Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20050309ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9~ 2005 529 W. FRANCIS - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL- CONTINUE PH UNTIL APRIL 13, 2005 ............................................................................................. 1 435 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL -PUBLIC HEARING ............................. 4 330 E. MAIN STREET - HOTEL JEROME - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING ......................................................................................................................... 4 629 W. SMUGGLER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - (CONCEPTUAL) ON-SITE RELOCATION, DEMOLITION, VARIANCES AND PUBLIC HEARING ............. 7 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Hal£erty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko,Valerie Alexander and Jason Lasser. Michael Hoffman and Sarah Broughton were excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Jackie Lothian, Deputy Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of,lan. 26, 2005; second by Valerie; all in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Derek will be stepping down on 629 W. Smuggler 529 W. FRANCIS - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL- CONTINUE PH UNTIL APRIL 13, 2005 John Mitchell, Stan Mathis Amy said when the application was submitted and after discussion with Stan staff's analysis was that the elevations were tweaked somewhat but there wasn't a significant change and we were concerned about what the response would be from the HPC so it was decided to have a discussion this evening. Issues: They need a variance from the secondary mass which requires you to put 10% of the new building into a detached or semi-detached form. There was discussion about the complexity of the roof plan and whether that was related to the roof of the old Stapleton house to the west. This house also has a Victorian on the east side. There was a lot of discussion as to how the house would fit between the two historic resources. Stan said one of the big concems from Lucy Dikeou was the proximity of the building to her house. That was based on the foundation being ruble and the amount of space as she already encroaches upon the subject property about a foot. The light wells along that side have been relocated so the house is now 7 feet from the property line and about 6 1/2 feet from the Dikeou house. When we do that we have a 5 foot setback from the existing fence on the Stapleton side but the house is centered more on the lot. We have straightened out the eaves and dropped the plate height in the forward section of the house to 9.3 feet instead of 11.4. Our eaves will be lower than either historic house. We also opened the porch. On the back of the house where the master bedroom is, it is about 29 feet to the ridge. The Dikeou house has a large amount of mass going on behind it. We need to come to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9~ 2005 terms with mass and scale. All of the structures on the south side of Francis street are one-story in the front. When you move the mass to the alley you create a tunnel and putting the mass in the middle is counter productive. Stan went over the undulations of the design. They dropped the eaves and the ridge in the front has been lowered and they moved the house. John Mitchell said they looked at the hard surfaces and they will make the building look more massive so they are looking at using cedar shingles and some paneled areas. On the secondary mass they will change the fabric. Derek asked the applicant if they made any progress with the neighbors. Stan said he has had discussions with Stan Clauson about the Dikeou foundation of the house. Jason said mass is an issue and it looks like the height is the same. He is curious about the 12 x 12 pitch and if there is an attic. There is a roof over the master bath and why is there so much volume there. Stan said the main change is the drop in the ridge. Jeffrey asked what the square footage was. Stan said around 4,700 square feet. The footprint is 2100 including the garage and about 2100 in the basement and the rest above. Jeffrey talked about the design standards addressing the secondary mass. Possibly take some of the mass and pull it toward the alley. Maybe the main ridge can be lowered so that it more consistent with the two-story mass on the west side of the parcel. That way it would come down and respect the historic resources. Stan said he will make an appointment to measure the Dikeou roof pitch. Jeffrey Halferty, chair opened the public hearing. Ted Guy was asked by Lucy Dikeou to quantify her concems. Her concern is a deep basement adjacent to her house and potential structural damage. He understands that the City is requiring some stabilization. A letter was entered into the record. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9~ 2005 The chair closed the public hearing. Board comments: Derek said some changes have been made but a half attempt at the mass and scale. We have continually said the mass and scale needs to be changed in the plan. On the first portion of the house the massing is great and appropriate for the entire neighborhood. We are no way saying this has to be a one story. His concerns lie in the secondary mass. The stone is a very massive kind of material element and needs restudied. The garage has a ten foot plate and realistically can come down. The efforts are good but they need to keep going. Valerie said the model is very informative. On the model things are beginning to happen. She agrees at looking at the roof pitch which is bringing a lot of additional height. One eye catcher is that both chimneys have grown from the original model and plans and they seem out of scale. The porch is defining an entry and she is comfortable with the porch. There are still issues with the massing. Jason said regarding the mass maybe there can be some kind of connector piece. He also agrees that the chinmeys are too large. Some of the improvements are great and the openings and porch. The building is an attractive building but the question is, is it appropriate for this site? Jeffrey echoed the respective comments from the board. He recommended that the team restudy Chapter 11. Some of the responses are starting to adhere to our guidelines. Possibly relocate some of the secondary mass which would create a separation. One of our concerns is to protect the two historic resources. Stan said you see this house from the street and also as you walk up and down the street. Stan said one of the reasons they pulled the building back from the ten-foot line because there was a discussion about getting a variance on the secondary mass. The effort there was that the buildings are set back along that side of the street from the ten-foot setback line. Derek said he feels the building can work without doing a secondary mass. Jeffrey said the plate height; roof forms are tools to bring it down. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9~ 2005 Valerie said the secondary mass on the front is appropriate. The roof height needs to come down. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing on 529 W. Francis until April 13, 2005, second by Jason. Motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: I/alerie, Derek, dason, Jeffrey 435 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL -PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: lralerie moved to continue 435 W. Main until April 13, 2005; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 330 E. MAIN STREET - HOTEL JEROME - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING Dave Rybeck, James McMann, Todd Slousbourgh, chef Amy said there are three aspects to the proposal; one is a trellis to cover the existing outdoor seating area on the west side of the building. The second one is a free standing entry canopy at the gate and the third is to put an aiflock entry under the trellis. Amy said one concern is whether the trellis will be attached to the historic building in which we have been told it will not be attached. The second issue is as the trellis crosses the historic building it is cutting through original transoms. The window sashes are not original but the openings are. That is a significant concern to staff. Regarding the airlock, typically we have been disenchanted because they are not respectful to the building that they are attached too. They are proposing something more permanent, a glass construction and perhaps that might be acceptable to the board. It would be a seasonal installation. The last issue is the entry canopy on the street. Dave Rybeck said the idea is to provide a trellis structure for the dining experience during the summers and within the trellis retractable awnings would be incorporated to give solar shading and also some coverage during adverse aftemoon thunder showers. That function is totally hidden within the structure. There are pilasters at the historic resource building line and they will be free standing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9~ 2005 For a dining experience a ten foot cover is appropriate. The trellis line starts some 40 feet from the front lot and you do get the first two bays of the window showing the full height. We are covering up the last 30 feet of the building. The transoms will be visible from inside the space. As far as the height of the canopy we did not want it too high to compete with the existing canopy that is at the front of the hotel, which is at 12 ½ feet. The airlock will only be up in the winter season. In the summer the garden will be the main entrance to the restaurant. It is the hope that people will enter the restaurant from the west and not go through the lobby where luggage etc. is being delivered. We want to provide a secondary entrance in the winter, which would be a wooden system that attached to the deck and trellis. Both are permanent in appearance. Board questions and clarifications Valerie asked about the trellis. David said there is nothing flush against the wood at the windows. The only thing that gets close to the window is the return beam. Jason asked how the plaster floats against the historic resource. David said the concept is it is a half front column supported internally by 4 x 4 posts. The whole roof system is interlocking and that is why the 4 x 12's are there to give lateral support. It comes down on a separate pier and does not attach to the building. It only attached to the upper beam. Jeffrey asked about the detailing on the columns to somewhat simplify them to acquire a balance with the historic resource. David said he though the design was simple with the box bottom and small trim at the ground but if HPC gives direction that it be simpler they would be glad to study that. Jeffrey also inquired about the entry element and what program is required. David said there will be a hostess stand and the canopy is to provide cover. The size is 12 x 8. Jeffrey felt the size should be reduced. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Derek said the entry station for the hostess is a positive thing. It kind of finishes off the building and gives it a sense of a human scale. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9~ 2005 Valerie agreed with Derek on the hostess station. It is carrying an appropriate relationship in scale. The only guideline in conflict is 10.10 about obscuring significant features. She would rather have the windows exposed but it would be more complex to look back and see two different heights. Not attaching to the architecture is appropriate. The west side is not the primary faqade. Valerie said the airlock is clean and simple so she can support it. Jason said realistically he feels individuals will still go through the front door of the Hotel Jerome. He also feels the windows should be exposed. This is a sensitive issue. He also does not like the canopy. The 12 inch columns feel a little thick and possible the size can be reduced. Jeffrey said air locks are difficult but necessary in order to keep a comfortable temperature inside. The fact that it is removable is a good design solution. He agrees with Jason on the trellis and the concern of it blocking the windows of the historic resource. Some of the vertical columns need to be simplified. The beauty of the entry element is its simplicity. The weight and size of the trellis beams needs restudied to acquire a lighter feel. Jeffrey also agreed with Valerie concerning compliance with guidelines 10.10 which talks about not obscuring historical architecture. The header on the historic window is one of those and is in conflict. With revisions and suggestions from the board he could support an approval. David Rybeck said if he reduces the column proportions he is concerned that he will be replicating the front entry. David said he can study the scale of the columns but he can't come back with anything less than 8 inches in size. The detail will probably not change. Jason and Jeffrey were comfortable with the 8 inch scale. Derek had concerns with the 8 inches if the trellis is raised. MOTION: Derek moved to approve the project with the lower trellis as proposed initially as is; second by Valerie. Yes vote: Derek, Valerie, No vote: Jason, Jeffrey, Motion fails 2 to 2. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2005 David said they can accept the higher two step trellis element. He would also like to keep the canopy at the height proposed. Derek said the column size and detailing can be handled by staff and monitor. MOTION: Jason moved to approve minor development for 330 E. Main, Hotel Jerome with the following conditions: 1. Raise the trellis and the restaurant entry area to respond to the historic windows. 2. A reduced column width often inches. 3. Any restudy or changes to be approved with staff and monitor. Motion second by Derek. Motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: IZalerie, Derek, Jason, Jeffrey 629 W. SMUGGLER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - (CONCEPTUAL) ON-SITE RELOCATION, DEMOLITION, VARIANCES AND PUBLIC HEARING Derek stepped down. Gilbert said there is a 21 foot separation between the two houses. Derek met with the neighbors and in order to make more privacy we modified the windows. The neighbor's letter mentioned concerns about the proximity to their master bedroom which is located back in the comer. There is 50 to 60 feet between the two so he is puzzled about that concern. The new construction is not being built within the setback. Only the historic cottage is within that setback and that is what the variance is for. There were no questions and clarifications from the board. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public heating. Chuck MacLain, 622 W. Smuggler. The design is quite nice and it should be complimented on. Bill Joy's concern is looking at the shading of the back yard from the sun. It is one of the few back yards left in the West End. The applicant has done great changes in that respect but possibly something else could be done to avoid the shading. Jeffrey closed the public hearing. Valerie said her concern is with the access onto Francis. She cannot support the disturbance of the historic patterns and she knows that it is an historic 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9~ 2005 access drive. The new foundation going back where it existed is great as it maintains the historic integrity. The project is fabulous and the mass and scale is excellent. The other concern is the glazing that extends continuously on the west elevation and the glazing at the gable end. The link and massing are all excellent but she cannot support the driveway. Jason mentioned his concern of materials. He agrees with Valerie and feels they should not go out on 6th Street. Jason said there is enough separation between the neighbors. Valerie said the neighbors will see more shading from all the spruce trees that they planted than from the addition. Jeffrey echoed the commission's comments. The design is good and consistent with the guidelines. The setbacks and plan for the link are very respectful of the historic resource. The separation is acceptable and the out building on the alley will help break up the scale of the south elevation. The project meets the criteria for mass and scale. Jeffrey said for the next meeting the south glazing of that faqade should be restudied as it is very distinct. Valerie said the garage is a concern and it affects your floor plan. Possibly we can have it restudied. Gilbert said it is a significant component of the house. Valerie suggested tabling until more members are present. Gilbert said if we turned the garage we would loose the cottonwood tree. Valerie said after studying the design there is an opportunity to get the garage off the alley and turn it. MOTION: Jason moved to continue 629 W. Smuggler until April I 3th; second by Valerie. Motion carried 3-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Valerie, Jason MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried 3-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 8