Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20000726ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 520 E. HYMAN AVE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PH ................................................... 1 232 E. HALLAM - VARIANCE REQUEST - PH ................................................... 3 129 W. FRANCIS - FINAL - PH .............................................................................................................. 10 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. In attendance were Rally Dupps, Gilbert Sanchez, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko and Lisa Markalunas. Mary Hirsch, Heidi Freidland and Jeffrey Halferty were excused. Lisa Markalunas was appointed as a regular member. 520 E. ItYMAN AVE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PH Fred Jarman, planner relayed that the owner Christian Hedberg is proposing a minor alteration to a store front window facade. Currently there are two streets facing windows and the window on the left as you face the storefront is proposed to be remodeled; It would be a vertically sliding double hung window in order to provide walk up service to patrons on the street. The storefront is set back around 30 feet. There are three alternatives: 1) One would be to match the right windOw with the proposed left window in order to have a matching set so one does not detract from the other in the design. 2) Allow the applicant to do the left double hung vertical sliding window and on the opposite window place a wooden strip that would match what was on the left window. The wood strip would mimic what is going on. 3) Not have the vertically sliding window by have the entire panel open in somewhat of a casement type window. When it is shut the facade would look the same. 4) The buildingis 13 years old. Christian Hedberg, owner was sworn in. Christian preferred option #2. The owner has given permission for the remodel. The original window would be kept in storage. Suzarmah felt that a casement window of that size would have technical challenges associated with it and would change the detail of the window quite a bit. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 Melanie said a double hung slider on the left would not look the same as the right if modified with a bar across to match because the slider would be at different levels. Christian relayed that it would be very similar. On the outside they would look the same. Fred: For clarification the double hung would sit further out than the other. Melanie said only from a distance would it give the illusion of being the sanle. Lisa asked the owner to explain what the look is when the casement window is open. The entire window will be swung in toward the windows. Christian said the casement window would have to swing outward against the comer as opposed to a sliding window. Suzannah relayed that the casement window would have to be hinged and you would see it on the outside and she is opposed to that option. No window manufacturer would guarantee it due to weathering. Christian said the sliding window would look exactly the same on the outside with the strip on the adjacent window to match. The window would slide halfway down. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. COMMENTS: The board felt that the casement window would be the least desirable because you would see a double sash. The casement would be awkward to the building. The double hung is more desirable and the mutton should be attached to the other window. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minor development for the property located at 520 E. Hyman Ave~ know as the l?Vorldlink Cafe' as presented on the July 26, 2000 meeting with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant agrees upon this approval to replace the proposed modified window with the original existing window upon termination of lease or change of use; 2. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approve by HPC staff. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit; and 4. 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 of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5. Cut sheet of the window-selected profiles shall be submitted to staff and monitor before purchasing the window. Motion second by Rally. Yes vote: Gilbert, Rally, Suzannah, Susan, Melanie, Lisa 232 E. HALLAM - VARIANCE REQUEST - PH Nick Lelack, planner informed the HPC that this is a request for two variances from the Residential Design, Standards and specifically they are variances from the fence standard. The land use code states where fences or dense landscaping exists or are proposed it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street. Specifically the fence sub- section standard states that fences, hedge rows and planter boxes shall not · be more than 42 inches high measured from natural grade in all areas forward on the front facade of the house. Man made burros are prohibited in the front yard setback. This request is asking for a 72" fence to be allowed forward of the front facade of the house on the eastern side of the property. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 (Nick brought a GIS map to the meeting indicating the property lines). A small section of the fence is in question. The applicant states that the reason for the request is to define the boundaries of the Pace's private property from the existing public trail. The GIS system isn't perfect and the property to the south is actually connected to it. The trail runs along the side of the house and goes around to Clark's market. We can't tell exactly where the property boundaries are and if there was a public trail easement. The GIS map shows that the two properties, abut each other. Staff supports the request for the six-foot fence: 1) It meets the intent of the standard, which is to define the property boundary from the trail easement. 