Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19990714ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 14~ 1999 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5~00 p.m. Members in attendance were Jeffrey Halferty, Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Roger Moyer and Lisa Markalunas. Excused were Heidi Friedland, Maureen McDonald and Christie Kienast. Staff in attendance were Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer; Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie and Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathleen J. Strickland. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the minutes of June 9th; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. MONITORING ISSUES Amy relayed that the approval for Su Casa was new windows for the office and they are now requesting to change the windows on the left side, which is the restaurant. HPC had no problem with the change. Jeffrey will be the monitor for 315 E. Hyman. 920 W. HALLAM ST. LOT A and BI - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL MOTION: Mary moved to extend the Conceptual Development on 920 W. Hallam, to expire February 12, 2000; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. 135 W. HOPKINS AVE. - CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. MOTION: Mary moved to continue the public hearing on 135 W. Hopkins to August 11, 1999; seocnd by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 14~ 1999 332 W. MAIN - CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. MOTION: Mary moved to continue the public hearing on 332 W. Main to gugust il, 1999; second by Roger. gll in favor, motion carried. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. 400 W. SMUGGLER STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy relayed that the request is to add dormers to the historic outbuilding. In the original recommendation the HPC supported shed dormers on the north and south elevations. The owners want gable dormers. Staff is recommending that the gable dormers be below the ridge line. The shed dormer on the south elevation will have to be taken off and all the gable dormers will be new construction. The siding and casings should match the existing building. Sworn in was Steve Weaver, Insight Construction. Amy stated that she worked with the architect and recommends that the existing shed dormer will be removed and there will be a pair of narrow gable dormers on each side. They also have to be below the ridge line. Steve relayed that the wider width of the dormers are to accommodate a full size bed. The shed dormers were built in 1968. Roger felt that HPC should ask the owners to use double hung windows instead of the new pella windows. Amy relayed that the existing pattern had already been established and she did not pursue double hung windows. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 14~ 1999 Amy relayed that the board and staff encouraged shed dormers at the last meeting which would mean that the south dormer is kept and add one to the north but for whatever reason gable dormers are being pursued in which we now find out cannot be symmetrical and cannot be lower than the ridge line. Steve asked if the HPC would approve shortening the dormers and lowering them six inches off the peak in order to get a set of standards he can go with. Suzannah stated that could be done but when you address the geometry of the head room that might not be possible. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Members had concerns about mixing the types of dormers on the south side. Other members felt uncomfortable due to the house being a landmark and the heaviness of the proposed dormers. Susan preferred that the shed dormer remain on the south side. The dormers should be subordinate to the historic building. The dormers should be lowered on the ridge line. Mary felt that there was too much conflicting information as to what needs to be done. Roger felt that the item should be tabled. The south side is visible from the street and he suggested gable dormers. Suzannah felt that two dormers would be difficult to incorporate on the south elevation. She also agreed that the three dormers need to be at the same size roof pitch. Two windows are more appropriate than three windows. Amy clarified for Steve what direction the HPC is supporting. On the south elevation two gables side by side will not work. Suzannah felt if a wide dormer is proposed a shed dormer is more appropriate. If it is a narrow dormer then the gable shape can work. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 14~ 1999 Amy stated that the applicant could have one gable on the south and two on the north. Or they could have a shed dormer on both sides. Steve said he drove around the city looking for a shed dormer on an historic home and he did not see one. Everything is gabled. Lisa said according to the drawings four gables will not work due to the roof structure. Steve said they would work but would be closer together on the north elevation. Basic agreement: Whatever looks the least massive is appropriate and they dormers should be all the same. MOTION: deffhey moved to table the minor development application to 400 W. Smuggler until duly 28, 1999; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Lisa clarified that the dormers need to be the same and the applicant's options are a shed dormer on both sides or two gables on the north and one on the south. The dormers need to be symmetrical and below the ridge line. 302 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON- SITE RELOCATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Amy relayed that the entire project has been building on the idea that you remove the development impacts from the historic building by creating a new pad at the back of the lot. That would require the out-building to be removed back toward the historic house but would allow the preservation of the historic building intact. At the last meeting HPC talked about whether the new construction could be attached to the old building and issues about height and architecture. A new submittal is being presented. All the buildings are free-standing from each other. A fourth story element has been added and the architecture has changed significantly. Staff feels these changes are problematic. The idea 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 14~ 1999 from the worksession was to do something like an historic lot split where all the new construction is contained in a confined footprint, 20 x 30 at the back of the lot and should not intrude anymore into the space established by the historic buildings. The fourth story element is too much and is too much out of context with the historic buildings. Additional height downtown should be on newly developed lots and not right behind a very important historic building. Staff also feels that the architecture has become unrelated to the historic structure. Sworn in were: Jake Vickery, architect for the project. Mark Haldeman, partner in the project. John Davis, Roget Kuhn, Nicklaus Kuhn and adjacent property owner Bill Seguin were also sworn in. Jake presented that the 1950 addition will be removed from the rear of the house. In the process of removing the addition the historic wall will be uncovered. The addition being taken off already corrupted the wall and what they are proposing is less than the addition taken off in terms of surface area connected to the historical resource. The applicant feels they should be allowed to attach to the historic wall that will exposed after the addition is taken off. Jake said the adjacent building owned by Bill Seguin is a two story building and can go to a height of 40 feet by code. The commercial core is where the council would like the density put. The height of the Kuhn tower is 32 feet high and the height of the proposed tower is 40 feet. The HPC requested the separation of the historic buildings and in order to get the square footage the mass had to go upward. Zero setbacks and 40 feet, four stories is allowed in the commercial core. Coming up with a reasonable standard for these properties should be a goal. The second and third floor have setbacks. The setback is 18 feet from the sidewalk. The reason there is density in the commercial core is to relief the density in other zones and the fourth floor is the use of the roof top. Functionality of the roof space is important to the overall design. The applicant would like a one story connector to the historic house. If the space is taken out it has to go somewhere else. There is a subgrade connection for the basement underneath the shed for a bedroom. A courtyard is created on the site. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 14~ 1999 Mary endorsed HPC's role which is to preserve and protect the historic landmark. Board members felt that a model is necessary on this project in order to visually see the height and dimensions of the new building in relationship to the historic buiding. Jake said he agreed that preservation of the historic structure is the key element. Roger asked the applicant to explain the stepback as opposed to the faCade creating more of a presence on the street. Jake felt that 14 or 16 feet wide is an historical proportion and he did the stepback as study to see how the HPC would respond to it. Suzannah opened the public hearing. Roget Kuhn stated that he is opposed to the height of the tower which is 40 feet and their tower is 32 feet high. The shed is totally lost. He is also opposed to the loss of the existing parking space. This is aggressive development for a small lot. Bill Seguin stated it cost him $30,000 when he put his building up to support his foundation due to the historic house being adjacent to him. He is disturbed about the lack of upkeep by the new owners. It is a classy comer and demands respect. His suggestion was to move the shed to another location and keep some open space between the historical structure. Board members relayed that the shed has to remain due to its historical significance. Nicklaus Kuhn relayed that one concern of his is the garbage left in the alleys from restaurants due to the lack of space. He also relayed that the shed should be away from the sidewalk. John Davis said they lost the attachment as HPC requested which was huge to them. The HPC didn't want the shed to be a stair corridor and it will be hard to rent as it is too tiny. Bill Seguin's building can go to 40 feet. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 14~ 1999 Suzannah closed the public hearing. Jake relayed that they have a ten by ten by 9 enclosure for trash. The code requires for buildings under 6,000 square feet to have a 10 by 20 by 10 trash enclosure and it is their intention to ask for relief from that requirement. They will then propose an area where two dumpsters can be placed. Jake said density is encouraged in the downtown area due to the transit route with a stop ½ block away. They would have to pay cash in lieu of $15,000 which helps support the parking garage. There are two trees involved in the project with regard to the digging of the foundation and some pruning will need to be done. Careful excavation will need to be done. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Lisa relayed that the existing vegetation should be preserved. She has concern about applicants coming in with more stories and square footage in an effort to end up with less. The four story massing dwarfs the historic property. She would only support a two story addition. It is commendable that there is a separation between the historic house. The commercial building is too modem. Jeffrey relayed that a code amendment should be done for historic lots to limit their FAR. The four story element is not appropriate and he is not sure a three story would be appropriate on this lot. This building is a very cherished Gothic Victorian in the commercial core. The landscape plan is a critical issue with the development of this parcel, pertaining to the sidewalk and drip line of the trees. Susan felt that the tower was way too high and she felt only a two story building would be acceptable on this important historic lot. The building is not compatible with the historic house. The shed should be moved back from the sidewalk. The indentation of the new building is acceptable. Mary felt that the original design was more acceptable. She feels the project should be treated as an infill project. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 14~ 1999 Roger felt that the trash situation should be completely dealt with before final. He also felt that the interior use of the building should be addressed regarding the mechanical systems. A massing model would be helpful and the resolution of three stories vs. four cannot be resolved tonight. Suzannah supports density in the core but in regards to this site being on the edge of the core, it is a different condition. She could not support a fourth story. She feels the rectangular footprint should be respected. The original drawing had nice elements of the higher first floor plate height and should be continued in future designs. She has a major concern with the stairwell and lightwell bordering two sides of the shed. She feels a connection behind the shed would be better than four feet of dead space with a brick wall behind it. She could support a one story connection but the stair should be accommodated within that design as it is a full story down. There are other options that do not create an island for the building to sit on. Jake stated his representation is that there will be no visible mechanical equipment from the new building. Roger stated that he would also support Suzannah regarding the stairway and could support a connector providing that it would be less than or equal to the height of the door on the shed and the connector would be totally transparent. Jake requested consensus from the board regarding the connector on the ground level from the new building to the existing house. Three members stated no connection and three supported a connector. Amy stated at the last meeting a two story connector was rejected and this topic is a one story connector. Lisa stated that consensus was that the HPC did not want anything looming over the historic house. The board unanimously stated that they would not commit to a recommendation without looking at the entire design. They supported Amy's recommendation in the memo. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 14~ 1999 Jake stated that they want to do a one story connector in order to give HPC what they want. Roger informed the applicant that a connector would be acceptable if the design is appropriate. His advice was for the applicant to provide two models using the 24 x 30 footprint and another one that deals with an L shaped staggered configuration in order for people to see what the proposal is. David Hoefer, city attorney stated that the board gave direction which is the HPC' s role. MOTION: Roger made the motion to continue 302 E. Hopkins, Public Hearing, Conceptual and Partial Development and On-site relocation to July 28, 1999 with the following conditions: 1. All new construction must be contained within a footprint of approximately 24 'x30' on the rear of the lot. 2. Confirm all zoning and building code implications of having three detached structures on the site. 3. Consult the Parks' Department before the next HPC review to confirm that excavation impacts' to street trees will be properly addressed. 4. Resolve the trash issues. 5. Look at possible mechanical equipment both to the new structure and to the existing resource. Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Yes Fote: Roger, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Jeffhey, Lisa. Amy stated that the July 28th meeting would only be a worksession. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 920 W. HALLAM ST. LOT A AND B1 - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL ............................ 1 135 W. HOPKINS AVE. - CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ................................................ 1 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 14~ 1999 332 W. MAIN - CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ............................................................. 2 400 W. SMUGGLER STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................ 2 302 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................................ 4 10