Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20040728ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 28~ 2004 701 W. MAIN- PUBLIC HEARING .......................................................................................................... 1 470 N. SPRING - DISCUSSION ON THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON THE FAR BONUS .... 1 710 S. ASPEN - CONCEPUTAL - SKIER CHALET ..................................................................... 3 114 NEALE AVE.- CONCEPTUAL- PUBLIC HEARING .................................................................... 7 WORK SESSION ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2004 AWARDS SELECTION .................................................................................................................... 11 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 28~ 2004 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Michael Hoffman and Sarah Broughton. Valerie Alexander was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Michael moved to approve the minutes of June 29, 2004; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Michael will recuse himself on 470 N. Spring. 701 W. MAIN - PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: Derek moved to continue the pubHc hearing on 701 W. Main until August 25th; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 470 N. SPRING - DISCUSSION ON THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON THE FAR BONUS Amy pointed out that there must be an affirmative vote of three in order for the motion to pass. Amy said the topic tonight is about the bay window in the front of the house. One of the conditions of conceptual approval was that the window be removed because it is not in its original location on the building. In March the applicant tried to demonstrate that the window is an artifact whether it was original to the house or not. HPC's vote was 2 to 2 which iS a denial. Since then Marvin Moriarty was contacted who moved the house to Spring Street and David Warner has followed up with that person and a letter was presented saying that the window was on another side of the house and reconstructed on the front of the house. The suggestion that is being made from the information on the floor plans, it looks like the bay window may have been in the location that would serve the room on the west side of the building, so perhaps if they put it back in its original location they would still have light in the room and still have that feature if it is important to them but it won't be on the front of the house. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2004 David Warner said we really didn't have any information as to where the bay came from. David said it is significant that they found that the bay window actually came from this house. David said he feels it us not uncommon for elements to move around in an historic sense on a house. The house has been raised about four feet above the ground from how it was originally designed. Does it really serve the house to have the bay window moved because it works in its current location? In an historic sense all sides have something to contribute. David said he doesn't feel the bay window is interfering with the historic reading of the house. He also said the house was rotated 180 degrees so it was on the street side of what was then the west side and now is the east side. Amy said the bay was not on the Sanborn map. Either it was left off or it was built after 1904. The Tagert's came to Aspen in 1895. Derek said he takes the view that we have established that the bay window was part of this house. Architecture does change and the uses change over time. In order to do true preservation it must be kept alive. He will continue to support the bay as proposed by the architect. Sarah said the bay does not deter from it being an historic resource in this town. The bay has been an element moved around on this house and does embody a distinct characteristic of that period reflecting that time period of that method of construction. That was a way that the users got more space into their rooms. It is OK and permissible to allow the bay to remain in its current location. Jeffrey said since we are talking about an FAR bonus the criteria become more intense. It is an excellent project. Jeffrey agreed with staff that has an excellent point that the bay should be taken back to the other location and then it wouldn't confuse that front elevation. The large double hung window is probably about 50 square feet of glass and that would help with additional light. Because of the FAR bonus Jeffrey agrees with staff's recommendation. When giving a 500 square foot FAR bonus we are asking all applicants to have an exemplary restoration project back to the original state. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC P~SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 28~ 2004 David Warner suggested he contact the owners and see if they would consider moving the bay Window. He would like to do the study to see what the bay window looks like on a different part of the house. Amy said she doesn't feel that anyone on the board would say that you have to save the bay window but if the board says.go to the double hung window whether you move the bay to the other side or not is not an important issue. She said she would prefer they didn't do that because we do not know exactly where it was. David said he realizes this is a tough choice and. it is a balance of different issues. The house might look funny if the bay window isn't there. David will do a study and come back to the HPC. Sarah requested that a south elevation be provided for the next meeting. 710 S. ASPEN- CONCEPUTAL - SKIER CHALET Affidavit of posting and mailing - Exhibit I Proof of publication Exhibit II Michael was seated. Sworn in: Mitch Haas, Michael Noda Amy said this application is for conceptual review and alterations to the Skier Lodge. This is part of the lodge that contains the Steak House on Aspen Street. We are not dealing with the portion of the property that is on Gilbert Street. The property is fairly hemmed in and the footprint spreads across the western boundary of the lot. Below you have City parkland and on the east you have a ski easement. There is not a lot of room to move around. The proposal involves demolishing a one-story portion of the building where the restaurant exists now. This section of the building was built in 1965 and at the same time the Skier Chalet was made into a three- stow building and the chalet detailing was added to it. It is something to consider whether it is appropriate to demolish a portion of the building from this period of significance; however, there is really not a lot of other buildable.area to use to place an addition in a way that doesn't diminish the importance of the building. This section of the building does not have any of the Chalet detailing that the rest of the building has so for those reasons staff can support its demolition and replacement. The new addition will be ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2004 separated from the three-story lodge by an open staircase and the addition itself is very contemporary in style and. has a lot of shapes and massing characteristics of the chalet portion of the building, staff is recommending conceptual approval. Issues of windows and materials are left for final. Amy commented that some of the staircases that come down between the floors to the ground are not shown in the drawings. Staff is not in favor of getting rid of the secondary staircases. Moving windows and doors might not be appropriate but they will be addressed at final. Mitch Haas said there is a one-story connecting link with some stair towers in behind so it barely touches the historic building. The Chalet styling of this building is from 1965 to 1968. The addition is oriented in the direction of the ski easement. In doing that it enables the building to be set apart and also make use of the topography to lower its overall height. Mitch said the stairs dOn't function for a remodel or successful renovation of this building. The exterior wall will be bumped back out so one of the stairs that drop down will be in that space. Michael Noda said the back half of the building was a one-story and the front half was a two-story building with an aprbs' ski patio facing south. Michael Noda said the existing original building has no basements. The plans are to take down the one-story restaurant portion and build a three- story condominium. We are keeping the existing footprint intact. We might have to reinforce some of the existing structure but the general form will stay intact. Some of the existing railings will be replaced or reinforced. The whole design is based on preserving the existing three-story steak house and disengaging the addition. Michael Noda said the only connector is on the first level and then the breezeway with a stair and open-air circulation. When we take down the one-story steak house a new foundation, basement and one of the affordable housing units will be constructed. The new addition is a spin off of the Chalet style. There are very shallow'roof pitches. On the addition we are going to mimic the size of the openings of the original building. The existing staircase on the west facade will be preserved and brought up to code. The staircase in question is on the south elevation facing the mountain. We would like to clean up the old stair and use the new stair 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF"JUL¥~28~'~'~ ....... system to access the second floor units. We would no longer need the stair but would preserve the existing balconies. Michael Noda said they are trying to get the height of the addition equal or less than the existing building. Amy asked if the applicant has moved the addition as far east without encroaching into the ski easement? Michael said the balconies are 9 inches to the easement. Jeffrey asked if the east side decks could be narrowed a little to give more breathing room between the existing chalet and the new construction. Michael said he believes he can achieve that by minimizing the decks and making them less wi de. Jeffrey pointed out that. might help some of the drainage issues as well. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Glenn Monogole who resides on Gilbert Street asked what the timing would be on this project and if it is tied into Lift I A. Mitch said this project still has to go through a PUD development process. Balis Williams said he is a disabled veteran a lived in the building for 30 years. He feels the building is being totally compromised. Where did the original wood paneling go that was in the building? If the place is historical don't you pretty much have to' leave it that way? Mitch said he would provide details of the materials at final as required. Balis asked if the Skier Chalet signs will be left up. Michael said it is their intent to record all of the historical elements in the building and preserve those and reuse them in a way that it doesn't compromise. Jasmine Depactor said people ski through the easement and that needs to be kept in mind. There are proposal to get the old Lift IA going again. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 28~ 2004 Joan Hill said the proposal has decks on the second floor that are nine inches from the skier easement. Having watched and skied down that easement the concern is if there is four feet of snow and then the decking there might be safety concerns. Michael said that is a very good comment and he could reduce the width of the balconies to be more like Juliet balconies. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments: Michael said he is bothered by the demolition of the one-story element but this project is a good compromise. Amy said the two-story building was constructed in 1953 and in 1965 it became three stories tall and the restaurant was built and most of the chalet detailing was adding. Jasmine said the one-story section that Michael is concerned about was built in 1982. Michael stated that the detailing needs to be preserved throughout the project. The north facing faCade needs to be preserved including the sign. He also suggested that the balcony on the west side be preserved. Derek said the scale; massing and composition are outstanding on this project. Derek asked at final that the stairs be represented accordingly. Preservation means to keep alive and keep living and that includes change which is an inevitable function of preservation. Sarah said in our guidelines when approaching a landmark project one needs to select a preservation approach and there are different ways to preserve. This is clearly an adaptive reuse which falls within our guidelines. Adaptive reuse means that the existing openings and details of the stairs and balconies need to be preserved as much as possible. In terms of today we are commenting on form, scale and mass. Guideline 7.1 preserving the original roof has been met. The only guideline troubling is 10.7 which states that if it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantiallv from significant facades and use a connector to link it to the historic building. Sarah requested that 6 ASPEN HISTORIC P~SERVATION COMMisSION MINUTES OF JULY 28; 2004 the height of the building come down beyond the ridge to be subordinate to the historic building. Jeffrey stated that the majority of the criteria have been met for conceptual review. All the guidelines in Chapter 7 have been preserved. Guideline 10.2 gives us the option to remove the one-story non-significant addition. The nature of the staircase and the snowdrop area are going to be very challenging. Jeffrey supports more breathing room between the historic resource and the new addition, which may be accomplished by minimizing the size of the decks. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #23 with the following additional conditions: The height of the addition is lowered to be less than the existing ridge of the chalet building. The distance between the historic resource and the addition be studied and maximized to the fullest extent possible. The decks on the east side are minimized so that they do not create an obstacle in the easement. Motion second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote' Derek, Sarah, Michael, Jeffrey 114 NEALE AVE.- CONCEPTUAL- PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting and mailing - Exhibit I Proof of publication - Exhibit II Letter from Bret Thoeny Exhibit III Derek's diagram Exhibit IV Photos of existing house V Sworn in' John Muir Amy said this is a new house on a landmark lot split. The lot is over 15,000 square feet in size and the maximum floor area is established at 3,945 square feet. Most of what could have been built on the Victorian up the hill has been put onto this property. The city has a requirement of some floor area reduction based on steep slopes on a site. The methodology for 7 ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 28, 200A calculating floor area on the slope is determined by the Zoning officer. The third dimensional requirement issue is height. The property is subject to a different height restrictions through a private agreement. Design issues: The square footage allowed for this site is quite a bit larger than the Victorian. The architect has a difficult challenge in trying to respond to our guidelines about trying to create a relationship between the two buildings. There are a number of things done in this proposal that are working; keeping the portion of the structure closest to the miner's cottage a one-story form. The distance between this proposal and the Victorian is less than the previous proposal about 10 feet. In the previous review HPC had a comfort level of having some distance between the two structures. The guidelines that are not in compliance with are 11.5,6 and 10. This has a lot to do with the vocabulary of the architecture. Some of the roof shapes are not found in the Victorian up the hill or other Victorians in town and that is a concern. The central mass is fairly bulky and large compared to the miners cottage. Possibly there could be a redistribution of the mass to a group of forms instead of so much under one large roof. The complexity of the roof plans maybe an issue in terms of compatibility with the Victorian. Focusing on height, scale and massing staff recommends cOntinuation of the project. John Muir said this is a 6,200 square foot house. They have attempted to push the house down in to the ground as far as possible. At least 1/3 of this house is subterranean. We primarily used hip roofs because they are more of a traditional roof form and they slope in multiple directions, which significantly reduce scale and mass. Most of the mass is in the center portion of the house. The master wing on the north has been pushed as far into grade as practical so the area acts as a transitional area in terms of mass between old and new. We chose to take the primary entrance off Neale Ave. because we feel you see the majority of the scale and mass from Neale Ave. and that is more appropriate in terms of the front door. We are trying to work in layers to have a sense of a visual transitional from a more human scale to a larger scale. The master bedroom is pushed further to the Victorian by ten feet than the original design. The reason for that is that we are trying to lengthen the connecting element and push the transitional