Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060913 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 408 E. COOPER AVE. MINOR REVIEW - COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND VIEW PLANE REVIEW.................................................................................................... 1 205 S. MILL STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 1 114 NEALE AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................................................... 1 218 S. THIRD STREET - HISTORIC DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION AND VARIANCES ...................................................... 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Jason Lasser, Sarah Broughton. Alison Agley and Michael Hoffman were excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Jackie Lothian, Deputy Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of August 30, 2006, second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Certificate of no Negative Effect - Door installed in the Woods building- old Aspen Drug Store. 408 E. COOPER AVE. MINOR REVIEW - COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND VIEW PLANE REVIEW Amy relayed that the application came in too late for her to review and we need to continue the meeting. Joe Larkin from Aspen Sports asked the HPC to review their calendars to see when Aspen Sports could be added. We want to do something that fits the community well. MOTION: Derek moved to continue 408 E. Cooper Ave. until Sept. 27, 2006; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 205 S. MILL STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW MOTION; Jason moved to continue 205 S. Mill Street, commercial design and public hearing to October 11, 2006; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 114 NEALE AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Amy said the project is a nice Victorian at the top of Neale Ave. It is a mine's cottage with a great contemporary addition on it and a project that we 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 are all happy with. The owner, Bret Thoeny would like to add a garage. The garage has been a long standing problem with the property. They didn't provide for any vehicular access. This summer we looked at a scheme that had a single stall garage and the board gave input and recommended a restudy. The issues were a driveway across the ditch in which the neighbor owns the water rights for the ditch and possible tree removals. The City received a letter from the water attorney which stated that the applicant is not obstructing the flow of the water and beyond that it is considered a private property issue. Bret focused a driveway off of Neale Ave. to eliminate some of the setback concerns and tree removal concerns. There are several driveways off of Neale. In the past Engineering was concerned with driveways off Neale. There is also a small tree that would need to be dealt with. Staff finds that Neale Ave. is not appropriate due to a pond on that end of the site and a proposed garage and a unit above it that have been pushed toward the front and they have been lined up with the miners cottage. They also have a similar height to the cottage which changes the sense as you come up the hill. It is very prominent. Staff finds that King Street is much more discrete and may need restudied. The only way we would support Neale Ave. is ifthere is some way to push the building back from the avenue or make it a one-story building. It doesn't appear that this site has a lot of allowable FAR at this point. The kind of construction that we are talking about will be through exemptions that the City provides for garages and or FAR bonuses. Jeffrey said either scheme would work. Bret Thpeny said we are adding about 150 square feet. We responded with King Street due to conflicts with the neighbors. The King Street requires a side yard variance from 5 feet to 2 Y2 feet. The Neale Ave. proposal had the addition lower than the main house. We are trying to add a guest room. One option would be to do a single car garage without a unit above. One tree would need to be mitigated. On the King Street side there are two trees of five inch diameter that will be displaced by the garage. Bret said he designed the garage to be subordinate to the Victorian. Sarah asked about the retaining wall. Bret said it is existing. Bret mentioned that the existing plan had a curb cut in the same dimension that he is proposing. Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 Alice Brien stated she owns the property below the cabin. The addition is fine with her; however, on her Main Street house they had to push the addition back. Possibly the garage could be pushed back to expose the historic house. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Derek said he feels the garage is in a better location due to the issues of the tree mitigation and water rights. Regarding the location of the garage the design is appropriate in massing and scale. It is also detached from the historical house and that is an appropriate consideration. Derek said he is comfortable moving forward with this. Jason said it would have been nice to see where the stairs are coming in. He also agreed with Derek regarding the garage being detached. It is a better solution. Guideline 10.3 is troublesome. Sarah said she is torn by Neale Ave. with another driveway on that road. If the garage was on King Street it might be a better solution; however, having a detached garage is very successful and sympathetic to the historic resource. Jeffrey also said he was torn with guidelines 10.3 and 10.4. talk about detaching the garage. The scale seems taller than the historic house. Neale Ave. is very challenging with the curb cuts and steep slopes with backing out of that driveway. Amy asked Bret ifhe could push the garage back further. Bret said he could probably work with the plan and push it back another two feet. He also said he could make the addition like the other addition with a white band and flat panels so that it doesn't compete with the historic house. He could also make the roof flatter which would lower the scale about two to three feet. Amy pointed out that we need a clear calculation of the FAR needed because bonuses are tied to something specific regarding a preservation effort. The applicant needs to demonstrate why they need extra square footage. Derek said he feels the issues could be addressed in materials if the board decided that the detached garage was a better solution. Sarah also agreed 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 that we need drafted elevations. The scale of the detached garage need restudied in order for the garage to be more sympathetic to the historic resource. Sarah also said she still feels there are massing issues. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty re-opened the public hearing. Linda Capellie said the garage issue has much improved. Her concern is the measurements of the garage but they have no other objections. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and Conceptual Development of 114 Neale Ave. to October 25, 2006; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Derek encouraged the new direction. Direction for the next meeting. Streets cape elevation and engineering discussion about entering from Neale Can the garage slide back a little bit? Plate heights dropped down. True elevations. 218 S. THIRD STREET - HISTORIC DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION AND VARIANCES Affidavit if posting - Exhibit I Letter from Dan McCarty - Exhibit II Letter from Kate Frankel- Exhibit III Sara said the house is a one-story 1958 Pan Abode cabin. It is located in the R-6 zone district and is largely residential and across the alley is the St Moritz. It is a unique lot because it was split at one point horizontally. The lot is 50 by 60. The Pan Abode itself is in excellent condition and it is indicative of Aspen's architecture post- WWII. The owners are interesting in adding the cabin to the inventory and designate it. They are also proposing to demolish an addition and relocate the cabin toward Third Street. They are proposing to add a new addition and request the 500 square foot bonus that would be used for the establishment of two TDR's. Variances are also being requested. Designation: Staff feels criteria A & C have been met. The house scored 83 out of 100 on the integrity assessment. The important thing about the Pan Abode is that it represents Aspen's early skiing era. This would be a great 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 addition to our inventory. The house is in its original location but the owner proposes to move it forward. Criteria C - the physical design demonstrates a method of construction that is indicative of a time or period. Staff is in support of designation due its rustic style. Conceptual: The addition is significantly set back from Third Street which is in compliance with our guidelines; however, staff finds some issues with mass, height and scale with its relationship to the Pan Abode. Possibly some of the programming could be moved. There are two garages proposed and one could be moved. The entire design needs to come into compliance with guidelines 10.6 which talks about the addition being compatible in scale with the main building. The connector piece height should be reduced. Regarding the roof, the Pan Abode has a shadow pitch and possible the roof forms could come down a little bit in order to have a coherent design on the property. Guideline 10.9 and 11.6 have not been fulfilled. Staff recommends that the entrance be moved away from the Pan Abode to create more of a subordinate function. Staff recommends continuation in order to study the roofforms and the overall project on the lot. Demolition: There is a 250 square foot unoriginal addition located at the rear of the Pan Abode and staff finds that there is no support indicating this addition is historic. Staff is in favor of demolishing that addition. Relocation: Moving the cabin closer to Third Street will create more space for a better addition. Overall it is a better preservation method. Staff is in favor of relocation. Variances: Staff met at the site and determined that the front yard should be S. Third Street. The house needs variances on all sides and staff is in support of the variances to promote a design that doesn't completely envelope the Pan Abode. Sara stated that the applicant proposes to restore the finish on the exterior logs to the original western red cedar finish. They also intend to replace the windows and roofing material on the Pan Abode to increase its energy efficiency. Staff is in favor of energy efficiency but it might be better to install interior storm windows rather than replacing the windows. Staff recommends that the applicant look into those options before replacing the 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 original windows. The bonus is being used for TDR's not for adding more square footage onto the property. At the next meeting staff can determine what setbacks are needed since it has been determined that the front is S. Third not West Hopkins. Bob Kendig, owner said they bought the lot in 1984 and it was split in 1979 as part of a divorce decree. The site is 3,000 square feet and the design of what we are trying to build is 2,400 feet of floor area which is the maximum size for that lot. We are seeking the bonus for TDR's. There is no place to put the house except in the back of the lot and the garage can only go on the alley. There is a large elm tree that we are trying to preserve in the front. The design has one bedroom above grade. We tried to keep the primary mass as far away from the closest neighbor which is the center of the lot. Bob addressed Sara's comments. Changing the garage might change the setback slightly but it wouldn't affect the overall mass. Lowering the height of the connector is difficult because the Pan Abode is only 7 Y2 to 8 feet tall. Taking out part of the connector reduces the square footage to the point where we loose too much. Sara mentioned moving the door to inside the connector and leaving it in the Pan Abode. The Pan Abode is too big to be an entry hall in a small house but once you make it the primary entry you can't use it for anything else. It is intended to be a library/office space. It is out intent to have the door remain and be functional; it just won't be the main entry. In summary we would like to keep the design as is. Heidi Hoffman said she just wants to keep it simple. All our public spaces are bare minimum. The height limit for R-6 is 25 feet. The house will be in basic shade for two months of the year. The design is directed toward solar gain and pushed toward the north. By keeping the Pan Abode in essentially its existing location we are continuing its prominence and opening it. The public view from South Third will be into a distinct front yard and putting the Pan Abode into its prominence. Heidi said regarding the height she would not want to mimic the 4x 12 pitch everywhere on this house. This is snow country and she wants to keep the snow shedding in specific locations. The steeper the roof the better. Derek asked Heidi what the report was from engineering to go to a zero lot line. We asked for a zero lot line but due to overhangs we had to set the house back from that. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 Jason referenced guideline 8.24 regarding the crickets on the roof. Heidi said everything will be internally drained. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Ann Mullens commented that the massing and roof height work with the neighboring structure. It might be good to look at the fenestration which is somewhat similar to the scale of the original structure. The roof line is a little too much of a contrast from the original building. The entry could be moved a little north on the site. Dan McCarty, neighbor. Dan pointed out that most homes footprints take up 42% of the lots and this one takes up 80%. The lack of open space on this lot after the redevelopment is minuscule to the rest of the neighborhood. Getting variances leaves no space on the property for grass and trees. That is my primary objection for going forward for this project. Dan recommended that the owners build a home on the site that conforms to the building codes in the City and setbacks. Theresa Kaspar, owner of333 W. Hopkins. There will be a wall adjacent to our house. She is opposed to a variance on the property line. She wants the setback to be five feet. This is for designation but the setbacks can be ignored. That is not right and she is against designation of the Pan Abode. Across the street a beautiful quality log cabin designated and to have this abode across the street facing each other and giving them equal status doesn't make sense to me. If the commission wants this building designated and the structure preserved the neighbors shouldn't have to suffer. Kate Frankel owner of 325 W. Hopkins. The owner questions that the Pan Abode is actually historic. She is opposed to the setbacks because she wants to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. The application should comply with all the Aspen zoning laws and be built within the code. Sara pointed out that in the R-6 zone lot sizes have to be 3,000 square feet to be eligible for an historic property and this house is. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 Derek said guideline 10.6 is driving this project which deals with scale and mass. It is too much house on that lot. There is too much mass and this was brought up in February. He is also concerned about allowing any variances. By denying the variances it would reduce the mass and scale. If the variances are not grant it might terminate the project which leads to the comment that maybe this property should not be designated. Being on HPC all aspects of the project need to be looked at. Mass and scale is driving the variance requests. Having a light well on the alley is also a concern and if the City will allow some kind of stabilization in the public right-of-way. Jason said he has similar concerns with mass and scale. Restudy of the roof forms is essential. We are talking about a connector piece that could be pushed back and smaller. The two car garage could also be restudied. We are looking at this to award two TDR's and it needs to be an exemplary project. Reduction in mass and the connector is essential for approval. Between the circular window and the large gabled fa<;:ade of glass next to the historic structure is in opposition of our guidelines. Continuity of the language in the windows would be more helpful. Jason is in favor Pan Abodes in the 40 year range being designated and they are part of Aspen's history. Having a massive wall in one giant plane behind the Pan Abode with three different roofforms is not compatible with the Pan Abode. Sarah thanked the applicant for the model. She appreciated breaking down the mass of the addition which is a start to address the scale. She encouraged the applicant to look at 10.9 and 10.6 - roofforms and now they can be more similar. Having an applicant that wants to designate their property is good but there are site constraints. Sarah agreed with her colleagues regarding mass and scale. Jeffrey said he appreciates the voluntary designation of the parcel. He would like to continue to help the applicant get through the process. 10.6 deals with mass and scale. The square footage is small. A one car garage would help the mass and scale. The secondary mass 2.7 needs additional investigation. The footprint is large. If the Pan Abode was raised it might help a little but then you have grade issues. The connector link needs restudied. Jeffrey said he understands the concepts of the steep roofs and heights in trying to respect the neighbors views etc. but they are competing somewhat ever though the pitches are similar at some points. The Post War buildings are indicative of our transition from a small mom and pop town into a nationally know ski resort. The question is how does this addition 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 comply with our guidelines. Guideline 10.6, 10.7, 10.9 are the key components of the guidelines. Jeffrey said he agrees with staff and encourages additional design. Heidi addressed her site constraints. As far as Engineering and the light well it all has to be stabilized. We are basically a three bedroom house and two bedrooms are downstairs. We will revisit mass and scale but the plans are minimal. The Pan Abode is very inefficient and we would like to replace the roof and windows mimicking the existing fenestration. Our idea about the entry is to close off the Pan Abode and that would be like a double lock entry. Amy said there is a deck facing the alley and maybe that can be turned around so that it is between the Pan Abode and the new addition. Possibly shift that and you would have a lot of southern exposure. Put the deck on top of the connector. Sara said possibly the connector could drop down a little with a step. . MOTION: Jason moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual developmentfor 218 S. Third Street until Nov. 8th; second by Sarah. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 4-1. MOTION: Jason moved to adjourn; second by Derek. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen 1. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 9