Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20030409 ASPEN HISTOmC PRESERVATION COIVIMISSION MINUTES OF ApRI,L 9, 200,3 114 NEALE/17 QUEEN ST. CONCEPTUAL - PH ................................................................................... 1 533 W. FRANCIS - AMENDMENT TO FINAL ....................................................................................... 1 331 W. BLEEKER - CONCEPUTAL - CONT/NUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM 3/26/03 ............... 2 $19 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPUTAL - PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM 3-26-2003 ......... 5 WORK. SESSIONS - NO MINUTES .................................................................................................... ;... 10 470 N. SPRING ............................................................................ ~ ............................................................... ! 0 515 (507) GILLESPIE LOT B .......................................................... ~ .................... ~ ..................................... 10 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9i 2003 Teresa Melville called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander and Neill Hirst. Jeffrey Halferty and Michael Hoffman were seated at 5:08 p.m. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefi:r Intern, Katie Ertmer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of March 12, 2003; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Teresa, Valerie, Neill, Derek MOTION: Valerie moved to approve the minutes of March 26, 2003; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Teresa, Valerie, Neill, Derek Michael and Jeffrey were seated at 5:08 p.m. Disclosure: Valerie will recuse herself on 819 E. Hopkins. Teresa will recuse herself on 533 W. Francis. Michael will recuse himself on 470 N. Spring Street - worksession Monitoring Issues: Amy approved a new roof for the Isis Theatre due to serious leaking problems. 114 NEALE/17 QUEEN ST. CONCEPTUAL- PH MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 114 Neale/17 Queen to April 23, 2003; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 533 W. FRANCIS - AMENDMENT TO FINAL Affidavit of posting entered into the record as Exhibit I. Sworn in: David Gibson ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AP~L 9~ 2003 Katie relayed that during the review of the building permit it was discovered that a rear yard setback of four feet is needed in order to go forward with the plan that was approved by HPC, David Hoefer pointed out that there are no changes to the design. Katie said a rear yard setback is needed for any space that is considered part of the primary structure and not the garage. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Peter Nicklin said he was never informed of the meeting and was not apprised of the setback issues. Amy said i£the meetings are continued it is announced at the meeting. David Hoefer suggested that Peter contact the City Clerk's office to see if the affidavit of notice included his address, David Gibson said a public notice will be sent if and when development occurs on the adjacent lot. Peter said he understands that the historic house will be moved forward toward 5th Street. Katie said the variance is for four feet, which would be six feet from the property line. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing, MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution 3 7, 2003; second bp' Valerie. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. 331 W. BLEEKER - CONCEPUTAL- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM 3/26/03 Sworn in: Chris Berry and David Brown Teresa was seated. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ~PRIL 9~ 2003 Katie informed the board that the applicant was requested to bring back more information regarding the comparison between the existing structure and new structure. The concerns were massing and height between the Queen Ann style historic structure and the new s~cture. Staff still has concerns with the width of the prOposed Walkway, which is 6 ½ feet wide, and the proposed brick material on the front faqade. These are issues that can be addressed at final. David Brown presented a site plan for the board to establish the character of the street from the historic structure. It is a 30~foot lot that has been split. The facade is set back in order to be sensitive to the historic structure. The house also has a new bay window, as does the historic house in an attempt to keep the rhythm established and breaking down the simple forms that are here. The ridge height of the historic house is 30 feet and the new one is 29 feet but steps down 2 ½ from center lot to center lot given the slope of the site. They have tried to keep the massing simple and straightforward due to the small lot. There is understated complexity to the front faqade. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Derek said he feels the project is developing nicely since the last meeting. The materials and massing make sense when you see it witlhin the big picture of everything else that is happening on the site, Neill had no comments. Valerie said the photographs and model have been very helpful. The general roofing, massing is acceptable because the site steps down and allows sensitivity to the historic structure. Regarding the materials she feels they are not competing with the historic resource. Her concern of the sidewalk is the impact to the surface roots of the existing tree. She could not find anything in the guidelines that indicated a width of 6 ½ for a sidewalk is inappropriate. Maybe narrowing it down would protect the roots, Generally we see sidewalks straight to an historic structure but this is not an historic structure. Chris Berry said he had no problem with narrowing the sidewalk. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9~ 2003 Michael said Guideline 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.9 are all handled extremely well. The fact that the new structure did not imitate the historitc structure is a good example of what we are looking for. Teresa said she knows the site well and has been on the property. It is a great piece of property. Teresa said she appreciated the simplicity of the design and the sympathy toward the historic house. She feels the design almost mirrors the historic structure at least with the front faqade. She also has some concerns about the window arrangements but that can be addressed at final review. Jeffrey said he agrees with a lot of the comments from the board. He agrees with Teresa regarding the front scale and guideline 11.4 says design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. The front plane of the house should not appear taller than the historic structure. The elevated ten-foot plate heights compete with the historic resource. Guideline 10.11 addresses the imitation of older historic styles is discouraged and the applicant has done a cleaver job in changing the relationships. The overall massing is acceptable and the only concern is that front faq:ade. Regarding the landscaping and existing foot base of the tree, he would prefer to see a narrower walkway. The material scale is fine but the front plate height needs to come down. The present design is contradictory to our guidelines. David said the material of the sidewalk is flagstone set on grade and water would be allowed to reach the roots. It will create minimal intrusion to the structure of the tree. We can narrow the width of the sidewalk and possibly HPC can come up with an appropriate dimension. The existing materials and plate heights keep the house subordinate to the historic house. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #8, 2003 approving conceptual development for 331 ~. Bleeker; second by Derek. Valerie said she would like to add an amendment to the motion, which includes lowering the plate height and addressing the pathway. Michael amended his motion to include restudying of the pat,~way; second by Derek Motion and amended motion carried 4-2. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Op APRIL 9~ 2003 Yes vote: Derek, Neill, Michael, Valerie No vote: Teresa, Jeffrey David asked for suggestion from the board regarding materials and windows. Teresa said her concern is the size of the two little windows, which are either the kitchen or bathroom windows in the front. She said brick makes her think ora "high style" historic house, which this is not. Neill said; however, the use of brick differentiates it from the old historic structure. Amy said there are pros and cons, which can be presented, in the final memo to the HPC. 819 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPUTAL- PUBLIC }gEARING - CONTINUED FROM 3-26-2003 Valerie recused herself. Affidavit of publication entered into the record as Exhibit Saypol letter entered as Exhibit II. Rally Dupps was sworn in. Katie handed out letters Katie said the changes are flip-flopping the plans and locating the historic house next to the neighboring historic house and the larger structure next door to the two-story structure to the east. At the last meeting the concerns were massing, entry, the street facing faqade and how the historic building related to the adjoining historic parcel. The flip-flop addresses the two historic structures. The applicant has also reduced the number of proposed units from 5 to 4 so there will be three additional units. The massing of the new building has been broken up into two pieces. There is a two-unit structure to the east and behind the historic structure is a one-story unit. The historic shed has been incorporated into the one-story unit to be used as 5 ASPEN ,HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMNIISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9~ 2003 a garage bay. The alignment of the shed will face east instead of north to incorporate it into the garage. Some concerns are the proposed entryway. The proposed porch is still a two-story element because it has a deck above it and is accessible from the second floor. Staff finds that a one-story porch would be more compatible. Staff also had concerns with the east facade of the new building, as it appears to be one big unbroken mass. There are also co~tcerns about the~ proposed horizontal windows but they can be addressed at final. The concern of the Residential Design Standards were inflection and that has been addressed, as the hiStoric structure is a one-story structure. The current proposal includes the use of two non-orthogonal windows on the south alley facing faqade and the residential design standards allow for one. They are on the alley side and not visible from the street. The proposed light well on the north side of the new two unit building did not meet the standards and should be moved to the west. Changes have been proposed since the memo was sent out. They include moving the light well, re-designing the front porch, relocating the porch on the alley faqade and adding a lock space on the smaller unit behind the historic structure. Rally presented the model and went over the challenges on the lot. The lot is a multi-family and has by right 9,000 square feet of FAR. A 60 or 70- year-old Cotton tree is on the site with an extensive root system and there is an historic house on the lot and an historic shed. The scheme moves the historic house to the west so that the two historic houses are., next to each other and have the same kind of orientation. The historic house inflects to the adjacent historic house and the addition to the multi-family next door. One of the units was removed and the element reduced to a 1 ½ story element. The historic house will be restored and turned into a three- bedroom unit. Both units will be deed restricted. Rally disagreed with staff's conm~ent on the two-story element. There is nothing two-story on it, it is a hidden deck. Working with courtyard we have increased the amount of area for the tree roots by 20% from the previous scheme. Front porch elements and very traditional street soft interface elements have been added including doors that face Hopkins and outside decks. We feel that we have 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CON[MISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2003 addressed all the issues with this design. There are three changes that the applicant desires: Adding a one-story porch element to the'front of the building, removal of the light-well and receding it back underneath a porch and moving the deck to face the back corner of the building. A stair and bedroom were added to Unit 3 space. That brings the bedroom out of the basement and make it a better-looking project. The plate heights have been retained low. Questions & Clarifications Michael asked what the square footage was compared to this proposal and the last one. Rally said he has reduced the FAR by 700 square feet and are down to 8,400 square feet. Derek inquired about the parking. Rally said another parking space was added inside so there are no off-street parking spaces. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Sworn in: Natasha Saypol, Brian Mergl, Mary Upton, Rohert Egglustan Natasha said she represents the homeowners at 830 E. Hopkins and many were here at the last meeting. The main issue is the massing of the new building. Guideline 11.3 says the design should be similar in scale with the historic building. This new building envelopes the parcel and the historic structures are diminished and not prominent. It is one large mass. Guidelines 11.3 addressed the relationship of the new building to the existing historic structures and the scaling is not similar. Guideline 11.2 deals with the front porch and it still seems to be a two-story element and not in alignment with the existing historic structure. Guideline 11.9 deals with using building components that are similar in size and shape and staff expressed concern with the shapes and sizes and we also agree with staff regarding the horizontal windows. The massing is really the main issue. Brian Mergl with Frias properties representing the E-Hopkins homeowners association on the east side. The concern is the proximity of the new building in regards to the lighting and the shape of the wall does seem to be long. 7 ASPEN HISTO~C P~SERvATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9~ 2003 Mary Upton said she is across the alley and is mostly concerned with the South side. There is a lot of stuff to put on that little piece of property. Rally went over the design with Mary. Robert Egglustan said he owns 801 E. Hopkins and he is looking forward to the lot being built out. It will add value to the neighborhood. Stephen Elsperman, City of Aspen Natural Resource Director pointed out that the proposal says there is a net gain of viable root area. That is hue; however, what has been sacrificed is that the area has further enclosed the tree into a more ora courtyard type of plan. The tree is a community resource. Dan Fellman said we have lived in the community for over ten years and my wife is here all the time and very active in the community. It gets a little old slamming people that might not be here everyday. We are: here and my wife pays taxes and votes and is a full time resident. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Teresa said she read over the minutes thoroughly and feels that the two historic structures next to each other are appropriate. All of the concerns that stood out to her have been addressed. The new front porCh solution works well and she interprets it as a one-story element. The only concerns are windows that will be addressed at final. Michael thanked the owners for compromising the proposal and freeing it up for Rally to re-design to the recormnendation of the HPC. The concerns of the neighbors need addressed. Michael requested that staff address the neighbor's issue in the next memo. Neill also thanked Rally for re-thinking the project and it required an enormous amount of work. The front porch is still a two-story structure and he can't get away from it that this is a violation of the guidelines. The overall massing of the east building is of concern. The east fhcade abuts very closely to the next dwelling. The porches encroaching upon the tree are of a concern. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AP~L 9; 2003 Derek reminded the board that the HPC put the architect into a comer forcing him to flip the plans and creating the massing on the east. He feels the historic building is more diminished in this solution but yet at the same time you are creating a nice consistency with the two historic buildings next to each other. This is a give and take game and he thanked the applicant and public for their comments. The massing has continually been reduced. By right they have 10,000 square feet ofbuildable FAR. In the context of the whole neighborhood this is definitely more broken up then what exists in that area. Derek also thanked the architect for incorporating the shed. The only area of concern is the stairwell that creates the courtyard. Jeffrey said the architect did a tremendous.job in addressing all of the board's requests. The model refinement has been a very helpful tool. This is a very difficult site. In particular, the porch element should be lowered and possibly lowering the plate height will accomplish that. There needs to be better genuflection on the east side. The Only window concerns are on the new building, west side and the south elevation of the new construction off the alley. If the porch off the north side of Unit 2 was reduced in depth a little bit you might get a better view of the tree from the streetscape. With some modifications as suggested Jeffrey could support cortceptual approval at the next meeting. Rally said the comments by the HPC are only going to make this project better. We have worked diligently with other government entities to continue having this tree part of the community; however, the tree forces many things to happen that the neighbors do not like and the tree is a problem. There are two questions, do we want to get a fomaal recommendation from HPC that we have a scheme that will not work with this tree and we pass that along to the Parks Dept. for a formal recommendation to remove the tree or two, is this a scheme with modifications of massing that the HPC can work with. David Hoefer said the questions should be answered at the next meeting. Based on the comments he has heard he is not heating that the configuration itself is a problem. There has been discussion of massing and various other issues. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9~ 2003 MOTION: Michael moved to continue the hearing until April 23ra with precisely this plan in general and for staff to address the comments made in the Saypol letter and comments made by the public tonight and commissioner comments; second by Neill. Derek said the applicant is only asking where we stand. He has only one concern with massing which is the roof of the stair in the courtyard and could support conceptual. Neill's concern is the front porch. David Ho&er said he would prefer a continuation and direct staffto prepare a new memorandum based on the evidence that has been presented tonight~ which includes the new plans as well as information received from the public and then we can get a revised resolution that will more accurately reflect what the commission wants. Michael amended his motion to include David's comments in the above paragraph; second by Neill. All in favor of the motion and amended motion. Yes vote: Derek, Neill, Michael, Teresa, Jeffrey WORKSESSIONS - NO MINUTES 470 N. SPRING 515 (507) GILLESPIE LOT B MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10