Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20140326 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Chairperson, Jay Maytin, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, John Whipple, Jim DeFrancia and Patrick Sagal. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Nora made the motion to approve the minutes of March 12" second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Patrick commented that decisions have been made and we need to connect the guidelines with the purpose and intent. Patrick also said there is not enough oversight with city council. Disclosure: Jay said Zocalito is a business in the 420 E. Hyman building. Jay said he is not involved with the owners of the building. Nora said she has used Derek Skalko who is representing 417 and 421 W. Hallam in the past but she has no conflict with this project. 420 E. Hyman Ave. — Final Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Sara said the project has been before you a year ago for a commercial design review. The project went to the Planning & Zoning Commission for growth management allotment and for a recommendation of a subdivision at City Council. Council was concerned with the amount of glazing that is proposed. Council will exercise the call up provision after HPC final. Since then the glazing has changed. Since conceptual they have added a front door onto Hyman Avenue to lead to the second floor and they eliminated the second floor breezeway along the interior alley and the third item that changed was the third floor level plan was the extension of the deck along 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 the alley. After the subdivision approval the floor plan changed a little and the egress. Staff feels the changes meet the design guidelines and we are supportive of all the changes. HPC needs to determine if they want to go forward with final. There is no landscape plan proposed because they are lot line to lot line. The lighting plan is very minimal and they meet the intent of the design guidelines. 1. Staff feels the building is a little bit top heavy because of the amount of transparency on the first floor. Staff feels guideline 6.38 is not met. Buildings should reflect the architectural hierarchy which has to do with a tall first floor. Staff appreciates that this building is a building of its own time. A lot of the new buildings down town are starting to all look the same and that is not what we are asking for. We just need to make sure this building works with the historic district and the guidelines and not distract from them. 2. Staff is concerned with the second floor windows and the spandrel glass application. We feel the windows could better meeting guideline 6.4 by picking a single style. There seems to be too many different shapes and styles going on in the front and along the side of the interior alley elevation. 3. We are somewhat concerned about the spandrel glass on the second floor. Guideline 6.3 and 6.4 talk about having some sort of cornice or cap at the second floor level to relate to the second story buildings in the historic district. 4. There is concern about the size and color of the brick module. Staff is recommending that staff and monitor review the color of the brick to make sure it communicates with the brick in the historic district and be the same kind of hue. Sara said all new buildings have to incorporate an airlock into their floor plan to avoid the canvas airlocks that pop up in the winter time that stick into the right-of-way and don't look good. The applicant is proposing a mechanical air curtain and we just need an explanation as to how it will work. Staff is recommending a continuation with a restudy of the second floor windows, sizes, styles and material application on the first floor. Guideline 6.3 8, 6.4, 6.62 and 6.49 are not entirely met in the application. Exhibit II —Letter from June Kirk who is not supportive of the project and that the project doesn't fit into the character of a miner's town. Exhibit III —highlights of the presentation 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Charles Cunniffe, architect Charles said we are looking at taking a building in an historic setting and giving it a contemporary twist without losing some of the elements that relate to the historic context. When looking at the program we put all the commercial on the ground floor and all of the affordable on the second floor and all the free market on the third floor. The ground floor is mostly glass/glazing. The second floor has punched openings for the internal uses. The third floor is set back to the same distance as the building to the east. The second floor is stepped back 20 feet instead of the required 15 feet. We centered the door in the middle of the building which is the same as the historic buildings on that street so it to the commercial design style of the other buildings in its neighborhood. To the right of the door there is an entrance that takes you into the shops and downstairs and up to the second and third floors. The window above the door is for a small commercial office space. On the corner the glass wraps around and brings you into the alley. This is a narrow alley but is a public pedestrian walkway. There is no other mid-block pedestrian alley. The building is built with the columns inboard of the glass. Because of heat loss and condensation having the columns inside the insulated wall is a better building technique. We don't feel the building feels top heavy because the third floor is set considerably back. We do want the building to have a nice streetscape along the side facing the pedestrian way. There are entrances to other store in the pedestrian alley. On the top floor there is opaque glazing and punched windows. The windows would be operable. The red brick color picks up the brick color of most of the buildings in town. The base course would be Basalt rock which would anchor the store front windows. Charles presented the board with the material.selections. Patrick inquired about the R value of the glass and does it affect the column inside. Charles said the glass column is separate from the glass purposely. You will read the column spacing because you will see the columns through the glass which will be nice. Willis asked how far back the glass handrail is from the face of the building on the second floor. Charles said it is about 4 inches back. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Bill Guth, owner of Hops Culture 414 416 E. Hyman. Bill said the alley between these two buildings is not a public access it is a private piece of land mostly owned by my landlord and the adjacent property owner. On the fire rating glass mostly it would be an aluminum frame and the design is elegant. Peter Fornell asked who owns the alley space. Charles said it is a joint agreement between the two adjacent buildings but it is for the purpose of pedestrian access. It is available to the public to get to the businesses in the alley. Peter asked if a property owner could go to the property line. Charles said it is a mutual agreement and both parties would have to dissolve the agreement. Peter said it sounds like each building owns half. I have walked through that space for 30 years and I would like to see it kept. Jay said we reviewed the Hops building and it was represented that the Hops building has more of the alley. There is an agreement between the two property owners that there will always be a ten foot corridor through there to walk. Bill Guth said nine feet from the face of his building is owned by his landlord. Right now the Zocalito building is about three feet off the property line and they plan to build to the property line. I am putting outside seating there (6 feet) so there will be a 3 foot strip from the edge of my outdoor seating to fencing. It gets tighter for sure. The easement agreement only says access has to maintained. You are not going to walk into a 9 foot alley when outdoor seating will be taking six feet from my building. Sallie said what might be lost is the Zocalito seating. Jay said an accessible corridor of 36 inches is that up to code. Hops is taking 6 feet and the new building is coming out three feet there is only 3 feet left. What is the minimum corridor. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Sara said the perpetual easement between the two property owners specifies the width of the access. Debbie said Dennis Murray from the Building Department said this building being built to the property line is appropriate. Issues: Changes to conceptual and whether the board wants to move forward to accept those changes. Front door added. Remove the second floor breezeway. Extended the third floor level deck. John said he supports staff recommendation to go forward and he trusts staff's opinion. Most of the items are dealing with window fenestration and minor changes that are more for final than conceptual. Willis agreed with Staff and John. Nora, Jim and Sallie said they are fine with moving ahead. Patrick said he can move forward. Jay also agreed. Karen Setterfield said she represents the landlord of the building to the west. I recall that there had to be access between the two buildings but it didn't specify the dimensions. Sara might be right that there is a specific figure. Jay closed the public hearing. - - - - Peter Fornell said he is concerned about the pedestrian access and a third party should be involved which should be the City of Aspen. Jay identified the issues: Lighting Materials Four points that Sara mentioned Air lock 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Top heavy and materials Spandrel glass and second floor windows Size of brick and color of brick Discussion: Patrick said this is a beautiful design but I don't think it fits the historic character of Aspen, looking at the purpose and intent. It seems that everything modern that comes before us is glass. What I see here is a Moorish castle from Southeastern Spain. I agree with staff with their four recommendations. The window styles should be more similar. The cornice on the second floor should be more in character with the other buildings on the block. Willis said he disagrees with staff that the building is top heavy. It seems to have adopted a wedding cake layer composition where each three levels are drastically different. There is a disconnect between the modules and the renderings vs what we are seeing here. I also agree with staff that the second floor windows could be more consistent. I see three different varieties. The windows should have a little more continuity. I would suggest unequal corners and a broader spans of glass facing the street on the second floor. The building has a rich palate and has a lot of character. Nora said she understands a building of today but we need context within an important street in the middle of town. The building feels very distracting and I am worried about the brick. We see so many things that look one way on the rendering and totally different when built. I feel the tiny mullions are out of context. Sallie said she is proud of what our architects and owners have done with the downtown. I am also proud of the glass and vitality that has been brought into the town. I also don't feel the building is top heavy. I also agree with