Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20050323ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 the side street. The general site planning is successful. The separation of the two building is approximately 12 ½ feet. Jeffrey said option #2 is the most responsive to the historic resource. It is very rare that we keep the buildings untouched and we have that opportunity. Dirk requested that they restudy the porch and make it more open. Jason said he supports option #2. MOTION: Valerie moved to approve Resolution 12, 2005for 701 W. Main Street, Historic lot split and major development, (conceptual) and variance. Approval of Option #2 as submitted tonight. The following variances are approved: The interior lot is 32feet wide and the exterior lot is 25.6feet wide. Variances are approved from the minimum lot size for a variance from the width of the fathering parcel to the width of the newly created lots and from the size of the newly created lots. Approval of the east side yard setback of 3 feet and the rear yard setback of 2.6 feet, also a west side yard setback of 3 feet. HPC is also granting residential design standard variances from built to line secondary mass and building element which enable the house to face the side street; second by Derek. Yes vote: Jason, Derek, Sarah, Valerie, Michael, Jeffrey 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjoumed at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 about it being better to orient the entry toward Main Street but HPC can grant a variance for the side street. The standards also ask for a porch and the little canopy that they have over the 6th Street entrance does not qualify. Staff supports the lot split and variances that are needed. Regarding the new building staffrecommends that the roof form be restudied, possibly realign the ridge so that it slopes down toward the cabin as opposed to the tall gable end. Restudy the decks and entry areas. Dirk said the ground floor footprint is around 32 feet long and the upper floor is 24 feet long. We designed a building with the garage off the alley, and the entry off the side. On the ground floor there is a study/bedroom. On the second floor is the living room and the master bedroom and bath are on the upper floor. The total FAR of the cabin and new structure is 1923. We tried to put the decks on the north side and pull the main mass of the house away from the cabin. The owner would prefer the option of the deck on the upper floor but they are open to discussion. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public heating was closed. Comments: Jason said his comment was the same as staff's regarding the deck. The trellis should be taken off and the deck should be lightened up in order to comply with Chapter 11. Derek thanked the architect for submitting changes. The ceilings are at eight feet. Derek said he can support option #2. Sarah said she supports the lot split, variances and option #2 as submitted. Option #2 relates in scale to the historic resource. Michael said he can accept Option #2. He doesn't necessarily like the height of the condominium relative to the cabin but recognizing the small site there is not much option. Valerie said the board has seen a lot of options on this project and she appreciates the fact that the structures are separated. Option #2 helps in the transition to the historic cabin. Do to the confines of the site and the fact that the condominium is a separate structure she can support the entrance of 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 obtrusive than the tent and with some additional information she might be able to approve this. Jeffery said this is a referral issue and he feels the board can support the tent but a representative should be involved with the placement and grading issues. Valerie said the circulation is also an issue. Valerie is the monitor. 701 W. MAIN STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCES Dirk Danker, architect Affidavit of posting to be submitted to the City Clerk's office. Amy said Marsall Olson purchased the property and his brother-in-law Dirk Danker is the architect. At the last meeting Marshall asked whether the board would approve an adjustment to the lot split. The lot split had created a 30 foot wide interior lot and a 27 and some feet corner lot. He requested that the interior lot be 32 feet wide and the exterior lot 25 feet wide. With a wider interior lot it would be a more workable for the residence that might be there someday. The board did not have a concern with that. The change takes a little square footage off the lot with the historic cabin and puts it on the adjacent residence which is a good thing. This property is non- conforming and so there were variances necessary in order to do the lot split at all and HPC did grant those in a previous hearing and you need to approve them again tonight. The finding was that a lot split is an appropriate thing to do on this property as it opens up the door for a development scenario that would be more sympathetic to the cabin and separates the development around into multiple buildings. For those reasons staff supports granting the variance. We also need to talk about the new residential building that is proposed to be constructed behind the cabin. The cabin will be some kind of art studio, commercial use and the applicant is proposing a detached condominium building on the alley. The footprint is very constrictive because the lot is narrow and we want to get some distance from the cabin. They are asking for side and rear yard setback variances. They have about 1200 square feet to do this structure; however, it is manifesting into a structure that is three stories. There is some concern about the scale relationship to the cabin. They are at the height limit. The staff memo focused on how we can make a transition. Possibly the upper floor deck could be located somewhere else or entire eliminated. The location of the entry on the side street was discussed. The residential design standards talk 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 Amy said the proposal is for a tent for this summer and next. The Parks Dept. is concerned about the loss of native sage that will be tom up by this project. Staff certainly respects that the native vegetation is a concern but we are also worried about where else to put facilities like this. The manicured areas are mostly designated historic Herbert Bayer gardens. Staff suggests that HPC support the proposal and that the foot print and size of the tent should be minimized and not installed in the Bayer landscape areas. Amy Margerum said they originally wanted to put up a permanent pad but they decided to wait until the new building is built and see how it is used. They desire a tent similar to the one the Music Festival uses. They use theirs almost all summer long. We tried to find a really cool tent but there aren't any. The tent would be a place for individuals to have dinner or a reception. It would also be further away from the music tent as we had conflicts with noise last year and activities. With respect to never putting tents on the manicured lawn there is a history of doing that throughout the institute. Last year we put up a tent covering the marble garden. We are very concerned about the lawn and we have an art committee who are cautious and careful about the gardens. Amy said the size of the tent is 60 x 90 and we would cater with our golf carts. Valerie said there are topographical changes on the site that appear to be flat. Amy Margerum said they definitely need to some grading at the site. She would support Park's restoration plan. Some of the sage bushes are over 100 years old. It is easier to restore grass. Amy said we will work with the City and the tent company on the actual placement because right now there is a lot of snow on the ground. Sarah said the concern is after the two year use we now have a scared landscape. Is the current lawn where the marble garden is too small? Amy said no but they do not want to destroy the grass there. The sage meadow is not beautiful and it has been tampered with. We want to have an area where we can put the tent and not have to take it up and down. It costs us close to $20,000 to put up and take down a tent. Valerie said she feels strongly about the grading plan. She doesn't feel there is enough information with the site under snow and the grade change. She also doesn't know what the contours are. The pad is going to be more 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2005 Valerie said as retailers change it is very important not to loose the historic opening in the event that we would not be able to ever retrieve it. Applicant asked if there was anyway they could have a window at this point and agree to renovate it after their lease is over. Michael said unfortunately you take these historic structures as they are and subject to historic preservation regulations and unfortunately it cannot be altered. The applicant said the building has gone through many changes and it is not like the building has been intact. There were doors added and windows added. Jeffrey pointed out that there have been changes but the historic openings and egresses to that comer have remained for over 130 years. Amy said the store front that Harley Baldwin put in was probably done before the review was required by the commission. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Jeffrey said there can be a way to make it work out on the inside but the HPC is not interested in changing the historic opening. We are looking at the pattern that existed not the door used historically. The applicant said the dummy doors will block what is happening behind it and she wonders if that is complimentary to the building. Is there any way that we can keep the door and change the window style in the middle. Amy pointed out that on the Elli's building they requested a bigger door and she has recently denied that. MOTION: Michael moved to approve the minor development for the application of 201 $. Galena; second by Sarah. Motion denied 6-0. No vote. Jason, Derek, Sarah, Michael, Valerie, Jeffrey ASPEN INSTITUTE - REFERRAL COMMENTS 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2005 MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #1 O, the application of Millennium Plaza LLC for 426 E. Main Street, Unit 1-A of the Galena Plaza condominiums; motion second by Derek. Motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: Jason, Derek, Sarah, Michael, Valerie, Jeffrey Sharon Runnel said since you find it either not within your purview or not of concern what the impact of this building will be on the neighboring property owners then I would find the comment about whether the neighboring property had any variances or what the height of that building was to be highly inappropriate. Candy Allen asked the date of the first HPC approval of this project? Amy replied January 14, 2004 and it was good for a year. Candy said in January 2004 the covenants on this property were 1.5 to 1. Amy said this was a co- op process. 