Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20081022ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 334 W. Hallam -fence and landscape ................................................................................ 1 Popcorn Wagon, cont'd public hearing .............................................................................. 5 308 E. Hopkins - La Cocina -roof top .............................................................................. 7 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called tlae meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Jay Maytin, Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton and Ann Mullins. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve the minutes of September 10`h; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Jay said he works for a company that delivers to the popcorn wagon. Jim True, determined there was no conflict. Michael suggested when it comes to design review applications Sarah could be the chair for those particular applications. Sarah said she could support being a co-chairman. The board supported the arrangement. 334 W. Hallam -fence and landscape Hayden Connor, owner Amy pointed out that the house is on the National Register and it sits on a 9,000 square foot house. It is a nice example of a significant Victorian. Some of the features on the house are unique because the previous owner had a lumber yard. There are two structures on the site, a primary house and carriage house that was built in the 80's. The topic is finishing the project in terms of the site plan and landscaping. The Connor's propose a wooden privacy fence along the alley facade and east property line and partially coming across the front facade along Hallam Street. They had a similar fence in the past and that fence was taken down during construction and partially fell down. There is nothing on the site. Staff signed off on a fence permit that did allow for the reconstruction of a solid wood fence along the alley and up the east property line. I did not feel it appropriate to sign off on certain aspects of the project. The fencing across the property would not go in front of the house but staff feels it is too out of character with the primary facade and the height of it would block some views of features'from the street. The other aspect of the project that was not signed off on was the concept of creating a 30 inch raised planter bed inside the fence which would be filled with conifers planted in a continuous row. The planting ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 pattern is out of context for the site and the Parks Dept. felt that the trees would not fare well due to the close plantings and the number of trees. Staff recommends working together to come up with a more sensitive solution for the section of fence that faces Hallam and to revisit the landscape plan that is in more character with the property. Exhibit I -photograph of the front of house Exhibit II -photograph of fence posts Exhibit III - Hayden's proposal Hayden explained that the original proposal was for a metal fence but that was denied so we went to a wooden fence that was existing when we bought the house. The fence was damaged during the construction of 340 W. Hallam. I was told by their architect that I could tear down the fence and rebuild it. When I met with Amy to restart the landscaping I was told I couldn't build a 7 foot fence as it had been taken town. If you repair an existing fence you can keep and maintain it on a grandfathered basis. Amy was uncomfortable as to how the fence attaches to the house. The house has full exposure on Third and Hallam Street. There is a very little portion that the fence blocks. I would like to do a fence that is six feet around the perimeter of the property and on Hallam have a five foot fence with a one foot lattice and have it connect to the building. The land use code permits a berm or planter to basically hold a row of trees. I have been told that the Norway spruce will survive at 8,000 feet. I would not invest $15,000 on trees if they were not acclimated to this climate. I am looking for privacy and that is why I bought a 9,000 square foot lot. The interest of HPC is the exterior of the home. The only view is to the south and that is not encumbered. I appreciate staff's points but I disagree with them. Jay said the fence posts seem close to the property line. Amy said she doesn't think a variance was granted. You can go on either side of the property line with a fence. Hayden said the neighbors have five feet from our fence. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 Sarah asked what the fence code was on a corner lot. Amy said it can't be more than 42 inches tall in the front of the house. Behind the facades they can go as tall as six feet. Hayden said the fence on Hallam would be five feet with a one foot lattice on top. The fence in back on the alley would be a six foot stockade and on the east side. Hayden said the berm issue is 30 inches and I want to make that a planter and plant a row of trees for a privacy hedge. Amy said Hayden is meeting the height limit by code for the front but the design of the fence lacks transparency. Chairperson Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Fence: Sarah said she was fine with the height of the fence. We would encourage more of a transparency from our guidelines. Ann said the lattice is OK due to the size of the house. Possibly 18 inches of lattice would work better and add transparency. Jay said he is fine with the fence between the two properties. Jay said he would prefer to see the lattice on top of the fence. The more setbacks from the house would allow sympathy to the house. Possibly setback the fence a foot on Hallam Street. Nora said she is concerned about the solid stockade. Historically there was no fence there. Guideline 1.3 talks about transparence and the more transparency would comply with our code. Planter hedge row: Ann explained when trees are planted in a planter it isn't the best environment. They get. stressed. The proposal is much too strict of a planting. You could do a more historical planting with a variety of trees and bushes in different shapes and heights. Michael said a hedge row would be an impact from the alley. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 Jay said you are using vegetation to create a 15 foot fence which could be interpreted as to what the code does not allow. Multitude of vegetation as Ann said would be better. Hayden said the alley isn't the issue, it is his neighbors. I have a back up tree which is the fesquatie blue spruce. Ann said having a variety of different trees to break up the density and use irregular plantings is what you need to work with. MOTION: Ann moved to approve the 6 foot stockade fence along the alley and east side of the property with a 4 1/2 foot stockade fence with 18 inch lattice along Hallam, south side of the property. Fence setback one foot from the corner of the house. Vegetation to be planted in anon-uniform fashion subject to review by monitor and staff. Motion second by Jay. Michael said he would like a condition that the fence is completed by December 1St and the vegetation and irrigation be completed by July 4tn next year. Amended motion: Ann amended the motion to add the condition that the fence is completed by December 1St and the vegetation and irrigation is completed by July 4' 2009. .lay second the amendment. Hayden said the fence is subject to the weather. Hayden asked if he could have his fence line where it was before and just have a jog so that you can see the corner of the house. Bring the fence across two feet out and put a post in and go back and put another post in so that you can see the corner of the house. Michael said Jay is correct that the ability to see the corner without having to be at a particular angle is one of the principles of historic preservation on a primary facade. Hayden said he can live with the decision but he wants the ability to have a planter. There may be some things that have prohibitive grown but if I want some smaller trees that go to ten feet and I need 15 I would like to option to have a 30 inch planter. I don't want a bunch of trees that will grow high and take up 3/4 of the yard to get to that height. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 Michael said there was no prohibition in the motion about a planter. Roll call vote: Sarah, yes; Brian, yes; Jay, yes; Nora, yes; Ann, yes; Michael, yes. Hayden clarified the motion: A 6 foot fence against the alley and neighbor. A 4 '/2 foot high fence in front with a 1 foot setback off the front portion of the building with 18 inches of lattice on top. I have the ability to have greenery behind it no higher than six feet. Along the alley and neighbors property I can put in a row of trees. They can't be the same tree and they have to be mixed. I can have a 30 inch planter but what goes in it has to be approved. Michael said if you come back with a plan of plantings in the planter that meet the guidelines you would probably get approved. Ann said we are trying to get away from the marching trees. You have the option to put a planter in. Our guidelines refer to landscaping that is historically appropriate. We are looking for a softer more varied landscape. If you want to incorporate a planter in that, that is fine. What we don't want to see is a very linear edging on two sides of the property with a uniform type of tree. Hayden said he gets the trees and all he was being asked is to vary the variety of the tree and not make it look like a hedge row but it could be pretty much different trees along the east side of the property and along the alley side of the fence. Sarah said we talked about irregular plantings in species and in placements. Amy pointed out that Hayden needs to amend his fence permit to finish out what is happening on Hallam. A drawing needs to be presented as to what was approved. The landscape plan needs to be brought back to staff before anything is purchased so that we make sure it is an approved landscape plan. Popcorn Wagon, cont'd public hearing Amy said part of the discussion at the last meeting was that the popcorn wagon wasn't completely finished. There is a drawing in the packet of the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 final finish. It is asemi-permanent structure but is a significant site feature that is intended to be there for some time. Since the old wagon is gone we probably don't have to exactly recreate it. There is some historical lettering and treatments on this which might not be necessary and maybe it should be a product of its own time. Jonothan Stoller, owner and Marcus Wade operations manager. Jonathan said we can go either way. Jonathan said he personally likes the old one but it fell apart. The drawings are taking the old design and applying it to the new structure which is basically the same. The dimensions are slightly different but it is close to what was there and it is more functional. It is a 1913 popcorn wagon and we are serving hot food and it has a different function than it had before. Brian said he is going to advocate letting the old popcorn wagon go. We need to find a middle ground and make it a product of its own time. The proposal is a good example as to how it can be dressed up but it doesn't have to look exactly like the old one. I'm not opposed to it being painted and it doesn't have to be the same color as the old one. Ann agreed with staff in terms of the proposal that it might be going a little too far in replicating the other wagon. As a suggestion take out some of the lettering and keep the blocks of color to liven the wagon up. It needs simplify a little so that it looks more contemporary. The commercial value of having the wagon there is very important. It is an affordable place to eat. Michael said the design seems a little too over the top in terms of duplication. We need to give the applicant direction to finish the project. Sarah said the design should be an expression of what the applicant wants to see in the popcorn wagon rather than what the board gave direction on. Jonothan said he wanted the new wagon to look like the old popcorn wagon. We also like the way it is now and all the welds need sanded and cleaned up. That is a matter of time and weather. We didn't feel cornered in making it look like the old wagon. I was trying to do that. If the board doesn't like that we can change it. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 Sarah suggested maybe the wheels don't need to be yellow and have them black. Possibly the awning should be black. Painting it red is a fun color. Jonothan said they can look at the design and tone it down a little. Brian said it can be an eclectic design and it should be expressive and it doesn't need toned down. Jay agreed that staff and monitor could take care of the final design and the design presented tonight is close. Brian said the greater context of the site is important. The corner design of the seating area should be retained. Jay said the benching along the street works. The color of the wagon will pull out and you will see through the umbrellas. Nora said she looked at the wagon and it is great. The wagon is a product of its time and we do not need to recreate what was there. MOTION: Jay made the motion to approve the project with staff and monitor reviewing the new graphic and paint scheme and quality and finish of the wagon; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Amy said this is considered a substantial amendment for the new commercial development at the LaCocina property. There is a view plane that originates from the Hotel Jerome that comes across Main Street and over the Miner's building and floats over the LaCocina building and restricts the height that they can build. HPC did approve a variance for a portion of the building, 3'3" inch intrusion that had a negligible impact. The applicant would like to amend that intrusion by adding another 30 inches for an elevator overrun. That would take the variance to 5'9". Staff does not support this and it is pushing the limit of a negligible impact. Staff is not in support of an additional view plan variance. Two other things are on the table tonight; a proposal for the fenestration change on the front of the building which staff is not supporting and the proposal to enclose some decks on the rear facade which staff does not support. It is important for the rear facade to have some sort of characteristics that break up the view of the building. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 Jay said previously the owner had a contract with his company. He might have a conflict because when the project is done the owner might contract with him. Charles Cunniffe said there is no agreement or lease in place for the restaurant at this time. Jay said he doesn't feel he has a conflict. Jim True said everything is speculative and the disclosure is appropriate. Charles Cunniffe, architect Tom Gilcrest, architect Charles said the elevator was an issue that we needed to come back with but the front is basically moving of a few mullions. The back where we built out the balconies we have a proposal that might work for both parties. Front facade: Charles said the only thing we are talking about is the difference between the French doors and two windows. When we did the plan we did not have an interior floor plan that worked out. We have the same amount of glass area. There are two side windows with one additional door. Sarah said there was a center door and how we have two doors. Charles said it is broken up into a bedroom space and a living room space. In the memo it mentioned blending new with historic. We had a steel lentil which was approved. We could break up the steel lentil and introduce a darker material and do double hung windows. We would also like to change the steel beam across to two sections of cut sandstone which would be an historical reference. Amy said changing the lentils and widening of the mullion between them is better. Sarah agreed but there should be a little more interest in the front facade, possibly changing the color of the proposed brick or changing the brick pattern. Charles agreed. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 Balcony: Charles said on the back we had 2 balcony pieces. They were large setbacks to the bedrooms. The only natural light was through the door. A suggestion, if we where to take the same piece that was once setback and treat it more of a shed element. We would still have the definition that we had before. Instead of having a total recess set back we would set the window back a foot and have a jog in the wall and then there would be a shed roof. From the alley the shed roof would take your eye up and break the parapet. Sarah said the floor plan of the room would come forward with more FAR. The design enhances the room. Charles said when you look at the floor plan the balcony is the same. The walls came out where the recess is located. We wanted to recapture that recessed space. The shed roof would break up the massing and go just to the height of the window. The proposal involves the north east and North West corners of the upper level. View plane: Charles said the Building Dept. will not allow us to have this unit accessible without an elevator. All floors need to be accessed by an elevator. If we can't add 30 inches we can't get the elevator to this floor. We would have to have the elevator empty on this floor go down the hallway and come up another lift. An elevator cannot act as a primary access. The intrusion of the view plane is 1'2" and it is less than 3.71ong, just the width of the narrow part of the elevator. We are talking about less than four square feet. By allowing the further intrusion into the view plane solves the elevator issue for us. The elevator is in the perspective. Nora asked if the enclosure would require affordable housing mitigation. Charles said the mitigation might have been traded out somewhere else in the project but if they have to mitigate the 20 square feet it would be with cash-in-lieu. John Colson said that could be a condition of approval that the mitigation is in cash-in-lieu. Michael pointed out that the mitigation is part of the code. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 John Colson said they are almost finished with the foundation and the crane can be moved as soon as the shell is finished. John Colson said as a condition we would work with the monitor to try and frame it smaller and skinnier. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Front facade change: Ann said she would prefer a darker material on the brick mullions and steel lentils of the front facade change. All board members agreed and the architect also agreed. Elimination of the deck elements on the alley and the creation of the shed roofs: Ann thanked the architect for reacting so quickly. The proposal is a better solution. Jay said his concern is the material. Charles said it would be a dark copper non-reflective. Further intrusion into the view plane: Jay said he sees a need for it. Nora pointed out that the view plane came into play in the 70's. It was a progressive enactment when there was no infill and it was forward thinking. It is in violation and we are chipping away the view plane. Ann said she understands the necessity of it and without it; it is somewhat of a dangerous situation. For the record the exception should have never been granted. If the miner's building disappeared we would have the view plane intact again. We can't reverse what was done and you have showed that it is necessary so I will support it but the view plane ordinance is being eroded bit by bit. Nora commented that the Miner's building had to work within the ordinance and step back. Jay said philosophically the view plane ordinance should have been upheld. Sarah said at the time we reviewed this project the HPC felt it appropriate to give the variance. In terms of the additional inches I am in support of that. Staff and the architect can work to try and minimize it. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 Charles said when the project was approved there was a lot of desire to put the top floor back from Hopkins which pushed it into the view plan. There was a lot of give and take in the project. Sarah said we need to figure out how to make the view planes work so that we are not constantly creating a situation that we need variances. The view plane from Bentley's is from the second floor lobby. Brian said feel the applicants hands are tied from the IBC. The applicant doesn't have a lot of flexibility in this situation. Michael said on the other hand there was a strong policy made in the 70's that we should preserve the view plane from the Jerome. In this case I am willing to compromise. MOTION: Ann moved to approve the request for a substantial amendment as presented tonight for a view plane exemption, motion second by Sarah. Michael stated amendments to the motion. 1. Front facade -staff and monitor to be involved in the choice of materials. 2. Facade on the alley - If there is additional floor area the applicant provides the calculated measurements and whatever mitigation is required by code. 3. Roof material -Work with staff and monitor on the non-reflective material. 4. View plane variance -Work with staff and monitor to minimize the actual amount of the intrusion into the view plane. Ann accepted Michael's amendments and Sarah second the amendment. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Jay, yes; Nora, no; Ann, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried S-1. Work session: Main Street Streetscape - no minutes MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meetin~,a'd'ourn d at 8:30 .m. ~. 2>..-~ lL ~ ,~ Kathleen .Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11