Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160113ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Sallie Golden, Bob Blaich and Jim DeFrancia. John Whipple and Michael Brown were absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Gretchen moved to approve the minutes of December 2nd as amended; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of December 9 th, second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Nora said she will recuse herself on 211 E. Hallam Resolution endorsing Council adoption of new historic preservation design guidelines Amy commented that the purpose statement was added; a website address where people can find out which properties are on the National Register and we added a comment about sense of place. Diagrams were updated regarding landscapes and height of plantings. A lot of the projects coming up will be under the old guidelines. We ran an article in the paper and the guidelines are on the city website. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #1, adopting the guidelines. Motion second by Jim. Patrick said he found it disconcerting that no one responded about the guidelines. We need to find a way to get people involved because this is a significant document. Regarding simplicity and modesty in design are we dictating what people should be building too much. Nora said simplicity and modesty gives us a tool to work with. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 2 Jim reminded the board that these are only guidelines and we can’t mandate the public to participate and there is a defined process in the code. We did the outreach the best we can. Sallie said we are an appointed board and we spend hours and hours as professionals to look at the guidelines. Roll call vote: Nora; Gretchen; Patrick; Sally; Bob; Jim and Willis. Motion carried 7-0. 211 E. Hallam – Final Major Development, Public Hearing Nora recused herself. Affidavit of postings – Exhibit I Sallie disclosed that she is work with Gyles Thornely, landscape architect for the 211 E .Hallam project and has no financial interest etc. in this project. Amy said conceptual review was held about a year ago. It is about a 6,000 square foot lot that contains the Berko studio which sits back along the alley. The board agreed to the voluntary designation, moving the studio to the front of the property and rotating it and adding a second dwelling unit along the west property line. HPC granted conceptual with the condition that there be a follow through for the solar heating plan that was submitted. City council approved the proposed designation, incentives; TDR’s; permit fee waivers; removal of the large tree and a number of other things. Council did approve HPC’s request for the solar system. Amy said what is being preserved of the studio is the wood frame portion. It will be lifted up and moved to the front of the site. The chimney and CMU will be reconstructed to match the existing conditions. The applicant is asking to replace doors and windows which on Victorians can be debated. Staff does not find that there is any particular craftsmanship or a need to preserve the units that are in place now. They will be replicated. There will also be a small addition to the studio with a basement level window opening and staff is supportive of that. There is also a change which is a walk out basement at the back of the building toward the interior courtyard. Staff also finds that is an appropriate alteration. We have had several projects that have had below grade expansion which allows a more livable area and not have an appendage added to the back of the building. There are existing skylights on the studio with a bubble shape. The applicant would like to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 3 remove them and staff recommends that some other solution be found even if they are made non-functional. As an exterior element of the building they are off that era and part of the original design and staff would like to see them retained. The applicant did show solar panels sitting on the studio building and that has typically not been something HPC allows and staff recommends that they be removed and only installed on the new construction. The roof system is very insufficient in terms of insulation. The applicant has beefed up the system which requires a thicker fascia detail and staff supports the proposal. The applicant has provided detailed landscape information. Staff has a few potential concerns. There is a requirement that there be on-site tree mitigation related to the larger tree that will be removed and the applicant hadn’t provided that but they intend to plant aspens on the site that were not in the packet and they will follow-up with the Parks Department. There are proposals in the public right-of-way and we have asked the applicant to pull back on some of the plantings. We need a consistent treatment in the West End. We do not support the site walls in the right-of-way and they have been removed. We have also asked that they not propose ground cover instead of sod in the right-of-way. The Parks Dept. will resolve all of these issues. There is a green roof proposed in the area of the garage. The Zoning Dept. has specific requirements how they want a physical break between the outdoor seating and a green roof. They are concerned that railings etc. will be removed after the project is finalized and the deck will become bigger than allowed. The applicant is proposing planters around the deck that would satisfy zoning. Staff is recommending approval. Amy said in the ordinance that council approve we have a never before section that requires the applicant to return some of the incen tives they received if they sell the property within five years. Additional elevations – Exhibit II Mirte Malory said the design and massing remain the same. We desire to create a multi-generational family duplex. Our goal is to create two full time residents that function independently. We desire to honor the Berko studio inside and out. The Berko archive and studio will be preserved and have functionally improved spaces. We have invested in sustainable designs. Mirte thanks the HPC for volunteering their time on the HPC commission and Amy for her expertise and patience and stewardship of the AspenModern program. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 4 Harry Teague, Harry Teague architects Harry said we have changed very little in the project. The building is located to the entrance of the West End. The addition is on the back of the Berko studio. There have been some changes to the deck configuration. On the roof pattern the solar panels have been moved off the historic resource and now on the addition. There is a stair between the garage elements. The studio garage has moved slightly closer to the street to add a little more room in the garage. There is a curved green roof proposed for over the garages. Philip Jeffreys said based on Amy feedback we will either replace the skylights with the same shape or not do them at all. We will work with staff. Harry said they desire to keep the exposed beams on the inside of the studio. The geometry and setbacks and separation and forms are the same as approved previously. In order to get the insulation we are marrying a structure on either side of the beams and adding the insulation across. The depth of the beams will change but you will still have the dark line and white ceiling. We will also have insulation on the outside to move the dew point away from the existing beams. Harry went over the material boards. Jim DeFrancia recused himself. Gyles Thorney, landscape architect from Connect One Design Gyles said we are proposing a green courtyard in the center and the concept came from the Herbert Bayer canvas both horizontally and vertically. On the flanks we have a maintenance free hard scape and soft scape. On the alley there are two parking spaces. The driveways are concrete and the use of a concrete paver system. We have looked at the neighborhood context. The cottonwood mitigation trees will be used and Aspen trees. There is a bicycle storage are that is concealed by a 42 inch high concrete wall. There will be integrated lighting. Lilacs will also be incorporated and a staggered fence that is metal with perforations is proposed bet ween the neighboring property. We are proposing a green roof which incorporates the storm water mitigation. The barrier on the deck is an important part of the design. There will also be a trash area in the back. There is also a walkout basement. We will be using minimal light fixtures. Harry mentioned that the deck will not be walkable. We will dealing with Planning & Zoning and we would like HPC’s support on the steel railing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 5 The requirement is a 36 inch high railing which is totally inappropriate. We would have a planter on the west side. Amy talked to Zoning and they either want the seating deck or green roof to be shifted by a 30 inch offset so that it is not a continuous plane or they want a more solid barrier between the two. They like the solid planter wall facing the alley and they would like the steel railing to be more like that. Zoning will make the decision. Willis said to increase the incentive of doing green roofs they allowed decks to be unlimited if it is a green surface with the caveat that 30 inches is needed to separate the two so you don’t abuse the rule or deck area. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis thanked the applicant for a good presentation. The project will be a great asset to historic preservation in Aspen and the AspenModern program. Willis said he would support the skylights being replaced in the same configuration. Willis also said he would support the green roof. Not to encumber more shade into the courtyard is a good thing and the project is well done. Sallie also said she would support the project. Maybe we can put some kind of site specific approval for the green roof and the proposed fencing. Gretchen said we can support the green roof as presented. Amy said you can word the condition of the green roof as a site specific instance and any revision will be approved by staff and monitor. Willis said we should eliminate condition #6 and say we support the design of the green roof as presented. Amy said #1 condition is OK. #2 Retain the existing skylights or replace them in-kind. #3 eliminate; #4 eliminate; #5 eliminate; #6, site specific, approve to allow the design as presented relative to the deck and green roof. Any revisions to be approved by staff and monitor. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 6 MOTION: Bob moved to approve Resolution #2, 2016 as amended; second by Gretchen. Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Bob, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 980 Gibson Ave. – Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing Affidavit of public notice – Exhibit I New elevations – Exhibit II Nora was seated. Amy said this property is part of the Alpine Acres subdivision. It was annexed into the city in the 60’s. 980 and 990 sat on one parcel as a duplex. Recently they have been subdivided into two separate lots. This application is to demolish the garage that links the two buildings together and to restore 980 Gibson back to its original form; rotate it on the lot and place it on the front corner at the intersection of Gibson and Matchless and build a new house next to it. We do not know where the house came from so we cannot identify the exact shape. It appears that it is turned backwards on the lot. A lot of the door and window openings have been changed. We feel good enough that this project will bring back the character of the building as an example of a miner’s cottage and make it a nice feature of that neighborhood. There are historic materials and they will be used as guidance for the project. There are a few concerns with the renovation of the Victorian. There is a little addition proposed on the back of it to accommodate a stair to the basement and we want to make sure that that wasn’t damaging historic material any more than necessary. We have asked the applicant to restudy the placement so that they don’t cut into an original fascia line and they have accomplished that. We also asked them to reduce the size of a light well that is right adjacent to the right porch of the historic resource so that it isn’t any bigger than the code requirement and they have accomplished that. We also asked that they ensure that the porch follows the dimensions that appear to be the original enclosed porch that is currently facing the back yard. There are a lot of details of this project that will have to be finalized during construction when we get a better look at original fabric. Staff supports the design as proposed and we have a few conditions of approval. The applicant has addressed all of them. The applicant has asked for a couple of setback variances to the side yards. One of the side yards is along Matchless Drive and it relates to the placement of the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 7 Victorian cottage and they have asked for a reduction from 15 feet to 5.6 feet. We support that. On the opposite side they are requesting a similar reduction that is adjacent to the 990 Gibson Victorian. The applicant has placed the house so that it doesn’t provide the full 15 foot side yard setback. We have requested that they address that in part by reducing the width of a deck that is proposed on the front of the house. They have accomplished that in the plans. There are still cantilevered levels on that side that protrude slightly into the setback. There are two proposals one completely removes the house out of the setback but then that means it is closer to the Victorian. In this project you are to have the miner’s cottage and the new house completely separated by a distance of five feet above and below grade. The applicant has asked to have the foundations touch because it is easier for them to construct. Zoning concern is that someone might punch a hole in the wall and the two structures would become one. We have asked them to create a gravel filled chamber below grade of a five foot width that would make it harder for someone to connect the two units in the future. The applicant is requesting a variation from two of the RDS’s, building orientation and build to lines. In terms of building orientation there buildings are both square to Gibson Ave. but they can’t to Matchless because it a curvilinear street. The build to line standard would require that the two houses both be up front at the setback line on Gibson but they cannot do that because of vegetation and the shape of the Victorian and they also have a preference for setting the new house back a bit in order for the Victorian to be the highlight so staff supports that. They are making the miner’s cottage an accessory dwelling unit or a carriage house. This unit will possibly be a voluntarily affordable housing unit. The owner doesn’t have to rent it. If they choose to it has to be to a qualified working employee within Pitkin County and there is no set rate on the rent but there are some restrictions to its use. As a result the applicant has to meet some design standards and they need some exceptions. When you are creating this kind of unit more than half net livable space needs to be above grade. In this case there is more livable space below grade. We think that is an appropriate exception for HPC to make because we wouldn’t want to see a larger addition. The second variation is that the carriage house be completely detached from the primary residence and they are butting up against each other but we have required the gravel filled chamber and we feel that satisfies the intent of the requirement. The carriage house is expected to comply with dimensional requirements but you are asked to grant some setback variations for it. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 8 Amy said we support the granting of conceptual major development for the design. We also support HPC approving the demolition of the non-historic parts of the building. We support your approval of relocation to pick the historic house up and move it forward to the front of the site and rotate it in the proper direction. We support HPC granting the variations for setbacks, RDS’s and the accessory dwelling design standards. Sallie said the ADU gives the owner the opportunity to rent legally a place on their property that they otherwise would not be able to. If they rent it they have to rent it to qualified employees so it can offer one more space for a Pitkin County employee. If it wasn’t an ADU they couldn’t have a kitchen. Amy said this gives it the best chance to be occupied. Sallie recused herself Bill Pollock, Zone 4 architects Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Mitch said what is left of the Victorian after you take off all the additions over the years is a very small footprint about 450 square feet of net livable area. The client wanted to let the house stand alone and be a miner’s cottage and not attach his whole house to the back of it. The owner likes the idea of someone living there and can look after his house. We will first need to figure out what is historic in the house and turn the house around. As a point we are not asking for a bonus. Mitch said a subdivision was done to split the two parcels up. The lot line goes through a garage which will be removed. The house will be turned around to face Gibson Ave. so that it is visible. There are two huge trees in front of 990 which make it difficult to see 980 and those trees will go away and the client is paying for that. It will be a slow careful demolition process to see what is inside all the walls and what is original. Mitch went over the site plan. Bill Pollock said the mass is half of what the original design was. The client doesn’t want to move the new house closer to the restored Victorian. The ground floor and the footprint of the building complies with the setback requirement of 15 feet. We have an 18 inch cantilever for a chimney and a two foot cantilever at the back by the master bathroom. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 9 Mitch said you are allowed to have a roof overhang project 18 inches into the setback. We are not proposing any fencing. The projections have no impact on a setback standpoint or on historic preservation. Pushing the house further closer to the Victorian does start to have an impact. We are hoping HPC allows the projections to be in the 15 foot setba ck but at the ground level we comply. Our allowable floor area is about 7800 square feet. The setbacks are based on the lot size of between 11,000 and 12,000 square feet. Our setbacks are unusually large relative to the FAR allowed on the property. We are hoping HPC approves the overhangs given the amount of effort we are going through to restore the Victorian. On the carriage house the square footage is only about 450 square feet. We wanted to make the unit more livable by going below grade. With the 5 foot gravel filled chamber the unit is detached. We are hoping we can get through conceptual approval. Nora inquired about the tree removals. Mitch said the cottonwoods on Gibson have to remain. On Matchless a string of trees will remain. Only a few will be cut down in order to get to the driveway. Willis inquired about the size of the lot and ceilings heights of the new construction. Bill said it is 11,587 square feet. The ceiling height is 10 feet and 9 foot plate heights on the second floor. Gretchen asked about the concept of the proposal. Bill said the client wanted a traditional mountain modern home but sty within the context of the two historic homes on either side. Nora asked about the overhangs and the perceived heaviness of the deck . Bill said the client loves the view of Aspen Mountain. The client spends a lot of time outside and will do on the deck. Part of the overhang is to break the two story mass up. The other is to provide a covered area to get from the garage to the front door. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 10 Willis said the 3D version is what is being represented. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Chris Greenwood said she lives in the neighborhood. Chris asked about the height requirements. Willis said the height requirements are 25 foot measured to about 1/3 of the way up to the primary roof shape. Chris said the height would be about another 5 feet past that. Chris also asked about the trees. Bill said all the trees on the property have been flagged. All the trees on the site plan will remain. According to the Parks Dept. most of the trees on -site are not healthy. The only trees that we are allowed to take down are those that are not healthy or not deemed to be an asset to the City. If we take down any trees we would have to do a mitigation program. Chris said the historic building is very close to the street and the corner is dicey when you are driving. You have a hard time seeing. Amy said some of the trees that are going to be removed are part of that problem at the intersection. The pine tree and aspens at the corner are all going away with the approval of the Parks Dept. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Mitch said they will be doing plantings to help with the mitigation. Willis identified the issues: East setback, East setback on the Matchless Drive, 5’6” Below grade setback 5 foot gravel filled chamber RDS’s – building orientation and build to line - Matchless curve issue The caretaker unit Partial demolition ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 11 Willis said the project is commendable and placing the resource on the corner with no attachments except to the north is remarkable. This building will stand off as a jewel to the community. The site plan is great and the fact that they are not requesting a bonus is commendable. In doing that they have maximumized the separation and justifies the request for the east side yard setback variation request. The below grade setback is fine. The RDS’s are straight forward. The evolution of the site planning is all good and turning it northward to create a more porous reading are all great things. The overall height being pushed to the maximum height is something to discuss at mass and scale. Bob agreed with Willis. This is such an improvement from the original proposal and they have moved in the right direction. I have no issue with the height considering what is possible on that site. It is commendable that the historic house is being preserved. Patrick said he is OK with the side yard setback rather than moving the new house over. I am not OK with the 5.6 for the historic resource and it is really close to the road. I would suggest that the historic resource be moved two more feet away from the road which would be 7.6. Also on the cantilevered roof I would recommend that the size be cut in half. Gretchen said the overall concept is good and it is successful. I also agree that the carriage house should be moved further away from the street. The rotation of the house is good. I have a problem giving variances out for new Construction when there is enough room to solve the issues. The building overwhelms the Victorian but it can work. There are a lot of different window styles and it confuses the building and that could be addressed at final. The least amount of things that we have to vary is what I would prefer to see on an 11,000 square foot parcel. The height can work as long as there is some compatibility in scale or concept and I’m not finding it. Nora said she is pleased to see the little cabin being restored. Nora also said she feels the new building is sitting on top of the little Victorian. Maybe move it back a little as it doesn’t meet guideline 11.3 which is that the front elevation needs to be similar in scale. The huge overhang is awkward and the porch feels very heavy. The building just looks a little top heavy. If it was moved back a little and trimmed down a little it could be acceptable. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016 12 Bob said he has no problem with the overall height. This proposal is definitely an improvement over what is existing. Wills said the grade goes up as you go north so if the building is pushed further to the north the addition will climb and look taller. Gretchen said it is a good project, it just needs a little tweaking. Amy commented that if you want to reduce the setback variance on the 990 side by pushing the new house back that becomes a different variance. The RDS’s want the new house to be forward. I don’t know if it would feel good if the house moves further away from the street. MOTION: Gretchen moved to approve resolution #3, 2016 with the condition that the carriage house move 2 feet east away from Matchless. Reduce the mass and size of the overhang on the new proposed residence. Move the proposed residence no less than 2 to 5 feet back. Drop #1; keep #2, tweak #3; Keep #4,5,6 Motion second by Patrick. Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; Nora, yes; Patrick, yes; Bob, yes; Willis, yes; Motion carried 5 -0. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk