Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20050126ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26~ 2005 MOTION: Derek moved to continue 529 W. Francts unttl February 23 , second by Sarah. AH in favor motion carried 6-0. WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES JEROME COURT YARD MOTHERLODE Motherlode clarification MOTION: Valerie moved to clarify that HPC's intent in granting conceptual approval for the Motherlode (314 E. Hyman) on Nov. 17th was to also approve the parking waiver that had been requested; motion second by Jeffrey. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26~ 2005 Michael recommended that the architect get with the neighbors to discuss the project. Jeffrey said because this house is the infill project on the block it warrants some additional design to help that very difficult challenge. The one-story mass is a good direction but the scale of the secondary mass is troubling from both sides. The roof forms and eaves need additional designs. Chapter 11 is well written and they talk about mass, scale and roof forms. Jeffrey also recommended that the architect get with the neighbor to find out what their needs are and their expectations. He also suggested that Stan revisit the porch element. With interior re-planning there is the ability to take out some square footage to squeeze in the box. An elevation or site plan that discusses the relationship of the other buildings is a warranted necessity for the next hearing. Stan Mathis said he has no problem with the separation requirements. He said it would be prudent on his part to do whatever is necessary to protect the neighbor's structural foundation. The separation between the two structures needs to be discussed. The code says if you have a lot smaller than 6,000 square feet you don't have to inflect. We chose to inflect the Stapleton house because that house has very few windows on that side of the house. We can move a little bit. Stan asked for clarification as to which house he should be inflecting on. One has to understand that the Dikeou house is not as little as it looks in the photograph presented. The house gains mass as you move back and covers up quite a bit of the lot. It is every bit as big as the proposed house. Stan asked for a response as to how to handle the front. Stan said at the workshop he had a large portion of the house right at the ten foot setback and now the house has moved on the Stapleton side. He would like clar/fication as to which house he should be concentrating on. Derek said if you have a strong argument on mass you should show the mass with the architecture of everything next to it. Right now the mass and scale is too large. Valerie said we are all saying that this is an application that does not meet our guidelines on a significant number of them. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26~ 2005 minimum of 6 feet separation. In general there should be a ten foot separation, five feet on each side yard. Even with that the five foot window wells will come within five feet of her foundation. Stan said he is asking for conditions of approval and those requirements are that the applicant detail the special engineering that would take place if the window wells are five feet away from the house to ensure that the historic resource will not be damaged or compromised. That base line photography be taken of the Dikeou house and that an indemnification bond be posted. Stan also said the architect should provide a street elevation showing both historic resources. Lennie Oates said he is Mrs. Dikeou's attorney and he is with Stan Clauson. Philip Verleger said he and his wife life at 615 W. Francis. We back up on the Dikeou's property. Our concern is squeezing and abutting everything together in the neighborhood. The design will change the entire character of the West End. Margaret Verleger said her concem is about fire codes. A 3.6 separation makes accessibility very difficult. The chair closed the public hearing. Comments Derek said he is concerned about mass, scale and the building material choice for this house. He could not approve this project. In addressing mass and scale the kitchen is 20 x 20 and that mass can be reduced. Jeffrey said materials will be discussed at final. Jason said this project requires sensitivity with adjacent neighbors and the West End. The scale, size and relationship of materials are lacking. Guideline 11.2 through 11.6 are not complied with. Sarah said she cannot look at this project in its context of the historic district without elevations that represent the relationship to the adjacent structures and the entire block. She appreciated the massing model which is helpful. The one-story mass at the front is commendable and does help to relate to the historic structures; however, none of the guidelines in Chapter 11 have been met. Valerie also said the single story mass to the front is a good direction. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26~ 2005 about the square footage above grade. At the worksession the discussion was to hold the house back from the front setback. The code requires that we have 60% of the house within the first five feet of the ten foot front yard setback. On sheet A2 the 1 shape part of the house is in line with the Stapleton house on Francis Street. The porch is at the ten foot setback essentially in the middle of the building and looking at the house from Francis Street on the left the house is setback a total of 15 feet or 5 feet within the code limit from the front yard setback. The first ridge line is taller than the Stapleton house. The two-story starts at the same spot as the Victorian next door two-story starts. It is not clear in the drawings but the side of the porch is open. The code says we are required to have at least 60 square feet of porch and at least 6 feet back from the furthers projection of the house. So what we see is a porch that is seven feet deep from the actual wall to the front door and about 8 feet wide. Studies were done and the adjacent Stapleton porch is about 49 square feet and the Dikeou house, 523 W. Francis next door looks like it has two porches, one at 55 square feet and another one around 400 square feet. The porch dimension is in line with other porches along that Street. Stan said the plate height is 10.6 and the height to the eave is 12 feet. Stan said if that is a concern it can be lowered. The materials are cedar shingles and metal clad wood windows with true divided light. There is also some iron detailing at the rear of the house and some brick patterns which have not been determined. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Stan Clauson stated that he is representing Lucy Dikeou who is the owner of the building adjacent at 523 W. Francis Street. The house is historic and does encroach 1.3feet onto the subject property. That encroachment is a subject of an easement agreement that was executed in 1972. An exhibit was presented that shows the relationship of the proposed building to the adjacent house. Stan feels that the house overwhelms the Dikeou property. The two historic resources on either side need to be treated very carefully. The proposal is not sympathetic to the historic resources. The distance of 3.7 feet would visually compromise Lucy's property. She is very concerned that her stack rabble foundation would be compromised and an engineering study is being done. Stan said he can't figure out how the window wells can be so far out. The zoning code provides for a minimum 5 foot side yard setback in the R-6 zone. The IRC International Residential Code provides a 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26~ 2005 Amy relayed that the project is the construction of the new house that was created through an historic landmark lot split about three or four years ago. The historic building (Stapleton house) has been restored with a one story addition to the back. Originally HPC was asked to approve a two-story building and that was not approved. Square footage that was knocked off the table from that building was allocated into the size of the building being proposed for 529 W. Francis. The application sets the building on a 45 by 100 foot lot and the square footage was established in the lot split before which is 2,570 square feet. HPC had a worksession and at that time it was mentioned that there would be a discussion about a possible variance from the secondary mass standard of the residential design standards. A requirement for any new house is to have 10% of the mass primarily in a detached building that is along the alley. The applicant is suggesting that is not possible on this property if they are also to try and do a one story mass in the front to be respectful of the Stapleton house and the Victorian miner's cottage that is directly to the east. Staff is somewhat uncertain as to whether this is exactly the project that should be created. The alley scape is also important. As far as the one-story mass in the front, it has a very high plate height and some other things that are not making it totally successful. The element in the front is a 12 foot plate height and a 21 foot ridge height. It also does not have a porch that is required by the Residential Design Standards or HPC's guidelines. The porch needs to be open on at least two sides and this one is only open on the front. There is also concern of the complexity of the roof form. The Stapleton house, next door has a very simple roof form. On the survey the historic house to the east sits on this property by more than a foot. At the worksession it was mentioned that there should be more space between the two houses on that side but that is not proposed in the application. There is about a three to four foot separation between the buildings. The chief building official has stated that a six foot separation will be required and that distance is also consistent with zoning. In the staff memo it appears that based on the number that was provided in the application the project may be over the square footage. The dimensional requirement form states that the proposed square footage is 2,714 square feet above grade but the lot split only allows 2,570 square feet. The architect will address the square footage. The recommendation is continuation. Stan Mathis said the lot is actually 48 feet wide not 45 feet which allows us some additional square footage according to the survey. Stan said he is sure 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26~ 2005 courtyard is what is separating and taking away that relationships. She would rather the gate not be there. The guidelines talk about having a regular pattern of street trees. She feels the additional plant material is way out of context with the neighborhood and the Main Street district. It needs to be simplified to a simple streetscape pattern. The sense of arrival from public to private space is deteriorated by the visual screening and five feet will definitely obstruct a pedestrian's connection to this building. Valerie pointed out that she has no issues with the light-well. The modifications to the parking are awesome and certainly create a better environment on Main Street. Michael said there are a number of alternatives for the material palate that are acceptable but he is not willing to make a decision until a full packet has been submitted as to exactly what they intend to do to address the issues made by staff. The lightwell seems to be a good compromise. Sarah said the parking alone has made this project great. She also has concerns with the material palate. There needs to be some delineation in the gable volumes. The lightwell is in compliance with our guidelines. The landscape as currently drawn is not in compliance, it is over done and taking away from the simple landscape that we strive for in our historic district. The front gate is not in compliance with our guidelines and needs to be simplified. There needs to be a path of egress onto Main Street. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the application of 233 W. Main Street final review to February 9th,' second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Jason and Valerie are the monitors 529 W. FRANCIS - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT -CONCEPTUAL AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting and mailing Exhibit I Affidavit of staff public notice Exhibit II Stan Clauson letter Exhibit III Blaich letter Exhibit W Sworn in: Stan Mathis, Lennie Oates, Stan Clauson, Phillip and Margaret Verleger, owner of 615 W. Francis and 417 N. Fourth. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26~ 2005 Mitch said he will address the issues that were raised in the staff memo. They seem to be based on materials, landscape plan and an entrance point to Main Street. The stone wainscoting around the bottom of the building would be Colorado buff. It would be similar to what has been used on the finished Christmas Inn. You find this stone in the Main Street district. Exhibit III, photograph of the stone. The fence design is very simple form Exhibit IV. It is similar to a wrought iron fence but the material will be aluminum. It would be black with square balusters and a cut out circle motif across the top. In the landscape plan all 13 conifers are being preserved in place. The fence will have a gate, Exhibit V that will match the rest of the fence. There could be an arched entryway over the fence or simple. There was discussion about a sign over the front door Exhibit VI and VII but you probably would not see it due to the trees. Mitch went over the new basement space which was the result of a requirement from City Council that this project provide at least as many units and bedrooms as the existing Innsbruck. We had to have 37 lodging bedrooms in this project and the only was to do it without tearing down the building and starting from scratch was by putting basement space under it. The basement space will not be visible from Main Street. Questions and clarifications. Valerie asked for clarification if the trees are fruit bearing because the trees are being destroyed by bears. Mitch said he didn't know but the Parks Department doesn't seem to have any concern with fruiting trees in this location of town. Valerie recommended the applicant look at the trees because they are being destroyed by bears. Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Sarah closed the public hearing. Comments: Jason said the gate offMain Street is very simplified. Mitch said they can modify the design and have it approved by staff and monitor. Gwenn pointed out that they do not have a front door on Main Street. Valerie said with the guidelines in Chapter 13 the intent is to have the Main Street presence inviting. Most likely people will not use the gate on Main Street which you have offered. She feels a better solution would be to let the gable on Main Street announce a positive relationship to Main Street and not block it with a row ofcrabapples. The whole interior privatization of the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Michael Hoffman, Sarah Broughton, Valerie Alexander and Jason Lasser. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Disclosure: Derek and Jeffrey will recuse themselves on 233 W. Main 233 W. MAIN, INNSBRUCK LODGE - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND PUD AMENDMENT - PH Sworn in: Gwenn Dickenson, Mitch Haas Staff affidavit of public notice Exhibit I Applicant affidavit of posting and mailing Exhibit II Amy said the building is not historic but in the historic district. There is a re-configuration of the units, the addition of a basement and an exterior face lift. There is also considerable site work going on. Staff supports the project. Material palate: The building is mostly sided with wood shingle but staff suggested that wood siding is more suited to the historic district as a primary wall material. Stone is proposed at the base but we need to look at that to make sure the stone is native or commonly used by Main Street. A large light-well has been added that is sufficiently back from the street but it does bring up some conflicts with the design guidelines. On the landscape plan it would be preferable not to create a complete barrier with trees in the right- of-way area. On the previous plan there was not a clear entry to the property from Main Street and the applicant intends to address that. An additional variance is needed tonight in order to legalize the building where it sits right now. Staff supports this application. Gwenn said we have worked and listened to make this project better. We have eliminated the front parking for an improved Main Street look and presence and improve safety. We also gave up our desire and need for head in parking on the 2nd street right-of-way. We need this approval to go forward this year. Michael was seated at 5:15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26~ 2005 233 w. MAIN, INNSBRUCK LODGE - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND PUD AMENDMENT - PH ........................................................................................................ 1 529 W. FRANCIS - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT --CONCEPTUAL AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING .............................................................................. 3 WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES JEROME COURTYARD ................................... 8 MOTHERLODE clarification motion ............................................................................ 8 9