Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080409ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 Project Monitoring -Isis Door ........................................................................................... 2 Project Monitoring -Main Street sidewalk ......................................................................... 4 627 W. Main Street -Major Development -Conceptual - PH ......................................... 5 541 Race Street -work session - no minutes ................................................................... 11 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9.2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Sarah Broughton, Brian McNellis and Nora Berko. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Alison moved to approve the minutes of March 12`"; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Project Monitoring -Isis Door Steve Resnick -represented Olson Builders Amy explained that HPC was asked to review some changes when the theatre was reconfigured and the retail shops where put in. The approved elevations indicated that the building would be reverted back into a center recessed entry that was there historically. The elevation that was approved by HPC is in your packet. There was not a lot of detail to the mill work that was going on the new store fronts so HPC added a condition of approval that the detailed drawings of the store front doors and windows must be submitted and approved by staff and monitor. Amy said when Aspen Film remodeled the Isis entry area the architect did show some drawings of the door and staff approved it based on it being a contemporary interpretation of what the original door looked like. When it came time to do the CO on the middle space it was apparent we weren't shown anymore information about what this new woodwork would look like. The doors that used to be the entry doors to the Isis where retained and simply set in the recessed position. We issued a CO with the condition that it get approval through HPC. Staff had a conversation with Sarah and Ann and we determined that just salvaging the doors and putting them in the recessed position wasn't something that we thought was acceptable. They are full light doors and perhaps a kick plate or something should have been considered. The door pulls are also very contemporary. Steve Resnick said the pulls are like a bronze slab that has a lariat and a dark silicon bronze. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9.2008 Amy said unfortunately the same thing happened again with the retail space where no information was provided to staff before the doors and everything where installed. We have two shops with unresolved conditions of approval and that is what is before the HPC. Steve said they where both done at the same time so it wasn't blatantly disregarded. Steve said he never saw the original plans. We used the existing doors and moved them back. The cost of two sets of doors would be $6,000. What we are proposing is to add a bronze kick plate or extend the wood up the door instead of purchasing new doors. Right now they are an aluminum clad door. The door going into the boutique store would change and the door into the movie theatre would remain as is. Sarah said she is hesitant to say the proposal is the solution. Steve said he can also make it look seamless with wood or bronze at the bottom to match the hardware on the doors. Ann said even though it is just an applied decoration on a door it would be an improvement. Alison and Brian asked about the hardware. Amy said her feeling is that the hardware is inappropriate with the building. Brian said he is concerned about the hardware and they should be reconsidered with a different pattern. Amy said in the middle space the existing doors were salvaged and reused and in the gallery space they replicated the doors. The doors and hardware where a condition of approval and someone should have noticed the drawing. Sarah said her feeling is that we bring up the bottom rail and we don't use brass and we get the alignment going on. Possibly a mockup out of plywood could be done and HPC could look at it. Steve said they will do a mockup and staff and monitor can look at it. Ann said the hardware is inappropriate. Steve said it was ordered and he didn't know it wasn't approved. Sarah said she and Ann can review the hardware and look at the mockup. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 Project Monitoring -Main Street sidewalk Sara said at the last meeting with Engineering we where trying to balance some issues such as the historic ditch along the south side of Main Street and the existing cotton wood trees. Engineering researched a material that would not damage the roots of the cottonwoods and not overlap on top of the ditch. The building permit indicates that pavers would be over the section where the cottonwood roots are and then go back to concrete for the rest of the sidewalk. Also, an issue came up at the corner of 5`h and Main Street. There is a significant grade change and a requirement to have a wall that goes down to where the ditch is to keep the sidewalk level. Staff would like input on the appropriate material for the wall. Staff is suggesting a dry stack. It will be visible from the lot but not from Main Street. Brian said the pavers where approved at the last meeting with Adam Trzcinski and we are here to decide whether the pavers should occur in this one section or if the pavers should span the entire block. Brian said it is a great solution to minimize the impacts to the root systems; however it is not as attractive as a regular concrete material. Minimizing it to where we need it is preferable. From a design perspective it is OK to tell the story as you walk down the street. There is a reason why the texture has changed in this area and it is because of the trees. Brian said he is in favor of the proposal. Jay said he has no issue with the concrete and the paver sidewalk. Ann said she objects to the use of the pavers. You could find a pavement that is more historically correct such as boardwalk or something set in sand. I realize we can't go backward on this but when it comes up again we should look at something that is more appropriate historically that does the same thing as the rubber pavers. Adam Trzcinski, Engineering Department. Adam said the installations are homogenous and consistent. It has been installed in numerous places in California and Washington. References can be provided. The product is recycled tires out of California. They shred the tires, freeze them and pulverize them and then form it and press it. Amy said we had two meetings and the conclusion was the approval of pavers. The issue is whether the pavers should be used for the entire block. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 Michael inquired about the color. Adam said the pavers can match the concrete. Ann asked how it is installed. Adam said it is in crusher fines to level it and then there is two inches of crushed stone. Michael and Sarah said they had a different recollection about the work session and the use of grates. Adam replied, to have it as a grated system we would be causing more damage then preserving. Amy said we are sure this is what was agreed upon. Michael said the board would like to see the pavers be consistent throughout the block. The color of the recycled pavers should match as close as to the concrete color. The board said they are fine with the wall being dry stack. Adam said on the south side of Main the concrete would be in front of the 7`h and Main affordable housing project unti1709 W. Main and the next block pavers. Adam said the company can adjust the paver to whatever color. Sarah said the paver should be gray to match regular concrete. Ann inquired about the paver weathering. Adam said there will be some weathering. Adam said the stone for the wall will be similar to the bike path at Burlingame. Sarah said she thinks that stone is Colorado buff. 627 W. Main Street -Major Development -Conceptual - PH Steev Wilson, Forum Phi Doug Kelso, owner Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I Amy explained that the house is a brick Victorian home on the far west end of Main Street. It is a landmark structure and in the historic district which is zoned mixed use. Doug plans to keep the house as a single family residence. The proposal is for an addition to the back of the house. There is already an addition and they basically want to expand on top of that element and move toward the alley with a master bedroom and a new single car garage. There has been progress made but we are not sure this is exactly the right solution. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 We have suggested that guideline 10.7 is not being met. The guidelines says if you are going to design an addition that is taller than the Victorian of the historic building you need to have a one story connector and we don't have that here and the addition is taller than the original house. Similarly we are concerned how the new construction attaches to the back gable end of the house. From looking at the design there is a deck at the back of the house that is meeting the rear gable end and therefore the railing might be cutting into the rear eave line. Photographs where provided with the addition super imposed. Staff feels that the addition has not been minimized sufficiently. HPC in the past has asked that the roof forms be simplified. Staff is suggesting that the entire profile of the addition needs to be altered. Possibly the plate heights could be lowered so that the entire thing drops down or lower the plate heights and increase the pitch of the addition so that it matches the historic house. It might not really become lower but it might become more visually compatible with the historic building. There is an overhang eave proposed for the west side of some of the existing construction and it is too far into the setback. The other issue is a zoning issue as there is a space labeled office and that needs to be for personal use. You can't have a sign indicating that it is an office. Staff is in support of the bonus in terms of what is being offered for that bonus. They are stripping the paint from the masonry and they are removing the glass block that is in anon-historic dormer and replacing the front door that is more appropriate. Staff feels the bonus is justified. The new construction continues the pattern that exists of being two feet from the property line on the east side. To grant this variance would have an impact on the adjacent building. Steev said on A2.4 we propose to keep the eaves as they exist now and then do a small mansard connector to minimize the connector portion on the second story. The connector gets you from one side to the other. It is basically a walk through closet. The plate heights are as low as code allows us. Steev also said they will eliminate the variance for the columns and will work within the setbacks. In this way we can theoretically park another car. The plate heights have been lowered to 8.5 from ten feet and we would like to keep the dormers in order to get light into the rooms. Jay asked if the 2000 addition is being altered. Steev said they would like to raise the roof on half of it. We desire to make flat roofs off the back half over the master bedroom essentially. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 Ann asked why the addition has to so much higher than the original house. Steev said the original house is 1 '/z story and the lower floor is 24 feet wide and the upper floor is only 16.8 feet wide because it is part of an attic space. The ceiling heights are 8 feet and the ceiling heights in the addition are 9.9 feet. We are trying not to impact what exists and just build on top of it. Brian asked if the dormers on the west side by the kitchen require a variance. Steev said we have a dormer off the previous addition and we are within our setback. We are not pursuing a variance. Nora said we understands the need for light but wondered if there where any other solutions to get light. Steev said they could try and do one longer shed dormer but that didn't seem to be in character with the building. The building already has a dormer that is of a similar style. We could do skylights but with the low plate heights we desire the dormer. Doug Kelso, owner said if they lower the height we will end up with interior space that is not hardly usable or attractive. Amy -explained that there are other ways to get light. It could be skylights or more glazing in the gable ends. Doug said it is his opinion that sky lights leak and he loathes the maintenance they entail. Brian asked staff to respond to the guidelines that says the design must meet all applicable design guidelines. Amy said there is still something questionable about the connector piece that could be resolved. On the addition, increasing the pitch is better; the shape is more sensitive to the historic house. Amy said her only issue is how to deal with the dormers. Sarah suggested cutting back the overhang on the dormers because they are quite deep right now; possibly have a six inch over hang. As a suggestion maybe you could eliminate two of the four dormers and make two large ones on either side. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There where no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 Michael said the issues are the plate heights, the design of the dormer and the connector as everything else has been taken off the table. We don't have a one story connector so that needs discussed. The overhang proposed for the west entry is not a setback issue anymore. If the board has a problem with the design over the entry we need to discuss it. Michael asked the board to address the height of the addition, the dormers and the visual impact of the addition on the historic house. Alison said what came to her mind was if there could be one dormer on each side that would be larger. Ann inquired about the outdoor staircase. Steev said the back bedroom only has access through the bedroom in front so the staircase gives the person in the back bedroom the ability to exit the building without having to go through another bedroom. Ann said she doesn't have a problem with the dormers as much as the height of the building and all the exterior things going on, windows, doors, staircases. Jay said the historic structure is simple and the addition is not simple, it is overwhelming the historic structure with all the different roof lines. The mass is an issue because of the connector. Nora commented that the entire street is very lovely. The front of the house is very simplistic and the back has so much going on. It would be great if the simplistic front could be brought into value rather than having dormers, decks, stairs and excessive height. Brian said at the street level the only thing you really see are the dormers. Sarah said she feels the eaves of the dormers are too deep. Sarah thanked the owner and architect for the model and the revisions that where made from the previous meeting. Sarah said she feels this is a good project and it does comply with our guidelines. There are some detailing and material issues that need to be dealt with at final. We are much further along. Michael said he realizes that it is frustrating for the landowner but we are making progress. Michael said he would like to see the prospective along Main Street and the dormers re-designed. The suggestion was to consolidate and make one dormer on each side. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 Connector: Jay commented that the connector is more than aone-story and are we willing to make a variance for that because the addition is above the height of the historic structure. Jay pointed out that the west side entrance cover sticks out too far as it detracts from the historic structure. Steev said in the new proposal we have cut a foot off the entrance cover. Amy commented on the outside staircase. Normally when people want to do a two story connector they only have one staircase in the house. You are actually creating a second staircase and maybe there is some way you an actually internalize that but let it have its own private doorway to get out. Then you wouldn't need the second floor closet space connector. Brian said he can understand the architect doing it this way because they have the view out the window that they want to retain. Keeping it as an exterior stairway is acceptable as long as we compromise with the dormers. Michael said he is perplexed about the suggestion of getting rid of the external stairway. Brian said the site has minimal side yard setbacks and it will not be that visible. Jay said if there was an internal staircase and they didn't have the connector increase then it would be more in compliance with 10.7. Amy said it would be more compliant if we didn't have the second story element touching the back of the house but then there is an impact of some sort by internalizing the staircase. It is bumping out somewhere. Michael said the external staircase and the story and 1/2 connector is a choice being made by the property owner and I do not see a compelling reason not to accept it. Sarah commented that what has been presented is in compliance with guideline 10.7. We have a connector and it has been minimized and the link away from the historic resource helps to push the higher addition further back. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 Sarah asked what the total height of the back of the addition to the ridge was. Steev said he didn't have those figures but it is 18.5 to the plate. Sarah said you are probably 28 to 33 feet. Ann said the sketches of the photo shop would help because the elevations look like the addition has a big impact to the house. Steev said the addition is far back. Amy suggests the HPC make it clear what the remaining issues are so that when they are on the agenda May 14"' it can go quickly. Michael identified the outstanding issues: Height Dormers Connector Jay said he likes the trade off of the staircase and the smaller mass in the back. He can probably agree to the connector. The concern is to minimize the connector so that you do have a better separation between the historic resource and the proposed addition. Steev said the connector comes in 4 or 5 feet and catches the slop. The use is a closet. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 627 W. Main until May 14`" with the following directions: Look at the plate height and ridge height. Look at the room in section as it is awkward and it is narrow and you really have a high plate height even at 8 feet. It probably could come down more especially if we are putting in dormers. There could be details that could happen to the dormers if they are going to remain. There is concern about the connector but the Commission is divided about that as to whether it is an appropriate solution or not. Brian said there is give and take with the plate height vs. the dormer. Leave the plate height higher or get rid of the dormers vs. lowering the plate height and keeping the dormers. Brian suggested the applicant bring two possible solutions to the board at the next meeting. Motion second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2008 Jim True, Special Counsel reviewed the public notices and they are all appropriate. 541 Race Street -work session - no minutes MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned a 7:00 p.m. ~~: {,L~~-1w~ ~ Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk I1