Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20111214 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 Vice -chair Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Brian McNellis, Jamie McLeod and Jay Maytin. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sara Adams, Senior Planner Motion: Jay moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 16` second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried 6 -0. Disclosure: Nora will step down on 205 S. Spring Street Jay will recuse himself on 517 and 521E. Hyman Jay said his wife's business maybe in negotiations with Greg Hill that does not have anything to do with the application tonight 205 S. Spring 320 Lake Ave. — Conceptual Major Development, On -Site Relocation, Demolition, Hallam Lake Bluff Review and Variances — cont'd public hearing from 11 -9 Amy summarized the staff recommendation. The core of the discussion at the last meeting was how not to accommodate the two car garage on the site. There was also some concern about how from its original site is the historic building being moved for the new addition. Today a restudy was received which includes a single stall garage which has cars stacked inside of it but what you would see from the street is a single stall. This has eliminated the south side yard setback variance and it has greatly reduced the combined side yard setback and has eliminated a residential design standard variance. Staff is recommending approval and the 500 square foot bonus. They need about a four foot reduction on the combined yard and a variance on the north side. At final possibly discuss a slight shift southward of the plan because there is still a pinch on the one side of the property. Exhibit I — new drawings Rich Carr, architect Rich said they made a change that eliminates the second car garage bay toward the street. We have a double deep garage. We have narrowed the 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 front by 8 `h feet. We took out the garage bay and shifted the Victorian north to where it is today. The addition is very similar to what it was and just shifted toward the Victorian. We have a very simple understated driveway and we have indicated where the light wells are. On the main level plan it shows a one bay wide garage, the historic resource and the addition in the back. On the lower level the footprint matches above with light wells. The west elevation has gotten narrower and the back elevations are very similar from the last drawings. Ann asked the applicant what variances they are asking for. Rich said 500 square foot bonus; side yard setback variance. Amy said they are meeting the minimum side yard setback variance on the south but not on the north. On the north they have 1.7 and they are supposed to have five feet. They are supposed to have a combined total of 17.8 and they have 13.9 feet. They need about a four foot combined side yard setback variance and a 3.5 north yard, although we are talking about possibly scooting the house down. Rich said we are open to discussion of possibly no north variance but some kind of variance might make for a better project. Rich said you will see almost nothing from Hallam Lake as there is too much vegetation. We intend to have wood clad doors for the garage. The entire addition is below the height limit and below the ridge of the Victorian. The porch on the south side of the house is original. The connector piece is five feet wide and is set back 2 or 3 feet from the garage. Nora asked how far the house is being moved. Rich said 7 or 8 feet to the south and 12 to 15 to the west. We are exposing the north side more for the public. Willis stated that we are now looking at a one car garage. Vice -chair Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis said the majority of the variances have been taken off the table except for the combined setback. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 Amy said the only variance that has been taken off the table is the residential design standard. The other variances have just been minimized but they are still a request. Willis said he would support the side yard variance and the schemes respect the historic resource to the greatest extent possible. You are constrained with the tapering site and I would support the variances and approve the 500 square foot bonus. At final we will discuss the architecture character. Jamie thanked the applicant for doing a good job and the proposed restoration of the historic resource. My only concern is the increase of the north variance. I would prefer to stay within what the existing building was and stepping back the addition and giving it a variance. Whether that is moving the entire building down three feet or moving just the addition from the north setback is something we should look at and discuss. I am in favor of the 500 square foot bonus and the combined yard variance. Nora said she appreciates the single car garage revision. The north setback is close to the house next door. What would happen if you slid the entire thing over a little which would give more breathing room on the north? I can support everything except the north variance. Aim said she is amazed with the reduction of the two -bay to a single bay garage and what a difference it makes and the impact. It is important to restudy moving the house down to the south a little bit. The 500 square foot bonus is fine and the setback is contingent on #3 in the resolution. Jay said he cannot support the application. The house needs to come away from the property line and come within code. Our guidelines say we are not supposed to pick up the house and move it. There are too many issues; picking up the house, 500 square foot bonus and not honoring the subdivision agreement. If your garage wasn't as deep you wouldn't need as much of the side yard setback. I have an issue with granting a variance for a garage. Brian said the improvements are good. I have no problem with the variances but am concerned about the 500 square foot bonus. A lot has to do with the comments made by Jay. We are still increasing the width of this project and picking up the historic resource. In the resolution (a) the design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; it doesn't necessarily as we 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 are picking up the historic resource and taking it to a place where it actually wasn't also (h) isn't met, notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Willis said visually we are only looking at a one car garage not two. Digging into the interior is not our purview. Jay said he can't grant an encroachment into the setback for the reason of storing a car in the building. Rich said we are trying to acquire a balance and Amy proposed possibly a two foot shift. Ann said it is hard to argue about the 500 square foot bonus if we don't know where the house was originally. Jay said if the house is moving we are starting from scratch and the house should be in the required setbacks and that isn't happening. Willis said the site plan is tied to the driveway which is the historic entrance to the site. Motion: Ann moved to approve resolution #15 for conceptual approval of 320 Lake Ave. with the approval of the 500 square foot bonus, grant combine side yard setback variance to allow 13'9" instead of 17'8 "and grant the north side yard setback variance to allow no less than 1'7" instead of 5 ". Motion second by Willis. Discussion Jamie made the amendment that we look at moving the house to the south to get rid of the north setback. If we are moving it bring all sides within the building envelope. If we were 5 feet on the north then the whole building on all sides would be conforming except for the combined setback. Motion second by Nora. Willis said she is asking for five feet along the north and the combined setback would need a variance. Jay said lets discuss the language in #3. I don't think we should grant a north side yard setback. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 Ann pointed out that the rest of the condition is to restudy it. Jay said you are saying minimum of five on the north and south and grant them the combined variance. Vote on the amendment to bring the entire building into conforming but not the combined. Willis, no; Jamie, yes; Nora, yes; Brian, no; Jay, no; Aim yes. Motion failed 3 -3. Ann said lets go back to the original motion which Amy handed out. Vote: Willis, yes; Jamie, no; Nora, no; Brian, no; Jay, no; Ann, yes. Motion failed 4 -2. Ann said there has been a lot of work into this project and it has moved along well and is there some way that we can grant conceptual and address the concerns of the commission. We are at the point that we should do that. Jamie said that the allowance for the side yard setback should be no less than 1'7 ". I don't agree that the addition should be in the setback at all. I can see the proposed garage following along the historic resource. Maybe it comes back that the north side yard needs to be restudied. Amy said the public notice was to give a side yard setback and if you don't pass some variance they would have to re- notice at final. Brian said we need to know where the location of the foot print will land. I never feel comfortable granting conceptual without knowing the footprint. There is a reason to keep the historic resource close to its original location. Ann said Jamie's request was a 5 foot setback. Willis said he would change his vote on the amendment if it is that important to have five feet on the north side. Motion: Jamie made the motion to grant a north sideyard setback variance to allow a yard of no less than 1'7 exclusively in the area where a 1'7" north sideyard setback exists in the current development. For final review, the applicant is to restudy the plan so that all other new construction adjacent to the northern property line conforms with the minimum sideyard setback of 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 5'; motion second by Willis. Willis, yes; Jamie, yes; Nora, yes; Brian, no; Jay, no; Ann yes. Motion carried 4 -2. 517 E. Hyman and 521 E. Hyman and the parking lot on the corner of Hunter and Hyman. Aspen Modern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark designation of 517 and 521 E. Hyman. Conceptual, Conceptual Commercial design standard review, demolition continued public hearing from 12 -7 Jay stepped down. Sara said tonight we are hearing the Aspen Core project that was continued from Dec. 7` The project is reviewed under the Aspen Modern program. To summarize the applicant asked Council to weigh a trade off as designation, restoration in exchange for certain benefits for development etc. Council as part of that discussion asked for feedback from HPC on what you think the importance of the building is in the context of the project. It isn't an easy question for HPC and this is not a typical conceptual design review that you would see where you are applying design criteria and standards and things like that in a typical way. Aspen Modern asks you to kind of step back and look at the big picture and weigh the importance of these buildings in the context of what is being proposed. At a conceptual level you are looking at the massing, the height and the scale of the proposed building in addition to how important the two resources are using the tools that you have used before in designation. The project has had some architectural changes based on the comments from HPC last week. We are asking that you review the design in the context of the whole project and looking at the importance of designation of these two buildings and the amount of restoration that is proposed for the Benton building. If the Benton building wasn't going to be designated the restoration wouldn't occur to the extent that it is. Staff is asking for a recommendation tonight to forward to council based on the designation of the buildings and conceptual development. The applicant can walk HPC through the changes. Stan Clauson and John Toya, architect. Stan said significant changes have occurred specifically the interface between Benton and the new building. This is a negotiation based on the preservation of two buildings to the community. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14,2011 John said the concern was the interface between the Benton building and the Aspen Core project. We tried to play off key elements of the Benton building and align portions of our building with it. We have significantly different floor heights. Benton's second floor is 9 feet and Aspen Core is 14 feet. We raised the ceil of the window to tie into the neighboring building. One other concern was the visual connection of the Benton building to the core building. It was problematic due to the retail use on the first floor. We previously requested bay windows and HPC was not supportive of that idea. We decided to investigate the erosion of the first floor and we pushed back the front so that it is flush with the facade of the Benton building and it is angled back. The use of brick on the second floor became heavy and we came up with another material that was more appropriate and we thought of a terracotta rain screen product which is like board and batten. It is through this material that we are able to tie into the Benton building. The parapet of the balcony ties into the CMU wall of the Benton building and there is a corner window to align. The chimney is back 11 feet. It is our intent to align certain elements to the Benton building. We have also lowered the chimney five feet. The Core doorway now aligns with the Benton building. On the roof we have separated the elements of the exit stair and elevator. Stan said the basic thrust is to be much more accommodating in linking the proposed building to the Benton building. With the roof plan we have eliminated elements and consolidated the area. Sara said at the last meeting the height of the building was proposed at 41 feet. John said the CMU will basically be in alignment with the upper part of the Benton building. Brian asked John why they angled the corner of the building next to the Benton building instead of just pushing it back? John said the depth of the walkway to the elevator is quite long and we shortened that a little. The angled wall makes it more interesting architecturally than pushing it back. Willis asked if there was a change to the vertical arrangement, the height of the store fronts? John said not floor to floor but we did raise the band to the ceil height. Willis also asked about the materials of the store front windows. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 John said the pilasters and bands will either be stone or we are going to go with a glazed terracotta. Vice -chair Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk said preserving the historic district is important and you are preserving character on the block and I am still concerned about mass and scale. Possibly they could set back some of the buildings and use below grade area. Ann closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Ann said the commissioner comments should relate to the previous meeting and we need to make sure all concerns have been addressed. Brian said he appreciates the gestures made in tying into the Benton building. If we are designating the Benton building I want to make sure we are paying homage to it. You have made steps to tie it in. For myself I wanted to see the third floor pulled back a little further. If the applicant is not willing to pull back that portion of the new construction closest to the Benton building a little more I would ask that the height of that third block be dropped down to the height of the Benton building. Ann commended the applicant for doing a lot of work in a short amount of time. The applicant has demonstrated that there are ways to address the problem. The dramatic change from last week to this week, I am confident we can work with the applicant and come to some resolution. The applicant has done a good job of addressing the concerns from last week. I would support conceptual approval. Nora also thanked the applicant for coming back. Looking forward 20 years if those buildings are not designated and they are gone we will have the height of the core building clear up to the Ute City bank building and that would really be hard to look at. I feel the applicant has listened to what we have said. We are moving toward what we are looking for. The Ute City bank building and the scale of all those things together are important. I am glad of the changes made. Jamie also thanked the applicant. I am pleased with the changes made and the corner aspect of the building reads better squaring it off rather than angled. The top portion of the building next to the Benton building, you are 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 starting to have that context relationship with the Benton building and playing with materials. At final it will be important to see how those materials play against one another. How do we accentuate the concrete thin walls of the Benton building up against the material of the building next door? The two areas to study for final are the top portion to see if we can get set back a few more feet and also look at the angled window to make sure it works in context. With the changes made I can support moving forward. Willis said the application has come a long way. It is quite remarkable. The connection to the Benton building makes the Benton building better than what it ever was. There is a dialogue being developed and I would encourage you to go further. There are gestures that suggest that this is one project not 40 and I would just encourage you to minimally respond to the commercial design standards and not take them abstractly as you can. I see us going in the right direction in a positive way. MOTION: Jamie moved to approve the project as show, resolution #16 with the condition to restudy the upper level to see if we can set that back a little more and also to restudy the angle of the lower level; motion second by Ann. Jamie said the corner seems a little "forced ". Willis said he cannot support that and he likes the angled corner and it is the best part. It is doing precisely what it is supposed to do and it addressed the street level. It makes the Benton building as good as it can be. Ann said it doesn't have to change we just want to make sure it is the right gesture. Brian said he is not offended by the angle and it seems like an interesting gesture. Amended motion: Jamie amended to motion to withdraw restudying the angle of the lower level, second by Ann. Vote: Willis,yes; Nora, yes; Jamie,yes; Brian, no; Ann, yes. Motion carried 4 -1. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #17 for 517 E. Hyman to recommend to council designation of Little Annie's; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried 5 -0. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #18 for 521 E. Hyman to recommend to council designation of the Benton building; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried 5 -0. 217 E. Bleeker — Conceptual, Major Development, On -Site Relocation, Demolition and Variances Ann moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 217 E. Bleeker until January 11 second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. 205 S. Spring Street — Final Major Development, Conditional Use Review and Variances, Public Hearing Nora recused herself'. Exhibit I — public notice Amy said this is final for the Berg house that has been a residential site since it was constructed in the late 1800's. It is in the commercial CI zone district. The application is to restore the house and build a detached second unit on the property. The applicant is requesting a rear yard setback variance and a residential design variance for the windows on the new building. A conditional use approval for two residences is also needed since this is a duplex. They also need a parking variance. Staff has a few re- design suggestions regarding the character of the first floor windows of the new structure vs. the upper floor windows which have small multi planes. We are suggestion that the windows be consistent. The fencing has been discussed and staff recommends a picket type fence. We are also suggesting that brick not be the primary material and use something that represents the wood siding of the historic house. The brick somewhat detracts from the historic building. Mitch Haas, Haas planning We feel we have done an admirable strong job of responding to everything we heard at conceptual, things like making sure the entrance to the Victorian is quite obviously the front entrance. We also softened the north facade of the new structure. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 Michael Otto, Oz architecture went over the changes with a power point presentation. They pushed the north face back 3.4 feet and on Spring Street we pushed the railing back and removed the two story brick element. We have also added a large amount of wood siding especially on the second level. Michael showed a winter and summer elevation. We also pushed back the garage entrance to 8.8 feet from the property line to make it less obtrusive as possible. On the alley the parapet was made smaller to reduce the massing. Jamie asked what the landscaping material is in the alley. Mike said it is irrigated sod. Jamie said with the parking you are looking at reducing a space for each duplex. Mike had a discussion with Jamie on the materials. Jamie said some of the elevations don't show what was presented on the slide show such as the concrete cap. Mike said we want to be consistent and want the pre cast caps like on the windows. We can work with the monitor. Jamie also asked about the roof on the historic resource. Mike said it is presently shaved wood. Jamie said the fence around the property is a black iron rod. Mike said on the side of the Berg and Susie's property line we are showing a historic wood fencing. As we turn the corner it is wood. There is one area that we would like to keep wrought iron. Exhibit II — 3 photos of changed windows on the new building with the reduced amount of panes. Mike said they feel brick is the right material but they can reduce the amount of brick. We agree that some of the proportions aren't right on the window on the historic asset but they will be corrected. Willis asked about the east elevation on the resource and there is a French door. Amy clarified that the door detail will be worked out. Vice, chair Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. John Olson said he has been Greg contractor with a lot of his projects and he has done an incredible job with everything he has done. He has gone on beyond what he has been asked to do on every situation to make the three cabins good and the Crandall building. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 Vice, chair Ann Mullins closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Exhibit III — Amy said she got a letter from the family of Adam Walton which expressed the care that is being put into the project and that the project respects the history and families wishes. Amy said she spoke with Phil Rothbloom who is a neighbor across the street. Amy said she sent him some renderings and he is in support of the project. Ann pointed out that they were presented three different landscape plans and they don't match. This is a prominent corner and it is important how you resolve the landscape. The sidewalks should be perpendicular and the plan should be simplified. The u shape fence is not consistent with other properties in town. On the plant materials there is way too much variety. Ann suggested two monitors. Jay said he appreciated the thoroughness of the presentation and the fact that the applicant made the presentation easy to understand. The design is wonderful and I liked the fact that you explained the relationship on the other side of the alley as well. I like the idea of one car per unit. One concern is the hot tub so close to the property line west of the historic resource. Amy said you can look at how the site plan should be managed. Maybe it can be screened a little more. Jamie said we should prepare a list of what is inconsistent on the drawings before a building permit is issued. My only concern is that the corner is going to look very dark with a black historic resource and a black building. Mike said we will work with our monitors to make sure the colors are correct. Motion: Jamie moved to approve resolution #19 for 205 S. Spring second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 Motion: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. j 24„Ltyc �GLL ti,L - � Kathleen J. Stric Chief Deputy Clerk 13