Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20040324ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2004 1295 RIVERSIDE DRIVE - CONT'D MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING ................... 1 514 N. THIRD STREET - CONT'D MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HE~NG ...................... 3 616 W. MAIN STEEET - ON-SITE PARKING WAIVER- PUBLIC HEARING ................................ 6 233 W. MAIN - INNSBRUCK - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING ............... 7 WORKSESSION- SKIER'S CHALET .................................................................................................... 11 NO - MINUTES ........................................................................................................................................... 11 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 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. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of March 1 O, 2004; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried 3-0. Michael abstained. Valerie was seated at 5:10 DisclOSure: Jeffrey and Derek will recuse themselves on 233 W. Main. 1295 RIVERSIDE DRIVE - CONT'D-MINORDEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: Kathy and Tony Welgos, Gilbert Sanchez Amy stated that the discussion tonight is the shed. It is not historic and we have been discussing whether or not it is appropriate to grant variances'to move the shed back to the comer of the property. At the last meeting the board was reluctant to do that because the building was somewhat bulky and not in character with the historic building. There was also the concern as to whether the shed is typical in the neighborhood. The plan is to take off the roof of the shed and make it much lower in pitch so that you do not have to see a gable end that is competing with the historic building. Staff finds with the changes that a variance could be granted. Gilbert said the owners came to the conclusion that they could loose sOme of the storage and reconfigure the roof form that exists now. What is being proposed is that the existing shed which has a gambled shape roof has a ridge height of 11' 10" which will be removed and replaced with a shallow slope gable roof that is similar in pitch to the existing historic house which has a ridge height of 8'4". In addition to the physical modification the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2004 propOsed location results in another ten to 12 inches of elevation loss because it drops down lower on the site. Neighborhood context: Gilbert relayed that the Residential Design Standards encourage the use of detached structures. Eight properties in the neighborhood, historically had sheds. With the proposed setbacks the owner will be able to retain two large Aspen trees. Amy pointed out that council asked at their meeting that the owners consider a five-foot setback on the east. Gilbert said the location of the shed right now and its existing configuration is very bulky and big andimpacts the neighbors. In fact, it is very clearly seen from the east property. By moving the shed closer to the south, pulls it 'out of the view planes. Kathy Welgos said they took Dusty Hamrick to the site and showed her how they were going to place the shed and how they are trying to minimize the impact. Dusty seemed fine with the proposal. Sarah asked the applicant if they had looked into redoing the deck and increasing its size for storage underneath which was mentioned at a previous meeting. Kathy said they are in need of an outside shed for items such as lawn mowers, bicycles, tools etc. If we increase the deck size it would take away from the historic look of the house with a big mass coming off the back. Jeffrey inquired if there was a utility easement on the rear of the site? Gilbert said no. Chairpersonl Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Derek informed the board that he supports the project. He also complimented the architect on such a clear visual explanation of the shed component. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH'24~ 2004 Michael relayed that he appreciated the changes made to accommodate the neighbors concerns. With the changes and variances requested they are similar to the pattern and features of the historic property. Valerie also relayed that she supports the project as presented. Sarah stated that she was not at the last meeting and from the presentation the applicants have addressed the concerns of the board. The alterations of the shed do a better job of addressing our code. Jeffrey also suggested that the shed be moved a little which was recommended at the council meeting. The roof modifications are supported by the character of the neighborhood and our criteria. MOTION: Valerie made the motion to approve Resolution #9, 2004for 1295 Riverside Drive; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Derek, Sarah, Michael, Valerie, Jeffrey 514 N. THIRD STREET - CONT'D MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: John Kelly, Don Ringsby, Karen Ringsby, Gray Ringsby Amy stated that a fence was installed without a permit and a red tag was issued. HPC reviewed the fence in Oct. 2003 and continued the project. The comments were that the board and staff are not supportive of the fence exactly the way the fence is today. Since we adopted our guidelines in 2000 we have been very consistent that any fence applications that came in we generally discouraged wrought iron fences on most Victorian era properties. If they were allowed, they had to be extremely simple and not a lot of decoration was added. It is being discouraged because photographs from that time indicate that larger homes and public buildings did not have a wrought iron fence, they had wood fences if anything. The concern is that it is adding character to the building, which is not the way it was treated in the 19th century. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIO'N MINUTES OF MARCH 24~ 2004 The applicant was asked to think about ways to address the criteria and bring the fence to an approval level. They did suggest removing finials from the top of the posts and to paint it glossY black. Painting it glossy black will make it loOk like a new fence but beyond that staff's recommendation is that we focus on the fence post themselves. That was a major issue with some previous proposals that we insisted that the fence post be very simple. This post has a tiered shape and has decorative carvings in it and that is exactly what we denied on another project. In order to be consistent we should lean toWard square or round posts that have no other deCorations to it. Staff recommends approval with three conditions; paint the fence, replace the posts with simple square or round posts and to remove the picket fence off North Street and figure out how to make a return so that the wrought iron fence ends in a natural way. John Kelly complimented staff for all of the time spent on this project. John said he feels they have made a good attempt to try and mitigate the circumstances. They agree to paint the fence and remove the picket fence. Their recommendation would be to take the finials off the posts, which would bring them under the 42-inch limit. John said they cannot speculate what existed on the site and it is clear that the guidelines allow you to consider wrought iron. Guideline 1.3 states that replacement fences should have a transparent quality allowing views into the yards and streets. This fence greatly increases the view into the street. The way the fence goes back to the house on the Third Street side delineates the old from new. This house would have been occupied by an upper middle class family because it had a carriage house. They are also proposing to run a new wrought iron fence down where the remnants of the picket fence are. John said he counted 39 wrought iron fences and 12 picket fences throughout town on historic properties. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: Valerie relayed that the applicant is in compliance with the guidelines that relate to the fence. The problems that have arisen are more clearly defined in Chapter 11. We have a very high expectation when development occurs on historic properties and owners have a responsibility to knOw the 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2004 guidelines. They are confusing because when you look at Chapter 1 you feel they are met but in Chapter 11 it talks about imitating historic styles which is discouraged and the ability to interpret the history of the street is confused. This fence is an hiStoric piece brought from another place and put here. Michael said the HPC is put in,a difficult position because this was done without a permit even though you didn't realize that you had to comply with the guidelines. It is even more difficult because the time you had put the fence in we had different standards. A year ago we had a very high profile case to where we were quite insistent on a particular simple design of a fence. That particular case became extremely high profile and we are bound by that decision. Staff has reached a reasonable solution. Sarah said she was not here a year ago but she understands what faces us today. In reading through the guidelines she agrees with Valerie because our overall guidelines regarding preservation principles talk about not confusing the character of elements and styles. Chapter I guidelines are very ambiguous and the applicant is in compliance. Sarah said if the finials are removed she could support the project. Derek said he is coming from this at a different perspective. He wants to become part of the solution and he also agrees that the guidelines are ambiguous. Derek can support the applicant's recommendation. Jeffrey also expressed Michael's concern. The corner posts are very decorative and just taking off the finials doesn't simplify the fence. Jeffrey said he wants to remain consistent on this board and he supports the recommendation proposed by staff. Michael said from a procedural standpoint we are bound by the precedent that has been set on this board. If You want that precedent overturned you can appeal to City Council. Valerie commented that it is HPC responsibility to modify the guidelines so that the message is clear between imitations of historic pieces in new additions. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2004 MOTION: Valerie moved to approve Resolution #1 O, 2004 with conditions 1 and 3 as is and modifying condition #2 that thefinials will be removed; motion second by Derek. Motion carried 3- 2. Yes vote: Derek, Sarah, IZalerie No vote: Michael, Jeffrey 616 W. MAIN STEEET - ON-SITE PARKING WAIVER - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting entered into the landuse record as Exhibit I. Sworn in: Jennifer Park James Lindt, planner explained that the request is for a parking waiver of one space at 616 W. Main. The application has been applied for in conjunction with a conditional use request in which P&Z already approved to operate a frame shop. There is currently one parking space on the site for use of the structure and zoning requires two spaces for the commercial use of the building. Staff supports the request because we believe there is sufficient on-street parking in the area that is not currently being used. Staff also feels that there would be room to provide the second space but it would be provided in the back yard area which staff believes would detract from the aesthetics of the property. The parking waiver would only be good for the life of the conditional use, which is a frame shop. Jennifer Park said she feels her business would be appropriate in the historic house. Amy mentioned that she is working with Jennifer to make this building handicapped accessible. The front walk has to slope gently up to the porch and unfortunately they have to widen one of the two original front doors. We decided to do the one that wasn't facing the street. Sarah asked if the conditional use goes back to residential that the ramp be removed. Jennifer said she has been working with Amy and the ramp would be made out of wood in case the conditional use would go back to a residential use. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC' PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2004 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution #11, 2004 waiving one parking space at 616 ~. Main Street; second bv Michael ,4ll in favor, motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Derek, Sarah, Michael, Valerie, Jeffrey 233 W. MAIN - INNSBRUCK- CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Jeffrey and Derek recused themselves. Michael chaired. The chair informed the applicant that in order to get an approval tonight there must be a unanimous vote. The applicant also has the option of continuing. Sworn in: Mitch Haas The affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Amy relayed that the Innsbruck was built in 1967 and it is not considered an historic building but it is in the Main Street Historic district. The proposal is to abandon the parking area in the front on Main Street and instead have parking in the right-of-way on Second Street. There is some parking in the back. Architecturally staff has no criticisms and recommends approval. Mitch Hass stated he has no issues with staff's review. Right now there is a gravel parking area in the front and a curb cut and cars pull in headfirst and tend to back out onto Main Street, which is not a good situation. There is also some parking in the back. Change: The east wing of the building woUld be mirrored on the west side of the building. The gable ends would be brought up on the two fronts approximately three feet. Enclosed