Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20041208ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2004 110 E. BLEEKER ST. AMENDMENT TO FiNAL ....................................................... 1 701 W. MAiN STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT VARIANCES CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................................... 4 631 W. BLEEKER - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................................................................... 7 Adoption of Amended City of Aspen Historic Preservation Policies, Criteria, and Design 11 Guidelines ......................................................................................................................... 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8~ 2004 Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Sarah Broughton, Valerie Alexander and Jason Lasser. Jeffrey Halferty was seated at 5:10 Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the minutes of Oct. 27, 2004; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Public comments: David Hoefer relayed that procedural questions should be directed to Amy Guthrie. Comments can be made toward a particular tree on a specific project. Detailed questions and answers are not appropriate. Tony Kronberg said she wants to know what criteria the HPC uses to judge a project. After speaking with the attorney she will put her requests down in writing. She wants to know what is allowed in an historic district and what interpretation "character" would mean in that zone district. What does historic integrity mean on an historic comer in that zone district and what mature trees mean in an overlay district. Preserving trees is part of preserving the community character. 110 E. BLEEKER ST. - AMENDMENT TO FINAL Jeffrey was seated. Mitch Haas was sworn in. Exhibit I - affidavit of posting. Amy said this is an amendment to final that was granted in 2002. A number of concerns were focused on the new addition specifically materials and fenestration. At the last meeting we had concern with the scale and design of the primary windows that face the street on the south side of the addition, also whether the addition should be clad in stone. There were also minor issues of roof forms that were on the back of the house. The applicant has restudied this. Staff finds that the concerns brought up have been addressed. Stone is completely off the table now and wood siding is proposed which is subservient to the historic building. The only element that has not been restudied is the coned shape roof on the tower at the back of the property that was brought up by Sarah. Because it is so far back on the property staff ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8~ 2004 did not pursne that area for restudy. Staffrecommends approval with conditions outlined in the resolution. Mitch said he feels the new design addresses everything that has been brought up. The addition is six inches narrower on each side since we removed the stone. The shingles compliment the shingled roof of the historic building. There are only three materials in total, shake shingle, horizontal siding and board and batten. This project is better than the final approval. The addition is further subservient and narrower and sets back further. The landscaping plan has been greatly simplified. We have taken the wood timber accents off the gable end. Mitch said he reviewed the conditions and has no issues with any of them. Valerie said as part of the connector on drawing #9 you can see that on the back of the building the slop is 2x12 and her concem is that the roof doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the comer of the historic structure. Specifically draining into it. Mitch said if there is ice issues they would probably heat tape it. Valerie said that could be handled as a condition. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The chair closed the public heating. Comments: Valerie said she was pleased to see that the connector has been modified and the rear addition removed, The roof pitch in back is in conflict with guideline 10.14 but depending on the other commissioner's comments, she could find it acceptable since it is removed from the primary facade. Regarding the landscaping the fence rail should be clearly set back from the comer and built as light as represented in elevation so that it doesn't take away from the historic comer. Michael said he find that guidelines 10.3, 10.4, 10.11 are met and this plan is a vast improvement over the stone faqade and he can support the application. Derek said the proposal is better than what was previously approved and the project is going in a forward stance. Jason said the change to the smaller windows fits the scale. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8~ 2004 Sarah said the house is 100% within our guidelines. To re-emphasize Valerie's statement about guideline 10.9 (roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building), the stair volume on the back of the house does not comply. There could be an exception as it is off the street and not seen by the public. Sarah stated that the landscape plan in the packet really isn't a landscape plan, it is a site plan. Amy said we should alter condition #6 because the proposed site plan talks about removing trees from the right-of-way which is good and putting them in the front yard. We might need a better understanding as to how big they are and what species they are etc. Jeffrey relayed that the revisions are consistent with our guidelines and worthy of approval. Jeffrey commended the team for refining the material palate to not compete with the historic resource. It is compliant with 3.6, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.11 of our guidelines. Jeffrey also recommended an amendment