Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070822 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 22. 2007 214 E. BLEEKER - VACANT LOT - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FlNAL .................. 4 507 GILLESPIE STREET - FlNAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARlNG............................. 7 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 22. 2007 Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.rn. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis and Michael Hoffman. Sarah Broughton was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counsel Disclosure: Brian will excuse himself on 507 Gillespie. His previous employer was the landscape architect on the project. MOTION: Michael moved to approve April 25th minutes, second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Brian moved to approve July J th minutes; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comments: Bob Cook asked if City Council has directed the HPC or asked for any input or suggestions or comments as it relates to changing Ordinance #30. Jeffrey said the HPC had a worksession with City Council. Alison said the way it was left was that City Council directed staff to prepare a memo and HPC should respond. HPC has not had a chance to respond to the memo. Alison pointed out that the discussion of the memo is not on the HPC agenda tonight. Commissioner comments: Michael said he was interested in the comments from the worksession. Alison said incentives came up but she isn't sure what kind of incentives the City could come up with to encourage homeowners to participate and be more excited about historic preservation. It would be interesting to see what Amy or any outside consultant might come up with. The other interesting thing would be the study on how historic designation affects a property value. It is better for the HPC when the homeowner comes forward and we work together then the projects come out better. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 22. 2007 Brian said we have preservation guidelines to protect the structures and the character of the community as a whole. It seemed that the people who were speaking were alienated from historic preservation and those people make up our community. Those people who are embedded in the community are concerned about historic preservation. Alison said ordinance #30 upset the core, the people of Aspen who have lived here for years and years. Brian said the intent was to protect those people and it went awry. Providing incentives for homes over 30 years is difficult because you have a house built in 1970 that was built to capacity on the lot and you now have lost the FAR incentive. Michael said HPC is charged to promote the history of historic preservation. Ordinance 30 had the effect of shifting the burden of whether something is historic or not from the City to the home owners. What r suggested to council was to make sure the standards that are set for the Post World War II structures; that we get some community input as to how far we go. rfthe community as a whole doesn't want something designated we need to listen to that. Jeffrey said he was here for the citizen symposium. Our guidelines got refined and incentives got built. That changed our program for the better. This emergency ordinance did not give the opportunity for the citizens of the community to get involved. It takes a community to create preservation. We missed out and now everyone is on the defense to present their case. There is a lot of anxiety in the community. The HPC board tries to be as proactive as we can in order to get projects approved. Sara Adams pointed on that P&Z will review a code amendment to change the historic landmark lot splits on Main Street. Right now the purpose is to create a single family home on a vacant lot and that does not meet the intent of that district. It will be proposed to be changed to a mixed use zone on the vacant parcel. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 22. 2007 214 E. BLEEKER - Vacant Lot - Major Development - Final Sara said the vacant lot is a 6,000 square foot lot that was created through the subdivision of the landmark designated parcel next door. There are a few issues to be addressed: I. The existing wrought iron fence seems old and staff is interested in retaining it on the site. 2. At conceptual the porch was to be restudied regarding the gable to see whether enclosing it would relate better to the context of the historic block. The applicant will be showing the HPC three different scenarios. Stafffeels the gable is not resolved yet and should be closed in more. 3. Regarding the windows stafffeels it might be more successful if the divided lights were 2 over 2 or lover I to better relate to the context. 4. A mockup of the proposed stone to be reviewed and approved by the project monitor in the field. We are looking for a stone that is more local. Overall, staff recommends approval with conditions. Dave Rybak, architect said the four things brought up are grey areas of the guidelines. In interpreting the guidelines I'm being sympathetic to the context but not replicating or overstating a Victorian tradition. We realize this is a very sensitive block with the Community Church and two other Victorians. Dave Rybak said the fence on the 214 project, a wrought iron fence starts at the turret on the west end and wraps around the front yard and then extends the length of the lot A parcel. There is a difference in the detailing. From the gate to the east the fence is a simpler design. The fence mayor may not be original. We would like to propose to remove the fence along our lot line and utilize the balance of the fencing to differentiate the non historic from the historic site. We would turn the fence along our lot line on the west side and return it back to the front corner of the historic property of214 E. Bleeker, therefore framing in the historic front yard and keeping the wrought iron fence associated with the historic building. We would then propose to eliminate the fence that we showed on the alley and retain an open back yard. We would keep this project an open front yard that contextually matches 232 E. Bleeker. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 22. 