Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20040811ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 11~ 2004 414 N. FIRST STREET - LANDSCAPE PLAN .............................................................. 1 403 W. HALLAM ST. - FINAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING .................................. 2 2 WILLIAMS WAY - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................................................................... 4 557 WALNUT STREET - LOT SPLIT- VARIANCES -CONCEPTUAL ................... 7 314 E. HYMAN - MOTHERLODE ................................................................................ 11 worksession - no minutes ................................................................................................. 11 VISIT FROM DAN CORSON - COLO. HISTORICAL SOCIETY ............................... 11 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 11~ 2004 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Sarah Broughton and Valerie Alexander. Michael Hoffman was seated at 6:00 but did not vote. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of duly 14, 2004 as amende& second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 414 N. FIRST STREET - LANDSCAPE PLAN Amy recused herself. Jeffrey said the proposal is for a landscape improvement plan and'the property is historically designated. Gyles Thomely from Design Workshop said the request is to improve the path on the Hallam Lake BlUff. Regarding the Hallam Lake Bluff review anything that. is being disturbed needs to be reviewed by the Parks Department, ACES and the HPC. The client wishes to restore the original path Mrs. Paepcke had. They will do everything they can to minimize the impact. It is dangerous because the logs are rotting. The intent is to construct a retaining structure that will allow the path to have a flat walking surface. The si des will be spruced up with Colorado red stone. There will be a handrail at all the stairs. The profile will be very thin, similar to what presently exists. The plantings will comply with the recommendations of the Parks Department. They intend to use plantings that Mrs. Paepcke had. Valerie said some of the plants on the list didn't seem native. Gyles said on the uphill side some of the plantings that Mrs. Paepcke had were not native. On the downhill side they will all be native. Valerie said the Paepcke house is a valuable resource in town and it comes with a greater landscape unlike our other smaller lots. Anything that we can do to preserve the setting is useful. There is somewhat of a dev/ation from Guideline 1.7. Maybe there is a way to. give a little more homage to the existing retaining system. Gyles said from the ACES's standpoint they do not want to see wood used. We are using some of the materials in which ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2004 stone is incorporated. Valerie said it won't be as subtle as it used to be but the preservation efforts of the hill are historically important. Derek said the material palate is fine. Sarah said it would be best if the design could be minimized and the site kept in its natural state. The architect is doing a good job as per our guidelines to retain the existing character of the wall. Jeffrey recommended keeping the existing pattern of the footpath as much as possible. Retaining the historic landscaping is very important. The view corridor from ACES down at the lake looking up is also important and should be addressed. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution #24for 414 N. First Street as presented in the Parks Department memorandum; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Derek, Sarah, l/alerie, Jeffrey 403 W. HALLAM ST. - FINAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: Mary Janss, Stan Gibbs, Affidavit of posting Exhibit I Affidavit of public notice Exhibit II Photo of Existing wood Exhibit III Joede Schoeberlein Amy said final review focuses on specifics of the project such as landscaping, lighting, fenestration, materials and preservation of historic materials. Staff supports the project and this is an excellent job of setting out the addition from the historic resource. There is a concrete pad on the side of the historic front porch and the design guidelines talk about keeping the front yard as open as possible. Staff is recommending that the patio area be minimized or eliminated. Flagstone or soft pavers might help the situation. There are light posts proposed in front of the house and one on the side. The one on the side already exists and they just want to switch out the fixture. Staff recommends eliminating the front light post. The drawings show two different front door styles on the house. Staff recommends not to do that unless we can tell by photographs that the condition existed. The new addition appears to be sided with salvaged wood. We have used that on ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2004 a couple of projects and maybe it is not appropriate to have salvage from one old building added onto another. There are multi-paned casement windows on the addition as opposed to the double hung windows on the historic house and maybe the character starts to compete with the historic house. Joede said the only change in the material palate was on the back porch addition of the old house. We propose a horizontal shiplap siding. The back door that comes into the addition has been moved over a little. He also said he would use softer materials and dO a single walk to the front door and eliminate the seating area. A single pane door was found in the attic and that will be restored and used. Joede said regarding the materials they would like to use the broad band siding on the main rear portion of the addition and do a rough sawn square comer cedar wood with a little shadow line. When it is installed it will look new and clean. On the upper area with the vertical siding we will use a ~ inch cedar square cut rough sawn. A metal roof will be used on the two-story portion and on the connecting portion. This enables you to see the entire addition as one thing. They are uncomfortable with installing shingles on the connector due to the low slope. Stan said they would not entertain the use of asphalt shingles anywhere. Stan addressed the lighting in the front. It is for when guest come over to light the long walkway and there is a step down to the street. He is not wedded to a post light but they need some kind of illumination that can be worked out with staff and mOnitor. Mary addressed illumination on the outside of the property. It is not her. intent to have bright lights. She wants it as dim as the candles that she puts in her windows. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. No public comments. Jeffrey closed the public hearing. Derek said he supports the metal roofs and also said the Building Dept. will not let them put shingles on the lower connector. Eliminating the front post and going to an in-obtrusive lighting system is favorable. Sarah said changing the paving at the front complies with our guidelines and making the light at the entry in-obtrusive complies with guideline 14.7, which talks about minimizing the visual impacts of architectural lighting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2004 The board had no problem with the multi-pane windows and the refurbished door. Valerie said her only concern is with the light fixtures. Our guidelines generally speak of not putting up something that is new to make it look old. The light looks like a lantern. As a suggestion maybe bringing the light more downward would help illuminate the path. The project is excellent. Valerie also thanked the owners and architect for responding to the boards comments and having solutions. Jeffrey echoed that the revisions have been generously reflected and follow out very nicely. Guideline 4.5 regarding the two doors 'has been met. The material palate is acceptable. He also agreed that the transitional point for the link comer board might be an abrupt distinction and that should be looked at to make it a more finite element. Overall, the board is in support of the project and the final design. MOTION: Valerie moved to approve Resolution #25, 2004for 403 W. Hallam, final review with amendment to #4 - The paved area on the east side of the restored front porch is to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. #5. Eliminate the proposed new light post in front of the house. Light fixtures and locations to be approved by staff and monitor. #6. Historic door found on the property will be restored and used. Eliminate condition #7 and #8~ Material samples have been submitted for the record. Motion second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Derek, Sarah, Valerie, Jeffrey 2 WILLIAMS WAY- MAJOR DEVELOPMENT- FINAL REVIEW.- PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: Scott Hicks, Doug Rager, Maureen Kinney Amy said this project is a large parcel that is on the historic inventory and it is isolated with .two historic Victorian houses in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood. One of the houses is original to the site and the other was moved to the site from Main Street. Pictures have been found of both houses to assist in the restoration process. The historic structures were linked together and the link will be demolished and the houses will be ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST lit 2004 moved to the' lower end of the site, which is the best setting because it is at natural grade and keeps them as a pair and adjacent to them will be a new home. Staff went over the recommendations as stated in the memo. Add front sidewalks to the historic homes to maintain the entry character. Staff recommends that stone not be used on the historic foundations because it was not typical of these modest buildings. There is a conflict with one of the residential design standards that says garage doors have to be a certain distance back from the front of your house and staff believes the applicant intends to redesign that instead of asking for a variance. On condition #4 the applicant is proposing to add dormers to HBI and staff recommends not allowing the dormers. The discussion on condition #4 is to how to deal with that, possibly a larger basement or slightly larger addition. The dormers provide very little assistance and there is almost no head height that is useful except under the ridgeline. Condition #7 is to replace the front door on HB2 with a design as represented on the south elevation of the building. Condition #8 is to remove the stained glass windows in the rear of the elevations. This is something that is not typical of these buildings. The remaining conditions are our standard conditions. Scott said after working for 22 months on this project good recommendations came out. Scott went through the conditions. They will add sidewalks and redesign the garage to comply with the standards. He also said they are in agreement with conditions 6-20. Scott said they would still like to use a stone foundation instead of concrete. Harry Teague did a stone foundation on a house in the 500 Block of Smuggler. The peach sandstone would "ground" the homes much better. He also said dormers are a logical historical evolution of these structures. When miners were confronted with growing families the removal of the attic and the addition of dormers provided that solution. Scott said they did a tour of Aspen and provided pictures of dormers. The 19th Century solution to solve their dilemma is the addition of dormers. They do have a 21 st Century solution which would be to remove all the historical rafters on the interior, drop the ceiling joists and drop the flooring to accommodate the needs. This would undermine the historical character to a great degree than the addition of the dormers. Without the dormers they would leave the gable end windows as is. In summary the only two issues are the dormers and stone foundation. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2004 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Bill Stirling said on his own house he put a wood veneer over a concrete foundation and always admitted they would have preferred sandstone. The dormers add space and utilization of the house. Jim Moran said he resides at 688 Spruce, property on the north. He requested that the two evergreen trees be protected because they are close to the north property line. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Comments: Valerie said we do not know what foundation is on the two historic buildings and she could support something that anchors and protects the wood material. On the dormers there is no conflict with the guidelines. We prefer to see them on secondary facades but the proposal is not in conflict with the any of the guidelines. Sarah also said the two issues are in compliance. Stone foundation is appropriate. With the design of the dormers they are in compliance with guideline 7.7, they are subordinate to the historic roof and in scale. Doug Rager interjected that they will extend the stair structure 4 ½ feet to comply with the guidelines and remove the stained glass windows and the triangle windows on the eastern faCade. Derek thanked the owners and architect for their persistence and patience. Jeffrey also said the owners have been very responsive with our suggestions. He is in agreement with retaining the dormers and they allow for additional use in the building. He agrees with staff on the foundation that exposed concrete is not consistent but because of how it is laid out and the site contouring there will be very little of it exposed and for that reason he could support the stone. Amy said the Parks Dept. has their own guidelines and regulations in place to protect trees. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2004 MOTION: Valerie moved to approve Resolution #26, 2004for 2 Williams Way with amendments to the conditions: Eliminate condition #2 and #4. Amend #5 the existing east end windows will be removed and the existing west end will be determined by staff and monitor. #21 All trees are to be protected per the Parks Dept. tree protection specifications; second by Sarah..~Ill in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Derek, Sarah, Valerie, Jeffrey. 557 WALNUT STREET - LOT SPLIT - VARIANCES - CONCEPTUAL Sworn in: Camilla Auger, Stan Clauson, Gilbert Sanchez Amy said this project covers two properties that are ultimately going to be part of a larger subdivision. 557 Walnut has been on the historic inventory since 1995 and contains a Victorian cabin that is dilapidated and has been the long discussion of demolition by neglect, which will be resolved w/th this application. 54'1 & 555 Walnut are two log cabins that were built in 1964 that are next to the Victorian and they are not designated. We need the owner consent to designate because they are just turning 40 years old and that will be part of this project. Staff used the criteria that deals with post war properties and the integrity assessment and finds that the log cabins meet the criteria for designation. The next aspect of the project is the historic lot split which relates only to the Victorian house. The proposal is to do a lot split but not develop anything on the newly created lot and have it designated a park. All the square footage will be transferred to development rights. The Victorian will sit on a 6,000 square foot lot and the park will be on a 9,000 square foot lot. Floor area split: 2,770 will go to the parcel with the Victorian house. 2,173 to TDR's. The applicant is also requesting support for a code amendment. Presently only one single TDR can go on each residential site. The applicant would like to land more than one TDR per site within their own subdivision. Staff has some concerns about this because there will be some effect on adjacent neighbors with the increase in the size of the building. Development standards: Overall this is an excellent project because the TDR's are taking a lot of pressure off the bUildings. A lot of the features on the Victorian house will be brought back. The log buildings are proposed to 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2004 be moved and linked together and window and door openings are being changed. Staff has some concern because that is a sensitive issue and we do not want to loose the integrity of the buildings. The Victorian house will be picked up and a basement dug and the house put back. In terms of the design of the Victorian there is a kitchen addition proposed that overlaps an original gable end and staff is requesting that it be pushed back so that it does not intrude on the historic feature of the building. The log cabins are being moved together and linked as a single-family house. There is a proposal to lower the interior floor space that will affect the existing doors and they will probably have to be replaced. This is a concern to staff and needs to be addressed before final. Staff supports the on-site relocation of the cabins. Presently they are not designated and a demolition permit could be pulled at any time. There is an FAR bonus request for each of the parcels. For the Victorians staff finds it is met because of all the sensitive considerations that have been brought into the new addition, which includes all of the restoration efforts. Staff recommends that someone who is experienced in wood conservation be brought on to oversee the restoration process to salvage everything possible. There is a side yard variance request for the cabins and they come within 2 ½ feet from the lot line. Staff finds this acceptable. There is a five foot rear yard setback variance and this is driven by the fact that we want a little buffer between the old construction and the addition and not move the cabins too far forward because they have always been alley type buildings and do not need to compete with the other Victorian. Camilla said their objective is to make an historic core and make it a destination that people will want to visit the way they visit the West End. The idea is open space, park amenities for the neighborhood and all pedestrian oriented gravitating toward the historic resource. Gilbert said the re-subdivision is under a separate land use application that is moving along concurrently. Presently each of the cabins is partially on and partially off the property line. For protection we propose to adjust the lot line so that it encompasses the house within the site. We are asking for the designation of the two cabins and their relocation and a newly designated lot. Currently what is designated is about 15,787 sq. ft. and with the new area we are going up to 21,127 sq. ft. of historically designated property. We really are creating three properties, the open space, the Victorian cottage and the two log cabins. The plan is to pick up the old building and provide a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MiNUTES'OF ~G~Ti~,~ '~ ............ basement underneath and do an addition to the back. The current building is 882 square feet and we are proposing to add a kitchen and have a total of 2,770 sq. ft. The allowable is 4,400 square feet. The addition also includes a garage. They are also requesting the 500 square foot FAR bonus. Gilbert said there would be 12 TDR's generated. There are 13 lots left and the TDR's will not be used on the cabins or the Victorian. Under the current ordinance you can only use one TDR per lot. The intent is to use more than one per lot and move the TDR's away from the historic resource. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Jon Busch, neighbor. His concerns are that the project is oriented within itself. The cabins face an open space that is surrounded on all sides by various kinds of homes. It ignores the existing neighborhood. Race Street will become a wall of garages with variances that bring it within five feet from the property line. The design is a devastation to the rest of the neighborhood. The cabins are set back to keep the Victorian home visible which is seen only fi.om the internal park space. At least it should be the legal setback of ten feet to allow a little lawn. Something needs done to mitigate the wall. Gretchen Greenwood, neighbor directly to the south. She has issues about the FAR and TDR's. We have neighborhood issues and Race Street is basically an alley. We had low density for some time. Each of the buildings with additions has four bedrooms and they are all going to require a certain amount of parking and access for maintenance. We don't have that kind of space to deal with that density. There has been no site plan submitted with this application. There is no parking allowed on Race Street or Walnut Street. The entire site planning aspect of this effects what happens with the restoration of the cabins. They have made a commendable effort to restore the house. An excellent project would be that the Victorian would stay as a Victorian and the cabins stay as cabins. No site plan has been submitted so one cannot tell how are these houses going to function in this neighborhood. Robert Zupancis, two doors down from the lots. Robert commended Camilla for keeping the neighborhood a single-family neighborhood instead of a high-density high rise. The trail is a very generous. Some issues that should be looked at is the historical use of Race Street. How can we 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF preserve the existing feeling of Race Street. Make the garages less intimidating and keep the alley as a walkway. Additional interior parking would help the project. Mimi Halenstein, neighbor. The major issue is that there is going to be five feet from the garage to Race Street which is really a walkway. How this works with the neighborhood is an issue for us. It is going to be difficult getting in and out of the driveway. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Comments: Derek reminded the audience that this project needs to go to P&Z and City Council. Our role is very specific, addressing historic preservation. The massing and scale follow our guidelines. Derek also requested a restudy on the setbacks on Race Street. Sarah requested a site plan for the next meeting. She also stated the lot split is appropriate. In terms of reviewing this large plot of land it made sense to group the historic buildings together and to create critical mass so that those resources do not become diminished. Some of the existing houses on Race Street are very close to the street. Valerie said the project is worthy of designation and meets criteria A & C. She also supports the landmark lot split and we are making histOry the day that the lot split becomes a park. The applicant is proposing to create new lot lines, which in tern lends me to think that setback variances are not necessary when you are creating your own lot lines. Perhaps there is a way to finesse this without variances. Valerie supports continuation to address the issue of the context of the neighborhood and the effects of this project on the community. Jeffrey said criteria A & C for designation have been met. The lot split does create a public amenity. Jeffrey has some concerns with the cabins and its impact on Race Street. Valerie said she would be interested in what the Engineering Dept. will be recommending or requiring on Race Street with the increased density. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 11~ 2004 Applicants comments: Stan said the density is units per acre. This zone is R-6 and it is therefore designated for 6,000 square foot lots. Adjacent to it is RMF zoning, which are denser, and across the street is an area orR-15. No lot proposed is less than 6,000 square feet. There is no issue here of density that is greater than what the zoning district provides. With the park area of 9,444 square feet dedicated open space, that could be developed. From a density standpoint that project meets all the requirements of the code. Gilbert said they analyzed Race Street and there are buildings that go beyond the setbacks. The request for variances was based on the character of the street. The current code allows for a garage to be within five feet of the setback line. We are providing all of the off-street parking required by code. We are not asking for any variances for that. The transfer of TDR's would not have a negative impact on the historic resources. Camilla said they are using the TDR's to keep them away from Race Street and onto Lone Pine. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 557 Walnut Ave. to Sept. 1, 2004; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Derek, Sarah, Valerie, Jeffrey Stan said the issues that are most problematic are the setback from the alley and the TDR recommendation. 314 E. HYMAN - MOTHERLODE worksession - no minutes VISIT FROM DAN CORSON - COLO. HISTO.~R!~CAL SOCIETY MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn the meeting; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 11