Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060927 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 134 E. Hyman - Hearthstone - Public Hearing - Designation ...................... 2 110 E. Bleeker Project Monitor ...................................................................... 2 922 W. Hallam St. - Minor Review and Variances........................................ 3 434 E. Cooper, Bidwell Designation - Public Hearing .................................. 6 320 W. Hallam - Conceptual- Demolition, Relocation, Variances, Parking Waiver - Public Hearing............................................................................... 13 18 . o. '" ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 I Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Jason Lasser, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk John Worcester, City Attorney I I I I I Disclosures: Sarah will recuse herself on 434 E. Cooper - Architectural firm hired. Any will recuse herself on 922 W. Hallam - 922 is Amy's adjacent neighbor. Public Comments: Toni Kronberg asked HPC if they met with Council regarding the concerns of the moratorium. Michael said the board was invited to the meetings. The moratorium has been extended for another four months to get a handle on what is being approved. Two projects are in direct conflict with HPC, the guidelines and the zoning and those being the Comer of Galena and Main and the Conner cabins. Things need to be in compliance with the AACP. Jeffrey replied that the board is very interested in what is going on with our town and they are well informed. We have been working with staff and are engaged. Commissioner comments: Sarah said her concern is the definite character changes on Main Street in terms of our historic Main Street core. The loss of on-street parking on Main Street is a concern. We are loosing the residential scale. Jeffrey also agreed that Main Street has a different character. I I I I Sarah said a roof permit was issued for American National Bank to screen the mechanical equipment. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 134 E. Hyman - Hearthstone - Public Hearing - Designation MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the Designation and Public Hearing on 134 E. Hyman until October 25th; second by Jason. All infavor, motion carried. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the minor development and public hearing on 408 E. Cooper to October 25th; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. 110 E. Bleeker Project Monitor Rally Dupps, architect - Rally stated that the project was approved in Dec. 2004. The owner would like to go forward. In the previous approval we did not have any underground space accounted for under the historic house. The City has revised its policy regarding light wells and setbacks. The house was approved with large light wells in the setbacks. One was 8 feet long. Now the City code limits the light wells to 3 x 3. Rally revised the plan to re-position the light wells so that they are not in the setbacks. The monitors were uncomfortable and wanted the board to review the light wells. The front of the light well is set back 16 feet from the historic house and five feet back from the new addition. It will be completely invisible. Have a central large light well as opposed to several smaller one is a better plan. Amy informed the board that the original approval did not approve the relocation or putting a basement under it. The building is brick. Rally said the house would not be moved. The one central light well would serve the new basement under the historic house. Bill Bailey will install steel beams to shore up the house and then we will excavate from the north side. We would shore up every four feet as we excavate. Rally said there is a root cellar so they can expand from there. Amy said we are dealing with the change oflocation for the light wells and the issue of the basement. They aren't relocating the building. We might want to ask for additional information and assurances as to how they will lift the building. Jeffrey suggested a structural analysis. Sarah said she is a monitor and was concerned about the exposure of the historic house but seeing the elevations and knowing it is set back 16 feet 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 she is more comfortable. There is a benefit of having a light well function for bedrooms. Jason said after seeing the drawings it is better to have one long one. Alison also agreed that the revised plan is better than having six light wells down the site. Amy said the relocation standards don't apply because they aren't moving the house. Jeffrey asked about the FAR. Rally said it is getting less by 150 square feet. Jeffrey asked the attorney if there should be some kind of formal hearing due to the adjustment of square footage. Rally pointed out that the city changed its policy that his client didn't ask for. John Worcester said typically the applicant would want any changes formalized to protect him in the future but if they aren't requiring it and staff isn't requiring it then it doesn't need to be put on an agenda. Clarification needs to be made what HPC is asking for. I I Clarification: The revised light wells are OK. Submit a report from house mover. Report from structural Engineer. Submit all the normal requirements for relocation. 