Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20020522ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 22~ 2002 334 W. HALLAM STREET - CONCEPTUAL, PUBLIC HEARING ..................................................... 1 (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL A DATE CERTAIN) ............................................................ 1 610 W. SMUGGLER, PARKING VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING ................................................... 1 513 W. SMUGGLER- CONCEPTUAL. PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................ 2 7 ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATiON COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 22~ 2002 Chairperson, Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners present: Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Neill Hirst, Rally Dupps. Michael Hoffrnan was seated at 5:30 p.m. Commissioners excused: Paul D'Amato, Teresa Melville and Melanie Roschko. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minutes of May 8, 2002 as amende& second by Rally. All in favorz motion carried 5-0. Disclosure of conflicts: Rally Stated that he is representing the applicant on 635 W. Bleeker and will recuse himself. 334 W. HALLAM STREET - CONCEPTUAL, PUBLIC HE~NG (Continue public hearing until a date certain) MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue conceptual development and the public hearing on 334 ~. Hallam until August 14, 2002, second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Neill, Rally, Suzannah 610 W. SMUGGLER, PARKING VARIANCE ~ p~LIC HEARING Jeff Davis was sworn in. The affidavit of posting was entered into the records as Exhibit I. Amy stated that the project is almost completed but one of the parking spaces that was to be off the alley has aspen trees in the parking area that would have to come down. The Parks Department is opposed to the removal of the trees and as an alternative the applicant is requesting a parking waiver. This is a landmark site and HPC has the ability to grant a parking variance. Jeff Davis said it is their intent to keep the trees. The trees are an asset to the property. Amy said there are eight trees that would have to be removed. 1 j ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMiSSiON MINUTEs OF, MAY 22~ 2002 Jeffrey said the neighborhood is dense and the request is reasonable. The trees help screen the new addition. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that the condition should say if a tree removal permit is approved for the aspen trees providing sufficient space for a parking space, at that point in time, within six months the parking space would have to be installed as shown on the final plans approved by the HPC on July 25, 2001. The second issue is does HPC want them to replace the trees or not replace the trees if one dies. Suzannah said if four trees die they would have to be replaced rather than do a parking space. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution #20, 2002finding that the review criteria have been met with the following conditions: 1. Ifa tree removal permit is approved for the aspen trees providing sufficient space for a parking space, at that point in time, within six months, the parking space wouM have to be installed as shown on the final plans approved by the HPC on July 25, 2001. 2. If trees die they are to be replaced. 3. Motion second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Neill, Suzannah 513 W. SMUGGLER- CONCEPTUAL, PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in were Harry Teague, Ryan Sturtz, Eric Hendricks Amy stated that a month ago the rehabilitation of the miner's cottage and a lot split was approved by council. The discussion at this meeting will be the new house. Staff feels that none of the criteria have not been met. The concern is whether this architecture is suited to a position right next to a miner's cottage and whether it meets the design guidelines and the relationship between the two buildings. The main concerns were that a substantial portion of the house is placed at an angle to the street which is different in form to the historic building. The front porch of the miner's 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTEs OF, MAY 22~ 2002 cottage is a rectangular long piece and this porch is much deeper and more ora square type element. The height of the new building is taller than thc miner's cottage and staff feels that creates a competitive relationship. The angled piece has a shed roof and might conflict with the miner's cottage. The house is over the height limit towards thc back, along the alley side. HPC needs to be aware that this project got a FAR bonus and all of thc guidelines need to be met. Swore in were Harry Tcague, Eric Hendricks and Ryan Sturtz. Harry said they are aware of the guidelines and the entrance is oriented to thc street and the porch is parallel to the street. An elevation was presented. He feels that guideline has been met. The scale of the porch is not exactly the same size. A building next to an historic structure should not be an imitation of that structure, it should be referential. The elements that are not parallel to the street are set way back in the lot. The taller element creates a context for the house. A model was passed around. The building next door is quite tall so their building is moved forward intentionally to obscure the connection between that and the older building. The roof forms that you see from the road are related in pitch. There is a flat r0of0n the garage on the rear of the lot. They chose not to have the eaves the same depth as the historic property. They feel strongly that the heights on the building should not be the same and it would start to line up with thc garage next door. Harry presented a video of the streetscape, porches, and taller elements in the west end. Important buildings have large elements thrust forward and closer to the street then the rest of the house. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Comments and clarifications. Gilbert said the alignment on the street front in the model is parallel but on the site plan it doesn't. Harry said setting the new site back still has the effect of protecting it from the next door house and still allows the historic property to sit more proud to the street. Harry said they can move the house more forward if desired but not all historic properties line up. ASPEN mSTOmC P~SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 22, 2002 Gilbert also asked for clarification of the porch heights. The proposed porch seems two feet higher then the existing porch. Traditional porches are generally engaged to the rest of the building but the proposal has a vertical element then a gap; then the porch extends out which makes it like two elements. Harry explained that it is philOsophical, do you repliCate an historic case or should it be somewhat similar to an addition to an historic structure where the nature is not to imitate literally. The intention wasn't to make it different and it can be lowered. Rally asked Harry to address 11.6 regarding the roof forms. Harry relayed that the roof forms on this block are all over the map. The porch has a shed roof that has quite a different pitched roof from the eave out to the tip of the porch itself. They are' incorporating different forms that exist on the historic house in the new building. Michael stated that it is the proximity of the mass and scale of this project to the historic house that is bothersome. We need to give latitude to creativity in interpreting the guidelines. Neill said he finds the project difficult because he gets a different illusion from the video and a different one from the elevations and from the model. It is difficult to understand what exactly is going to be built. Neil also relayed that he voted no to the original massing of the addition to the historic structure and he still has the problem with the massing. He said the HPC is interested in this particular historic house not what is on the street. The structure is terribly busy but the design itself is OK. Rally applied the guidelines and feels they have been interpreted in a very creative way. The only guideline of concern is 11.3. The Smuggler Street elevation needs restudied. Possibly bring the plate height down to respond to the historic house more. The sloping roof to the back adds inflection to the historic resource and is successful. Gilbert stated that the model and the movie were very helpful and he has changed his opinion. Regarding the alignment with the street and the 4 ASPEN mSTOR~C p~SERVXTION COmMiSsiON MINUTES OF, MAY ~2~ 2002 adjacent buildings, guideline 11. I, his basic impression is that the building should align with the historic house, however he would like information about where exactly the adjacent building is. This building is part of the neighborhood and their needs to be a transition from the historic house to What is aro~md it. Regarding guideline 11.2 which relates to the porch there should be some flexibility in What the porch is in terms of its width and depth. There needs to be clarification where the eave height is and it should align with the existing porch. Guideline 11.3 and 11.4 refer to the proposal being in scale with the historic building. If the alignment is addressed that guideline will be met. The tail gable element on the left keeps the mass from the historic house and puts the historic building in a better context then it is now. One problem though, as you view this from the east the tall gable element is much more tower like then what you typically see. The tower stands free from the elements behind it and there is some concern about that geometry. Jeffrey said the design is very creative on a difficult lot. If the porch eave were lowered and porch engaging to the tower element that could potentially soften the frontal v/ew. Regarding guideline 11.3 and 11.4 which addressed the scale and massing, he agrees with staff's comments. It seems like the snow shedding would cascade onto the historic house visually. Jeffrey also agreed with Gilbert that the tower element does appear tall, the gable side. Some of the massing needs simplified. Suzannah said the movie and model clarified what was happening with the project. One thing that would anchor the scheme is to have the porch roof and end of the wedge have a much stronger horizontal impact on the elevation then what is show right now. In terms of the drawing, they are equal with the tower and they should be bigger than the tower in terms of their impact on the elevation. Whether that is the porch roof continuing across or something that creates a stronger horizontal element to balance out the tower Would quiet down the complexity of that elevation considerably. The only other concern is the size of the dormer piece. The overall concern with regards to the windows etc. is that things need to be quieted down in general. Michael said he would like to hear if the team could reduce the height of the tower element and could they reduce the height of the eave over the porch? 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 22~ 2002 Harry said they will certainly look at those issues. One concern is if they reduce the height from the front the house will feel squatty. The height is not excessively high. The house having some of its exuberance is not terribly negative. We are not trying to imitate the block, we are acknowledging the fact that this historic building is in a difficult context. MOTION: Gilbert moved to COntinue 513 ~. Smuggler Street until June 12, 2002. The applicant should restudy the proposaI to provide better compliance with guideline Il.I, 11.2, and 11.5. A site plan needs submitted to show the relationships of the buildings; second by Rally. Motion carried 5-1. Yes vote: Michael Rally, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah No vote: Neill, MOTION: Gilbert moved to adjourn; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief DePutY Clerk 6