Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20131211 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 Chairperson, Jay Maytin, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Jane Hills and John Whipple. Jim DeFrancia, and Sallie Golden were absent. Patrick Sagal was seated at 5:10 p.m. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sara Adams, Senior Planner MOTION: John made the motion to approve the minutes of Nov. 13" second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. 549 Race Alley and Lots 4 & 6 of Fox Crossing Subdivision — Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variances, Parking Waiver and Floor Area Bonus — Continued Public Hearing Amy stated that this is the third hearing about this project and the primary reason for continuation is the debate about the proposed kitchen expansion on the north side of the historic resource and how the connector meets the back of the original building. The applicant provided drawings that are similar to what you saw at the last meeting. There were a couple tweaks but in staffs opinion they create new potential issues pushing the house further away from its existing location. The information did not come in on time and staff recommends that the project be continued. Charles said he feels there are three tweaks to the application. Movement of the house; set the building back further so that a corner is exposed and the connector roof which would be lowered and be below the eave. We feel with these changes conceptual approval could be granted. Karen Woods, Cunniffe & Associates presented. The client is willing to make the compromises to make this work. The revision would make the addition read more as a one story element with a sloped roof. Charles said moving the building further away toward the park would be an improvement but staff felt that exposing the addition more would have a negative effect. We are fine either way. Pulling the existing building further north five feet and keeping the addition where it is would have adequate 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 room for plantings. On the corner it would not be exposed any further. We would do what-Amy recommended. Nora asked how much the kitchen was stepped back. Charles said around 18 inches. It is more to expose the corner. It should almost be flush. There is evidence that an existing wall was there originally which was flush. By taking the wood shed off you would have a flush wall but we are willing to bring it in a little to show off the corner. Willis asked if the front door got moved around. Karen said it is the same door that was presented at the last meeting. Willis also said the house is level. Charles said the step occurs at the entry. Karen said you step down at the entry. Amy said another component to the project is the temporary relocation of the historic structures. Part of the proposal is to pick up the Victorian and store it on the lot to the north while the basement is dug and then put it back in place. The other part is to move the two 1950 era log cabins. They both need picked up and temporarily stored. Jay asked the commission how they felt about going forward since the information came in after our deadline. The concern is that we don't have the elevations of this new connector. Willis said the south elevation clere story would be shallower in the revised drawing. The plate height would drop from 12 feet to ten feet. We have seen this a lot and I am comfortable with it. Jane said she agrees with Willis. We are trying to make this a better project and we really need to work together. Patrick said he would follow staff's recommendation. John said he understands the plans and feels comfortable moving forward. A lot of concessions have been made. Nora said she could move forward if the roof is tucked in and the house doesn't more another five feet. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 Jay opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Jay pointed out the issues: Addition on the northwest corner of the house. Movement of the project to five feet. Design guidelines on the northwest corner. 500 square foot bonus. Assurance and protection of the cabins. Nora commented that she is not quite comfortable giving the 500 square foot bonus. Jay also said he would consider a lesser bonus because the house is not being put back to the original place. Charles said we have an applicant that wants to preserve this house. Without the bonus I am not sure the applicant will move forward. Amy said she doesn't feel this is an ideal situation and she is not sure we have a representation of what is being approved. There is no roof plan showing the kitchen addition and how it affects the corner of the house. I do feel the revisions are appropriate. I would still stand up for not putting a kitchen addition in the corner but understand this might be a compromise that is acceptable. The bonus is being granted with the understanding that the applicant is pursuing 3 TDR to remove from the site. You don't want to grant the bonus and then they come back with a larger addition in the future. The bonus is justified by reducing the overall floor area of the project and doing the restoration on the remainder of the historic house. Jay mentioned that 750 square feet is being taken off the historic house. 