Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20050525 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25. 2005 314 E. HYMAN AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL - PH............................... 1 529 W. FRANCIS - CONCEPTUAL ................................................................................ 1 701 W. MAIN STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL PARKING V ARIANCES...................................................................................................................... 6 426 E. MAIN - FINAL................................................................................................ ..8 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Jason Lasser, Michael Hoffman and Sarah Broughton. Staffpresent: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Public Comments: Toni Kronberg inquired about scoring for an historic designated district and if the project fits in under community character and neighborhood character and streetscape character. Does staff have the criteria score sheet to measure those three items? Amy relayed that is not part of our scoring system. The property has to have architectural integrity and that is what the scoring system is about and it has to be associated with some historic part of Aspen. Neighborhood and community character are not part of the scoring sheet. Michael said it is not necessary to have a score sheet to determine neighborhood and community character. 334 W. Hallam- Jason will be the monitor 314 E. HYMAN AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL - PH MOTION: Jason moved to continue 314 E. Hyman to June 22~ second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 529 W. FRANCIS - CONCEPTUAL Affidavit of posting Exhibit I Clauson letter II, III New drawings Amy relayed that the lot is 4,500 square feet. The size of the house is specified in the lot split ordinances at 2, 570 square feet. The entire property is land marked. The applicant is asking for a variance from the residential design standards in that they are having difficulty providing a detached secondary mass in the new home. In staff's opinion there has not been enough progress made toward responding to the commission's directions. The porch is one element that does not have the sense of openness, scale and proportions that the adjacent Victorian buildings have on either side of this ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2005 lot. The large chimney mass is out of character and scale. The east/west gable of the new addition has been brought up as possibly being lowered. The residential design standard would need to be varied. HPC has indicated that a one-story level should be in the front of the house and the second story mass in the back. The Victorian on the east encroaches onto this property and the building official has determined that at least 6 feet needs to be maintained between structures. It also seems that the calculation of the FAR is over. Staffrecommends denial. Stan Mathis John Mitchell Stan said the FAR calculation is not an issue. Stan pointed out that the site is 4,800 square feet and is 48 feet across. The project has been scaled down 20% from the original lot split. We gave up 3 feet in the front and at the work session it was stated that if we gave that up we could get a second story mass. We are 6.4 feet from the Dikeou house. We only have one window well on that side and it has been moved to the rear of the building. John Mitchell passed out corrected floor plans. John went over how they got to the new submission. In January the comment was made to relocate the house to the middle of the property and that was done. They removed the aerial wells due to the neighbor's concern. It was recommended that the eaves be lowered 30 inches and that was done. It was suggested that the east side of the porch have an opening for a more open porch feel and that redesigned. They also revised the window and door fenestration to get more glass and the brick out. They adjusted the finished first floor to reduce the building height. Before they had 12 to 18 inches out of ground. At the last meeting it was recommended that the height of the chimneys be reduced. Get rid of the long plane on the side of the house to help define the primary and secondary mass. There was also a comment about the window fenestration at the stair and maybe there was too much or reduce it down. It was also stated that a transitions needs created between the primary mass and the secondary mass and how do we address that. There was also a comment about pushing the secondary mass to the alley, somewhere to the adjacent property to the east. Can the secondary ridge mn east to west. Can we change some of the brick to cedar. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25~ 2005 John presented a model. The chimney height and mass have been reduced 24 inches. A 12 foot offset has been provided to create the transition in the first floor plane. On the second floor, trying to break the plane up we cantilevered it over to get a little more movement in the wall across and help with the transition. Regarding the window fenestration we have taken out the large mass and inserted your typical casement window on each floor. The plate height of the second floor over the library has been reduced two feet. Regarding the comment of getting the secondary mass back to the alley we have pushed the mass back to the alley similar to the property to the east. In order to break up the plane we created offsets on the second floor over the first floor. We are also looking at different materials. We are looking at doing the second floor in cedar lap siding rather than brick. We have done some studies on the front porch and we looked at brick, timber etc. We are open to discussion. Derek asked how much square footage has been taken out of the floor plan. John said 60 square feet since our last meeting. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Stan Clauson represented Lucy Dikeou, the next door neighbor. Stan submitted a letter indicating that a streetscape elevation has not been provided nor a site plan. He also pointed out that some of the elevations are incorrect and requested that the HPC deny the application. Amy stated that Bob Blake sent a letter and his concern is about the variance requested. He hopes that the design has been scaled down and the house across the street that Stan built is out of scale so he is concerned about this one. He was on P&Z for many years to preserve Aspen from having monster homes and he doesn't want this to happen. The chair closed the public hearing. Comments: Derek asked that the previous minutes be attached to these minutes in order that a consistent commentary be on record. He is not convinced that cedar will not bring down the scale of this building. The mass and scale of this house is too big and he has been saying that since January. 60 square feet might not be a significant reduction. Derek said in good faith he cannot go forward with this project. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25~ 2005 Jason said the window wells are an issue and they are getting close to the property line. The east/west gable is an issue now because of the eave line. The mass is still very large and looming. The issue with the chimney was not the height, it was the scale of it. It is still very large and out of scale. Jason said a streetscape plan was provided in our packet, in which the public was not supplied. Michael said there has been a lot of progress on the technical issues in terms of the setbacks etc. The guidelines that we were given focus on mass and scale in relationship to the adjacent historic buildings. He agrees that guideline 11.3 4,5,6, are not being met. Sarah commented that the model is very helpful. The one-story element in the front of the house is helping relate to the context of the historic structure but on the other hand it is pushing all of the mass to the back of the lot and looming over the streetscape. There is a clear concern from the board that guideline 11.3,4,5 all deal with the scale as it relates to the historic property. Jeffrey said he is in agreement with staff and there was clear direction given on mass and scale. There have been some efforts made and the improvements have helped and some have not. He questions the FAR and it should be reduced to help mitigate the impacts on the two historic resources. The plan is not in compliance with Chapter 11 just as we have said at the last meeting. The setback and site planning have always been an issue and our comments have not been heard. The one-story mass and the one dimensional aspect beyond works with the adjoining properties but the transition to the secondary mass is way too abrupt. There is not enough separation. Stan Mathis said to inflect we are making all of our design decisions to the house to the west. The historic Dikeou house just happens to be there. I do not think the rules say that you have to inflect both buildings. To clarify, we are not three feet from the building as Stan Clauson said we are five feet from the Dikeou building. The scale of the photograph that Stan Clauson put up is not correct. The large portion of the mass is toward the rear 1/3. If the trees were not in front of the Dikeou house you would see exactly the same program. The house to the west is inflected because it is part of the historic lot split. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25~ 2005 John Mitchell said there is more mass on the Dikeou house to Francis Street than what we are providing. The gabled was turned to get as much mass back to the alley. A site plan was provided and the window well will be removed. We intend to do a field measurement on the neighboring house. Gideon Kaufman, attorney representing the owner. When you go through a lot split process and determine the reduction of the FAR you need to take that in context. If you give someone the benefit of an historic lot split to encourage them to preserve, it is not fair to take the next guy who comes in and makes the financial viability for the people who created the historic lot split and buys something thinking that there are certain FAR. If you are going to reduce the FAR you also need to give other guidelines so people don't come forward thinking that you have already looked at this and this particular FAR is effective. Comparisons: The Dikeou living area is 2,309 feet covering the first floor. On the Stapleton house you have 1,704 and on this house you only have 1,638 on the first floor. When you look at the porch and garage the Dikeou house has 820 feet, the Stapleton has 600 feet and this house has 723 feet. When you talk about the percentage of lot coverage which is very important the Dikeou house covers 52 ½ /% of their lot and the Stapleton house covers 55% and this house only covers 49%. You need to look at this in perspective. On the primary mass eave height it is Dikeou house is 9feet 9 ½ inches, on the Stapleton house its is 10 3 ½ inches. This house is 8 11 inches. On the primary mass ridge height the Dikeou house is 19feet 5 inches, the Stapleton house is 20feet 6 inches and this house is 20feet 4 inches. Try to realistically look at the constraints that you have on this lot. Gideon pointed out that the comments are not be ignored they are being looked at in terms of their reality and trying to fit something that matches both the historic houses. Derek said a lot of these issues that keep being debated should be clearly understood at this point in the game. Derek said he is very frustrated. Michael said we made it very clear that we wanted to see how this project related to the neighbors. Sarah said she feels the applicant is almost there. You need to re-study the mass in the back of this house. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25~ 2005 MOTION: Michael moved to continue the application of 529 W. Francis to July 13; second by Jason. Motion carried 3-2. Yes vote: Jason, Michael, Sarah No vote: Derek, Jeffrey 701 W. MAIN STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL PARKING VARIANCES Affidavit of posting Exhibit I New elevations Exhibit II Amy said this is final review for the detached carriage house that is going to be constructed behind the rustic style cabin. In general everyone is pleased with the project. In terms of height it is taller than the historic cabin in front; however, we have transitions with roof forms on the second floor deck that help soften that relationship and it is important that nothing is happening to that historic cabin. It is completely being preserved. The entry door and light fixture should be restudied and that can be handled by staff and monitor. Regarding the stone base, native species should be used and not import too many materials that are foreign to the area. The rest are standard conditions about vent locations etc. The application includes a request for a waiver of a parking space that is generated by the new commercial use of the cabin in the front that is going to be a gallery and a studio workspace. Staff supports this. Applicant stated they eliminated the light and changed the door as recommended. They will use adaptive native stone. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Jason said he supports the parking variance and the proposed changes. Sarah said she was hoping to see a street elevation showing the historic resource. She also said she didn't see a landscape plan. Jeffrey said the application is in support of our guidelines for our material palates. He also said he didn't see a landscape plan and there is going to be pedestrian access to the commercial building. Amy said we still need a lot more conversation regarding the cabin in the front. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25~ 2005 Jeffrey said the simplified wood entry door is acceptable. He supports the application. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #18 with the elimination of #1condition. Condition #7 would be adding the waiver of .68 parking spaces as requested as well as the waiver of the cash in lieu payment; second by Jason. Motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Derek, Jason, Michael, Sarah, Jeffrey ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2005 426 E. MAIN - FINAL Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Amy relayed that there hasn't been much that has changed from conceptual. No objections have been raised previously by the board. This project meets the guidelines and it is infill in the Main Street Historic District. There are traditional and modem forms. It is a good balance that we are looking for in the downtown. Stephen Holly presented. This is a different project. The palate of natural materials are used to wrap around the entire building. Glass is being used at the comer market elements. The building is a low profile as compared to the court house and that is our intent. The court house should remain prominent. The materials are brick, sandstone base coursing and a curtain wall, and store front system. Metal panels will also be incorporated. On the courtyard side the sandstone base wraps around and picks up the metal paneling. A company in Denver does a metal coating and they can use multiple types of metal. Samples will be supplied for staff and monitor to review. Stephen went over the placement of the materials on the entire building. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Toni Kronberg said this building is a hot button in this community. She hopes this is the last time the HPC will have to see it. In the code there is an appeal procedure which can only be done after HPC has made the final determination. Her concerns are neighborhood character and community character. Toni said it is her personal feeling that the project does not meet these two characters. If the building is approved the sidewalks will have to be widened. In the character of the Main Street historic district there are little places that are open. Chapter 13 refers to Aspen as an unique community. Mature trees often contribute to identify each historic neighborhood. Streetscapes are referred to in Chapter. You have trees on the comers and some open space. There has never been a building on this comer. Toni said this project does not meet the guidelines. In chapter 13.9 it states to retain a two-story building at the sidewalk. This building is a three story building. She also addressed the streetscape in Chapter I. If you come down Main Street you will not see the court house until you get to the light. Now as you come past Mill Street the street starts to open up and you can look through. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2005 Gideon Kaufman, attorney for the owner said the HPC makes the determination ifthe building meets neighborhood and community character. The neighbor's concern about handicapped access is interesting because it is the same access as their building and all of a sudden it is a big concern. The vote on the referendum was about rezoning of the Visitor Center. The vote had nothing to do with the architecture ofthis building. The concept of this space being a public park or open space has never been addressed in any of the Aspen Area Community Plans. The City developed guidelines for tree removals and the Parks Department will be handling that issue on this project. The buildings around are all multi-story buildings and this design fits in nicely with the other large buildings. The chair closed the public hearing. Jason supports the project. This project will help infill and make a better experience as you drive down Main Street. The two-story element on the comer is successful especially with the voids in it. As far as the view plane to the court house there is a big enough gap between the court house and the project that the view is not impacted. The material palate helps break down the scale and makes it seem like a two-story building. Derek explained that mass and scale was approved at conceptual and tonight is about materials and openings. Derek thanked Toni Kronberg and Gideon Kaufman for their comments and input. There are relevant guidelines that have been adequately met and we are bound to those guidelines. This is an incredible empathetic project from the materials and everything around it. Michael said he has been asked to review this particular application against the guidelines. Michael pointed out that procedural questions are dealt with by our legal council. We always respect the public just as we are doing tonight. Regarding community and neighborhood character this project is a great addition to the City from a design point especially with our emphasis on infill. The materials and color schemes are simple and comply with guideline 14.4. Sarah said the project is in compliance with the majority of the guidelines. In regard to materials guideline 13.17 talks about maintaining the distinction between street level and you are doing that with the change in plane and the 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2005 change in material and the base that runs along the south fa9ade helps with that distinction. It could be pushed a little bit further. She has struggled with the comer entry but given the fact that this building is on Main Street it does start to change the idea of that pattern. The signage and how the entries are delineated becomes very important on a public street. Jeffrey also supports the project as it creates a great pedestrian amenity. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #18 as stated in Staff's memo; second by Derek. All infavor, motion carried. Motion carried 5-0. Regarding condition #1 the monitor to approve the material on the store- front as presented. MOTION: Derek moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2005 314 E. HYMAN AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL - PH............................... 1 529 W. FRANCIS - CONCEPTUAL ................................................................................ 1 701 W. MAIN STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL PARKING V ARIANCES...................................................................................................................... 6 426 E. MAIN - FINAL................................................................................................ ..8 11