Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19990609ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 9~ 1999 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5~00 p.m. In attendance were Roger Moyer, Mary Hirsch, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Heidi Friedland, Lisa Markalunas, Christie Kienast and Maureen McDonald. Monitoring Issues Amy informed the board that the Elk's building received approval from the HPC for a staircase to the roof. One of the conditions was that they needed to comply with their old conditions about the planter. Staff site visited the area and the brick work being done is not correct and needs replaced. The Board recommended a red tag. 303 E. Main - Amy stated that a canopy is proposed for over the outbuilding door. It would be a steel rod with corrugated metal. The metal would match the existing metal on the roof. The HPC had no problem with the awning. 533 E. HOPKINS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT One of the tenants answered questions. Amy relayed that the location of the building is where Kenichi is located and is in the historic district but is not an historic building. The proposal is for Oates, Hughes and Kenezevitch office, which is on the top floor. The proposal is to add one window on the north wall facing Hopkins. The window would be visible from the court yard and staff recommends approval. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the minor development for the window at 533 E. Hopkins; second by Roger..411 in favor, motion carried. 330 E. MAIN ST. - HOTEL JEROME - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy informed the board that the request is for a clock to be located in the courtyard. A photograph has been provided and the clock is 15 feet tall and will sit close to the sidewalk. Staff' s only concern is that generally the HPC does not like to add confusion to what is new and old. The clock has Victorian character but will be a public amenity and is not attached to any building. It fits within the character of the Historic District. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 9~ 1999 MOTION: Roger moved to approve the clock at the Hotel Jerome; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. 135 W. HOPKINS AVE. - LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL, VARIANCES and PUBLIC HEARING Amy stated that the affidavit of notice has been provided. Suzannah opened the public hearing. MOTION: Mary moved to continue the Landmark Designation and the public hearing on the conceptual development for 135 liE. Hopkins until duly 14, 1999; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried. 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE Jeffrey was seated at 5:20. Lisa and Christie were seated. Sworn in: Mark Haldeman John Davis Heidi recused herself. Amy informed the board that a site visit was done and a worksession was held a month ago. The property is on the comer of East Hopkins and Monarch and it is a 3,000 square foot lot and it is a locally designated landmark. The house is in the original core of the city 1883. It is a very important house. The proposal is to remove the addition on the back of the house which was built in 1960. Staff has no concern with that proposal. They are asking to relocate the outbuilding behind the historic house close to the street so that it has high visibility and create a new lot for the commercial construction. A basement will be placed under the rear portion of the lot. Staff recommends that the Parks Dept. be contacted concerning the trees and excavation. In terms of the architecture, the idea at the worksession was to make the historic structure separate and distinct. The proposal is to link everything 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 9~ 1999 together and Staff recommends removal of the link or at least the second story. Staff requests that the HPC study the height of the three story tower and whether it is appropriate or not. John Davis stated that the historic shed would be moved forward and if the attachments are hooked on from a commercial feasibility to be able to have that one space would be better for rent. If it is detached it can't. The recess is ten feet back. Commercial would be on the first floor and residential on the second. The historic house will not be moved or have a basement. He said the development is probably three feet from the sidewalk but there is a drip line. The shed would move east and a three story addition is proposed on the alley comer. The architect Jake Vickery could not present due to a conflict of interest. John Davis, contractor tried to explain what was going on with the site but he stated he is not prepared to do a presentation. Suzannah opened the public hearing. John said what they are trying to get out of the meeting is direction on the mass and scale so they can proceed further for the next meeting. The faCade of the glass is not at the street level; it is behind the shed and isolates the little shed. The connector is 12 feet wide and will be office use. The new commercial building sits on the property line of the alley and on the sidewalk side it will be on the drip line of the trees which is probably three feet in from the sidewalk because the spruce trees hang over the sidewalk. The zoning allows retail or office use. There is one existing parking space and the proposal is to pay cash in lieu. The shed will have a basement under it. The shed is 150 square feet and will be used as an entrance to the basement and category unit down below on each side. Jake said one option is to attach the relocated shed through the rear of the shed to the connector and in doing that the spaces would be able to be linked together and make that commercial space more larger and usable space. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 9~ 1999 Sworn in: Roget Kuhn Nicklaus Kuhn Roget said his parent's project at 303 E. Main was similar. This house could easily be on the national register in its present form. If the improvements are done he felt it could never be on the register. He feels the parking space should be maintained, as they had to maintain a parking space on their property. On his property staff was very concerned about attaching anything to the building and they could not attach anything and this proposal has an attachment. He also feels the sidewalk should be widened like they widened their sidewalk. Nicklaus Kuhn, neighbor passed around a picture of 1950 which shows the importance of the alley and how many houses were really lost. It is very important that what is historic is left on the site. The space between the sidewalk and trees is much smaller and if the sidewalk is widened the building needs to move back further away from the sidewalk. Roget stated that his carriage house is separated and not connected and it is a clear distinction between new and old. There is too much going on with that space. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan stated that the house could be eligible for the National Register. Maureen stated that there should not be an attachment to the house. She also does not like the massing behind the shed and prefers that the shed stay in its original location if possible. The third floor on the commercial is not appropriate. If the attachment goes away she would be willing to consider a third floor on the commercial. Christie agreed with everything Maureen said. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 9~ 1999 Lisa has concerns about the relocation of the shed out of its historic location. At the same time to put another structure between the historic house and the shed and detaching the shed further from the house is not appropriate either. She prefers a two story addition on the commercial building in the alley. The massing of a third story is too significant. The landscaping should be retained. Concrete should not encompass the carriage house as it will loose its setting. The connection to the historic structure is a concern. Susan said the third story on the commercial building is much too dominating over a one story historic structure. She would never approve the three story. The connector should be as minimal as possible, and not office space. Since the buildings are going to be connected through the basement she does not see the need for a connector on the surface. In this way it saves the historic house from being attached to the new structure. She would never approve attaching the shed to the connector as Jake suggested. The shed should stay whole. She would also not want that space to be used just as an entrance. There is also concern about the height of the new structure, connector eliminated and the shed stay whole. She commends the applicant for not touching the historic house. Mary relayed that she is willing to go along with moving the carriage house closer to the main historic structure in order to get commercial space. She also feels that the commercial space does not need to relate to the Victorian house as it is a new structure. She has no problem with the three stories on the commercial. She would like to see developers maintain the historic structure as is and work with the basements, the commercial space etc. and adapt the historic structures as they are. She does not like the connectors or the glass. Jeffrey is not comfortable with the shed being attached to the new addition. If a basement is proposed detailing needs to be submitted so that it doesn't stick out above grade. The three story development is acceptable. A detailed landscape plan needs submitted. Roger said at the worksession it was mentioned that the second addition could be demolished and allowing the cottage to be moved and in doing so that would give you the freedom to design a truly unique building. In light of that he would move to table to a date certain with the following comments: 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 9~ 1999 1. No problem with the height of the commercial building. 2. A model is needed. 3. The new addition should not attempt relate to the carpenter gothic of the historic building. That means in the type of siding and trim etc. He wants the addition to be totally different. 4. He is not sure about the linkage. It should not be higher than the cottage door and totally transparent. 5. The cottage should remain an active building. 6. How the cottage sits on a basement is of the utmost importance. It should sit on the ground as it is now. 7. The landscape design is very important. The new building with the concept of the historic false front on the top should be removed. Stay away from the Victorian as it does not relate. Suzannah concurred with Roger and the rest of the board. The only possibility for the carriage house is to be moved. The linkage needs studied. She might be able to accept a little two story piece on the back of the building that would set off the little cottage and not plug it into the u-shaped thing. She supports the three story commercial building. The third floor does need some kind of setback. The little cottage needs to be a functioning space. Maureen stated that often attachments are allowed to historic structures when they cannot be seen from the street. In this case, not only is it a comer, it is a primary comer in the downtown core. It is impossible for the connector to be transparent. She feels there should not be a connector as it might prohibit the building from being on the National Register. Christie stated that she completely disagrees with the concept of taller buildings in the core area. It does not go with the historic blue print of Aspen. It has always been said that buildings will not be taller than the opera house. That has been the history of Aspen. Susan said she objects to buildings being tall that overwhelm the historic house. She would agree to the third story if the connector disappeared altogether. Mary stated that she is not for the connector but to preserve what little we have left we have to go to three stories. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 9~ 1999 Amy stated that the site is very important and the buildings need to relate to each other. The Board clearly did not support the connector. MOTION: Roger moved to continue Conceptual Development for 302 E. Hopkins until duly 14, 1999; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Yes Vote: Roger, defJhey, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa, Christie 121 N. FIFTH STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - PUBLIC HEARING Disclosure Jeffrey disclosed that Ernie Fyrwald contacted him initially when looking at the lot but he was not retained and in no way will his decision be influenced. Amy relayed that the application is only for the landmark lot split. The property is 9,000 square feet and it is in the R-6 zone district and across the street from the Historical Society. The technical requirements for approving a lot split are very objective, they just require that the lot be the appropriate size and zone district. All of those concerns have been met. The only issue to discuss is the 500 square foot bonus. The applicant decides how they want the lot divided and how they want to allocate floor area. Bonuses and variances can only be give to the historic building part of the lot and not to the new part of the lot. They are asking for a 500 square foot bonus for lot A, which has the historic house and a couple of side yard setback variance to accommodate the existing building. Regarding the FAR bonus, one of the justifications for granting a bonus is to promote the concept of the historic lot split. This is a good program for HPC rather than having massive additions on an old house, they can break it into two structures and it works for both sides. Staff feels the square foot bonus is justified. The buildings on the existing lot are already 2329 square feet, so the bonus really allows existing construction to stay and still have a house with a reasonable size on the adjacent lot. In the process a worksession is required and the decision cannot be made tonight and this meeting will be considered a worksession in the consideration whether the bonus is 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 9~ 1999 acceptable. Staff recommended continuation due to the FAR and the Parks Dept. recommendation on the trees. Proof of notice was entered as Exhibit I. Amy clarified that on the site plan presented there are indications as to what would be built on the property but information was not presented and the Board in no way is endorsing what is on the plan. Amy clarified the square footage. 4,080 square feet are allowed for the whole parcel and if they were to divide that in half it would be 2040 square feet per house. The existing property already has 2329 and they are asking for the bonus so that at the very least they can keep the existing building on that lot and have a reasonable size house next to it. They will be asking for 4580 square feet total. Sworn in was Ernie Fyrwald owner and applicant. Ernie stated that a sideyard variance is also being requested in addition to the lot split of 4500 square feet of equal size on each side split down the middle facing Bleeker Street. Amy conveyed to the Board that the house was built between 1885 - 1887 and has been added onto in several phases. The house is a landmark and in particular the founding editor of the New Yorker magazine was bom in the house. The Board is not looking at any changes to the existing house at this time. Lisa's concern was that the pine tree in the rear yard not be removed. Emie has met with the City Forester, Steve Elsperman to address that issue. Emie relayed that currently he exceeds the square footage with the buildings that are on site. Lot A has 2349 square feet and he is requesting the FAR bonus due to that issue. Some members felt it difficult to grant the FAR variance without seeing the plans for the project. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 9~ 1999 Suzannah explained that the Board could not approve the lot split without allowing the historic building to have its present square footage. It is presently non-conforming. The bonus would be given to allow the house to conform. The bonus can only go to the historic house. Amy explained by right they can do two detached houses; a single family house or a duplex on this property and the lot split allows them to do simple lots rather than condominiums. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Jennifer Causing, Krabacher Law Offices represented the neighbors at 617 W. Bleeker, the Feld' s. The Feld's property is west of the existing building. They are opposed to the lot split and feel it will change the character of the block. Currently the block has three lots and each one is composed of approximately 9,000 square feet and each block has one home. With the Aspen Historical Society right across the street draws attention to this block. They are concerned about changing the nature and character of the neighborhood. The removal of trees is also a concern. Referencing the 500 square foot bonus the application states that 71% of the historic house will be demolished. The concern is why extra square footage would be allowed when 71% of the house is actually going to be demolished. Jake Vickery, architect stated that there was an error in the application form and it did state that 71% of the total FAR on the property would be demolished and that includes the two story apartment building which is a non- historic structure and the car port that is north of it and a portion of the rear of the house which is believed not historic. Suzannah closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jeffrey relayed over all he is in favor of the lot splits due to the massing that it limits onto the historic resource. Mary was in favor of the lot split. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 9~ 1999 The members were in £avor o£ the variance £or the historic house and the owner should be commended for saving the trees. Susan, Lisa and Christie have concerns about lot splits in general as they do change the neighborhoods. Maurren was in favor of the lot split and the FAR bonus as long as the design can accommodate for the trees being protected. Suzannah supported the lot split as she feels it is the only way that the HPC can ensure that two small houses are being built. She supports the FAR bonus only if it is split evenly in terms of FAR and the 500 goes to the historic property. In that event it would not be the entire 500 square foot allocation. MOTION: Mary moved to continue the Public Hearing on 121 N. Fifth Street, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Variances, Conceptual Development and Partial Demolition until dune 23rd; second by Maureen. YES VOTE: defJhey, Susan, Mary, Suzannah, Lisa, Christie, Maureen Clarification: Only the lot split will be discussed on June 23rd. The rest of the project will be continued. 333 W. BLEEKER - WORKSESSION - No Minutes MOTION: defJhey moved to adjourn; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MONITORING ISSUES ........................................................................................................................ 1 533 E. HOPKINS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 1 330 E. MAIN ST. - HOTEL JEROME - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 1 135 W. HOPKINS AVE. - LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL, VARIANCES AND PUBLIC HEARING ............................................................................................................................... 2 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 9~ 1999 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ................................................................................................................... 2 121 N. FIFTH STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - PUBLIC HEARING ................ 7 333 W. BLEEKER- WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ................................................................... 10 11