2 diagrams — Exhibit I Amy said the resolution would have the standard language leading up to the conditions of approval. HPC approves the design presented at the Dec. 11th hearing. The Victorian is to be relocated no more than five feet northward of the existing location. HPC grants a 500 square foot bonus with the requirement that the applicant remove 3 TDR's from the site if approved by 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 city council. There is a five foot north side yard setback reduction and a combined side yard setback variance of five feet. There is a waiver from the residential design standards related to the street oriented entrance because they really have to have their front door facing the alley. The temporary relocation of the Victorian requires a $30,000 letter of credit and the standard plans explaining how the building would be structurally braced. Regarding the line shacks the requirement would be that the owner of those buildings provide 3 times the normal guarantee for the relocation of the building which would be $90,000. If the project is not initiated within three years council can act on using that money to restore the buildings. The final language would be approved at the final hearing because we need to make-- -- - - - - - sure everyone is comfortable. They also have a year to submit for final review. The design is represented by Exhibit 1. MOTION: Jane moved to approve resolution #35 as presented by staff, second by John. Motion carried 5-1. Jane, yes; Willis, yes; Jay, yes; John, yes, Patrick, yes; Nora, no. Jay said something should be said for someone taking on this little house and restoring it. Charles thanked the HPC for their consideration and flexibility. 434 E. Cooper— Extension of Conceptual Major Development Sara said the request is for the extension of their conceptual approval. Normally you have one year to submit your application or you can come to HPC and request a six month extension of the one year which is what the applicant is requesting. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #36 for 435 E. Cooper; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. 201 E. Hyman Ave. — Final Major Development, Public Hearing Derek Skalko and Scott Glass presented Debbie Quinn said the postings are in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I. 4 - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 Sara said staff had concerns about the lack of information being submitted for final and the applicant responded by the deadline. The issues were materials, lighting and landscaping. Staff still has three concerns, the entry still needs to be through the Victorian and the landscape plan does not clearly show that. There is also concern about the wall of plants proposed and it looks like the connector piece was revised to meet staff's concerns by bringing the height down. The draft resolution basically says the revised eave line where the new connector element meets the east side of the Victorian is approved as presented in the e-mail sent Dec. 10th. There is a request to replace the historic windows in the house and that is a denial. There are conditions of approval for staff and monitor to review the veneer for the foundations and for a comprehensive lighting plan. We need cut sheets for all of the proposed fixtures. We are also recommending no up-lighting of street trees. A comprehensive landscape plan needs to be reviewed by staff and monitor. All the plants need identified and their mature size. There was mention of a hedge row which is in conflict with our residential design standards. Staff has indicated that they want to see a clear pathway to the historic home and not having a main entrance into the connector. City Council denied the height variance and the applicant installed a skylight. Scott said the HPC has helped shape this project through our discussions. The major change is the skylight over the light well. Another light well has been installed to accommodate the bedrooms. We have done a little extension to the roof to provide some shelter to the doorway on the addition. The eave has been brought back from the historic house. We have added some hardscape to the interior yard. Around the base of the Victorian house we have added a stone foundation to give the edge of the property presence. We can talk to staff and monitor on the material of the stone. The size of the house and window openings have not changed. Derek said they withdrew the application before any action could be taken so it would allow us the ability should the council change policy to go back to a light well. There has been no additional mass but in theory our project has reduced its FAR considerably. We will keep the additional FAR on the table but we are asking that to be maintained in the project so that in six months from now there is an ordinance addressing this specific issue we could actually go back to a light well. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 Derek said the stone is a Colorado buff sandstone. There are three types of rock on the foundation; redstone, Colorado buff stone and makeshift rubble rock. We want to utilize a stone foundation because it is existing in the mix. Scott said the landscape will help interlock the buildings together. Derek said with the Engineering and drainage plan the landscape plan has to be some flexibility due to the process itself. Scott said the new element will be clad/ship lock cedar stained and that is something we can work through. The historic structure will have a shingled roof. There is a little metal for handrails etc. It will be painted metals non- reflective. The historic structure is painted white to match the historic condition. There is a blue finish on the porch which can be discussed. There is a metal standing seam roof on the new addition. The existing small chimneys will be restored. We are proposing a buff sandstone for the pavers and wood foundation wall. The glass would be clear and non-reflective. The landscape plan submitted shows a little lighting, small ballards and step lights and a few lights to up light the trees internally to the property and some down lights to the building. All the lighting would be contemporary and quiet in nature. At the back entrance there are step lights. There are two down lights on the over doors. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Cap Pitner, 210 E. Cooper the property directly behind the project. There is an alley between the two of us. All of our bedrooms are on the alley. I don't understand exactly what the lighting would be but it would be disturbing if the lighting was left on after 10:00 at night and if it was very bright just because of all of our bedrooms face the back of this property. Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public hearing. Jay said Amy's concern was that the connector was functioning as the primary entrance as opposed going through the Victorian. The connector eave has been resolved. The last issue is the replacement of the windows in the historic structure with matching units. Nora asked about the stone around the house. Derek said they could do a sand blast in the field at some point. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 Nora also asked about the plant wall. Scott said the intent is to have the hedge follow the guidelines of 42 inches high. Jane concurred with Derek regarding the landscape plan and working with Engineering it is a constant moving target because we don't know what drainage is required. As the project moves on things change. What HPC can help with is the types of plants. The front door is the front door to the historic house. The gate is inset to the new addition. The historic windows need to remain on the historic house. Storm windows can go over them or inside. It can be done and is done every day. They are very cool but they aren't perfect. The eave is a condition of conceptual approval and it is a big part of the building. Willis inquired about the exterior material palate. There are ten different recommendations and nothing pictured. Scott said the intention is that there are two different kind of finishes of the metal visible. The roof material and the metal frame that constitutes the element that holds the staircase. The windows match the staircase. On the roof it would be a finished dark mat. We are willing to work on it to get it right. The roof would be a metal standing seam zinc. Scott said we are showing a charcoal color. John asked about the Colorado sandstone around the historic house. The color looks more like a muted white. Scott said he is open to a mix of colors. The pavers could be a lighter buff. There is also a purple to gray. We like the lighter for the pavers and the mix for the wall. Patrick asked about the skylight and the possibility of coming back with a modification to the UPC. Scott said we want to go forward and we are comfortable with the skylight. Jay said he needs more definite decisions on the materials etc. to approve the project. What exactly is the roofing material. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 Derek said Chris Bendon and his staff will review the issue in the coming months. It could come back within the lifetime of this approval. Willis said the discussion is larger than just this project. Sara said if it came back it wouldn't change what HPC is interested in which is the impact on the historic resource, impact on the streetscape and impact on the context. Jay asked if the code amendment gets approved can we put a condition that says you can only use the FAR for the intended light well. Sara said if they wanted to add more floor area they would have to come back to HPC because they will have a site specific approval. Jay said he needs to know what product it is and if it will work in this environment. I am in more support of continuation. Patrick agreed with Jay. Derek said we have lighting specifications and a plan. We have indicated where shrubs are going to be planted. The process is very expensive and laborious. The material for the roof is a metal zinc. Color is not within your jurisdiction. Sara said it is within HPC's purview to review the finish of materials. Jay went over the issues: 500 square foot bonus. Sara said a condition should be added to specify the metal and finish of the roof which would be reviewed by staff and monitor. John said he also feels some of the conditions can be dealt with by the monitors. Jane also agreed that it is a good package and thorough. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 MOTION: Nora moved to approve resolution #37 with the new condition that the metal and finish of the roof be identified and approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Jane. Roll call vote: Jane, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Jay, no; John, yes; Patrick, yes. Motion carried 5-1. John and Jane are the monitors. 