Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20120425 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012' Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin and Jamie McLeod. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Motion: Jay moved to approve the minutes of March 14th and March 28th second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Nora will recuse herself on 217 E. Bleeker. 302 E. Hopkins Ave. - Final Major Development and Commercial Design Review — Public Hearing - cont'd from April 11, 2012 Amy said at the last meeting conceptual approval was granted that demolished a small non-historic addition at the back of the addition of the existing White House. No new excavation or anything will occur to the historic house. A modern brick veneered addition will be added at the rear and the historic'shed will be slightly relocated. HPC granted an exception from the view plan regulations because the project is so low that it doesn't affect the view plan and you granted a small exception to the minimum size for utility/trash storage area. HPC looked at the ramp that will go up to the front porch and HPC waived some parking requirements. HPC asked that around the historic shed that the new addition be somewhat modified to give a little more breathing room. Staff is recommending final approval with conditions. The project has four different sources of light added to it and staff recommends at the front porch a recessed light be installed and that one of the other fixtures be dropped to simplify the project. A light is proposed on the historic shed. The landscape plan was discussed and the applicant is re- thinking the outdoor seating plan. We need to make sure the grading around the ramp is accurately represented because in order to not have a handrail there was to be a swale and that really is not conducive to having an outdoor dining area. We need a little more information. The globe spruces around the house might add too much moisture at the base of the building in a way 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 that wouldn't be helpful. The utility area is also a work in progress. They are having trouble getting all the cabinets for utility meters inside the trash area. The plan in the packet shows three cabinets being mounted on the back of the historic shed which we think needs restudied. We don't want the historic shed to be a landing ground for things that are out of character and maybe they should be hidden somewhere else. When we get to the construction stage we would like to see an actual sample of the brick that will be used for the addition. We would also like to confirm that the historic • deck will remain as it will have a concrete ramp coming up to it. A letter of credit for $15,000 is needed for the protection of the shed and information as to how it will be stored. Brian.Biel Matthias Lenz Brian said the canopy over the entry is very thin and that might complicate a recessed fixture. There is a 24 inch wide space between the expansion and the shed. We feel it is wide enough to'have access and to maintain it. The expansion is now set back 18 inches from the west property line and we added a landscape strip to soften the hardscape in that area. The utility meters that back up to the historic shed we are working to combine those into a single cabinet. We have lowered the height of the addition 2 1/2 feet. We have added a decorative metal cap to the top of the brick to give it a visual termination. We will keep the paint colors of the Shepherd House intact. The materials for the addition we like the idea of reclaimed brick veneer. On the window system we are choosing a steel structure with a very fine mullion system. On the door it would be a wood door with an open • glass style and a bronze kick plate. On the patio area we are proposing a decomposed granite material. The landscape in front of the addition softens it somewhat. If the recessed light isn't possible we could use the existing sconce. We will have a menu board on the side entrance. Jamie asked about the door of the shed swinging out and will that be an issue with walking by on the sidewalk. Amy said they will have to work that issue out with the Engineering Department. Dana Ganssle, Rowland Broughton From a life safety perspective they would like to see the door swing out but from an Engineering perspective doors should swing in. It is a conflicting set of code requirements. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 Ann clarified that tables and chairs will be on the west side only. Nora suggested putting the utility boxes on the brick addition rather than on the shed. Matthias said there is not enough room. Matthias said Engineering requires that the door be open or accessible at all times and we would like to have this space secure. When we looked at putting them inside the trash area there is little space. John Olson said it was mentioned at the last meeting that the alley should remain clean and without clutter. Dana said one constraint inside the trash/utility space is a gas riser that will be maintained. If we were to shift the door we need 36 inches between the gas and electric. Nora said the utilities are proposed to go clear up to the shutters on the historic shed which might not be appropriate. Jay said the question is whether or not it is appropriate to put the utilities on the shed. Brian said we like the veneer but we are also considering maybe it should be a more uniformed brick, i.e. tumbled. We are still in the process of gathering the samples. Matthias said we presented the photograph for this meeting and then we . would work with the monitor on site for the final selection. Amy said she suggested looking at the colors on-site due to the many different materials surrounding the house. The philosophical discussions in the past are whether a faux aged effect should be on the addition or whether it should be a new fabric. Willis said the true historic record could be obscured with a tumbled brick product and it doesn't match anything historic. Amy said some of the tumbled brick in town looks worse and more beaten up than the actual _ historic brick in town. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Jay said this is a great project and you are close. The brick and decomposed granite could be a monitor sign off. The fixture on the shed is not . appropriate and there should be another solution. I would agree about leaving the original sconce on the porch if the recessed light doesn't work. Jamie said at conceptual we gave the applicant a reduced footage for the utility area and that everything could be retained in it. Having the utilities on the shed dominates that entire façade that we were trying to keep open for a visual effect. On the light fixtures I would look at having whatever fixtures that are on the historic resource match. The same one at the front should be the same one on the shed. I would support the alley lights being the same as the ones on the addition. In regards to the landscaping we need a photograph of what it looks like with the tables and what does it look like in the winter season. At the entry there is probably not enough thickness to do a recessed light. Ann said we need a much more detailed landscape plan and samples of materials. We need to see the grading plan to see how the ramp works. The serviceberry might not be needed. We also need a tree protection plan during construction. I'm not sure the shrub row is needed in front of the addition. You have such a clean box of a building why fussy it up with landscaping. In terms of the addition, should it be new materials or fake old materials. I tend to think it should be new material. Maybe a brick cap would be more appropriate than the metal one. We also need to see samples of the brick. With regard to sketches we are trying to see what we have approved. Outdoor furniture has a real impact. Nora commented that we need a little more visual photographs or sketches as to what we are going to see. The space is quite small. Recessed lighting is preferred and the light fixtures should match. I feel strongly about the utilities and the boxes should not be attached to the historic shed which is very visible when you walk down that street. - Willis said he would defer to the comments made by the other commissioners. We need to see sketches of the tables and chairs. Maybe the two foot slot could be an accessible area for the utilities. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 n Jay said conceptual was granted with the condition that all the utilities would fit in the area and that area needs re-designed. We are all concerned about utilities being attached to the historic shed. The application is very close and basically no materials were presented. We need a real good representation of what is being approved. MOTION: Jamie moved to continue 302.E. Hopkins until May 9th with the following recommendations: Revised landscape plan; revised renderings of what we are approving; all materials represented; revised lighting plan and fixtures; and the utilities plan. Motion second by Ann. Motion carried 4-1. Jay opposed. Matthias said it has been very difficult giving up space with the trash enclosure. We are still working with the Engineering Department to get a nice clean box. We are trying to relocate some inside the enclosure. Willis said this is a nice looking project and jt is only these last few issues. On the tables and lawn the ramp has a difficult angle and I am not sure how that will work for circulation as you are stepping sideways. Matthias said-we know we can make it work if we keep the trash enclosure door unlocked. 320 Lake Ave. — Final Development— Public Hearing- cont'd from April 11, 2012 Amy said conceptual was approved in December. The approval involved demolishing some non-historic additions on the Victorian and picking it up and moving it toward the south and adding on again. Hallam Lake bluff standards were reviewed. At the last hearing the existing encroachment along the north side yard required that all.new construction meet the setback requirements. Instead of the jogged wall they have now designed the project so that it meets the setback requirements on both sides. They shifted everything down a little. Since the house is being moved anyway that is an appropriate way to not encroach on the neighboring house. In the staff memo there are a few things for discussion. The roof form of the new addition has been changed to a flat roof which conflicts with one of the guidelines which states not to use flat roofs in residential additions where the historic building has a gabled roof. Staff has gone back and forth with 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 this because it does reduce the profile and it allows for flat roof surfaces to meet the historic building insteadof other forms that might not be ideal. The flat roof might be suitable and reduce some of the impacts on the new house. On the lighting plan we feel there are too many fixtures particularly on the front porch. There is reference to pathway lighting,in the front but no fixture proposed. Illuminating the