2) The AACP calls for improving the pedestrian infill structure and even more specifically calls for improving the east west pedestrian access in the West End. The trail easement would secure any trail easement that existed in that area. At the site visit part of the fence is actually in the public right-of-way and an encroachment would have to be maintained from the Engineering Dept. There are three criteria for the variances requested. 1) Is it more in align with the Aspen Area Community Plan? Staff believes in this case that it is because of the pedestrian access being preserved here. 2) Is it a more effective method of addressing the standard in question? Staff does not think that is the case because a 42- inch fence would clearly define the property boundary. 3) Clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site- specific constraints. Staff does not believe that standard has been met. The second request is to construct a two foot eight inch berm in the front yard setback planted with trees and shrubs. An existing berm is located in the public right-of-way and upon confirmation from the Engineering Dept. that berm would have to be removed. The Eng. Dept. does not approve of berms in the public right-of-way in front of the property. Nick said throughout the project no trees were to be removed across the front of the property to access the addition. Trees were removed and it was represented that new trees would be planted in the same formation at the same grade along the front of the property. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 Within the last month the city met with the applicant regarding the berm and notified them that an encroachment would be required for the right-of- way permit. As °fyesterday wood chips and wild flowers continued to be planted in the right-of-way and possibly the applicant could address these issues. Staff recommends denial of the berm request because none of the review criteria has been met. It is not in line with the AACP. The second criteria being a more effective method of meeting the standards in question. The standard in question is that man made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback of the house. The third is that it is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. This is an historic Aspen town site and this lot has not changed. The buildings have changed and the fences have changed. Monarch Street and E. Hallam Street have been here for a long time and there are no reasons that have site specific constraints that would require a berm. Staff believes that the berm directly conflicts with the Residential Design. Standards and it eliminates the visibility of the house and front yard from the street. Staff supports the approval of the fence and denial of the berm. Julia Marshall and Harry Teague were sworn in. Julia presented the HPC with a board that showed the plan. The fence is pulled back from the fire hydrant and she did not know plantings were occurring as they were waiting for a decision from HPC. They intend to pull the berm back onto the private property so that it would not encroach. They do need an encroachment. Julia feels the situation is unique. Monarch St. comes straight down toward the house and with headlights they shine right into the master bedroom. With the addition of the fence the berm creates an overlay of privacy for the residence. The privacy is helping the inside of the residence. In terms of the historic aspect of it Julia presented a before and after photograph of the streetscape. There is a wrought iron fence in front of part of the house and if you were to screen with a fence instead of shrubs, aesthetically they 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 would clash with each other. The vegetation is a milder way of screening the residence and keeping the historic aspect of the house very clear. The vegetation blocks the street from the cars coming down the road. The Parks Dept. was contacted and Stephen represented that he did not have any problem with what was existing right now and would not have a problem with the berm beingpushed back onto the private property. Harry Teague said comments from the I-]PC members during the process were that trees don't last forever and a more durable landscape feature was brought up or implied but the berm was never discussed. He feels there is a site-specific condition where a road comes down and faces directly at somebody's private yard. The historic portion of the house and its relationship to the street is unchanged. He also feels the berm is better than the fence and less confrontational at the end of the street. Julie said with the trail easement in perpetuity we are inviting people to come to that coruer. The berm fence combination is'preferable. Julie also stated that the owner met with HPC at one point and the fence across the front was denied because they felt that two different type offences would not work very well together. CLARIFICATIONS Gilbert inquired about the plantings on top of the berm. Julia responded that pinions are on top of the berm and mugo pines are at the base that creates a dense screening. The' height of the mugo is about five to six feet. The spruce trees that existed were making a huge block across and the new vegetation opens it up somewhat to the mountain: Susan inquired about the vegetation on the public right-of-way. Julie said just flowers would be planted. She also relayed that she has worked with the Parks Dept. on the mitigation. The mugo pines would hide the shape of the berms. Rally asked what the advantage was for a six foot fence as opposed to a 42- inch fence regarding the variance request. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 Julia said most peoples eye level is over 42 inches and under six feet so the six feet keeps people from looking into the back yard. Also the trail is used a lot and it would provide privacy. Melanie asked if the large spruces that were removed were in the location of the berm? Julia said during construction a few trees were removed to access for construction. Melanie said could not the trees be put back like they were which was represented and bermed behind it on the inside? Julia said the spruce was not used because the owner would like to keep a view of Ajax. The Parks Dept. gave us the option of what kind of trees could be used. They did not have a problem with the type of trees that we were using. She worked with Stephen Elsperman during the process. Susan said she remembered that the trees would be replaced with like trees. Amy said it was not discussed at HPC and HPC thought the same trees would always be there. After our approval the decision was made that construction access would be at the front and the trees would be replaced. That is the discussiOn with Patrick from Harry Teague's office. The berm was not discussed. Julia said regulations now state what you can do in the right-of-way. They no longer want spruce trees to screen houses. Suzarmed opened the public hearing. Walt Madden and Lawrence Miller were sworn in. Walt Madden said he owns the house around the comer and his concern is the six-foot fence. The fence is what you see in the front yard. His feeling is this is allowed because of the trail easement that is being granted. The 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 property lines of the houses are unclear along the trail, A survey company has been hired to determine the lines. Lawrence Miller, resident of the Pace house stated that they went to the Parks Dept. because they had liability concerns due to the trail crossing their property and they knew it was an important amenity for the neighborhood. They were looking for something to protect them and at the same time provide continued access to go to Clark's and the Post Office so they came to the city for a fence. The trail is heavily traveled and they wanted some protection. Suzannah closed the public hearing. COMMENTS Lisa could find it acceptable to have some portion of the eastern edge of the fence in exchange for the trail easement. She would not support the berm as the representation to HPC was that the trees would be replaced and they should be replaced in a like manner. Melanie said from her recollection the trees were to screen the front in order to hide what was going on behind it. She recollected stating that the project should be acceptable whether trees were there or not. When the trees were taken out the board was told that they were going to be replaced in a like manner and that should occur. The berm should be constructed in the inside. There was no talk about removing trees for views. Regarding the fence she does not have that much ora problem because it is the public right-of-way but maybe it should be restudied to lower it. Susan agreed with Lisa and Melanie regarding the berm. Regarding planting in the right-of-way, historic yards have grass from the curb to their fence and then flowers along the fence. The fence is OK on the East Side. Gilbert relayed that he could support staff's recommendation on the berm and to allow the fence as a trade off for the easement. He suggested a restudy of the solid fence. He does not agree that this is a unique site, the neighbor noted that he had headlights shining into his house because it is at the end of a street. There are also similar.situations on Lake Ave. He 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 would hate to see everyone coming in asking for a berm that have car headlights shining into their houses. The problem was not inherent to the site; it was created by the architect and the location of the bedroom. Rally felt that a 42-inch fence would achieve that a six-foot fence would as far as privacy. The six-foot fence is an unfriendly wall that you have to deal with and the neighbors would have to deal with day in and day ont. He would not support the variance for a six-foot fence. Suzannah stated in terms of the trees it would be a better solution to see them at grade the way the neighboring older trees but she is also concerned about what comments the Parks Department would have. The second choice would be to see the trees planted at the property line with the berm behind it. Julia said when they approached the Parks Dept. to give the easement to the City the trade was a six-foot fence not a stepped fence and if the Board desires a stepped fence the applicant would not feel comfortable in giving the easement. Nick said there are two sets of regulations being discussed here, Parks and Engineering including the Residential Design Guidelines and he recommends that the appropriate parties get together to discuss the applications. The Parks Dept. has agreed to pay for a portion of the fence. Amy said the reason we would be asking for the trees to be placed back is because the owner had initially represented that the trees would stay there. Amy pointed out that the addition is successful. Linda Pace said from day she was informed that the trees did not have to be the same kind of trees. MOTION: Rally moved to deny the application for 232 E. Hallam as submittec~ second by Melanie. Yes vote: Rally, No Vote: Gilbert, Suzannah, Susan, Melanie, Lisa Motion denied 5-1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution 37, 2000for the single family residence of 252 E. Hallam Street with the following conditions.. I) Prior to any additional work on the fence on the subject property: a) The applicant shall grant a permanent and non-revocable trail easement to the City of Aspen for the existing trail across the properO; located at 232 E. Hallam within 30 days of this public hearing. If the trail easement is not conveyed to the City of Aspen within this timeframe, this approval shall be rendered null and void and the portion of the fence forward of the front facade of the house shall be removed immediately at the owner's expense. b) The existing berm in the right-of-way shall be removed within 14 days of this public hearing. 2) Prior to the construction of the proposed fence in the public right-of- way, the Applicant shall apply for an encroachment license from the City Engineer's office. 3) Staff and monitor, Parks Dept., Engineering Dept. and the owner's representative shah meet to discuss the landscaping issues of the property and after that meeting a revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the entire HPC Board for review and approval. Gilbert clarified that essentially before any work can continue on the fence we remove the topic of the berm that they need to provide a trail easement and they also need to get the approval of Engineering. The berm that is in the public right-of-way needs removed within 14 days. les vote: R ally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Susan, Melanie, Lisa Motion carried 6-0. 129 W. FRANCIS - FINAL - PH Amy relayed that the project is one half of the lot split that was approved in 1995. They got an HPC award and the historic house has already been renovated. In general staffsupports the project. The design approved at conceptual level was somewhat less nco-Victorian in character than this is. Staff also has concerns with the material selections and they should be restudied in order for the project to meet the final review criteria. Staff has concerns with the roof, which is shown as an octagonal scalloped shingle, 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 the fish scale shingles in the gable ends of the house and turned porch posts and balusters~ In the historic house such as the front porch reconstruction was needed and that detail was much simpler than what is being proposed on this new house. The rest of the conditions of approval are standard conditions of approval Sworn in were: Jake Vickery and Mr. Alciator Jake relayed that the Alciator's are trying to build a traditional house as opposed to a Victorian house. We are not trying to be neo-Victorian but traditional We tried to'be straightforward with this design. The house that has been remodeled is 123 W. Francis. A model was passed around indicating the different heights. The design fits in the neighborhood. We tried to hold the second floor massing back from the very front of the house so as to resonate with the scale of 123 W. Francis. There are no variances. The sideyards are actually ten feet on each side. There is a good spacing between the historic house and the new house. Nancy Alcitor informed the board that she had this property under contract with Jake. They chose the property for the neighborhood and they like the conceptual plan. The changes are based on their personal biases. They came from a traditional home background and that is what they want to create on the property. They want a straighter line more classic look. They had no objections to changing the shingles. Regarding the other objections such as cut sheets on light fixtures, landscaping plan they are happy to do that. They are willing to work with the HPC. QUESTIONS & CLARIFICATIONS Jake said on the old house it has octagon shingles on the two end gables and the front gable. There are octagon shingles just on the bay and the rest of the house is roofed with shingles. The octagonal use is somewhat of a reference of what is going on with the historic house. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 COMMENTS Rally stated that the proposed house has descent proportions to it. He has reservations with some of the material choices but those can be handled with Staffand Monitor and he is in support of the project. Gilbert also supports the resolution. Susan stated that the victorian fish scale elements should be eliminated. Lisa agreed with staffthat the shingle choice should be simplified. It competes too much with ornateness with the historic house. The historic house is asphalt shingle and Lisa would recommend that the new house have asphalt shingles or a simplified shingle but nothing over decorative. The detail on the gables should be scaled back. Suzannah relayed that she had nothing to add to staff's memo. MOTION: Rally moved to grant final approval for 129 ~ Francis Street, private residence with the following conditions: J. The applicant must work with staff and monitor to choose alternative materials for the roof shingles in the gable ends, porch posts, and balusters in order to avoid creating a historic appearance on the new house. 2. Cut sheets of all proposed exterior lightingfixtures must be submitted for approval by staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 3. A landscape plan must be reviewed by staff and monitor prior to installation. No trees or other vegetation that blocks views of the historic house will be approved. 4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 5. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for a building permit. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, July 26, 2000 6. 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 of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. motion second by Melanie. Yes vote: Rally, Gilbert, Susan, Suzannah, Melanie, Lisa Motion carries 6-0 MOTION: Suzannah moved to adjourn; second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried. Meeeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13