233 W. Hallam — Final Major Development, Public Hearing Debbie Quinn said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed— Exhibit I. Sara said staff feels the restoration plan should continue to be refined. Some of the window sizes are off and it might be easiest to do that out in the field in order to get the right dimensions. The applicant provided an extensive landscape plan and the only concern is the wood fence between the historic home and the new residence. The guidelines request a setback from the front of the homes. More of a setback than what is provided would be appropriate which can be reviewed by staff and monitor. We are supportive of all the materials proposed. The roof will be a cedar shake for the new residence. Staff is proposing a material mockup to be provided onsite for review by staff and monitor just to get the finishes etc. nailed down. There is also an extensive lighting plan. Some of the light fixtures could be reduced for the new residence. There are a lot of fixtures proposed for the wrap around porch. There are also a lot of fixtures proposed for the east elevation. Staff and monitor can also review the design of the front door on the historic home. Standing seam copper is proposed in some areas and we are recommending that the copper be untreated to allow the patina to develop. Melissa Mabe-Sabanosh presented. The monitor and staff can dictate the size of the windows on to the historic house even though the ceil will be lower than they like. We are delighted that the copper roof will have a patina that will be a subtle color. The cedar shakes will change naturally into a soft grey. On the fence Dice Kay is here representing Shannon Murphey and he is also amicable to pushing the fence back so that it becomes secondary to the new house. It is already pushed back from the historic house. As far as the lighting we were trying to provide a lot of 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 lighting in case they wanted to dine for any reason under that porch. We are happy to reduce the lighting to whatever Sara recommends. We are also happy to look at the light fixture for the historic house. The materials are in nature with the surrounding area. The stone has been used in the West End before and it is from Kansas and is a limestone and it will weather. On the roof it will be a shingle not a shake. The steel windows add a little "punch". Dice Kay said they are willing to work with pulling back the fence to find the appropriate location. One of the trees by the front door might need moved and we are working with the Parks Department. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Johnathan Wells, co-owner of 229 W. Hallam just to the east of the property. The plan has been changed since we saw it in May dealing with the height issues. It seems they are still asking for a variance to the building next to us on the west side going from the ten feet to seven feet. There are important reasons why that should carefully be considered. The seven feet is a problem for us due to the amount of snow that collects on the east side. If we don't shovel it in time it causes a serious drainage problem. The ten foot variance is there for a reason. Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Jay identified the issues: Fence setback, copper roof, windows Patrick recused himself. Willis said steel windows are proposed in all of the windows of the new structure. Melissa commented that the AT windows are a thermally broken steel section window that meets the energy code that they are required to work with. Willis asked about the decorative boulders in the landscape plan. They look like a tailored bench seat. Dice said the basic design around the house is to try and match and that the landscape becomes art. We also wanted to keep the continuity of the West End which is a mixture of deciduous trees and a very simple landscape plan. The boulder has a linear shape to it. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 Melissa said the owners have three small children and they wanted some features for the children to play on and sit on and experience the west side of the house. Instead of proposing wood benches or play structure we tried to do something that complimented the steel windows and stone and that is why you see the stones in the yard. John said it is a natural 18 inch snapped counter top. Nora asked if the guidelines supersede the tree. Sara said whether the tree can be removed or not is up to the Parks Department. If there is no structure the path needs to be straight. Melissa said we desire the direct access to the house and that is why we are dealing with the tree to be removed. It would also be nice to celebrate the entry to the historic house. Jane said the Parks Dept. is doing an aggressive action in getting rid of a lot of large trees in the down town. Melissa said after the many months of agony we have a project that we all can be proud of. I am certainly excited to see it go up and we really respect all of the things the HPC has said. We will discuss with the neighbors how we can make sure we aren't hurting anything that is important to them. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #3 8 as presented by staff; second by John. Roll call vote: Jane, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; John, yes; Jay, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Jay said he is more inclined to let Parks handle the tree situation. Jane agreed. Jay Maytin is the project monitor. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carrie J��Meetmg adjourned at 7.30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11