Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19980708ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 Meeting was called to order by chairperson Suzannah Reid with Gilbert Sanchez, Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Heidi Friedland, Roger Moyer and Jeffrey Halferty present. Heidi disclosed that she will be stepping down for 920 W. Hallam. Mary relayed her concern about the falling down fence on Main Street. The owner needs to be contacted and the issue resolved. 505 N. EIGHT STREET - MINOR REVIEW COVERED PORCH Julie Ann Woods, planner presented. The applicant is looking to add a covered porch off the rear portion of the building which is the west elevation. The deck will be removed and be replaced with brick pavers. The roof will match the existing shingled roof. A few columns will be added to the covered porch on the west elevation. Sworn in was Dave Johnston, architect. Dave relayed that this is an extension of an existing roof condition over a porch. The roof is at a different slope. This is a comer lot and the tree line is very strong between the two house winter and summer and has minimal visibility. Julie Ann relayed that the porch is original and she is presuming that the columns are original. Melanie stated that the proposal is to match the columns and in the past HPC has requested not matching the existing columns. Julie Ann stated that the proportions of the covered porch coming out 14 feet is not a proportion that we would typically see in the Victorian era covered porch but with the modified pitch and detailing of the columns it can be identified. Dave relayed that the columns on the front of the house and the rear columns are not the same and it was determined to go with the most simplistic column as opposed to doing a third columns. Susan inquired about the appearance and details of the house when it was moved in 1972. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 Pat Millington moved the house and it was then added on to. The Schuwmacher's bought the house from Pat. Gilbert relayed that the proposal is a distinct element and could be removed at anytime. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the proposed changes at 505 N. Eighth Street with the following conditions: l. That the improvements will be substantially in conformance with the drawings submitted with the application, as shown in Sheet No 3.1; 2. The roof material will match the existing roof, with a modified pitch as shown in the drawings. 3. Any additional significant changes from those proposed in this application shall be considered "significant" and will require a conceptual and final review of the HPC before proceeding with construction; 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so. The proposal meets all four development review standards; motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 7- O. 203 S. GALENA - MINOR REVIEW - GUCCI Julie Ann Woods, planner presented. The proposed change is the second store front on Galena St. as well as facade changes to the Hopkins St. side. The existing wood door and frame would be replaced and a sign placed in the transom area above the door. On the Hopkins St. side the store front is old but the door is not. Sworn in were: Brian O'Tuama Emma Oneil Lee Pearce 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 Brian stated that photographs were not found in the Historical Society archives. It is believed that the door on the Hopkins Street side is not original. The proposed changes to E. Hopkins would unify the entire area. Roger informed the board that in 1965 when he moved here there was a drive-thru and two pumps on the comer of Galena and Hopkins. There was also an upholstery shop and R.O. Anderson had his office on the first floor. The second floor was empty. What is there on Galena is not historic as there was originally an overhead door. He stated that he feels the Hopkins St. side is original but the door is not historic. Julie Ann relayed that two over two windows were very typical for that era and she feels that window on Hopkins Street is old. Heidi inquired about the shiny material proposed and its reflectiveness. She also had concerns about the paint color being changed from the different colored store fronts. Other members had concerns about the proposed glass doors on Galena with the Gucci signature. Melanie stated changing the store fronts to something extremely contemporary in an historic building is inappropriate. The material selection competes with the historic building. Susan relayed that in the past other stores have been denied their signature i.e. McDonald's and the Holiday Inn. Emma stated that the door would be contemporary. The proposal is to use the international Gucci door set back from the street line. The Hopkins Street door would be flush with the facade, wood and glass. Mary felt that the design should be restudied as it is too contemporary for the historic building. The signage would be regulated by the Zoning officer. Gilbert felt that the doors on Galena would be more in character if they were the same fabric that is existing but he also feels there is some opportunity to have some kind of signature. Galena St. is acceptable but the Hopkins elevation needs restudied to maintain the historic quality that is there now. Roger relayed that this is a significant landmark building. The openings have been restored as close to the original as possible. In his opinion the mullions and wood detailing on Galena should not be changed. The job of HPC is to retain the historic integrity of the building which means signature doors 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 should not be substituted. On the East Hopkins side the original openings should be retained. Suzannah had no concerns on the Galena side except for the paint and the Hopkins side should be preserved. Lee Pearce relayed that he feels the historical integrity of the building can be retained. He requested latitude with the signature hardware and the board had no problems if it was within the appropriate scale and color. MOTION: Mary moved to table with a restudy of the discussion at this meeting the minor development for 203 S. Galena - Gucci to ~/uly 22, 1998; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried - 7-0. Mary stated that color is addressed on certain projects when the entire building is being reviewed. She suggested a worksession. 