Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20170308ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m Commissioners in attendance were Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, Nora Berko, Roger Moyer and Richard Lai. Absent were Bob Blaich and John Whipple. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney; Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner and Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes from February 8th, 2017, Mr. DeFrancia seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Halferty asked for any public comment regarding items not listed on the agenda and there were none. Mr. Halferty asked for any commission member commentary. Ms. Berko thanked Ms. Simon for sending out the memo regarding modern city property designation. Mr. Pember mentioned that he ran into Ms. Bryan's predecessor Debbie and she wishes everyone well and also mentioned that he saw that the Aspen Art Museum won a National AA Award, he didn't see that it was in the paper, but should be noticed and recognized in our minutes. Mr. Halferty thanked staff and Ms. Simon for the commissioner training at the retreat and felt like it was a lot of good information. Ms. Simon summarized and said the one thing that will be implemented is that the facilitator mentioned that in the staff memos, we need to create more of a chart so we can see what we agree on, what we don't, what guidelines are met, which ones aren't and where we are split as a group, etc. We will start doing this to help find common ground and recognizing polarizing situations to see if this helps you all organize the discussion. Ms. Simon mentioned typing up a summary for everyone. Mr. Halferty said the facilitator was also very effective in how to run meetings in the affirmative sense from a preservation and land use standpoint. She is a very obviously well skilled lady. It was really helpful and she was well received. Mr. Pember mentioned that he ran into Jen Phelan who feels like the training has a lot to do a lot with the psychology of the meeting. Mr. Halferty asked for any disclosures of conflicts of interest. Ms. Berko mentioned that she would be leaving for the Project Monitoring at 211 E Hallam, Ms. Greenwood stated that she would be leaving for all New Business, Mr. Pember stated that he will be leaving for Part B. of New Business. Ms. Simon mentioned that Mr. Lai is on the mailing list for the Race Alley project and said that he would need to recuse on that one. Mr. Halferty asked for the Project Monitoring summary for 211 E Hallam from Ms. Simon. She stated that is the remodel and expansion of the Berko Studio and Ms. Greenwood is the project monitor. Ms. Mirte Mallory spoke first and brought up that during the course of the project, they have learned a lot about circulation. The front unit is facing Hallam street and the studio is accessed from Hallam street so it has become apparent that the glass slider is not very functional. For that reason, they are looking for support to replace the slider with a five -panel folding door. Philp Jeffreys was also in attendance ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2017 speaking on the project. The door being proposed is more energy efficient with a thicker frame and has not already been installed. There is also a screen door that has always been there. Ms. Greenwood stated that this is a matter of functionality and a thicker frame. Mr. Jeffreys believes that this facade is going to be really difficult to see from the alley for one and there are already a number of impacts on this facade. The street facade is going to be perfect and a lot of work was done on the sides. On the back, there were major alterations including the construction of a duplex so this is the facade that is the last and most impacted already. "Bastardized" Mr. Pember stated and then asked how the screen door operates. Mr. Jeffreys replied that it's a full panel that you just pull on and it goes across and will not be used moving forward, but going to the five -panel folding door. Mr. Pember said it's the most bastardized elevation and will hardly be seen at all and tends to support it. It meets the goals of modernism and functionally and it works. Ms. Greenwood states that she agrees and supports it along with Mr. DeFrancia and Mr. Halferty. MOTION: Mr. Pember makes motions to approve, Ms. Greenwood seconds. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Halferty asks for any staff comments. Ms. Simon mentions that City Council is volunteering to have you review the designations of the five city properties that you will be talking about on March 22nd and they will talk about on April 24`^. We had sent out about a thousand public notices, posted information on Community Voice, one of the cities websites, and doing an open house to answer questions. You'll have a thick packet for next time for the history of these five properties. Mr. Halferty asked for any certificates of no negative effect. Ms. Simon replied that she did issue a no negative effect to replace the sliding glass doors on the Prospector Lodge, which is a non -historic building across the street from the Crystal Palace. They are just replacing to match so no significant change, but will be facing Hyman Avenue. Mr. Halferty asked if we have ample Public Notice for our agenda items in which Ms. Bryan says she still needs the publication and Ms. Simon gives to her. Mr. Halferty asked for any call up reports and Ms. Simon says yes she presented Council with a call up for the Bidwell/Kemo Sabe & Red Onion project —434 and 422 E Cooper— and they have asked for additional information. The call up discussion is expected to happen on April 31 Mr. Halferty asked for any additional typical HPC proceedings in which Ms. Simon said no. Mr. Halferty said there was no old business to discuss so moving on to new business, 210 S First St — Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval Variations. Ms. Bryan mentioned that she has reviewed all public notice and all is good ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2017 Ms. Simon introduces the project and states that it is for 210 S First St and is a request for substantial amendment and this property is located on the corner of Hopkins and First. This is a Victorian house and a carriage house structure from the 1950's era residential unit. The applicant received approval to restore the Victorian and demolish and replace the carriage house structure. The restoration moved forward and was a really great project. The structure, which was to be replaced, did not move forward due to the height limit and HPC approved an amendment to resolve this, but the code changed again and there was an issue with floor area so we are looking at this project again for the third time trying to bring it into compliance with today's codes. HPC should be aware of the fact that you are looking at conceptual and final all at once. You are considering all issues tonight. The project is not a complete departure from what HPC saw previously, the footprint is very similar. Most changes are regarding roof form, fenestration and materials. New variations being requested that were not granted previously regarding setbacks and a floor area bonus stemming from a portico share. This project is subject to the new design guidelines and the vested right expired several years ago so must comply with today's regulations. Ms. Simon has provided the new guidelines and highlighted the ones of concern. The applicant will need to apply for a building permit by November of this year or they will no longer be able to build the unit. It's a non -conforming lot so their period of time to demo and rebuild is running out. HPC is being asked to find whether the design guidelines are met. In the memo, we are concerned with compatibility looking for new and old structures to be compatible and relatable. We are concerned with asymmetrical shape of roof and the fact that the ground floor and upper floor plate height is not equal. There is atop heavy character to it that HPC should be aware of. There was 330 sq ft previously received so we are now requesting remaining 170 sq ft. Until the guideline and compatibility issues are resolved, we will not grant the additional sq footage. There is a 7 ft combined side yard reduction and we are recommending continuation at this time. Mr. Halferty asked for questions for Ms. Simon from the commissioners. Mr. DeFrancia asked Ms. Simon what she wants to accomplish with the continuation. She replied that she would primarily like to revisit the compliance with design guidelines 11.6. Mr. Halferty added in that the review is for materials, plate heights, roof, roof forms, etc. Mr. Pember asked when we need to lock in approvals for this project and Ms. Simon said that once HPC is granted, they will need to submit a building permit by November 8. Patrick Rawley of Stan Clausen Associates was joined by the applicant and owner, John Key. Mr. Rawley started off by reading a statement for the record from Ms. Greenwood who recused herself. Mr. Rawley feels they've really pushed to meet the guidelines for the owner and his family's needs. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 We are here to amend the existing approval of a single-family residence, totalizing current code, design guidelines and evolving understanding of the client. We are also seeking approval to build the residence as project vesting has expired. A 500 sq ft bonus was previously granted in 2007 and partially utilized and now the applicant would like to utilize the remaining 180 sq ft. Per the owner, there has not been a change to the design, but a change to the land use code. The Holiday House (the Skico project) is immediately to the east. The Cottonwood Condos, a multi- family project that is three stories, is on other side of alley. The Molly Gibson lodge will be torn down and replaced with two single-family residences. It is important to point out from where we have come. The cabin in 2007, is shown on the screen and was in a very poor state. Mr. Key said it was "quite a project". The features kept the look of it as far as design and want to maintain the visibility of the historic resource. In 2004, initial HPC approval