pathway you are conflicting again with the presentation of the historic house to the street. On the landscape plan a fence is indicated but we have no elevation as to what that would look like. HPC needs to see the material for the pathway. On the addition the proposal is metal siding which will appear from the street like a painted material. There is a stone veneer proposed for the single stall garage which needs discussed. It is a light hue veneer and there aren't any stone outbuildings in town. HPC did approve a brick garage addition on the Blue Vic. We will also need some information how the house is going to be relocated and we will also need a letter of credit to ensure that it is done safely. The stone on the historic house needs to be salvaged and reused instead of using a different material. Rich Carr, architect presented a street prospective with the changes from conceptual. The main difference is that the house has shifted slightly to the right. The slightly angled roof has changed to a flat roof. We shifted the house five feet to the south to maintain the five foot setback on the north side. The floor plans are the same as conceptual. We will reduce the amount of lighting proposed. We have a one car garage with a gabled roof and a connector. Rich went over the elevations. The windows are similar and the massing the same and we will probably move one window around. Rich presented red line elevations of conceptual to final. The profile of the • building has been changed. There is a glass railing on the east side and on the north side a wood railing. The fenestration has all changed. Jamie said it looks like there are additional windows on the historic resource that were not there. Rich said there are two small windows that are existing low to the floor. Rich went over the materials. For the garage addition we would like to do a light limestone with a similar pattern to the historic resource in terms of vertical scale which is 4 inches. The grout would be the same color. The elevations show a wood shingle on the garage. The window color will be • black. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 Shannon Murphy, landscape architect All of the street trees will remain with the historic house tucked underneath. At the porch we will do a perennial garden that will extend out four feet. The front walk cuts through the two existing trees. The driveway coming to the garage will be a cobblestone with a slight separation of lawn between. We are proposing a fence that is set back from the front porch which will be wood. The fence contains the front yard and most of the outdoor living space occurs at the back. Nora asked about the wrought iron fence and if it can be retained. Shannon said they can keep the fence if it is historic. Amy said it could be historic but not original to the site. More research needs to occur. Shannon explained that the lawn just carries through the side yard and in the back there would be a stone terrace. Ann asked what the existing plant materials are. Shannon said we will do an evaluation of what is existing now that it is spring and things are starting to grow. The street trees will remain. Ann said Amy suggested that the existing foundation be reused. Rich said when they remove the house we will take all the stone off and we can reuse it on the foundation. We will maintain the vertical dimension of the stone foundation. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis said the commissions sticking point was the north setback and the applicant has conformed to the setback requested. The stone for the garage is subordinate to the clapboards of historic house and the applicant explained very well the dialogue; four inch exposure on the clapboard. The color is also very similar. I feel it will look quite handsome with the horizontal joints. The historic resource will not be compromised by using the stone on the garage. The flat roof presents a lesser profile and it is an improvement. Nora thanked the applicant for applicant for the material samples. Even though the flat roof is not in our guidelines it gives more presence to the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 original house. The stone garage works well with the historic house as opposed to a metal garage. Ann also agreed that the flat roof makes the project much cleaner. As a single car garage the stone is a successful material. Possibly the long skinny window on the garage should be relooked at as it doesn't quite work. We also need a clearer lighting plan and simplified. The pathway lighting is questionable and not appropriate with the historic resource. Maybe another alternative can occur. On the cobble stone there seems to be one too many types of stone being introduced. The fence design needs to be done. For the landscape plan you need to indicate which plants will be saved and protected. There should also be some kind of fee if the plants were intended to be saved and then they weren't saved. We need to start taking the plant materials as serious as the historic resource. Jay said it is difficult when the site plan changes at final and the roof plan. I am not saying the changes are inappropriate or in the wrong direction but we spent so much time determining where this house is going to be placed and then it gets moved. The garage materials are interesting and I think it will work well. The only thing I would require is that the old fence before it is removed be approved by staff and monitor and subsequently the new fence needs to be approved by staff and monitor. • Jamie commented that this is a