Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20130410 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10 2013 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Jane Hills and Patrick Sagal. Sallie Golden was excused. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Justin Barker, Planner MOTION: Ann moved to approve the minutes of February 27th; second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Nora moved to approve the minutes of March 13th second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 701 N. Third St. — Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variances — Public Hearing Amy said this is a conceptual continued public hearing. The applicant is proposing a 790 square foot addition. No changes are proposed to the historic resource. The proposal is adding onto the garage on the west end of the property. At the last meeting HPC asked for a revision to minimize the setback variance. Pearl Court is the front. They are proposing a five foot setback. The deck was also revised. Staff recommends approval of the five foot rear yard setback on the north. Staff feels the revisions are appropriate. Nothing in the guidelines requires some particular response to the neighborhood environment. HPC's role is the relationship of the new construction and the Victorian. Staff recommends approval. Alan Richman, representative for the project. Alan said it is almost impossible to meet every single guideline. On the north property line we have a five foot setback as requested. There is a ten foot separation from the historic house. We have staggered the dormers and changed the windows under the dormer on the addition. We have also made changes to the roof form. The height measurement to the 1/3 of the roofs 20.6 and to the peak it is 24 feet. We are below all our code requirements. On the west there is a five foot variance and we have ten feet. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10 2013 Steve Whipple, owner said the chimney goes to a wood burning fire place and it is technically legal. Only the stack is visible and is where it was historically. We lowered the building a little more. We lost the arched windows which is a good thing. The ground around the neighbor's house is higher and we are about 8 inches different in height between the neighbor's house. We are 4 1/2 feet under what we are legally allowed. We have softened the design. The mechanical will be on the ground. Nora said the west setback is 10 1/2 feet. Alan said they are increasing the setback that exists there today. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Peterson letter— Exhibit I James Peterson, neighbor. Our house is 21.6 feet high. We are impressed with the revisions made and it is a better project. Carol Craig's house is 21.6 feet high. The rest of the houses on Pearl Court are less than 20 feet high. There might be a chance to lower the height of the ridge a foot or so as seem from Pearl Court. The house might have an air conditioner installed and hopefully there will be provisions for noise from the compressor. We know the Whipple's will love living on Pearl Court. Susan and David Pine also said they would support a reduction in height, Jim Curtis said he lives at 411 Pearl Court the house directly across the street. All of the changes are appreciated by the neighborhood. Carol Craig said she would appreciate the reduction in height due to a solar panel that she has and it will be blocked. Burnice and Randy Duran, 415 Pearl court. The applicant has done a good job of complying with what was discussed at the last meeting. Chairperson, Ann closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Issues: Scale, mass proportions 5' variance on north 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 Connector Ann commented that the letter prepared by Alan Richman and the drawings are well packaged and the board appreciates it. Steve said he had an engineer come to the site and he cannot reduce the height. Jamie said she is in favor of the five foot north setback and is fine with the existing height. Willis said the applicant went beyond with their revisions. The revisions to the side of the Petersons is commendable. Jane complimented the applicant for doing a good job. Jane also thanked the board and neighborhood for engaging to make this project better. Nora also thanked everyone. 12 inches in height would not change the Craig's issue on their solar panel in the ground. Ann also commented that we have no guidelines for protecting solar panels. The project has much improved. Steve said with the ridge line the way it is you will have more sunlight in the morning and afternoon. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #9 second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Roll call vote: Jane, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes; Jamie, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, yes. 435 E. Main Street—Final Major Development— Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Amy said initially there was a phase two for a social hall and more recently they decided that some of the functions could be handled in the parsonage building. At conceptual approval there was discussion about the site planning and where the parsonage building would sit. Also the front door was to face Main Street and there is a nice porch as required by the guidelines. There was a request on the long roof slope over the west living 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 space to have a dormer or something to break it up and that has been accomplished. The project has been to council and P&Z. There has been a change in the site plan since the last meeting. The parsonage was close to the cabins on Third Street and it was requested it be pushed 3 5 feet further away. It has moved 3.5 feet back closer to the Third Street cabins. This has to do with the garage and in my assessment we still have a good separation and the free standing residence is better than the social hall would have been. Staff recommends approval. Alan said council and P&Z don't really look at the site plan. Council wanted to see a drawing. Amy said she was not aware of the changes