2007 On the windows we proposed 4 over 4 patterns which is not a heavy texture. The bay window that was added to 214 E. Bleeker was a 6 over 6 pattern. The windows are averaging 3 feet wide and we are ending up with a space at about I foot two inches. When you consider that width it is not very tight. Ifwe eliminate the divided lights we are concerned that it will be too contemporary in the look of the house. We would like to retain the mutton pattern as we have shown it. On the gable form on the front porch option #2 with a simplified truss could be 4 x 4 wood posts without additional detailing to indicate that it was not Victorian. As far as the stone we have three options: rough field stone that would create a lot of shadows, tan stone where the grout comes over the stone and you get a plainer element or a painted brick for the chimney and all other masonry. Sara said the fence could be left up to the monitor and staff so more research can be done as to its age. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Mirta Malory, neighbor who lives in the house behind the subject property. There as been an extreme amount of detail and attention paid to this area because of its historic nature and this historic area. This is an opportunity to maintain high standards to the new homes that are being constructed on vacant lots. The scale and details are important. I would hope that the scope of the chimney can remain the stature of chimneys in this neighborhood. The church chimney is the greatest stature not the new homes. The new chimney should not rival the chimney on the church. The pillars should be discrete in scale and not be over scaled. Aspen has a massing challenge. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Michael pointed out that Guideline 1.1 talks about preserving original fences. Apparently we do not know the age and more research is needed. Regarding the gabled roof Option #2 with the simplified truss is acceptable. The smooth stone work is preferable which would be option #2 because this is a new home. Michael also pointed out that there is nothing objectionable 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 22. 2007 about the pillars and the height of the chimney in relationship to others on the block. It does not appear to be out of scale. Brian indicated that the architect has addressed all of the board's concerns. We do not have enough information on the fence to make a decision. Brian agreed with Michael that the simplified truss with the simple detail, option #2 is preferable. Regarding the windows the proposal fits in scale and with the context of the area. The point that Mirta mentioned about the chimney is worth studying. Maybe the brick doesn't have to go up the chimney as it is a primary element of the architecture. The landscape proposal is mostly just maintaining what is existing which is appropriate. Alison said the metal fence needs more research before a determination can be made. The idea presented about moving it and wrapping it around the side ofthe historic house fits well. Leaving the new house open in front and back complies with Guideline 1.3 which says using no fencing at all is often the best solution. Alison also agreed that the simplified truss option #2 works well with the design. It keeps it open but screened and gives it a little depth from the street. The proposed divided light windows helps differentiate from other homes on the street and it makes it a product of its time. Regarding the stone option #2 or the brick would be interesting. The brick could also be introduced in the chimney. The double columns on the front are a nice scale and work with the simplified truss. Jeffrey informed the applicant that the proposal is very sensitive to the neighborhood. The fence should be left up to staff and monitor. The idea that Alison presented about no fence at all in front of this house is appealing. On the gable end of the entry element option #2, the simplified truss is more sympathetic to the design. Regarding the divided lights, the windows are appropriate with the design. The mock up of the stone should be presented to staff and monitor. In reference to the chimney the applicant should be allowed to do what is required by code. Jeffrey pointed out that it is set back from the front elevation. Guidelines in Chapter I, II, and 14 are met for this new construction and approval is recommended. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #34, 2007 for 214 E. Bleeker, final development with the following modifications: Condition #1 to include a study of the proposed fence to determine its history and to review the proposed design presented tonight. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 22. 2007 Condition #2 be modified to accept Option #2 for the open simplified truss for the gable roof on the porch. Strike #3 condition. Condition #4 to accept #2 stone proposal. Motion second by Brian. Discussion: Brian pointed out that his option was #1 stone. Alison suggested that the mockup panel of the proposal occur. Amended motion: Michael amended the motion to retain #4 as recommended by staffwhich is a mock-up panel of the proposed stone must be reviewed and approved in the field. Brian second the amended motion. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 4-0. Alison, monitor 507 GILLESPIE STREET - FINAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING Brian recused himself. Affidavit of posting, Exhibit I Jim True, special counsel informed the applicant that there are only three board members and a unanimous vote needs to occur for approval. Randall Bone, owner requested to proceed with the hearing. Sara said the project is for final review for the vacant lot created through the historic landmark lot split program. There are four changes that have occurred since conceptual approval. I. The height of the primary residence has increased ten inches. 2. The height of the secondary structure, the ADU at the rear has increased 7 inches. Staff opposes both height increases. 3. There is also a floor area increase of20 square feet as the result of moving around light wells. Staff feels 20 square feet is negligible. 4. Window wells - There have been two window wells that were added. There were large lightwells in the setback and a condition of approval was that the lightwells be reduced to the minimum sizes for building egress. Since this is a vacant lot they should conform to the R-6 dimensional requirements. The architects are proposing two 30 inch 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 22. 2007 below grade window wells. Those do not need variances. There is a condition that they are not allowed to have a foundation or tie back into the building. Staff just wanted to raise the question to make sure the window wells are feasible. We are also requesting that the window well on the east elevation be brought completely within the building envelope. 5. Light wells - The applicant has reduced the size of the light wells to the minimum which is 9 square feet for egress. They are also proposing to relocate the light well that was on the northwest corner to the south western section of the primary residence. Staff is in support of the new location. Final review criteria: Sara pointed out that the applicant is working with retaining the irrigation ditch and they are intending to preserve some trees. Staff is concerned with an 18 inch parking barrier/seats that is proposed for the right-of-way outside their property. Because it is in the right-of-way Engineering needs to be consulted and the Parking Department. After talking to the landscaper the seats are to create some vitality on that street and staff feels that they could work with the contemporary architecture of the building. They are also tied into some of the plantings etc. Staff is also concerned with the fence proposed for the front elevation as it lacks some of the transparency that we typically ask for in fences that are seen from the right-of-way. It is a combination of wood and stone and there is a metal partition wall. Staff just feels we need a little more information as to how it all will work together. Possibly increasing the size of the gaps would meet our guideline for transparency. All the materials proposed are appropriate but there seems to be too much going on and as a suggestion it should be simplified. Overall staff recommends approval with conditions. Alex Klumb from CCY architects presented. Alex said through project development and understanding actual construction such as the floor assembly and roof heights, the height increased 10 inches. On the materials there are only two types of siding. We feel that the graphic presented is a little misleading. On the stone there was an increase of 18 inches of exposed stone to 36 inches. On the light wells on the east and west it is our intention to work with the Building and Engineering departments to ensure we can provide a reasonable solution without a foundation. We would use dry stack and thus not need a foundation. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 22. 2007 Sherie Sanzone, Bluegreen presented the landscape plan. The lawn is a clean look and on Gillespie there is a stone wall 18 inches high that runs along the street and also functions as a seat wall. The existing ditch will not be altered. The seat/wall is in the right-of-way. The Engineering Department is in favor of the proposal. We also need to meet with the Streets Dept. There is no parking on this side of Gillespie. The fence is stone, wood and then a metal veneer at the back part of the house. As Sara suggested we studied the dimension between the wood slats and came up with I Y2 inches. The fence is basically a design element. It comes around the property and ties into the garage. The stone would only be in the front. We feel we are meeting the transparency guideline. Alison asked about drainage with the light wells and how the ADU got taller. Alex said they would have to excavate the area in order to get the footings in. The backfill would be coarse gravel. Regarding the ADU the roof pack assembly, in order to get more insulation it got taller. Alison asked what the maximum height could be. Alex said they are at 23 and the allowable is 25 feet. Alison pointed out that at conceptual we establish heights and the additional height seems to shadow over the historic resource. As far as the window and light wells they are a big improvement. The material palate is acceptable. The bench and wall should be handled by Engineering. The Streets Dept. should be involved due to snow removal. The side fence on the west side, the metal piece makes it less transparent. Michael said he fully agrees with staffs recommendation. We should require that the height of the structures be dropped to what was approved at conceptual. The window well should be located within the setbacks and the material palate is appropriate. The proposed wall does not support our guidelines and the proposed fence does not conform to the guidelines which state that new fences should be similar. Jeffrey indicated that he was not here for conceptual but read the minutes and application. He commended the applicant for a well organized presentation and supports staffs sentiments on this proposal. The massing and scale should be at the height that was approved at conceptual. The material palate is OK. In reference to the seat and parking blockers it is in an historic neighborh00d and some already exist. Jeffrey recommended that staff and monitor work out with the other departments the seat and parking 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 22. 2007 blockers. This is City property and they can easily be moved. The fence that faces Gillespie does not comply with Chapter I which clearly talks about transparency of fences. At least the east west portion of the fence is not consistent with our guidelines. The landscape plan and lighting meet our standards. MOTION: Alison moved to approve Major Development (Final), Resolution #35 for the property located at 507 Gillespie Ave. with the following amended conditions. Condition #4 - Stone samples/mock-ups to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Condition #5 - The seat/parking blockers are to be restudied by staff and monitor after review by the Streets and Engineering Departments. Motion second by Jeffrey. Discussion: Sherie Sanzone said they met with Engineering and they were fine with the elements but recommended we work with the Streets Department to determine where they would be located on Gillespie Ave. They serve a lot of purposes which should be considered. Michael said he could support the seat/parking blockers as long as they do not exceed 18 inches high except for the mail box. Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Alison, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 3-0. Commissioner comments: Jim pointed out that the previous application did not have the standard conditions that are normal for final review in Resolution #34. Jim said anyone who voted for the resolution can reconsider it at this meeting or the next meeting. Jim said if you want the applicant to be present we can ask them to show up and do it at the next meeting. MOTION: Michael moved to reconsider the approval of Resolution #34 for the purpose of adding the standard language; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. 3-0. MOTION: Michael moved that Resolution #34 be amended to include all the standard conditions and that our Special Counsel give telephone notice and a letter to Dave Ryback that if he has any objections to the changes in 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 22. 2007 the resolution they should be presented to Counsel by September 12th; second by Alison. All infavor, motion carried 3-0. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11