Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20061025 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 "l>__, Monitoring - 308 Park Ave. ............................................................................ 1 114 Neale Ave. Conceptua1- Public Hearing ................................................ 2 212 W. Hopkins - Major Development - Conceptual- Public Hearing...... 3 202 N. Monarch - Conceptual- Public Hearing............................................ 6 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 - Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.rn. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Jason Lasser, Sarah Broughton and Brian McNellis. Michael Hoffman was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jason moved to approve the minutes of August 3(jh and September 13th; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Disclosure: Jeffrey will recuse himself on 202 N. Monarch - Jeffrey is the architect. Jeffrey disclosed that he interviewed for 212 W. Hopkins but did not take the job and has no conflict. Monitoring - 308 Park Ave. - Al Beyer said when we picked up the cabin we discovered we are working with drainage issues. We want to put basic galvanized gutter along the south side roofs where it drops into the light well. We would use four inch quarter round galvanized gutters. Jeffrey said guttering has not occurred before on the site and an aggressive approach impacts the south fa<;ade. Jeffrey asked if they looked into a integral gutter system to hide the down spout. Al said the three inch pip can be ticked in the comer. Alison said the gutter should not go across the little gable and her concern is that the cabin did not previously have gutters. Jeffrey pointed out that the less we put on the cabin the better it is for the historic resource. HPC is trying to be consistent. Al said in 1947 gutters were available. Alison said a three inch gutter would be preferable. Al will do a mock up with 3 inch pipe and not go across the gable. HPC will do a site visit. 408 E. Cooper - Minor Review - Commercial Design, View Plan MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 408 E. Cooper, public hearing and minor review until Dec. 13, 2006; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 4-0. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 .~H'" 312 W. Hyman - Historic Designation MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 312 W. Hyman until Nov. 8, 2006; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 114 Neale Ave. Conceptual- Public Hearing Bret Thoeny, owner Amy said the project is focused on trying to add a garage on the property. It is Y, of an historic lot split and this is the half that contains the historic resource. The garage is proposed to come off Neale Ave. and at the last meeting HPC was in favor ofthat proposal. The primary concern is where the garage is located. Stafffeels it is too close to the front of the site. The historic building needs to maintain its prominence. The residential design standards require that the front wall of the garage be set back 10 feet from the front wall of the house. Staff feels this standard is not being met. The other question is the FAR bonus. The second proposal is to extend the non- historic bedroom wing and staff has no concerns with that as it is at the back of the site. There is also the proposal to expand the mud room on the north side of the building. Staff has a concern because it fills in a comer that we feel was intentionally to be left open. Bret said he reduced the overall height of the garage from the previous version and reduced the pitch of the roof also and changed the materials to a corrugated metal roof. He has studied moving the garage backward but in reality there are large mature trees between the historic house and the proposed garage. Bret pointed out that the porch does extend closer to the street than the garage. It is 14 feet and the garage is 16 feet. The mud room has been slid over and notched 18 inches between the historical and new part of the house. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Amy pointed out that the applicant needs to resolve driveway before coming back to final. Bret said Engineering did approve a 16 foot curb cut for the adjacent house but then sold the property. '~.......- 2 ""w ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 Sarah said the side entry off King Street should look more like what you have on the north elevation. In terms of the garage she is concerned with the closeness to the street. Maybe it can come back a little bit. Alison said as long as the mudroom is pulled back from the historic resource guideline 10.3 has been met. The garage should come back to line up with the front of the historic house. It is unfortunate that you are loosing yard space but you are gaining square footage in the house. Jason said retaining the north east comer is important. He is also in agreement that the garage should slide back. Jeffrey also agreed with the commission. The mud room addition blurs the historic comer and should be restudied to pull it away from the comer. The new addition to the south is acceptable and the scale conforms to our guidelines. He also agrees that the garage should be set back to the face of the historic house. Bret said he is OK with lining the front of the garage with the face of the existing house. He will work with the mud room to make it more like the north elevation. Amy suggested that HPC include a small setback variance on the south yard so that if the garage moves back it can also move over to push it out of the sight line a little bit. Jeffrey said that is a excellent suggestion. MOTION: Jason moved to approve resolution #27 for 114 Neale Ave. with the following conditions: 1. Garage as drawn should be pulled back to match the existingface of the historic resource and align with the west wall. 2. Proposed mud room addition needs to be restudied to expose more of the historic resource of the north east and south east corners. 