HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20021211ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSioN MINUTES OF,
DECEMBER 11~ 2002
135 W. HOPKINS AVE. - FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING ....'~ ....... ~ ....................................................... 1
640 N. THIRD ST. - FINAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HE~G ....... ~,..,,~...,~,.~ ........... ~.~ ....................... 8
216 E. HALLAM STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) PUBLIC HEARING ~.~ ...............12
HOLL~D ~OUSE- CO~;CEPTUAL ~ ~UBLrC aE nmN~..2~:;.,.2.,,.2,,.,...~,...2 ....... 2..i~2~"..14
15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
DECEMBER 11~ 2002
Chairperson, Rally Dupps called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Vice-chair, Jeffrey Halferty, Michael
Hoffman, Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander and Neill Hirst. Teresa Melville
was excused.
Staff present: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer
Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie
Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland
Intern, Katie Ertmer
Certificate of No Negative Effect - Colony Restaurant air lock.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve the minutes ofN°v. 13th and 20th,
2002; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried.
Disclosure:
Rally will recuse himself on 216 E. Hallam
Derek will recuse himself on 216 E. Hallam
135 W. Hopkins Ave. - Final - Public Hearing
Sworn in: Gretchen Greenwood and John Key
Affidavit of posting entered into the record as Exhibit I.
Katie stated that the project received conceptual approval in Sept. 2001.
Currently the building is in a deteriorating condition and the applicant is
planning to reverse some of the damage and restore the historic house. The
project involves adding a basement and a small addition to the east side and
a two-story addition to the rear. At conceptual there were three conditions,
the first was to study the height of the neW addition. The applicant reduced
the plate height one foot and they have raised the historic building
approximately 18 inches. Staff recommends that the historic house not be
raised any higher than 18 inches. On the new foundation copper siding is
proposed and staff feels this cOnfuses the change in elevation and
recommends that another material be chosen or leave the concrete exposed.
The second condition was to use grates instead of railings on the light wells
and to use a different type of railing on the decks and stairs as opposed to
ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATiON COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
DECEMBER,il, 2002
the contemporary metal chosen. Staffrecommends lowering the hot tub
deck height.
The applicant has decided to stay with the contemporary metal railings for
the stairs, deck and light well. Staff feels this is acceptable because it is on
the non~-historic addition and not visible from the street. The hot tub deck
has been removed from the ro0f and moved onto the east side of the historic
structure. The patio and landscaping around the hot tub seems a little too
obtrusive into the front yard of the historic house. The landscape should be
pulled back somewhat.
There were two approved additional changes to conceptual; the addition of a
pair of doors on the non-historic addition on the east side that leads out into
the garden and the roof covering for the parking which is off the alley.
Staff recommends a condition stating how they plan to pick up the building
and a plan if they intend to separate the historic house from the foundation.
Staff is also recommending a storyboard showing the historic conditions
and where the project is headed.
Gretchen Greenwood, architect relayed that the process began in 1998. She
went over the different changes throughout the years. The neighborhood is
surrounded by Victorians on the corner. There is an allowable 3,000 square
foot FAR on the property and they are going to use 200 square feet for the
light wells in the basement. The plan has always been to put an addition on
the east side and on the south side. They had a good working process with
Staff and the HPC. The owner will develop a landscape plan and a garden.
If the board and batten is original they will do a different material. The
front porch will be restored to its original, which was a hipped roof.
John Key said he needs to raise the house due to deterioration and settling
of the historic building. The building has been sided several times. They
do not intend to cut out the floor when moving the house.
Amy said her only concern about carrying the clapboard over the foundation
is that it might change the perception of the proportions of the building.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
DECEMBER 11~ 2002
Gretchen also pointed out that she would create internal drains.
Jeffrey inquired about raising the house and WOuld that increase the number
of steps off the front porch. Gretchen said the house is on grade now and a
few steps will be added and She feels theY should be a Wood framing. They
will research and come up with a fabric that is true to the period of the
house. There is presently one step, which has sunk into the ground.
Valerie said there seems to be discrepancies in the drawings. The roof form
of'the small addition in the drawings appears to be a gable but different on
the model. John clarified that the model is correct.
Valeria said in the text it indicates that the addition is 22 feet back from the
front of the building. Gretchen said it is 16'4 ½" inches back from the face
of the gable. The front dormer is 4 ½ feet back.
Derek inquired about the door. Gretchen said the doors are French doors
and are not historic and were approved by HPC.
