Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060208 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 920 W. HALLAM - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - RELOCATION, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................................................... 1 420 & 422 E. HOPKINS - FIRE STATION...................................................................... 5 880 MEADOWS RD. - ASPEN MEADOWS HEALTH CLUB - FINAL .......................8 705 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING ................................ 10 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.rn. Commissioners in attendance: Jason Lasser, Sarah Broughton and Derek Skalko. Jeffrey Halferty and Alison Agley were excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jennifer Phelan, Planner MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the minutes of January l/h and 25th; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 920 W. HALLAM - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - RELOCATION, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING Amy Guthrie recused herself. Gilbert Sanchez and David Guthrie presented. Affidavit of post Exhibit I Revised Drawings Exhibit II Jennifer explained that the application is for a minor development and a temporary relocation and a request for a setback variance. The proposal is to build a basement addition under the detached garage that will attach to the below grade of the house which is a single family residence. With the proposal are a number of exterior alterations: window well on the east side of the garage; fire place flue on the east side of the garage roof. With regard to the basement addition the existing floor of the garage will result in less grade change from the alley to the garage doors. With the concreting of the garage ramp you will have more exposed foundation. The garage doors will need to be replaced. They also propose to amend the breezeway that connects between the garage and house due to leakage problems. The application meets many of the design guidelines for minor development. With the window well, standard 9.7 states that a light well maybe used to provide light into the low grade living space and as required it does not face the street. The guidelines state that the flue is small and low in profile and the proposal is of the minimum height required in the building code. The 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 current garage doors are not original and with the need to accommodate the height differential and grade change the doors need to be replaced. The doors will be taller and the overhead door will have the same finish to match the existing wood siding of the garage which complies with guideline 8.4. With regard to the foundation you will see more of it along the alley way. The applicants are proposing that the additional exposed foundation will be continued to be wrapped with a painted metal flashing which is currently on the garage. On-site relocation - Jennifer said they might have to raise the detached garage above its existing foundation in order to dig out the foundation. Guideline 9.1 has a number of standards that are on a case by case basis. The temporary relocation will require confirmation from a licensed engineer regarding the soundness of the building. The underground addition will have minimal impact at grade visually. Underground the addition will be at a 0 foot setback from the property lines. The garage above will be 8 feet from the rear property line. The required rear minimal setback is 5 feet (26.415.11 Oc). HPC must make the finding that the setback variance is similar to pattern features and characters of the historic district. Stafffeels the setbacks do not appear to meet the review criteria. Currently there are no o setbacks existing above or below grade on or around the historic property that are similar to what is being proposed. The setback may create logistical concerns on the alleyway with existing utilities. Staff is recommending that the HPC grant the minor development but deny the setback variance for 920 E. Hallam. Other conditions are in the resolution. Gilbert Sanchez said this particular miner's cottage and garage are the only one in Aspen that has been preserved as it was pre-l 950. For clarification the window well is the minimum depth required of 3 feet for a window well and it is 7 feet long. The minimum size by code is 3 x 3. The floor of the garage is being lowered by the elevation of the garage is staying as is. The process mayor may not require the relocation. The key issue is the variance that we are requesting to extend past the rear wall of the garage to the property line to increase the expansion of the basement. Gilbert pointed out that the basement under the garage was an original proposal but due to budge constraints it was never pursued. The owners are confined essentially to stay below the footprint of the space. The only opportunity is to go under the driveway toward the alley property line. Gilbert pointed out that HPC has approved in the past zero setbacks, in particular 629 W. Smuggler. This particular house was part of a lot split and there are FAR limitations. This is 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 a condominium site and there is a total of 8,000 square feet on the entire site. This house is limited to 1,000 square feet. What is built there now is 997 square feet and with the basement we would get to the 1,000 square feet. The owners would accept the responsibility if damage is done to utilities etc. in the alley during construction. David Guthrie, owner stated they have no intention oflifting the building up but the notion of having the relocation permit in place is only if we come to a panic stricken chaos type plan and have to lift it up we would like to have the methodology in place. We will not put anything permanent in the right- of-way i.e. the alley. The neighbor 20 feet across the