Willis on the brick and the sample looks muddy. I also like the thin mullions. I also agree that the second floor windows should be alike. Jim said he feels the second floor windows need continuity and Charles said he can adjust the east window. Jay said he feels the ground level works well. The second floor needs some symmetry with the fenestration and that will help make the building fit into 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 the block. My other concern is the air curtain because they are a big piece of equipment and you have a glass window above the door where it needs to and you will see it. We need a rendering of that equipment. I also support continuation. Charles said basically you only see a strip in the ceiling. John said air curtains are something that needs to be carefully calculated out. They are a good solution if you can meet the energy codes. Charles said he heard a lot of good comments. We can clean up the second floor windows so that there is a regular rhythm. Willis commented that the ground floor details are elegant. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 420 E. Hyman Ave. to April 91h; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Jim said the concern is the brick and second floor windows. Willis said the glass handrails off the shelf turn green. I would ask that you use low iron glass. That can be handled between monitor and staff. To help the board understand it a scale drawing of the real brick proposed should be presented. Patrick said he is concerned with the second floor cornice. Charles said he would like a specific list. Applicants suffer from a lack of clarity from all boards. Sometimes there is a total new makeup of the board and we need to know the specific concerns in order to have the right tools to work with. John said 6 out of 7 are ok with the cornice. Everyone said the restudy of the second floor windows need addressed. Low iron glass for the railing and an example of the brick. Nora said the four points from staff should be addressed. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; John, yes; Willis, yes; Nora, yes; Sallie, yes; Jim, yes; Jay, yes. Motion carried 7-0. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 417 & 421 W. Hallam St. — Correction to Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances, Public Hearing. Debbie Quinn said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Sara said the proposal is to correct a landmark description and proposal for conceptual review and variances including setback variances, floor area bonus and residential design standard variances. There is also a request of relocation and partial demolition. The property right now is a duplex. Half is designated and half is not. This was designated in 1992 and at that time they only designated one of the unit and they picked the wrong unit. We assume it is a clerical error. The proposals is to forward a resolution to city council to designate the entire property. Staff finds that the review criteria for designation are met. The property was built prior to 1893 and the integrity scoring was 55. The property needs preservation help. Sara said the current roof form has a ridge rather than being flat. The issues is whether there was a front porch or not. The 1893 Sanborn map does not show a front porch and the 1904 map shows a porch. There had to be an entrance porch somewhere. They are proposing to set back the new addition significantly. The entrance to the single family home is in the new addition and is set back half way into the middle of the lot. Guidelines 5.4, 5.5 talk about the importance of a front porch and the importance of entering the historic home as the primary entrance. Staff is concerned about the site plan. The Building Dept. can issue and exploratory demolition permit which may if the applicant is willing to do a little bit of interior demo. It may tell us by looking at the framing what is happened with the windows and if there ever was a door. It is unfortunate because there is a huge bay window in the front. Maybe HPC can do a site visit during the exploration and look at the framing. Staff is concerned about the large setback for the addition. We feel that it is so large that it pushes the mass in an east west fashion which is one of the reasons they need setback variances. We don't feel that is appropriate. Guideline 10.8 requires a ten foot setback from the front fagade of the historic home but this is at least double that. It also doesn't meet the residential design standards. Staff is also concerned about the east west ridge and there is no breakup of the roof form behind the historic home to 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 give it some sort of relief. There is no ten foot connector piece between the historic home and the two story mass proposed behind it. We also have concerns that guideline 10.4, 10.6, 10.8, 11.5 are not met. The overall style doesn't relate to the historic home. It is very simple but it maybe over simplified as relating back to the historic home. They propose to remove the unit of the duplex that isn't historic and remove a lean-too addition that has been severely compromised by over framing etc. There is a shed on the alley that has new framing that will also be removed. Staff is in support of the demolition. The house will be picked up to do the basement and put back in its original location. The applicant will need to provide a letter from a house mover to let us know that it can be successfully picked up to dig a foundation. Two parking spaces are required and the applicant is providing one. It is not clear whether they want a