922 W. Hallam St. - Minor Review and Variances Affidavit oflegal notice - Exhibit I Sara stated that the subject property is located in the Aspen Historic Cottages Subdivision but it is not an historic residence. A number of plantings and trees were added to the residence without HPC or staff approval. The zoning officer stated that they needed variance for the plantings and that they were not guaranteed that the landscaping could stay. What is before HPC is minor development for the landscape and a variance from the Residential Design Standards regarding a height limit for hedge rows. They can't be over 42 inches high in the front yard. Design guidelines: The spruce trees that are planted in a row are in question right behind the fence. At mature growth they will grow to at least six feet high and about 40 feet in diameter. Design guidelines 1.13 and 1.14 are not 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 met. It is inappropriate to plant a hedge row that blocks the view into the yard. Residential design standards: They are going to need a variance from the height limit of hedges. Chris Bendon determined that the trees do create a hedge row. There are two criteria that apply in determining whether a variance can be granted. 1. Context - the neighboring houses do not have hedge rows. 2. Site constraints - There is traffic that goes in front of this house but staff doesn't find that the location of the residence on a highly traffic street warrants a hedge row. Staff recommends that the spruce trees be removed and relocate them somewhere else on the property. The Parks Dept. also recommends that they be transplanted somewhere else on the property. Sara said the small planting in front of the fence is OK. Lucas Pack represented Christine Markey. There weren't trees planted without permission. The Markey's called the Parks Dept. of the City and were told that they were allowed to plant trees. After the trees were planted this became an issue. Lucas pointed out that the house directly to the west of922 is completely blocked by huge evergreens and the Sagewoods' have six foot juniper brushes in front. Across the street, all the condos are blocked by trees for the very reason of noise. This is not something new. This is the only stretch of two lane row on HWY 82. It is bottle neck. These houses are five feet below the road. There is pollution etc. and the houses need some protection and a row of spruce trees does do the job. I I Michael asked for clarification of events when the trees were put in and when the rules were changed. Sara explained that the process was not clear cut. Sarah apologized that the applicant was given misinformation and we have all been in similar situations at one time or another. HPC feels strongly about these types of things and we need to know if this is a new rule. . I I I I I Michael said it is his understanding for historic lot splits landscaping has to come to the HPC. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 Jeffrey said in defense of the applicant and getting misinformation, they were just trying to improve their house. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Monique Statutiori - It is my understanding that the historic resource is next door. When we talk about the trees growing up they are not obscuring the historic resource. Sarah clarified that the Residential Design Standards apply to the entire neighborhood. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Alison stated there is a problem with guideline 1.13 which talks about selecting tree material according to its mature size. She has a problem with how many trees they have chosen. It will be too thick and impact the historic resource next door. Regarding constraints she feels there should be some shielding from the street. Possibly thin out the trees. I I I I I I Jason said it would be nice for a design/landscape plan. It is unfortunate the mistake was made with the City. The design should be more sensitive and be a well thought out plan. Michael said the way that the spruce trees have been plal)ted will constitute and hedge row in violation of the Residential Design Standards. He also agreed that the traffic is brutal and it would be useful to have this as a buffer. He regrets that the City gave the applicant the wrong information. I I I Sarah also agreed with Michael. Under the standards B there might be some guidance for thinning and possibly a way to comply and have some kind of protection. Jeffrey apologized for the communication error. He understands the request due to the traffic, buffer, dogs children and sound. Part of the issue is to keep the consistency across the historic resource. The appearance is that it is a bit aggressive on the historic resource. 1.13:"- revisions should be consistent with the historic context. The standards also talk about site constraints. He is in agreement with the commission to work with what we have here and thinning out the trees and or relocation might work in order to not have a hedge row. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 Lucas Pack addressed the 42 inches. The intent is to not let these trees grow. They will keep them small and trimmed. They do not want to block their view. They would be pruned to the size that they are now. Lucas passed around a photograph of a lilac tree that blocks the house next door. Michael pointed out that this seems more like a tree/hedge issues than an historic preservation issue. Michael recommended that the applicant get together with the Parks Dept. or whom ever makes the determination as to what constitutes a hedge row. Sara pointed out that the threshold is the hedge row but there is also a minor development that needs approved for landscaping a property. Sarah said basically we are voting to eliminate the hedge row upon the discretion of the Parks Department, applicant and Community Development. Michael suggested that they come back with a finalized plan after meeting with the appropriate departments. . MOTION: Michael moved to continue 922 E. Hallam until Oct. 1 th; second by Jason. All in favor motion carried. 