Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20030423ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2003 819 E. HopKINs - CONCEPTUAL (CONT'D FROM 4/9/2003) ........................................................... 1 114 NEALE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL ......................................................... ~ ........................................ 3 320 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL ....................................................... ~ .................................................. 8 12 ASPEN HISTORIC P ,RESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF XPRIL 23, 2003 Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Teresa Melville and Valerie Alexander. Excused were Jeffrey Halferty and Neill Hirst. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Intern, Katie Ertmer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Valerie moved to approve the minutes of Feb. 26, 2003; second by Derek. All in favor motion carried 4-0. DisclOsure: Derek will recuse himself on 320 W. Hallam Valerie will recuse herself on 819 E. Hopkins Amy will recuse herself on 114 Neale St. Certificates of no Negative effect issues; Fence for the Steak Pit. Genre, fence for outside seating and the Aspen Historical Society window turned into a casement for fire egress. 819 E, HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL (CONT'D FROM 4/9/2003) Katie informed the board that the changes from the last meeting were on the larger building that has two units and adding a shed roof to the porch. They reducing the size of the deck above the porch and moved the light well from the front of the building to a location underneath the front porch. The deck along the alley on the south side was moved to the west side. They also extended the deck on the north elevation that is located behind the cotton wood tree. On the smaller building there is a proposed new loft element. The applicant is working with the Parks Dept. regarding the tree and minimizing the amount of root damage that might occur during construction. Staff's concern is that the porch is a much larger element than the historic porch. The height of the porch roof is similar to the roof height of the historic house and that is of some concern and is out of scale with the 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2003 historic structure and there still is a proposed deck element. That does not meet the residential design standards and they would need a variance fi.om that standard. The height of the porch should be lowered to make it more compatible with the historic resource and that it should be a true one-story element. The applicant has reduced the height of the entry staircase element slightly. Thc gable was changed to dormers, which reduced the visual height. Staff has no concerns with the relocation of the deck that was proposed along the alley and is now on the west side of the building. Staff also has no concerns with the proposed extension of the deck on the fagade behind the cotton wood tree. Roof height changes have provided a visual breakup of the large structure. The applicant has proposed a pop-top loft addition to the smaller structure. Staff's concern is that this detracts from character of the historic shed, which they are preserving and using as the garage bay. Staff finds that the pi'evious proposal was more appropriate. There are also some window changes, which are more compatible with the historic structure. On-site relocation is appropriate and the partial demolition of the non-historic piece. If the proposed deck above the porch is approved a variance will be needed from the residential design standards. There are sight constraints that need to be considered. Staff recommends approval with 5 conditions and stated on page 8 of the memo. Sworn in Rally Dupps, Mitch Haas Rally went over the changes fi.om the last meeting. There were three changes. The porch element - the roof was angled and rises so that it does not require a handrail. The broke up the east elevation and lowered the roof six or seven feet so that there is a break up of the roof pitch to allow more light next door. They also changed the entry stair feature. It was a cross gable and taller and the cross gables were taken off the dormers and lowered two to three feet. Mitch said there are no open issues with the staff recommendation. He feels the architect can resolve all of them without much difficulty. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES,iOF :APRIL 23, 2003 Vice-chair opened and closed the public hearing. Teresa said the applicants have done a great job of listening to the concerns of the HPC and staff. Derek said he is willing to approve conceptual without condition one. The roof element appears as a one-story roof element. Michael agreed with Derek's comments. Mitch said he is willing to do the restudy. Michael said staff has done an excellent job of addressing the concerns in a very succinct way. MOTION: Teresa moved to approve Resolution 9, 2003 approving the application for major development (conceptual) of 819 E. Hopkins with the conditions as stated in the memo amending #5 to say April 23, 2003; second by Derek. Motion carried 3~0. Yes vote: Teresa, Derek, Michael 114 NEALE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL Katie said the construction is on a 10t Split and a single-family residence. At the last meeting the concern was the location of the garage off of Neale Ave. and vehicles backing out because the lot is on a hill. The second concern was to restudy the size of the faqade that faces Neale Ave. There were also comments on the size of the roof as viewed from the historic building and the proposed porch as it relates to the historic structure. The faqade that faces Neale, the false wall has been changed to make it more of a one-story element. They have added a basement element and a skylight in the courtyard area. In addition two staircases in the courtyard were added to provide access to the basement. The roof plane was lowered and a couple of skylights added. Considerations need to be made how the new structure relates to the historic structure. At the last meeting it was recognized that the lot is located in a section of Aspen that does not have a traditional street grid pattern and there are topographical features that lower the site of the building further down in elevation than historic structures and these conditions should be taken into consideration when discussing this 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2003 proposal. Overall staff finds that the house is not creating ties to the miner's cottage; however, because of the site constraints topographically and the distance between the two structures those are factors in evaluating this proposal. There is some concern that the main entrance is facing Queen Street while the historic entrance faces Neale Ave.; however, this is not a typical street grid neighborhood of Aspen. The porch area is not similar in size and shape to the historic structure. The mass is