to condition #6 addressing the removal of trees. He also said the porch seems to encroach off the north elevation and maybe there can be an effort to shorten it up from the east so that it isn't so wide and doesn't move in front of the old historic brick. This condition could be approved by staff and monitor. Mitch said they could restudy the porch. MOTION: Valerie moved to approve Resolution #33, 2004for 110 E. Bleeker Street with a modification to condition g6, to specify the tree type and location. Also adding condition #17 to restudy the connector roof to avoid snow damage to the historic resource and consider eliminating the overlap of the connector with the historic resource, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Sarah with a further amendment. Amendment by Sarah: East elevation per guideline 10.9, the added dormers should be restudied as they compete with the historic resource. Amy said the elevations aren't showing that there would be a visible peak. Sarah said the historic house needs to be visible from three dimensions. l~alerie did not accept the amendment by Sarah. Motion then second by Derek. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8~ 2004 Sarah said even though you don't see the peak from the street necessarily we need to treat this in three dimensions and the addition and remodel needs to speak to every side of the historic resource. Valerie amended her motion to add condition #18. That the applicant provides staff with a corrected south elevation, which would show the peak. Also restudy the stair tower as per guideline 10.9 and provide staff with an east elevation. Derek amended his motion. Motion carried 5-1. Yes vote: Jason, Derek, Sarah, Valerie, Jeffrey No vote: Michael Sarah & Jason are the monitors. Jeffrey asked Mitch to explain to his architect that completed elevations are part of the essential documents for historic preservation approvals. 701 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT VARIANCES - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: Jake Vickery, Paul Taddune, Marshall Olsen Michael recused himself for a conference call. Amy said this property is on the comer of 6th and Main Street. It is currently land marked and in the historic district. There is a rustic style 1935 cabin that sits in the middle of the site. The proposal is to do an historic lot split. The property is non-conforming, just under the 6,000 square foot minimum. As a result you may have a 2,700 square foot comer lot or a 2,700 square foot interior lot. The application does require a variance to be granted from the minimum lot size for historic lot splits. Without a lot split other options are not desirable for the historic resource. Staff supports plan A which puts the slightly smaller lot on the comer and the historic building on the comer. That would probably be a mixed-use development and ideally the historic building could be free standing with an office or business and the new building behind it. It puts the new infill residence on the interior lot. Because this is zoned office it has a much higher square footage. The potential is that the comer mixed-use property can have as much as 2,073 square feet and the new single family can be as large as 2,400 square feet. That is roughly over 1,000 square feet that you would see in the west end. It is up to HPC to determine if that size can actually be approved under our guidelines. The rest of the review deals with demolition. They are 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2004 requesting to demolish the rear lean-too shed that is on the cabin. Staff does not support that at this point because we have no justification for it and we do not know what the constraints are to make a finding. In terms of relocation, staff supports the relocation to the comer of the property so it is not hidden behind the large tree. In the future we will need some definite information about exactly where this building will land. The application is requesting setback variances but that is not supported because we do not know why they are needed at this point. On condition #5 the rehabilitation of the historic building has to occur first before the single family home is built. Jake said they are prepared to go forward with the lot split as outlined by staff with a couple of questions. Jake feels both Plan A and B are adequate to meet the requirements of the historical preservation commission. In both cases the building is preserved intact. One moves the building to the east and the other moves the building to the west. Both have Main Street connections. The historical reason for having Plan B is that the historical building is next to another historic resource so you have two buildings next to each other. Jake also had a question on 1D with notes that on the lot that does not have the historic house a single-family residence must be developed. Could that lot also contain some commercial? Amy said the subdivision exemption criteria start out by saying that the split of the lot is for the purpose of one detached single-family dwelling. Jake said we are OK with that. Condition #5 talks about on-site relocation of the cabin to lot A without variances. We are seeking variances on scheme A. The variances have to do with aligning the front of the existing structure with Main Street with the front of the other adjacent historic structure. We are requesting demolition of the rear portion of the shed so we know if we can connect onto that house to go forward with an architectural plan. It is our preference to get approval to demolish the rear portion of the shed tonight so that we know what we are dealing with. Amy said the historic building should be on the comer. It is not the same era of the historic house next door so there is no real reason to pair them together other than scale. We want the infill