until she received the final package. Patrick inquired about the landscape and if there are changes. Amy said initially we had a landscape plan but things have changed and we can make that a condition of approval to have clarification of the changes. Amy said option A was ten feet away from the cabins and that plan was not approved by HPC. Option B was 34.11 which was approved and now they are at 31 1/2 feet. They still are 21 feet away than they originally were. Alan said the packet to council and P&Z had the diagrams from conceptual at 35 feet. Arthur Chabon said they placed the dormer on the long roof, switched the entrance to Main Street and we moved the parsonage as far away from the cabins as we could balancing the play area and altering the internal program. I was told that the entrance had to be off Main Street and that necessitated some drastic changes to the internal planning. The combination of the entrance off of Main and that the garage align with the cabins and also trying to keep a viable play area made it that we couldn't meet the 35 foot dimension. The only area that we are at 31.5 is at the entrance that aligns up with cabin 18. The entire front area is 34.9 feet. Arthur presented a lighting plan. The siding material is stained cedar. Stone, a cellar stone. And the roof will be a standing seam, "Folensby steel". The changes to the landscaping was necessitated by the change to the 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 parsonage. There is a path to the porch. There is a private entrance off Third Street for the Rabi and his family. Alan said all of the cabins are deed restricted on Third Street as affordable housing for those employees of the synagogue. The three on the back are deed restricted for scholars and other persons associated with the synagogue. Jamie said it looks like the mass and scale has changed on every elevation, dormers have moved and the height has changed 1'8". The skylights also go taller. Arthur Chabon said you can't just put the entrance on Main Street. Everything impacts everything. It is impossible to do a single change. Jamie said the board should look at old and new elevations to understand the changes. Jay also said he is confused because it is a different building. Amy said you approved the project with moving the front door. At conceptual HPC is bound to the form and height. At final the applicant can refine the application especially if it was a condition of approval. Arthur said he is presenting a design from HPC's mandates. Debbie said council can call up a project from conceptual approval. Arthur said you can't ask for changes and then when the changes are made you are puzzled. This should be evaluated on face value. Ann suggested Arthur go through the changes. Amy pointed out that if windows changed that is OK because they are to be reviewed at final. Willis said we asked them to look at the articulation of the mass and that allowed an enormous range of response. Debbie said there was public notice provided that this is what they choose to do and HPC can accept or amend it. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 Arthur said we had to change the internal layout of the building. The finished ridge was 35.8 '/z and now it is 37.4. That is a 1'8" increase. Alan Richman said the design is the outcome of the HPC direction. Jay said the footprint and the shape of the house have changed and that is worth a discussion. Willis said by the recommendation that HPC made you will get a different animal. The garage is flipped and he is working with the same vocabulary and just working and moving the elements around. I feel this is in the spirit of what we asked them to do. Nora asked about the ceiling heights. Arthur said the first floor is 9 feet and the second floor is 8 feet. Alan said we are below what the allowable FAR is. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Amy said she received a letter from Nita Barton - she actually lives in the R-6 zone district, the Scott building — and she is concerned about the comings and goings from the synagogue. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment. Ann said the board needs to determine whether the changes are significant or not. Jane said she read the meeting notes and studied them. Conceptually the applicant did honestly what they thought they needed to do for the building. There are a lot of mixed messages when we come to final. I feel the building fits in beautifully. Willis said the changes have been made with good finesse and we should move on and look at the final. I like very much what has transpired in the materials and I like the building closer to the cabins. The playground in 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 between would do better to be larger. The light fixtures are fine and the stain selection is also OK. Ann said the board is accountable for the process from conceptual to final. It would have been better if the changes were explained. I feel what you have come up with works well. Jamie said the design is better but the building is getting higher and the mass and scale is changing and I think we need to see what was at conceptual and what is at final. Jay said this applicant should not be penalized. Hopefully with our growth as a commission we won't run into this again. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #10 as presented, second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Vote: Jane, yes; Jay, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes, Jamie, yes. 1006 E. Cooper Ave. — Final Major Development and Variances, Public Hearing Debbie said the public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed. Derek Skalko, architect for the applicant. Justin said the parcel currently contains a Victorian, additions and an out building on the back. HPC approved conceptual to remove the non-historic additions as well as the out building in back. The house would be moved toward the center of the property and an addition built in the back. Two variances are being requested. Residential Design Standard for a secondary mass and a floor area bonus. Because of the removal of the additions it causes the project to be over 40% demolition so it is considered new construction which triggers the residential design standard which requires 10% of the mass for the new structure to be placed in a separate structure or a connecting element. The Victorian house is in the front with the additions to the back and as a result staff is in support of the variance. The FAR bonus relates to a ten foot connector. They have provided the ten food connector which increases the FAR. The amount of restoration is commendable and because of that staff supports the 160 square foot bonus. The only landscape issue is for the proposed fence that is unified. There is a 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 twisted metal fence that goes along the south side and a small portion of the west property. Staff recommends that decorative metal portion of the fence remain. The windows need to be determined if they are historic or not in the field. The siding is proposed to match the existing. On the columns only the one that looks like it has been cut should be replaced if new columns are put in: Staff recommends approval with conditions: 7 foot setback from conceptual carry through Moving of the building Grant the variance from the secondary mass requirement Grant the FAR of 160 square feet Twisted wire fence remain Remove the upper story window from the front fagade No mechanical equipment on the front or sides of the historic structure More information on the siding and front porch to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Derek did a power point on the conceptual approval recap. In 1997 there was a bathroom installed and the window was installed horizontally. It is a Pella window from the late 90's. All of the posts on the front will be restored and one re-milled. There is a 60 square foot allowance in the event that the lower subgrade area calculates slightly different. We have to do a full soils and basically we will do a full basement under the miner's cottage. The subgrade doesn't affect the scale and mass. On the main level we have an addition of two feet in the connection area. The chimney is in the historic location. The chimney is one foot smaller. The only other change was a door to a window from conceptual. We will reuse all materials that we can. Four inch lap siding is proposed and a prodema rain screen material which is a solar siding. All of the new construction will be difficult to see from East Cooper. From the alley it would be prominent. The historical structure will read first and foremost. In researching the fence at East Cooper they were typically for ornamentation for graveyards and gardens. Fences from the 18 hundreds or 1900 hundreds were cast or wrought iron. This fence is a milled steel fence produced in 1950 or 1960's. It is a rolled bundled fence and is still available today. On the posts that are holding the fence some are metal and some are PVC. We would like to consider a fence that is more appropriate for the use and is more durable. To restore the fence there is probably a led based paint going through it. The cost implications with sandblasting etc. is a concern. On the fence we would like the ability to 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 study that further in the future and we could come to you with something that is more durable. Nora asked about the solar walls. Derek said they are used extensively in Germany and Spain is also doing their own division. Derek said we are using the same pitch in the roof. We were trying to tuck as much of the two story massing behind the historic house. Jane asked about window wells in the basement of the historic house. Derek said one window well goes into the setback of the alley. On the east side of the building there are two window wells. On the historic property the window well is tucked away on the corner and will not be visible at all. Amy pointed out that the fence is not original to the site but they are very common across the country. The fence added some ornateness and was affordable. We have tried to retain some of these fences in town. Ann said the crab trees are great and the lilacs should be protected. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. There were no public comments. The public comment was closed. Issues: 160 square foot bonus Fence 7 foot setback at conceptual Moving the building Two windows Mechanical equipment Porch posts. Jay said the fence can be handled by staff and monitor. Jay applauded the architect for using new technology. Jay said he would approve 180 square foot bonus just in case Derek made a mistake. Jane asked if there is a plan B if the product isn't appropriate. Derek said yes they have an alternative material. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 Nora said she has seen that fence her entire childhood. It was used to keep horses in and to surround gardens. Amy said she feels the fence is historic. Willis said the solid guard rail looks a little over bearing. There might be something in between and possibly introduce something lighter. There is not quite enough distinction between new and old. Derek said he feels the guard rail should be closed because it is a very spacious area and they are going to have furniture and a hot tub up there. The window is an historic window that was probably on the property and then put in. I would hate to lose the bonus over a window. We are well below our square footage. MOTION: Jamie moved to approve resolution #I I and eliminating #5 on the twisted fence and add another one that staff and monitor are to review the solar wall material before installation to make sure it matches what our intention was. Motion second by Jay. Ann made the friendly amendment to add that the three crab apples and lilacs remain. Jamie added the friendly amendment to her motion, second by Jay. Jane said she doesn't want the applicant compromised with the trees and lilacs. Willis said having a sampling of the siding is a good idea. Roll call vote: Jamie, yes; Willis, yes, Nora, yes; Jay, yes; Jane yes; Ann, yes. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn, second by Jane. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Stric land, Chief Deputy Clerk 10