waiver or pay for a parking space. They are also requesting a 500 square foot bonus and staff feels it is not met with what they are proposing tonight. To gain the FAR bonus you need to meet the design guidelines and the historic building has to be a key element of the property and the addition has to be incorporated in a manner that maintains a visual integrity of the building and we do not find that those are met specifically criteria A, B, C, D and F. Sara said there are also some side yard setback variances requested and a combined side yard setback request. HPC has to make a finding that the variances are similar to the patterns, features and character of the historic property. We find that those standards are not met. Residential design standards are also being requested. We also find that the review criteria for variances are not met. Staff also doesn't feel there is a site constraint. Issues to be met. Restore the roof form in accordance with guideline 7.1 Submit a relocation letter We recommend exploratory demo to figure out if there is evidence of a front porch. Meet the intent of the residential design standards Meet the sideyard setbacks. Place the entrance in the historic resource in accordance with guideline 5.5 Recommend that the break up the mass of the addition specifically the roof to meet guidelines 10.9,10.9. 10.4, 10.3 Recommend that they explore adding a connector that meets guideline 10.7. Derek Skalko, architect 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Jake Bittner, architect from Thomas Pheasant out of Washington DC Derek said the historic entity is from 1888. In 1889 and 1896 the rear addition was added. Somewhere between 1889 and 1896 the side property was added. In 1904 the Sanborn there could have been a flat roof. There is no historic porch on the building. In 1904 there is indication that a porch existed on the east side of the building. There is a lot of things that happened here and nothing is conclusive. Post 1904 there was a structure on the adjacent property that was on the property line and then we see a connecting element at that time. We believe the desecration occurred in 1977 when the large addition occurred. We are restoring the entire west side of the mining cottage. Jake said we tried to release the historic building from the addition as well as re-establish the side yard and place the historic building in its original siting. It would have a side yard that was open. We have one garage and one open air parking space. We are trying not to distract from the historic houses. We did look at different ways to break up the mass behind the building but every time we did that it distracted from the original building. Derek said on the combined side yards we are about a foot over. We are asking for a larger light well which requires a variance to do that. Sara addressed the deck space. In the R-6 zone district we have two different setbacks. We have setbacks for primary structures for habitable space and a setback for garages, accessory buildings and sheds. The setback for the primary building is ten feet and a garage a five feet. They need the five foot setback for the garage because there is usable space on top of the garage that goes up to the five foot setback they need a variance of five feet because there is a requirement for ten feet. Patrick said the original door on the historic house has not been located. Staff is not in favor of the proposed placement of the entrance. Sara said we do not know if the side entrance is original or not. Nora asked if the applicant is willing to do some exploratory excavation. Derek said they would have to consult the client. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 John said I can see their concern because if the entrance is in the front and a porch you have lost your master bedroom area and you would have to reconfigure the entire program. Waiting for a decision makes it difficult. Sara said that is why we would like to pursue this now. Derek said we feel the photograph is likely to be this house. It aligns with Shadow Mountain. Derek said he has a theory that the two lots were at some point adjoined. We can't go east on the property for the door. Sara said the building permits show that the two buildings were not connected. We will get this dialed in for the next hearing. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Doug Allen, attorney represented Sistie Fischer. I feel this proposal is brilliant. They have treated this sensitively. Sistie is on the west side and south side of the property. She owns property on both sides of the alley. I am favorably impressed by the entry and it shows just like the picture. It is a mess back there and we welcome something favorably. I would like to see some windows in the second element that faces Hallam. They have also been sensitive to the neighbors. The parking space on the east back corner is good for the other people back up to that alley and need to use that alley. Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Issues: Setback variances Residential design standards East west ridge of the roof mass No ten foot connector Parking waive Entrance Dimensional variances Roof form Front porch 500 square foot bonus Mass and scale 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Jay commented that a continuation is necessary. The exploratory demo is almost required for us to understand what should really happen here. The mass that you have created is all over the top of the historic resource. I feel it would be more appropriate to ask for a rear yard setback variance to alleviate some of the pressure. I believe moving the mass away from the historic structure warrants a parking waiver. The solid east/west ridgeline is the first thing I noticed about this project. It creates a ton of mass. The connector is so necessary in this project. The front door has to be in the historic structure. I am in support of the bonus because you have to completely replace a side of the historic resource. Willis said from an architectural point of view there are many appealing things. The architecture highlights the jewel like character of this structure in a compelling way. I am torn. The spirit of the connector is achievable. The connector looks three or four feet at the most and if you were closer to 7 or ten you would mitigate the subject of a secondary mass. Nothing says you can't have a continuous ridge line and nothing says you have to break it up. I do not feel anything is apparently wrong with the addition. It has a farm house aesthetic which is appealing and shows off the historic structure well. To get the bonus you need to flatten the roof form and maybe put a chimney up there. Those are the kind of things HPC would look at. Regarding the exploratory history at what point of history do you want to dial in. History is a moving target. Maybe it is 1904. The pattern of the entrance is evocative as to what was there and what is there now. The calm, quiet and dignified way these pieces highlight the historic resource is commendable. I am sure I am missing lots of guidelines and variance. Nora said she appreciates the model. Right now the design feels overwhelming and would a connector make it better. The mass and scale is too big for the historic resource. I have to agree, why are we punching a front door in when we don't know if there was a front door. The photograph is clear. If the variance helps with getting some distance then I could feel better about it. We don't want to see a "wall" on Hallam Street. Willis pointed out that the ridged mass is glazed floor to ceiling. It will be light and open and read as a glass wall. Patrick agreed with Jay that demolition for the research should occur before we get too far because that could change the view of where the front door and everything else can go. I would recommend a porch as staff as 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 indicated. This is a Victorian Street and we are looking at going back to Victorian history. Whether the massing is broken up with gables or a lower roof angle I would agree that the roof itself overwhelms the property, not that it is two story. John said this project is unique. I am in favor of a little more connector would be beneficial but I like the design. It is thoughtfully done. The structure is unique to preserve. If we do an exploratory demo we might not learn a lot. In certain instances it might be better to look at what you are going to get rather than following all the guidelines. They are close to having a great project. In order to get the 500 square foot bonus the connector needs looked at. Sallie said architecturally this is beautiful. I like not having the porch and it does need a larger connector. The problem with the ridge line is that it doesn't meet our historic guidelines. If you were going to have an east west ridgeline it would be on a carriage house and the carriage house would be subservient to the main house. It is doing justice to the historic structure because it is setting a nice backdrop for it. Maybe the backdrop needs to be further away from the historic house. I'm OK with the bonus especially since the wall will be replaced. Parking and backyard variances are terrific. Setbacks Residential design standards Parking waiver Front porch Roof Form Front Door Willis pointed out that not all Victorians fit into the residential design standard formula. Jim said the entrance could be the side or the front. Sara said we don't know what we would find doing the excavation demo as there have been a lot of alterations to this house. Nora said departing from strict guidelines we will get something better. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2014 Jim said his focus is on a greater separation of the connector and you would have a clear distinction of the historic structure. It is a very creative solution and we shouldn't get upset looking for the original door. John said maybe the garage could be pulled back to give a little more separation. Sallie said it would be interesting to see what was originally there and pull the addition as far back as possible. Jake said they don't really have any objections. The exploratory demotion is worth while but there are tenants in there and it will be very disruptive. There is still some uncertainty that if we did find a door if the definitive answer would be to put a porch back on. Lots of things suggest that it didn't have the typical front door. I am hesitant to try to make it fit a mold. Sara said at one point there was a porch. Does HPC think the porch should come back and we restore it or is the 1893 the more appropriate time period. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 417 & 421 W. Hallam to May 28th; second by Jay. Sara said does the board want the applicant to go forward with exploratory demolition. Willis said the applicant should decide what point in history they want to target. John said there is more evidence that a porch didn't exist. Maybe we should go with the oldest date. Jim and Jay said they feel there was a front door at some point. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Patrick recused himself. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kat Teen J. Kirickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14