Michael inquired about the total FAR of 3,021 square feet and how much of
that FAR is in the historic structure? Gretchen said there are two buildings
and the buildings to the rear of the property are approximately 700 square
feet and they have been approved to be demolished. The overall FAR on
the property is about 2,000 square feet existing and about 1,300 square feet
for the historic building and 700 to the back.
Neill asked about the design of the light well and railings and will it set a
precedent that we do not want to have set? Amy said we have taken a firm
stance on the historic part of projects to never let there be railings, but on
other additions we have allowed them.
Neill also asked about the landscaping. Gretchen Said we don't have a full
landscape plan but she has pulled back the patios ttn:ee feet from the major
face of the building. The patio is encircled by trees so the non-historic part
of the building is blocked. The patio is 15 feet back from the property line
and another 18 feet from the street. On the historic side of the building
where there is a lightwell, it has a natural sloping step for a retaining wall
and no railings are proposed. Regarding the lightwell on the south west side
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
DECEMBER 11, 2002
there is a certain composition of the railings on the upper level, the master
bedroom deck that repeats itself nicely on the lower level
Rally asked about research regarding the flat roof. Gretchen said the only
information that she has is that the original owner bought the property as it
was in the 40's. John said the house was a sears catalogue house and he
feels the house was too small so they got extra wood and expanded it. Rally
also asked about moving the house. Gretchen said they need to get the
existing framing up out of the ground. It looks like the building is
continually sinking. They will lift the building up and take the drywall off
and keep all the materials and start pealing it back to discover what is
underneath it. The house will be moved to the back of the property and they
will excavate and move it back on. The building will sit on concrete and the
framing will be exposed on the sides.
Valerie said if you excavate you could look at the building at the elevation it
is today because you would make the necessary room for the supports, and
ceiling heights that you want. Gretchen said she has moved buildings and
excavated a number of times including her own property but she prefers to
get the structure out of the ground. By doing that when she lowers the plate
height and working the massing it helped out having a good foot from the
back of the building to the front. Steel beams will be in place. It is also a
water issue for the applicant.
John said his goal is to raise the building out of the mud and not have it
deteriorate any more. Gretchen said she lifted her house twelve inches and
since she has a garden around it every year they put more soil and more
mulch and her house now looks like it sunk. With the gardens and bushes
around the perception will be the same as you see today.
Chairperson, Rally Dupps opened the public hearing.
David Coles, neighbor reviewed the photographs and had no problems with
the proposed development.
Chairperson, Rally Dupps closed the public hearing.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
DECEMBER 11~ 2002'
Derek said as a whole he is relieved to see a model, which is very helpful.
He had a little concern about massing issues from the drawings but the
model has definitely helpedl Raising the house up from a construction
standpoint is a lot better solution.
Jeffrey said he has reviewed this project since 1998 and this was under the
review of our old guidelines. Rehabilitation of the historic hoUse is needed.
Jeffrey has some concern with the flat roof and the drainage issues related to
to that. He has some concern with the French door penetration on the
eastern historic wall. The rei0cation of the hot tub is much simpler and hels
this project. Raising the house the full 18 inches seems a little too tall but
by the excellent model you can see that it is at the lOwest part of the site by
the contours and it is an approPriate treatment. A shiny metallic surface at
the base is not approPriate. The fencing solution encroaches too much on
the eastern historic wall.
Neill agreed with Jeffrey. He would revisit the kitchen pod but it has
already received conceptual approval. The only detail that he is not
comfortable with is the railing around the lightwell. Regarding conditions
in the resolution 2,7,9 staff needs to make sure that a sentence is added that
these items need to be reviewed by the monitor and or HPC as necessary.
Michael said his comments are the same as the other commissioners. He
had concerns in the plans regarding the connector piece but the model
convinced him otherwise. The addition is set back substantially which is
good. He had concerns about the mass and scale of the addition but that
was approved at conceptual under the old guidelines. He alS° feels that the
bump out does damage to the integrity of the historic structure but we are
not here to pass judgment on that. Michael endorses staff's
recommendations with Neill's suggestions.
Valerie stated the restoration work on the historic house is very exciting.
She has no issue with the metal railing on the addition. The addition at the
back of the house is quite dominant. She originally had concerns about
raising the house 18 inches and she was under the assumption that it was to
soften the height and mass of the structure behind but was relieved to hear it
was for the purpose of preserving the histOric structure. The only other
concern with raising the house was the addition of the stairs in that it might
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ,MINUTEs OF,
DECEMBER 11~ 2002
detract from the original character of the house. In terms of the roof form
on the small addition on the east side of the house the old guidelines say
that the roof form should be consistent with the historic structure and she is
having trouble seeing that the pyramidal ~hape is consistent with the gable
form and maintaining the gable and horizontal form at the top piece would
be appropriate.
In terms of landscaping Valerie felt that it was not thought through, with
exception of the hot tub screening. There are shrubs located at the entry that
could be further studied to provide more of an historic character to
complement the house. There also needs to be specification of the trees.
With the revisions that Neill suggested she could go along with staff's
recommendation.
John said he agreed with Valerie regarding the gable form.
Rally said numerous concerns have already been raised. The biggest
concern is raising of the house and guidelines 9.6 discourages that. By
raising the historic house, it doesn't get the respect that it deserves. On the
east elevation the bump out for the kitchen and French doors are of concern.
The addition of the rear is dominant and if this was being presented as
conceptual he would lean toWard denial because of the height and massing
issue but it would be unfair at this point to hold the applicant to that.
Amy stated that she had one condition to add #17: The applicant will
provide HPC staff and monitor with a plan for how the house mover
proposes to lift the building, for review prior to submittal of a building
permit. The approach chosen, whether it be to move the house with its
original floor system or without, must be demonstrated to result in the
removal of the least amount of historic exterior materials, and the least
damage to the building possible. #18 A stow board to show the historic
house and progress that is going to occur and why.
Gretchen said that is a good idea and it is interesting to see that around
town. It would be great if the original siding were underneath.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
DECEMBER Ii; 2002
John said he intends to have someone do an extensive landSCape plan.
Regarding the raising of the house if the house had b~en be~ter built in 1890
it would have been lifted up. Raising it up will not compromise the look of
the house. The hiStoric house will be lifted Up and "highlighted" instead of
being sunk.
GretChen said as she develops the review drawings she will be
communicating with Amy abOUt the points of grade. The site is sloping
about 4 ½ feet from the front to the rear of the property. When she said she
is lifting the historic building it is at the least impact. She also said the 18
inches is the maximum that she will work within, until she understands the
structure that she is dealing With the final number might go down.
The French doors allow the owner to walk out into the garden and that was
an important element of discussion to have the space maintain itself
between the apartment building and the house. When we gave up FAR the
garden was looked at as an incentive for the owner.
John said the addition has shrunk over time and to eliminate that kitchen
addition would necessitate looking at a new design.
Amy asked the applicant if they could look at reducing the French doors to
one door or minimizing the staircase and still provide the aCcess without
over kill in terms of altering that side of the building.
Gretchen said she would have no problem looking at minimizing the doors.
MOTION: Jeffkey moved to adopt Resolution $42, 2002f°r 135 ~. Hopkins
Lot A and the West 22,5 Feet of L°t B, Block 60, City and Townsite of
Aspen. Colorado with conditiOns 1-16 and three additional conditions;
#17. The applicant will provide HPC staff and monitor with a plan for how
the house mover proposes to lift the building, for review prior to submittal
ora building permit. The approach chosen, whether it be to move the house
with its original floor system or without, must be demonstrated to result in
the removal of the least amount of historic exterior materials, and the least
damage to the building possible.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
DECEMBER 11, 2002'
#1& A storyboard to show the historic house and l~rogress that is going to
occur and why.
#19. Study the French doorS on the east elevation, which is non-binding.
#20. Condition 2,3, 7,9, 10 are to be reviewed by staff and monitor; second
by Michael. Motion carried 6-0.
les vote: Jeffrey, Michael, Valerie, Neill, Derek, Rally
640 N. Third St. - Final Review - Public Hearing
The affidavit of posting was entered in to the record as Exhibit I.
Sworn in: Jim Daggs, owner, Jan Derrington, JeffreY Lester
Katie relayed that the project was granted conceptual and a lot split in May,
2001. The proposal is to demolish some non-historic additions, relocating
the structure and the existing out building on the site and creating a new
addition. At conceptual there were a few conditions: One, to eliminate the
flanking windows on the upper floor, south facade and eliminate the shed
dormers over the front gable unless they were found to be original. The
applicant did eliminate the flanking windows and they will inspect the
dormers to find out if they are original when they undergo the construction
process. Number two was to restudy the columns that were located under
the angled deck and those columns were reduced in size and the material
changed. The railing system on the deck is more transparent. Staff would
like clarification of the grid/metal railing system. The third condition was
to study the material palate. Staff had concerns with the rusted corrugated
siding on the connecting piece because it is right up against the historic
addition and not the most sympathetic used material for that addition. The
fourth condition was to restudy the landscaping in front of the historic
house. Staff'finds that the stamped concrete surro~mding the historic house
is out of context and very rigid for this type of house. Maybe sod and
flagstone steppers or plain concrete should be used for the pathway. It is
also recommended that the patio be pushed back from the front of the house.
The lightwell should be restudied on the southeast comer as it is quite large
but the location is appropriate. There are three new window and door
groupings that are affecting the historic h6use, which also need addressed.
There is also an interior staircase that backs up right to the front window
and staff feels that it affects the appearance of the exterior of the house. The
staircase should be pulled back and the detail of hOw that Will be
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
DECEMBER 11~ 2002
accomplished needs to be presented to the board. Regarding the new roof a
detailed plan needs to be submitted or discussed as to how the old roof will
be replaced. The last issue is how the house is going to be removed,
whether it will be cut away from the floor or the floor moved with the house
when they relocate.
Jeffrey Lester said many points are valid. On the deck railing they were
trying ro make the contemporary angled deck as transparent as possible.
The material is a horizontal cabling rail system. The connecting link needs
ro give a visual separation between the new and the historic structure. They
have changed the material to a natural copper patina standing seam roof.
The panels could be copper or a vertical wood siding.
On condition #6, landscape component, they will use a stepping-stone walk
and pull back the northeast patio.
On #8 they will refurbish the double hung windows that are existing.
On #9 they intend to pull back the staircase.
On #7 related to the lightwell they are not seen from the street. They could
do a stepping wall area and then a railing would not be required.
On #16 related to the lighting they are going ro try and use the fixtures that
are on the house and refurbish them and use translucent glass. Jeffrey stated
they are very willing to work with the monitor as they get further into the
project.
Clarifications:
Jeffrey asked how the wall would be treated underneath the historic
structure? Jan said they thought about a brick veneer but it could be wood
siding.
Amy mentioned that we do not have examples of this unique design of
house and the house has had a number of alterations. This was discussed
early on as to what the significance of this house is and its history.
Chairperson, Rally Dupps opened the public hearing.
Amy relayed that the neighbors to the south, the Altimus's had concerns
about the trees between the two residences.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
DECEMBER 11~ 2002
Jan said the majority of those trees will be saved. The south wall of the
building will be further away from the lot line than it is now.
Chairperson, Rally Dupps closed the public hearing.
Comments:
Valerie said it is important when the windows and doors are removed to
find out what framing is remaining. In terms of the landscaping the
guidelines talk about the use of synthetic materials and she considers
stamped concrete a means of making a synthetic replication of the flagstone
and discourages that material use. The pulling back of the patio is an
improvement, as it becomes more of a side yard element. The lightwell and
entry terrace protrude significantly into the front yard area. In elevation, the
lightwell is not visible but what you see in perspective is the depth of the
wall where the excavation is and the walkout lightwell.
Valerie also commented that the connector is quite unsympathetic to the
historic house. You loose a 10t of definition to the character of the historic
house.
Derek emphasized for future projects that come through HPC that the
massing of this project is the same size of the house and competes with the
historic resource. The window and door alterations are successful. Derek
had no concerns with the lightwells.
Michael said this application is in an odd procedural posture at this point. It
is very clear that the historic structure has been substantially compromised.
The current application cleans up the historic residence substantially. The
question is how many current guidelines apply. Michael stated that he feels
the benefits outweigh the negatives. Michael supports staff's
recommendation for approval. The applicant has taken positive steps to
meet the conditions.
Neill said he cannot accept the concept of the addition. He also said he
would deny the project at this stage because there are so many unresolved
issues and so many continuing problems. He said it is not fair for the board
to get a piece of paper with so many conditions and make a quick decision.
10
ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION CO~iSSiON MI~E~ OF~
DECEMBER 11~ 2002
Jeffrey commended the new members on the board for their comments. The
commission has unified strength. At one time when we reviewed this
project thc concept of the restoration of the historic resource wasn't always
an important aspect as it is now. This was a difficult site from the
beginning. Due to the contoUrs to Lake Ave. the prior commission felt that
the massing seemed to work because of the context of the building at its
elevation to the street. We have always asked that the connector be a little
lower. Based On the nmnber 9f alterations the house has had it is an
opportunity to re-highlight the historic resource. Jeffrey informed the
applicants that he appreciated their fast response to the application. Our
objection is to help and preserve the historic resource.
Rally said the palate of materials and lightening up things and using a
refined smaller scale of materials is a great change. His concern is the
request for an FAR bonus and the lot split. He feels the guidelines are still
not met and he went over each one. The massing .is still not compatible.
Applicant's comments.
Jeffrey Lester said the comments are valid regarding the stamped concrete.
Some of the board members felt that the lightwell was acceptable and others
didn't. As far as the connector piece and rounded addition when you look at
the house from Lake Ave. it is really screened from the taller historic:
structure. It is not perceived as significant as it is in the drawings and
model. It passed conceptual review based on that notion. The connector
was lowered a foot and cannot be lowered because they are at a seven foot
plate height.
Jan Derrington said they feel plain concrete is more rigid and less
compatible with the historic structure than something with a pattern. They
could do real flagstone or brick pavers. Conceptual was approved because
the connector was in the middle of the lot and substantially screened from
Lake Ave. and Third St. Staff said the primary concern was preserving the
historic streetscape along Lake Ave.
Michael said it is a mistake for us to focus on technicalities and all of those
can be handled by the conditions of appr°val. We all agree that this
application does not represent good historic preservation under today's
standards. We are presented with issues of fairness and process.
I1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER i1~ 2002
MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution (~43, 2002 of the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission for an application for major
development (finaO for the property located at 640 N. Third St., Lots 4,5,
and 6 (less the southerly 3.2feet of Lot 6) Block 102, Hallam's Addition of
the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with conditions ! thru 24 in
staff's resolution. Any areas for restudy need to be determined by staff and
monitor or to the HPC if the issue cannOt be resolved. Condition #25 would
be to erect a storyboard. Condition #26. The applicant wiIl provide HPC
staff and monitor with a plan for how the house mover proposes to lift the
building, for review prior to submittal of a building permit. The approach
chosen, whether it be to move the house with its original floor system or
without, must be demonstrated to result in the removal of the least amount
of historic exterior materials, and the least damage to the building possible.
Motion second by Jeffrey. Motion carried 4-2.
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Michael, Valerie, Derek
No vote: Neill, Rally
216 E~ Hallam Street - Major DeveloPment (Final) Public Hearing
Derek and Rally recused themselves.
Camilla Auger and Stan Clauson were sworn in.
The affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit I.
Amy said there is a long list of conditions and that is because there are
things that have to wait to be resolved until they get into the field and under
construction. Staff fully supports the application and recommends that HPC
approve it.
Stan Clauson said it was determined that they needed six feet between the
buildings and the setback variance requested at this meeting would be
setting the building at a zero lot line setback to the west and a one foot
setback to the east. The two other issues were the higher window in the
cross gable and that window has been removed and a restudy of the
orientation of the garage. They did restudy it and submitted drawings as to
how it would appear. In turning the garage to face toward the back of the
property they need to widen the roadway and even then it didn't quite
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
DECEMBER iIq 200~
provide for the turning radius. They also had problems with the relocation
of the window well, which would either need to be grated so that it could be
driven over or relocate it to the side yard setbackl If it was relocated to the
side yard setback it would be reduced from a five foot width to a three foot
width which poses problems from egress points and also leaves a less
generous area of light to the downstairs bedrooms, it also impacted the
downstairs bedrooms in terms of the orientation. Based on the study we are
requesting that we retain the original orientation of the garage.
Michael asked the applicants if they would buy a warning system so that
when you are backing out you can tell if children or bicycles are behind you.
The applicants agreed to the condition. Camilla said she has one in her car
but has never heard of one outside the car but it seems reasonable that one
exists.
Stan said he has seen systems attached to the garage doors.
Vice-chair, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing.'
Comments:
Michael said he is supporting the application and conditions of approval.
Valerie and Neill commended the applicant for an excellent project.
Neill said the work with HPC has been superlative; On #5 Neill added that
staff and monitor be added to the condition.
Jeffrey said this is an excellent example as to how to do an historic lot split
in order to break down the massing from the historic resource.
Michael addressed Mr. Light's letter which was included in the packet with
respect to the lot split in general. The lot split policy decision was made by
City Council and what we are doing is in keeping with that policy.
MOTION: Valerie moved to approve Resolution g44, 2002 with conditions
1 thru 21and an amendment to condition #5 to add staff and monitor.
Condition #22 is the installation of a warning sensor system on the garage
.to approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Neill. All in favor,
motion carried.
Yes vote: Neill, Michael, Valerie, Jeffrey
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
DECEMBER 11,2002
Holland House - Conceptual - Public Hearing
MOTION: Rally moved to continue the Hol[and House, conceptua[ and
public hearing to January 22, 2003; second by Jeffrey. Ail in favor, motion
carried.
Yes vote: Rally, Jeffrey, Neill Derek, Michael
MOTION: Rally moved to adjourn; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
· Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
14