for the single-family home with western elevation showing on screen. The City issued a building permit in 2006 and at this time, the City determined that two buildings could be built and two building permits were issued and that is how we are moving forward today. In 2007, we came back for the major conceptual and final HPC application which approved of two structures utilizing 325 sq ft of the 500sq ft bonus. Now we've detached it. In 2008-10 we did the restoration of the historic resource and was beautifully done and offers an all sides view of the historic resource. There is a generous lawn in between the historic and proposed residence. Design approaches are to preserve this. Following in 2011, construction of the second home was put on hold due to the recession and at this time we also received confirmation from Sara Adams that the house can be built and not be subject to demolition by neglect, but would come under the new land use code. In 2016, the owner, John, has committed to a third design to build a family home. Looking at the modified design, it is very similar to what it always has been with the footprint being largely the same. There are the same setbacks. The second house is pushed to the south and utilizes primary east/west access so it can be appreciated on all sides. Some of the rear design that has occurred has some significant footprint changes and this is highlighted as a variance request for an egress window well from the basement. They have spoken with Claude, the zoning officer, regarding the code change of the carport area allowing vehicles to pass through. Claude said this will be considered a carport and has a horizontal projection. The code provides for three zones: Zone A being the most significant historic zone, allowing all sides to be viewed. Zone B, moderately significant for historic reasons and contains the area of separation between residences. Zone C, which is unrestricted, utilizes the area of the driveway and covered carport. We tried to use as much from west to east as possible to maintain separation between the two. Discussing the new modified design, please note that there is a deck that has been truncated to be smaller and more articulated and a roof top deck that has been incorporated into the design. The height has been reduced from 30 ft and now comes down to 25ft. The difference between the historic resource and the proposal is 57'. This is a modern design, but we're supposed to design a product of its own time. We have gone for a more contemporary palate and this is what the owner likes. There are lots of windows and lots of living space. The focus points to the historic resource and shows nicely how we are mimicking the roof form of the Dutch dormer into the new construction. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 8. 2017 The Eastern elevation on the screen is showing that height has been brought down and new design was lowered quite a bit. The owner is interested in having a roof top deck and likes the views of Aspen and Red Mountain. The greater articulation of the 2016 building is that the height has been brought down and there is more variation and less foreboding in the background. Section 11.6 of the guidelines — roof forms are being mimicked. There is a unique roof form and nice to repeat and draws a correlation between the two structures. There are playful and subtle chimney similarities. Horizontal mass —a little wider building that will mimic form of historic resource. Second is materials, vertical and horizontal siding. It will be painted the same color as the historic resource. The metal roof is the same as the one on the historic property. The stone, which is already present, will be consistent. Regarding the floor area bonus, we have met the criteria B through F, shown in blue on the screen. G and h are not applicable. There is the unchanged condition of pass through that allows access to historic resource garage. John, the owner, commented that he bought the house 21 years ago. He thanked the HPC commission for being here and hearing the project. Initially, he said, this was a rental property and brought to conformity. There was a building permit pulled in 1958, which was found out by his attorney and this supersedes everything. He would like to proceed as soon as possible. He continued to say that initially when we started, our total focus was on the Victorian house and since the recession came, things have become more modern, my family has grown and we have moved the living area to the street side, which was a huge improvement. He stated that he is asking for approval tonight and to continue moving forward. Mr. Halferty asked if the board had questions. Ms. Bryan stated that she was sorry for not saying something sooner, but that Ms. Greenwood's letter should be struck from the record and was not appropriate because she had to recuse herself. Ms. Simon apologized and stated that she encouraged Ms. Greenwood to write the letter to express herself. Mr. Rawley said that his presentation adequately covered the points without Ms. Greenwood's letter being factored in. Mr. Pember stated that he is not sure why they are asking for the additional sq footage if it was already granted in past, it's just a matter of reallocating. Ms. Simon replied that there was a small discrepancy in past approvals and looking at the different design. She said they are looking at what's left on the table, whether it's 170 or 180 sq ft. Mr. Rawley said that we need 180 sq ft. primarily due to the modifications of land use code ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 8. 2017 Mr. Lai stated that this is one lot with two houses on it and asked if this is tied together forever? Mr. Rawley said yes, there is a possibility of separating via condominium agreement and can be sold separately but not separated and has just one parcel ID. Mr. Lai commented that the height of the second building is 5'2" higher than the original building and asked if that's allowable? Ms. Simon said yes, it's allowable because it is 25 feet and it depends on the shape of the roof so yes, it conforms to the code. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Simon what stood out to her the most as far as compatibility and she replied that the best compatibility is with the building materials being used. It's the other two categories; form and fenestration that are a little less solid. Mr. Pember reminded everyone that this is an amendment to a previous approval. Conceptual and final are rolled into one evening and that this is a lot for one night. "It's all in here." Mr. Key noted that regarding the height, the Cottonwood Condos, has three stories looking over into the house and in comparison, it looks small next to that huge structure. Mr. Halferty opened Public comment, but there was none. Mr. Key said that he doesn't understand the top heaviness comments that were made. Jeffrey recapped approvals and agreed with Willis, that there is a lot here and asked if the board is comfortable with the changes and if so, there is a discussion and motion to be made. Mr. Halferty noted that he was on the original board and appreciates the amount of work that has been done on this project. Roger mentioned that he used to give tours and it was a lot fun for him to see how Victorians were made to fit into the modern world. With this project, it would be its own entity. When I look at this, he stated, I think this is a darn good job of separating the two and a job well done. I don't see the sq. footage approval as an issue. Window wells are a safety issue and should be taken into consideration, but it's a pretty terrific project. Ms. Simon said that she wanted to clarify that the west facing gambrel roof is historic. No other house looks like this, but it is original. Mr. Key mentioned that it was an 1882 Sears miners cabin. Ms. Simon replied that Sears wasn't in business at that time and that this is a rumor that goes around town. Ms. Berko said that this was the only solution for back then and that for her, it's a very unique and sparse resource. She stated that the compatibility of the new building is totally there and her only question would be, is it possible to bring the 13 -ft. ceiling down to 12 so it doesn't read as top heavy? ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 8. 2017 She said she loved how you move around the building and discover how to they talk to each other. She said she had to stand on the corner for a long time to get a sense and felt that it needed something very light and very sparse. Mr. Lai said that he agrees with what you've done in terms of making the addition to be something of this time. It merits between the old and new, but he would like to address the top heaviness. You have that right-angle corner, that gives the impression of being top heavy so if that might be softened a little bit, that's the only hard angle there. Mr. Key asked about a covered patio and Mr. Lai said no, not a covered patio, but it might be if we can echo the gambrel angle —a 45 -degree angle. Mr. Rawley said, more like an eyebrow. Mr. Lai said exactly and it doesn't have to be very large or significant, but that would soften the top heavy impression and other than that, it's an excellent job. Mr. Key commented that he doesn't really see how it would work, but says that he's not that creative and that Ms. Greenwood could better speak to this. Mr. DeFrancia stated that the glass mitigates that issue and said that we're looking at a rendering, but in real life, the glass will make it open and clear and will diminish that top heaviness. This mitigates the right angle and the top heaviness and said that he does not have a problem with this. Mr. Rawley agreed that the rendering doesn't show the clarity of the glass. Mr. Pember commented that he generally would echo the others comments and feels that the roof is echoed very successfully and said that we can check the boxes pretty carefully to meet guidelines 2 out of 3. He noted that much less successful projects than this have been given approval and in this case, he thinks it's a solid 1.85 which is a big stumbling block for staff. He thinks the guideline regarding the roof, is somewhat harmonious and said that Victorians are notoriously bottom heavy instead of top heavy, so he can see the concern there. He noted that the views are upstairs , not downstairs and said that he doesn't personally mind the top heaviness. He thinks it is a handsome and/or lovely project and very successful as a stand-alone piece of architecture. Ms. Simon commented that there are mostly recessed cans for lighting and really no other fixtures. Mr. Pember noted the handrail saying it has an under light, which is a continuous strip light on the second level deck. Ms. Simon replied that it may get caught in the lighting code if you can see the light source from the underside. Mr. Halferty stated that he is in consensus with board and that the improvements from the original design are excellent and does meet guidelines, in his opinion. He said that it is a product of its own time and the materials are sensitive to the addition and he is Ok with the lighting. He said that he can also support this piece of architecture. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2017 Mr. Pember mused that we are lucky that the 2007 version is not being built Ms. Simon stated the previous conditions saying that it is a major development and substantial amendment with HPC approving the remaining bonus up to 500 sq. ft., setback variances granted, and the criteria is met. The development order will expire Nov. 8 and acomplete building application will need to be received during that time. MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia motioned to approve Resolution #5; Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. DeFrancia, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes. 6-0 motion carried. Ms. Simon asked for a monitor and Ms. Berko volunteered Mr. Halferty asked for the public notice for Item B, in which Ms. Bryan stated that she has a copy of it and we can go ahead and proceed. Mr. Halferty mentioned that it must be received by noon the following day in the Clerk's office since she did not have the actual ad. Ms. Simon introduced Item B of New Business -541 Race Alley in the Fox Cross subdivision. This is a Final Development and HPC granted conceptual a year ago. Most of this area was a wide open meadow with a Victorian building and line shacks owned by the Griffith family. We required that the Victorian building be restored to what it is now and these buildings be restored as well. This is the 3rd version of what we've seen and will be a single-family home with a connecting element. The focus of the recommended conditions of approval that HPC needs to weigh in on are: Page 108 of the packet, which states that the entire exposed foundation should be board form concrete and the foundation should not be the same as under the log cabins with a standard concrete finish. The rest of the exposed foundation can be board form. Condition 2 has to do with the connectors between the log cabins and this will be the main focus of tonight's discussion. The architect is proposing to face mirrored glass and isn't all four surfaces of the connectors, just two. One that faces park & south facing connection between log cabins in garage. The mirror is an unusual material for HPC and you will need to find that it is compatible and secondary to historic materials that we've seen in other applications. According to the residential design standards, there should be no highly reflective materials and this will be 8 ft by 8 ft in size. HPC only needs to approve the connectors that have conventional glass and should look at in the field regarding the applicant's mock-up. She stated that they are concerned with not creating a nuisance to neighbors. These are rustic 1960's very modest cabins and HPC likes the new and old contrast. The landscape is being driven in a contemporary direction and the proposed color is much darker, the landscape palate is more formal and different. In terms of the landscape plan, there is no clear walkway to the front door of the cabins from the park and needs to be added, but still should express entry, which is Condition 3. Condition 4 is to add a sconce at front porch. Condition 5 is regarding the landscape plan with the lawn paved system and we need some clarification on that and the sodded area. Condition 6, is regarding the repetition from conceptual with a 500sq ft bonus. The same goes with Condition 7 and we will need an ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2017 additional 30,000 bond. The last condition is regarding vested rights. This is a very successful project and we are leaving only enough floor area to build off what we see. Derek Skalko is speaking on behalf of Willis Pember along with the Chief landscape architect, Ryan Vugteveen and design partner Meghan Nemechek. Mr. Skalko stated that on April 271h, last year was when we all convened on this and from the idea of mass and scale and how we addressed everything, shows in this first elevation. This is a delicate project that is very minimal. It sits below plate heights of north and south sides and is very tied into its location, making sure the cabins are the focus from the park, which is the primary fa4ade. This