201 S. GALENA, CHRISTIAN DIOR - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Amy said Christian Dior is expanding into the space previously occupying by Louis Vuitton. In moving into the comer space they end up having two entries into their store and would like to abandon one of them for better utilization of the interior. They would like to change an historic store door opening into a window. The doors that are there now are not the originals but the door was there. Staff does not recommend this change. Representative from LVMH Fashion Group presented. We have decided to eliminate the double doors at the comer as we have a small space. The two main entries are too close together. We want to approach the change by respecting the building language and the envelope and character. We would like to take out the double doors and put in windows similar to the ones that exist on the exterior. We want to use the comer area s a display place. Jason asked why the existing doors couldn't remain and use that area for a display area. You aren't lacking space on the outside, it is on the inside. Sarah said the proposal is not in compliance with Guideline 4.1. The guidelines state that we need to keep the historic openings. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 Valerie said she supports the project and appreciates the comments from the public. There were similar comments received when this project came through and at that time we made the finding in particular to the views that it was something that was not in our review capacity. The views from Galena Street lofts was not a critical component to the development of this project. Some glazing and changes to store front windows was done to the faqade that faces the police station and there is a very complimentary street presence which supports chapter 13. Michael said we approved this project the last time not because it was the Visitor Center it was because it met the guidelines that we are required to follow and the municipal code. Derek said the land owner has followed every code and variance to get this project where it is and this is an exemplary example ofinfill for the downtown core and he is willing to go forward. Jason said he comes up to town everyday for the last 12 years on that path and he always uses the courthouse side so as far as the pedestrian relationship on that side of the street it is a non-issue. The relationship to the building behind is a non-issue. Sarah said the project is meeting guideline Chapter 13 but the one thing that is troubling is the mass on the comer with the relationship to the court house, Guideline 13.9 but the rendering does show the relationship between the court house and given the width it is OK in this case and the inflection is a nod to our civic building. In regard to our open space we have a beautiful park above our parking garage that is highly under utilized. Hopefully infill projects such as these would put more emphasis on our open space and make them better in town. Valerie said the application is more compliant with Chapter 13 and the urban context is very appropriate. Jeffrey supports Guideline Chapter 13. Our purpose is the look at the guidelines and we have addressed them. The massing on the comer was an issue but there is enough buffer and the view corridor will be preserved. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 parking. The only parking available is reserved for the police and it is perpendicular to the sidewalk. The sidewalk is not wide and people will not be passing those storefronts due to the width of the sidewalk and the police cars pulling up over the sidewalk. That side is not pedestrian friendly as it is now. Eliminating all greenery is counter-intuitive to what you would want happening in Aspen. Tony Cronberg went over the referendum criteria and does not feel the process is in the time frame that the statute states. She said HPC is supposed to give conceptual approval before going to City Council and first reading already occurred at City Council. The public notice said this was supposed to be for a new building and in staff's memo it states that it is to remodel an existing building. There is a big difference. She pointed out that there has never been a building on that comer where the trees are. Her goal is to protect those trees and keep it part of our neighborhood character. The little building there now was built in 1954 which qualifies it as an historic building. One of the qualities for the historic district is to protect the neighborhood, community character and the streetscape. Tony requested that the application be tabled until the decision is made that this is an appropriate time frame to take a look at this application as it is before the sixth months which would be May 2nd. Amy clarified that the applicant had conceptual approval when they submitted for the P&Z review and it has expired and all we are doing is reviewing it. Also for clarification we are not adopting an ordinance here tonight, it is a resolution. The Sanborn map shows a building here by 1904 on the lot. Michael asked for clarification about the parking. Amy said the Galena Lofts didn't need a parking variance because it was a grand fathered condition because they never had any parking and this project has received a waiver that they requested. Derek commented that the building behind is pushing the 40 foot height limit and they received numerous variances and pushing a lot of the maximums. Amy said she was not sure variances were given but there were situations that were grand fathered in because they are over the property line in the alley. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 The board recommended minimizing the chimney to 22 inches. Roger said they want to use a dry stack stone. The board said OK as long as a mockup is provided. The foundation will be concrete. 426 E. MAIN - GALENA & MAIN - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Amy said previously this project included the Visitor Center which has now been deleted due to a voter decision. The board has seen this project before. The applicant had conceptual and made an application to come before P&Z to receive some growth management allocations and subdivision exemptions and were absorbed with that project and accidentally let their conceptual lapse. They are back before you to renew it. The Visitor Center use is gone but that is not pertinent to us. Staff feels the height, scale and massing is appropriate for this project. This project is on the edge of the commercial core historic district and there are no designated buildings on the block. We have had discussions before that there are nice height relationships between the court house and St. Mary's church. This is clearly a modernist building and it has all the qualities on the ground floor that address the street such as windows etc. Amy mentioned that P&Z has exempted the project from the residential design standards because they are not relevant to homes that are not on the ground level of the building. P&Z also granted a parking waiver through a cash in lieu payment. Amy said Tony Cronberg came to her office to discuss the project as being somehow historic open space. Amy pointed out that in the 19th century there were buildings all across this block. Bill said they studied the streetscape and view plane from the court house and how they would relate. The two story mass on the streetscape is 24 feet high and the overall height to the peak is 40 feet high. The project meets all the codes that are currently in place. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Sharon Runnel said her concern is the mass. One of the issues not addressed in the prior approval is the fact that there is a residential building behind this. Views will be tremendously impacted by the scale of this building. Actually the height of the building is 44 feet. The people behind this will be looking at masonry and like living into Manhattan with no view or daylight getting in. On Galena Street the diagram show cars parked and in fact there is no ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 Roger Kerr: Issues are the east elevation windows and the possibility of adding two skylights and eliminating two windows. There are a couple other miscellaneous items, changing a window to a door on the west elevation of the Victorian and the flue size of the chimney. We also need a reading on the concrete patio. On the east elevation a large window was approved in the front bedroom and we want to eliminate that and eliminate the two windows in the closet and add two skylights in the closets. We would also like to add two smaller windows on the west elevation that had a door. The new proposal is to use copper windows instead of steel. East elevation: The board OK'ed the flat skylights and eliminating windows. Exhibit A is approved. The addition of two small windows on the west elevation of the addition that face the historic resource are apProved. On the west elevation of the historic resource this was an addition added to the historic resource in the 19 hundreds. It was a window and is proposed to be changed into a door. It would be a back door to the mudroom. Amy said there is evidence of an old window opening. Valerie pointed out that bonuses were given on this project and the board needs to keep that in mind when approving alterations. We need to stay with the historic opening. The board did not approve the door. Chimney: Roger pointed out that the new chimney is not in the same location and is larger. The old chimney was 16 inches and is not being used and the new one is proposed to be 24 inches. Amy pointed out that the guidelines state that new chinmeys need to be the same scale historically to reflect the width and height that was used historically. Derek said in reality the code requirements change and that is what is driving the size of this chimney. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 Valerie said guideline 10.6 talks about size and scale and the dormer is very massive and it feels like it is tipping over. Hayden responded that guidelines are only guidelines and if you put posts under the deck it doesn't change anything but it inhibits the space below and you can't put anything below it. MOTION: Derek moved to approve the project as presented; second by Sarah. Discussion: Derek commented that the dormer is far enough back. Jason said the dormer should work underneath the historic eave. If this was more of a modem addition he could understand the cantilever deck. Vote: Jason, no; Sarah, no; Valerie, no; Jeffrey, no; Yes, Derek. Motion failed 4-1. Bill said they can make the dormer quieter by putting shingles on the dormer and the client might be willing to put some columns underneath. Derek asked if the pitch is feasible to do that and Bill said they could work with the design. MOTION: Valerie moved that the deck be restudied and that the eave height not exceed the historic roof line. Restudy the dormer or elimination of it. The revisions would be reviewed by staff and monitor; motion second by Jason. Discussion: Sarah said staff and monitor should be open to a further resolution. Valerie withdrew her motion. MOTION: Derek moved that the applicant restudy the dormer, possibly change the material palate and sizing to a degree and that some sort of post system be initiated into the cantilever design of the deck. The new designs are to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Sarah. Motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Jason, Derek, Sarah, Valerie, Jeffrey Clarification. A dormer can go there but it has to be subordinate to the historic house. If all parties cannot agree then they can come back to the full board. 216 E. HALLAM - FROST MONITORING ISSUES ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 Valerie said the form of a cantilevered porch is inconsistent with how porches are treated and simply providing some columns to anchor providing a level one and level two scale to the historic resource would be appropriate. The popping up of the dormer changed the eave condition and brought it out of proportion to the historic roof. The proposed dormer does not comply with Chapter 10 and the guidelines that relate to porches and character compatibility. Derek said he does not feel strongly about the cantilevered element. Regarding the dormer he feels it is set back enough that you will get the variation needed. Jason said the cantilevered deck seems like an appendage. The dormer is awfully close to the front edge and he agrees with Valerie that the dormer encroaches onto the historic house. The dormer seems more of an after thought. Sarah said the posts are critical for the repetition around the building. The dormer is difficult and she understands what the applicant is trying to achieve but it takes the addition out of the subordinate position to the historic resource. It is not in keeping with our guidelines. Possibly you could work with the plate heights to achieve what you are trying to do regarding the views and keep the addition height lower than the historic resource. Jeffrey agrees with staff that the deck has a foreign nature to it. Columns could be added to the deck but they should not mimic the columns on the historic house. He said he agreed with staff that the dormer throws the balance off and it is not subordinate to the historic house. The volume of glass shown overwhelms the faCade on the south side. Bill Poss said there were always two windows and all they did was take the height up and take the muntins out. Hayden Conner said he feels the cantilever is a very acceptable deck in today's world. Amy said guideline 10.3 addresses additions in general and the ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building and being consistent with other patterns and qualities of the original building. Guideline 10.14 talks about dormers. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Sarah Broughton ,Valerie Alexander and Jason Lasser. Michael Hoffman was seated at 5:15 pm. Staft present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Disclosure: Jason will recuse himself on the worksession- 920/930 Matchless Drive. Certificate of no negative effect issues for 949 E. Cooper. 334 W. HALLAM STREET - AMENDMENT TO MAJOR (FINAL) DEVELOPMENT No affidavit required. Applicants: Bill Poss, Stephen Holley, Hayden Connor Amy relayed that the questions before the board are monitoring questions that were reviewed by staff and the monitor. The owner requested to appear before the entire board. Bill Poss relayed that several issues came up during construction. We have an historic structure and are adding an addition. During construction we found that a 7 foot plate height on the back limits some of the views toward Aspen Mountain. In that space we would like to add two shed dormers. One on the north side and a smaller one on the West Hallam side. We are also proposing to take out the muntins on the windows. We are also asking for a cantilever deck off the back. Amy said for clarification, Valerie and she approved the dormer on the back side of the house and the removal of the muntins. All HPC is looking at is the dormer that faces the street and whether or not the deck can be cantilevered. Our recommendation is that there needs to be a post incorporated in the way that other ground level roofs were supported. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Board comments: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23~ 2005 334 W. HALLAM STREET - AMENDMENT TO MAJOR (FINAL) DEVELOPMENT 216 E. HALLAM - FROST MONITORING ISSUES ...................................................... 3 426 E. MAIN - GALENA & MAIN - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL).... 5 201 S. GALENA, CHRISTIAN DIOR - MINOR DEVELOPMENT .............................. 8 ASPEN INSTITUTE - REFERRAL COMMENTS .......................................................... 9 701 W. MAIN STREET -MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCES .......................................................................................................... 11 920/930 MATCHLESS DRiVE - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES .......................... 13 14