Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20050810ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10~ 2005 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE - CONCEPTUAL PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCES ...................................................................................................................... 1 990 GIBSON - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING ................................................... 2 332 WEST MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL PUBLIC HEARING ............................... 4 435 W. MAIN - LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL - PH CONTINUED FROM JULY 27, 2005 ....................................................................................................... 6 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10t 2005 -Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman. Jason Lasser was seated at 5:30 p.m. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sarah Adams, Intern MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of June 8th and the amendment of the duly 27th minutes; second deffrey. All in favor, motion carried. 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCES Peter and Chris Dodaro, owners Amy stated that the owners are requesting the full 500 square foot FAR bonus for this project. There have been great revisions on this project. At the last meeting it was continued for restudy of the details of the linking element to the historic house; the railing on top of the link and pulling it a little away from the cabin; minimizing the dormer on the addition and reducing the prominence of the light wells. In staff's opinion these issues have all been addressed successfully. Regarding the FAR bonus the house has some opportunities to reverse some of the alterations that have been made over the years but no one really knows what those changes should be until demolition occurs. We support the setback variances and on-site relocation which is picking up the house and digging a basement and putting it back where it was. Peter Dodaro said they are anxious to get started. Sarah inquired about the light wells in terms of egress out of the lower level family room. There are three light wells coming off that family room. Peter said they are designed for light and cross ventilation. Sarah said typically we try to minimize the amount of foundation that gets exposed on the historic resource. Peter said they would be willing to take one out. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2005 Michael stated that his concerns have been addressed and he can support going forward. Derek said his basic concerns were addressed the second time around. The project has only gotten better. Sarah said the changes from the last meeting and this meeting have helped the project. In terms of the light wells, they seem excessive. Jeffrey inquired about the windows. Peter said during demolition if windows exist they have no problem opening the historic windows. Jeffrey also said the project meets the criteria for conceptual and he can support the project. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #29for 920/930 Matchless Drive, Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision, City and Town site of Aspen, Colorado, second by Derek. Roll call vote; Derek, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion approved 4-0. 990 GIBSON - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Warren Palmer Jason was seated. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Additional drawings - Exhibit II Sarah said this is a one-story Victorian cottage with two 1979 non-historic additions; a two-stow addition that is attached to the historic house and the other is a single stow two car detached garage. The proposal is for a modest addition which will reduce the perceived size of the two-stow addition and it emphasizes the historic house. They are not proposing to alter the historic house at all. Warren said the miner's cottage is an L shape which starts on Gibson Ave. with a two-stow addition with an entry porch. The proposed addition goes toward Matchless Drive which is a 14 foot long, 12 foot wide bedroom addition which brings the project back down to grade which is beneficial. The roof shape is very simple with a 12 x 12 gable on the 12 foot portion. There is an egress well that mimics the existing entry porch roof. The material proposed will be the same as the existing structure which is western 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10t 2005 beveled siding. We will eliminate the fish scale and details. There is a proposed bay. The original house had 8 foot head heights on the windows and that will be duplicated because the portions work out. There will be two French doors that come out onto the deck on Matchless Drive. The deck will wrap around the east elevation. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Barbara Dunaway said she lives at 998 Gibson. She asked what zoning this project is. Amy said it is zoned R-6. She also asked how you get through to the new section. Warren said the main access is through the front entrance of the main house. There are two French doors to access from the bedroom out onto the deck. The chair closed the public hearing. Comments: Michael said the 1979 addition really tempers the impact of the proposal on the historic resource. He can support the proposal because the addition is far enough away from the historic resource. Derek said the project is very low impacting and does not affect the historic resource. It adherer's to mass and scale very appropriately and the material selection is quite fitting. This is an eloquent, little understated addition. Sarah echoed Michael's and Derek's comments. The guidelines have been met with this addition and it is helping to minimize the 1979 addition. Jason said he is in agreement and guidelines 10.8, 10, 6, 10.3 have been complied with. The drawings seem to work with the existing building. Jeffrey stated that he supports the proposal and has met the guidelines and does in fact minimize the impact of the large addition. It helps counter balance. Jeffrey also pointed out that the drawing presented was exceptional. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #30for 990 Gibson Avenue as stated in Staff's memo; second by Derek. Roll call vote; Derek, yes; Sarah, yes; Jason, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion approved 5-0. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10~ 2005 332 WEST MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL PUBLIC HEARING John Muir, architect Affidavit of publication - Exhibit I Sarah said the subject property is a large 2 ½ story Queen Ann style house that is located on the north east comer of 3~d and Main Street and it is a contributing resource in the Main Street Historic District. The property was built in 1889 with numerous revisions. There is a rear addition and a flat roof carport and window alterations on the Main Street faCade. The applicant is proposing a new addition and a garage. Demolition of the non- historic addition and carport are proposed. The curb cut along Third Street and a parking space would be removed and to relocate the parking space to the alley access. They are also requesting setback variances; a rear yard setback of 0 feet, a side yard setback of 3 feet and a parking waiver. In addition they are also requesting a 190 square foot FAR bonus for the rehabilitation of the historic home. Staff is concerned with the side proportion and the complicated roof form of the east elevation as seen from Third Street. There also needs to be discussion of the chimney cap. John Muir said in addition Miss Brien has been working on other improvements to the property including restoring the Main Street window up in the gable to its original configuration. The porch is being worked on to stabilize it. The carport is an eye store and the non-conforming parking will be moved to the alley. They intend to move the eave lines down to the lower level to accentuate a breaking point and provide a portion of roof. This is a residential structure. The variance request for the zero setback on the alley and 3 feet on the east property line was requested in order to pull the house to the north/east so that we can get the comer to express itself as definitively as possible. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2005 Comments: Sarah said in the plans there are no details for the historic resource. John said the kitchen structure is to be demolished and there will be a connector from the historic house to the addition. Derek said this historic resource is very difficult to deal with. The mass and scale is appropriate and headed in the right direction. He has no issue with the double gable. Jason said the rear and side yard setbacks are OK. He is also in favor of the 190 square foot FAR bonus. It is a tough building to deal with, with the big slope on the north side. How do you design a building and connect it and make it not look like it is going to break off at the hinge point. Jason said he would like to see a new design of the double gable at the next meeting. Michael expressed his appreciation to the owner for not requesting that the historic structure be moved. In terms of mass and scale the design is appropriate. The setback variances are warranted in this case. The 190 square foot FAR bonus recommendation by staff is a good middle course and he could recommend approval of the bonus. Sarah said the project is moving in the right direction. By supplying the south elevation it would help the board understand the massing. Sarah supports the setback variances and FAR bonus. This is a challenging house and the architect is dealing with site issues. The architect has done a good job of separating the two. The chimney cap needs re-worked to relate more to the historic resource. Jeffrey supports staff's recommendation and the addition is in the appropriate location. The west elevation needs additional attention. It seems like the roof forms are a little complicated and need restudied. A lot of times on historic houses the primary entrance becomes a little muted and looses some of its prominence. With a little restudy this proposal could be a charming little addition. He also requested a south elevation to use as a reference point. Amy pointed out that we have a design guideline that requires a connector between the old and new building but that is only required when the addition is taller than the historic house. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10t 2005 John said to clarify; the committee seems comfortable with the over all mass. The issues are the complication of the roof forms. The window well by the master bedroom is too close to the historic resource. The detailing also needs restudied. John said he can move that light well to the north. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 332 W. Main St., conceptual development and the public hearing until Sept. I 4th; second by Sarah. Roll call vote; Derek, yes; Sarah, yes; Jason, yes; Michael yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion approved 5-0. 435 W. MAIN ~ LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL - PH CONTINUED FROM JULY 27, 2005 Amy said at the last meeting we got solid direction of combining two plans that meet the guidelines. Staff is supportive and recommends approval of conceptual. Off-site relocation is requested for three of the historic cabins. Six would remain on the site. We do not know of an appropriate location at this point and staff recommends continuation of the off-site relocation until final. The other issue that should be left until final is the resolution of the parking variances. The project is not providing the amount of parking spaces required and HPC will have the ability to waive that. The applicant would like HPC to make a recommendation to council regarding the parking. Alan Richmond reiterated that they would like two statements in the resolution more positive, parking and off-site relocation. Arthur Chabon said at the last meeting it was very clear that we were to take scheme A and turn it into a two building scheme with a connector toward the alley. We are successful in terms of how we were able to weave the scale of the cabins into the massing as a whole. The connector is invisible fi.om Main Street. Alan discussed condition #1 and #6. At this point in the process we are about to move forward to P&Z and City Council. We would like to