Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19980325ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer, Mary Hirsch, Melanie Roschko, Heidi Friedland and Jeffrey Halferty present. Excused was Susan Dodington. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger mentioned that the contractors on the Isis indicated that they were going to water blast the building to remove masonry and he encouraged the monitors to talk to the architects to make sure that does not happen. Sam Korn contacted Mary regarding the townhouses at the Aspen Institute and they will begin breaking ground in a few weeks. Mary relayed to the HPC that she has served on many voluntary boards during her adult life, many involving appointments by elected officials including a state governor. She has never served on a volunteer board appointed by elected officials where that boards decision was disputed publicly without any of the elected officials speaking with any of the volunteer board members; they themselves appointed nor to the higher intermediary, Amy. She personally reached out to three council members to no avail. To her knowledge no council member has asked to speak to our HPC officer, nor to our chair, nor to the vice-chair. Hopefully for the sake of all of us who love living in this community, that will happen soon. Suzannah read her letter addressed to the Mayor and Council (see attached) that was published in the paper. Letter from the Mayor, John Bennett (see attached) to the HPC entered into the record. Roger relayed to the HPC that he has been on the board for 10 years and in those ten years never has the entire council met with the HPC even though it was requested. Heidi stated that she is perplexed at council and the Mayor, John Bennett claiming that they knew nothing about this project. Public, Ramona Markalunas stated that on 240 Lake Ave. which is an historic Herbert Bayer home this is the only public notice in which the public can appear. The largest volume of Herbert's work is in our community. It behooves the HPC committee to preserve these things and she requested ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 tabling on 240 Lake in order to have more public at the meeting to address it. She also stated that more public outreach needs to occur. MOTION: Roger moved to add 712 W. Francis to the agenda; second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. SISTER CITY FLAGS - MINOR Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the HPC that the different flags of the sister city countries are proposed to be permanently fixed between Independence Square and Guido's back toward Ruby Park. She recommended approval with the condition that DEPP Committee review the proposal. Don Sheeley stated that the Sister Cities Committee desires to recognize the five Sister Cities flags in a display. The different colors of the flags would add to the town when looking up at the mountain. The HPC inquired about lighting during the evening. Don indicated that existing lighting would be used. Melanie requested a landscape plan be submitted to Staff for review. Heidi wanted to make sure that the flags did not interfere with the seating and the trees in that area. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the Sister City flag placement with the condition that DEPP review the proposal and that a landscape plan be submitted; second by Gilbert. Motion carried 6-1. Melanie opposed. 114 NEALE AVE. CONCEPTUAL - PH - Continued MOTION: Mary moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 114 Neale Ave. to May 13, 1998; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. 240 LAKE AVE. - CONCEPTUAL - LD - Partial Demolition - PH Gilbert stepped down. Chief Deputy Clerk sworn in the following individuals: 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Charles Cunniffe Jennifer Cohen Janet Greenburg, owner Herb Klein Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer reviewed the affidavit and HPC has jurisdiction to proceed. (exhibit II). Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the HPC that there are several components to the application, they are asking for landmark designation, conceptual design review, partial demolition, variances and a variance from Ord. #30. Regarding the landmark designation the requirement is to meet two of the standards and this property meets four of the standards. It is a Herbert Bayer design and is a terrific example of his residential design and almost no modifications have been made to date. Stucco was applied over the concrete block. Staff recommends approval of landmark designation. In regards to the house several worksessions and site visits have occurred. The proposal is to leave the house essentially intact with a small addition on the west side and a larger addition (two story areas) on the east side. A two car garage is proposed on Lake Ave. and they need a variance from Ord. #30 for that. The architect has done a lot of research on compatible styles. The two story area is in an appropriate location. The only concern is the clerestory window that pops up in the back of the building. Set back variances are requested and a FAR bonus. The setback variances are necessary because there are really no other location for an addition and it is the least impacted on the neighbors. Charles Cunniffe, architect relayed that they are