alley has a below grade basement and a zero lot line with a garage above it. The soil is very stable and a professional excavator will be hired. Sarah inquired if the owners though about bringing the basement into the side yard. David said they did not want to undermine the foundation wall and they have crab apple trees, rose bushes and heirloom plantings that they did not want to touch. Michael asked Jennifer for clarification about the setback. Jennifer said the referral comments from Phil Overeynder, utilities coordinator were that no encroachment be permitted in the alley if the variance is granted. The closer you get to the zero set back the more potential there is to damage the utilities etc. The Engineering Dept. said basements can be designed without footers. Derek said the City Engineering dept. mandates that all plans that come in have to have a soil stabilization plan. Alleys have collapsed within the last two years. Sarah pointed out if the soil report comes in and tells you it has to be pinned that is telling us a zero lot line variance cannot occur because we are saying nothing can encroach. Derek said that is an awkward place for the board to be. Sarah asked when the zero lot line across the alley was approved. David said about 5 to 6 years ago. They have a basement, garage and a deck. The building is non-historic. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the hearing was closed. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 Derek said he could approve everything proposed. The light well and size is OK. Regarding the lot line variance and in the nature of appreciating and respecting what has been done with the property he could accept the setback variance. Allowing the variance adds sensitivity to the historic existing structure. It is also not uncommon to give zero setbacks. The City mandates soil testing etc. Derek recommended that HPC do not put a mandate that nothing is done in the alley, it should go to the Engineering Dept. Jason said he understands the need for the garage and door changes. The light well works. The change in the pitch of the link is successful and sensitive to the historic building. He supports the variance. Jason pointed out that a zero setback exists across the street. Sarah echoed the comments made. She is tom.on the setback issue. She does not like getting into the situation where we are encroaching on setbacks sub-grade. She feels nothing should be going in the alley and maybe the garage needs to move back a foot to accommodate any pinning. We need to make sure we work with Engineering on the checks and balances. Given the context that it is a dead end alley and that there is a precedent for the zero setback and the fact that the building has not seen an addition above grade except for the breezeway she could vote in favor of the variance. Michael also agreed with the other commissioners. He could also support the on-site relocation. He agreed with Derek that item b of section 26.4l5.ll0c is met here. This is the only structure in town that sits on its historic footprint. (b) Enhance or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property. Michael pointed out that we are accommodating that particular element of our guidelines i.e. retaining the historic footprint by allowing this variance. Gilbert said he was not sure the resolution said no encroachment. Michael stated whether an encroachment is need would be determined by the Engineering and Bldg. Depts. Gilbert said if that occurred we would have to make some kind of adjustment. MOTION: Jason moved to approve Resolution #2for 920 W Hallam as presented with revisions to 1-4. 1-3- add if relocation is necessary to each condition. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 4. Absolutely no permanent encroachments into the right-of-way shall be permitted. Motion second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote; Jason, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Derek, yes. 420 & 422 E. HOPKINS - FIRE STATION Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Four drawings - Exhibit II Calculation sheet - Exhibit III Amy said this is an important civic building and it is in an important block downtown in our historic district. Across the street are significant national registered buildings in Aspen with the Isis adjacent which is a landmark building. Staffhas some concerns about the amount of movement in the horizontal and vertical planes. Some of the HPC rules can be altered but there has to be a clear response to the massing. Staff recommended three areas of restudy; one to bring forward a few feet the portion of the apparatus bay that is currently labeled for storage. Bring forward the entry doors of the fire station. Restudy the appropriateness of the cantilevered upper floors. This means possibly eliminating those features or perhaps in the case of the tower, glazing the ground floor so that it has transparency but is tied to the ground floor like other historic landmark buildings are. Staff recommends continuation. Scott Lindeneau said Studio B feels this is an opportunity to introduce a contemporary solution in the downtown core. The lot is 12,000 square feet. The horizontal bays promote a horizontal solution. The bays th~mselves need to be recessed. We have taken the 18 foot garage doors that are 15 feet tall and emphasized them vertically. There is a steel frame around the doors. The thrift store is a two-story. Gilbert went over the guidelines in Chapter 13 and how the project relates. The idea is to strike a balance. Gilbert relayed that the majority of the guidelines have been met. Gilbert assessed the guidelines and feels the proposed design fits. This building bridges the past with the future. He also pointed out not all guidelines need to apply. Guideline 13.12 does not comply. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the hearing was closed. Jason went over the COWOP. At the last meeting the decision was not to go forward with a fourth story. Changes were made to the park area in the front and the Thrift Shop doors were changed from underneath to the front of the street. The plans do not show the potential fourth bay and maybe that should be restudied. Darryl Grobb, fire chief relayed that all suggestions will be considered. Jason said the idea is to get the building defined in order to go forward with the bond. He has no problem with the cantilever. The horizontality of the three story offices above the door is his only concern. Derek said the project is always growing and there is a cohesiveness about the mass and scale. This is a great amenity for the community. Derek said he feels strongly about this project. The horizontality of the third level works strongly and it is a site specific structure. This is a living architectural history of Aspen in this time. Sarah said it has been exciting being part of the COWOP but she is struggling with the setback issue. The overall horizontality of the building is quite successful and the cantilever reading is appropriate in its location. Her concern is the green space which has been deemed very important. How are the green spaces going to be used? Creating two green spaces in a field of asphalt is a concern. The location ofthe front door is another concern and possibly it should move out a bit and address the street. The glass doors on the apparatus bays are very exciting and appropriate. She has some concerns about the material package. Michael said this meeting is about height, scale, massing and proportions. The integration of the hose tower in the back is appropriate. The cantilevered third floor over the bays adds quite a bit giving this structure a street presence. Michael said his concern is the cantilevered section over the entry area, the museum. It doesn't seem to fit in downtown Aspen. It should be restudied. Michael pointed out staff's concerns: I. Bringing forward the portion of the apparatus bay that is currently labeled used as storage. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 2. Bringing forward the entry doors into the Fire station as possibly the entire entry tower. 3. Restudy the appropriateness of the cantilevered upper floors. Michael also pointed out that even though the guidelines talk about taking a balanced approach it doesn't mean that you give everything equal weight. Every single case is different and those things that are important in a particular case may not be important in the next case. Rebuttal: Scott pointed out that they have not thought through on what the green space would look like. The three bays vs. four bays will be verified. The cantilever over the bays adds to the street presence. We need to promote a solution that will bring us into the next century and the vision for the fire department. The museum component will bring in locals and tourist alike. Ifit is a flat fal(ade it will not be significant. The other thought was that we might recess the glazing three or four feet. There is also a conference room up above and having the pull out serves the room appropriately. The cantilever also provides for a covered entry. Ifwe pulled the lower bay out it would become an odd solution because right now the defining elements are four distinct masses. We are also adding a door into the apparatus bays instead of a window. The louvers over the bays are preventing overheating and creating light and shadows. Jason said this is an important building for Aspen and the community and the COWOP is trying to get this process moving as quickly as possible. There will be other chances to refine this building. Amy said you can't approve the project and then at final come back and say that the cantilever needs changed etc. unless the applicants agrees to it. The fenestration of the doors can be handled at final. Darryl Grobb, fire chief - relayed that they need three bays for circulations and ambulance issues, not four bays. Amy pointed out that if the board does not want to do a continuation they can make a motion with conditions. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #3 for 420 & 422 E. Hopkins, the Aspen Fire Station as presented. Study the setback relationship of the circulation spine volume and the Thrift Store volume with varying degrees of cantilevering, and study the setback of the Fire Department entry 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 doors. Motion second by Derek. Roll call vote; Jason, yes; Sarah, yes; Derek, yes; Michael, no. Motion carried 3-1. Michael said he is unclear for the need for restudying the circulation. Sarah said her concern is the museum component and that circulation not the entire circulation pattern. 880 MEADOWS RD. - ASPEN MEADOWS HEALTH CLUB _ FINAL Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Drawing - Exhibit II Amy stated the issues are materials, fenestration and lighting. There is one change from conceptual and that is the roof over the yoga studio which has gone from being a smooth curve to something that is more stepped in the elevations. The concern at conceptual was to not demolish any more of the existing Herbert Bayer building than necessary. The additions are at the back and they will have minimal visibility. At conceptual, HPC asked for a restudy of the re-creation of the wind screen on the roof. The applicant is not volunteering to do the wind screen because it is not functional. Staff recommends at this point not requiring the applicant to do the wind screen. The proposed material is alternating bands of concrete block. It is a cleaver solution and a way to distinguish new from old. One concern is how different the alternating block will be and whether creating a striping pattern is overwhelming to the simple character of the building. The other recommendation was to eliminate the basketball hoop proposed in front of the gymnasium. Stafflooked at the hoop as a landscape element. Jim Curtis and Olivia Emery presented. The proposed striping of alternate bands of block differentiates the bldg. from the other buildings and livens up the west side. The proposed siding is zinc with a flat seam. Jim said the wind screen came down in the 1970's. It was constructed of 2 x 4's and plexi-glass and not stable to begin with. In the front entry of the building on the outside they would like to put up an informational piece. They would rather put the money into upgrading to double pane glass for energy reasons rather than doing the wind screen. The basketball hoop won't be used much. The institute would like some place where they can 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 shoot hoops in the summer. On the drawings that were submitted the hot tub is not indicated but we are requesting that it be part of the approval. The hot tub was moved back to address the issues of the Parks Department - Exhibit II. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the hearing was closed. Jason pointed out that the wind screen reflects into the pond and it ties into the building. It is an important aesthetic element. He is also opposed to the basketball hoop. The hot tub is OK even though it is not in this phase. Regarding the coursing, he would rather see the coursing heavy on the bottom and smoother as you go up. Derek said this is a very conscientious project. He has no problem with the proposed concrete as presented. It is a great interplay and gives it a more visual aspect with the different textures. The zinc is fantastic. Derek pointed out that the basketball hoop is reversible and he does not want to juristic. Sarah said it would be interesting to do the wind screen as it had served a function and purpose. The material palate is fine. The roof shape works with the whole composition. She also feels HPC should not be dealing with issue like a basketball hoop. Michael said the wind screen is a great feature but it is a re-creation. The banding, roof forms and hot tub are appropriate. Michael is opposed to the basketball hoop. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution 4 for 880 Meadows Rd., The Meadows Health Club as proposed with the following conditions. Eliminate condition #1. #2 condition to be approved by staff and monitor. #10 Approval of the hot tub. Motion second by Sarah. All infavor, motion carried. Roll call vote; Jason, yes; Sarah, yes; Derek, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-0. Michael added that it is the sense of the board that if a wind screen could be created it would be appropriate. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 705 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Jason recused himself. Affidavit of posting Exhibit I Elevation Exhibit II Amy stated that the proposal is for a new house on a lot split. The other half of the property will be developed with the historic cabin and behind that is a new carriage house under construction right now. This is the interior lot and HPC is not able to grant variances. The large issue is the preservation of a substantial size tree. The drip line protection and buffer have been discussed with the Parks Dept. The house size is 2,400 square feet maximum. The applicant is meeting all the dimensional requirements. They are meeting the height restrictions. There are some residential design standards that are not being met. In terms of conceptual review staff has no concerns with the compliance with the guidelines in general. The bldg. has a front porch which is typical of Victorian homes on Main Street. It is larger and taller than the ones that happen to be on this end of the block. It is about 2 feet taller at the ridge than the carriage house under construction right now. That is in part due to the gable roof is trying to span a larger amount of square footage. Staff has concerns whether that is appropriate and a restudy is recommended due to the one story buildings on either side of it. Dirk Danker, architect presented an elevation drawing Exhibit II. With the roof pitch, there are some options we have. We can bring the pitch down from 8 to 12 or a 7 to 12 pitch and change the way the dormer works in order to lower the overall height of the ridge. Brian Flynn clarified that the applicant has met and done all that he can do to accommodate the Park's requirements including a 9 foot buffer zone for the tree. We have worked with the grade and entry way to accommodate for the protection of the tree. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner, adjacent owner said they agree with staff's recommendation regarding the height of the building. She pointed out that they were pleased with the applicant working with the Parks Dept. in trying to protect the tree. Mary said in the application it states that there are two required parking spaces and they are proposing O. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 2006 Amy said they have a two car garage and they need two on-site parking spaces and are providing them. It is an error on the application. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman closed the public comment section of the hearing. Commissioner comments: Derek said if the measuring occurs at the third way or half way point the height will come down. He is not sure knocking off the front of the gable is appropriate. The shed dormer is not the driving point of the height. Sarah thanked the applicant for the street view. The building is too tall. The pitch of the roof needs explored. It looks top heavy and that it is going to fall over on the historic house. Reducing the pitch and ridge line will help. Michael agreed with his fellow commissioners. He supports continuation of the meeting. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 705 W Main until March 22,2006; second by Derek. Roll call vote; Sarah, yes; Derek, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 3-0. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All infavor, motion carried 3-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.rn. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11