Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160525ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 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, Jim DeFrancia, John Whipple and Michael Brown. Bob Blaich was absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 980 Gibson Avenue – Final Major Development, Public Hearing Zone 4 – Bill Pollock and Eric Westerman Haas Planning, Mitch Haas Debbie said the affidavits have been properly provided and HPC can proceed. Amy said this site contains two historic structures. One has recently been subdivided and not part of the discussion. There are two miner’s cottages adjacent to each other that are currently hooked together with a garage. The garage will be demolished and the miner’s cottage that remains will be restored and a new house will be built next to it. It will be a s ingle family house with a carriage. The applicant was asked to do two things since conceptual, move the miner’s cottage further away from Matchless Drive and to move the new house back so that the historic resource is the most prominent building. They were also asked to look at the roof overhang on the new structure as it is exaggerated. Both of those things have been accomplished. Landscape lighting, fenestration and materials will be addressed tonight. The historic structure is positioned backward and the house will be rotated around so that the front door will face Gibson Ave. Most of the restoration will be based on evidence of other miner’s cottages in town. There aren’t a lot of original materials left on the building and we don’t have photographs. Conditions of approval. Windows and doors need completely constructed new because they don’t exist now and they are a little too wide and squatty ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 2 which can be addressed during the building permit process. The roof fascia seems a little thick and we need to make sure those proportions are correct. Also the roofing material needs discussed. Shingles would be ideal but maybe a membrane could be discussed. New house. The overhang on the porch has been restudied and meets HPC’s direction. The design of the windows are somewhat contemporary and others have a tripartite organization where the header on the central window is taller than the flanking windows and we suggest there be a staff and monitor review on that window to unify it more. We need to make sure there is compatibility with the historic structure. Staff recommends approval. Patrick said the historic house seems close to Matchless and could it be moved back a little. Amy said they propose to move it two feet further away from Matchless. Gretchen asked about the lower level basement plan as it looks like the concrete walls are connected. Amy said at conceptual it was approved to have the two basement walls touch each other but they are required to fill in the common cavern with gravel or something to deter connecting them. A variance was given. Applicant presentation: Mitch said the window on the front has been brought down to the header height. The historic building will be re-oriented. Eric said we will try to save as many trees as we can. Mitch said there is a large separation between the two structures. The buildings are about 20 feet apart. The new house roof plan is a low one- story at the closest element. There will be a lot of staff and monitor work on this building to determine what windows etc. were original. Eric said the front door of the historic house is 7 feet tall and the windows key off of that height. We can look at making the door taller and then align the windows with the top of the door. The window proportion in the kitchen will drop at the counter height and we can make that narro wer. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 3 New house: Mitch said on the new house they prefer that the large window be different than the rest for the views. We picked up the fenestration from the other windows. We feel the windows shouldn’t match precisely. The landscape plan is basically grass and very simple. The front of the property is lawn and there are simple walkways. Eric said some of the lilacs will be moved during construction and transplanted back to give a buffer between the historic resource and the street. Most of the lighting is simple and recessed cans. Willis said staff indicated that the porch roof of the historic house might be too chunky. Bill said we are happy to work through how the fascia should be designed and also the roofing. Bill said the window mullions on the west elevation center can be lowered to respond to staff’s concern. Eric said asphalt shingles will be used on the historic cottage and cedar lap siding that will match the existing profile. Gretchen commented that she would like to see wood shingles on the historic roof. Eric said there will be a metal roof on the new house, standing seam profile with charcoal gray tones. The client is looking at a fiber cement material or a Prodema panel which is a wood like material that provides a 30 year warranty and has zero maintenance. The concept is that it is a wood like siding. The wood like material would be in the gables. The roof is a standing seam metal. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Alan Becker, 950 Gibson Alan asked if the carriage house will have below grade space and what is the square footage above grade for the historic house and new house. There was also mentioned re-grading. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 4 Mitch said the re-grading is at Matchless/ Herron Street. Engineering is requiring that the road surface be regraded and a drainage swell be installed to handle drainage. There is no sidewalk plan but room for one should that occur. On Gibson it doesn’t make sense to put a sidewalk in due to the grade differential and the fact that it doesn’t tie in with anything. Eric said the square footage for the cottage is about 500 to 600 square feet above grade and the main house with the garage is 2800 square feet above grade. Alan Becker said his concern is that the new house is being built across a roadway that was controlled by the City. My vi ew plane will not be impacted but the people that live at 1050 will have some visual impacts. It’s always a sad day when your view is compromised. Chris Greenwood said she lives at 1050. When they did the quiet title I was also told that they couldn’t build on the property. How far is the house from the rear property line? Mitch said 38.9 from the rear property line. There will be a small retaining wall and the area will be flat. Chris said drainage has been a problem in that area. Mitch said there will be a functional improvement for the neighborhood. Chris asked if the historic house will be moved when the project starts. Eric said the historic house will be moved and either relocated to another site or moved to a corner of the property where the construction isn’t taking place at the time. The foundations will be built and then the historic house set on the foundation. Chris asked about the start date. Mitch said the hope is to start in the spring of 2017. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Willis identified the issues: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 5 Proportions of the historic windows when excavation occurs Porch roof on the historic resource Willis said there are no conditions on the new home. Patrick suggested giving the applicant direction once the walls are open. The perceived front of the new structure because of the 12 foot porch which will have some kind of a railing is going to make it look like the front of the house is the front deck and the deck goes a foot further out than the historic structure. Maybe it would be better to make the deck instead of 12 by 20 wide, make it ten or 8 feet so that it doesn’t stick out as far. Willis said that would recess the deck above as well because it is all tied together. Patrick said the upstairs deck is what is going to be seen because that is where the railing is. Michael said the window pattern on the garage side feels like they are haphazardly thrown in. The header on the front façade has been changed and should it be done on the other two on the north side. Gretchen said she is concerned about the Victorian simple massing and next door there is no relationship visually or sensitivity to the historic resource. It looks like there are three different styles of architecture. I am having a problem with the concept. Regarding the details the width of the trim and all the different kind of windows seems very weak to me. I prefer simplicity next to the cabins. There are deep overhangs and then a modern addition in the center and the forms of a gabled roof that somewhat articulate the historic resource but the combination doesn’t work for me. I would prefer the wood shingled roof rather than asphalt on the historic cabin. That would elevate the status of the building on the corner. The concept and site planning is excellent. Willis said in general the new building is very busy. John said our guidelines can be very subjective. There is a lot of good with the new building being detached 22 feet away from the historic cabin. There is a little more rhythm if the windows all align up but it’s not a deal breaker. There should be some flexibility. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 6 Willis said the gray center reduce the scale on the front façade and it is clearly different. It is a modern insertion on the façade. Michael said the linear windows on the gray portion don’t feel like they have any continuity or place on the façade. Patrick said the gray area seems like it sticks out rather than making it less visible from the house and detracts from the historic house next door. Gretchen said maybe the concept is a progression of change in one building that reflects the historical history. John said when they dissect the house you will be able to see how the double hung windows work and what fits there. Raising the mullion to line up with the header line is a good suggestion. I’m more in trying to stay objective. Having the new building detached is good and I’m more flexible with the window. Nora said see feels the windows are a little chaotic. The cement wall seems like it competes with the historic resource. There is a lot of good but do you compromise with a lot of good and not make it a great pro ject. The condition is that the windows need restudied with the monitor. Gretchen said the breakup of the mass in the center piece works. I would stand behind staff’s recommendations. Willis said the bigger problems are on the fabric of the new construction, the wood siding and the tripartite divisions of the windows. The flanking windows should be more consistent. Maybe reduce the number of new materials on the new building. There are so many materials and so many window shapes. The condition says restudy the proposed windows of the new house to become more similar in shape and size and proportion to the historic resource. Willis said we could add an additional condition to restudy the new construction and eliminating one of the exterior materials. All agreed. Patrick asked the board that the roof of the historic building be wood shingles rather than asphalt. Gretchen agreed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 7 Jim pointed out that wood shingles have implications on fire ratings and the technology for asphalt shingles has advanced dramatically. Willis said it is refreshing not to see wood shingles because it represents more modesty. Amy pointed out that asphalt was used in the community and asphalt roofs are signed off routinely with a thickened shingle. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #16 with the following changes. #2 insert the work proportion. #3 restudy of the new construction the possibility of eliminating one of the exterior materials. Motion second by Jim. Gretchen said it seems like we are approving a building that is not resolved or worked out. Michael agreed and he would like to see more effort from the applicant and the project could be better. The site plan is good and has good attributes. Patrick and Michael said there are a lot of conditions to put on the monitor. John said you always have the flexibility to kickback a decision you are mulling on back to the board and it happens quite frequently. I’m comfortable with the scope and the elimination of a material to be approved by staff and monitor. Roll call vote: Patrick, no; Gretchen, yes; John, yes; Jim, yes; Nora, yes; Michael, no; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-2. Patrick is the monitor. 135 E. Cooper Ave. – Minor Development, Public hearing Debbie recused herself. Kathy commented that the affidavit of posting has been properly provided, Exhibit I Amy said the proposal is the modify an existing connector piece which links the piece of the Victorian Era house on the site to a new addition that was ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 8 approved by HPC several years ago. This is the 5th time the group as discussed the project and staff as recommended denial. The connector that is there now is consistent with other connectors that have been allowed for other projects, a one story minimal element that is creating basically a passageway between the new and old. The owner has concerns how the house flows which we are sympathetic to but we did not design the interior layout. The proposed connector is taller than the historic resource and it is of a very contrasting material which is OK but not so when it becomes a two story winding staircase element that has presence on the site. One historic window would need moved. At the last meeting Gretchen suggested if the plan is amended and the connector tucked under the eave of the hist oric resource then that would be acceptable. As it turns out that isn’t physically possible. We find that the design guidelines aren’t met and this is not something that HPC should allow. Amy said the color of the addition which we don’t regulate makes it too unified and it is harder to distinguish new from old. Michael said the addition looks like the same style as the resource. It is precisely what we are trying to avoid today. Willis commented that the applicant is saying a one story connector is preferred but it is not required. Dillon Johns, Zone 4 architecture Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Mitch said the existing link while it is a one story is unsuccessful. It is not in proportion with the historic resource or the addition. This is a large Victorian and large addition. People can’t tell where the old ends and the new begins. Improving the function of the house with a two story link that is clearly modern and clearly of its own time helps to separate the new from the old. The majority of the commission agreed since the connector is set so far back from the front property line. The purpose of the HPC was to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving these resources. Our feeling the reasonable balance is letting the thing function properly and that in doing so we can better differentiate the old from the new. The commission agreed to work with us granting an approval with the condition that the link into the historic resource stay below the eave line. It is physically impossible to do that and results in a ceiling ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 9 height on the first floor of 7’6”, quite low and a condition that you have to walk down steps and land on a landing and go back up steps to get under the eave line. We have re-designed the link again where the bulk of it is pushed up against the new construction and as far off of the historic house can you can get while providing minimum widths for the stairs and keeping the height low. Dillon said we had several meetings trying to locate the most optimal place for the connection. We don’t have a lot of room to work with regarding the stair. We turned the roof into glass and the top of the connection is where the hatching ends. In the spirit of trying to delineating the two structures we feel the new design is helping to do that. The stairs are an open tread design to maximumize the visual trend through the space so it tries to remain as open as possible. We have a minimum ceiling height of 7’6” and we are at 7’2” and the code does not allow for that to happen. We have an odd condition of trying to slip underneath. We have tried to minimumize the width of the cut into the eave line so that you have historic eave lines on both sides where you cut into it. Mitch said the existing link is not differentiating the two and we feel this one will and will solve the functional issue of the home. Gretchen asked if this is approved which staircase on the inside gets eliminated. There is a staircase that goes up in the addition to the bedroom. Are you gutting the building and taking the staircases out? We aren’t seeing what the future plans of the building are. Dillon said we have not be asked to look at that. We need to cross this threshold first. Gretchen said it is clear that one staircase services the master bedroom in the new addition and the other serves the lower level. Mitch said the new proposed stair case will serve all levels and neither needs to remain. Gretchen said you will be taking out the historic staircase. Mitch said we will have a no net gain. There is a loft area, the attic that will go away. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 10 Gretchen said maybe it is time to remodel the building and have an interior solution. Mitch said they looked at a lot of interior solutions but none of them get the two second floors together without having to go down and across and back up other than this one. Gretchen said you have two staircases getting to two levels. Two bedrooms in the upper level of the historic building and one bedroom and a b ig master bath at the other level and each has their own staircase. Mitch said every time they have a sick kid in a bedroom they have to go down the stairs across the house and back up the stairs. This has been an ongoing problem in this house. The owner won’t let us go any further. Without getting the link approved she is not going to pay anyone to design anything else in the house. Michael asked if the connector pushes forward toward Cooper and how far? Dillon said yes it has been shifted toward Cooper about 5 feet to minimize the impact of the existing fabric. Michael said the problems were created when they did the addition and they are now trying to solve. The connector is so squat that it doesn’t jive with 10.7 guideline today. Amy said when the project came in it had a two story connector and HPC discussed it then and HPC felt that the one story connector was a win. This has been going on for quite some time. Michael asked if the applicant could tear down the addition and re do the entire thing. Amy said yes they could. Gretchen asked if they considered a straight run of the stairs next to the addition and then build the stairs on the new part of the addition. Dillon said what happens is we still have to pierce the roof and disturb the same amount of fabric on the historic resource and the other concern is that we were getting too close to Cooper Ave. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 11 Nora said there is one window being moved to an area where there never was a window. Willis said he did a project in which the 7 foot ceiling height was OK. Amy said this is new construction and she doesn’t feel the Bldg. Dept. has that kind of exception. Gretchen said 7 feet is in the code. Dillon said he scrutinized the code to make sure they were complying with it. Nora pointed out that this is a National Historic Registered building. Amy said it is honorary and they could still tear the building down if we didn’t have our own local ordinances that prevent changes. We should be extra sensitive to what is happening. Willis pointed out that there is a new code, IEBC for existing structures. John said maybe a two story connector would work if it was transparent and there was some effort to distinguish the two homes. Maybe change the fenestration on the modern addition and have a different material to separate the two. Is the applicant amenable to changing anything? Mitch said they might be able to approach the applicant for some subtle changes. Dillon said he also feels there could be some consideration. Chair-person, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Jim said he supports staff’s recommendations. As proposed it doesn’t meet the guidelines. John said he would continue this one more time and have the applicant take the ideas back to the owner. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 12 Gretchen said the code said ceiling heights of not less than 7 feet. You haven’t pushed it far enough and in looking at the drawing you could accommodate that. Do a clear shot low and the stairs go up. Willis said they were approved at a previous hearing if that condition was met that the eaves weren’t violated. The middle section does work by code and they wouldn’t need to be here tonight. Gretchen said a two story connector would be OK and you could minimize it and keep it away from the historic resource. Patrick said this application should be denied. The second story connector has been a bad idea since the first meeting. A one story connector has been preferred on every HPC decision made. Michael said if you go to the design guidelines this project doesn’t meet any of them as it sits. Nora said our charge is to protect the historic structure. How are we protecting the historic resource. I totally get the flow but that is not what we should be looking at. The condition is that it should go under the eave and that hasn’t happened. Jim recused himself. Michael pointed out that right now it looks like one house. There are many things they can do to try and distinguish the historic resource from the addition. This an opportunity to right the wrong’s. We are all steadfast that this proposal doesn’t work. Gretchen said she feels there is a solution under the eave. Willis said he feels the board should revert to the previous approval and they can decide whether they want to come back or not. It is way too prominent and it is visible on two streets. They could work from the old resolution. Michael asked if it was continued could they “right” some of the design guidelines and work on the connection piece to satisfy everyone to make the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 13 addition a product of its own time and not make it look like it is part of the historic house. Willis said the glass connection does separate the two constructions more than the existing one story connector which is painted blue. Patrick pointed out that draperies will be put on the clear connector on both floors and it won’t look separate at all. We can’t tell them what to do on the inside. Michael said they have an approval but if they go forward I don’t think it would be great for the community. Continuation giving them the message that they should try to achieve design excellence and do something that will meet the design guidelines we will potentially see something better. John said materiality and fenestration could separate the two drastically. I’m up for leaving the conversation open one more time. Michael said to me the optics of this entire thing is that the owner with their paint colors etc. is trying to create one massive compound. Patrick agreed. Michael said if we continue this and they want to meet the design guidelines and distinguish the addition from the historical resource it could be a great project. John said materiality and fenestration could achieve what is need ed. Willis said they don’t have to come back at all because they have an approval. Gretchen said their approval is transparent and to be under the fascia. Amy said it might end up having a different shape to it and different materiality. Gretchen said she would be happy to work with the applicant on the previous approval. That is what we are looking for. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 14 MOTION: Patrick moved to deny the application for resolution #17; second by Gretchen. Roll call vote: Michael, no; John no; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes. Motion carried 4-2. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk