Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20040609ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 200,4 Vice-chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander and Sarah Broughton. Jeffrey Halferty was excused. Staff present: David Hoeffer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION.. Sarah moved to continue 949 E. Cooper until June 23, 2004; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. David Hoefer stated that the applicant's needs three affirmative votes for approval. Valerie will recuse herself from the meeting. Michael will recuse himself on 949 E. Cooper. 135 E. COOPER - MINOR REVIEW AND VARIANCES David stated that the posting has been done and the affidavit will be presented to the Clerk's office the following day. Sworn in: Mitch Haas, Christie Pat, Ron Erickson, Amy: This project is under construction. The owner feels that the detached single stall garage that was approved creates too much crowding on the grounds. She is asking that the garage be eliminated and putting a stall into the carriage house building which is an excellent plan. From there it displaces a staircase. The request is to create a staircase link that connects everything together. That is a concern of staff. The historic house is already being doubled in size and staff feels it is in conflict with the guidelines to link it to a structure that has been a free standing out building for many years. The other parts of the request are additional variances: One, to move the guesthouse closer to the alley by a couple of feet. The second is a side-yard setback variance, which moves the building further to the west. At the previous review that request was made and it was unanimously denied by the board. There was input from neighbors who ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 2004 protested any additional impacts to their property. In staff's opinion there is no clear reason why that is necessary for the preservation of the property. We need to be careful in granting variances that we are aware of the impacts of the adjacent property owners and consider those in conjunction with what are concerns are with the historic resource. The recommendation is not to approve the application because the idea of the link is not appropriate and the west setback is not appropriate. Mitch Haas relayed to the board that they would not fight too strenuously for the west side-yard setback. Sarah requested a site plan. Mitch said by taking the building out of the comer you have opened up the whole back of the historic building and yard area. By putting a link in we are not compromising anything from the public perspective. The one wall involved cannot be seen. Essentially a glass box link would be incorporated with stairs that go down. It will feel open because there will be windows on both sides. Mitch said he is not going to belabor about the setback. Derek inquired about the connector box and how much glass will be exposed and what material product has been chosen. Christie said they would be glad to take direction from the HPC. Mitch said they could work with staff and monitor but the intent is to make it as transparent as possible. Mitch said the only space that works for the stair is the space between the two buildings, Michael stated he does not have enough information to make a decision tonight. Christie said they are putting a glass box that fit a stairway in it in between the non-usable space so we can make the property less dense. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Ron Erickson stated that he manages Winfield Arms, which is to the west of the subject property. The plans show nothing that exists on the other side of the lot line. The 35-foot tall blue spruces that will be destroyed and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 2004 according to the slope of the roof our driveway will be filled with snow from their roof. Moving the secondary building closer to the west will exacerbates that'situation except now a hot tub will be there and that will perhaps kill that spruce tree. With the roofline the way it is designed there is no way that the snow will not impact the property next door. There is also concern with the narrow alley when the building move back you will not be able to get service entering from the east side or Aspen Street. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Amy stated that the building code states that you have to maintain your own snow removal on your own property. Amy said the guest cottage is currently in the alley and this new proposal moves it back onto their own property line. The board felt that the drawings were confusing. A proposed site plan is needed. Derek said moving the garage is a very good solution and minimizing the entire massing. The board should review the materials for the connector. Sarah said in terms of the site plan it is a positive thing to condense out buildings. Sarah also stated that she does not support additional variances because numerous were already given for the project. Michael stated that John Keith entered a letter into the records as Exhibit I opposing the side yard setback variance. Michael said connecting the guesthouse to the addition is not in violation of guideline 8.3. This is a special case and opening the area that was occupied by the garage is.a good improvement. Mitch said the rear yard setback of 0 feet is not going to negatively effect anything. The cars will function fine whether they need to make two movements or not. Mitch asked the board to consider the rear setback variance. Derek said he would not support the west side yard variance. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 9~ Mitch said if we know we can do this in concept then at least the construction can get going and we can come back to discuss materials. Sarah's concern is the eave and the practicality of putting the wall on the alley, which means the eave, comes out into the alley, which is an issue with trucks and service vehicles, Which use alleys. Possibly the wall could come in eight inches that would allow the eave to be within the property. The entire structure should be within the property line. MOTION.. Sarah moved to approve Resolution #16, 2004 granting the omission of the garage with a transparent connector stairs with no additional setback variances on the west and a setback variance on the south toward the alley that has the furthest point of the building, which would be the eave on your lot line (approximately one fooO. Further development of the drawings (full elevations of any changes) and examples of materials for the transparent connector shouM be submitted to staff and monitor. All building construction must be contained within the south property line; second by Derek. Amy indicated that she would need to see plans for the garage doors. Michael said there is enough information to let them pour the basement. Sarah indicated that the plans Mitch laid on the table are not the ones that they reviewed. The link is much wider. Derek reiterated for the public that he would not support the additional west side yard setback variance. Ron Erickson said the only thing that needs decided is the linking element and the rear yard setback variance. Amended motion: Sarah amended the motion to approve Option 2t as submitted. The south variance to include a 0 lot line to all projectiOns and eaves. New addition and cottage need to be minimized l foot from the outside wall of the cottage inset (six inches each side to the outside wall of the connector. Four elevations of the garage/cottage to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Amended motion second by Derek. ~lll in favor, motion carried. 501 E. COOPER - POLO - MINOR REVIEW 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE9, 2004 Affidavit of posting entered into the records as Exhibit I. Sworn in: John Helper, Rod Dyer, William Oster Amy said a certificate of no negative has been issued for a number of items: Awnings, planter boxes, lights, ADA buttons and a mechanical chase. Staff only has one concern, which is the proposal to replace the existing doors. When this area was redone for Banana Republic over ten years ago, the previous tenant Cross Roads Drug had already put aluminum storefronts and doors into the space. When Banana Republic came they were trying to do restorations and at the time they chose to make a door entry that appears to what the historic appearance might have been. They did a single door with some sidelights. When the applicant came in with this proposal staff's opinion is that there is no particular relationship. If the doors are to b'e replaced they should be as good or better than the effort that was made ten years ago. In looking at the photographs it appears that it did not have a single door with sidelights flanking it, it was double doors. Staff'recommends that the applicant move forward with tall skinny doors, two pair of tall er narrow doors. John Helper said we feel what we have proposed is an improvement over the Banana Republic doors and it is a door that is consistent with other doors that we have done for Ralph Lauren. We intend to replicate the panel mold that is already in the wainscotings in the storefront and using it as the molding for the storefront. We would eliminate the glazing on the lower sections of the sidelights and bring the panel detail down. If we did the tall skinny door the Building Department would have to grant some kind of modification because typically access and egress doOrs need to be 36 inches and each leaf would be less than 30 inches. Michael asked if the client had obi ections to what staff recommended. said they prefer the single door because it works better for how they merchandise. John Rod Dyer said from the functionality of two narrow doors it is a little more awkward to walk through a narrow doorway and at least on the comer 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 2004 entrance one leaf would be less than 30 inches and when the door is at 90 degree you have the handle sticking into that 30 inch dimension. Sarah asked if staff was OK with everything being painted green. Amy -relayed that we don't review color unless it is a character-defining feature. Derek said the packet is very clear and legible. He supports the applicant's proposal. It will be a nice addition. Sarah also agreed that the proposal is not in violation of our guidelines. Obviously we would like if it was plausible to keep the double doors but the actuality of having to have automotive doors for handicapped and getting in and out with copious amounts of shopping bags needs to be considered. The project relates to the molded patterns of the faCade. More of my issues are with paint and we cannot comment on that. Michael suggested a compromise that we require double doors on the far eastern entrance on Cooper Ave. and the corner door as proposed for the reasons that Amy states in her memo that it is a step forward in terms of historic preservation. Derek said he would not favor Michael's suggestion. He is not sure the Building Dept. would allow it because it is considered the main egress. Amy clarified that the Building Dept. would allow the doors. Derek said he is very comfortable approving what is before us. John Helper said even if the Building Dept. endorses it, he doesn't believe the town has any liability related ,to any situation that might happen. The liability is on my shoulders and Ralph Lauren's. John said he respects what the board is trying to but this is 2004 and there are instances where it may not be practical to have double doors so you do the best you can to make it look like someone had put in a single door. He doesn't feel every door at the mrn of the century was double. MOTION.. Derek moved to approve Resolution #17, 2004; as presented in the drawings with the addition of drawing A2.5 E. Cooper door and corner door entry detail; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 3-0. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 2004 Yes vote: Derek Sarah, Michael WORKSESSION - NO -MINUTES HP AWARDS CRITERIA RULES FOR APPLICANT PRESENTATIONS MOTION: Derek moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7