larger than the historic structure; however, it is built into the topography of the site and has a lower profile than the historic structure and allows for views of the historic structure as you come up Neale Ave. Staff finds that the overall roof form composition is different than what is found on the historic house; however, the shape of the building and the roof do allow view of the historic structure and do not impede the interpretation of the historic structure ficom the street. Variances are needed from the residential design standards on this project. At the last meeting there were concerns with secondary mass, parking, garages, carports, entryways, one-story elements and inflection. Secondary mass: There is no separate secondary mass although there is an ADU on-site that is not completely detached from the main structure. The applicant would need a variance from that standard. The garage doors are not set back ten feet from the front most wall of the house so the applicant would also need a variance from this standard. Regarding the enuT~vay the front porch is more of a two-story element with a deck above it and it has an entry door that is set back more than ten feet from the front most walls on Neale Ave. and Queen Street so a variance would be needed from that particular standard. One story element: The applicant has reduced the size of the wall on Neale on the ADU and has made it more of a one-story element so they will no longer need a variance from that standard. Staff determined that there is no need for a variance from the inflection standard because it is a one-story element at the back of the house. The Engineering Dept. requests the applicant restudy the location of the ADU parking spot. It is now off the existing curb cut of Queen St. The applicant has also arranged with the Eng. Dept. a street improvement 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2003 agreement. Staff finds that the design of the proposed residence to the historic structure are enough that they do not interfere with the context and character of the historic resource. Staff recommends approval of conceptual with conditions. Teresa stated that she always felt that the entrance was on Neale Ave. but staff stated that the entrance is off Queen Street. Sworn in: Suzarmah Reid, Bill Sharples Bill said a lot of the comments from the last meeting were incorporated and enhanced the project. The house takes advantage of the existing landscaping and is read into the landscape. Two comments were made at the last meeting and one was the large roof surface and the other was to make a better reference to the miner's cottage. The north elevation that houses the kitchen and dining area were restudied. Skylights were introduced and the panels were reconfigured to add differentiation of the panels on the north elevation to reflect the relationship to the miner's cottage. On Neale Ave. the wall that connected the one story element to the two story element started at the top of the roof and glided down. We dropped that down to 42 inches allowing clear views and differentiation of scale between the one-story and two-story element. The garage door surfaces themselves were addressed. The compactness of the house was best maintained by allowing access from Neale Ave. and placing the garage in that proximity. By doing that we were not able to comply with the ten-foot setback from the building face. We addressed that by pushing the garage in one foot from the existing faqade and then added an 18 inch overhang to project a setback overall feeling of 2.6. The size and length of the windows were increased and the portal entry was changed to break up the scale of the surface of the house. Suzmmah said you could interpret Neal Ave. facade as a front faqade even though it is not a physical doorway. There is still an opening that is indicative of that entry through that faqade. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2003 Bill said they actually did begin the project with direct access off Queen Street and the garage would be relative to that condition. Bill presented a diagram with existing conditions that include several old trees on site worth keeping. The second issue was how do we minimize the paved surface and how do we compact the overall size of the house down and give the client as much usable area that we could reach. Six more schemes were presented showing the paving, garage, trees etc. Scheme six is the proposed scheme with one tree being removed due to the cut for the parking. The proposed scheme has 791 square feet of paved surface and the next scl~eme 2, 350 square feet of paved surface. Suzannah addressed the design standards and the HPC guidelines. Both of those documents were created in a reaction to things that we saw going on in more traditional neighborhoods that were undesirable and were written in an effort to provide some basic design tools to make good buildings that were compatible With the neighborhood. The board has the opportunity to decide whether the guidelines apply under different types of conditions. The topographic nature of this site give the advantage to the historic house in anything we did because we couldn't interfere unless we piled everything up on Neale Ave. and made it as tall as possible. In the same way the design standards address some of the same issues for non-historic sites. They also anticipate a traditional street grid. The standards and guidelines tend to create a certain amount of generic quality of architecture in the community. The reason to give variances from the design standards are to come to a fair compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The most specific AACP plan that applies to this project is "design quality". The intent of the design quality section was really to allow for variety of design and to allow for forward-looking design and to allow for a design that wasn't compromised. The "design quality" allows for an architectural team that is forward looking and we are trying to do something that is forward looking and no relying on the know quantity of architecture which we get a lot of in this community. This is built into the community plan and built into the possibility that you have to give a variance to those design standards. There are always trade offs and to comply with one design standard can create something that is less desirable on the site in exchange of the non-compliance. One example would be if we separated the ADU and made the longer faqade along Neal Ave. you would have more apparent mass of building than you do now by taking the approach of trying to make 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION,, COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2003 a compact building on the side and that compactness comes from being able to integrate the garage. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffrnan opened and closed the public hearing. Michael said the HPC needs to determine the hierarchy of decision-making. Michael asked the board to address which Historic Preservation Guidelines apply to this project and how it is tied to the Aspen Area Community Plan. Valerie said she has spent an exhausting amount of hours trying to come to some place of reason and decision with this complicated project. It came down to taking a broader look at the project. How does this project fit into our community? This is a project that in 50 years is going to be designated as an historic landmark. It is an exceptional project and I would hate to see this process and the interpretation of the Residential Design Standards delude that. This project is an excellent project and adds to our eclectic mix of architecture in our community and quality design. It is not compliant with a lot of things that we struggle with but from the top down perspective it is meeting the community goals. Derek said this is a living history of Aspen. Preservation Guidelines: Teresa said the applicants have addressed her concern of adding a porch on the Neale Ave. side. That element nOw ties into the historic house. The neighborhood is eclectic. The work that was done to allow the views from the historic house and keeping the vegetation are desirable. The plans showing the HPC how to minimize the asphalt helped in the decision process. Derek said guideline 11.3 have been addressed. The project is dynamic and sensitive. One of his concerns was that the guidelines were going to interfere with the vision of the architect and somewhere there has been a nice balance. The entire project has gotten better. Guideline 11.2 and the elevation changes make the project read stronger to its relationship and context. The design is unlike the historic resource but it complements it far more than it did two months ago. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMiSSION MINUTES OF AP~L 23, 2003 Amy relayed that the project Was originally 9,000 square feet and went through a lot spliL The Pan Abode was separated from the 6,000 square foot lot that contains the Victorian to the west. As part of that process the Pan Abode was designated historic and all the parameters for FAR were established. The proposal is for 826 square foot addition to the 600 square foot Pan Abode home. The design is a straightforward design with a single roof form over a rectangular plan. The connector and the site planning all seem to be in line with the design standards. The only that has been brought up that needs discussed is the pitch and height of the roof on the addition. Usually we would be asking for the addition to reflect the pitch and shape of the roof on the historic resource but there is some merit in this case to differentiate slightly because if it were a low pitch it would look blocky and squatty and that would not benefit the architecture. A more steeply pitched roof is more characteristic of the neighborhood. The connector is very successful. A side yard setback variance on the west is being requested but technically they do not need it. You are allowed to have a light well in a setback as long as it is no bigger than what the UBC requires. If the variances are granted they could make the light well a little more generous. The other variance is a 1-½ foot side yard setback for a set of built in bookshelves. Staff has a little concern because variances are usually granted for real specific purposes like it gets the construction away from the historic house etc. One on-site parking variance is being requested. If this were given it would allow them to keep the addition to one story. Looking at the model staff has no issues with the roof. Sworn in: Judy Has Judy said they are preserving the tree and working with the Parks Department regarding this. The trees enhance the character of the area. The back addition is in keeping with the scale of the Pan Abode. We are asking for a variance in order to move the addition back further to provide more space for the driP line of the tree. She also mentioned that she did not want a totally flat roof. She wants the addition clean and simple. Teresa asked if the roof would be replaced? Judy said they are going to replace the roof to make it consistent with the addition's roof. She also inquired about the light Well. There Will be a grate over the light well to comply with the UBC. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2003 The existing roof is standing seam galvanized from the 60's. We will replace it with the exact same kind of material only an upgraded version. Galvanized roofs only last around 20 years. Judy said they have always parked on the street. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Peter Rissole, neighbor remarked on the parking issue. The intent is to keep the view of the historic resource open from the street, The Parking Dep. seems to not want to enforce the 72-hour towing in this area. Peter said he has been talking to Kimberly from the Police Dept~ and she said it is enforced in the winter. Michael said the issues are the roof pitch, connector piece, plate height and variances. Valerie said she has no problem with the mass. The addition is narrow and makes a huge difference. Teresa said she is sympathetic to the parking issue but she also realizes that pushing the house back onto the lot and keeping the addition small is a trade off for the parking variance. She requested a restudy of the plate height and ridge height mostly because of our guidelines which are new regarding this modem architecture which the Pan Abode fits into. Michael said he has no concerns with the plate and ridge height. The parking variance is appropriate here because of what it allows to happen on the design of the addition. Valerie said guideline 10.6 addresses a one-story addition, which it is, and guideline 10.7 talks about separating the masses. The architect has done so to the greatest extent possible. There is an enormous tree separating the two structures so you have vegetation working on your side. She also said she supports the parking variance. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23; ~003 MOTION: Valerie moved to approve 320 W. Hall am as is; second by Michael. Discussion: Teresa said there are so few members here she would like the rest of the board to see the project. She would like to see a drawing of the plate height and ridge height. Judy said the plate height of the Pan Abode is nine feet and the new addition is ten feet. Valerie said in perspective you wouldn't even see that difference. Teresa said she would like to see a restudy with the same plate height as the Pan Abode and perhaps a lower pitch. Valerie withdrew her motion. Valerie mentioned the 1.5 variance for the bookshelf. She feels the architect has designed a very narrow dimension on the addition and the 1.5 bumps out to accommodate a little bit of storage space is acceptable. Also the vegetation hides it. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the conceptual development of 320 W. Hallam until May 28, 2003; second bk' Teresa. Motion carried 3-0. Yes vote: Valerie, Teresa, Michael MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Teresa. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11