element closer to the existing house and further from the center of the house which has more bulk.' The ADU is completely detached and is one-storv in character and works as a transitional element in stepping the project up ~)n 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2004 the east property line. In summary we have taken a far more traditional approach in this design and one that comes much closer too meeting the intent of the HPC guidelines. Clarifications: Derek asked what the height was on the central piece? John said approximately 26 feet. Michael said he wouldlike to see a comparison of what was approved previously and this new proposal in terms of mass and scale. John said the previous drawings that he has did not have any height indication, Derek said he could help out. The previous plans were built into the site and these plans are more gradual across the site. John said they are working with a 9-foot and an 11-foot plate height. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. No public were present. Jeffrey closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Derek said the biggest issue is mass and scale of the central area. It is 15 feet higher than what was previously approved. HPC's concern was to not make it a "big presence". You are looking at 30 to 35 feet to the peak. In terms of the guidelines regarding slopes, roofs etc. it complies by definition. Michael stated he feels guideline 11.1, 11.2 having to do with the primary entrance to the structure are met. Guideline 11.3, 11.4,11.5 and 11.6 are not met. In terms of the relationship of the historic structure and this one we have no visual diagrams but there was quite a bit of distance between the two. In this plan John said he is ten feet closer to the historic structure. Michael requested a drawing that shows the context between the historic house and the new house. He also said that John said the old plans had a smaller profile and that is important to 'the HPC. The most important guidelines that staff has identified are 11.5 and 1126; use building forms that are similar to the historic structure including roof forms. Michael said the previous design that was approved was much more sympathetic to the historic context of Aspen and to this particular site than this design. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2004' Sarah said the front door is on Neale Ave. and the address is Neale Ave. but we are treating it like a side yard setback. John said the paper work refers to this project both by Queen Street and Neale Ave. In the meeting with the planner he was told either Queen or Neale Ave. would be appropriate for the front door address. The front yard setback is taken off Queen Street. Sarah said she echoed her fellow commissioners comments and staff's. In reviewing the guidelines she finds that many in Chapter 11 have not been met. The first two are being met by putting the primary entrance on the street and using a front porch. In dealing with the scale and mass of the new house she does not find that it is meeting the guidelines in reference to the historic resource. She also echoes Michael's comments and it would be very helpful to see a grade on this that is more taken from a topo of the site and show the historic resource on that elevation. Regarding Guideline 11.6 the height is distracting and the features are not similar to those on the block. We are dealing with a very specific gabled structure and also a hipped structure. Jeffrey echoed staff's and the commission's comments. The prior design is not being executed and it doesn't need to be compared to your design. The strength of the last project was its proximity to the historic resource and its greater separation as you came down the hill. He also said he doesn't necessarily agree that all of the mass should be in the middle of the lot because that is where part of its large presence seems like a much larger house. Jeffrey commended the architect on the excellent renderings that he presented. Jeffrey would support a restudy of the massing and some of the reasoning behind the hipped roofs. It is in competition with the historic resource. Guideline 11.5 and 11.6 have not been met. It is a difficult site and there are a lot of design obstructions with'the slope and a busy street. Jeffrey requested a site section showing the historic resource for the next meeting. John said he is Clear on his mandate. From the remarks that came from Amy he knew that the center section would be an issue and perhaps beyond that in terms of scale and bulk. John discussed using a mansard roof. Sarah 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 'OF JULY 287 2004 said she is not offended by the height, it is the mass and scale that is an issue for her. Jeffrey said he thinks the mansard ro°fidea makes it a more confusing distinction. John said in reading through the guidelines it looks like the HPC is looking for not necessarily to replicate an historic structure but that we use elements of historic structures in different was. In looking at the drawings of the approved project, that project was approved by a different standard. Yes, the scale is low but he doesn't see anything there that relates to historic references. Michael said we apply the guidelines and try to reach a balance between the needs of the applicant and our policies and guidelines that are set forth. Amy said from the discussions the mitigating factors the board was interested in when they applied the guidelines were distance from the historic building and the low profile of the approved structure. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 114 Neale Ave to August 25, 2004; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Sarah, Derek, Michael, Jeffrey WORK SESSION 2004 Awards selection MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11