Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20151111ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 11, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Jim DeFrancia, Nora Berko, John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood, Michael Brown and Bob Blaich. Absent were Sallie Golden and Patrick Sagal. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Jim moved to approve the minutes of October 28, 2015; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Michael said he will recuse himself on 134 W. Hopkins and 209 E. Bleeker Nora will recuse herself on 209 E. Bleeker Gretchen will recuse herself on 134 W. Hopkins Project Monitoring – 206 Lake Avenue Debbie explained that code section 26415070e1 states that insubstantial amendments can be determined by the monitoring committee which would be staff and the member of the commission. There can also be an appeal to HPC. The applicant does not want to waive his right to appeal or do we want the HPC to get conflicted from hearing an appeal because you have asserted an opinion as to how it should turn out. The determination will only be direction from the HPC. David McConaughy, Garfield &Hecht David said he was fine with the procedure and if there is some future hearing the record tonight will be part of that record. Sara said HPC granted major development approvals and Hallam Lake Bluff approvals in October 2013. Part of the approval including picking up the house and doing a basement. The home is well over the allowable floor area as it sits. Picking up the house included keeping the front porch details in place. It was clear in the approvals and in the building permit that portions of the front porch, the posts and balusters would remain. Unfortunate at the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 11, 2015 2 site visit we noticed that the porch columns had been replaced. The previous condition was not historic and they replicated the 1991 version that had gingerbread detailing, turned posts and a railing across. This was an honest mistake. Staff is looking for guidance whether or not there needs to be a railing across the front of the porch. The owner is agreeable in replacing the posts to be square posts. The building code requires a railing when there is a drop off of 30 inches or more from the decking to the grade. In the front there is no requirement because the 30 inches is not exceeded. We also have questions about a hand rail on both sides of the stairs as opposed to one side of the stairs. The front porch was originally open with square posts. Shortly after, the front porch was screened in. The applicant wants to put a railing across the front for safety reasons and liability reasons and they will remove the gingerbread. There is a handrail on one side due to the drop off which was required by the Building Department. Jim pointed out that originally there was not a handrail. Sara said we need feedback on the railing and hand rail. Nora said if you put the railing up then the 1991 version would be “historic” and that sends a mixed message. Jim said whether it is 28 inches or 30 inches safety is an issue. At one point it was screened in with a railing. Willis pointed out that the porch was originally open. Michael said this is a great restoration and safety is paramount and I don’t think it deteriorates from the look or other historical assets in the area. Bob said he felt uncomfortable walking up onto the porch. We need to give safety a high priority. Aesthetically it looks unfinished without the railing. Willis said it should be all open or with a guardrail. John also agreed aesthetically it looks unfinished. Gretchen said you need the railing across the front and the posts really tell the story. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 11, 2015 3 The board recommended the railing and additional handrail. 134 W. Hopkins Ave. – Remand of HPC – Resolution #10, 2015 Michael and Gretchen recused themselves. Affidavit of posting – Exhibit I Debbie said the mailing list needs submitted tomorrow for the record. Sara said the property is a remand from City Council for HPC to reconsider the deck on top of the connector. HPC with a 4-2 vote granted conceptual approval, variations, partial demolition and relocation for the redevelopment of this property. They are basically removing an old addition and putting a new one on. The building is on the corner of Hopkins and First Street. During the discussion staff brought up the concern of the deck on top of the connector because of the visibility of the house being on the corner. HPC had a very thoughtful discussion about it and decided to add some conditions on the connector that there had to be a glass railing with low iron glass which would make the deck appropriate. Staff is behind HPC’s decision and we support your process. Chris Touchette, CCY architects Chris said they fully support HPC previous decision on the deck. It is a deck on a connector that had low reflectivity, glass rails and no visible connections. The deck rail is not out at the edge of the roof that it is on. It is set back 2’8” and the view angle and the combination of the construction technique is what ultimately made it a palatable request that HPC approved. Jim said it was a thoughtful deliberative determination. Nora commented that the concern from council is that it is a corner lot. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis commented that it sounds like the discussion was thoughtful. Decks over connectors have always been an issue. Chris said the second level use of the addition is the master bedroom and this deck is small 6 x 8 and it can’t accommodate a lot. You come out of the bedroom onto the deck. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 11, 2015 4 Willis said it is not a party deck because it is too small. I am inclined to support the previous decision of the board when it was first heard. MOTION: Jim moved to affirm HPC’s previous decision; secondo by Bob. Nora said she will stand by her first vote. This is on a corner lot and the function of a connector becomes muddy on a very visible lot. It would be different if it was on an interior lot. John said he likes the fact that it is recessed and very transparent with low iron glass. Willis said one of the conditions is that it have a seamless guardrail. Bob said the architecture is very clear and this is a good solution. Roll call vote: Bob, yes; Jim, yes; John, yes; Nora, no; Willis, yes Motion carried 4-1. 209 E. Bleeker St. Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, Floor Area Bonus, Residential Design Standards and Variations Review, Public Hearing cont’d from Sept 23rd. Gretchen was seated Nora recused herself Michael recused himself Sara said at the last meeting the feedback to the applicant was to redesign the site plan and look at the massing to highlight the historic resource. The mass has been moved around and there is a two story adjacent to the landmark with a one story connector and a one story addition in the back of the landmark. HPC and staff suggested that the property read more like a lot split. Staff finds that the new proposal is appropriate for the site and the roof forms and massing are consistent with the guidelines. Staff had one suggestion to make the connection which is a gable roof into a flat roof and see if there is a way to tuck the flat roof under the historic addition at the back of the landmark. There is a lot of rehabilitation going on with this house to be it back to the 19th century appearance and HPC was supportive of the bonus. Staff is supportive of the setbacks being requested and the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 11, 2015 5 house will stay in its original location. Staff questioned the rear yard setback which has a deck on top of the garage and we recommend that the deck be removed on top of the garage and the ten foot setback be honored. A residential design standard is also being requested for the original front porch to be restored. Staff is supportive of the project. Sara pointed out that some of the elevations from Kim are incorrect in the packet. Kim Raymond, architect presented Kim said the addition is set back 16 feet from the front façade of the cabin which is the focal point of the property. There was a front porch on the cabin and there was a door with a window on the side. There was also a dormer with a small window. Regarding the CMU block wall we can engage with the neighbor to see if it should be removed or not. It is not historic. The shed in the back will be removed as it is not historic. There is a single story link in the back and a new addition. We will restore the front porch and keep the back porch. We have adjusted the link to be a flat roof. We have 9’8” between the two buildings. The garage does come up to the five foot setback. Sara said the deck sets into the set back and would need a variation but the garage would not need a variance. We are recommending eliminating the deck over the garage. Kim said they were hoping to keep the deck to give the upstairs some outside space. Kim did a power point regarding the design of the addition. Having the addition a little taller helps with the inflection. Kim said staff said we met design standards 4, 7, 8 and 14. Regarding design standard 10.3 you can still see most of the historic cabin. The addition is not trying to be an earlier period and it is stepped back and has the same gable shape and simple form. Guideline 10.5 talks about the eave lines and s etbacks being similar. The eave line on the new addition is very similar in height and we feel that standard is met. Design standard 10.9 discusses the relationship to the cabin. We have the same gable roof. Guidelines 10.10 talks about keep the historical features and we are not destroying any. Guideline 10.11 talks about using similar materials. We are using wood siding that is horizontal and similar to the cabin but have a different profile. Guideline 10.12.13 talk about roof top additions and there aren’t any. We will discuss the landscape plan at the next meeting. We are asking for a variance for the basement ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 11, 2015 6 under the garage and the deck above the garage and combined side yard setback and the distance between buildings which is 4 ¼ inches. Kim also said the cabin is 12 feet from the property line. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis said he would grant the variance on the garage for the deck and supports the FAR bonus because they could put a large party deck as an alternative on the link. Jim agreed with the chair. Gretchen commented that the visual from the street looking like two separate buildings is a great improvement. The long second story roof doesn’t meet the guidelines. It is around 67 feet long and feels out of scale. Maybe it needs broken up or some façade changes. Gretchen also said she has problems giving variances to new buildings when problems can be solved without a variance. Bob said with all the buildings surrounding the property the only impact is the house adjacent to it and no one came forward to comment. John said it is a long mass and mostly detrimental to the adjacent property and no one was out spoken about it. Willis said you really don’t see the 60 foot length. It is a very dense block and there are long extruded buildings close to the property. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #30 with an amendment to condition #4 that the distance between the buildings is omitted in order for the ten feet to be met. Motion second by Jim. Motion carried 4 -1. Roll call vote: Bob, yes; Jim, yes; John, yes; Willis, yes; Gretchen, no MOTION: John moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk