 4.4 If you are replacing a door on a historic building you could use a salvaged door. 4.5 Adding doors are generally not allowed. 4.8 New guideline: Preserve historic hardware. Chapter 5 Porches and balconies Back porch can’t be demolished. 5.5 If new steps are constructed construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony. 5.6 Avoid handrails and guardrails on steps where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 7 Chapter 6 Architectural details 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required based on original designs. Chapter 7 Roofs Amy said more information has been added about vents and they should be minimal and painted a dark color. 7.3 Skylights – Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a flat roof on an historic structure. Gretchen said she would not support any skylights on a historic structure. Is it preservation or not. Skylights and solar panels are not acceptable on any portion of an historic structure. 7.4 New vents should be minimized carefully placed and painted a dark color and toward the back of the building. You can’t do direct vent fireplaces on historic structures. 7.6 Dormers cannot be added on a front primary façade. Not every building will be allowed to have a dormer. 7.8 Flashing – We are looking for a gray finish, tin, galvanized lead coated copper, painted metal. Cooper flashing is too fancy. Metal roofs are not appropriate for an Aspen Victorian home but maybe for a secondary structure. 7.12 New guideline: Gutters should be minimized and not use copper for a Victorian. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk