Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060412 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12. 2006 434 E. COOPER AVE. - DEMOLITION, PUBLIC HEARING ....................................... 1 100 E. BLEEKER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL ................................. 1 716 W. FRANCIS - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING .................................................5 ASPEN INSTITUTE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PH ................................................. 6 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12. 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Alison Agley, Derek Skalko and Jason Lasser. Michael Hoffman was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Jackie Lothian, Deputy Clerk MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the minutes of March 22nd; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Rod Dyer is representing 716 W. Francis. Jeffrey pointed out that Rod has done consulting for him but not on this particular project. His decision will not be influenced. 434 E. COOPER AVE. - DEMOLITION, PUBLIC HEARING Sarah stepped down. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearingfor 434 E. Cooper until May 2lh; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Certificate of no negative effect issued for 423 N. Second Street - George Hamilton house on Triangle Park. Approval for a door on an altered fayade. 100 E. BLEEKER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Amy relayed that this is a 3,000 square foot lot adjacent to the yellow brick school. It is on a comer lot. It contains a miner's cottage that has a one- story addition done in about 1985 and a detached non-historic garage along the alley. The applicant is requesting conceptual, demolition, relocation and variances. The proposal is to demolish the non-historic construction, pick the house up and move it forward two feet. One of the challenges is that this historic house is almost as wide as the lot. They want to replace the non- historic construction with an addition separated with a connector pushed back to the alley so they are asking for a few setback variances. They are also asking for aFAR bonus. Staff recommends approval of the demolition and approval ofthe on-site relocation. There is information about a Victorian house immediately to the east and it is important that a 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12. 2006 relationship is maintained between the two buildings. Maybe the house should stay exactly where it is or the connector could be shortened up. Staff supports the two-foot move. In the memo staff overlooked the east side yard variance for light wells and a combined side yard variance that will be dealt with at final. This is a comer lot and that makes it harder to make sure that the addition doesn't overwhelm the cottage. A natural evolution of the building needs to occur. As a suggestion maybe the west fayade of the addition, which is two stories tall, could have some variation to it. Possibly a popping out piece or moving the side entry into that area to give it more of its owned entity. We also have a concern with the proposal to have a deck on top of the connector. Rally Dupps - Exhibit II - new elevations Rally said they put a bay window in off the master bedroom on the west elevation that sticks out 30 inches. The window picks up some clues from the historic house, which are the bay windows. There is no yard so the deck is very important and we want to preserve it. In order to make the deck more palatable on the west side it has been cut back to where it doesn't overhang over the door. The decks stops right now at the connector. The deck handrail will be as transparent as possible. The connector piece will be very transparent and glass. Rally said we addressed the idea of the front door. Staff suggested moving the side door out of the connector. We moved the door over to the south elevation of the new residence so from Garmisch Street you just see windows and glass and no door. Mitch Haas said the west elevation is significantly better because of making it clear and not mimicking the historic structure. It doesn't look like one flat wall anymore. There is also a request for the 500 square foot FAR bonus. The idea is if we get the bonus we will come back at final for the request to sever the two TDR's off the property. Mitch said he feels the FAR bonus is warranted because we are removing a non-historic detached garage and we are doing some preservation work and restoring some non-historic windows on the fayade facing Garmisch Street. Amy clarified that on the idea of having a side entry staffis sometimes concerned that the front is being abandoned but that isn't happening here. The historic front door is coming to an active living space. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12. 2006 Mitch said the house is moving 1.8 feet forward. We are building to the alley. Variances Amy said the rear yard setback variance requirement is ten feet and they are only providing six inches. We noticed for 9.6. They need a 2-foot east side yard variance and a 5-foot west side yard variance. The setbacks that were neglected to be included in the memo are to allow light wells that are larger than required in the east side yard and the combined side yard setback vanances. Clarifications: Sarah clarified that a new door is proposed on the east side of the connector and a new window, drawing 8. Sarah also said on the east side of the historic resource there are windows. Rally said windows exist on the east and they are new. He would like to open them up and see what was originally there. Derek asked why the deck extension on the north elevation is going out as far as it is because you may potentially get ice damage. Rally said the owner wanted the deck as large as possible. They sacrificed and pulled the deck back on Garmisch Street. Derek also asked about the new bay window on the west and why it comes out 30 inches. Rally said coming out 30 inches would make that area nice for sitting. They added the bay window in order not to have a flat fa<;ade which was recommended by staff. Jeffrey asked Rally if they studied any other roof options. Rally said the view is over the top of the historic house. In order to be worthy of the bonus he felt that the gable should go the opposite way and the roofline should step down, as you get closer to the historic house. Jason said he feels the deck will not be used in the winter. Rally said he disagreed. After March 2151 the sun gets a little more of a western aspect and it is also higher. As the sun comes around the deck it would be used 9 months out of the year. There is a zero yard and the deck is the owner's only outside area. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12. 2006 "-. Jeffrey asked for an explanation of the restoration areas. Rally said there are four areas. The first one is on the W elevation, bay window, drawing 4. Rally feels double hung windows previously existed. The second opportunity on the W elevation, drawing 8. We are exposing at least 30% more of the north historic side with the addition. On the east elevation, the existing windows are vinyl and once we open up the framing we will be able to tell what existed. The garage and driveway will be removed to return to the historic streetscape. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner comments: Sarah pointed out that the revised drawings still do not address the scale issues that staff brought up. Having a protruding element two stories up in the air is very different in terms of scale and mass. In terms of the door location vs. where it was either one is OK. Moving the house 1.8 is OK. The 8-foot connector with the overhangs coming east does not meet our guidelines. It would be better if the connector were a true connector without the deep overhangs. Sarah also said the setbacks and demolition requested are appropriate. Sarah said before she can approve the FAR bonus further revisions are needed. Derek said the 8-foot connector is strong and important. Regarding the overhangs he is OK with them. Regarding mass and scale, the existing historic resource is such a linear element and the west elevation is a little too extreme. Alison said on the west fa<;ade she was picturing something different than a pop out at the master bedroom. Possibly the pop out could word if other fenestration was added to it. Moving the door to the addition is acceptable. Possibly there could be a compromise on the deck and have it more centered and back from the historic resource. The site is tight and moving the house 1.8 no one will notice. The setbacks and FAR bonus are warranted. The measures that you are doing to the restore the house to its historic form are a good effort and warrant the FAR. Jason said the variance for the setbacks are OK due to the constraints ofthe site. The mass in verticality could be broken up with materials. There is an 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12. 2006 opportunity to make the pop out 30 inches and incorporate it with a west side entryway. The 8-foot transparent connector would be more successful without the overhang to the east. Regarding the FAR if the verticality was broken up he could support the bonus. Jeffrey also agreed that the site has constraints. The flat plane of the western elevation is affecting the mass and scale. The materials are for final but the vertical nature of the proposed siding accentuates the height and maybe that needs restudied. The components of the FAR bonus include restoring the historic resource to its original openings and landscape improvements for the true historic orientation to the site. The connecting link on the new scheme is definitely more transparent. The two-story wall is causing some issues because it is a comer lot you are under more scrutiny. The volume and scale of the link works well and doesn't need adjusted. We need to make sure the integrity of the historic siding is maintained. Cutting the comer back would be a good thing but we need to see how that is detailed. The bump out in the master bedroom is a little problematic; wall vs. glazing ratio is in conflict with the historic resource. Restoring the historic resource warrants the FAR bonus. Mitch said everything said seems to be workable. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 100 E. Bleeker until May 24th; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 716 W. FRANCIS - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Amy relayed that the project that took place in the early 1990's. It is a miner's cottage on a 9,000 square foot lot and the project was reviewed and a change order came in without realizing that a setback problem came about. The new owner would like to resolve his non-conforming lot. Staffis recommending approval for the variance. The code reads that garage area only can be 5 feet from the rear yard setback but living areas need to be 10 feet back and they only have five feet. They need a five-foot variance for the master bedroom. Staff recommends approval. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12. 2006 Rod Dyer represented the applicant. The lot is 7,500 square feet, 2 Y, lots. The original drawings that Cunniffe's office did showed that the master bath being setback additional 5 feet from the face of the garage; however, sometime during construction they applied for five feet and that was approved but in researching the project we found out that this was a violation and we are here to amend it. The property next door is in the same situation and we do not know if they got an encroachment etc. Amy said the previous owner had put railroad ties in the right-of-way and that situation needs resolved and grass planted. Jody Edwards, attorney for the client added verbiage for the motion to further clarify the resolution. In the event the City Engineering Dept. shall not grant or after granting shall revoke any such encroachment license, the lack of that encroachment license shall not invalidate the variance granted hereby. Amy clarified if the railroad ties are removed and grass replaced they do not need an encroachment. Steve Briggs said he would work with the Parks Department. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing section of the meeting was closed. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution #8 for 716 W Francis as proposed with the addendum commentary. The applicant will pursue an encroachment license within 30 days. Failure of the Engineering Dept. to issue a license or subsequently revoke the license will not invalidate the variance granted; second by Jason. Motion carried 5-0. Roll call: Jason, Derek, Alison, Sarah, Jeffrey. ASPEN INSTITUTE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PH Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I JeffBeckus, architect Jim Curtis, institute representative The applicant would like to pursue and environmental artwork by Andy Goldsworthy. They have contracted with him and have a specific design to present. The institute is not completely designated, only certain buildings 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12. 2006 and the meadows around the building. The location where the sculpture is _. going is designated historic. We do not have any information that Herbert Bayer designed the meadow. No historic resource is being destroyed. We don't have guidelines that are specific to this. The one sited in the memo talks about making revisions or additions to landscape that are consistent within the historic context. Staff supports the project. Jim Curtis said he hopes everyone find this rock wall to be fun and entertaining. Jeff Beckus said the primary interest of the institute is to bring people together in a common ground. When Andy saw the context of the site and looked at Red Mountain it occurred to him that what makes sandstone is ore and ore is the common element in all-living things. The wall will be made of red sandstone brought in from 7 continents. For the last six months he has been researching whether that can be pulled off. Sandstone will come from China, India, Scotland, Australia and Middle East. 55 to 65% of the wall will come from Colorado sandstone. Andy is all about human's connection to nature so the wall will come from nature through the building. Jeffrey asked if there was discussion about how the wall ends up near the parking area. Jeff said Andy would work on the termination. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened up the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Board comments: Jason said he supports the idea of the sculpture tied into the landscape. Sarah said it is great getting a renowned artist and it goes along with the Aspen idea. This art is counter to the other earth forms on the campus. Everything else is away from the buildings and now this art is interacting with buildings and the wall is dividing. You can't sit on the wall either and it is so foreign. Sarah does not feel this particular artwork is appropriate for this site. Jeffrey pointed out that our guidelines are somewhat vague in trying to make a position either way. Jeffrey is concerned with the beginning and ending point of the sculpture and how that is detailed out. He can support the project. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12. 2006 ',. Jason inquired about the pointed top vs. a flat top on the sculpture. Jeff said the idea of the pointed top is really to create a precise interface of the floor of the building. Jason and Derek are in support of the sculpture. MOTION: Jason moved to approve the minor development for the artwork at the Aspen Institute as designed; second by Derek. Motion carried 4-1. Roll call vote; Jason, yes Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Jeffrey, yes; Sarah, no. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Derek. All infavor, motion carried. 5-0. Kathleen 1. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 8