Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20120613 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin,Willis Pember, Jamie McLeod, Sallie Golden, Patrick Sagal and Jane Hills. Nora Berko was excused. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Disclosure: Jay and Jane will recuse themselves on 623 E. Hopkins Motion: Jay moved to approve the minutes of May 23`d second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 610 E. Hyman Ave. —AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review for utility/trash recycling area - Public Hearing Jay moved to continue the public hearing on 610 E. Hyman until October 10, 2012; second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. 315 E. Main Street— Minor review and Variances, Public Hearing Debbie Quinn approved the affidavit of public notice - Exhibit I Chris Bendon explained that the application is for approval of signage. There are two requests; one is to locate a blade sign along the edge of the building and the second is a variance request to use the existing sign bracket at the existing height of the former sign which is slightly higher than allowed by our sign code. Staff is supporting both requests. Blade signs are typical that you see all over town. We prefer the blade sign to be mounted on the corner board. If not granted the sign would have to be lowered but the bracket would stay. We have a limitation on yard sign heights which is six feet and the sign is 8 feet. The way the signage code works is that the variance is only for the duration of the existing store. Patrick inquired about dropping the bracket. Chris pointed out that this has been an existing condition that people are used to. The code tries to achieve compliance upon historic transfers. It is a minimal variance and staff is OK with it. The lower sign with a higher bracket looks a little strange. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012 Patrick asked if this would be precedence setting. Chris said we review variances for each particular case, on a particular piece of property. Staff doesn't consider this precedence setting. Shirley Tipton, owner said we want to comply with what the city requires of us. We are an artist cooperative and we have 40 businesses in the building. This particular sign bracket has been in place for 25 years and the owner does not wish it to be moved. We are trying to find a way to use the existing bracket. The sign we are proposing is compliant in size but the height is the issue. Chris said we regulate the size of the sign not the bracket. Chairperson, Ann Mullin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Jay said his thought was to put the sign in a more subordinate place so that the building is more visible and it would comply with guideline 14.25. Shirley said that was their initial idea but they were denied the opportunity by the building owner. It is either a lower sign or nothing. As a business we need some way to identify ourselves. Jamie said if the applicant came in with the sign two feet lower we wouldn't have any purview over this. They could lower the sign two feet. If we want to discuss relocating the post that discussion needs to occur with the applicant to see if that is something they are looking for. The building owner does not wish the pole to be moved. Ann pointed out that this is also an existing condition that has been there for 25 years. I feel that is a valid reason to grant this variance. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #13 second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. 320 W. Hallam — Minor Review— Public Hearing Debbie Quinn approved the affidavit of public notice - Exhibit I 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012 Scott Dolleck said this is an historic lot split adopted in 2002 and HPC approved the addition in 2006. The proposal is to expand the master bedroom toward the alley and change the roof form and modify the roof over the stair and add a hot tub and glass guardrail to the link. On the ground floor east side the applicant would like to bump out the wall along the patio for a fire place and a built in BBQ. Staff's recommendation is continuation to August 22nd to study the roof form as well as the deck and glass railing and hot tub on the connector roof. Staff supports the grill on the back and the gutters. With the addition of the hot tub and glass guardrail the connector is no longer a one story as stated in guideline 10.7. The roof line doesn't match that of the original building as stated in 10.9 page 4 of the packet. For these reasons we feel the project doesn't meet the guidelines and the project needs restudied. Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe architects Karen Wood, Cunniffe architects Charles said when you do a glass guardrail it doesn't make it a two story element. It simply provides a protective device for the safety of someone using the rooftop. There are numerous examples of glass guardrails on historic buildings. We propose setting it back slightly and it would turn and not connect to the original building. The change to the addition is so that the owner can occupy and expand the bedroom in order to get the view of Aspen Mountain. We feel the change helps distinguish the new structure from the old one. We maintained a gable form. Karen Wood did a power point explaining the proposed changes. The master bedroom is currently small and it is the owners desire to add more light and views from the master bedroom. We wouldn't go past the setback. The material selection would match the addition. Charles said the shed roof form already exists over the covering of the stairs. Jamie asked for clarification of the drawings. Charles said they would prefer the shed roof form. Jay inquired about the FAR. Charles said they have enough FAR to do the project. The master bedroom is not functional. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012 Sallie said staff is recommending continuation of the restudy of the roof form on the addition. Amy said she worked on the addition and the gabled roof form works and creates the balance of old and new. We feet the shed is too foreign and too dominant in scale. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Comments: Ann stated the four issues: Roof form on the addition Deck on top of the connector The addition of the BBQ Gutters. Jane said at the site visit there seemed to be a lot of elevations and from a simplicity point a shed roof is simpler but I understand the gable sensitivity. There is a lot going on that site and there is a lot to look at. Patrick said he agrees with Amy's and staff perspectives. Ann said she objects to the deck on top of the connector. It is not just the railing it is the idea that you are going to have people up there and it becomes another living space. According to the guidelines the connector is to be a one story. Jay said the shed roof could work but it doesn't work in this situation. The perceived mass is increasing and that is where I am having a problem with the walls coming up with a square mass. The roof is lower by six inches but the gable creates less mass than the shed roof. I also agree with Ann about the hot tub sitting up there with a four foot mass. If it was a walk across and a door on either side a glass railing would work in that situation. I'm ok with the bbq and gutters. Maybe there is some way to make the design less perceived mass with the historic resource. Jamie agreed with Jay about the mass and scale. I'm ok with the railing but my concern is the mass of the roof form. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012 Sallie said in the first application the owners would have wanted better views also. I also agree with Jay that the gable is higher but when you lower it and widen it the mass is bigger. It seems like the original design was done appropriately with the guidelines. I don't have a problem with the railing. Willis said he agreed with staff's presentation. Charles said what you are seeing is the original gable form with a smaller bedroom. The bedroom is getting larger whether that is by the change of a roof to a shed roof which would be much more comfortable or we leave the gable form and kick out another shed on the alley. Then you would have a shed, gable and another shed which in our opinion gets more complicated. The square footage on the original house was miscalculated and that was discovered during the due diligence. To make the gable stay we would have to make it bigger and flatter. The gable form has to be extended toward the alley whether it be the introduction of another shed which would further complicate things or allow us to settle the entire thing down and have an overall shed. I guess we should have shown more options. Jay said he thinks this all can work but the mass needs to be looked at. Charles asked if they could discuss the option for the square footage that needs to be accommodated toward the alley and how that would affect the alley. Ann said we need the proposal and something concrete in front of us to review. Charles said the information wasn't on the table and I wonder if your discussion wouldn't be different knowing that there is more logic behind the shed accommodating the additional square feet as well as having the roof down near the stair more clean looking. That proposal is in your packet but I didn't have the benefit of explaining it thoroughly. Ann said it seems that more study is needed. Jamie said she understands what Charles is pointing out and took that into consideration. I would like to see the options at the next meeting so we can determine what the best solution is. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012 Sallie asked if other cases have had the glass railing approved. Amy said it is on a case by case situation and some have been approved. Jane said the applicant is trying hard to figure out a way to make it work and I don't know enough about the roof study and would rely on Staff's opinion. Motion: Aim moved to continue 320 W. Hallam until August 22nd second by Patrick. Charles said the applicant is trying to get in by XMAS. Amy said someone might be able to get through the process faster than anticipated. Amended motion: Jamie moved to amend the motion to continue 320 W. Hallam until July 11th second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Sallie said she would like the owner to be able to use the extra square footage but the applicant needs to follow more on the guidelines. 623 E. Hopkins — Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition and Relocation — Public Hearing Debbie Quinn approved the affidavit of public notice — Exhibit I Jay and Jane recused themselves. Amy said this is a 6,000 square foot lot and on the site is Susie's consignment store, a hair salon and Susie's annex building in the back of the property. Susie's shop would stay the same with the removal of a few non- historic additions that are in the back. It would be lifted up for a basement. The hair salon building would be left as is. In the back will be a mixed use building with three floors. The miner's cottage will have a restoration and no major additions. There is a lot of open garden space on the lot. The proposal is a little less than 40% of the allowable square footage. The building on the back is quite large and HPC will have to work with the guidelines to make sure we have a compatible situation. Staff is recommending approval. Staff's main concern is that there is an access to a fourth level deck and a staircase that leads up to that. We would like to see the upper most floor deck removed. In the application the Susie's building is moving forward and staff is against that. There is a certain alignment on the street and we feel that should not be interfered with. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION_ MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012 Greg Hills, owner Michael Noda, Oz Architecture Darcy Veretuca, Oz Architecture Sallie asked if possibly we can come to some happy medium on the distance Susie's will be moved forward. Amy said in general we don't like moving historic buildings and staff feels there isn't enough trade off and HPC will hear more why the applicant wants to move the house forward. There are no variances requested and they are under the height limit. Patrick said initially he agrees with staff's recommendations. Michael Noda said they tried to make the above grade space and the below grade space as nice as possible. In terms of the site plan there are only three trees and we want to keep most of the existing landscaping as possible. On the site constraints besides the trees there is a transformer. There is no proposed basement under the addition as we didn't want to destroy the root structures of the trees. We want to bring Susie's a little forward to make it more of a design element. Greg said with the Conner cabins we like the house four feet closer to the sidewalk. Michael said on the first floor of the addition it is all commercial. Susie's would have a basement. There is also the single story barn. On the first floor of the addition there would be two offices and a shared garage. On the second floor we have three bedrooms and a den. We tried to create a little more distance between the historic house and the addition. The floor is stepped back all the way around and that area has the kitchen, family room and dining room. The fourth floor has a deck of only 145 square feet and a hot tub. We eliminated 400 square feet. We would like to keep the deck because we want to have a little green space that isn't common. Having a little outdoor space would be a wonderful asset. The deck would be similar to what was built by the owner on the Crandall building. The deck has also been pushed to the back. The building would be masonry on two stories and a more modern third floor that steps back. On the stairway to the fourth floor we put in a glass door. It is important that we restore the historic assets 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012 and we will update the barn with clapboard siding and leave the metal roofs. The third floor has metal panels and on the third floor we have glass in order to make it transparent. We have tried to minimize the bulk on the third floor. Willis inquired about the mechanical. Michael said all the mechanical is in the alley with no roof top mechanical. Amy pointed out that the applicant has worked hard to reduce the mass. The residential space isn't allowed to be larger than the commercial space. Greg said we kept the side yard by Susie's to have a retail opportunity off the side. Patrick said from an historic perspective the front yard in front of Susie's is an important asset. You won't see the separation from Susie's to the addition from the street. Amy pointed out that the Parks Dept. has the determination about the trees. Greg said Engineering wants a sidewalk and we are hoping the tree can stay and we will do what we can to preserve them. Jamie asked how far forward is Susie's being moved. Darcey said 5'10" forward. Greg said he would like to keep the ten foot separation between Susie's and the addition. We want the blending of the Susie's site and the Berg site and how it wraps up Spring Street. Patrick asked about the view planes. Amy said there are specific view planes throughout town that cannot be taken away but this project doesn't affect any. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012 Ann said there are four items to address: Susie's relocation The third floor impact on the historic resource Roof top deck Demolition of the building on the alley Jamie thanked the applicant for reducing the mass 40%. I'm ok with the demo off the building on the alley. I'm ok with the third floor and the roof deck. The changes that you made like the door making it look residential instead of like a stairway really helps with the third floor. I'm also in favor in favor of moving Susie's forward. Keeping the ten foot separation will give the historic house breathing room. Jamie thanked the applicant for a great job and not requesting any variances. Patrick said he is in favor of the demolition but would rather see a brick structure. Patrick said he would recommend continuation. Patrick said he is in favor of the mechanical being in the alley. People will be looking at the historic house from the street façade and will not see all four sides. Sallie said she is in favor of the deck because there will be no mechanical equipment on it. Willis said he is amazed that the project is only 40% of the allowable FAR. Roof tops are very visible and it is becoming an issue. The mechanical is appropriate in the alley. Ann said she feels Susie's should stay in its existing spot. The demolition is OK and the roof top deck is ok because there will be no mechanical. Possibly restudy the third floor as it looks somewhat massive but not loose anymore square footage. Greg said Michael might be able to make the third floor look a little more subtle but we need to make sure the space works functionally for the user. Sallie pointed out that the size of the building should not come down. Possibly it should be a little subtle but transparency doesn't mean subtle. Greg said Susie's wants to be able to retail out front like she presently does. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012 Sallie said making the back addition a little more subtle and making Susie's "pop out" is important. MOTION: Jamie moved that the demolition of the alley building be approved. That Susie's is moved 4 feet off the property line as shown and that the fourth level deck is approved with the condition that no mechanical stay on the deck and it stays at the square footage represented which his 145 sq. ft. and the third floor is OK as presented. At final we will really look at the third floor materials. Motion second. Amy asked what exactly mechanical means for the roof. Jamie said she is referring to HVAC. She is ok with plumbing vents and satellite dishes. A table with a removable umbrella is OK. No semi-sun shades. Roll call vote: Willis, yes; Jamie, yes; Patrick, no; Sallie, yes; Ann, yes. Motion carried 4-1. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10