go forward with a more affirmative statement. At final council will have already completed designation of this property. We need a comfort level that the project will comply with the standard for relocation for the three 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2005 cabins along the alley. We need to demonstrate to the HPC that the cabins can be moved safely. We are asking that a statement be made that relocation would be an acceptable preservation method for the landmark. We need to know that we are doing the right thing and that would give us a comfort level. Parking: HPC frequently for designated properties provide incentives in turn for designation. We are only asking for one and that is a parking waiver. We have five spaces between the building and three along the alley. A parking study was done in 2004 before we ever came to this board. No other church provides on-site parking. Michael inquired about the feasibility of underground parking on the site. Arthur said we have not done a real study but it would be incredibly expensive to do. It would also mean that we have no facilities in the basement and there are ramps and turnaround space issues that make it impractical. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Doug Allen stated that there is too much program on too small of a site. You will see the connector. They will have to dig out for footage under this building and they could provide some underground parking. People aren't going to take a bus to get to the center. The expansion of the Boomerang will cumulatively add to the parking issues. Leigh Stein pointed out that driving is against the Jewish Sabbath and people do try to walk. All the other religious buildings in Aspen do not have parking so why is it so important that it be required on this site. Doug Allen said there is a lot more impact on the neighborhood from this Center than any other church. Mark Rubenstein said we have a situation that they have to raise the money from private individuals to build this center. As a City we can mitigate some restrictions for charitable institutes and he hopes that the HPC will act in the same manner. The chair closed the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10~ 2005 Michael said tremendous progress has been made on this project and the architecture is quite successful. He is in support of conceptual approval. He is also in favor of demolition. A relocation of 3 of the cabins is a good compromise for the utilization of this site. Derek commended Arthur for being so steadfast. He understands the parking issues and this will be decided by P&Z and City Council. Derek also stated that he would be willing to grant a stronger statement on the parking condition. The plans are a tremendous solution in addressing all of the constraints and difficulties of the site. IfP&Z mandated that the parking had to be on-site he would entertain Fourth Street as a possibility. The mass and scale is broken down appropriately. Jason said HPC has reviewed many options and his only concem is the length of all the ridges and possibly they can be broken up somewhat. The scale of all the forms seems to be breaking down well. The parking issue is the result of many different efforts to try and get the entire program on the site. It is a balance between saving the historic cabins and getting the site to work. Another concern is people stopping on Main Street dropping off their children and causing traffic congestions. Sarah said she is very proud of where this building has come and we can all move forward knowing that we did our best effort in the overall context in complying with our guidelines. She also said she can support a more affirmative resolution for the relocation of the cabins and the parking resolution as it relates to the alley, She would not support a Fourth Street parking solution. Parking is a global and city issue and the Jewish community center does not need to be the person to solve the parking problems of Aspen. Jeffrey said this has been a remarkable process and there have been tremendous design considerations. The design suits Aspen's character and it will be a handsome addition on Main Street. He stated that he is in full support of historic designation, the preservation of the cabins and the mass and scale has graciously been reduced and genuflected in mass and scale. The site plan is consistent with our guidelines. He would also like to know if there is a possibility that the cabins can remain in the City of Aspen. Jeffrey also said he is support of strengthening the on-site parking variance. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10t 2005 Amy said P&Z and council need to determine how many spaces are being waived at final. Language for resolution: Amy said HPC has evaluated the entire surface parking schemes and found each to have negative consequences other than the one presented tonight. Michael said regarding the cabins the language should include providing a satisfactory receiver site. Identify a method of successfully moving the structures to the receiver site is established and in compliance with other technical aspects of the land use code before relocation of the cabins will be approved Michael said most of us are willing to attend the P&Z and Council meeting regarding the parking. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #31 as stated in staff's memo with further language for condition #1 about the relocation of the 3 historic cabins and #6 about the parking waiver. Staff and the applicant can work on the language for signature by the chairman; second by Derek. Michael said he is uncomfortable about the language on the parking waiver. Lennie Oates, attomey drafted language for the motion. The commission has evaluated all surface parking schemes raised and all will have negative consequences except the one proposed. Also, that the other designs do not meet the design guidelines. Amended motion. Sarah amended her motion to include the language stated by Lennie Oates; second by Derek. All in favor of the motion and amended motion. Roll call vote; Derek, yes; Sarah, yes; dason, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion approved 5-0. MOTION: deffrey moved to adjourn, second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9