Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20030108ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 8, 2003 533 W. FRANCIS - FINAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING .................................................................. 1 101 MEADOWS ROAD. UNIT 10 - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................. 6 RESOLUTION APPROVING PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES TO THE "ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES" ......................... 7 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 8, 2003 Chairperson, Rally Dupps called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Rally Dnpps, Teresa Melville, Neill Hirst, Michael Hoffman, Valerie Alexander and Derek Skalko Jeffrey Halferty was excused. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland Disclosures: Teresa will recuse herself for 533 W. Francis Certificate of No Negative Effect issued for Wagner Park - boulders and climbing equipment. 533 W. Francis - Final Review - Public Hearing Michael and Neill disclosed that they were contacted by a third party regarding this application but indicated they could not discuss the matter and it did not influence them. David Gibson and Mitch Haas were sworn in. Affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Amy said we are discussing a one-story addition behind the historic residence. A lot split has been approved by city council m~d at some point we will review the design of a new house on Lot 2. Staff has some concerns about the landscape plan and whether it is in context with the setting that should be around the historic house. There is a fence proposed that has no breaks in between the pickets and that is generally not allov~ed. A recommendation would be to use a grate rather than a railing around the lightwell on the side of the house. Staff mentioned that the cupola form and massing replicates a lot of the character of the historic house and we need to be careful not to go too far with that. We also need to discuss how the new construction will be distinguished from the old. Amy clarified that on condition #1 all of the bonuses are for Lot I. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 8, 2003 Mitch said the project hasn't changed from conceptual. All of the issues in staff's memo are of a minor nature and can be worked ou~ between staff and monitor. The project is still considered to be an exemplary project. Mitch and David disclosed that were also contacted by a third party. David responded to some of the issues in staff's memo. On the landscape plan they are OK with putting a grate over the lightwell. On the two meandering walkways David would like to hear from the iHPC. They would prefer to keep them. On the fencing they would consider a transparent steel fence (Exhibit II) for the area that drops down from six feet to 42 inches and then goes out to the lot line. Regarding the roof form, the applicant likes the cupola but presented an overlay of small dormers in the gable which could work. The last issue is the materials. They have several ways in which the new construction is different than the old. One is that the windows on the historic house have crown molding detail on top and on the new construction it is square. On the eave detail of the historic: house it is a very thin eave (2x4) and on the new construction it will be a (2 x 6) whiCh is a greater width. On the siding material the proposal is 4 ½ inch cedar with a semitransparent finish and the house will have a painted finish. They could go with a rough sawn siding as opposed to the proposed smooth. Questions and clarifiCations. Valerie asked if there were any historic photographs which showed the landscaping. David said he is of the mind that theY did not want to re-create the historiC landscape So photographs were not researched.. Amy said it was not her intention that the applicant had to switch to another fencing material but just to provide space between the pickets, Fencing is something that is usually reviewed by staff only but it was brought up because it was on the plans. Mitch said the proposal is just an idea and they are very willing to work with staff and monitor regarding the design. Neill asked the applicant if they had any comments about the ballard lights being changed. David said they would like to do a light out from the face of ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 8~ 2003 the house and a post light would be acceptable which would light the walkway as well. Amy said that would be acceptable but there are a couple review standards that talk about minimizing site lighting that need to be addressed. Mitch said they have no proposed design of a post but this also could be worked out with staff and monitor. Neill asked if the board was comfortable with the door arrangement on the west face of the shed. Amy said she didn't remember the board discussing that at conceptual. Mitch said conceptual received a unanimous vote. Those are interior and you don't see them unless you are on this property. They are facing the other lot and set in from the main house. Mitch also said you can't see them from any public ways at all. Rally clarified that the fence just goes along the lot line common with lot one and two but does not go along or North Fifth or West Smuggler. David said the fence steps down as it reaches the front of the house to 42 inches. There are also two connecting pieces that enclose the side yard and those each have a gate and would be the transparent fence as opposed to the solid fence. Valerie asked which direction is the historical entrance to the property to where the porch is? David responded from Francis Street.. Mitch said the door faces Fifth but the porch faces the comer. Chairperson, Rally Dupps opened the public hearing. Lance Cote, attorney representing the neighbor to the immediate East. The owner would like to make sure all of the variances proposed are identified as just applying to Lot I. Another item is in regard to the landscaping. The roses that are along the back alleyway fence were brought here by Mrs. Stapleton's Mother and if possible those should be preserved in some way because they are historic to the property. Bob Blake was sworn in. Bob said he is a neighbor that has lived here for 17 years. Bob asked for clarification from the council minutes regarding 3 ASPEN,HIS'TO~C P~SERvATION COMMISSION MiNUTEs OF, JANUARY, 8~ 2003 whether the house was historic or not. Amy said the house is listed on the inventory. He also said the car port or not really a car port, it is a patio with a shed type roof that comes off a brick wall. There is no access by a car. Does this have an effect on the FAR? Mitch said the carport is going to be removed and the FAR is based on what is going to be there in its place. The carport will not be there. Bob said in the landscaping plan he sees no reference as to how the huge tree will be preserved. A sow bear lives in that tree. Miter said they are working with the Parks Department and they indicated that there was adequate distance. Bob said David did an incredible job on this project. Bob also brought up a few points for clarification since he has lived in that area for a long time. Regarding the walkways the other historic houses on that walk all have straight walkways. The other houses also have transparent fences. Bob said ]he supports this project. Bob mentioned another HPC restoration project that was turned down and it is his personal feeling that the HPC is inconsistent. Amy stated that the project in question was extremely altered, Commissioner comments: Derek commended David for his willingness to work with the HPC. All issues on the table can easily be resolved by staffand mor~titor. The only issue that he favors from the overlay drawings is the cupo][a. Aesthetically it looks very good. The materials selections and differentiation are great. Michael said he would like to hear other members comments regarding the new fence proposal, specifically if it is too ornate. Amy said recently we have had comments related to metal fences as not being a 1,ypical fence used around a simple miners cottage. She would have concerns approving the proposal. Michael said in terms of the walkway to West Francis he has no problem with that. He has concern of setting a precedent on the one from North Fifth St. Neill said he is uncomfortable handling this case in this way. ]~t seems that it is not proper due notice to get the memo handed 5 hours before a meeting. Amy relayed that she e-mailed the memo before Christmas, 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 8~ 2003 David Hoefer said the applicant could request a continuance. Mitch said the memo had typical issues that are resolved at a staff and monitor level. Neill said there should be some acknowledgment by the applicant that they have received the memo in due time and if they don't make that acknowledgement that they should be taken off our schedule. The minutes from the previous meeting should be provided to the board. There are too many important issues that are being left to staff and monitor. That bypasses the purpose of the commission. The material palate on projects should be listed in writing for the commission to approve, There are too many unresolved issues on this project to have it be approved. Valerie said she only has a few comments. On the plans the fence shows four feet where in the presentation David indicated 42 inches. Amy said by code the fence has to be 42 inches or less. There needs to be an amendment to condition #2 reflecting that change. Valerie also said s/[nce the fence is not providing any particular screening to the neighboring lot you might pick up at the taller privacy fence and therefore you would be keeping no fence forward of the facade of the house. In terms of lighting we don't have a detail of what the ballard lighting will look like and certainly it is not an historic element. Valerie said there needs to be a safe progression to and from the house and not have any elements in the landscape for that purpose. Regarding the landscape Valerie pointed out some discrepancies. The plan indicates the use of scotch mugo p~nes and those are two different trees, David said they will be planting the mugo pine which only' gets to six feet. An engleman spruce is located on the west side of the new addition and that is too close to accommodate mature height, Guideline I. 14 address that. Valerie studied the meandering paths and doesn't see a real design ~ntention concept behind them. The guidelines refer to a straight sidewalk and she would support the guidelines. Rally said this is an outstanding HPC project in terms of massing and scale. Rally said he knows the sidewalks are against the guidelines but he could accept them. The fence dropdown submitted is fine. He also said he could accept either design in the roo£ His only comment is the horizontal clapboard in the addition. To truly separate the two the clapboard should go to vertical. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 8, 2003 Michael said he agrees with Neill that there is too much allocation of responsibility to staff and monitor. The board discussed the sidewalk guideline. Amy said the front entry is particularly important and should coincide with the guidelines. The west side can be discussed. Mitch said the applicant has shown a tremendous amount of flexibility in working with the HPC at the conceptual level, perhaps more than most. This applicant can work with staff and monitors. Mitch said if the walkways have to be straight they can be straight. On 5th Street the walkway is to a side entry and in the west end a slight meander is not contrary to the guidelines which speak to the front. David Ho&er said we could change the working of conditions 2 through 5 and say that they are subject to approval by the Historic Preservation Commission and those items can be scheduled for another date. The majority of the board determined that the conditions have been satisfied to the point that staff and monitor can handle the details and that they do not need to come back to the full board. MOTION: Derek made the motion to approve Resoh~tion #2, 2003, finding that the review standards and design guidelines have been met with regards to Exhibits A, staff memo dated Jan. 8. 2003 and Exhibit B. the application. Condition # addition: These variances are related to Lot ,[, which contains the Historic house. Condition #2 needs amended from 2feet to 42 inches. Motion second by ?alerie. Motion carried 4-1. Yes vote: Derek, Michael, Rally, Valerie No vote: Neill 101 Meadows Road, Unit 10 - Minor Development Teresa was seated. Sworn in: Lindsey Holembeck, David Gibson Affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit I. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JANUARY 8~ 2003 Amy informed the board that over the summer the HPC saw a proposal for one of the other units to enclose a deck on the front of the building and that was denied and it was suggested that a rear location for the deck would be better. These homeowner's would also like to do a rear deck. This is a new structure within a context of the 1960's trustee town hornes. You will not see this from the street. Staff finds it has no impacts and recommends approval. Lindsey said the proposal is to enclose the deck on the back. The back deck is 160 square feet. The space will be used for an office. Lindsey Said he actually worked on the town homes originally when Gretchen Greenwood designed them. It is a duplex unit and we want to enclose the back deck. The roof pitches will be kept the same and the siding the same. Chairperson, Rally Dupps opened and closed the public hearing. No Cormnissioner comments. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #1, 2003 as drafted by staff; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: Teresa, Derek, Michael, Neill, Valerie, Rally Resolution approving procedures for designation of properties to the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" Amy and the board discussed the procedures and recommtended changes. John Kelly, attorney brought the pan abode structures under eligibility considerations. He asked for clarifications as to whether a special story has to be behind the individual house. Amy said the statement is part of the context paper and trying to describe these types of buildings. What we were trying to say is that there has to be demonstrateable history. John also asked if it deals with specific properties or pan abodes in general? Amy said the entire group will be identified and if any of those individually were to be designated we have to understand how and why they were built. What was the reason for using that type of construction. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, MINUTES OF, JANUARY 8, 2003 Michael said some verbiage needs added about the significance of a particular building. John said there are pan abodes today that you can order and have them shipped up here. Amy said we will need to spend some time identifying the entire group of pan abodes and a lot of them will not meet the 40 year criteria. SOme of the older ones were ski lodges. Amy said we need to change the sentence from ski industry related housing to ;ski industry related accommodations. MOTION: t/alerie made the motion to approve Resolution #3, 2003 establishing supplementary materials, and a process for their use, relevant to the application of the criteria for designation of historic properties, Section 26. 415. 030.B I and 2 of the Aspen Municipal Code; second by Neill. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: Teresa, Derek, Michael, Neill, Falerie, Rally MOTION: Rally moved to adjourn the meeting; second by Derek. All in favor, ,motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk