Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20130612 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 2013 Vice-chair, Jamie McLeod called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Sallie Golden, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Jane Hills, Jay Maytin and Patrick Sagal. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sara Adams, Senior Planner Justin Barker, Planner Jamie McLeod stated that she has to resign from HPC and this is her last meeting. Jamie said it was a difficult decision but she cannot put in the amount of time needed due to her work load. Ann Mullins said she really enjoyed being on HPC for 7 t/2 years and HPC accomplished some really neat things. HPC has been a great preparation for council. MOTION: Nora moved to approve the minutes of April 17th and April 24th second by Jane. All in favor, motion carried. Jane will recuse herself on 204 S. Galena. Justin Barker—project monitoring - 204 S. Galena — Justin said the project was seen in February. During the building process material changes occurred and fenestration on the building. Stone trim around the windows, mutton change, and in general stone change. Cunniffee & Associates: Erica Delka said textures on the various facades was a change and stone and mutton changes. The size of the actual stone is more linear. We are working with the suppliers and they would be no less than 6 inches in height and no higher than 18 inches. The lengths would vary between 18 and 36 inches. Textured stone on the corner elements is proposed and it would create more of a visual impact than putting on smooth stone. The textures are the same we just changes the locations. We would also provide mockups for the client. On the window fenestration on the north side includes a larger centered windows on the second level which was based on the interior use of the space. It is the entry lobby to the restaurant 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 12 2013 and behind the window is an elevator. We wanted the patrons to walk out the elevator and look into a large window. Patrick said he is a monitor. Having the bigger window does not reflect the Victorian character. The trim around the window is another issue. Erica said we have reintroduced the stone trim around the windows. We are now considering a more simple profile for the stone trim around the windows. Patrick said the rough stone gives more of a perceived depth. I also find the brick sizes 6" to 18" a wide difference. Erica said we are dealing with the slope of the sidewalk and we want things in alignment. Patrick said he is not in favor of the larger window. Justin said staff is in support of the changes. Nora said what we approved in the stone was quite quiet and blended in with across the street. Erica said it will read as an overall texture and using them in different locations. On the second floor window we could add a mullion so that it more closely matches the two flanking windows. Willis said the size variation doesn't bother me. It is difficult to sign off without a rendered perspective. There are several mullion changes on the west elevation. Jamie said her only concern is the size of the stone and the monitors can work with the samples. She feels 18 inches is too large. Stone size needs to be looked at on the site. The split face vs. the smooth stone is OK. Sallie said she also has concerns about the size and the stone selection should fit in with other buildings around the neighborhood. Jamie said the majority of the commission has no problem with the mullions or the window sizes. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 2013 Nora said she would like to see a smaller stone and keep the mullions that were the original size. Jay said the changes are significant enough to come back to the board. I'm fine with the changes. Willis said he feels the new mullions are better than the original submittal. Willis said he will be the monitor on the stone. 208 E. Main — Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Special Review and Variances, cont'd public hearing Amy said this is a 3,000 square foot lot on Main Street and there is a miner's cottage on the site and a shed on the alley. The shed seems to be 1930's and 40's and not original to the building. The zoning allows for a residential unit on the site. There are a lot of limitations as to how large that unit can be. There is a size balance between the residential and commercial so one doesn't overwhelm the other. The home is approximately 1500 square feet and they are dealing with setbacks and parking requirements. The project has been continued twice. There is no connector between the old and new and there have been concerns as to how to deal with the shed. There is also a rooftop deck proposed and people were concerned of its visibility from Main Street and how to get up to the deck. There has also been discussion about the proposed flat roof. The applicant has revised the project again and staff is recommending approval with some conditions. This is not a solution that would work on every site. This is an interior lot and not on the corner. It will be screened well by the surrounding neighborhood. The flat roof is not characteristic of the neighborhood but it does have the benefit of being low in height. The addition would be 3 1/z feet taller than the historic structure and it is under the height for that zone district. The access to the roof deck is open to the air. There is also a 3 foot setback in all areas of new construction and the requirement is five feet. One big change is the shed and it is moving to the North West corner of the site which allows a direct pathway from the front of the salon back to a new trash area and provides a little more privacy for the applicant. There are setback requirements for the new placement of the shed. HPC is being asked to waive one on-site parking space. You are also being asked to waive a $30,000 cash-in-lieu fee. Staff feels a benefit like that is appropriate due to the restoration that will be taking place. You are also being asked to approve their utility/trash 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 2013 area. The applicant is being asked to provide a letter of credit because the building is being lifted. Staff finds that the applicant has responded to the concerns of the last two meetings and we recommend conceptual approval. Sara Upton presented the owners. We intend to retain the historic shed on the site. The shed has moved to the west to allow us to incorporate an accessible route from the front entry of the historic resource, the salon and down the east side of the lot. This also increases the trash enclosure area. The stair has been moved to the north east corner of the lot. This also allowed us a stair enclosure that did not have to be enclosed as you go from the second floor to the roof terrace. We are not retaining the entire shed just the original older portion and the lean-too has gone