434 E. Cooper, Bidwell Designation - Public Hearing Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Amy: This is review for landmark designation for 434 E. Cooper Ave. commonly know as the Mountain Plaza Bldg. or Bidwell Bldg. It is on a 9,000 square foot lot in the downtown historic district and was built in 1965 to replace a Victorian structure that had collapsed. Fritz Benedict's office is responsible for the design. As HPC knows there was a recent review of demolition request here and the board approved that. City Council was informed and under their call up provision they did consider a call up of the discussion but opted instead to initiate landmark designation. Staffs recommendation is that the property does meet the criteria for designation and we recommend that HPC make the recommendation to Council. 'Council has the final decision. Amy: There are two tests that a building from the Post war era needs to pass in order to be declared a landmark. The first is a discussion of its associated 6 I I I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 qualities, its historic place in Aspen's history and the second is the integrity test. There are three ways that a property can become historic; associative events, patterns or trends that have made a contribution, associated people that have made contributions or it represents a physical design that has distinctive characteristics. The building was built in 1965 and ten years later the City declared the downtown to be an historic district. It is clear when they originally declared it historic and we developed guidelines there is a lot of language that addresses the Victorian character of downtown but there is nothing that says more recent buildings couldn't be considered historic and contributing. Although we haven't dealt with this in the commercial core we have dealt with it on Main Street. The idea ofrecognizing modem examples of modem historic preservation has been laid for at least 30 years. Actually the same year that the district was created the City began designation of post War era resources including lift 1. The memo addresses the standards by talking about Fritz Benedict. The project was developed in his office and his name is on the building permit and on the architectural drawings. There were other people involved; however, we still attribute this to him and his design philosophy and something that was produced under his guidance. Fritz Benedict was elected by his peers into the Fellows of American Institute of Architects. He was given numerous local awards, Greg Mace award, Aspen Hall of Fame and the HPC gave him an award for contributions to the built environment. Staff finds that criteria B is met. Criteria C talks about the significance of the design. We feel it is an excellent representation of his design philosophies. The characteristics of the flat roof, deep overhangs, floral motifs on the balustrade and open court yard. He had a very strong landscape background and maybe in some way that was his effort to address landscape and outdoor space in a more urban setting. The building is not purely Wrightian in design; however we find that it meets many of the standards that are in our context paper and in the memo. Staff finds that criteria Band C are met and only one needs to be. Integrity Assessment: Staff assessed the building with 96 out of 100 points and it needs 75 points to qualify as an Aspen landmark. Overall we feel the building is unaltered. The only thing that needs reduction in points is the alteration of windows. We also took some points of on the setting because when the building was built the malls didn't exist yet, so it faced streets. Staff supports designation. Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning Herb Klein, attorney; John Rowland, architect 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 Mitch clarified that Council did call up the demolition and considered whether or not to overturn the HPC decision but upheld the decision and determined that it was arrived at in an appropriate manner. Mitch said the same issues that were presented a month ago exist today. The building was found to be acceptable for demolition. It is out position that it is not worthy oflandmark designation. Had it been worthy this commission would not have approved its demolition. Mitch started with the principles of the commercial core historic district from the design guidelines Chapter 13. The policy of Chapter 13 states that compatible and creative design solutions to the buildings that are landmark designated should be encouraged. Designating this building a landmark means that compatibility with this building hence forth should be acceptable. Any building that comes in from here on should not necessarily have to follow the guidelines with what is compatible with the Victorians buildings in the district but should be able to come in with a sunken courtyard and follow the design principles that are supposedly attached to this building. The background section of Chapter 13 explains that each historic building significantly contribute to the integrity of the district. If this building is designated historic and contributes to the integrity of the district then any building going forward that is compatible with this building should be acceptable. A big part of that means you would need to re-write your guidelines because they would not find any such buildings to be acceptable. The guidelines state that the characteristics of the commercial core district that the city was platted on a grid system oflots and blocks and buildings were typically sited parallel to these lot lines. The layout of early buildings, streets and sidewalks, alleys can still be seen in this system and should be maintained. This building does not follow the grid street system; it is set back in an L shape ignoring the comer of the grid. In the guidelines it states that open space has occurred as accents along the street. In more recent years outdoor space eroded the street edge and that is the case with this building. The guidelines go on to state that these conditions are not precedence for new development. If you make this building a landmark that is precedence for future development. The guidelines talk about building setbacks in the commercial core. There is a uniform wall of building fronts that is vitally important to the historic integrity of the district that needs to be preserved. Landmark designating this building runs counter to that statement. This building does not provide that uniform wall building front on the street edge. You step away with a 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 sunken courtyard. The guidelines state that one of the most important unifying elements of the commercial core historic district is the similarity of building forms. Designating this building would break up the unity. The guidelines explain further about comer lots. Comer lots exhibit special features that add accents; comer entrances, towers and store front entrances. These locations are often vocal points for public activity and therefore sitting areas. You can't sit on that lot because you are about 12 feet below grade. The commercial core has no precedent for designating this sort of building. The only ones that are designated in the core are from the Victorian era. Architectural styles in the guidelines describe the commercial and industrial buildings. No where in the guidelines does it speak about Western or Wrightian, Mountain or Post War. I I I Mitch said the Bidwell building is not a strong example of Benedict's Wrightian training. It is not a good example and does not follow the local influences. This building has never been represented as Aspen's growth as a ski town such as chalets etc. Criteria for landmark designation. Mitch said the building is at best loosely associated with Fritz Benedict. As we discovered it wasn't designed by Fritz, it was designed by Bob Sterling and the project architect before him. We have stated that it is not a good example of Fritz's training. Wrightian examples in this building are the flat roof, the balustrade and the open courtyard. None of those things had anything to do with Fritz's inspiration in this building. The flat roof was the result of the client wanting to build this building as cheaply as possible. The wrought iron balustrade is basically because Bert Bidwell had a friend on the front range that worked in wrought iron and he could get that done easily. Regarding the courtyard he had a client that wanted a sunken courtyard space. None of these had anything to do with Wrightian principles or inspiration. They were purely done on client driven considerations and keeping this building built as cheap as possible. We have called this an interpretation of modem commercial to Wrightian to Western to Mountain style. We don't even know what it is and it cannot be embodies in a specific design philosophy. This building is not an example of technical or aesthetic achievements of Fritz Benedict. Fritz was a great man and he did and carried Aspen to where it is. Most of that was in landscape architecture. Mitch also said he is not sure Wrightian design philosophy was deemed important in the commercial core district in the first place. If it was there would have been a push to re-write Chapter 13 9 I I I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 of the historic preservation guidelines. Mitch posed the question how a building that this commission voted and allowed demolition just a couple of months ago now be found worthy oflandmark designation. It is the same issues and nothing changed. HPC deliberated long and hard on these issues and made the correct decision then. It is only reasonable you support the same decision you made two months ago. Herb Klein submitted for the record: 1. Affidavit of publication. 1. Transcript of the May 24th hearing. II. Mitch Haas memo to the HPC March 24, 2006 III. Letter written to John Worcester dated Sept. 19,2006 I I I I I I Herb said he knew Fritz Benedict. He was his first landlord when he came to town in 1974. Fritz was a giant in our community. This has more to do with what Fritz would have wanted. You just have to wonder with a guy with his talents would he want this to be held up as a fine example of his work. There is evidence that this is not Fritz's work. In the Lyons report there are notes from a phone conversation with Bob Sterling who was an' architect in Fritz's office that took over for Jack Campbell that Jack Campbell did the design of the building. Jack Campbell had a falling out with Bert Bidwell and Sterling was asked to take over the job. In the report it states that Fritz generally passed off designs to others in his office except for residential. At the last meeting Georgia Hanson said she had a direct conversation and this was not something that he would particularly like to have his name on. In the position paper it talked about other examples of Fritz's work: Bank of Aspen Building, Design workshop building and the Gant. These buildings are better examples of Fritz's work. Lets designate those. There are major problems with this structure. The toilets back up and they can't fix them because the sewer lines are underneath the building. Structurally it is questionable and probably cannot support another story. On the renovation it would be very problematic. Keeping this cannot be in the best interest of the community. If you landmark it basically what you see is what you are going to get. I do not think in this case that this building is a prominent building of Fritz Benedict. In closing I would like to ask you a few questions for you to think about before you vote. Is this building what should be emulated in a new design in this location? 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 What guidelines would apply to a renovation of this building ifit were landmarked? If the Red Onion or Independence Building burnt down and had to be replaced what guidelines would apply? Should they build something that looked like it was built in the 1960's like this building and have a court yard. What affect would this landmark have on your ability to guide development to this important area of the core. How would you harmonize the Bidwell bldg. design with an owner wanting to do a Victorian. Do you think fans of Fritz Benedict would like to see a plaque on this building that says this building is an embodiment of Fritz Benedict achievements as an architect and would you like that plaque to have your names on it. Michael clarified that City council upheld HPC's decision. John Worcester said HPC actions were appropriate. Council could not find that HPC violated due process or that you abused your discretion or exceeded your jurisdiction which is slightly different what Mitch stated. I I I Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Les Holst stated he was on HPC for 8 or 9 years. He complimented Mitch and Herb on their presentation. Compatibility does not mean replication. What it means is that in the future you will demand good architecture. When we are talking about historic preservation we are really talking about human scale and massing. Your mandate by the state is maintaining historic community and you have been given tools to do this; far, tax breaks. If you designate this building what it gives you is the ability not to have another Mother Lode. You made a couple mistakes and the Boomerang was a mistake. By designating this building you will be able to work with the applicant and get something out of that building that is compatible with downtown in scale and massing. It meets the criteria of designation. When people walk down town you preserve a certain scale that enables them to live there. In New York they lost the Metropolitan and finally saved Carnegie Hall. We have lost enough now and we all make mistakes. We lost one building when I was on the board and that was the infill across from Gracy's. We did the wrong thing for all the right reasons. If you ever de-list anything federal mandates are that you bring it into compliance first. If you bring the building into compliance you don't have to de-list it. You have the tool to demand good architecture. Do your job and keep every building you can in town so that you have some control as to what goes on in the future. . 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 Toni Kronberg said the way she looks at this is that HPC was asked to approve a demolition of a building. Council in the call up has asked you to look at the entire property which includes the court yard. It is her belief that Council wanted to call up to preserve the court yard. The decision that you made was probably the right decision when you are talking about a building but Council took a look at the bigger picture when they realized the landmark designation, the building itself were not in sink with each other. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Alison stated that she is remaining consistent with how she voted the first time. She agrees with staff that the building is older than 40 years and it meets criteria Band C. She doesn't agree with Mitch in how he stated that if we keep this building that we need to change our guidelines for downtown. I do not believe that everything we designate has to fit into the Victorian and or what today's guidelines state. Michael said he feels the same way Alison does. We are being asked to come up to a brand new decision when we considered this at length three or four months ago. I feel that is unfair. Michael addressed Les's comment which is if we designate we have authority over the structure and therefore guide its redevelopment. First of all that is not really true. If we designate the redevelopment has to be closely in line to what is there presently. Philosophically and personally I give more weight to private property rights. There is nothing in our land use code that compels me to designate 26-415- 010. Section 26-415-030 has to do with the designation of properties and states that designation of properties to an official list know as the Aspen Inventory of historic landmark sites and structures which is maintained by the City of Aspen is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what areas and features of historic buildings are a value to the community. It then goes into the criteria. I would submit that this is not a systematic approach that we are to act on in an ad-hock basic to find this property to be historic because it happened to come to city council. Frankly, that is not fair. Much of the justification of the preservation for this structure is founded on the findings of the Tatanka Associates report. The last paragraph is very significant and points out why this is extremely a hard decision for this commission. This is a close call. Michael said his recommendation to City Council is that they do not designate this property historic. The owner's private property interest out weight the interest of the City to maintain this as an historic structure. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 I I Jason agreed with Michael's statements. We approved demolition and we certainly looked at this project with serious eyes. We had several meetings to come to a conclusion. My decision was based on the history of the town and history of the grid. If there were a commission at the time this building were built it would have been built differently. When we talk about style it is really a "budget brick Bauhaus". Jason said he is standing on his decision previously. Fritz's history in this town is very important and at the same time we made a decision. Jeffrey commended staff and the applicant on an excellent presentation as well as the commission. Guideline 26.4150.30 regarding the technical aspects we did have very thorough discussions and research on this particular property. HPC felt as a commission that it did not strike all of the necessary criteria to be a landmark building. Our job is to help and preserve and protect the scale and mass and visual plane of the commercial core not just the historic structures that are so intermixed inside the context of Aspen. HPC thought long and hard over this building. We know this building inside and out. When it got down to the specifics this particular structure did not meet the criteria. The sunken courtyard is the biggest problem and it is something that should never happen again. It is a dead space and doesn't work and never has worked. We should not be setting this as an example. Jeffrey stated that he is not in support ofland marking this structure. Mitch stated whatever comes in as a proposal for the property HPC has review authority over it. MOTION: Michael moved to recommend to City Council that they deny historic designation for 434 E. Cooper; second by Jason. Motion carried 3- 1. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Alison, no; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 320 W. Hallam - Conceptual- Demolition, Relocation, Variances, Parking Waiver - Public Hearing Exhibit I and II - Affidavits of posting. Pete Rispoli letter Exhibit III Sara stated that the subject property is a 6,000 square foot lot that was created through a landmark lot split in 2002 with a two story Victorian on the property built in 1884. The Victorian sits on the front of the property 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 along Hallam Street. There are three unoriginal out buildings that encroach along the alleyway to the rear of the property. Adjacent to the property is a 1966 Pan Abode that is designated and was part of the lot split. There are some alternations that were performed on the Victorian including a shed roof dormer that was added in 1983. The porch was enclosed around 1971 and a rear shed roof addition was added in 1971. The kitchen was added after 1971. The property is significant as it represents upper middle class residence during Aspen's mining era. It is largely intact. It is located in Aspen's West End area. The work proposed would affect the integrity score. They are also proposing to move the residence one foot east of where it is presently located which we believe is the original location to build a foundation and to bring it into compliance with setbacks. The addition to the Victorian complies with the guidelines. There is a 13 foot long connector piece that connects the new construction to the old. Staff finds that guideline 10.6, 10.7, 11.5 are all in compliance. They are proposing a stronger foundation for the structure. Staff said the applicant is capitalizing on many of the historic preservation benefits that are available to the property, one of which is adding a third residence to the site and not having to mitigate for affordable housing etc. Because of these benefits staff feels there should be a stronger rehabilitation measure. Staff is requesting that the applicant open the front porch and restore it to its original configuration. Remove the shed dormer from the front as it does not comply with our design guidelines. The applicant is also proposing to replace the asphalt shingled roof to cedar shingles. Removing the kitchen addition would increase the integrity score because it is not original but we do understand that there is some personal significance to the owner and we are not including that in our conditions of approval. Moving onto the detached residence the desi'gn guidelines are in compliance,l1.2, 11.4 11.5. It is a small scale residence one story subordinate to the two story Victorian and has a shed roof form. Demolition: The three sheds on the alley do not exist on the 1905 Sanborn map and they don't exist on the aerial photo of 1969. Criteria D states that no documentation exists and staff recommends demolition approval. Relocation: The applicant intends to relocate the historic resource one foot east and that is an appropriate preservation method. They need to build a new foundation which will stabilize the historic resource and bring the 14 I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 residence into compliance in that zone and there is also the benefit of a sub area that is proposed which removes a lot of the massing above grade. There are variances from the residential design standards that need to be granted. Staff will administratively approve these variances finding that the criteria are met. In terms of the street oriented entrance, it is required that there is a covered entry porch of 50 or more square feet with a minimum depth of six feet. The proposal is a three foot porch element and staff finds that is acceptable. I Staff stated that there are some setback variance required and we support them. On the east side yard there is a variance for a light-well which is on the new detached residence. The light well allows for sub-grade development and keeps the mass of the detached residence to a one story. There is one on-site parking waiver on the site. Staff finds this appropriate 'because they are putting the residence on the alley. Overall staff recommends approval with conditions. Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Derek Skalko, architect Mitch said when Grettel Uhl passed away her son Anton came to me to talk about what he could do with the property due to inheritance taxes. Thus a lot split was created with aFAR bonus. In exchange we would voluntarily designate the Pan Abode. Derek Skalko was involved with the re-design of the Pan Abode structure in which the HPC granted an award for. The FAR bonus given to the property has already been earned in designated the Pan Abode. On this Victorian house we are repairing the roof and putting a foundation under a building that is not settling evenly. We are satisfied with staffs recommendation. We have one small issue, opening the porch and restoring it to its original design. We would like time to restudy that and bring it back at final. We are not sure that is the best solution due to energy code reasons; the porch may have been done by Grettel because it has ski storage hangers and mitten lockers etc. that were put in there by Grettel. If you open the porch those things will have to come out. Derek has done an incredibly sensitive job with the addition. Sarah inquired about two houses on one lot. Amy said on a 6,000 square foot landmark R-6 lot you can have two detached house by right. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 Isabelle Melvin said she lives in the Pan Abode. Isabelle request a little more time to study the impact of taking down the old pine tree and also how close the light well will come to her property. Sara said Peter Rispoli's family lives at 323 W. Hallam and they have lived there for seven years. He is voicing his objection as well as several of his neighbors, Donna Dilanni and Steve and Irene Nathan to the request of the waiver of one parking space. He states by granting a parking waiver you are putting a car in front of the historic resource and that is not in keeping with the guidelines. He also points out that HPC supports plaques on historic houses and there is a lot of foot traffic in this area and with the car parked in front you wouldn't see the historic plaque. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Jason relayed that he is Ok with restudying opening the porch. With regard to the setbacks we need to be sensitive to the 2 feet on the east side due to the adjacent neighbor. He is OK with the demolition of the sheds. Jason said he understands the neighbor's arguments but cars are movable and he can support the parking waiver. Sarah thanked the applicant for a thorough application and the streetscape elevation. She agrees with staffs memo on all accounts. The variances can be worked out. Sarah said she feels very strongly about the front porch and taking that back to an open condition to the period of significance. That is something that will enhance this property. The project in totality is in compliance with our guidelines. Sarah said she can approve everything including opening up the front porch. I Michael totally agreed with Sarah's comments. Alison also supported the project and is in favor of staffs recommendation. She does have concerns with the waiver of the parking space. She is not positive there isn't room for one small car. She also feels the front porch should be restudied and opened up and the light well variance needs restudied. I Jeffrey said he understands the neighbors regarding their privacy. He is in total support of staffs memo in addition that the shed dormer face the south as well as the front porch being opened up. It would warrant the FAR bonus provided that the restoration effort come back to the period of significance. 16 I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 It is in congruence with Chapter 10. Thecriteria for demolition and on-site relocation are met. It is also showing conformity to the residential design standards. Jeffrey recommended a restudy of the parking to see if a space could be on-site somewhere on the parcel. I I I I I I I I I I I Derek Skalko, architect thanked the HPC for all their comments. Derek addressed two elements, the height of the secondary mass and the variances. The owner of the Pan Abode is the neighbor most heavily impacted by the structure. We have ever right to go up to a two story mass on the project and we are leaving FAR off the table. We could have looked at a 10-x12 gable but decided it wasn't appropriate for this site specifically because of its relationship and context to the structure next door. We are trying to keep the mass at an absolute minimum to protect the neighbor's views and what feels right on that site. The reason the structure is pushed back is directly responding to the two cottonwoods. What feels right is keeping the site open and requesting a parking variance. There is physically no where to go with a parking space without pushing the mass upward. The physical mass of the east side of the property is six feet off the property line. We are actually one foot in from the five foot setback. The only thing going into it is the light well. Derek pointed out that the Pan Abode addition takes the mass all the way to the five foot setback and it had the same variance granted for a light well. The owner at that time did not enact on doing a larger light well specifically because of cost considerations and she withdrew but she was granted a one foot variance on that side. The light well itselfis 2.8 off the property line. Mitch pointed out that the reason we have a light well is because we are pushing the living space below ground. . MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #26 as drafted by staff with the elimination of condition #3; motion second by Jason. Motion carried 5-0. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Sarah, yes; Alison, yes, Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn the meeting; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Mtt~~~8:00 p.m. Kathl en J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 17 I I