Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20030827 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2003 470 N. SPRING STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) CONTINUE PH TO SEPT 10, 2003~ ................................... ~ ..................................................................... , .................................... :1 635 W. BLEEKER - PROJECT MONITORING ........................ ; .................... : .............................. ~ ......... 1 2 WILLIAMS WAY - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) ON-SITE RELOCATION, PUBLIC HEARING ...................................................................................................................................... 6 TELLURIDE HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STUDY SESSIONll 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2003 Chairperson, Jeffrey Hal£erty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Michael Ho££man, Derek Skalko, Teresa Melville, Neill Hirst, Valerie Alexander and Sarah Broughton. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Derek is the HPC representative on the cowop for the new Visitor Center located at the corner o£Galena and Main. He would like to get general consensus from the board regarding the elevations. The structure is 40 feet tall and a very contemporary/civic architecture by Bill Poss & Associates. Elevations will be provided at the end o£ the meeting £or the board to look at. Amy stated that they would have to go through a two-step process with the HPC. Michael thanked the City of Aspen and Community Development Dept. for the supurb awards ceremony at the Wheeler. Je£frey welcomed the Telluride Historic and Architectural Review Con'nuission. 470 N. SPRING STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT {CONCEPTUAL) CONTINUE PIt TO SEPT 10, 2003 MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 470 N. Spring Street to Sept. 10, 2003; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. 635 W. BLEEKER - PROJECT MONITORING Darin (Red) Reinks presented the landscape plan. Eleven Exhibits were entered into the record. Amy relayed that a site visit was done a week ago and a decision was made on the light fixture for the front porch. In addition it was determined that ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2003 only one sidewalk light fixture would be acceptable per side. The only' remaining issues are the landscape plan and the hot tub. Red asked for comments on the group of trees in the northeast comer (the three aspens). It was noted that they might be too close to the house. The trees got put in because they were just sitting there in burlap and they needed to get into the ground to stay alive. Valerie said the drawing doesn't particularly seem to be to scale and the plantings aren't necessarily in their correct location. The front path doesn't have a relationship to the big trees. Red agreed. Valerie asked how far away the aspen trees were from the east side of the house and Red responded four to five feet. Valerie said you need to accommodate the mature size of the canopy as it relates to the house and you' are probably looking at 10 to 20 foot canopy and that is a concern. Regarding the owners maintenance there will be conflicts between the spruce and the on-going debris falling into the hot tub. The aspen trees were planted without approval because they were just sitting there and needed to get into the ground of they would die. Red said for clarification the trunk of any tree should be ten feet away from the house. Red said the hot tub is about three feet from the garage and is in the location that the owners requested. Amy mentioned that the hot tub might be better suited back behind the garage but we would have to cut trees down. Neill said HPC is supposed to review all development and the hot tub should have been review when the application came in. Derek said as a point of reference the hot tub would be a building department issue and anything that doesn't exceed 30 inches does not have to be reviewed. He is not sure if we actually have the right to review this, Amy said with the hot tub certain permits will have to be given such as electrical. Jeffrey also mentioned that Red would need a permit to install the rebar, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2003 Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director said the hot tub is development and should have been reviewed by the HPC. Amy said our goal is to mitigate impacts to the historic structure if there are any. Jeffrey said this is a location issue. Red said it will be recessed with trees and shrubs next to it. Sarah said some of the trees are aesthetically too close to the house. The spruce tree should be removed because it does impact the historic facade. Michael said the trees in question are the ones on the east side of the house and the trees by the hot tub. Comments: Teresa said she has ho problems with trees that do not affect the historic house. She would defer the hot tub situation to her fellow commissioners. Teresa also agreed with Sarah regarding the removal of the spruce trees. Neill said he would defer the landscaping to Valerie and Sarah. He would not approve the hot tub and the plans should have been presented to the board in due course. Michael said the trees on the east side of the house seem too dense and there probably is not enough room for the canopy but he can accept them as they are on the landscape plan. Hot tubs are an emerging area for the HPC and he feels the applicant should be given some relief. The hot tub in its location has been treated sensitively. He doe have a problem with trees screening the hot tub and possibly a low hedge might serve the same purpose with sensitivity. Derek said he would defer his comments regarding the trees to Valerie and Sarah. He agreed that the blue spruce needs to be removed from the plan itself. Derek acknowledged Neill's comments that the hot tube issues are something that we should have been apprised of early on. Visually, the hot tube will only be within an inch of the ground. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 27~ 2003 Sarah said she would approve the hot tub. The better location would be further away in the comer in between the existing trees. Valerie informed the board that the placement of the hot tub has created a domino effect with the plant materials that all of us are unhappy with. The hot tub has deteriorated the relationship between the out building and the historic structure. We are in conflict with some of the guidelines of preserving the historic context of the two buildings, preserving and maintaining all the significant plantings. Generally the significant planting for these structures was lawn and now we have created a demand for screening and fencing. She is not comfortable approving the hot tub. We need to work together to get a better solution. She would not approve the plantings adjacent to the garage, adjacent to the hot tub nor the hot tub. With some simple modification to the rest of the plant materials in terms of accommodating the tree canopy they would be compliant with the rest 0fthe guidelines. Jeffrey agreed with Valerie's statements. The deterioration from the garage out building is of concern. There might be potential undermining of the foundation due to the water source if it gets in between the two. He also agreed with the other commissioners regarding the plantings. The blue spruce definitely deteriorates the view of the back porch area. If this had been presented early on he would not have approved the location of the hot tub. Sarah said the hot tub is spawning a lot of bad placements of plants by its location. Amy reminded the board that if in a year they came in for a fence permit she would probably s~gn off on a six-foot high fence. That are may not always be open and we have no guarantee of that. Valerie reminded the board that there is a 42-inch role for fences because this is a comer lot. MOTION: Michael moved to approve the hot tub in its current location; second by Derek. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 27~ 2003 Discussion: Neill said it is the very circumvention of the procedure that has posed this problem to the commission: The hot tub can potentially endanger the historic structure. The hot tub is not part of the landscape plan it is a separate structural issue. Derek interjected that in terms of the garage there will be no impending threat to the foundation of it. It is sitting on an S-inch footer block, slab on grade. Any leakage would be potentially like rain water and will not effect the foundation of the garage. Vote: Yes: Derek, Michael, No: Sarah, Neill, Theresa, Valerie, Jeffrey ~,fotion denied 5-2. Valerie said there is not need for the plants on the east side. The existing trees need removed. Jeffrey said the hot tub needs to come back to the commission. The presentation before the commission is not acceptable. Red said he can bring in ten locations and requested that the board tell him what they would accept. Teresa said the Parks Department needs to determine the safe distance from the historic resource. They would issue the tree permit. Valerie said her direction would be to place the hot tub as far to the south east comer of the property and perhaps starting at the drip line of the tree try to find a place between the historic residence and the tree and as far away from the historic residence as possible. Planting clarification: The board supports the idea that the Parks Dept. would work with the owner to remove the tree in the right-of-way and there is probably no need for the group of plantings that exist next to the out building now. Red said they would not remove the tree in the right-of-way. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 27~ 2003 Valerie sited the guidelines: Guideline 1.12 states that the historic planting between the two structures was an open space relationship, primarily being grass. Guideline 1.13 says do not cover grassy areas with gravel; rock or paving materials and this entire space is paved including the hot tub. Guidelines 1.13 also discusses plant size. Guideline 1.14 discusses obscuring significant architectural features. Jeffrey also mentioned that Chapter 8 talks about secondary structures. Teresa said chapter 8. ! discusses preserving secondary structures and character defining features, which is the relationship between each other. Michael suggested as a committee we should create a landscaping sub- committee and make it clear to all applicants that the plan has to be approved by the landscape subcommittee and then the commission. Amy said the revisions need to be reviewed by the monitor, Neill and Valerie and need not come back to the entire commission. The parks department needs to be contacted regarding the placement of the hot tub. 11 Exhibits entered into the record for the file. 2 WILLIAMS WAY - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) ON-SITE RELOCATION, PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: Scott Hicks and Doug Rager The affidavit of notice was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Amy said the piece of property is an isolated historic resource in a neighborhood that is typically developed as affordable housing. The property contains two historic structures. The western most house which has its gable end facing Aspen Mountain is original to the site, the Warkentin House (HBI). The other cottage was moved to the site and it came from Main Street where the old library was and is now Design Workshop. The house was occupied by Loey Reinquist who was a photographer. The house had a bay window in the front and a peak at the porch, which was removed. It is wonderful that the owner intends to 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST ,27, 2003 separate the two houses again. For tonight the site plan and development of the new home are the two main issues. The site plan proposes to relocate the HB2 just slightly from where it is now. It is being pushed deeper into the site and a little into an embankment at Spruce Street. Staff's concern is that might not be the greatest presence for it on the street. It is close to the street but very low and you might not get visibility as you are looking down on it: HBI is to be relocated to the south end of the property. The house probably sat under the cottonwood trees for shade not in front of them totally exposed. Moving that house might not be entirely appropriate and doesn't necessarily benefit the preservation of the site. The other concern is the design of the new home itself and its size in comparison to the other two buildings. The property is zoned multi-family and has quite a lot of square footage. One of the unit's square footage is 4,800 which is quite a bit larger than the 500 square foot miners cottages. With that amount of mass it is exacerbated because it is placed between the two buildings. Perhaps if there were more distance between them there wouldn't be a conflict. The current design is a rectangular shape but there isn't a separation of any distinct masses that are linked together like we have seen on other projects. Scott said there is no other site in Aspen even close to this site. There is 236 feet across the back line and 26 feet from Spruce St. to the bottom of Williams Way, vertical slope. There are spruce and cotton trees that exist on the site. HBI house, the Markalunas house is at grade underneath the cottonwood trees. It is the original home on the site. HBII will be moved slightly to be oriented to the street. The new structure will be stuck into the hill. The project proposes removal of one cottonwood tree. Guideline 9.6 states that the historic houses should be at grade. HBI will be a grade on Williams Way and HBII at grade on Spruce Street. There is a rock wall that is currently in place. Scott said he feels he has met guidelines 9.1, 9.2, 9.3. The historic structures will be restored. HBI will be on the western portion of the property at grade and the proposed changes are an addition to the north side of 90 square feet and dormers in the roof. The interior north wall needs rebuilt. The east wall is a new wall that needs rebuilt. Scott requested that HPC state where they want the windows. The western window was taken out and will be put back in and they intend to remove the 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2003 triangular windows in the gable end because they are not historic. The materials are board and batten and clapboard siding. Guideline 7.7 states that dormers are an acceptable material. The property has a category 4 affordable housing unit and a resident occupied unit. By building the new structure there will be a free market unit. HBI will become the RO unit. HBI must maintain two bedrooms and 1,300 square feet. There will also be a full basement. HBII has no additions. The French doors are not original. The applicant said on the north side it is clear that there was a window removed and it will be put back. The new structure will have a porch and a gable over the front entry. As you move west on the property there will be a covered porch, which meets guideline 11.2. The entire front faqade is one story then you go to two stories. Every single roofline matches the historic home. There are slx or seven rooflines moving in different areas. The only dormer is the one on the east side. Regarding scale to the historic structures HBII is raised to the Spruce Street grade. Doug presented gable elevations as opposed to clipped gables, which were removed, of the new house. Scott said the size of the lot is 21,000 square feet. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Lisa Markalunas said HPC needs to consider the relationship of the new construction to the historic house and how all that interplays with the existing cottonwood trees etc. The historic houses are like bookends on the new construction. Bill Stirling said the houses remind him of the shady lane parcel. They are placed in a county style setting. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 27~ 2003 Comments: Valerie said the restoration of the two houses is very exciting. The paved surface and undesirables such as garages are tucked back from the street and are less visible which is a positive part of this project. Her two concerns of the site planning are the separation of the two structures. The magnitude of the project in the middle exacerbates that the two structures have been separated from each other. If the two masses can relate to each other higher on the slope you will be more easily able to accommodate the square footage and massing that you want in the home such as the second floor. It will work to your advantage to have a bigger massing on the lower slope and the smaller masses higher on the slope. At the same time, it is not critical that they be side by side. Mass and scale. There is a conflict between HBI and the terrace that surrounds the house. If the house sits on its original location we generally do not want to see that moved. A lot of suggestions are pointing that the house really did sit closer to Spruce Street. The proposed addition on HBI is very creative. The 90 square foot addition is appropriate. Teresa relayed that the site is a "gem". She supports HBI at grade at the bottom of the lot and that is very valuable. There need to be some inflection at the top of the hill on HBII. The mass is overpowering on the little historic house. Looking up the hill from HBI the 3 stow massing is disturbing. Teresa said she does not support the dormer on HB1. Guideline 7.1 references preserving original forms. Neill said this is a mining site. We need to think whether or not this house should be moved at all. Is it on the original footprint? Are the improvements to the Warkentin house and Renquist house going to offset moving the house? The proposal is to put the house back behind the cottonwoods with a driveway in front. On the east side there is a stonework terrace and two or three stories in perception behind it and a 90-foot addition on the back and three dormers. Neill is worried about overwhelming the Warkentin house. He could not accept the dormers on the addition. He feels we are loosing the integrity of the original house. On the covered porch on the new house that has a dormer with a window in the middle of it gives the impression ora two-stow faqade and rather 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 27~ 2003 disruptive. He is most worried about the integrity of the Warkentin building. Michael said this is a great example of a recoverable resource. There is not enough respect made to the historic structures in this plan. It seems that too much attention has been spent on the details of the regulations rather then the "intent" of our regulations. Those are spelled out in guidelines 11.3, I 1.4, I 1.5, 11.6. Guideline ! 1.9 talks about building components being of similar size and shapes of the historic structure. His concern is does this plan have respect to these historic resources and the answer is no. Derek said he is right on line with Michael regarding this proposal. There are way too many concerns of mass and scale of the new structure. Derek said he would support a bump out on HBI but not the dormer. He is not convinced that the massing is sympathetic or appropriate for this site. His reasoning is guideline 10.6, 10.7 and 10.9. Sarah said she shares many of the same thoughts as Derek. Her issue is the site plan. On the grade issue from Spruce Street the HBII structure could come down to the corner presence at the intersection of Williams and Spruce. She would be interested in seeing the two historic resources having context within each other and having the new building do its own thing. Jeffrey echoed his fellow commissioners comments. The allowable FAR to the zone is not sensitive to our historic structures that you are trying to restore. On the site planning issues the proxirmry to each other is troubling. On the historic locations it is better to keep what was consistently there. On HBI the dormer element could be revised and not so overwhelming. On the new construction the mass and scale and roof £orming is problematic and currently hurting the resources. Scott asked the board where they wanted the Warkentin house sited and they would accept whatever HPC recommended. They would also like a recommendation on the size of the addition for the north side of Warkentin house. Scott said we need to leave here with a plan. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 27~ 2003 Jeffrey said the board will try to give the applicant direction. Michael said we have a staffthat is available to help and the applicant needs to think about the comments made and meet with staff. Amy said it seems from evidence that the historic house was in the eastern most section of the property and we should work on that site. There sounds like there is interest in keeping the building somewhat related but not necessarily side-by-side. The new construction needs to get a little more away from the historic building. The more the new construction gets distanced from this the less our concerns about the specifics of its design become. Maybe HBI should move more toward the Williams/Spruce comer. It needs to be gaining from the relocation nor hiding it. Jeffrey said om' goal is to preserve the views and preserve the historic resource. Valerie said the applicant rmght have a better opportunity to balance the mass and scale of the new structure to the historic resource if they are up slope. Study the new single-family structure at the lower portion of the site. The scale of the new building as it exists between the two historic buildings is overwhelming. MOTION: Valerie moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development of 2 Williams Way to September 24; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Vote: Yes 7-0. TELLURIDE HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. Ali in favor. motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ll