Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150624ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were John Whipple, Bob Blaich, Gretchen Greenwood and Patrick Sagal. Nora Berko and Jim DeFrancia were absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Gretchen moved to approve the minutes of May 13, 2015; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Debbie said on 411 E. Hyman there were issues about the possible need for an elevator for a means of egress to the second floor. Section 11.07 of the building code states accessibility issues do not apply to one unit on a second floor above a commercial unit. A single exit is permitted. Should the information made an impact on the off-site AH you could make a motion to reconsider. Amy said the unit is a free market and will be replaced with affordable housing. John said it is hard to present a clear cut decision from the Building code on ADU’s. My decision is still a yes and it is best suited off -site. If you have large high ceilings you could achieve more for the public space and create far more vitality. Willis said his conclusion was that the building is just too narrow. Gretchen said she hates to take employee housing out of the city. MOTION: Patrick moved to reconsider; second by Gretchen. John said we aren’t taking away employee housing. There is a free market unit there and it would be replaced by buying a unit. It would be one for one. Mitch said the applicant has a choice of 50% or 100% housing replacement. Once they meet that requirement they are allowed the rest of their free ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2015 2 market development exempt from mitigation; however that half of the equation is not available here because we are in the commercial core. The access would have to come from the Hyman mall. Patrick said he envisioned one door and an open stair case. John said that would cause security issues. Bob said you also have the possibility of pilfering but pollutions of other types when you combine facilities. VOTE: Patrick, yes; Bob, no; Willis, no; Gretchen, no; John, no Motion will not be reconsidered. 135 E. Cooper – Minor Development – Public hearing cont’d from April 8th, 2015 Amy said this is the fourth hearing we have had on this proposal to modify the existing one-story connector between an historic resource and addition and make it a two story connector. Staff recommends that the project be denied because we feel there is a negative visual impact being created by the new connector. It fills in what is supposed to be a sense of openness between the two volumes. It also results in the relocation of an historic window and it creates a very tight gap between the west wall of the historic resource and the connector where we feel snow and debris maybe trapped and cause deterioration against that side of the building. We also feel it is not consistent with previous HPC decisions. Staff also objects to removing square footage and putting it in another addition. We are also uncertain whether the applicant has the floor area available. They plan to destroy the usable attic space and take that square footage and move it into the connector. The applicant is proposing to move the connector forward between the two masses and we feel this does not meet the guideline. Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Dillon Johns, Zone 4 architects Dillon went over the power point regarding the design changes. The link moves forward to work between a couple of windows on the site. The roof of the connector is solid but it could be glass if the commission wants it transparent. The stairs were designed so that they are a minimum of 3 feet. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2015 3 The profile is very thin. The risers will be open with a center support rail to minimize what goes on in the corridor. Mitch said he believes the attic space was labeled as a smoking room. The 2003 design is not functional for the client. We feel this proposal complies and does a better job than what is there today. Guideline 10.3 – Our feeling is that the connector doesn’t do a good job of complying with this guideline. The addition is often mistaken for being historic. The link is insubstantial in size and out of scale with the historic resource and addition. Guideline 10.4 – Enclosing the stairs in glass will show that it is a product of its own time and it will provide a clear separation from the historic resource and the addition. Guideline 10.6 – Both existing buildings are similar in height. By having a two story connector it will be compatible. Guideline 10.7 – this standard does not require a one story connector. The connector should be proportional to the primary building. A two story connector would be more proportional. The connector is well beyond ten feet back. We are proposing a flat roof over the link to keep the mass minimized and it slopes to the rear of the property. The property is well maintained and there is a caretaker that lives on the property. The plan minimizes the addition and maximizes the transparency. Dillon said we will have a metal roof and we could do shingle on the gable part if needed. We are happy to work with the monitor and staff on finishes and colors. The enclosure is glass. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Marc Feinstein, neighbor said he likes the proposal and the way it will be retaining the historic nature. This Victorian is very close to the commercial core and it has not been touched. Willis closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Patrick recused himself. Willis identified the issues: Mass and scale Connector Design guidelines ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2015 4 Willis said this is a 2 ½ story with a 2 story addition. We don’t often see this. This is a large resource. The idea is to provide relief between the two masses. There is an equal rhythm with this proposal. The two story connector is warranted. The weakness is that we are permitting a destruction of the original Victorian character. We give license to modify existing fabric all the time. In terms of mass and scale I am fine with it. The applicant has offered to make it more glassier. Gretchen said where this falls short for me is that the roof line between the new addition and the Victorian is lost on one side and that shouldn’t be allowed. You could lower the two story addition and make sure that the fascia line maintains itself. We are here to protect the historic resource and cutting the fascia line up with another gabled roof line is a mistake. A flat roof addition and minimizing the floor so that the two roof lines are expressed and that they maintain their expression will help make this building feel like two separate buildings. Interrupting the fascia line on the historic building needs addressed. John said we are impacting a very small portion of the Victorian where in the past we have seen dormers built. I think the roof should also be a transparent glass and that might separate the two structures and give them breathing room. The white railing etc. all bleeds together as one big huge structure. Bob said maximizing the transparency is what needs to happen. The finish material should look different than the two structures on each side. What exists is a mistake right now. We have a unique project here. I could be comfortable approving it and working out the details with staff. John said if we get some separation between the two that is an improvement. Gretchen said you look at the details and they should be maintained on the historic resource. Willis asked if it is possible to have a roof tuck under the eave of the existing Victorian. Maybe they could re-work it and leave the fascia untouched. Bob said he likes the idea of it being glass and dark as it goes away. Most successful connectors are dark. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2015 5 Willis suggested a black framed structure. John said he feels the mass and scale can be achieved and the issue is destructing the fabric of the historic resource. Bob said glass roofs could be bubbled or you could have a barreled vault etc. Gretchen said the fascia line should be maintained and deal with the architecture on the inside and if that is changing the floor level to bring that connector addition down then so be it. Dark does go away. Bob said he is comfortable having staff and monitor resolve the issues. MOTION: Willis made the motion that the fascia cannot be interrupted on the west side of the historic resource. If this cannot be accomplished the applicant must return to the board for further review. The metal finish is to be a dark color. The connector is to be as transparent as possible which could mean a glass roof. All items to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Bob, Gretchen, John and Willis. Motion carried. 4-0. Gretchen is the monitor. 834 W. Hallam St. – Conceptual Historic Major Development, Relocation, Variances, Residential Design Standard Review, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits, GMQS, continue public hearing to September 9, 2015 MOTION: Willis made the motion to continue 834 W. Hallam until September 9th; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn the meeting; second by Gretchen. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk