Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19981209ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 6~00 p.m. Present were Roger Mayer, Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Gilbert Sanchez, Heidi Friedland, Jeffrey Halferty, Lisa Markalunas and Christie Kienast. Maureen MacDonald was absent. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Heidi informed the Board about changes to Gail Hughes house after the approval process. The Board would probably not object to the changes but this is just another situation where the contractor approached Amy after he had already made the changes. Roger reported that the new Community Bank Bldg. south wall is unpainted and is cement block. He feels a resolution should be sent to Council requesting that they look at the building and discuss what could be done to prevent the situation in the future. There is also exposed roof top equipment. Gilbert advised Staff that the Board needs to start addressing mechanical equipment. Regarding the same building as you walk down the street toward the Post Office you see this "jungle" of ducts, vents etc. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC send a letter to City Council expressing our frustration and concern over the new Community Bank Building concerning the rooftop equipment of which is exposed and it does not meet the standards that other buildings have to meet under the HPC. That the south facing wall which is unfinished, unpainted cement block somehow be addressed both in this instance and future instances. HPC request the favor cfa reply to our concerns. There are concerns in general about other buildings with similar problems. Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Amy brought up the historic district and possibly it should be expanded. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 930 KING STREET -FINAL DEVELOPMENT Mary disclosed that the architect Augie Reno attended a dinner party at her house and at no time was the 930 King Street project discussed. Sworn in were Augie Reno, Julie Maple, Sandy Maple, Michael Maple, Harris Cahn, Charles Maple, Lorrie Winnerman and Larry Winnerman. Amy relayed on March 25th Conceptual was granted including some variances and several conditions. It then went to P&Z for approval of an ADU and then onto Council for approval of the lot split. Council approved a combined driveway in the middle of the property rather than a separate driveway for each house which is reflected in the site plan. An easement would need to be recorded due to the sharing of the access. Easements are deducted from the lot area for the purposes of determining floor area and that calculation is 100 square feet. The design presented is 300 to 350 Square feet over FAR. At conceptual several issues were to be restudied; windows, stone chimney, the addition to the new house and compatibility issues. Staff recommends continuation of the project with eleven conditions. Number three is the tree protection plan and staff is concerned because the old house is being moved within the drip line of the trees. Augie Reno, architect relayed that the FAR request is 250 square feet. The City requirement to do an easement in the common driveway we would be required to following the zoning code relative to the FAR. They have chosen to do a license agreement which does not effect title. There is no deduction on the FAR with a license agreement. A structural report, revised drawings, landscape plan were submitted in May 1998. A mitigation report was also submitted regarding the existing trees. Residence A is 65% of the floor area allowed and the other 35% is the existing house with the addition. Augie presented examples of houses in the vicinity with similar street frontages and FAR. The building proposed is 43.6 feet in length and a FAR of 2795. Residence B has 23 foot frontage and 1607 FAR. There is a 25 foot setback on Neale Ave. and King Street. The shared driveway is ten feet wide. Building A has been down scaled and the fireplace has been changed. The house has been lowered by five feet and the garage has been pushed back five feet and windows simplified. It is about 40% less glass. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 The existing historic house and addition have building material changes to differentiate. The siding was changed to bring the height down and break up the mass. The building is slightly under 1700 square feet. The doors were eight feet and now are seven. The project is much smaller than what was proposed. Questions Heidi inquired if house A meets ordinance #30 requirements? Amy stated that it does. Amy also wanted a confirmation from our Parks Dept. regarding the house being moved into the drip line of the cottonwoods. Augie relayed that the landscape architect met with the Parks Dept. before the proposal was put together. Documentation will be required. Suzannah asked about the lightwells. Augie said they were a stone boulder retaining wall and roughly four to four and a half feet deep. They meet the ground and stick out around five feet from the house. The one in the back is about fifteen feet. Mary asked if all the windows conform to Ordinance #30 requirements. Augie stated that there are windows in question and they are asking for relief due to the character of the neighborhood. The building next door has a tremendous amount of glass. Susan asked how the existing house will be restored. Augie stated that the house will be painted and all the siding will be kept and renovated and the windows will be renovated. The roof will have to be replaced from a corrugated roof to a wood shingle roof. Whatever they can save they will. Susan asked Augie to look at the historic house on 17 Queen Street and the translucent paint or stain that was used on that house. The old appearance or character of the wood has been retained. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 Harris in£ormed the Board that he would be willing to look into that process. Gilbert's concern is the relationship of the addition to the historic cabin. Augie informed the Board that there are the existing out house and smoke house and they did not want those crowded. The Board requested that the out house and smoke house remain at their existing sites. They also did not want to infringe upon the structures behind them, the Maples houses and the Mickey' s house. Suzannah asked what the plate height of the addition was to the historic house. Augie replied 8 1/2 feet. Public Comments Sandy Maple requested that the natural grade be adhered to and all zoning conditions break from the natural grade. Augie stated that the City requires that they use a certain elevation and they will do that. They are willing to work with the Maples to determine what height the fence can go at. Charles Maple, neighbor stated that he built a retaining wall as Joe kept piling dirt up and he recommends that the dirt come down to the level of his lot. He doesn't want to see a big hill in front of him. Harris informed the Maples and Board that he will lower the dirt hill. Commissioner Comments Gilbert had no problem with the site plan. The design of the addition to the historic house and the new construction do not have a strong compatibility and need to be restudied. Possibly get the volume back on the lot. The new house should be restudied for compatibility to the historic building. Windows are a concern and the massing and form. The reason the new house is allowed is due to the historic building. Variances could be given if they enhance the historic house. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 Susan said she would like to see the roo£ line o£ the addition on the historic house lowered or set back and that the trees not be damaged. Stephen Elsperman, City Forester stated that the Parks Dept. requires a tree protection £encing system and some sort o£ irrigation and mulching o£ the site. The cottonwood trees have been in a declining condition £or some time but the Parks Dept. £eels they will be able to withstand the impacts with the protection. There is also a permit in place. The trees have been poorly pruned in the past and toped and there is some decay at the base region. Heidi relayed that the downscaling o£the project has helped and working with the neighbors is commendable. She agrees with the statement that Gilbert made in that the best interest o£ the historic house is really not here. It lacks compatibility with the historic house in how they relate and respect each other both with the shape and that the windows seem over powering. Most o£ the living space seems to be on the second floor and there is not a strong entrance. The large mass to the historic house £eels heavy. The Board has seen other additions to historic houses that have been broken up and £eel more compatible. Christie relayed that she was looking £or compatibility and that the roo£ lines were identical on the porches and the posts are tied in nicely. The piggy back on the historic house is not appropriate. Lisa stated that the changes made are in the right direction. She also agreed with other members about moving the addition to the north away kom the historic house i£ possible. She is not in support o£ variances £or the windows on the addition to the historic house. Roger's three issues are: Mass and scale, design and landscaping and the driveway FAR issue. He is in favor of the shared driveway. He is comfortable with the mass and scale. On the staff recommendations he would add # 12 that the dirt be at grade. He recommends continuation with the conditions pointed out by the staff memorandum. He also recommends a landscaping plan. The expression of the entry needs more defined. The peaks should be made simpler. The linkage to the historic resource is weak. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 Je£key said there have been good improvements since the last submittal. His biggest issue is the massing and how it effects the historic house. He likes the idea o£ having the massing pushed back. Plate heights are high on the historic addition. Shared driveway is great. The £enestration on the new addition to the historic resource should be looked at. With some undulation on the north wall it could break down the massing. Mary felt that the neighbors have been very knowledgeable and have attended all the meetings and worked with the applicant and that is commendable. Her concern in the historic house are the massive windows and some of them don't comply with Ord. #30. She would approve the variances in the historic house. The new house, what it is now is because of where it has to be, how it sits on the site and to accommodate driveways and easements etc. It could accommodate the historic resource by some changes to the entranceway by a more definite front entrance. Suzannah stated downsizing the new house was a major improvement. A few more issues need addressed and the windows are one of them particularly when they relate to a variance issue. She still has strong concerns about the size of the addition to the historic house and the way it is handled. It is not too big but the wall that goes up the side of the chimney and continues uninterrupted to the top will look incredibly tall in the view driving up Neale Ave. The plate height should be studied and the roof brought down slightly. Augie stated that they honestly looked at shifting the addition but they are boxed in due to variances etc. and if the building is extended back to the north then the little sheds would be lost and that is not the direction that was given. Harris stated that almost every boundary around the house is dictated by setbacks, dictates from City Council, pleasing the Maples and saving the trees. There is no where to go within the building envelope. Suzannah stated that the problem with the addition to the historic house is that it is overpowering. Gilbert stated that we have the opportunity here to make this a great project. The modifications we are talking about are very modest. Maybe the 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 planning of the house cannot allow you to push it back but lowering the plate heights would help. By reducing the amount of glass and making it more like the existing house would add to the compatibility. Mary stated that she feels the issues are the windows and front entrance issues. The windows should meet regulations and the plate heights lowered. Suzannah stated that the chimney should be addressed and the uninterrupted vertical wall. MOTION: Mary moved to continue 930 King Street to January 13, 1998 with the recommendation that the entrance, chimney and windows be restudied; second by Roger. gll in favor, motion carried 7-0. Augie asked for clarification. Roger stated all the issues on page 6 and seven should be addressed. Amy stated on the new house the windows should be reduced and the character of the entry of the building should be restudied. On the old house the addition should be restudied and the chimney on the old house. That includes the plate heights and windows. 117 N. SIXTH ST. - CONCEPTUAL & FINAL DEVELOPMENT (Public Hearing continued from Nov. 18th) Sworn in were Scott Lindenau, Keith Howie, Briston Peterson, Graeme Means. Amy Guthrie, planner disclosed that she has a friendship with Lynnie Coulter. She assured the Board that her recommendations on the project are purely professional and in no way influenced by that friendship. Amy stated that the project is an outstanding preservation effort and has the potential to be a role model for the HPC in future projects. Condition nine relates to the tree on the site and it is the spruce tree that they are building the 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 house around. At the last meeting they were to confirm that the construction method would be appropriate. They met with the Parks Department but the Parks Dept. requirement will be that they do not build within the drip line o£ the tree and that was the intention by their plans. In £act, the tree is larger than they thought. I£ they are to stay out o£ the drip line it will push the house six £eet closer to the old house which does a lot to damage the relationship between the old and new building. It also effects the living area space which is toward the kont o£ the new house. The problem has to be resolved and I-tPC might have some input. Scott took the site in£ormation koma topographical survey that they had and it is not normal procedure £or them to measure trees on the site and that was why it was designed as it is. They £eel confident that the tree can be moved and that is the direction the owner would like to go. I£ the house has to move six £eet then the relationship to the historic house is lost. Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director stated that the survey submitted was misrepresented. Stephen Elsperman, City Forester in£ormed the Board that the tree in question is o£ outstanding character to the community. It is a mature spruce tree and adds quite a bit to the neighborhood. Trees o£ that size have been moved be£ore success~lly and it is something that can be done. One o£ the problems that comes with moving o£ this tree is that there is no site on the site where the tree can be moved to. It is not possible to move the tree off-site. The tree has character to the neighborhood where it is now. The direction the Parks Dept. wants to go is not remove the tree. They are trying to come up with a solution to save the tree onsite with everyone involved. Keith Howie stated that the previous architect David Panicco was dealing with the Parks Dept. and they took his information on the tree which showed a sixteen foot canopy also the survey also indicated a sixteen foot canopy. Keith and Steve measured the tree and it is a twenty four foot in diameter tree end to end. In order to accommodate for the drip line you would have to move the house over four feet and move the garage over four feet and have to move the house forward four feet. The architects feel that is close to a total redesign. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 Scott said this was brought up late in the game and when the drawings were distributed to the various departments they didn't hear about the problem until a day ago. Questions Roger asked if it is possible to build the house and save the tree and what are the chances of the tree surviving? Stephen said currently the plans call for excavation on three sides of the tree. Part of the soil has high compaction so there is not high active root growth on one of the sides. In his professional opinion you would severely jeopardize the longevity of the tree with the current plan. He doesn't feel it would kill the tree immediately but over time it will begin to decline. Mary asked what is the normal life of a spruce tree. Stephen stated in a native environment a spruce can life 200 to 230 years. In an urban environment maybe 170 to 180. Stephen cored the tree and he feels