Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20090211ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009 541 Race Street -Final - Public Hearing ........................................................................... 1 1291 Riverside Drive Major Development -Conceptual -Residential Design Standazds Vaziances -Public Hearing ................................................................................................ 7 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11.2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Nora Berko and Jay Maytin. Sarah Broughton and Ann Mullins were seated at 5:30 p.m. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of,7an. 28`"second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Brian, yes; Michael, yes; Jay, yes; Nora, yes. MOTION: Brian moved to approve the minutes of.7anuary 14`" second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Brian, yes; Michael, yes, Jay, yes; Nora, yes. 541 Race Street -Final -Public Hearing Michael recused himself. Brian chaired. Ann and Sarah were seated at 5:30 p.m. Sara said conceptual was granted that included an addition to one of the cabins which is going to be a free market residence and then converting the other cabin into and ADU with no addition and it will be deed restricted for sale. There was a condition of approval that the applicant revisits the grading plan for final. The applicant has proposed three different options. Staff took a lot of time to review the three scenarios and none of the scenarios are perfect. In analyzing all the different grading issues and relationships of the cabins to each other and the relationships of the cabins to the park we found that option C is appropriate. The grade between the cabins, the relationship is maintained and the slope of the cabins down to the park, that relationship is not as steep as the other options. The main drawback of option C is that the floor has to be dropped down one foot in order to accommodate a greater plate height and that increases the amount of exposed foundation. It would require a new front door and require a new side door and the extension and replacement of some of the porch columns since you are dropping the floor. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009 This is not something that we would be supportive o£ We think the cabins need to be functional and the plate height is low at 7 feet. It is important that the cabins maintain their contextual relationship to each other. The front door is obscured by the front porch. One option was to keep the cabins exactly as they are but they would still need to drop the floor within the cabins and the front door would not be operable on the front porch (option B). The analysis that Amy and I did, we found that the character defining features of the two cabins really are their relationship to each other as a pair. They are small scale and were built as rental units. On the foundation the applicant is proposing a stacked stone veneer foundation. Staff is not in favor of the stone veneer. It should be some kind of metal foundation in order to meet the guidelines. A landscape plan has not been proposed because the applicant is focusing on the grading. They are proposing anon-reflective standing seam copper roof for both cabins. The roof is not the original roof but copper is not an appropriate material. It is a little too fancy for these 1960's cabins. The details for the new addition are an interesting play bouncing old and new using horizontal wood siding and using an aluminum reveal instead of chinking that is on the log cabins. Staff would like the board to address the reflectivity of the aluminum material. There are aluminum windows and aluminum doors that face Race Street. If option C is appropriate the front and side doors should be replaced with replicas. The front door looks original. They plan to maintain and refurbish the original windows in the historic cabins. There is not a lighting plan proposed but staff and monitor and review them. The two signs on the cabins should stay. They say Line shack I and Line shack IL Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Charles Cunniffe, architect on the project. Boards and laptop were used to display site and two cabins. Charles said scenario C shows the respective how the cabins relate to each other. We are dropping the floor down a foot in order to get a ceiling height of seven feet. We need to do this for liability. The floor would be dropped down one foot from existing. The porch etc. will remain so you have the same impression from the park as you do now. Right now the foundation is just a concrete base and we can fix it with a metal base. The floor inside the porch would be down one foot. It drops down and then the ground comes up. The main concerns are the appearance from the park and the relationship to each other. By raising the grade a little bit and lowering the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009 floor we are balancing the floor level with the park level. Lowering the porch and the floor is option C and it will function the same way it is now. The door would also be in compliance with the code. The door is the original door and unique. We can put a kick plate on the door. Brian said in scenario C the posts are getting lowered. Charles said we don't have to lower the posts we could just add logs at the bottom of the porch or as in C we could lower the porch and lengthen the column. We are open to either suggestion. Jay clarified that the distance between the roof and the first log will increase by a foot. Nora asked what the alternative is to the stacked stone at the base. Charles said it could be a metal or something compatible. The choice could be approved by staff and monitor. Ann asked about the original roof. Charles said we do not know what the original roof was. Charles said he likes the idea of a lead color roof that doesn't try to be copper. A standing seam roof would be more pleasing. Sara suggested making the columns thicker and splitting the foot distance. Add six inches to the porch and six inches to the base of the columns. Charles agreed with Sara's suggestion of making the columns thicker so they don't feel so long. Add one log instead of two and make the column six inches long instead of a foot long. Brian opened the public hearing. Jon Bush, neighbor across the street at 548 Race Street. What initially disappoints me is that the conversation is how the cabins look into the park. There is no discussion about how it looks with the rest of the neighborhood. What we really have over there is an alley aligned with garages with the exception of the addition to a free market cabin. You are discussing primarily the issue of grade for the cabins. In all three of the scenarios the top of the grade is all related to the street and the street has been raised by the applicant by two feet. That is not the original grade and there is an unaddressed drainage problem on my side of the street because they raised ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009 the street so much. That is unfortunate and only stands to increase the value of their development at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood. When you look at the plat layout it shows the cabins in relationship to the house that is under construction to the south on Race Street. That one is ten feet from the property line. The cabins are shown with the garage and addition as being five feet from the property line. Sara pointed out that at conceptual it is a ten foot setback not a five foot setback. The drawings that are represented are inconsistent with the conceptual approval often feet. Charles said he thinks the garages are five feet and the houses are ten feet. Race Street is an alley and that is where garages are intended to go. Our scheme is in compliance with zoning. Colleen Burrows, neighbor. When the developers came forward at conceptual we spent a great amount of time in the neighborhood to maintain the character of the alley. It is a very special alley and narrow and has a certain charm to it. I'm concerned that the alley is getting lost in the process with lifting the grades. All the way through this project the grades have been lifted. The natural sloping of the land is from east to west down sloping so everyone got a view behind everyone else. Fox Crossing has just lifted everything up. The south side house on Race Alley the driveway pitches up about one foot and all of our driveways pitch down. I feel the alley is getting closed in. Hopefully HPC will take that into consideration when looking at the grade so that everyone has the views. Sara said at conceptual it was approved ten feet for the garage and living space on the alley. Sara pointed out that there are no setback requests at final; we are only dealing with materials. Charles said the grading is ten feet not five. We can't push the cabins down and have it drop because the relationship to the other house would be more severe than it is now. We are not dealing with Fox Crossing in its entirety, we are dealing with the cabins that inherited the grade from Fox Crossing and we are trying to make the best condition for the cabins. The grade drops off by the cabins and park. Notice of publication -Exhibit I Colleen Burrows -Exhibit II Conceptual plan -Exhibit III 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009 Harris Kahn, member of Alpine capital partners which is the manager of the Fox Crossing project. We were not involved in the approval process and we bought the project with a plat that set the heights of the roads etc. After meeting with the city engineers it was determined that certain drainage and 100 year flood has not been addressed. Everything was done and approved by the city engineering department. The road was probably raised for drainage and utilities. Sara pointed that there are interrelated issues but HPC should be concentrating on Lot 6. Charles said the entire park is the drainage for Fox Crossing and Race alley. Jay pointed out that the mass and scale was approved at conceptual. Jon Bush said he likes the fact that the garage is ten feet off the alley. Landscaping could do a lot to alleviate the problems of the wall effect on the alley. Brian closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Sara pointed out that it is defined in the subdivision that the park is defined as the front yard. Brian went over the issues: The front porch; the materials of the front porch; landscape plan; roof material; reflectivity of the addition; lighting plan and signs. Jay agreed with Sara's suggestion about splitting the one foot on the porch and the columns. The foundation should remain concrete. The two original signs should remain in their original locations. Copper on the roof is not the best material. Charles said they are proposing standing steam with a zinc color rather than copper. Charles also said the addition will not be reflective. Jay said staff and monitor can handle the lighting plan. Nora asked if some of the final conditions could be detailed further in order for the board to know exactly what was approved. Ann expressed her concern about the landscape plan for final to avoid problems. The tree species should be called out. In terms of the porch ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009 adding a log and thickening the column is preferred. With regard to the doors we should see how they are detailed out with the kick plate. Scheme C is appropriate. We should also see a lighting plan. Sarah said we are down to six conditions. Charles pointed out that 2,3,4,5 are agreed to. We can handle the issues in the field and are willing to do a mockup until staff and monitor are comfortable. Sarah said option C is right for the grading. This development has suffered from grading from day one. Adding the kick plate is a good suggestion. Charles said this is a catch 22 and the developers will not move forward unless they have. final approval before we go spending money on a building permit. Nora said the landscape plan should be brought back to the HPC board for approval. Brian said the materials for the porch should remain concrete. The landscape plan is something that I would like to see before giving approval especially after listening to the concerns of the neighbors. In terms of the grade of streets and lighting we should have something on record. Charles said everyone's concerns and input are valuable. It is in the best interest for all parties to do the best landscape plan that we can. The lighting fixture is low key. Sarah said the applicant was not required to bring in a lighting plan and landscape plan. Ann said we need to research how to require landscape plans for final. Brian suggested that the lighting and landscape plan be brought back as a project monitoring issue. Jay said the group should see the foundation, the porch, and the roof material and landscape plan. The lighting could be handled by staff and monitor. Brian agreed. Charles said they are comfortable with having the neighbors involved. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009 MOTION: Jay made the motion to approve the project on 541 Race Street Lot 6 by changing conditions 2, 3, S, 6 and to bring back those four points to the commission for approval. #2 is the foundation material, #3 a detailed plan of the porch, #5 roof material and type of roof and #6 the landscape plan. Motion second by Ann. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Ann, yes; Jay, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 1291 Riverside Drive Major Development -Conceptual -Residential Design Standards Variances -Public Hearing Proof of Public Notice -Exhibit I Michael seated. Sarah Brought, Vice- chaired the meeting. Sara said the parcel is a vacant lot that was created by a lot split in 2004. The historic resource is a chalet on lot A. The proposal is for a new single family home. Overall the proposed new building successfully balances old and new construction. It fits in with the chalet form next door. The main concern is the height issue which might dominate the chalet. The chalet is set a few feet below grade. We are recommending approval that the height be addressed at final in order to comply with guideline 11.2 and 11.4. The parking requirements have been met. There are three residential design guideline variances being requested. The first is that the garage is facing the street and is not set back from the front facade of the house. Staff feels there is support for where the garage is located. They are trying to balance numerous guidelines and make this building work with the chalet. The street oriented entrance is the second issue and they are proposing the entrance on the side. Staff is in agreement as the chalet entrance is on the side. The two story front fapade that relates to the chalet with the traditional balcony is appropriate. The only condition of approval is that the applicant tries to reduce the height of the building and strengthen the floor alignments with the historic resource. Staff recommends approval of the three variances. Scott Lindenau, Studio B Scott said the neighborhood contains diverse sizes and scales of architecture. There are a lot of small houses on large lots in this neighborhood. The allowable FAR is 2408square feet and right now we fit about 2150 square feet. In designing the house we looked at context with the house next door. We are also employing pre-fab construction techniques for this project to be eco friendly which do have some limitations. On the chalet next door the 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009 house is three feet below grade. We really can't move our house lower due to the pitch of the driveway, drainage etc. Pre-fab construction comes in components that stack on the foundation we have limitations about depth from floor to ceiling. The portion of the lower level to the upper level is 1/3 to 2/3rds. The eaves of the house project out three feet similar to the chalet house next door. We are within the height limits but we are 3 %i feet taller than the historic resource. The front door has to be on the side because the width of the house is only 22 feet. The floor to ceiling is only 8 feet. The road slants so the houses appears to be back from the historic house. Michael asked if the height could be reduced. Scott said they could reduce the height by one foot without compromising the living area. The main entry is basically a two car garage entry and master and the upper is the living area. Michael also asked if the fascia width could be reduced to better match the historic resource. Scott said he would look into it. Possibly the modular company could do it or it could be applied afterwards. Ann inquired about the angle of the proposed roof. Scott said the roof is similar to the Welgo's roof. Ann said she feels the height should match the historic house or be significantly different. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Sherie Grenell, neighbor Sherie said she looks at the house right outside her window. The owners implied that they will do everything to softer the fact that it is a garage and hopefully put in a driveway that is more of a garden and woody rather than having pavement. I am pleased that the cars will be in the garage. With regard to the roof line maybe the architects can look at it so that the house doesn't seem so modular. Maybe that is letting it be a little higher. Sherie pointed out that the house design is something new for the neighborhood. Dale Hower, neighbor to the right. At the lot split we talked about the garage and variances. The only concern I have is that it looks modular. I would like to see separate masses so we have integrity in the neighborhood and we don't have a rectangular house. Maybe that means dropping the front which would give a little more interest to the neighborhood and new owners as well. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009 Tony Welgos, next door neighbor. Having gone through this process I feel it will all work out. I'm excited to have this project next to us and I support the project. Kathy Welgos, 1295 Riverside Drive. From what I have seen this house is very compatible to our home. I'm a real traditionalist and to say something is compatible is a stretch. The roof line is very interesting with the slight slant. You can't design anything else on that lot except a box home to utilize as much space as you can. If anyone is impacted by this new home it is Tony and I. I urge you to accept it as it is tonight. Commissioner comments: Michael said he is sensitive to the roof height in the fact that it is higher than the Weldon's home. It needs to be softened. The architect has offered to reduce the height by a foot and that is an offer I am willing to accept. Jay said he would like the design to be more submissive to the historic resource. Changing the roof may not be the answer. The way the house sets back from the Weblog's house works well. Brian said the historic house steps down and the model articulates the different angles that are put in and the design is thoughtful. The design is compatible with the chalet next door. The only issue is the height and possibly that can be brought down slightly. Regarding the roof line guidelines 11.5 and 11.6 talk about the relationship of roofs to the historic resources. The roof line is not something that is taken from the historic resource but somehow the design works. The lot is very confined and at the next meeting maybe we can address the garage doors in relationship to the streetscape. Ann said this is a great solution to a tight site and the house next door is very distinctive. With the landscape plan possibly you can save as many aspens as possible. If the total height could be lowered that would be great. Right now the roof line does not mimic the historic roof. If it could mirror the historic house or be steeper it would work better with the historic resource. The balcony detailing refers to the detailing of the chalet style and works quite well with the design. The garage doors can be addressed at final with materials. The intent is to not have the doors bulky. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009 Nora said the way the chalet and modern building talk to each other is a good solution on such a small lot. The design is great. At final we can address the garage doors. There are many garage doors in town that don't even look like garage doors. If lowering the roof works that would be acceptable. Sarah thanked the applicant for the model and the proposal is exciting. The proposal is compatible with the historic resource. The scale and height are appropriate. If it is reduced we need to make sure the proportions are withheld. The design complies with many of our guidelines, 11.5, 11.10, 11.3, 11.4. HPC spent a lot of time on this project and we knew it would be a challenging lot and this is a very good solution for this lot. The balcony element ties in so well with the chalet. Sarah said she could approve the residential design variances. In terms of the height if the applicant is willing to look at a reduction I would be interested in seeing how the overall effect is. Scott Lindenau, Studio B explained that the entire exterior or the skin will be built onsite. On the space between this house and the Welgos's house we haven't discussed that with them yet and we will be sensitive to the privacy issues. We will look at the reducing the roof ceiling height by a foot and the thickness of the overhang to get that a little more compatible. MOTION: Ann moved to approve Resolution #6 as written with the condition that the height be reduced and that the applicant studies the thickness of fascia compared to the fascia on the historic chalet house for final; motion second by Nora. Roll call vote: Ann, yes; Nora, yes; Jay, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 6-1. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10