Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20120711 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin, Sallie Golden, Patrick Sagal and Jane Hills. Absent were Nora Berko, Willis Pember and Jamie McLeod. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of June 27th as amended by Ann. Motion second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 320 W. Hallam — Minor Development, Public Hearing continued from June 13th Amy relayed that the project is to do a remodel of an addition to an historic house. At the previous review UPC felt that the changes were not keeping the project simple in relationship to the historic building. The addition should be somewhat secondary. The project was then continued for a restudy. The proposal involves adding gutters and a built in BBQ. There is also a proposed revision to the master bedroom suite on top of the rear addition and a request to put a hot tub and deck on top of the connector between the old and new construction. Three options have been presented and staff supports option B. Option B is the most simple in form and resolves some of the issues from the last meeting. One concern is the overhang and we are requesting that the architect look at filling in that space so that we don't have so many jogs. There are windows that are proposed with option B and staff is concerned about the amount of glazing compared to solid wall surface and how that relates to the Victorian. As a suggestion possibly choose one color palate to help simplify the revisions. The connector piece between the old and new is to be a one story. Staff is not in support of the roof deck as shown because the walk area is more than what is needed and that leaves the door open to furniture and potted plants and trees that will conflict from the old and new construction. Staff is recommending continuance. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 Jane inquired about the guideline in reference to furniture etc. going on top of a connector. Amy said it is guideline 10.7 and all of the guidelines can be adjusted. They are guidelines to give the applicant our expectations. When the addition is taller than the original building which is the case here a connector is required and is expected to be about ten feet long and one story. The question is whether the deck makes the perception not as a one story. Patrick said he agrees with option B and the connector should just be a connector and if something were on top of it, it would confuse the buildings. Karen Woods, Cunniffe and Associates Paul and Rachel Zimmerman, owners Karen said they have studied this further and feel they have come up with a solution that meets all the goals. Paul said he has been coming to Aspen for 35 years and they purchased the house in Dec. of 2010. We did a lot of extensive research when we bought this house. Through our due diligence we found out that there was additional FAR that had never been calculated. There are many homes that have had additions to the back with connectors that were being used as a deck with hot tubs and had doorways from the historic house passing through to the addition. I was under the impression that there would not be an issue of having a consistent ruling on how the space could be used. As a family the needs for us are very different and we need closet space. Karen presented a power point on the options. Karen also presented option D that meets more of the needs just with changing the roof form and keeping the plan the same. We would bring the mass down and create one form instead of stepping it over the garage. We have introduced a cross gable. We would prefer the modern windows but we can work the windows out. The material change helps separate the old from the new and there is no confusion as to what originally was there. The hot tub is more for personal use. Karen also did a power point on hot tubs with connector throughout the West End. The lighting is the same except for one more light fixture. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 Amy said D is the same as A with a cross gable so that the shed piece is on the alley façade. Jay said basically the dormer is taken off and the jog in the foundation façade will be filled in. Paul Zimmerman said he would like to have the existing window in the historic house turned into a door the same size as a second egress to the hot tub. It is the same analogy as the Blue Vic. Karen said they are willing to work on suggestion regarding the modern windows to make them relate to the Victorian. We would prefer to keep them the same language that is existing. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Ann identified the issues: Roof line Fenestration Material palate Connector deck and railing Bbq and the gutters Jane said she visited the site and noticed the trees that were planted. She also visited other homes that had connectors. There are a lot of interpretations and HPC is trying to monitor and have continuity and it is not easy to do. I like the roof line of D and it is in keeping with the historic side. In terms of financials the materials do not need changed as it is quite expensive. The modern windows are more in keeping on the addition. The site has a lot going on and simplicity is the key. In terms of the hot tub deck possibly it could be set down in so it isn't as visible. Patrick said the shed roof option D increases the mass toward the house so that it actually looks bigger. The separation is best served by not having the hot tub and glass connector but have the hot tub by the BBQ. On the windows I would defer to staff and monitor. Jay said he would have staff and monitor handle the window situation. I would recommend that the railing and space used on the hot tub deck be 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 restudied. There is plenty of room for a table and chairs and possible there is a solution to move the hot tub back diagonally. I would leave that decision up to staff and monitor. Sallie said she likes D and the way it is illustrated is quiet. I would also support staffs recommendation on the windows and I would not support the contrasting materials. Ann also said D is acceptable and it is a nice compromise and simplified. On the material palate as long as it is similar it can work. On the connector you really can't see it but from the West you see it. You have the historic resource and the clean connector and the new addition. Once you make the connector piece part of the living area all of a sudden it blurs the distinction. On the other hand it is your home and a deck is a fabulous place to be in the summer. I cannot support carving another entrance into the historic resource. Patrick also mentioned putting the hot tub on the deck above the garage which is secluded. Charles said they can pull the deck railing back so that it is not visible. Paul clarified that there isn't enough room to put the hot tub by the BBQ. In our particular situation the hot tub can be made non-visible and we are happy to comply with whatever limited space there is and we would really appreciate your consideration. Jay said in the motion staff and monitor should approve the material and placement of the hot tub. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #15 for 320 W. Hallam St. with the following conditions: Staff and monitor to handle the window product and design. Staff and monitor to handle the site plan of the deck and the equipment that is going to be put on it, the railing and hot tub. That there be no connector from the historic resource onto the connector. Nothing on the historic resource should change. Approval of option D and gutter proposal as drawn. Motion second by Jane. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 Discussion: Amended motion by Sallie that staff and monitor approve the material palate. I'm referring to staff's comment that they would like to see one or more of the materials eliminated to make the design quieter. Jay said he is approving what has been drawn and he doesn't want to change his motion. Patrick asked if the deck could be the smallest possible so that there couldn't be any other furniture there. - Jay said he doesn't want to tie the applicant down because there might be a better solution having one foot on one side and two on the other to make a better solution. The best solution will come out of a little flexibility. Sallie said she will vote for the project but would rather see two different materials than three. Ann said she doesn't feel the fenestration should be left up to staff and monitor. I feel allowing more activity on the connector is a mistake. Once it is up there you never know in the future how that outdoor deck is going to be treated. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Jane,yes; Sallie, yes; Patrick, no; Ann no. Motion carried 3-2. Charles said they will work to simplify the revision. Jane - Monitor 534 E. Cooper Ave. — Boogies — Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review— Public Hearing Sara said the application is a request for conceptual major development and also conceptual commercial design review. The building is in the commercial core district and on the corner of Hunter and Cooper Streets. The proposal is to add a third floor and bump out a portion of the second floor where the temporary awning is located to make a larger restaurant space. Staff is supportive of the proposed setback and they meet guidelines 6.28 and 6.29. An elevator shaft is proposed along Hunter Street. There is an existing elevator but there is no way to enlarge it. Placing the elevator 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 along Hunter does eat into their public amenity. They are required to have 10% of their site be public amenity and by adding the elevator and a little lobby to enter into the elevator it reduces that about 2%. They will have 8% on-site and 2% off with improvements to the right-of-way and they will work with the Parks and Engineering Departments. A fire place chimney is also being proposed which is directly behind the atrium. By adding the third floor they will have to cut into the existing atrium about half and they are proposing a chimney that would come up right behind the atrium. They have lowered the chimney to the minimum height that they can have. Staff is still concerned about what the chimney does to the overall height and mass of the building and it draws attention to the third floor. Staff is recommending that the chimney be removed from the proposal. Staff is supportive of the second floor expansion and it helps the building get closer to our current design guidelines by bringing the second floor forward a little bit. That is what you would typically see downtown in a commercial building. Height: The height limit is 38 feet and you can increase it to 42 feet with commercial design review. The majority of the third floor is proposed at 38 feet and there is a bump up that goes up to 42 feet. There are specific guidelines 6.27 that need to be complied with in order to go to 42 feet. Staff finds that the additional height criteria are not met. The 2% off site public amenity needs approval by the Parks and Engineering Dept. and the Community Development Department. The applicant will need to go to P&Z for growth management review because they are adding a free market residential unit. It will also go to city council for a subdivision review and then back to HPC for final where HPC will deal with fenestration etc. HPC is allowed to grant a six month extension and the applicant is request 18 months due to the lengthy approval process. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Jay disclosed that his wife rents an office at 520 Cooper which is within 300 feet. There is no financial interest. Jane asked for clarification of equipment on the roof Sara said equipment does not count in the height as long as it is allowed within the allowances. You are allowed to have mechanical up to five feet over the roof and it does not count toward your height. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 Sallie also said she is concerned about the mechanical. Sara indicated that HPC can request information about the mechanical at final. Sara said Bill Poss designed the building originally. Kim Weil, Poss Architecture Bill Poss Andy Wisnosky Kim said the bulk of the building is remaining as is. The elevator, lobby and stairway are within the existing footprint. The elevator will provide access to the restaurant and continues up to the apartment. The second level has new commercial space which replaces the tent. The free market is 2,000 square feet. We can keep the elevator shaft to 40 feet and the chimney is at 44 feet. The existing affordable housing will have new windows. The architecture is brick and we didn't want to add more brick. We wanted to lighten it up all the way around and the materials are metal and glass. Along Hunter St. there are a lot of one story brick buildings and we chose to go with metal as opposed to brick. Bill said this is a transitional building on the corner and we go from tall buildings on Cooper which are three and four stories and transition around on South Hunter to one and two story buildings. The metal allows us to make a quieter building. The building gets lighter as it gets higher. Kim said there are a lot of three stories along Cooper Ave. Exhibit I— Public Notice Exhibit II —Elk's letter Ann asked about the elevator location. Andy said the proposed elevator is accessing the apartment, the restaurant and the ADU. It is also required by the ADA. Patrick asked how far out the trellis or sun shade comes. Kim said 13 feet. Sara said that is an architectural feature that we will deal with at final. Kim said on the elevator there are many codes and you need clearance which is about 40 feet. The building is not on the east property line, it is about 2 1/2 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 feet inside the property line and we have about 3 1/2 feet that we want to use for protection into the lobby. We don't want people standing in the rain. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Ann identified the issues: Scale and mass Elevator shaft Fire place chimney Second floor expansion Height Public amenity Trash/utility recycling area 6 month extension Jay said the atrium is successful and the building feels like a triangle. I cannot support the chimney because it brings so much attention to the center of the building. The elevator on Hunter Street has the proper access and maybe it can be softened up a little with materials. I have no issue with the 2% amenity. If you lose the chimney I can support the 42 feet section. On the mechanical we will need to see that at final and hopefully some of it can be hidden elsewhere. Patrick recused himself. Sallie said she understands why the fireplace is where it is and the applicant has lowered it. The mechanical is a big issue for me and possibly a parapet wall could hide it. We need a limit on where the mechanical should be located. Jane said she has no problem with the chimney or the elevator shaft. The elevator shaft is a great amenity for that building and now people will be able to get in. The color palate on the chimney and elevator shaft should be looked at because they stand out a little too much. Ann said putting a third story set back works well with the building. The new elevator shaft wall needs a little more street presence. The roof scape seems messy already and you don't have any mechanicals drawn out yet. I don't support the chimney unless there is a good justification for it. On the 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 height guideline 6.27 I don't see a good reason having the 42 foot height. 38 feet is per code and the public amenity is good. Extending the 6 month approval is also acceptable. Kim said they will look at other material options for the elevator shaft and they can work out everything. Regarding the mechanicals some of it can move to the basement. The restaurant exhaust will be on the roof and we will discuss how it should be screened. On the third floor it was decided that we needed something other than brick to make it lighter. MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve resolution #16 for 534 E. Cooper with the following conditions: 1. Chimney is not approved 2. Restudy the materials on the elevator shaft to reduce perceived mass and height 3. The 42 ft. height increase is not approved 4. Public amenity approved to be 8% onsite and 2% off-site 5. A development application for final shall be submitted 18 months from today's approval. Motion second by Jay. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Sallie, yes; Jane, yes Ann, yes. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m !1 GL'li( 'l,C L1 fy2 .�'L `l L. GL'Y� t Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9