great project. I'm ok with the changes of the flat roof, site change, window changes and fenestration. The stone at the garage horizontal line should be the same as the historic resource. The new six foot wood fence needs to be reviewed with the monitor. The trees in the front also need to be protected. • MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #9 for 320 Lake Ave. with the following conditions: #1 as it stands #2 a new lighting plan that restudies the path lighting and simplify the light fixtures. Amended landscape plan showing existing trees and shrubs and protection. Design for the wood fence. Location of the wrought iron fence and if that will stay. A more detailed landscape plan after inspection of the site. #6 as it stands #7 eliminate 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 #8 as it stands. Ann stated in the resolution she eliminated 2,3,4,5 and #7 condition and inserted the conditions as stated above. Motion second by Jay. Roll call vote: Willis, yes; Nora, yes; Jamie, yes; Jay, yes; Ann, yes. Motion carried 5-0. • 217 E. Bleeker— Final Major Development— Public Hearing Amy said here is an historic barn on the vacant lot and a large tree at the front. For final there has not been any changes to massing or site planning. At conceptual HPC granted a 250 square foot FAR bonus with the condition that no alternations occur to the historic structure, only restoration where possible. The staff memo focuses on materials. There is not a lot of land to do landscaping because the tree occupies a-large footprint in the front and there are minimal setbacks on the side and rear. Staff recommends wood siding and not stucco. The packet also includes choices on windows whether they should be casement or double hung. Staff recommends that the operation of the window be simple one over one and no divided lights. The stone is another topic. The applicant has proposed two options for stone and they are not native stone. The character and coursing of the stone needs some relationship to the historic shed. One sample is larger pieces but the face is rough and the other stone is very rough face ledge stone which is not really related to this vicinity. Staff recommends final approval if there is a solution to the three issues mentioned. Jamie said she recalls the 15 inches that was recommended at conceptual was for the garage only. Karen Kribs, applicant Karen did a power point on the changes. The trim on the barn is 5 1/2 and 3 '/2. The window in the barn will be restored. Another discussion was the exposure of the clapboard and on the barn it is six inch boards with 4 '/4 exposure. We are now showing 8 inch exposure but we can do six or four inch exposure and I can be flexible. The stucco was also brought up. There. really isn't a lot of stucco used around town. The stucco that I thought about was a flat granular surface stucco. If the HPC feels stucco is inappropriate we can replace it with a vertical wood and the the wood would be differentiated with different colors. 9 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 With regard to the windows I took my cue from the houses on the street. I like the divisions but I can be flexible with less division or no divisions. Photos of casement and double hung windows were presented. The window company has total flexibility as to where to put the middle sash and the size and shape of the divisions. The stone is the last issue. We are only going to have about 20 to 22 inches of stone at the bottom of the house. I thought a smaller stone would work but I can be flexible and do a larger stone, more rectangular. We can do the larger stone but will keep to warmer colors, tan and brown. For the walkway we have been in meeting with the Engineering Department. They suggested a walkway that is not impervious so we chose pavers. They are set in a combination of sand and gravel so that the water drains through. The pavers selected would coordinate with the stone selected. On the lighting it is straight forward. The mushroom lights there are a pair on each step going up to the front, a total of 3 pair. On the front porch we could do a single or a pair. The decorative light is preferable. The only lights in the front are along the pathway and on the front porch. On the back of the house there could be a pair on the outside. One light is proposed over the sliding door. One light is proposed over the door coming out of the back of the house. Also one light is proposed next to the door going into the barn. At the front of the house there are wild rose bushes that can stay. A flower bed is also proposed. Along the sides of the house we are proposing only grass. Jay asked why one of the doors on the barn needs to be replaced. We usually have an expert come in and give us a report. I am concerned about removing part of the historic resource without any kind of documentation. The other issue is, what is it going to be replaced with. Karen said it was the opinion of the architect and builder that the door is probably beyond salvaging. Amy said we will need a condition of approval over the barn that we need to look at the windows, doors etc. so that everything is being restored to the best possible solution. 10 .ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION • MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 Karen said the other doors can be restored. We want to add a third solar panel along the south facing gable roof and then there are two skylights. One is a ridge skylight over the kitchen and the second one would be on the side of the house in the sitting room behind the entry hall. Karen said there was one change. When the garage was pulled out from underneath part of the house because of the extension the deck got too big and is bigger than the number of square feet we are allowed. So we extended the roof line to cover up a portion of the deck to comply with the restrictions on the size of the deck. Jamie clarified that the mushroom lights have a metal cover. Regarding the fixtures on the front porch you are asking for one pair of the Franklin ironwork sconces. At the rear of the garage you are asking for a pair of the Mika wall lights 8 1/2 inch. You are showing a light over the barn above the sliding door that is not going to be operable. At the garage west wall one pair of Mika lights. At the entry to the barn one 8 1/2 inch wall light. On the upper deck there is a pair of lights. There is also proposed a down light at the back door by the mud room. Karen said she can equally be happy with the bigger rectangular stone. Jamie said at the driveway in the back of the house near the veggie garden there is an elevation difference. How do you plan to deal with that? Karen said the plans show a French drain. The drop off is about 16 inches. Karen said she thought about terracing it down in three different levels. Ann said she would propose flagstone for the walkway. Karen also mentioned that she would like post lights on the deck. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. Mary Hayes, neighbor to the west Mary said her five children who are trustees in our property are very upset about the mass of the house overlooking us. It does impact what they can do in the future. They also question variances. If you have five foot setbacks we should abide by them. 11 • M1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 Amy said she received a letter from Laurie Hayes, Mary's daughter opposing the project. Exhibit I—Assistant City Attorney said the affidavit of the public notice is in order Exhibit II— letter from Laurie Hayes Mary said Bates lives here and she questions the snow load. My oldest daughter Paulie also questioned the mass against our property. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public hearing. Jamie said with regards to the recommendation, wood siding is preferred with a six inch reveal vs. an 8 inch reveal. Also, the reduction in the trim size being the six inch at the top and four inches all the way around. The window selection is up to the applicant and what works best for them. I'm in favor of the ledge stone and it will come across as a smaller pattern. Six path lights are a little excessive and maybe we go down to four. Regarding the front porch I would be in favor of the Franklin Ironworks sconces. At the rear of the garage I would be in favor of the pair of lights selected. I am not in favor of the light over the barn door that is not sliding. At the garage west wall I would be in favor of one light not a pair because you have the down light coming out of the door. I am not in favor of the post lights mounted. In regards to the tree we need some kind of tree protection to protect it during construction. The 15inch bump out is only for the garage not the storage area in the garage. Jay also agreed that the bump out needs to come back in. I would choose stucco over the proposed wood section. We also need a landscape plan and a detailed lighting plan. You have come in with a lot of ideas but nothing concrete that a decision can be made on. It is not the responsibility for this commission to design the project. • Ann said she felt the wood siding is more appropriate. Some of the elevations don't include everything like the sky lights and solar panels. We are trying to have everything submitted to us as accurate as possible. I concur with Jamie on the lighting plan. The divided lights add interest to the structure. On the sandstone base either pattern would work and the outdoor paving should be tied into that sandstone. I also agree that we need a lighting plan and landscape plan that shows the grading and plantings 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012 proposed. We also need to know where the drip line is on the tree and how • it will be protected. The tree should not be limbed up. Willis commented that the staff memo was well written. The ledge stone sample is not what is drawn and I would prefer what is rendered. I think the six inch clapboard will work but I don't know until I see it. The real issue is the relationship between the historic resource and the architecture of the house. There is kind of a blurring. The resource doesn't have any feel of its authenticity about it. I would like to see-a re-evaluation of the windows and what the historic resource will be. Simpler windows and mullions should be looked at. I also agree with Ann and Jamie about using the wood instead of stucco. The platform to the entrance needs to be restudied. I also agreed that we need to see a lighting plan. MOTION: Jamie moved to continue 217 E. Bleeker to May 9t" . We have materials to review, lighting and landscape plan; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Jay suggested the applicant come in•with a concise plan. Amy asked about the sandstone. Ann said she would prefer a local material but it is more of the scale and pattern that we are interested in. Annual HPC Awards Selection — no minutes MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn, second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meetin, adjourned at 9:00 p.m. , • A_MITAPAPPAIWOP....._ — Kathleen J. S -'ckl.nd, Chief Deputy Clerk 13