Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070314 -~-"'"-"""""__".m_"_M'~""~'._,~ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2007 214 E. BLEEKER STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT _ CONCEPTUAL- DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, V AR1ANCES PH......................................................... 2 HOLDENIMAROLT MUSEUM - MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW _ PUBLIC HEARING........................................................................................................................... 5 WORKSESSION ................................................................................................................ 9 HOLDEN/MAROLT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT - NO MINUTES .............................. 9 HOTEL JEROME LANDSCAPE PLAN ........................................................................... 9 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2007 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis, Michael Hoffman and Sarah Broughton. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counsel MOTION: Sarah moved to approve January 2lh, Feb. llh and Feb. 28h, 2007 minutes; second by Michael. All infavor, motion carried. Sara said at the P&Z meeting they reviewed the Smuggler affordable housing case. P&Z is asking HPC to reconsider your position on relocating the historic cabin. Jessica Garrow, planner said at the HPC meeting, January 10th the Smuggier Racquet Club representatives came in for designation of the cabin on the site adjacent to Park Circle. HPC recommended designation and leaving the cabin in its existing location. At the conceptual level for P&Z they requested staff ask HPC if they are interested in reconsidering your decision of retaining the cabin in its existing location. They have concerns that the cabin in its existing location is impacting the site plan and they would like to give the representatives some flexibility to the site and see what other solutions they come up with. Amy pointed out that HPC has criteria for relocation and one of them has to be that it is the best preservation solution. Jeffrey said until we see a new application or plan that conforms to our guidelines he is not wavering on his decision. Jeffrey pointed out that the only time we ever let historic buildings leave their sites is to make them better viewed by the public. They have plenty of room on the site to do what they want to do. We would reconsider but it has to be demonstrated that the plan is a better preservation effort for the cabin. Michael said he is willing to reconsider but needs more evidence that the cabin existed in its current location. Sara said she presented maps that 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2007 indicated it was the same form and same measurements. If it does come back maybe we can see if the interior was used as an office. Sarah said her concern is that HPC was presented a sparse site plan and the applicant said they did not have much time and needed to move forward. We were backed into a solution where we were throwing out an arbitrary setback number for the historic resource. Sarah said if the new proposal meets our guidelines and the historic resource can be better utilized on a better site plan she is all for seeing it. Brian said he feels there is always a solution to a landscape design especially with that much space. Jeffrey said we would reconsider but we would like to see an excellent demonstration on preservation as well as the design of the site plan. Amy said staff brought the proposal to the HPC trying to be reasonable with the applicant to say that we are just going to define a small piece of the property instead of the two acres. Reviewing the entire parcel seemed to be going over our boundaries. That has put us in an awkward position having such a limited area to review. Jeffrey said the applicant needs to demonstrate that they have a better spot and the guidelines need to apply. Jim True said he was at the meeting and if Jessica goes back to the applicant and indicates that HPC will review a different proposal if it complies with the guidelines everyone will be on the same page. It is his understanding that the applicant is looking for some leeway. 214 E. BLEEKER STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION, RELOCA TION, VARIANCES PH Dave Rybak, architect Sara said in terms of the design HPC had asked that the rear elevation be broken up into modules. In the proposal tonight there is a bay window and the garage has been shifted away from the alley towards the west. The garage is now in compliance with the five foot setback that was brought up at the public comments. In terms of relocation the applicant is trying to 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14.2007 juggle a lot of issues. They have shortened the connector piece to nine feet and they are proposing to relocate the house forward three feet rather than the proposed five feet. Staff brought up the concern that the neighborhood has generous front yard setbacks and we were concerned about moving the house five feet. The proposed three foot move is a reasonable trade off for the one-story addition in the back rather than two-stories. Setbacks: The applicant is proposing a very minimal setback for the garage space and what is required are five feet and ten feet for the primary residence. The garage is in compliance and they moved it five feet off the alley. The primary residence needs a variance of seven feet from the required ten feet. Staff feels this is reasonable and criteria B is met for setbacks which is, that it enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property. Staff is in favor of the one-story addition and we feel that definitely mitigates an adverse impact on the historic resource. The push and pull of the front yard setback and the rear yard setback is reasonable. They are also asking for a waiver of one parking space which meets the criteria. In terms of demolition HPC seemed amenable to demo the out building at the last meeting. It is . clear that it is beyond rehabilitation. Staff recommends approval. Dave Rybak, architect represented Chris Church and 214 E. Bleeker LLC. At the last hearing a number of concerns were brought up by the neighbors with the regard to variances. We have since gone back and restudied everything and met with the Malory's to understand their concerns of the alley. The out building encroaches 18 inches into the alley. In front of the out building there is existing shrubbery that encroaches even further into the alley about 4 feet. With the snow banks etc. it constricts how the alley is used. We recognize having our building placed close to the alley would change the character of the alley and our proposal tonight can improve that. The resource will be relocated 3 feet forward from its original resource. The garage has been pulled back to the five foot setback. We have also stepped the back wall trying to reduce the amount of variance requested and that forced us to reduce the length. The massing has changed and we are now proposing a hipped roof. This proposal has 49% site coverage and we are now at 44%. We have taken some FAR out of the site and this design is substantially less than what could be on the site. This was a two-story addition. We tried to compromise listening to the board and neighbors concerns. This resource is a one-story and we have generated a design and preserved the resource. We want the best product for this site. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2007 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Michael disclosed that Norma Berko called him to ask philosophical questions about setbacks and he directed her to speak with Amy. Norma Berko, neighbor thanked the applicant for working with them and respecting the integrity of the original house. Howie Malory, neighbor said they met with the Dave Rybak over functionality etc. and the outcome is a better design. Howie suggested giving some attention to holding the snow some how so that it doesn't cascade off the roof. The connector is a wonderful way to separate the new addition from the existing. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. The board thanked the applicant for taking the time to meet with the neighbors and incorporating HPC's thoughts into their plan. Sarah said going through the list she is in support of the demolition, relocation and on-site parking. In terms of the setbacks it is a struggle and we do not take them lightly. In this case given the historic nature of the rear property condition the rear yard variance of 7 feet is appropriate and betters the situation in the alley. It is commendable that the applicant is keeping the historic resource intact and the prominence on Bleeker remains. Sara pointed out that the combined side yard and the side yard setbacks will be captured and noticed at final. The new design triggered new setbacks. Brian said he is also in support of the demolition and relocation of the main house. They are complying with the front yard setback which is important. Getting the garage'out of the setback and working with the neighbors to do so is commendable. The applicants have gone through a lot and he can support the application as it stands. Alison also supported the demolition ofthe out building and the waiver of the one parking spot. The new location has helped the neighbors concerns and the applicant has gone to a great extent to move the house around on the site. Keeping the addition to a one-story helps to showcase the front of the historic house. Alison said she would support the requested variances for 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2007 the next meeting. Alison said she would encourage the applicant to take a look at the snow shedding off the back. Michael said in terms of the demolition of the shed and the relocation of the house he is in agreement as to what has been said. Michael said HPC really regrets loosing out buildings and we as the City should do more to protect and preserve them. Dave has done a great job of meeting with the neighbors and in trying to accommodate some competing interest here and he has done an excellent job. Jeffrey said his concerns of the neighbors came to a promising design. The proposal meets our criteria for conceptual. Our design guidelines Chapter 10.7,10.8 have been met. Jeffrey can support the demolition of the 1999 addition. The standards for relocation have been met. The setback variances help preserve the scale and intimacy of the neighborhood and this compromise will help the applicant and the neighborhood. He is also in support of the on-site parking variance. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #8 for 214 E. Bleeker as stated in staff's memo; second by Brian. Roll Call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-0. HOLDEN/MAROLT MUSEUM - MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING Georgia Hanson, Aspen Historical Society Carl Bergman, Aspen Historical Society Amy said the Holden Marolt is going to be a living history museum with hands on activities and demonstrations. They acquired two pieces of equipment, a saw mill and steam engine. Covered sheds were built over them that did not have HPC approval. HPC needs to determine if they meet the criteria. The criteria we have are not terribly specific for this kind of situation. Staff feels the two structures do not present an issue in terms of being confusing because they are open air structures. Staff does have concerns with the placement of the structure closest to the salt shed, finding that it is too close to the building and potentially raises some maintenance issues for that building. It crowds it and obstructs it. Staff supports the structure that covers the saw mill but not the one that covers the steam engme. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2007 Georgia said Carl has raised every penny for the Marolt site and has worked out there for 30 years. In order for the saw mill to work it has to have perfect alignment with the steam engine that is there. It can't even have a quarter of an inch tolerance off line. They kind of worked backward and the first thing they did was pour the slab as far back in the corner as they could in order to work 60 feet out with the rest of the display. The steam engine is on the cement slab and is quite heavy. It took a fork lift to get it on the slab. The shelter was then built over the slab. Any other location we would have to move the entire thing out which would be far more evasive to the view of the entire site. Georgia said she doesn't feel the impact is that substantial. Carl said the pedestal slab for the steam engine was installed 15 years ago. In 1978 we came before council with the idea of a museum procuring a 1.9 acre and a 75 year lease. The engines came from the Koch Lumber lot and were given by Hans Cantrup. Our main concern was the bike path and we have never had anyone say that the original shelter put up in 2002 was offensive. The saw mill cannot be put in doors. They are meant to be out doors. Saw mills were an integral part of Aspen's history. The ice was gotten from Hallam Lake to use as insulation before styrofoam was developed. The steam engine shelter has six pedestals or beams. There was concern about the blade being sharp from the saw mill and an acrylic shroud was put around the blade. Georgia pointed out that the salt shed is the workshop and the steam engine and saw mill needs to be close to the workshop. Michael asked ifit was possible to build a more transparent roof on the structure. The structure does obscure the views of the salt shed. Brian clarified that staff is recommending that the steam engine shelter be removed. That being the case, moving one will entail moving the other. Amy pointed out that she was not aware of that situation at the time she did herreview. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Ed Zasacky informed the board that he walks the path daily that goes around the shed and pointed out that Carl and his group have done an amazing job on this property. Ed said he was involved when Herman Edel was mayor. The City purchased this property from Opal Marolt and if the City would not 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2007 have purchased it, it would all be development. This site is a ranching and mining museum. The shelters that were built are not offensive and should stay. This is an archeological site and a potato cellar was just discovered outside the boundaries. Jasmine Depactor said this shelter is minimal and you barely notice it. If it was a concern we would have heard complaints. Brian Flynn, Parks Dept. said he has been working with the Historical Society for the last four years and they have done everything they can to protect the historical resource. We will be working together to make sure future improvements go through the proper channels. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Alison thanked the historical society members for all their donated time and efforts in improving the site. In our memo there isn't really a guideline that talks specifically about the proximity to the structure. The fact that the steam engine needed a lot of maintenance, the maintenance shed would have been located close in its historic context. The only concern is the shedding of snow off the roof toward the salt shed. Moving the equipment would not benefit the site at all. Michael said all of us are 100% behind what the historical society does. Our only concern is whether the shed is appropriate. In particular this structure is distracting from the salt shed. Michael said he feels the roof should be changed so that it is more transparent. Possibly the city could contribute funds. Brian also said he bikes by the ranch daily and it is euphoric and wonderful area. He also agrees that the shed does block the salt shed but it is something that is there and the question is what do we do about it. For the most part the structure does meet our guidelines. Ifwe move one we would have to move both buildings. The fact that we have had no concerns about the location of the structure from the public weights heavily. It could have been placed differently but given the situation he would be willing to let it stand as is. Sarah said there have not been complaints to date. There is an opportunity with these structures to make them more ancillary secondary structures with 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14.2007 some of the detailing. In terms of the detailing and guideline 11.10 there maybe an opportunity to minimize the overall effect of these structures. Jeffrey said he worked in a saw mill and understands the inboards and outboards. He understands the proximity of the buildings. The steam engine shelter does obscure the view of the salt shed and the detailing is a little fancy. Jeffrey said he wishes HPC could have been more involved in the placement of the equipment but at this time he will support its current location. A translucent roof would be too foreign for the site. Georgia said they will take into consideration the drainage issue. Carl pointed out that there is no problem with the drainage. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the current location of the saw mill shelter and steam engine shelter as presented tonight; second by Alison. Michael said he is voting against the motion because this is an opportunity for us to make a positive contribution to the site. We need to see some design revisions to the steam engine shelter. Michael suggested staff contact City Council to request funds. Sarah also agreed that there is room for design revisions. She is not sure alternations need to happen. Sarah withdrew her motion. Michael suggested continuing the agenda item. Michael suggested setting up a dialogue between the HPC, Historical Society and City Council. The property is city owned. Michael volunteered to go to city council with staff. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the application to June 13th and to also ask staff to prepare a request to council to provide a grant in the appropriate amount to consider the redesign of the roof of the shelter over the steam engine; second by Alison. Brian said if we are going to request funds he would like the equipment to fit properly on the site. Sarah suggested a field trip to walk the site. Possibly after we do that the location might be acceptable. Michael withdrew his motion. Alison withdrew her second. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14.2007 MOTION: Michael moved to continue the Holden/Marolt Museum to June 13'\ second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. WORKSESSION ' HOLDEN/MAROLT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT - NO MINUTES HOTEL JEROME LANDSCAPE PLAN MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk. 9