flanking stair towers will also be added, The central area where the parking was will become a courtyard with a swimming pool and plantings to separate it from Main Street. The five or six parking spaces out front will go to S. Second Street as head in parking. The spaces will be public spaces but typically they are not used a lot. The parking will be set off Main Street 37 feet. It is a very typical situation in Main Street. Seven of the nine intersections have parking at least on one 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2004 side and usually up to the curb. The trade off is you get rid of the parking area in the front. The parking in the front is consistent with the character of Main Street. The other reason the Main Street parking is dangerous is because there is a bus stop. The ridgeline will be left as is. The windows will remain in the same places but the openings will come down a little more to the ground on the north side in order to get natural light into the building. Materials: The stucco will be replaced with new stucco and there will be a stone band around the bottom of the building and a standing seam metal roof. We are basically keeping the chalet style with an updated interpretation. Mitch stated that the lot is 15,000 square feet. Amy stated that there are two Victorians to the east within the historic district. Nothing is happening other than architectural changes that would affect the Victorians. Sarah said it would be very helpful to see what the setbacks are in the neighboring district. Valerie inquired about the landscaping around the pool area. Mitch said by code the pool has to be fenced and the proposal is for an Open rail fence with a planter box in front of it. Amy said it would be similar to what was approved on the Christiania lodge which is approximately 48 inches tall. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Jim Newkam said the oVerall project is beautiful. There might be a privacy issue with the windows and the upper apartment the Newkam's have. Jim asked about the manager's apartment. Mitch said it will become a lodge room and the door will move to the other side. Mitch said they intend to address the snow load issues into the alley. Gwenn Dickenson relayed that they will have sub-grade storage. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2004 Pat Newkam inquired about recycling and trash. Mitch' said no trash would be in the alley it will all be behind the property line. Don Greg, project manager stated that they would look into an opaque window on the east side that will allow light to come into the suite. David Williams, manager of Garrett condominiums stated that they sit directly behind and face the project and inquired about the gables. Mitch said the changes are to the exterior look only. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Valerie's comments related to the parking on the west side of the project, the head in parking. The Main Street side of the project has drastically been improved. In crunching the numbers you have six head in spaces along the west side and if you didn't have that condition, assuming a 20 foot car, you could maintain five parallel spots. She does not see the value of the sixth spot as it relates to the degradation of the street environment and pedestrian environment and haVing that set back from the street. What is happening is the Main Street parking is just being shifted to the side. Although there is less traffic she doesn't find that it maintains the integrity of that open space fabric of the West End and she would not support the parking solution. Architecture: The articulation, architecture and the gables make this a wonderful project. Sarah said this is a great project thatis needed for the Innsbruck. Sarah echoed Valerie's concern and that is why she was asking about a site plan. We are asked to review this project within the historic district that it lays but we are not seeing the historic district so it is hard to comment'on it in terms of the pattern. In terms of the materials the scale and mass of the building is great. It is very appropriate that we are filling in the Comer of this project, the swimming pool is now a building and that aspect definitely falls in line with our pattern development of the city. Michael also agreed with the comments made by Valerie and Sarah. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24~ 2004 Mitch said there aren't really five spaces because there is a stop sign so the Parking is pulled back a little way from the stop sign and a little bit off the alley. In terms of its consistency with Main Street he did an inventory and at 5th, 4th, 3rd 2nd, 1 sT, Garmisch St. and Main all have head in parking. Mitch relayed that the proposal is more consistent than leaving it the way it is on Main Street. Valerie said the board is aware of that unfortunate pattern on Main St. Mitch said this parking is a make or break issue for this project. We have to come up with somewhere to put the parking and we are not satisfied keeping it where it is and there is nowhere else on the property to put it. The parking will be disCUSsed at the PUD process. MOTION: Valerie moved to approve Resolution #12, 2004for 233 l~.'Main Street, Innsbruck Inn for Conceptual approval with one additional condition: #3- The current parking is not approved and a restudy is required. Motion second by Sarah. Discussion: Sarah stated that guideline 12.6 states to minimize the use of curb cuts along the street. Obviously we are adding curb cuts along Second Street. Michael asked Valerie what her concerns were on the parking. Valerie said there is a pattern in the community of having a relationship of public/semi- public, private as you approach the building and it ranges anywhere from ten to 20 feet. On these comer lots you have a relationship with this buffer around the building that is completely obliterated with head in parking and that is very clearly experienced in all the projects that Mitch itemized around town; that the relationship and setback and setting for those structures is just sacrificed. Michael asked what the alternatives would be. Valerie said you have five on-street parking spaces that are open to the public instead of six or maybe it is four instead of six and you share those spaces with the public. In this condition you have six spaces and no one perceives them to be public. The sidewalk is right up against the building and it is not perceived as public. The whole right-of-way relationship of people walking through 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2004 neighborhoods etc. are addressed in guidelines 12.6, 12.8. Chapter 1 talks about streetscape, setbacks and front and side yards. Motion carried 3-0. VOTE: Yes, Sarah, Valerie, Michael WORKSESSION- SKIER'S CHALET NO - MINUTES MOTION: Valerie moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11