Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19990825ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Members in attendance were Lisa Markalunas, Roger Moyer, Heidi Friedland, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Christie Kienast and Maureen Poschman. Staff in attendance were Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer; Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie and Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathleen Strickland. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Heidi relayed that she was quoted in the Aspen Times as saying she was opposed to anything over a second story on 302 E. Hopkins and that has never been specifically what she said. She did not make that comment to the reporter the way it was stated in the newspaper. 302 E. HOPKINS AVE. - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION (continued public hearing) Sworn in: John Davis, Jake Vickery, Gary Nichols, Mark Halderman, Joan Padget, Helen Palmer, Su Lum, Carol Craig, Les Holst, Eve Homeyer, W. R. Walton, Scott Hicks, Larry Frederick, Sara Garton. Amy relayed that the property is on the comer of East Hopkins and Monarch Street. There is an addition to the house that was added in the 60's and an existing historic shed behind it. The HPC has been working with the applicant since April to find a way that an addition could be made to the building in an appropriate manner. The idea that has been pursued is to try and create a new pad for development that would be separate from the house. That would be accomplished by demolishing the 1960's addition which has not been found by the commission to be important. Relocating the shed up closer to the back of the building and closer to the street to give it more prominence and creating an open space at the back of the lot. The concerns relate to whether the new structure should be attached to the historic buildings and how tall the new structure should be. At this point it is proposed to be three stories. At the last meeting the board unanimously said they would not support a third story finding that it created too many scale ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 issues with the historic structures and that the buildings needed to be completely detached from each other. Staff has recommended unless those changes are made that the new building is not more than two stories and that the courtyard area around the shed is minimized so that the staircases is concealed from the street as possible. Without those changes staff does not feel the proposal meets the review standards and she does not feel that the board should proceed with any further discussions. There are no variances required because this is the commercial core historic district but the applicant will have to go to P&Z to discuss parking and trash areas. Maureen and Christie were seated to vote. John Davis made a couple of points to refresh everybody's memory on where this all started. In the paper they got beat up on how they have turned in sort of the same plan for six different meeting and they did not really come back with what the board suggested. They do not feel that is the case. They started out with a three story building and had a two story attachment at the June 9th meeting. At that meeting the consensus was that they needed to loose the connector and that the majority of the board was fine with a three story building. There were a couple of people that would consider a three story building if they removed the connector. The connector was removed. Then it was the suggestion of the board to add a one story connector back into the project to break up the division of the wall behind so they put it back in. At the next meeting it was split board as to who wanted the connector and who didn't. Those were the public meetings. At the worksession of Aug. 11th is when everything came down about a two story building and a couple of the members that were supporting the three story were not there. John wanted to set the record straight they are not sitting there continuing to submit the same proposal. They felt they were directed by the board to put the connector there. They are taking a 100 foot lot and preserving 75 feet of the historic house and lot and they are trying to build a 25 by 30 foot building in the back of the property. They are still only trying to present a proposal of maybe 3,000 square feet of FAR. They started with a three story and two story connector and everybody said get rid of the connector and we can support a three story building and that is where we are. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 Suzannah said the board is clear on where they have been throughout the process. Jake Vickery informed the public that the project is 100% preserving both the house and the shed as well as the areas adjacent to the public right-of- ways to these structures. They have a situation where there is zero demolition of any historical material. There is 100% preservation of all historical material and the settings such as grass, flowers, fences, whatever is there now gets preserved. They worked with the board to try and put new development detached on the rear 30 feet or so of the property. They have removed the connectors that connected to the historical house to the new back taller building and also the connector that went to the historical shed. In the course of doing that they need the third floor for program reasons. The code allows a growth management system exemption to allow a two bedroom residential unit. The purpose of that is to off-set or encourage the preservation of the historic