building to have a nice scale with the historic house. In every other lot split we have insisted that the historic resource be the feature on the comer. If this is ever a mixed use it seems to have a lot more viability if it is a comer location where there is on- street parking adjacent to it. Also it is not hidden behind a tree. Plan A 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8~ 2004 should be the option. Secondly we did not notice for any variances so for now the building needs to be placed in the location where it is conforming. Regarding the demolition of the shed we have never approved a lot split where we haven't seen the re-development plan. We could discuss this long term but tonight is not the appropriate time to approve a demolition. Jeffrey opened the public hearing. Paul Taddune said Plan B would be more compatible with the residential use next door because it would be used during the day and not the evening. The next door neighbor wants as little impact as possible. Jeffrey closed the public hearing. Comments: Jason said he could not possibly approve the demolition without a plan to review. He is leaning toward Plan A because if it is going to be used as commercial it is best on the comer. He understands the impacts of the neighbors but it doesn't make sense to have the house obscured by trees. Derek said he is could approve Plan A. He would have trouble approving both scenarios and giving options. It would be setting a new precedent. In regards to the demolition of the shed, he is open to it but not tonight. As it progresses he would like to see a plan. Sarah supports a hybrid: the larger lot and the historic resource on the comer. This brings the residential into the interior lot, which speaks better to the pattern development on the street. Valerie said Plan A is definitely the best preservation method. She supports the variance to specifically allow the lot split for a less than 6,000 square foot lot. Rehabilitation of the historic resource needs to happen first as stated in guideline 9.1. She does not support the demolition of the south portion of the house without more information. Jeffrey is in favor of the lot split and preserving the historic resource. He is also in favor of Plan A because it complies with Guideline 9.1. It is the best preservation alternative, keeping the historic house on the comer. He is not in favor of allowing the larger lot on the comer because the larger lot allows additional square footage. He does not support the demolition of the shed 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8~ 2004 portion without an understanding of the foot plan. He supports the variances to enable the lot split. Amy clarified that Sarah's recommendation adds 200 square feet to the lot and takes out 200 from the interior lot. Staff is recommending the demolition of the out building but not the portion of the cabin. MOTION: Valerie moved to approve Resolution #34, 2004for 701 W. Main per the conditions stated in staff's memo. Condition #5 to read as relocation of the cabin as per lot split Plan A. Motion second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Jason, Derek, Sarah, Valerie, Jeffrey 631 W. BLEEKER- CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Michael was seated. Affidavit of posting was provided - Exhibit I Sworn in: David Warner and Dave Pickrell Amy said this is an historic lot split and the historic portion of the building has already been rehabbed. We are now working on the vacant lot. There is an outbuilding on the alley that has already been approved to be demolished and is non-historic. The maximum square footage is 2,400 square feet that was established through the lot split. Staff is in support of this excellent infill structure. It has a lot of nice relationships to the historic building and complies with our guidelines entirely. The only concern that we have brought up is the front porch. The porch runs the entire width of the building and is a strong element and very different from the small inset porch on the Victorian next door. We need to achieve a balance between the old and new building. This porch causes the new building to project in front of the historic building and that maybe resolved if HPC requests a restudy of the character of the porch. The other possibility is to push the building back and shorten the connector between it and the secondary' mass in the back. That would need a variance and we did notice for it just in case HPC addresses it. Staff's recommendation is that something be done to address the porch. David Warner said there are two beautiful spruce trees on the site. In consideration of the historic structure the height is one foot lower. It is very 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8~ 2004 important that we relate to the mass of the historic structure. The upper floor actually overhangs the inset of the lower floor about three feet and that is where we get the alignment with the historic structure. We think there is a precedent for larger porches. This design is a porch to be occupied and occupied porches do help the street life. It is the transition between the public space and private space and the ability to communicate to those two from the porch. It is a terrific benefit the way the house relates to the street. A the front of the house the height limit is 24 feet and at the very back of the house we go up another four feet but that is not perceived from the front at all and that design gives us the ability to look at the mountain. A video was shown of the lot and design. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Comments: Derek thanked the architect for bringing in the video. It is a very nice project that works well and everything falls into place regarding the massing and neighborhood. The porch might be coming out a little bit but in the model it seems right. Jason also said he appreciates the model. Jason said he looks at the porch functionally and how much will the comer triangle piece be used and is it encroaching on the trees that you are trying so hard to save. Sarah said she would like to see an elevation of the back of the historic resource off the alley and how it relates to the new addition. Presently she feels the design does not comply with Guideline 11.4,5 and 6. The guidelines state to design the front elevation similar in scale to the historic building. She agrees with staff that the front porch is over bearing. Sarah feels that there are a lot of additive things going on and it is starting to blur the relationship with the historic resource and the use forms that are used traditionally in the block (guideline 11.6). Michael said the project is different and calls to question whether the guidelines are met. He feels the design works for this particular lot and structure. It is unique and totally compliments the historic house. Guideline 11.5 and 11.6 are met. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8~ 2004 Valerie said her concerns are the porch and the roof on the back of the house. Guideline 1.9 talks about public to private and that guideline has been met. The porch is very inviting and falls within the vitality of the community and the community plan. With that said, you are non-compliant with guideline 11.2 which talks about the porch being similar in size and scale to the rest of the neighborhood. Perhaps Jason's recommendation of trimming it up a little bit will work. It is something that can be fixed to bring you back into compliance. Regarding roof angles guideline 11.6 talks about roof pitches and angles that are seen traditionally on historic resources and what caught my eye was the popup on the back that is not traditionally seen. It is different than the historic resource but is simple and subtle and it is in the back of the resource and is not competitive with the primary facade. Jeffrey said Chapter 11 has to do with building orientation and its respect to the historic resource. A lot of components are complied with but there are a few things that can be adjusted in order for the project to be compliant. Guideline 11.2talks about defining the front porch. The design clearly defines the front porch and it is functional and is used as an access to the entry. The second point talks about the new porch being similar in size. The traditional Victorian porches do not have a large gathering space that this design has but possibly the design can be trimmed or scaled back a little. If the applicant still wants the porch maybe the building can be moved back somewhat. Guideline 11.4 has to deal with the new building. Some of the roof forms should be respectful of the historic resource. The popup in the back is very strong but with some modifications, conceptual could be granted. David Warner said there are a couple of things we can do. The extension on the porch to the east could be eliminated and in that way we can preserve the porch and its use. David said maybe he wasn't as truthful to the historic resource because he though as we got away from the street there would be a little more opportunity for this building to more of its own era and that is why the popup roof was designed. The design doesn't have to be a reversed dormer. We can do a shallower dormer and not reverse the pitch, which will help with the flashing. Amy pointed out on the lot splits that have been approved lately, the HPC has been open to some inventive relationships between the new building and the old building. The Harry Teague new structure has a shed roof form next to the historic structure that slopes some 50 feet from front to back that is 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2004 very foreign to the historic building. On the Coulter project the structure has a butterfly roof next to the historic house. Amy stated that she hopes the HPC doesn't get too concerned about a roof form that kicks up in the back of a building. The more we start pulling things off buildings the more it starts to look like the historic building which is something that we do not want to see. Sarah said she would not want to see the popup pulled off, it just needs restudied. Michael said this structure compliments the historic structure and complies with our guidelines. It probably could be somewhat better but we are not here to make it better. Sarah said certain parts of our guidelines are not complied with on the design. Jeffrey alsosaid there are guidelines that need complied with. David Warner said it would be difficult to move the building back. Jason said we are talking about the roof forms here and he does like the fact that the building is different and more modem and relates well to the historic house. On the west and south elevation on the comer the gable dormer pops up to the reverse and in the model he didn't see a cricket. Maybe if that one comer could be restudied it would solve any issues. David Warner said it is four feet above the historic structure and that is not a lot. David Hoefer said he is not hearing any major objection to the project; it is just a matter of fine-tuning it. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution 35, 2004for 631 W. Bleeker with the following conditions: 1. Eliminate the extension of the porch by the tree. 2. Final to be submitted for review within one year of today. Motion second by Valerie. Motion carried 4-2. Yes vote: Jason, Derek, Michael, Valerie No vote: Sarah, Jeffrey 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8~ 2004 Adoption of Amended City of Aspen Historic Preservation Policies, Criteria, and Design Guidelines MOTION: deffrey moved to continue the guidelines until Dec. 16, 2004, second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11