is a similar condition to the north side and is nestled into spaces. Mr. Skalko brought a model presentation and asked if anyone would like to look up close. He stated that these are mining cottages or as Ms. Simon stated, line shacks that have material palates replicating wood and are Alpine driven in color scheme with contemporary detail. The color palate doesn't relate to anything right now, but Mr. Pember sees the new color palate tying this into more consistent language of the whole area. Regarding the sconce idea, there are currently no sconces on the property. A wall sconce isn't appropriate, but we prefer to have an upplight that would be based on porch light with downlighting from soffit down. Mr. Vugteveen stated that the goal is that the landscape feels at home and one of the most important goals is to maintain the visual connection to the resource. They want to invent a context for the shacks that feels authentic since this used to be a meadow and that is the part of the integration now. He went on to say that the intent is that the cabins are set in a field of grass and are meadow -like. There will be white chinking on the line shacks; maintaining, but elevating. We want to imply the walkway with a lawn paved system. The connections will be with the proposed black and white garden, which is inspired by the white chinking of the line shack. There will be shrubs, grasses and perennials with a light and darker color palate with native seed reaching a height of 24 inches tall on average with taller grasses wrapping around the architecture. There will be a black and white entry, a mirrored entry that looks like you're looking right through the house at the landscaping. This is a nice response to the connectors with the meadow field, but more articulated. There is a fence to the south, which keeps the mirror from returning any light. There is a long continued discussion on various shrubs/grasses, etc. Mr. Vugteveen continues stating that instead of having light pedestals, we want it all to be integrated with the architecture with soffit lights located above the garage, with angle to them and not projecting out into Race Alley with the same lights on the overhang. He continues with a lengthy discussion regarding lighting. Mr. Moyer asked if the siding for the garage will be painted or stained? Ms. Nemechek responded and said it will be stained. Mr. Moyer asked about the courtyard wall and if it is going to be back sealed before the seal is put in and asked if the top of the wall have a cap and if the backside of the cement wall will be sealed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2017 Mr. Vugteveen answered yes, but not the top, you won't see it. The landscaping will come up right next to it. Mr. Halferty asked about the door that is coming off of the elevation and if it will need some sort of deck or porch with a 4 ft drop and Mr. Vugteveen responded that the slope that is shown on there, at conceptual is still above grade and we need to articulate a little bit of the landing there, but the door is basically locked. We will make efforts for a visual connection so it doesn't look odd. Mr. Halferty stated that this isn't really an HPC question, but noticed that they have done an extensive job with civil engineering. He asked if regarding the courtyard, did they envision having dry wells down there and if it's a code requirement. Mr. Vugteveen commented that Josh Rice is the civil engineer of Woody Creek Engineering and that some of that water is going to have to be pumped. He said that in the front yard, below, we will do a civil cell system that is also used by the City of Aspen. Mr. Halferty opened public comment, but there was none and then he stated that we are in consideration for this motion regarding materials, landscape, lighting, a questionable mirror and some of the architecture. Ms. Simon noted that on page 108 is the resolution Mr. Moyer said that he was confused about the walkways and noted that the park is to the west and if you have a walkway going out to the public park, it's a really defined walkway and do we want the public walking up to the house or will there be some type of fence or gate? Ms. Simon said that there is a way of delineating that line by putting up a fence or gate in creating a pathway to the door and seems like step in the right direction. She stated that it is really important that you feel like this is the front of the house. Mr. Halferty recapped the conditions for the board. MOTION : Resolution #6: Mr. DeFrancia motioned to approve with the recommended conditions intact with addition of monitoring duties regarding board form concrete and mirror detail and 1. Review a mockup 2. Is ok, 3. addressed by revised landscape plan 4. not as interested so struck from the record, 5. clarification also struck 6. the rest is fine. Ms. Berko seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes, Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes. 4-0, motion carried. Mr. Halferty volunteered to be the monitor. Mr. DeFrancia moved to adjourn at 6:57 pm 4(v Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 10