resources. The primary elevation is from E. Hopkins. The shed has been relocated from the back comer to the center of the project visible from the S. Monarch St. and more of a part of the sidewalk and street level for access. Open space will be kept around it. The building is a 24 foot wide building then it sets back about 18 feet and it is another 6 feet wide, a total of 30 feet wide in the back of the site and 24 feet at the sidewalk. The third floor is set back six inches and to not allow the third floor creates a win/loose situation. We tried to meet the board half way to what we feel is reasonable, we took out the connectors on the first and second levels, removed the bedroom up into the third level. Public and board members viewed the model. Suzannah relayed to the public that the trash and parking issues are reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Susan asked about the shed being raised and Jake stated that it is basically on grade or around six inches and you step in. Jake stated there is an existing basement under the house and it will be utilized. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 Amy relayed that there is merit in making the new development totally detached and preserving the historic stricture. Roger clarified that the apartment is allowed but is not required. Lisa's concern is the drip line of the building in its relationship to the existing 50 foot trees. The top of the roof is 31/32 feet and is approximately four feet lower than the ridge of the tower on the Kuhn project. Another concern was the stiarwell. Suzannah opened the public hearing. Melanie Roschko relayed to the public and board that the project does not have to be approved and all of the FAR does not have to be granted based on what is allowable. According to the standards, one and two are not met. Regarding standard #3 she feels the project detracts from the historical structure. She also feels that the new building is not compatible in any way with the historic building. Preservation is of the entire site not just the historic house. A lot of improvement has been made from the beginning. Helen Palmer stated that this project is in the commercial core and has a commercial meaning but the board should think as the core as being the heart of Aspen. She feels that the development will change the heart of Aspen. She stated with all the attached buildings to the historic house it might as well be bulldozed. The shed is sitting where the shed sat when it was built and should remain there. She entered a letter into the records. A lettter from Sheldon Fingerman was entered in to the record as exhibit V and Helen read the letter to the board. Carl Bergman stated that the alley is decent now. He heard that the applicant intends to extend the electrical lines to the transformer in the Miners Building and the time has come when other people should share in the responsibility and primarily putting their electrical transformers on their property as they did in 1974 and not rip up the alley. Every project that comes along in the alley is shoddily repaired. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 Joan Padget relayed that you will not see the historic house but that your eye will go to the huge addition instead. She feels it is a visual issue that has happened so much in this town. All our nice little cottages have huge additions behind them. All the viewing is shown from the side. The ridge is eleven feet. Eve Homeyer relayed all of us have just about drove Aspen to death. Five more years like the last ten it will be really comatose. In ten years it will be another over grown ruined resort and people will wonder what is so interesting like this town because it is like any other. We are squeezing the very life out of the things that make Aspen. The more money is spent the uglier it gets, the less distinctive it gets. It is a crying shame. (Audience applauded) Su Lum requested that the board deny the project. Sara Garton realizes that development is committed on the parcel in order to preserve the historic parcel; however, she would not want to see the third floor and also see the applicant go through the GMQS application process. Terry End stated that she was on the original HPC board and she hopes the board does not approve the application. Les Hoist stated there are no good guy or bad guys but that the system has failed. It started failing when he was on HPC when they started letting people build these massive buildings. The standards have not been met and it should not be approved. In order for the board to do their job they need to stick to the standards and then a community will be created where we all can live. Pat Hodges relayed that standard #2 has not been met. She lives next to the former half house in which they now call it house and ½. Larry Frederick stated the project is like the cartoon ~Where is Waldo'? The historic house is overwhelmed by the massing. This separate building is nothing more than a subdivision of the lot. The historic structure that sits on the lot today is perfectly proportioned on that lot. Those lots were surveyed 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 as 30 feet by 100 and that is the way it was 100 years ago and that is the way it should remain. W.R. Adam Walton relayed that the point was missed years ago. The entire Aspen area should have been designated as an historic area treating everyone as equal. He has a Victorian that he purchased in 1972. It is 118 years old. There are only about nine Victorians in the commercial area. He likes to see things left as they are but why should owners pay for someone else's enjoyment. The owners can't afford to leave houses undisturbed. The taxes keep going up but they aren't too high here yet. You need to look at in the standpoint of building something. A lot of his friends have sold their houses on the east side due to taxes. A few years ago Roxanne Eflin lobbied the stated to give breaks on property taxes for historic houses. If the HPC really wants to do something that is where to do it, give incentives to people to keep their houses the way they are. Margie Babcock who owns the Ski House stated that she got 2000 signatures years ago to get the HPC going. She still has the Little Red Ski House and she is concerned about what to do with it but she wants to preserve it. She is afraid to put it on the market for fear someone will tear it down and put up condominiums. She also feels a tax break should occur. She has a caretaker living there. Saul Barnett stated that the HPC regulations need enforced so when the assessor looks at this property they know the use is limited and that the value is related to what is there and not what can be done in the future. Victorians are probably looked at by the assessor's office as a lot that has a potential to have a 35 or 4,000 square foot house on it. Suzannah closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Christie felt the proposal was a good improvement but in general was opposed to the third floor as it does not meet the standards. Maureen was opposed to the third floor and was not in favor of the connector. She also felt that the standards have not been met. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 Lisa stated that it was a mis-characterization that the board was in favor of a third story. From the beginning she stated that she would not support anything more than a two story. The project does not meet the standards. The site preservation that they argue for of 75%, the 25% coverage totally overwhelms the 75%. It is one of the oldest buildings in downtown and the HPC needs to make a stand. Over the years too much has slipped away. Jeffrey stated that he is in support of some density in the commercial core. He feels there needs to be a code amendment for historic lots even in the commercial core. Architecturally, placing the new portion to the rear of the site is appropriate and not attaching to the historic house is appropriate. The massing is overwhelming. The undulation and fenestration is appropriate. Susan relayed that an elevation of the Hopkins Street side has never been submitted. This is the first time they have ever seen the historic house with the new addition behind it. She could never support the massing. Taking out the connector was commendable. The standards are not met and she has never supported an addition on a one story house that is more than two stories. This house is the only Victorian house close to the downtown that is in exceptional condition. It is the only carpenter gothic in town. Heidi relayed that this is a very difficult project in trying to do the right thing for the historic house and also being fair to the applicant. Separating the massing to the back of the lot is appropriate. She commended the applicants for not touching the old house and shed. She stated possibly she would support a third story if it were completely separate. She felt that in scale and mass it is still over powering the historic house. Roger stated that he would vote to deny based on the standards. He addressed the public and in 1972 it was requested that the entire City of Aspen be historic and it was denied. He has requested for ten years to have review. HPC has a very limited ability. Unless the public gets behind the city to request an historic district nothing further can happen. Suzannah stated she has been in the minority in terms of the three stories and connectors. There is the opportunity to develop this site in such a way that it doesn't detract from the historic house and we have gone a long way in that 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 direction. She still has concerns about the stairs going down to the historic and the opening in the courtyard. She also has concerns about the second story over hanging into the courtyard and feels that it is encroaching on to the shed. The other issue is the character of the south faCade and it needs to be extremely modest because that is the view plane behind the historic house. That elevation needs to be studies with that in mind. Jake stated that he understands the audience but he feels the compatibility standard has been met. He was prepared to defend this scheme based on the Secretary of Interior Standards. He was told that the HPC is not responsible to those standards. He hopes I the future that the board will substantiate their findings in a more concrete way instead of saying, "I feel like its too high". John Davis asked for recommendations and if a two story is acceptable and Suzannah stated that the concerns are in the memo that clearly define the problems with the elimination of the third floor. Jake asked what the acceptable height would be for the back building? Maureen relayed that possibly the second floor could be lower since the rooms are so high. Jake said they could do that or take off the parapet that is 3 ½ feet high. Suzannah stated that she does not want to speculate what will come next without seeing drawings. John Davis said they are probably willing to go to a two story but where do they go from here. David Hoefer said clearly a third story as it is proposed is not going to be approved. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney relayed to the board that the best procedure would be to continue the item and give clear direction. Jake said they are willing to withdraw the third floor from the application at this time. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 Suzannah stated that a motion needs to be made based on the plans submitted at this meeting and not speculate. Jake: I am trying to address the four things in the memo. Suzannah stated that the board needs to see a revised building and get a memo on it and discuss it in a meeting. Motion: Heidi moved to continue 302 E. Hopkins Ave. Conceptual Development and public hearing to September 22, 1999 with the following directions: 1. Eliminate the third floor. 2. Minimize the landing in the interior courtyard, and begin the stair rise at the earliest point allowable by the UBC so that the visibility of the stairway and courtyard will be reduced significantly. 3. Add an overhead door at the trash storage area. 4. HPC shall waive the "Residential Design Standards'." 5. The south and north elevations need a general restudy. Susan second the motion. Discussion on the motion. Jake said he is willing to conform to all of the above points. Maureen said if this were three feet lower it would make a lot of difference from the south view plane, which we have never seen on a drawing. Jake asked if Maureen would like to see the parapet taken off?. Maureen said she could not design. Christie stated that she would prefer no development on the property. Susan reiterated Christie's statement. Lisa has serious concerns about the height of the second floor. In a perfect world she would not want development on the site at all. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 Roger stated that the board does not have to grant approval of the development. Maureen said the board might have a fairly good solution if the height is brought down and if we say no development can it come back and be development because it was stated by the public stated that it came before HPC once before. David informed the board that the board is not in a position to say no development what-so-ever. The board is only in a position to say that the development that is done has to be consistent with this criteria and if it is consistent you can't say you do not want any development on this property. Maureen stated the second floor height should be lowered in order to make the south view plane less obtrusive on the historic structure. Jeffrey said maybe the plate height could come down but he suggests keeping the parapet in case of mechanical equipment etc. becoming and eye store. Susan said the design does not meet the standards. Heidi said the four conditions would work for her. David said a set of plans must be submitted that the board can rely on before conceptual can be granted. Roger said the design does not meet the standards. Suzannah stated that she can support the building with conditions but it is very important to study the elevation and make the proportions right and accommodate for mechanical equipment and she would hesitate to designate a height reduction number on the second floor. Jake stated that mechanical space is being provided in the basement. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 VOTE: Roger, no. Heidi, yes. Suzannah, yes. Susan, no. defJhey, yes. Maureen, yes. Christie, no. Motion carried 4-3. 121 N. FIFTH STREET - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Matt Fink is the contractor and Mary Holley is the architect for the project. They met at the site and there were two buildings moved to the site and joined. Upon the site visit the original building had a six inch wall added around the building to create an insulation pocket and electrical outlets. The original building has been surrounded by an entirely new wall. When you walk around the house you can see that the original fascia boards have been extended. There is nothing on the outside of the house, all the clapboards are new. The entire house has been surrounded by an entirely new wall. When you walk around the house you can see that the original fascia boards have been extended. There is nothing on the outside of the house, all the clapboards are new. Mary said regarding the existing peonies they are mature and need to be relocated. They intend to move the landscape forward in the same location. The lilac and rose bush will stay in their existing area. The idea is to use the same type of landscaping in an historic way, possibly add an aspen grove. The landscaping will be kept as close to the original as possible. The clapboard issue is more difficult due to the 5 ½ inch wall surrounding the house. The previous owner surrounded the house due to the cold weather. Mary relayed that they were trying to lower the floor level a foot. The relationship to grade will stay the same. The side door would be fixed because the floor level is a foot lower than the door. A few clapboards might need added at this level. Metal flues will be used. Mary walked through the elevations and explained the materials. Corrugated metal siding will be used in conjunction with vertical wood siding. Asphalt 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 flat shingles will be used. A few windows would be replaced in the historic structure. Susan asked if the glass in the historic windows was old? Mary stated that there is old glass but one of the panes is cracked and will be replaced. Matt said they will rack the windows up before removing them. Amy said the building is what it is and a layer was added to the outside. Do we say lets ignore that evidence and change it by pushing the window out. Suzannah said if we are going to listen to Nori Winter we go back to the period of significance. Mary said she thought the siding was added in 1983. Right now you see a window at the exterior wall and then you look through and see another couple of panes. Since Guss (owner) added the window he didn't really change the appearance of the relationship of the window to the exterior wall. Possibly bring the historic windows out to the face of the wall. Amy said if we pull off what Guss did that might not be possible because he has compromised the framing. There are only a few boards left from the wall, there is no structure. Roger said the historic trim is gone so why not put the historic window on the outside so at least you have some retention in the historic part of the house visible to the public. Jeffrey said the jam extension is probably the easiest. Amy said if the board is trying to let people understand in the future what has happened to a house why would we erase that by pushing the window out so that it looks like it is real. Suzannah relayed that the difference is they made the new framing flush with the inside of the old wall as opposed to the opposite way which is what we do now. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 Heidi said she would rather see the historic window come back out so it is visible. Suzannah said she would be inclined to leave the windows where they are at the old 2 x 4 and do a thick recess on the outside. She feels that is more descriptive of what has happened. Amy said if you leave the window where it is you need to put a window on the outside. Mary said she feels no one will want to see the sides and roof of an historic house torn off. MOTION; Maureen moved to approve the Final Development for 121 N. Fifth Street with the following 17 conditions: 1. The peonies, lilac, and yellow rose bush are typical of l?ictorian era properties in `4spen and should be retained. They may be transplanted if necessary because the house is being relocated, but they should be replaced around the house in the same manner that they currently exist. 2. The location of the front door along 144. Bleeker Street will need to be confirmed to the extent possible by framing evidence (once construction begins') and photographs. 3. The design of the front door must be based on a historic example that exists' in town, with drawings to be approved by staff and monitor. 4..411 existing historic windows in the house must be retained. 14&ere the historic windows have previously been removed, new replacement windows must match what existed originally, as shown in the drawings. 5. The HPC has granted the following variances: a 7' combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 2.3' west sideyard setback variance, a 3' west sideyard setback variance for lightwells, a 1' east sidyard setback variance, and a 3.3' combined sideyard setback variances, finding that the variances are needed to place the bulk of the new construction as far back from the historic house as possible, and to accommodate the width of the existing structure, and are compatible with the historic landmark and the neighborhood. 6. HPC must discuss the new fozmdation treatment, which is proposed to be clapboards and copper flashing patina. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 7. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location o~f all exterior lightingfixture when selected. 8. New yques may be added in the location shown on the approved drawings. The yques shall be metal pipe, detailed in the manner typical o~f miner's cottages and approved by staff and monitor. A masonry, clapboard, or metal sided stack is not approved. 9. Provide a relocation plan, detailing how the house will be securely stored during relocation (windows covered with plywood, ~fencing around the building), and a letter o~f credit in the amount o~f S30, 000 with submittal ~for building permit. 10. Submit a demolition plan, as part o~f the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas o~f the historic house are to be removed as part o~f the renovation. 11. Submit a preservation plan, as part o~f the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage. 12. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval o~f staff and monitor. 13. There shall be no deviations~from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 14. The preservation plan described above, as well as the language o~f conditions l-J, 8-9, 13 and 14 will be required to be printed on the cover sheet o~f the building permit plan set and all other prints made,for the purpose o~f construction. l J. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies o~f the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part o~f the building permit application indicating that all conditions o~f approval are know and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying~for the building permit. 16 All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions o~f approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 17. Historic window detail to be approved by staff and monitor. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 All in favor, motion carried. Roger, yes. Heidi, yes. Suzannah, yes. Susan, yes. defJhey, yes. Lisa, yes. Maureen, yes. Motion passes 7-0 Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 25~ 1999 302 E. HOPKINS AVE. - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION (CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING) .................................................................................................... 1 121 N. FIFTH STREET - FINAL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 11 16