Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20050727ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27~ 2005 334 W. Hallam - Stephen Holly - Project Monitoring ...................................................... 1 710 N. THIRD STREET - CONCEPTUAL - VARIANCES - DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................................................... 2 631 W. Blecker Project monitoring .................................................................................... 5 470 N. SPRING STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING 430 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - PUBLIC HEARING 435 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING ......................................................9 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE - PUBLIC HEARING CONT'D FROM JUNE 22ND. CONCEPTUAL, DEMOLITION, VARIANCES .............................................................. 9 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27,~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Jason Lasser, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sara Adams, Intern Disclosures: 920/930 Matchless - Jason recused himself. 470 N. Spring - Michael recused himself. 710 N. Third - Jeffrey recused himself. 334 W. Hallam - Stephen Holly - Project Monitoring Amy and Jason determined that the fireplace flue does not comply with the guidelines. Stephen Holly said the owner, Hayden Connor is requesting a fireplace which would involve a flue. The material would be a patina copper. Jason said the first flue is on the existing resource and the request is to put another flue on the resource. You will be seeing two flues on the street facing faqade and is that something that we want to approve. Jeffrey asked if the flue could be on the north side of the gable. Stephen said the box inside would not be a nice interior element. Right now the room is "clean". Amy said the guideline said mechanical equipment should be on the alley and not create a negative impact. Jeffrey suggested that the flue be out of the public view plane. Derek said he is lenient and will defer to the board but if approved the patina need to look like a three year old flu. Jeffrey agreed with Jason that this is an added element and very visible. He would prefer that it be on the north side of the gable and hidden. Michael also agreed with Jeffrey. Sarah and Derek agreed with Michael and Jeffrey. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27~ 2005 710 N. THIRD STREET - CONCEPTUAL - VARIANCES - DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING Jeffrey recused himself. Michael chaired. Affidavit of posting Exhibit I. Revised drawings Exhibit II. Rally Dupps and Mitch Haas presented. Sara said the subject property is a large two-story Victorian era house located on Unit A of a condominiumized lot which abuts Gillespie Ave. to the north and Third Street to the west. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing non-historic Post World War II addition and build an new addition to the home and to construct a new garage that is detached. They are doing this by reconfiguring their 4,041 square feet of FAR. The historic portion of the house will remain intact. Setback variances are required. Staff recommends a waiver of one on-site parking space. Variances from the Residential Design Standards are need for the garage and light-well. There is a side yard setback variance that was overlooked in the conceptual notice and that needs to be discussed at final review. Staff's concern is the height and scale of the new addition. We feel it obscures important details on the Victorian home. The length and width of the connector piece does not meet the minimum design gui&line requirements. The west elevation light-well does not meet Residential Design Guideline requirements. Staffis also concerned with creating a two car parking area in front of the house. A one car garage is recommended with an uncovered space next to it. Parking: There is illegal parking that existing in the grass portion of the public right-of-way. In the application it states that it is parking for Unit B but because it is condominiumized Unit A and B are one within this application. Staff will look into an encroachment license. Amy relayed that the parking is City owned and we will look into whether an encroachment exists. Public parking should not be privatized. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2005 Sara said staff is recommending continuation to restudy the scale and height of the addition. Mitch said they read the memo and made changes. Mitch handed out the revisions Exhibit II. Mitch said the main issue is the height, scale and proportions of the addition. On the east elevation the roof is now a 10 x 12 pitch. In doing that the living room has become significantly smaller in length and height. The ridge height of the connector is lower than the front porch height. The connector is now ten feet. The connector sits five feet behind the front wall of the house instead of four feet and 12 feet behind the front porch instead of 11 feet. The light well on the west elevation was brought up as not meeting the Residential Design Standards. What we have done is pulled it back six inches so that it is fully recessed behind the front facade and now meets the standards and would not need a variance. Regarding the two car driveway, we eliminated the parking space, so now it is just the one car garage with no surface parking. The main house will be the main element on the street. The back yard was the motivating force for this entire project. We are hesitant to push the garage into it and it doesn't really accomplish anything. If we did push it back what you would have is someone parking between the garage and the street. We feel the garage should be as close to the property line as we can get it and a two foot setback is a reasonable request for the garage. The living room roof is lowered 30 inches from the previous design which gives it a shorter roof line. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public heating. Susan Leydecker, owner said her only concern was the parking issue on Gillespie. They have a problem with parking in that area especially when there are concerts at the Music Tent. Amy pointed out that the City owns the parking on Gillespie. Cynthia Milling, the next door neighbor said she does not want to be landlocked. Rally said there is evidence that the addition was done in the 70's. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27~ 2005 Jason said if you moved the garage back ten feet you could have another parking space. Mitch said pushing the garage back will not serve the project from the public perspective. Susan commented on the five foot setback from the edge of the house as opposed to ten. The five foot allows the new structure to be in alignment with the historic home. It makes the new addition part of the old. If you go back ten it just makes for a crummy remodel. There are different shapes throughout the house and when you walk into a room it has to be make sense where you are going. Susan said she spent many hours trying to figure out what would work. Cynthia Milling said she supports the five foot setback as opposed to the ten. What Susan is trying to do is center the addition into the house and if you push it another five feet everything pushes to the right closer to my house. The vice-chair closed the public heating. Comments: Derek said the changes made are very positive. He understands the five foot setback as it makes this project adaptable. Bringing down the scale and mass has quieted the program somewhat which is beneficial to the project. Regarding the garage, Derek could not vote for the proposed location. If there were other amenities besides the back yard he might change his vote. When he draws a line from the face of the historic porch to the front facade of the garage we could be looking at something in the area of four feet that would not be a detriment to the back yard. By doing that it would give you the access online from the house that would be more sympathetic to the historic architecture. Sara said the drawings brought forward tonight are going in the right direction. She does not support the garage variance strictly for the fact if you strike a line, it is in front of our historic resource and it doesn't need to be there. The garage needs fine tuned. The five foot relief is a sympathetic solution and works well with the mass and scale of the historic resource. On the west elevation where the house meets the new addition, it is a poor delineation of what is going on there. There is the opportunity to bring back 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27~ 2005 the comer of the historic house. A massing model would help because the roofs are very tricky on this project. Jason said the changes in scale and the shapes meet the guidelines. Regarding the garage, if it were pushed back to the mud room a parking space in front would give a balance to the back yard. On the five foot setback of the kitchen there is the possibility of moving it further back, but the board seem to be OK with it. Michael said the changes brought in today are excellent in terms of addressing staff's concerns. The west elevation needs addressed at the next meeting. In terms of the variances requested for the garage the code says it needs to meet the criteria or you don't get the variance. Code section 26.415.110c states that HPC must make a finding that the setback variance is similar in pattern with the features and character of the historic property or historic district; and/or enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the meeting until August 24th; second by dason. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Sarah, Derek, dason, Michael 631 W. Bleeker Project monitoring David Warner said on the final drawings they had put on horizontal wood siding and we need to define what that is. We would like to use the square edge tongue and groove. What exists is a beveled siding on the historic house we would like to use the tongue and groove. It gives you the same scale but different. The board had no problem With the new material selected. 470 N. SPRING STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit ofposting - Exhibit I Michael recused himself. Jeffrey was seated. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27~ 2005 Sara said the site is located in the Oklahoma Flats neighborhood and contains a designated Victorian home which was moved to the site in the 1960's. Setbacks and a 500 square foot FAR variance were granted. Final review includes landscape and lighting plans which were not included. Staff recommends that they be approved by staff and monitor. On the fenestration, staff recommends that HPC discuss the window molding that is in the 1968 photograph to comply with section 3.1. They are taking a window out and replacing it with a large double hung and staff noticed that the molding was different in the photograph than what was presented on the plans. Staff also recommends the removal of the window located partially beneath the porch and also the window that is beneath the large double hung window on the primary faqade. They are not historic and we find that they are inappropriate on the primary facade. On the east elevation new windows are proposed and staff recommends that they look into the framing to see the sizes and shape of what was originally there if there is framing evidence. Materials: Exposure of the wood clapboard should be discussed and a size recommended. The fish scale shingles in the gabled end of the south elevation should be restored. Also the doors need discussed on the historic structure and new addition just to make sure they are characteristic of the Victorian era. The roof form of the connector piece has been altered from what was approved at conceptual. HPC approved an angled roof form to read as a gable from the street and the south elevation of the addition shows a half barrel roof form on the connector. We just recommend that the applicant return to the roof form that was approved at conceptual. Staff recommends that HPC grant final approval with conditions. David Warner, architect David said they will take offthe siding to see what they can learn about the siding and windows. The bay window is removed. Sara inquired about the post and if they were approved. David said they were approved at conceptual. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2005 Sara said she had no problem with the connector. Regarding some fenestration issues, the round window on the east facade seems quite foreign. The post design should be simplified for balance. Right now they bring a lot of attention and are quite busy. Derek said he had no issues with the posts or the round window on the east faqade. The suggestions from staff on the materials have been addressed. Jason said the connector is narrow and acceptable. He also agreed that the round window does not comply with the guidelines. He also said the posts are starting to get tall and busy next to historic building. Regarding the landscape plan, it can be approved by staff and monitor. Jeffrey thanked the applicant for compromising on the bay window. The skylight will be removed as a requirement for the FAR bonus. He also agrees that the intricacy of the posts in front of the garage need simplified. The roof form of the connector, the curved element should be simplified. He also agreed with staff on the simplification of the door detail. Jeffrey · said the board hasn't discussed how the cladding will occur on the historic 1968 foundation. The landscape plan and lighting plan will be approved by staff and monitor. He also mentioned that the HPC is interested in seeing the fish scale shingles in the south gable restored as per the photograph. This is a fine addition and is compatible with the historic resource. David said he can remove the round window, restudy the columns and doors. He would like to keep the curved roof on the connector. Derek commented that it would be almost impossible to detect the curved roof on the connector. MOTION: Sarah made the motion to approve Resolution #27 as stated in staff's memo granting major development for 470 N. Spring with the following amendments. 1. The posts on the west and east fafade are simplified and more. congruent with the historic resource as stated in our guidelines. 2. The removal of the round window and replaced with a square one. Take out condition #3 and gS. 3. The half barrel roof on the connector is approved. Motion second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Sarah, Derek, Jason, Jeffrey ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27~ 2005 430 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Christie Kienast presented for the owner Michael was seated. Sara relayed that the property is located on the comer of Main Street and North 4th St. The property is 9,000 square feet and contains one two-story historic structure that is represented on the 1904 Sanborn Map. The historic house was a residence from 1890 through 1991 and now operates as an office building. The applicant proposes to split the lot into one 4,000 square foot lot and a 5,000 square foot lot. There is a huge tree on the lot which cannot be moved so staff determined it would be best to shift the lot line toward the historic structure so that when they do propose development they can actually build something there. There is no development proposed. Christie passed out a survey indicated the new lot line position. Amy said the survey looks like it could even more two more feet toward the historic house. The tree is huge and it will be difficult to move any portion of the new building forward unless the lot is as wide as it can be. There is a shed in the back but it is not historic. Christie said the owner decided on the 40/50 division but she would be willing to discuss it with him. Amy said the zoning in that neighborhood has changed from office to mixed use and mixed use discourages residential. There is now a 20% reduction in what they can build in a house. Derek said if we go forward and say OK, and in the long mn we get someone that comes back and you really can't do anything on this lot due to the tree that can't be mitigated for what is the practicality of the split. Christie said the huge tree is almost on the ditch. Sarah pointed out that this is a comer lot and the mass should be on the comer. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27~ 2005 Derek said you have to make the lot bigger. You are going from a lot of 40 feet to 20 feet and you have a setback on one side and we are going to be asking that the mass be pushed back. Down the way there might be a call for solutions on the site. Amy said HPC is not creating any new development rights. Right now if they left it as a mixed use parcel they can get enormous amounts of square footage and the lot split requires that ½ of the lot be residential and we are deducting 20% of the FAR. If they had a 3,000 square foot lot it would be allowed 1,920 square feet with the new zoning and by making it 4,000 square feet it would be 2,144 square feet so you are talking about a relatively small building with the issue of the tree. Jason said the owner is keeping the empty lot and selling off the house. We need to keep it where it is to protect the historic resource. The new house will be a challenge. The division right now would be fair to both parties. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The chair closed the public heating. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #28for the lot split at 430 W. Main Street with a 50foot width on the lot with the historic resource and 40feet of width on the newly created lot and all of the other conditions as stated in staff's memo. Motion second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 5-0. Yes vote: Jason, Derek, Sarah, Michael, Jeffrey 435 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing on 435 W. Main Street until August 10,2005; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE - PUBLIC HEARING CONT'D FROM JUNE 22ND. CONCEPTUAL, DEMOLITION, VARIANCES Jason recused himself. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27~ 2005 New drawings - Exhibit I Amy said new drawings have been provided to try and resolve the conflicts of our guidelines. On the new drawings the connector has been made narrower to reveal the comers of the back of the house. It is also a one- story. Staff's concern is the deck on top of the connector which starts to express a second level and it creates some conflict as to how it connects to the back of the building, is this one story connecting under the eave or over the eave of the back of the historic house. Those are details that need resolved. We have allowed decks on connectors before and perhaps just pulling the railing back slightly is enough to mitigate the concerns. Guideline 10.10 talks about not destroying features of the house, the eave line of the building. The window wells need restudied, because some of them are a little more to the front of the house. The dormer on the new addition needs restudied to be a minor element behind the historic building per the guidelines. It creates a height conflict. We also need clarification of the FAR area. If the 500 square foot FAR bonus is needed to make this project work, then restoration needs to occur on the historic house. Kim Raymond, architect said she designed some complexity of the roof to break down the scale. The stairs are moved as far as could be into the new structure. The connector has been made narrower and the deck has been pulled back in so that you cannot see it from the street. The siding on the connector will be hardy plank and it is mostly glass on both sides. The railing could be more of a contemporary railing, somewhat of a see through railing. The deck steps the feature down from the tall element in the back which is a good transition. Most of the historic structure is covered with stucco and that will be taken off and replaced with siding that is as close to the original as we can do. On the east elevation the plate height has been dropped down. The window well on the west side was closer to the front porch and is now minimized but is necessary to get light and egress into the bedroom that sits under the historic resource. Amy pointed out that there is another building in the project. Staff has no conflicts with the guidelines on the garage/ADU building in the back but we might want to talk about windows and materials at some point but shape and placement is OK. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Discussion: Michael asked what the total square footage is. Kim said she very close and is probably a wash but close to 2486 square feet including the ADU. Amy pointed out that the 2,486 is the limit on each dwelling unit of 930 matchless. On 920 Matchless they have the right to do two detached houses. Sarah said extending the connector helps delineate the historic structure. She is interested in knowing where the addition was and if it was an historic addition then the FAR bonus becomes a concem. What needs restored on the historic house etc. Sarah going a little more transparent on the railing might work. Michael said in general he can support the plans but can't support the 500 square foot bonus due to the deck on the connector. It detracts from the historic resource. He also stated he could support the project as long as it came in under the maximum floor area. Amy said if the project is over the floor area it would have to come back to the board with some resolution. Jeffrey said the plans have been improved and staffbrought up some valuable points. The window well is a little close to the front porch and needs relief. The connector link is a better approach and the deck or handrail needs minimized. The handrail is problematic. Amy pointed out that the deck should be tucked under the eave line if that is possible. Jeffrey said the garage being set back complies with the guidelines. Unrelsoved issues 1.Tuck the deck under the eave of the back of the historic house. 2.Pull the deck railing away from the historic house about two to three feet to give relief to the back of the house. 3.Restudy the south facing dormer. 4.Reduce and restudy the location and size of the window well. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27~ 2005 Jeffrey suggested that the board approve the garage and ADU to help with the scheduling issue. Michael said he was uncomfortable making that decision. MOTION: Derek moved to approve the conceptual development for the garage portion of 930 Matchless drive and continue the main residence with the condition list as stated by Amy until August 24th; second by Jeffrey. Motion dies 2-2. Yes vote: Derek, Jeffrey No vote: Michael, Sarah MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for the application for 930/920 Matchless Drive until August lOth; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: Sarah, Michael, Derek, Jeffrey MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn the meeting, second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12