it is about 71 years old plus or minus five years. He feels the area is more of an urban environment with the compaction issues. That would put the tree planted about 1925 and he did not know if the house was there at that time. It might be part of the historical landscaping as well. Lisa asked if there are any ramifications to the owners if the approvals go forward and the board elects to leave the tree in its current position. Do they have any requirements to replace the tree. Stephen stated that there are ramifications from the Parks Department regulations in the Municipal Code. The code states that you cannot excavate in the drip line and the applicant would be responsible for the full value of the tree to pay for the loss of the tree. Stephen stated he met with the original architect back in April and the issues were discussed. Scott stated if the house is moved closer to Graeme Means's house they may loose the parking space that is required. In the past Scott has moved eight, sixty or seventy foot trees with a crane about a half mile and they all lived. One possible scenario that would work would be to move the tree to the golf 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 course and then plant additional trees on the property to mitigate for the loss of the tree. Stephen stated it is the Parks Department direction that the tree is outstanding in its place. Gilbert asked if there is another spot on the site where the tree could be moved, left of the breezeway. Stephen stated that the tree will fit in that area but there is not room for growth. It would fit like a glove in that site. Certain soil conditions need to exist and in this situation there is too much building and not enough root zone. Susan stated on the north side there is not excavation being done. Scott said if we took out the lower level, footers still need poured. Even if we moved all the development ten feet away from the drip line that will still cause a shock to the roots of the tree and there is still a chance that it would die. Logically it would be best to move the tree. Stephen stated no matter what happens on this site there will be an impact to the tree. A compromise of the design would lessen the shock to the tree rather than removing it. The girth of this tree is 22 inches about four feet above the ground. Keith stated what he is hearing is that the tree isn't going to have the root system to grow in its current spot even if they get out of the drip line. If it were to be transplanted to a spot that has unlimited root growth wouldn't that be better. Julie Ann recommended that the item be tabled in order to research for more information regarding the tree. Roger stated historically during the mining days there were hardly any trees and when the mines were opened canals were dug along the streets and people planted cotton woods. Walter Garish felt that the ditches needed closed in order to let the cottonwoods die. Henry Peterson came to town in 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 the d0's and planted 90% of the trees that now exist in Aspen. He retired in the late g0' s. In fairness we need to decide what is the most important thing to the historic resource and what someone is allowed to do and what your sacrifice or not sacrifice. Suzannah stated that tree issues have to be resolved when an applicant comes in and it is important for architects to review previous plans etc. that were given to them and not to assume it is the correct information. Suzannah opened the public hearing. Graeme said it is difficult to respond until he knows exactly what is going on. He is the neighbor to the west. He would be resistant to planting the tree near the property line by the breezeway. They live in the shade of the tree presently. If it were moved to the property line it would impact that a great deal. If it is moved it should be moved to a space where it has a good chance of living. The other option is to possibly move it to the Historical Society and plant vegetation that is not quite majestic but more appropriate to a dense area with deciduous trees etc. Briston suggested maybe put in mitigation measures if the Parks Department views this tree as a public tree even though it is on private land and the client is willing to mitigate where the public can experience new trees. Put the energy and resources in some degree of certainty where you can control the situation. MOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and Conceptual and Final Development for 117 N. Sixth until danuary 6th, 1998; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes Fore: Roger, defJhey, Suzannah, Gilbert, Mary, Susan, Heidi Graeme stated if the tree is removed how does that effect the present design because a lot of the design decisions were made due to the location of the tree. Suzannah stated if the tree is removed the Board needs to discuss the setback issues. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 920 E. HYMAN AVE. - worksession - no minutes AACP - worksession - no minutes MOTION: Mary moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 930 KING STREET -FINAL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 2 117 N. SIXTH ST. - CONCEPTUAL & FINAL DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 7 (PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM NOV. 18TH) .................................................... 7 920 E. HYMAN AVE. - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES .................................................. 12 AACP - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ...................................................................... 12 13