3. Approve the variances from the residential design standards for garages. Motion second by Alison. Motion carried 4-0. Jason, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 212 W. Hopkins - Major Development - Conceptual- Public Hearing -"'."..,,-' Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I 3 .....-- , ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 Sara said the subject property is 6,000 square foot lot that was built in 1888. There is a large 1974 and 1988 addition at the rear. The applicant proposes to reopen the porch and demolish and replace the existing connector element between the historic home and the large addition in the back. They also propose to raise the height of the two story addition directly behind the historic resource. Opening up the front porch will increase the integrity assessment score. The applicant also proposes to restore the north east comer of the historic home. The addition as proposed at this time does not meet all of the design guidelines. Staff finds that this is a difficult project because currently the historic resource is burdened in with this huge addition to the rear and the addition is almost double in size of the miner's cabin. Connector piece: The applicant proposes some glass cubes. One of our concerns is the width of the connector piece. It is measured at around 31 feet. When you look at the miner's cabin from Hopkins the cube addition will stick out about ten feet. The other point is the height of the two story addition in the back and staffthought it was visible from Hopkins but when looking at the sketches that might not be a concern. Staff recommends continuation to look at other alternatives and reduce the width of the connector piece so that it doesn't stick out at the side. Demolition: Demolishing the existing conneCtor piece fulfills the criteria and also raising a portion of the two story addition requires a portion of demolition. John Galumbos, architect relayed that the house is already compromised by the additions that have occurred in two phases. We are keeping the additions. When the additions were done they mimicked the siding and trim. You don't know where the house ends and the addition begins. From a design point of view we intend to restore the integrity ofthe structure. We will return the comer back to what it was historically. The materials will be changed so you can differentiate old from new. The addition is trying to act as a transition point with the glass and cubes. It is a contemporary transparent move. We are as far back on the lot as we can go with the addition. To address the concern of staff about the connector popping out the living room is very dark and one of the reasons for doing the piece is to flood a lot oflight into the space. We will also be doing a comer door system. We are leaving 400 square feet ofF AR on the table. "",.,,.. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the hearing was closed. 4 ....",'-..<, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 Sara said the subject property is 6,000 square foot lot that was built in 1888. There is a large 1974 and 1988 addition at the rear. The applicant proposes to reopen the porch and demolish and replace the existing connector element between the historic home and the large addition in the back. They also propose to raise the height of the two story addition directly behind the historic resource. Opening up the front porch will increase the integrity assessment score. The applicant also proposes to restore the north east comer of the historic home. The addition as proposed at this time does not meet all of the design guidelines. Staff finds that this is a difficult project because currently the historic resource~'s umYin with this huge addition to the rear and the addition is almost doubl in size of the miner's cabin. In.Jh<<-d Connector piece: The applicant proposes some glass cubes. One of our concerns is the width of the connector piece. It is measured at around 31 feet. When you look at the miner's cabin from Hopkins the cube addition will stick out about ten feet. The other point is the height of the two story addition in the back and staff thoughtit was visible from Hopkins but when looking at the sketches that might not be a concern. Staff recommends continuation to look at other alternatives and reduce the width of the connector piece so that it doesn't stick out at the side. Demolition: Demolishing the existing connector piece fulfills the criteria and also raising a portion ofthe two story addition requires a portion of demolition. ~ John Galumbos, architect relayed that the house is already compromised by the additions that have occurred in two phases. We are keeping the additions. When the additions were done they mimicked the siding and trim. You don't know where the house ends and the addition begins. From a design point of view we intend to restore the integrity of the structure. We will return the comer back to what it was historically. The materials will be changed so you can differentiate old from new. The addition is trying to act as a transition point with the glass and cubes. It is a contemporary transparent move. We are as far back on the lot as we can go with the addition. To address the concern of staff about the connector popping out the living room is very dark and one of the reasons for doing the piece is to flood a lot oflight into the space. We will also be doing a comer door systern. We are leaving 400 square feet of FAR on the table. ""'-' Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the hearing was closed. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 -- Alison said for starters opening the front porch and restoring the back comer of the historic residence are commendable. Regarding the transition piece we don't usually try to fit an entire living room into a connector. It violates 10.6 and 10.7 of our guidelines. It is the 30 feet that is a concern as it sticks out looking at it from the south elevation. The 30 feet gives you the feeling that it is not a connector piece. The comer return on the east elevation where you will be exposing the historic house need to be larger and pulled back. Alison said she also has a concern with the flat glass cubes. Jason said restoring the comer and taking out the bay window is a nice restoration effort. In general the improvements are good to the historic house. His concerns are the skylight above the living room and its height and the width of the connector piece. The new box is pushing toward the historic resource even though it is all glass. Jason also has concerns with the pavers and there seems to be a discrepancy in the plan. Sarah thanked the applicant for a thorough application. A couple of guidelines are affecting the ability to go forward with this project tonight. The width of the connector piece needs to be in conformance with our guidelines. It is a great idea about the design intent but it needs to be in conformity. Sarah pointed that she doesn't understand the double height in space in that room and proportionally it is odd. The plate height is a concern and how it is hitting the spring point of the historic resource. Sarah commended the owner on opening the front porch. Jeffrey also commended the architect for a good presentation and providing the level of detail for conceptual. Giving back the front porch is great. The biggest point of concern is the connecting piece which does not conform to guideline 10.6 and 10.7. The offset of the link is troubling. The flat roofs are a question as to how they meet the historic house. Exposing the comer and removing the bay window are all positive preservation moves. The sketch keeps the green space close to the historic resource. Jeffrey said he doesn't have a concern with the rear bedroom roof height and the main concern is the connecting piece. John said the intent was to create a family space and have it flow to the patio. The owner is willing to move that space in order to keep the process movmg. 5 -.. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 John said the flat roof issue was to make a true link to the back park. It helps separate between the gables. Jason said he likes the flat roof as it is a light piece. The living room is dark. Eliminating the skylight and putting the two windows on the wall would be a better solution to obtain light. MOTION: Sarah made the motion to continue 212 W. Hopkins until Nov. 8th; second by Alison. All infavor, motion carried 4-0. 202 N. Monarch - Conceptual- Public Hearing Jeffrey recused himself. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Three letters Exhibit II Semrau letter of clarification - Exhibit II Detailed Drawings - Exhibit IV Sarah Broughton chaired. Sarah informed the applicant that they need three affirmative votes in order for the project to be approved. When there are only three members a majority vote does not apply. Tim Semrau decided to go forward with his presentation. Amy said the lot is just over 9,000 square feet. At the time of purchase it included 6,000 square feet to the east which has since been subdivided. At some point in the past the 6,000 square foot lot became mixed use as opposed to the lot we are looking at which is zoned R-6. Council approved the subdivision of the 6,000 square feet some months ago. One of the discussions was now the properties would gain vehicular access. There is a platted but undeveloped alley on the north side of the property and council approve using the alley coming from Mill Street and accessing the mixed parcel. On the subdivision plat a 16 foot wide fire lane is required coming off of Bleeker along the back edge of the property. That is also the area from which the applicant is supposed to gain their entrance to the garage. The house was built in 1886 and it has had some of the materials covered over by aluminum siding etc. It is a very prominent building and it was mentioned that this building is the gateway to the West End which is true. There are not very many examples of buildings this size left. ",.,..,~' 6 ,..,........ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 The applicant proposes to restore the Victorian house and they plan to remove covering materials and restore the building back to its original appearance. They propose to move the house forward toward Monarch Street that is necessary in order to provide the 16 foot fire lane and to gain access to a single stall garage. The only addition proposed is the garage and the mud room connector piece. They also intend to build a detached second home on the northern side of the Victorian at some time in the future. They are asking for aFAR bonus related to that and there is a need for a residential design standard variance. There is also demolition included in the application which is opening an historic porch. -- Relocation: The fire lane needs to be 16 feet wide; however, the plan does show buffers on either side of it to try and narrow it down so you don't have that pavement feeling. That lane will also be used to access the garage. The house currently sits back 38 feet from Monarch and 19feet from Bleeker. Since the fire lane can't be narrowed and the proposed garage is only a single stall with the skinniest part of it facing toward Bleeker the only way to diminish moving it forward is to reduce the connector. The house is proposed to be moved toward Bleeker Street by 7 feet. They do not need a variance for either of these relocations. In order to continue the gracious setback that the building has we would like to discuss if there is someway to reduce that. It has the potential impact of removing some lilacs on the property that should be considered part of the historical landscape. In the memo we suggest that more information be provided about where they intend to locate the second house and to what degree can that be pushed to the northern property line. We support the idea oftwo detached houses. This house has another 2,000 square feet worth of development property rights and that needs to be acknowledged. .......". The addition proposed to the historic house is a one story connector, single stall garage. We brought up the raised deck that interfered with the foundation but the applicant will design the deck flush with grade. In terms of the garage it was discussed whether it should be a flat roof piece and a deck on top of that. Stafflooked at that and a gable roof is more acceptable. There was discussion about the positioning of the garage and the connector to the house. The applicant is trying to retain some interior features such as a staircase which drove some of their decisions as to how the connector would meet the house. It hasn't allowed for a skinny connector so we suggested some ways for that to be shifted. The applicant will walk the board through some of the ways he is trying to respond to the connector. The applicant is required to have two onsite parking spaces and they are 7 _IJ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 proposing one and the garage. We appreciate that the garage is only a one stall. The residential design standards have a guideline that says the front fa<;ade of the garage needs to be ten feet back from the front most wall of the house. There is question whether that applies to this because Bleeker is not technically the front of the house. The applicant is asking for a 500 square foot bonus for their overall development scheme. Staff supports the bonus because they are proposing a significant amount of restoration. Tim Semrau went through the staff memo. What is driving the site location is City Council's decision to enter from Bleeker. The fire lane is set in stone and it is 16 feet. The on grade patio is fine and the gabled roof on the garage. The garage is at the minimum of 12 feet wide and a minimum connector of ten feet. The distance from the front line is eleven feet. From the curb to the body of the house is 39 feet. Tim said staff has asked what would happen with the second house. Tim handed out three site plan options. C. moves the house a little to the west, and moves the garage back. The only way to make that work is to get a variance from the unused alley. HPC could grant the variance. There are two rows of lilacs. Our intention is to save the lilacs and trim them. The location of the garage hides the parking spot from the Monarch exposure because it is back behind the house. Amy pointed out that the HPC can't grant a variance because it wasn't noticed. The board can indicate a site plan that is appropriate. Jason inquired about the floor plan for the future house. Tim said he used the minimum lot size and minimum separation for an ADU and came up with 930 square feet in which we think would work. Sarah asked what the allowable is for the second house. Time said 1500 square feet is the allowable. Alison asked if any of the FAR bonus goes to the older house in the proposal. Amy said there is expansion of the existing FAR by virture of the connector and some of the FAR could apply. Tim agreed that some of the FAR is for the connector. '"",.., 8 """-'" ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Phil Hodgson, neighbor indicated that he was not in favor of moving the historic house. He also pointed out that that the maj or trees in the front have a drip line of 37 feet. Lisa Markalunas, former HPC commissioner submitted a letter for the record. Lisa asked the board to consider that the primary portion of the FAR is going to the new structure. Perhaps it might be appropriate to hold off on that portion of the FAR until you see a design that you are willing to accept. A lot of times FAR is your worst enemy. Anything in that historic location