away. We have a connector link behind the shed. We are now 3.6' from the property line to the face of the new construction. Vice-chair, Jamie McLeod opened the public hearing. Jake Vickery said his family owns 202 E. Main Street which is the adjoining historic resource and the other part of the historic lot split. We had asked the applicant to respond to some functional issues on the westerly wall where it is on the zero property line. We talked to the fire marshal and Dennis Murray. The fire marshal was strongly supportive of moving that wall in three feet. Because of the new property line in between you could make that area a little more gracious and functional from a fire access and maintenance access. Right now they would have to come on our property in order to build. Maybe they can work around that. On the east side there was concern of the sidewalk and ramp. By taking the stair and externalizing it into the corner I think makes this proposal a lot less historically compatible than the prior proposal. Vice-chair, Jamie McLeod closed the public hearing. Jay said he supports the project and feels this project only got better. The retaining of the shed has helped this project. Jay said Dennis Murray has worked with the applicant to help make this project work. Jay thanked Jake for coming forward with his comments. Sara said the client prefers this revision and was involved in the decision. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 12 2013 Jane said there will be disruption and hopefully there will be a great construction management plan and all the neighbors can work together to make it happen. With these kinds of buildings they are built on the lot lines and it is not an easy process. Willis also said he likes the proposal. Willis suggested adding some glazing to the enclosed staircase for final. Maybe doing a different ratio of wall to glass for final on the corner adjacent to the historic resource. The project has gotten better and better and it will be truly great at final. Sallie said she supports the application and the listened to everything that the commission commented on and the neighbors. They have done a great job and I like the stair enclosure as it is. I like it not so transparent. Nora said she feels as though guideline 10.6 the compatibility in size and scale on this block isn't speaking to me. It is not compatible in size and scale with the rest of the block. It is a small block. Patrick said this is a step in the right direction. The mass and scale is significantly different than the rest of the block. It is also 3 '/2 feet taller than the historic resource and everything flat on top degrades and overwhelms the historic resource. Getting some kind of pitch involved would be more compatible. Jamie thanked the architect for all her work. Jamie said she likes the connection to the shed in back. My only concern is the stairwell and looking at the materials. The material looks like concrete and gives an industrial look. Maybe looking at the materials on the stairwell will help lighten it a little bit. The mass has been brought down by taking the glass off the top. Jay said-the height is only 22 feet and is below the height limit. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #20 as written with the five conditions. Motion second by Sallie. Jay pointed out that there is no mistaking what is historic and what is the non-historic portion of this property. Vote: Patrick, no; Nora, no; Sallie, yes; Willis, yes; Jamie, yes; Jane, yes; Jay, yes. Motion carried 5-2. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 2013 507 Gillespie— Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval and Variances— Public Hearing Debbie Quinn said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Sarah Broughton and John Rowland Sara Adams said the proposal is for an amendment to an approved development order. This is a vacant lot that is part of a lot split. The original approval was granted in 2007 and the new proposal is similar in mass and scale. There is a detached garage in the back and a subgrade ADU. They propose to drop the height a little and reduce the FAR-and simplify the roof form and simplify materials. We are only looking at the pieces of the project that are changed. They are requesting a variance for an eave overhang and staff is not recommending approval of that since this is a vacant lot and there are not site constraints. Allowing an eave overhang doesn't really preserve the adjacent historic landmark or relate to the landmark in any way. There are some plantings in the right-of-way that need Parks approval and there is a ditch easement which would be a condition of approval. Solar panels are proposed and they would have to be the same pitch as the roof. John said one of the goals of this project is simplicity in form and contextually with the historic resource. We also wanted to create no unusable space. We also intend to sell 2 TDR's and not building out to the maximum floor area. The pavers that go up to the house are permeable pavers. The front porch is covered. There is also a covered terrace and we have reduced the ridge height four feet. Sarah said they are proposing a painted clapboard siding with a metal roof. We are excited to build next to an historic resource and we hope that you will agree that our design is complementing the historic resource. Sara said they would need a variance for the covered entry and it wasn't noticed and they would have to come back. Staff feels the eaves are too generous and we recommend that it be cut back to just have an 18 inch overhang. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 12 2013 Vice-chair, Jamie McLeod opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Jay said he supports the application with the setback variances. Patrick said the applicants have done a good job and I agree with staff's recommendation. I also would not grant the setback variances. Jane said she concurs with Jay and it is admirable that they are under the square footage. Willis said he likes the project and the extensions are part of the character and the setback variances are OK.. Sallie said she is in full support of the project. Nora and Jamie had no comments. Jamie said the majority of the board are in favor of the setbacks. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution 21 for 507 Gillespie Street as represented tonight with the elimination of 45. Motion second by Patrick. Vote: Patrick, yes; Jay, yes; Jane, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Sallie, yes; Jamie, yes. Motion carried 7-0. Jane is the monitor. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn, second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Work session — no minutes 201 E. Hyman Debbie said this is a work session and nothing is binding and the applicant cannot rely on anything that is said by the commission as a whole or by any individual commissioner. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7