making a minimal breezeway connection. The clerestory was at the request of the owner due to the height need. That area is their main living space and light and volume are needed. It basically keeps the same form but raises it slightly with a band of windows all across to keep the theme of the Bayer architecture. The plate height is 8'1". The chair opened the public hearing. Herb Klein, attorney represented the neighbors to the east. They have one concern and it is the placement of new improvements within the setback. The proposed plan has a five foot setback. The Koatsen house is an old house that has been remodeled and in its current condition lies five feet off the property 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 line. With the proposed plan there would only be a ten foot separation between the houses. The two story element creates a urban alley effect with the ten foot separation. There is a problem with snow and ice in that area right now and the windows and door on that side would look up to the two story element. In the spring there is water that drains in that area and aesthetically their views would be blocked. The code indicates that if a variance is granted the design has to be more compatible with the historic landmark and the neighborhood. It maybe more compatible with the historic landmark it is definitely not more compatible with the neighborhood. This design places the burden on the neighbor. The owner feels there is room for compromise: Respect the minimum 10 foot setback. The existing conditions for the main house are 15 feet and they desire to keep that footage. If the applicant needs more square footage the west side should be taken into consideration. The two story element could be altered on the east side and have some of that square footage slide to the west where the stairway is. That would enable visual relief. Roger asked when the Kaatsen house was remodeled was their a variance given and was the house moved over towards the alley or is the existing wall the historic wall that has been there since the 1800' s? No one could respond to the question. Barbara Burger, neighbor swam in. Barbara Berger, neighbor feels this would be a lovely addition to the neighborhood. Merle Ford, swam in. She lives in a house at the Meadows and on the south side the design is similar to the Herbert Bayer design in which she is familiar with as she lives in a house designed by him. Lloyd Sherman, sworn in. He lives to the east on Hallam Lake. He complimented the HPC as a board. The final product due to the input of HPC was excellent and they were very happy the way their house turned out and the suggestions by the HPC members were great. The proposed plan looks great to him. Donna Thompson, swam in. She is the caretaker of the house for twelve years at 230 Lake Ave. She believes the wall in question is original. The windows of 230 Lake Ave. as drawn are not in the proper position and they do look up to the proposed two story structure. All of the windows will face the two story structure and will have to be closed at all times. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Janet Greenburg relayed to the board that she tried to be very respectful to the nature of the Herbert Bayer design. They lived in the house a year before deciding on the design and at one point the courtyard was proposed as a big room. The existing ceiling height is low and her way of accomplishing the task of raising it is a clerestory that Herbert Bayer used. In response to the neighbors their house and garage is very close to the property line. They have been very careful to not impact them at all. They were careful to not impact the house, garden or anything that they use. She has never seen anyone come out of the side door. Their main views are in the back. She is surprised by the problem of the second story. The chair, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Charles Cunniffe responded that there are houses that are less than 10 feet apart. He feels in order for the neighbor to get the garage in they had to have a side yard variance. He also stated the windows are as drawn on the adjacent house. Jennifer Cohen relayed that there is dense vegetation in the area that will be kept. Donna Thompson stated that the pictures are not clear and do not show the existing conditions of the neighbors house. Chairperson, Suzannah stated that the issue of the wall/windows will not be resolved tonight under the circumstances. The Board requested information regarding 230 Lake in regards to variances for that property. A site visit by HPC was requested to 240 Lake Ave. Commissioner Comments The majority of the HPC members agreed that the garage works and the location of the stair appropriate. A site visit for the variance is recommended and a site visit for the location of the adjacent property owindows. Clerestory windows, defer to the architects on the HPC. Majority comfortable with the design of the house. Some members disliked the garage facing the street and the long linear corridor. Concerns of the neighbors need addressed. Grant designation. Clerestory represented on the model is closer to what is acceptable as opposed to the drawings presented. Don't loose the horizontality of the roof. Concern of the height of the stair tower volume as it over powers the house, possibly adjust window portions or add a band. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 MOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and table conceptual review, partial demolition and landmark designation until April 8, 1998; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried. Site visit scheduled at NOON, April 8, 1998. 930 KING STREET - CONCEPTUAL - LD - PH - Partial demolition - on-site relocation, variances Amy Guthrie, planner informed the HPC that three of the five standards have been met. It is a modest miners cottage of the Victorian era. There are three issues: relocation of the historic house on the site; where driveways should be placed for the two houses and the third compatibility concerns. Staff is generally in favor with the concept of the program. It is a great way that the historic landmark lot split can benefit everyone. The previous approval was for a single family house. HPC needs to give solid feedback on this project. A reduction in height was addressed. The FAR bonus was reduced. Staff recommends reversing the site plan so that the historic house remains on the comer site and this proposal places it on an interior lot and she feels it will be lost in the mass of the addition. In the proposed site plan they shifted the house to the east but it is in the drip line of the trees and Staff has not received formal comments from the parks department but typically that is not allowed. Staff recommends tabling and to restudy the architecture and address compatibility but the lot split and partial demolition and landmark requests are acceptable. Sworn in by Chief Deputy Clerk: Augie Reno, Harris Kahn, Laurie Winnerman, Larry Winnerman, Jackie Kasaback, Julie Maple and her husband and Jim Mickey. Augie Reno, architect presented: At the worksessions the placement of the historic house has always been in the same position, never once until a site visit was the discussion brought up to relocate the house and that was not clear due to interruptions. The proposed driveway is off of Neale Ave. which Amy suggested. At the third worksession rotation of the house was mentioned but not by the majority of the board and option 5 was chosen by the HPC as the plan to go with. The goal is to preserve the house. After 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 each worksession the architects determined the summation as HPC did not give any summary on what the majority wanted. There are site constraints on how the historic house would be seen, the lot narrows to the west. If the house were to be relocated to the west it would be much further away from the road than it is today just by the shape of the lot. The topography of the lot is different as it is higher on the comer. The proposal is to keep the house ten feet away from the street pretty much in the same location where it would be viewed as it is today. The comer house sits back further and will not overbear the historic house. Augie corresponded with the Parks Dept. and he indicated that the roots have been directed to the area of least resistance and he assured me by lifting the building up that the trees could be saved by the right technology in digging out for the foundation and the feeding of the trees. It is the intention to leave the trees. Harris Kahn relayed the partners intention as it relates to the project. He lives four houses away and he owns property on King St. He has been familiar with the site for the past 15 years. The intent is to make the site look natural and they aren't looking for anything other than what they are entitled to. Augie relayed that the historic house would be moved approximately ten feet to the east. It is still ten feet off the property line. A variance would be needed. There is a five foot setback variance for the side yard requested. The house would get renovated and there is an eight foot, one story length between the historic house and the new addition. The old house will stand on its own. The smoke house and out house will stay as they are for storage use. The new house sits at the west end of the property and the front yard is 25 feet from the Neale Ave. side and 16.8 from the King Street side. We are 7 feet behind the front face of the historic house. The driveway on house A is 60 feet from the comer and a fence is proposed on the north and east property line and splits the properties and the fence will not exist for the first 30 feet from the west property line. On the south elevation the historic house will be renovated with the original materials and what cannot be saved will be replicated. Materials will be picked up from the historic house. The new house on the west tries to keep gabled forms and tries to keep vertical windows and horizontal siding all to be compatible. The size of the new building is 55 feet in length by 24 feet. The Maples house is 50 feet and the adjacent houses are 53 and 90 feet. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Mr. Mickey reported that his house is 37 feet long and the Maple's house is 40 feet long. Augie informed the HPC that on the west elevation the architecture was broken up by a porch and a one story element. A comer element was created by turning the mass. The mass is also broken up on the west side. The west side plane steps back. The breaking up also creates a view. The chimney is stone and the roof is broken up with small shed type dormers. The east elevation of the historic house stays as it is and there is a link between and the gabled shape that sits behind the houses. In both houses they tried to put the garages away from the street view. On the North elevation the roof height relates to the historic house. Stone, siding and wood timber are proposed. Horizontal siding is proposed and it is compatible with the horizontal clapboard siding. There is no stone on the old house but in the neighborhood some houses have stone and some do not. Stone base is proposed. The fence proposed is a six foot high solid fence. Gilbert inquired about the glass on the historic building that faces east as it faces the adjacent property line. Augie relayed that the glass gives the view to Independence pass and it is the dining area. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Julie Maple wrote a letter in behalf of her Father-in-law which was included in the packet. One major issue is the driveway between her father-in-laws property and the proposed property. She is not positive the engineering dept. has given approval for the driveway and she requested that the application go to Engineering and have it approve as part of the conditions. There were three conditions and she has concerns about the hardship condition. There is a big visibility and safety issue for the driveway as people enter into the traffic and coming down that hill it is hard to see what is coming out. She also requests that the house be brought back to the original grade. The dirt mound on the comer is not natural. Mike Maple, son of the neighbor. The most important issue is preserving the views. He feels the lot split is appropriate because it reduces the mass of the 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 house and it has economic value. The lot split is a tremendous windfall financially. In terms of bonuses the code states that the FAR is for the historic structure and this lot split would allow a 3200 sq. ft. house and there is no need for the FAR bonus. Through the years dirt has been brought into the site for a garden and the grade should return to its normal state. Introducing a driveway into an area where there has not been one is a safety hazard. Jackie Kasabach, concerned citizen stated she is concerned about this development as she lived in the west end and watched the death of the west end and now is in the middle of the east end die. When she walks down King street it is becoming a tunnel and all you see is mass. The ice build up on the south side of the street have created enormous hazards in the winter time. When you turn the comer there should not be a huge mass. Jim Mickey, neighbor relayed that he is against the mass. When he looks out his window he sees four houses being built. Laurie Winnerman stated that the views were kept open in order to respect the neighbors views. The chair, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Roger relayed that the lot split is beneficial to the community. The neighborhood looses one monster house. The applicant gets to build two houses and HPC reviews the entire project. Roger is opposed to moving the cottage to the other side of the property. He also felt that the Eng. Dept. should provide a definitive statement on the driveway. He also had no problem with the variance but is unclear about the bonus. Overall project is quite good but there are concerns about the fenestration. The fence on the south and west should not be solid but no problem with the north and east. Amy Guthrie informed the HPC that Nick Adeh is looking for something as a reason why the driveway should be on Neale Ave., a hardship or a preservation reason from HPC. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 The majority of the board felt that that lot split, partial demolition and landmark request are acceptable. The fenestration needs restudied i.e., the larger windows. There should be a strong compatibility between the addition to the historic house and the historic house and encourage that the new house have better compatibility than it does now. Gilbert felt that there is a stronger restoration if the house is closer to the existing footprint. If there are safety concerns regarding the driveway they should be addressed. Mary indicated that the applicant came in when the HPC decided to have worksessions which was time consuming for the applicant. The applicant and neighbors got caught in the middle of that process. She also felt that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. Melanie relayed that the bonus should only be given to exemplary projects. Her interpretation of the ADU is a fourth bedroom. The architecture needs more study and the house and rock fireplace are overwhelming. The back house needs broken up more and a solid fence is not appropriate and needs broken up. Jeffrey relayed that the architect addressed the concerns of the neighbors. He also felt that the two story walls need broken up. The plate heights are high. He feels the stepping back from the Victorian house is appropriate but has some concern about the competing gable end. The chimney is a large element on house A and needs restudied in its height and massing. Keeping the fence back on the west property line to maintain the view is appropriate. The height of the ridges on the main house need restudied as it reflects to the street and the Victorian house. It was reduced but the relationship to the Victorian needs stepped down and restudied on the south elevation. Heidi relayed that the cottage is lost in the site on this project. The new house is far more dominant. The addition on the cottage is appropriate but the mass of the new house needs addressed. Suzannah felt that the right solution is flipping the cottage. The project should be beneficial to the historic house and she cannot support the current plan. The character of the addition to the historic house is well done. The 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 driveway presented is a typical pattern. Combining the driveways is not to the advantage of the historic house. On the new house a simplified roof shape needs studied. HPC vote on the FAR bonus requested: Gilbert - yes Mary - yes Jeffrey - yes Roger - yes Melanie - no Heidi - no Suzannah - no Amy relayed that the variances requested would be 14 foot variance on the front yard for the historic house, a five foot side yard setback variance eon the east sidse of the historic house, and the 250 square foot FAR bonus. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant approval at 930 King Street for the Historic Landmark, Historic Lot Split, Partial Demolition and on-site relocation. Conceptual is granted with the following conditions: a) 250 sq. fi. FAR bonus is granted. b) Restudy the fenestration. c) Restudy the stone chimney. d) Restudy the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new house. Create a more direct compatibility in materials' and design elements'. e) Full lan&cape plan showing any exterior perimeter fencing. j) A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation and whether the structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts' of the relocation and resiting. g) A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security in the amount of $30, 000. to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Motion second by Mary. Motion carried 4 - 3. Suzannah, Melanie and Heidi voted no. Gilbert, Roger, Mary and defJhey voted yes. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 712 W. FRANCIS - MINOR Chairperson Suzannah Reid reviewed the east and west dormer revision. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the revisions, second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. TIPPLE INN Melanie excused. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed at the last meeting it was recommended that HPC delay action until the Inventory is done in 1999 to see how it fits in the overall history of the town. HPC asked Staff to provide information on the status of the Tippler and if there was anything that HPC should have been involved in. They have their Growth Management allocation, P&Z approval and first readying at City Council. Staff feels HPC should not be involved with interior elements (the pilings). Francis Krizmanich presented for the applicant, Gary Jackobs. The owner would peruse designation if the majority ofHPC felt that the structure had historic value. There is urgency as the adjacent property is being developed. They are looking for a ready if their is any value and if it does those issues should be taken into consideration with the development of the adjacent project. Situs Sagataslomi stated that the owner remodeled the facade a year 1/2 ago and now he wants it on the historic list. Jack Crawford who represents the Board of the Tipple Inn reiterated that the board unanimously opposed the inclusion of the Tipple Inn in historic designation. HPC relayed that no information has been provided that HPC can have an impact and Staff position is that we should review the Tipple Inn when the entire inventory is done. HPC has no review over interior. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Several of the members did a site visit and it was determined that only a few elements remain and they are on the interior. Francis stated that it is the exterior of the small tippler that they are dealing with. HPC relayed to the applicant that they will review the Tippler Inn next year when the inventory is done. 920 W. HALLAM - WORKSESSION No minutes MOTION: Suzannah moved to adjourn, second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ......................................................................................................... 1 SISTER CITY FLAGS - MINOR .......................................................................................................... 2 114 NEALE AVE. CONCEPTUAL - PH - CONTINUED .................................................................... 2 240 LAKE AVE. - CONCEPTUAL - LD - PARTIAL DEMOLITION - PH ....................................... 2 930 KING STREET - CONCEPTUAL - LD - PH - PARTIAL DEMOLITION - ON-SITE RELOCATION, VARIANCES .............................................................................................................. 6 712 W. FRANCIS - MINOR ................................................................................................................ 12 TIPPLE INN ......................................................................................................................................... 12 920 W. HALLAM - WORKSESSION ................................................................................................. 13 14