920 W. HALLAM - PH - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Heidi stepped down Jeffrey was seated. Mitch Haas, planner presented. The site currently contains three separate structures. The main house was built in the 1880's and there is a garage that was moved to the site but is an historic structure. A shed sits partially on the property and partially in the alleyway and that was used as a concession stand for the Ski area and then moved to this site in the 40' s. There is a request for a partial demolition of the lean-to shed onto the garage. There are two on-site relocation' s, one is to move the houses forward and to the center of the lot and raise its elevation by about 18 inches. The garage would move to behind the relocated house, attached by a breezeway. There is an off-site relocation request involving the shed that sits mostly in the alley and the applicant has not yet determined a location to move it to. There is an historic landmark lot split requested creating a 3,432 square foot lot to have a new structure built and 7,616 square foot for the historic house and the relocated garage behind and a new structure to its east. Also, there is a design variance requested for the volume standard. Three variances are requested one for the sideyard setback on lot B due to the lightwells. The 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 other is the combined yard setback. The third variance is the site coverage variance. There is also a request for the 500 square foot bonus. Mitch also relayed that P&Z approved the development of two homes on one lot. Rehabilitation and restoration of the garage is proposed. Once the garage is moved behind the historic house a breezeway would be constructed to connect the garage to the house and would be subordinate in height and massing. Three primary facades would be untouched. Regarding the off-site relocation until a site is found to take the cabin no action should be taken. Staff concurs that the off-site relocation would be the best alternative as it is not original to this site and if it can be relocated to a site that is relevant then it would be more beneficial to the public. Lot Split - Both structure would have to mitigate for affordable housing. The applicant has chosen cash-in-lieu. There would be a total of three units. The two new house would have 1850 square feet of FAR each and the existing would be 1,000 square feet. You end up with small to moderate size homes as opposed to a duplex. Significant Development: The overall is compatible with the neighborhood and historic structure. All three would share the same front setback area and oriented to the street. The garages and parking would be in the rear in the alley. Staff supports most of the changes to the design of the existing historic house. On the alley side elevation there is a proposal to put in new glazing and staff feels it is not of the proper scale for the house and should be scaled back. The proposed 48 square feet of glazing would detract from the historic house. In terms of the eastern most house Lot B in general it is compatible in massing, volume and scale. Staff recommends restudy of the fenestration on the south and west elevations. The street facing facade has 64 square feet of contemporary style block windows which would be about 30% of that entire facade's area. They are vertical which is appropriate but staff feels they are too grand and out of proportion and would detract from the historic structure. The same is true for the windows set further back on the south elevation. The proposed glazing on the west elevation on the eastern most structure which would be adjacent to the historic house, staff feels it is out of scale. That area would be around 100 contiguous feet of glazing. It is over an 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 internal stairway and is really not necessary for any particular reason and is somewhat out of character and too close to the original structure. With regard to the western most structure, staff feels the massing needs restudied i.e. the massing of the gabled ends facing on the south elevation. The feeling is that they need to be brought down in height. With regard to the windows staff feels those should also be restudied particularly the square shaped window on the front elevation. It needs greater vertical orientation to show the influence of the historic resource. On the west elevation, the side that you would see when you come over the Castle Creek Bridge, staff feels that the windows on the internal stairway are out of scale and not necessary. That adds another 40 feet of continuous glazing. In general the glazing on the west elevation should be restudied. A light could be placed inside to scale down the glazing. Staff is supporting each of the variance requests. If they were made to comply with the variance they would not be able to obtain the open area of the buildings which is traditionally seen in historic neighborhoods. Affidavit presented as exhibit lll. Sworn in: Ron Robertson Francis Pierce Katie Bergman Ron relayed that he will restudy all the glazing concerns. The model represents a new massing for the westerly unit. The proportions of the front gable have become smaller, a new flat roof isi designed so that the entire scale of the street facade comes in line with the quality of the easterly unit. Ron also relayed that the window on the alley side of the historic building lets light into a lower level bedroom and it is only visible in the alley. That addition was added on. Mitch indicated he understood the reason for the light after looking at the floor plan. Mary stated that the lot with the house on the west is lower and will that house remain lower or elevated. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 Ron indicated that it will remain lower. Melanie relayed that the model is not accurate. The houses are accurate but the topography is not. It makes a difference in what the board is looking it if the model is incorrect. Other members relayed that the topography on the model is important. Mary stated that the board needs to see the topography as it will make a difference in the ridge heights. Ron said it will be about 18 inches lower. He thought the overall general massing was to be discussed tonight not the topography. Melanie inquired about the bonus and Mitch stated that the 500 foot bonus is split between the three designs. Julie Ann stated that the grade the historic house is sitting on needs to be indicated with a cross section elevation going across the road and onto the site and maybe even taking the house to the north just to make sure the board is clear as to where the house is going to be sitting. The Hopkins Street house ended up in a hole and no one anticipated that. Mitch stated that the entire site sits two feet lower than the right-of-way and there is a retaining wall across the front. The historic house would be raised 18 inches and then the house to the west would sit at a lower level. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Katie Bergman relayed her concern about not enough green space. It seems everything is built upon and they are requesting the bonus in addition. It would be more feasible to not give the bonus and cut back so that there is a little greenery on the site. The garages are covering up that much more ground. Nothing will grow between the houses. She sees no reason to give setback variances to enable them to increase the FAR. Francis Pierce stated that part of the historical value of the site was John's yard. They are saving an apple tree which will probably die to lack of light. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 The lilac trees may or may not survive. The density does seem to be high and not enough space between the houses which is not consistent with the houses that are currently built in that area. She is also concerned about the height of the house next to Sagewood Condominims as it is almost as high as that condominium. Historically you are preserving the house but you are creating so much more density that you are not preserving the historical nature of the lot and of the neighborhood. She also has a problem with opening the alley because historically it was not opened. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Mitch stated that they are requesting a 2% variance for what is required in the green space. The density is consistent with the historic neighborhoods and in actuality it is less because you could do three homes on 9,000 square feet and this is three homes on 11,000 square feet. Melanie inquired where the 2% would be taken out if the variance was not allowed. Mitch stated that the 2% variance is on lot B and it could be anywhere, such as making the garage shorter. Julie Ann stated that in the code you are required to have 35% open space and they are proposing to go down to 33%. Ron relayed to the public that great care has been taken to the landscaping. Every dominant landscaping has been relocated and thought out or designed around. He feels there is enough light for the trees to continue to grow. Francis reiterated that she feels the density is wrong and there is probably nothing that she can do about it. Roger stated that conceptual could not be given as the packet is not complete. There are not complete elevations and a cross section drawing is needed and a landscape drawing. Mary complimented Mitch on the memo and packet for this item and the time involved to complete it. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 Comments: All the board members agreed about the restudy of the windows which Mitch recommended. The deck on the western most house was a concern to a few members. The deck on the eastern most house works well. The historic house being raised is appropriate to create a line on the street. Preserve all the trees and lilac bushes. Topographical elevation from the rear is also requested to see how the house relates from the back. Concern about what the foundation will look like once the historic house is raised. The project is in compliance with the Entrance to Aspen proposal. Raising and lowering of the house entails an entire streetscape drawing. MOTION: Roger moved to approve at 920 W. Hallam partial demolition as proposed, onsite-relocation with the following conditions: A. Either prior to Final review or with building permit application, the applicant shall demonstrate that the structures to be moved are capable of withstanding the physical impacts' of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and, B. Either prior to Final review or with building permit application, a relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, 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. C. Indefinite continuance of the off-site relocation pending of the determination of a suitable receiving site. D. That the HPC recommends' to City Council to approve Historic Landmark Lot Split with the following conditions: 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 1. The approvals contained herein shall of no force unless and until the proposed Historic Landmark Designation is granted final approval by the adoption of an ordinance to that affect by City Council. 2. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pi&in County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: (1) Meet the requirements of Section 26. 88.040(D) (2) (a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) Contain a p/at note stating that development of new residences shah be required to mitigate for affbrdab/e housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; (3) Contain a p/at note stating that the lots contained therein shah be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots wi//comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use code in effect at the time of application. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) wi//be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The wester/y parce/ (Lot B) wi//be assigned an allowable FAR of 2, 354 square feet (p/us the potentia/ for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feeO. The information contained in the two previous sentences wi//need to be included on the p/at, as a p/at note. 3. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26. 88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 2 6. 8 8. 0 3 0 (A) (e) (e) . 4. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 5. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. 6. Continuance of the Conceptual Significant Development to a date certain August 12, 1998. a) Restudy of the proposed windows on the North elevation of the historic house to achieve greater compatibility. b) Restudy of the proposed windows on the South and West elevations of the easternmost structure to achieve a better relationship with the historic house in terms of scale, volume, and general compatibility. c) Restudy of the mass and scale of the proposed westernmost structure, including the gable/roof Jbrms (ridge heights) and the glazing on the South and West elevations to achieve a better relationship with the historic house in terms of scale, volume, and general compatibility. 7. Approval of the following variances (part of the Conceptual Significant DevelopmenO ; a) A variance from the minimum side yard setbacks' of five (5)feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks' on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls' of the structures would meet the five foot setback requirements); b) A variance from the combined side yard setback requirements' of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; c) A variance from the maximum site coverage requirement of thirty- five (35) percent (2, 666 square feeO to allow for a site coverage of thirty- seven (37)percent; and, 8. Continuance of the requested variance from the "Volume "provision of the Residential Design Standards' to the same date, August 12, 1998 as the Conceptual Review. Motion second by defJhey. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 defJhey moved to adjourn the meeting; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8 ~ 1998 505 N. EIGHT STREET - MINOR REVIEW COVERED PORCH .................................................... 1 203 S. GALENA - MINOR REVIEW - GUCCI .................................................................................... 2 920 W. HALLAM - PH - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 4 13