is going to have an impact on the historic setting and landscaping. Lisa applauded the applicant for keeping the lilac bushes. The setting ofthe house is truly unique in the west end. Lisa also pointed out that the small reduction connector really warrants moving the structure to the north. Bert Myrin stated that he lives at 224 North Monarch down the street. Moving historic resources is always something that should be avoided if possible. This house is supposed to be moved in two directions. The fire lane could have been addressed when the parcel was under one ownership. Bert encouraged the board to not move the house to the north. Moving the house in two directions is too much. Amy said HPC did not have a formal role in the subdivision. Council made the decision that the access should come off Bleeker. Sarah said HPC was 100% behind using the alley and they were not involved with the fire lane decision. Tim clarified that he did a site visit with the neighbor and the house is not in the drip line of the trees. Tim said he met with Parks and they are comfortable with the proposal. Tim pointed out that HPC did not want the fire lane and it was strictly a council decision. ...,., Sarah closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner comments: Alison said she felt that the alley was the best solution for the site. Alison said the existing foundation is not in good condition. In looking at the older picture the restoration project of the Blue Vic is going to be a huge improvement for the house. Right now it has many different materials on it that are not original. Opening up the porch and siding and details will make this an amazing project. Alison is in favor of awarding the FAR bonus. HPC being able to review the second house is security enough. In looking at 9 ~ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 the study gable vs. a flat roof on the garage, the gable is the correct direction to go. She also agrees that the front of the house is on Monarch St. Alison said she would lean toward option B but would like to hear other members comments. Jason agreed that this will be an exemplary restoration project and he see no reason not to award the bonus. HPC has their hands tied with the fire access. Moving the house is not desired but it will b~ necessary with the modest proposed garage with the ten foot link that we ask for. The gable roof is better than the flat roof on the garage. Moving of the house is tricky but the most important thing is to maintain the open feel that the house has on this lot. Seeing all sides of the house is very important and keeping the green space. Site plan C gives the existing resource the most space around it. The garage roof pitch should match the pitch ofthe existing Victorian, maybe 16 x12. Sarah echoes many comments from the other board members. She feels the face of the garage should be further off Bleeker and that is what option B is trying to do. Sarah supports the FAR bonus. If the entire link and the garage could shift north could the second on-site parking be in front of the garage, double stacked. Jason's suggestion on the pitch of the garage is a good resolution. Sarah said with the restoration efforts she can support the 500 square foot FAR bonus. She is interested in site plan C. Tim responded and said double stacking is illegal and he would rather hide the car in the back. Tim said he understands that Sarah would like to see, that the garage move back from Bleeker a little bit. Amy said the connector is only required when you do a two story addition and there is no reason you have to link a one story to a one story. Tim said in the current configuration if we slide the garage back two feet will that address your concerns. Sarah said she is looking at the overall length of the garage and does it need to be 23 feet long. Many garages have been designed that are only 20 feet. Tim said he would restudy and see what would work. Jason said he supports option C. He is looking at this as a project for the Blue Vic only and creating the most space around it as possible. 10 ,- ~' ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 Tim said he could go along with that as long as HPC is open minded about the variance. Jason said the design could be configured that only the garage would need a variance around five feet or less. Alison said she would be willing to look at C. Sarah also said she feels C is interesting and suggested that the overall length of the garage be looked at. Tim clarified that HPC likes option C. That the garage be moved back another six inches. Work on the subsequent design. Brian supported Jason's recommendation. Having green space is the best solution for the Blue Vic. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #30 for 202 N. Monarch with the following conditions: 1. Site plan C. 2. Restudy of the slop of the gable roof on the garage. 3. Shifting of the garage south facing Bleeker wall back to be more in alignment with the face of the historic resource, the closest adjacent fall, south facing wall. 4. Approval of the BAR bonus. 5. Approval of the variance from the Residential Design Standards. 6. Approval of demolition. 7. Restudy connector wall on Bleeker to be further back than 3 feet that is currently shown. Motion second by Alison. Motion carried 3-0. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes. MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk "....."" 11