Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20040114ASPEN HISTORIC. PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2004 2 WILLIAM'S WAY - CONCEPTUAL - PIt - ON-SITE RELOCATION ........................................... 1 525 E. COOPER AVE. - MINOR DEVELOPMENT -Ptt ...................................................................... 3 939 E. COOPER AVE. - UNIT B - CONCEPTUAL ................................................................................ 5 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................... 5 426 E. MAIN - VISITOR CENTER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - ?H ................ 7 11 ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY i4,2004 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman. 'Neill Hirst was excused. Staff present: Assistant City AttOrney, David Hoefer Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the minutes of December 10, 2003; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Derek will recuse himself on 939 E. Cooper. He also stated that he worked for ACRA prior to the application of the Visitor Center but has no financial interest in the project. David Hoefer said Derek could sit in on the project. 2 WILLIAM'S WAY - CONCEPTUAL - PH - ON-SITE RELOCATION Sworn in: Doug Rager, Scott Hicks Amy said the applicant and staff has been working on access issues for driveways. It seems that the historic houses are placed in the right area of the lots and there is a good distance between them and the new house. There have been some changes to the new house and it doesn't appear as large as ~t was on the first plan. Scott said we are looking for the parking situation to be located off Spruce Street. The parking for the two historic structures will be located at the northwest corner of the site. At the last meeting it was suggested that the kind of single stoW structure be located in the front of the other masses to give it a distinct shape from the other house. There is 37 feet between HBI and the new structure. We did that by reducing the footprint of the new structure. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public heanng. Comments: ASPEN HISTORIC P~SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 200~ Derek said this is a great project and the architect and owner have done a fantastic job. His only concern was the massing of the structure. Sarah echoed the same comments as Derek. Michael said the project is a reasonable compromise and we have made a lot of progress through all of the work sessions; Jeffrey said the way the historic resources are preserved from the view plane is commendable. The project went from a great amount of pavement to very little now and the historic landscaping is being kept. Valerie said she supports staff's recommendation and condition #4 regarding the relocation plan. Exhibit I - Lisa Markalunas letter. Lisa said her concern is the relocation of th~ property to an inferior location on the site. It is a less publicly viewed on the parcel. To move the historic building you have to have a good reason and just to make room for a rather large new structure in her mind doesn't meet that task. Amy pointed out that staff isn't sure the Warkentin house is in its original location. Michael said in terms of the location of the historic structure being inferior the discussion was because Spruce Street does not have heavy traffic. In reality Williams Way access would have about the same amount of potential viewing of the historic structures. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #1, 2004 approving conceptual development for 2 William's Way, Smuggler Hunter Trust, Lot I, City and To~vnsite of Aspen; second by Sarah. Motion carried 5-0. Yes, Derek, Michael, Sarah, Valerie, Jeffrey Scott said they acquired two photographs of liB2 ~vhich is the house that was relocated to the property which will give them direction as to ;vhat they need to do to that particular structure. They have no photographs of the original home on the site~ Right now everything will remain the same. It has a shed addition on the north side and the issue is trying to get a dormer in the roof on the north side. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14; 2004 Scott presented some working drawings. The shed is on the north side and the Only change being proposed are the addition of dormers. They will re- build the non-existing wall. Valerie commented that there are a lot of dormers but they are below the roofline and set back from the front of the building. Michael and Jeffrey said they want to see Amy's analysis before commenting on the dormers. Jeffrey suggested the applicant review section 10.12 of the design guidelines. The elements are new but if detailed as to not overwhelm in scale they could work. Sarah said the dormers should be a little more subordinate to the historic structures. Derek said he would be Willing to approve the dormers if they fall within the guidelines. 525 E. COOPER AVE. - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ' PH Sworn in: John Randall Wedum The affidavit of notice was entered into the Land use record as Exhibit I. Amy said the display window would be a swinging gate which mimics the shape and ceil and header height of the commercial building next door. The only recommendation was to have a flat top to it rather than a sloping glass roof and also make sure that the latch side does not damage the historic building that is next door. Randy said originally they had a glass roof and that has been removed and a flat roof designed. Steel posts out of the concrete support the entire thing. They would also like to have a canvas awning in the future. The existing building already has a canopy on one side. Randy said the canopy that exists wraps the comer and he would duplicate that one. Jeffrey asked if the mechanical is accessed from the alley? Randy said yes, 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14~ 2004 Valerie inquired about the width. Randy said the space is 8'6" and when open at least 6 foot clears. Randy said the height is ten feet to the top of the window which is the same window height of the building. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: Valerie commented that the space is a very interesting space and this will be an architectural improvement. Sarah said in terms of our guideline 13.15 contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged. As a thought it could be pushed further and be a product of its own time. Derek said the architect is doing a service to that space already and it is aesthetically pleasing and adheres to all the guidelines. Michael said he is comfortable with the design. Jeffrey commented that he likes to see adjacent party walls exposed and this might take away from that but he Would still support it. The design conforms to the guidelines 13.15 and its character seems more modem. Valerie said she has a concern with the awning because it is not a two-story building and it is perched on top and looks like it might fall off. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution #2, 2004for 525 E. Cooper, parcel lD 2737-182-22-002. The drawings are approved as submitted with no conditions in the resolution; second by Valerie. Motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Derek, Sarah, Michael, Valerie, Jeffrey Randy said the awning would be a steel flame and from the front side it would look structural because it goes from wall to wall visuallyl Amy said as long as there is an eight-foot clearance between the sidewalk and wall the awning can be approved. The board said staff and monitor could handle the awning. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CoMMiSsiON MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2004 Jeffrey said he would be the monitor for the awning. 939 E. COOPER AVE. - UNIT B ' CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT Derek recused himself. Sworn in - Gilbert Sanchez AffidaVit ofp0sting was entered in the Land use record as Exhibit I. Jeffrey disclosed that he has worked on the adjacent parcel which is in different ownership and in no way will be biased in his decisions regarding this parcel. Amy stated that the project was reviewed and approved in 1995. It was a 10,500 square foot property and subdivided into two pieces, a 6,000 square foot parcel that fronts Cooper St. and a 4,500 square foot parcel that is along the alley. There was a house approved for the lot but the vested rights expired and they have to re-submit. Staff recommends approval of this project. It is an excellent response to our guidelines. It is clearly new but totally respects the shape and form of the two historic structures where are immediately east and the barn behind the property. It is a very simple material palate. A parking space variance is being requested. One parking space Will be in the garage and another one can be located in the driveway; however they do not want to impede pedestrians walking across the driveway. If that cannot be accomplished they can park on the street. The residential design standard require that the garage be at least ten feet back from the facade and this garage is seven feet back. Staff finds that seven feet is a sufficient distance to eliminate having a major presence on the street. The last standard is secondary mass and this requires any new house to have 10% of the total square footage in a detached building. This house is only 1,800 square feet and there is clearly no room on this lot to haVe two separate buildings so we think the intent of the guidelines has been met and staff supports approval with no conditions. Gilbert said the original site is 10,000 square feet. The specific parcel for this construction is 38 feet by 49 feet. As a result of that the variances are being requested. Gilbert stated he wanted to explain the variances being 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2004 requested. When the site was subdivided there were five building envelopes that were identified. The four houses that exist were not built within their building envelopes. Gilbert went over all of the buildings on the site that had porches, window wells etc. extending over their property lines. As a result of the encroachments the site has been pinched in on almost every side. Gilbert said he talked to Amy about the potential of altering the building envelope. There were numerous law suites when all of these encroachments happened. Those issues have been resolved. In addition the homeowners came to the city and HPC and they accepted the encroachments rather than having people tear down their buildings to build according to the dimensional requirements. So as a result there are implications to his client who has not built anything yet and intends to comply with the dimensional requirements. Amy also said if we were to change 5he proportions of the building envelope so that it became a rectangle that ran east and west that would potentially change the massing of what we would put on this property and it would be incompatible with the house next to it which has a north south orientation. In addition we would have to go through a public hearing process in order to change the building envelope which would delay the client. We are working within the existing building envelope and developing a plan that responded to the enCroaclm~ents as best possible. Gilbert said it is important to maintain the circulation pattern and the walkway through the parcel. The south comer was cut back in order to get a minimal view of the historic barn. There is a one-story at the back of the house also to accommodate the visibility of the barn. Instead of having a 17 foot parking space within the property, the parking space encroaches into the public right-of-way about three feet. The materials are wood siding in a vertical and horizontal orientation and the windows will be clad. The windows are generally double hung vertical proportion, which is an historic proportion. They have also mixed it in with some horizontal elements of a contemporary nature. The contemporary windows will project from the face of the siding to tie in with the house next door. The garage is pushed back seven feet so it is not competing with the major faqade. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Jeanie Marcus asked what the impact would by on Hyman Ave. and Jeffrey said the public notice is sent to everyone within 300 feet of the building. Jeanie said she has no issues with the project. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2004 Chairman, Jeffrey Halferry closed the public hearing. Valerie thanked Gilbert for the thorough presentation regarding the variance requested. A strong argument was presented for the variances. Valerie supports staff's recommendation regarding the parking. In terms of the architecture it falls within all the guidelines. Sarah said she would approve all three variances requested and it is an excellent project that fits the site. Jeffrey also said the presentation was excellent. It especially complies with Chapter 11. Jeffrey said he was on the HPC for all of the construction of the other four houses. The common area works very well. The massing scheme is very promising for the overall picture of the parcel. MOTION: Valerie moved to approve Resolution #3, 2004 conceptual developmem for 939 E. Cooper with the condition that one parking space will be waived from the Residential Design Standards and final must be filed within a year, Motion carried 4-O, Yes vote: Sarah. Michael. Valerie. Jeffrey 426 E. MAIN - VISITOR CENTER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT _ CONCEPTUAL - PH Derek was seated. Sarah recused herself. Sworn in: Kim Weil, Bill Poss, Lowell Meyer/owner/manager Dvid Hoefer reminded the applicant to leave the public notice sign up until the project is concluded. Amy relayed that the City is a co-applicant in this project. Derek was the representative from HPC on the COWOP committee. The proposal ~s to provide a new location for the ACRA Visitor Center, residential units and retail space. It is in a half block that has no historic structures. It does have a visual relationship to the Court House next door. The existing one story on the property will be retained. The guidelines that apply are those related 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14~ 2004 to development in the commercial core historic district for new construction. Staff's review came to the conclusion that this project is an excellent response to all of the guidelines. It has more glazing on the bottom floor, meets the sidewalk and it creates pedestrian interest and uses materials in interesting ways. It rises up ~n the comer to address the characteristics of the courthouse. Staff recommends approval with one condition that they file for final within the specified time of one year. Chris Bendon, planner relayed that this project is part of the Civic Master Plan in which we looked at visitor services and how we capture and orient our visitor in our town. A COWOP group was put together to look at this specific project in more detail. Sixteen'sites were looked at. It ~s important to have a Visitor center that facilitates and understands the orientation of our town. Bill Poss said the firm and the designers looked at how this would relate to the street scene. They looked at view angels from the courthouse. They also wanted to be noticeable from the directions of people coming into town so that the Visitor Center could be identified. They created a strong street scheme on the ground level, residential above and respected the two story elements of the downtown area. The third level is a very light structure because it is a residential unit. The existing bank building is somewhat contemporary and those elements were incorporated. Flag poles are incorporated to indicated that this building is different than a residential structure. They are working with three large trees. Benches and a plaza area are in the design. Banding is being incorporated to represent the downtown area. Michael inquired about the public/private partnership arrangement. Chris said the City will be purchasing the space for the ACRA and leasing it to them. The residential units in the building will be free market and condominiumized. On the lower level there Will be offices and two studio apartments. The second level will have two condos or apartments and one three bedroom on the third level. Valerie inquired about the alley and car port. Klm Weil said there are two existing parking spaces and the intent is to erect four columns and a flat roof 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2004 to cover the parking spaces. The third parking space on the drawing is owned by the bank. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Tony Cronberg wanted to know if there was a building previously on that site. Amy said probably but she didn't pull out any maps because it is not a relative point for the HPC in the redevelopment. Tony said they ACRA members have not looked at the drawings and the directors have not voted on it. In all respect the members of our community and ACRA should have a say where the visitor center should be located. Chris pointed out that Hana Pevny has been involved with this entire process. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing Comments: Michael inquired about the impacts of this project and the Obermeyer project on Main Street. Chris said the Obermeyer project is tucked back in and will have no impacts on Main Street. Michael said the design is awesome and the public/private partnerships works. This project is here before us because it is within the historic core and in terms of the relationship of this building with other buildings of historic natures such as the courthouse. The design sets off the courthouse and the inflection and material palate are great. Derek said he was on the COWOP board. The board determined that this site has the most benefit and economic sense. The owner is actually donating the land for this project. The traffic study indicated that 18,000 to 20,000 cars route through Main Street at this location. This design is a compassionate solution to the contextual nature of Aspen. Valerie said for this level of review, the kick plate, the plate height and window patterns fit well in to the context. The massing as it relates to City Hall is really nice. The form kind of sends respect to the historic structure. As a condition a drawing should be submitted of the carport on the alley. The only criticism is on the east elevation. As Aspen develops the 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14~ 2004 pedestrian way running north and south will be heavily used. The east elevation is somewhat of a blank wall and there might be an opportunity to restudy that wall. Jeffrey said the standards for conceptual, height, scale and mass have been met. The tower object respects the courthouse. Guideline 13.16 states that the ground level floor should encourage pedestrian activity. Possibly that east wall could give that illuSion with fenestration etc. MOTION.. Valerie moved to approve resolution ~44, 2004 for the project locateda t 426 E. Main Street with two additional conditions; that a drawing be submitted for the carport structure and the east elevation be restudied at the ground level to address guidelines 13.16; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried4 - O. Yes vote: Derek, Michael, Valerie, Jeffrey For clarification the east elevation 'could have art work etc. something to create pedestrian interest as you walk by. MOTION.. Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 10