Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20111116 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 Vice - chair, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin, Willis Pember, Brian McNellis and Jamie McLeod. Excused was Nora Berko. Staff present: John Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Disclosure of conflict: Jay Maytin said he will step down on 316 E. Hopkins due to a financial conflict. 217 E. Bleeker — Conceptual, Major Development, On -Site relocation, Demolition and Variances — Public Hearing — Cont'd from Oct. 26 Amy said this is a 4,500 sq ft. lot in the West End and is a product of a lot split that was approved in 2005. At the time of the lot split 2,280 square feet is allowed and they have the option to receive a 250 square foot bonus plus variances from HPC. There is a large historic structure on the alley and a smaller shed in the center of the property. The building along the alley used to be a house in the front of the lot. There was a brief discussion about pulling the house back to the center of the lot but that is not possible because of the large tree on the site. Staff has suggested the house be in the south east corner. There would be complete visibility from the east across the neighboring property and there would be exposure from the alley and you would be able to see the building from all four sides. It also moves it directly back from where it was originally located. You are also being asked to approve the proposal for a new house. Having more patio area and pushing the mass to the second floor is out of character with the adjacent buildings. Staff feels there are ways to maneuver the plan and bring down the scale and be more sensitive to the surrounding structures. Also the roof forms seem complicated. Staff is recommending a restudy and at this time there are design issue and we are not sure the FAR bonus is appropriate. There are setback variances requested only for the shed but a new public notice needs to occur before HPC can authorize those setbacks. There is also a request for a residential design standard variance. Karen Kribs, owner Gretchen Greenwood , architect 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 Karen said the barn has a lean -too which we are requesting to remove and rotate the barn to where there is no fencing and it is well in back of the existing building next door. We have pushed the garage 17 'h feet off the alley. We are asking for a side setback variance so it will stick out a little so that you can see the front portion from the street. The form of the house has changed some and there was some concern from staff about the massing of the house. The patio is 340 square feet. Staff had asked about putting more mass on the ground level. There is significant mass on the ground level. We will be using 1,960 square feet of FAR above ground because we will have some deductions because of the barn and deductions for the second stall in the garage and deductions for the exposed light wells in the lower level. Right now we have 340 feet of barn on the ground and 500 feet of garage and 890 feet of house for a total of 1,730 square feet and we have 1,070 to go up stairs. We feel this is a good balance. The house has a front porch that sits well behind the neighboring house. The front porch is almost recessed 19 feet from the street. If we push the porch back anymore we are continuing to push the mass to the middle of the lot. The main level is the master bedroom, bath, entry and the garage and upstairs is the living portion with a deck. We have now put peaks on the roofs. There will be a gable end on the front porch and two gables at the top. The front porch is ten feet wide and six feet deep with a simple gable. Gretchen form of the building has gone from a larger mass to a smaller mass. The concept is to have two similar miner cabin gabled forms that read on the building. The concept is to break up the form and have a flat form in between. One of our concepts was to be able to take the entry part of the building and start stepping it down from there. A third of the floor area will be above grade. It is our desire to take the gabled ends and break them up. Comments and questions: Jay inquired about the height. Gretchen said it is 27 feet to the peak. We are keeping the barn in the same relationship to the alley as it is now. Ann asked if the design includes the bonus and what is the justification for that bonus? Gretchen said it is included in the design. We are completely doing a restoration of the barn and we are adding a few windows which can be up for discussion. We will continue to work with the HPC to make this acceptable. The site has constraints such as the trees. We are designing a building that is compatible with the Victorian. We are condensing our 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 building in order to make the barn visible. We are keeping the patio open because it separates the building at a street/pedestrian level so you look back into the site. We are being sensitive to the form of the building next door by using flat roofs and having roof lines that match that building next door. Karen said we have 1,730 square feet of buildings on the ground level and the upstairs of the house is 1,070 square feet. The basement is not calculated because it is underground. Amy said she is concerned because part of the FAR is calculated in the basement. Karen said we have 890 for the house, 125 for the garage and 240 for the barn. We are under the allowable FAR. Willis said they are within the 2280 and the bonus of 250 which comes to around 2,530 square feet. Willis asked about the inflection which is in the residential design standards. Amy explained that they are exempt because the lot is smaller than 6,000 square feet. Brian asked about the 17 feet for parking in the back because that seems awfully shallow. Gretchen said our parking requirements are for the garage only. There are no requirements for using the 17 feet. Brian said if you have someone parking there with a big truck the back end will be sticking out into the alleyway. Gretchen said if the police come by and the vehicle is hanging out you can get a ticket but there are no requirements. Vice -chair Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. Mary Hayes said she lives on the west side. It looks to me like we are going to be looking at a huge big wall with no break in the wall. Ann closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Issues: 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 250 square foot bonus; shed orientation; building form itself; building site and whether or not it should align up with the house next door; residential design variances. Brian said he is much more comfortable with iteration. I also feel it is slightly top heavy and maybe that can be twiddled down a little and fill in the ground floor space. Maybe setback the front entryway. The gable entry is an improvement. Possibly introduce some more fenestration above the entry way. At this point I cannot support the bonus. Bonuses are granted if the building is brought back to the way it was originally. The side yard variance is appropriate because it gives an opportunity to see around what you are building. With regard to the west elevation we are complying with the setback on that side. Jamie said she is having a hard time reading the drawings. One concern is a two story structure right next to the historic resource next door which is the original historic resource. Are we too close and are we stepping down away from the historic resource. The roof form changes, with the gable roofs really help with the form especially the entryway. I am in support of the shed being moved. Regarding the front yard setback I am not in favor of pushing the wall back to align with the yellow historic building because of how much the tree takes up of the front yard. Coming forward might give you more of a front yard presence so I disagree with staff on that issue. The models will be very helpful to see the context. Regarding the 250 square foot bonus I am having a hard time with that. We need to look at what changes are being made to the barn if any. Ann said she agrees with the comments from Jamie and Brian. You aren't at the 250 square foot bonus yet. If you read through the criteria none of them apply. On the shed I wish it could be in the same orientation of the alley but it can't. We can't prove where it was originally or what orientation. What you have done now is an improvement over the previous plan. I agree with Jamie that it doesn't matter where the front of the house is with that massive tree. Regarding the building form guidelines 11.4.5.6 the roof forms seem complicated compared with the adjacent houses and the historic resource. The design of the building seems reverse as to what is going on the street with the other Victorians, more living space upstairs. There needs to be less mass on the second floor and simpler lines on the roof. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 Jay thanked the applicant for doing a super job with the cabin and being sensitive to its view. This is the new house on the lot split next to the historic resource. The front entry works well and you are challenged by the tree. I also agree that there could be more mass moved lower. I like that the second floor is complicated because it is a product of its own time. I am concerned about heated patios and the waste of energy. In order to get the bonus the restoration has to be exemplary of the barn and punching new holes isn't going to get you there. The garage only counts for 125 square feet of FAR but a two car garage in town when we can move mass downstairs. I would hate to see that my 250 square foot bonus might of gone to parking a car in the house when we can have the scale smaller and we could live with one car in the house. I would rather see in my town less mass. The orientation of the barn works well. Willis said he likes what is happening to the historic resource. The representation is hard to read because of the shadow. The model for the next meeting will help a lot. It is truly a top heavy structure. I am looking for a concept of related scale not replicating historic forms. You could come in with a modern structure. It gets overly fussy quickly and you have three roof shapes when the neighbors have much simpler bigger scale roofs. Maybe restudy the building to make it simpler. At this time I cannot support the bonus until the mass and scale is more comfortable on the street level and it is really in making it simpler. Ann commented that the board is OK with the residential design variance and not in favor of the bonus. We all are in support of studying reallocation of the space within the different stories and restudying the roof form. MOTION: Brian moved to continue 217 E. Bleeker until Dec. 14 second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried 5 -0. 518 W. Main — Final Major Development, Demolition — Public Hearing Exhibit I — public notice Exhibit II — recommendations Exhibit III — fence drawing Amy said this is an 11 unit affordable housing project with two units in the Victorian and a new structure behind the Victorian and a larger structure adjacent to the Ullr Lodge. The Victorian had a fire in the building and it will go through a full restoration. This will be one of the few miner cottages 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 left in town with no addition to it. It is a 900 square foot cottage. Staff recommends that the sidewalk be pulled away from the two new structures which will allow a little more grass around the base of the building next to the Ullr. The site had cotoneaster asters across the front and staff is concerned if there should be a hedge across the front or not. They are preserving the wired fence around the site but between the parking lot they would like to do a wood fence which is appropriate. During the restoration process if they discover some original siding left or trim left that we re -visit to make sure everything is preserved. On the Victorian it indicates that the front doors will be stained and we recommend painted because that seems to have been the traditional finish. On the front porch of the Victorian we are recommending a slight tweak so that it is over framed onto the west facing cross gable. On the East elevation there are some windows being moved around that might not match the historic condition and we would like to see them accurately restore the house. A synthetic shingle is proposed for the roofs on all the projects and we are suggestion wood or asphalt for the historic building only. Windows on the ground floor should be the same scale as the ones on the upper floor. Possibly the doors on the new buildings should be of a similar style in general as the ones on the Victorian. A piece of glass over a panel or all solid two panel. The east side of building two has hoods over each doors and we they are too petite for the scale of the building and they are also roof shapes that don't show up on the rest of the project, a barrel shaped entry. We suggest they be a longer shed roof that would give coverage for two of the ground floor units for outdoor seating. On building 3 which is directly behind the Victorian we suggest more symmetry for the window placement. We also need to see cut sheets for the doors and windows and samples of materials. Peter Fornell, manager of the LLC and applicant for the project. Peter went through the drawings and recommendations from staff (exhibit II) and his revisions. The shrubs will be removed and along the fence we will have annual plantings behind the fence. A fence is proposed from the end of the lilacs to the back of the lot line (exhibit III). None of the original sidings and windows remains but we will review it again to see if there is anything that can be saved. With the redesign of the front porch we are raising up to the original position of the front porch and the overhang roof is for the visibility of the transoms that we are installing above the doors and to get to back to the original look of the miner's cabin from the 1903 photograph. On the front of the historic house there was not a window there historically so we will remove it. We will be using all of the historical 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 window openings. On the synthetic shingles we chose them because of their longevity. I am concerned about the ongoing cost of home ownership. On the DaVinci product it has a 40 year life. If the wood shingles are a better fit for the miner's cabin then we are happy to use that product. On the ground floor and upper floor windows there were some windows on the corner and we changed the look of the front windows on building #2. We pulled windows back so that we don't have them on the corners. All exterior doors on building two and three should be half light or two panel doors. On the recessed lights we have not provided cut sheets. We will do a recess light on all of the entries but not the historic house. Amus Underwood and Peter did a power point of the streetscape. Questions: Aim said the landscape plan is very simple and great. Ann questioned the need for the spirea along the historic resource and maybe have them on the interior of the site for interest but for the Main Street view I would rather see the restoration of the house. Ann also asked the applicant to explain the materials. Amus said the material is the same as the 7th and Main affordable housing project and the Conner cabins; 2x4 fiber cement board and wood siding. Amy explained the parking. HPC granted the waiver so they have 8 on -site and HPC waived 3 and asked that he find physical locations for the three spaces or come up with another plan. In discussing this with the appropriate department it was determined that Peter could make a $90,000 contribution toward a city bus that would serve the neighborhood. Willis asked what the treatment will be between the fiber cement boards. Amus said it will be a waterproof membrane that will appear black. Willis said it would be nice to see a little black. Willis also asked about the transoms. Amy said the revision show transoms over both historic doors. Willis said the applicant did a good job on the project and the changes improve the project. Vice -chair Ann Mullins opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 Richard Collins said when Peter started this project I thought it wouldn't happen. The restoration of the historic house is wonderful and this is a great project and he has done a great job on it. Ann closed the public hearing. Jay commented that this is a nice use of space and not overwhelming and it is sensitive to our community's needs. I don't see that in a lot of other project that are in front of us especially housing needs. I'm glad that 11 locals will own property. On the historic house wood shingles would be better than the DiVinci. Ann said it is so nice to see a project that progresses well. Possibly look at the soffit on the historic house. On the roof I don't know which is more appropriate wood or asphalt. I would leave that up to the project monitor. Recessed lights would be better than exterior lights. The fact that you are contributing to a city bus instead of throwing it in the RFTA fund is commendable. Jamie also said she appreciates all the work the applicant has done. Wood or asphalt will work on the roof. I'm OK with the lighting. My only comment is on the trim board I like having it go down as it helps define the element. The monitor can look at that. Brian said he greatly appreciates the effort they have gone through. It is a fantastic project. Brian thanked Amy for going through everything so thoroughly and the comments were right on. The issue on the roof of the historic house is that the shakes have a contrast whether wood or asphalt to the new buildings. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #13 for 518 W. Main Street with a re- design of the front porch on the Victorian so that it has the flat soffit. Staff and monitor work with the applicant on determining whether wood shingles or asphalt are appropriate for the miner's cottage. Staff and monitor to approve the foundation facing material. Restudy the trim board on building #2. Go off the revised list that was presented tonight as exhibit II. Brian second the motion. Roll call vote: Willis, yes; Jay, yes; Brian, yes; Jamie, yes; Ann, yes. Motion carried 5 -0. Jay and Jamie are the monitors 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 316 E. Hopkins — Minor Development — Public Hearing Jay stepped down. Craig Cordts- Pearce, owner Amy said there are two issues tonight; one is a canopy that comes from the front of the house out to the sidewalk that is already up. Also there are some issues in the back of the building that need addressed for outdoor dining. Howling Wolf had the canopy up in the past and it was then taken down and Craig put it back up to keep the sidewalk safe from the elements. Staff does not support the canopy. Canvas sides were grandfathered in for the sides of the porch in the winter time and that means the porch is enclosed part of the year and that isn't necessarily in compliance with the guidelines. Adding this fabric canopy in front is overcomplicating the front of the structure and taking away from the porch area. At the back of the property they want to put a long shed roof that covers the existing staircase to the basement. Right now it is open to the elements and it is hard to get deliveries. They will also have enclosed trash etc. There would also be a trellis over the outside dining in the back and a constructed fence that is encroaching onto another property. All these changes will make the back of the site nicer for everyone so we support that. Craig Cordts- Pearce — I'm the owner of the new steak house at 316 E. Hopkins. Craig thanked staff for the approval of the back. It is a great solution to make that a safe area and have multiple trash containers so that we can recycle the cardboard etc. When we took over the restaurant from Genre' the canopy was existing. We did flower boxes in front and took it to the back and then out front again. Everything that has happened to this space my wife and I have been the biggest advocates in making this historical from the outside to the inside. We have created a concept that fits the space and the decor is of the 1920. We have done everything ourselves with very minimal help from the landlord over the past five years. I never wanted this place to be anything else but historic and beautiful. With the flower carts you don't even need a fence. With the ramp going up it really protects the area. It is an historical building in a commercial zone. It is icy and would be a nightmare if I have to put the railings up every winter without the awning so that people don't fall off. This way we protect the sidewalk and people wait out here while waiting for their cars. We have done everything to keep it as it is and we put in a lot of money in it and the house doesn't even belong to us. The awning is classy and we just got 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 written up in architect digest. We are proposing a fence in the back but haven't designed it yet. I know it is contradictory to have the awning and I have gotten a lot of compliments. The black awnings that come down are installed because the building is old and it gets cold. I would like to have a discussion so that we can get somewhere. We need something in the back to make it like an open space. Amy said they have used the pull down awnings every year and they can remain. The issue is just the canopy. Ann opened the public hearing. Rod Dyer, architect said he did the original Howling Wolf and I have no objection to the awning. Brian said anything you can do to bring vitality to the back and restaurant row is needed. I don't like the canopy as it obscures the facade of the historic resource. I like the small sign better but I understand the need for the canopy. I might find some flexibility. Jamie said she is fine with the back and front. The canopy provides a sense of entry that is lacking and it helps with the usability of the space. The color blends in with the black asphalt roof. Ann said redoing the back is OK and you will have to work with the staff and monitor to make sure the fence is appropriate and the materials are appropriate. The monochromatic color scheme of the flowers in the front is lovely. The canopy detracts from the form of the house and it does create an entry but I would rather we figure some other way to create the entry. Maybe do additional planters along the side. Willis said he understands the need and would approve it with the condition that if it every changes it comes back to the board. It is clear that it is not historic and there is no confusion there. I am somewhat sympathetic of a residential house in a commercial zone and the struggles that you have as a business. I am also ok with the back. MOTION: Jamie moved to approve resolution #14 and the approval of the back alley as presented and to work with monitor on the materials. Also the approval of the canopy exactly as it is, color and form. Any alteration has to come back to the board. Motion second by Brian. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 Roll call vote: Willis, yes; Jamie, yes; Brian, yes; Ann, no. Motion carried 3 -1. MOTION: Jamie moved to adjourn second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11