Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060322 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2006 705 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL - (cont'd public hearing).............................................. 1 ASPEN INSTITUTE, LANDSCAPE SCULPTURE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - to be continued to April 12th .......................................................................................................5 FOX CROSSING PARK - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ....................................................5 430 W. MAIN STREET - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ........................................ 8 980 GillSON AVE. - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ............................................... 8|302 E. HOPKINS AVE. - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES......................................... 8 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Michael Hoffman, Sarah Broughton, Derek Skalko, Alison Agley and Jasson Lasser. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Disclosure: 302 E. Hopkins - Jeffrey will recuse himself. Jeffrey relayed that he was interviewed for the project at 430 W. Main but was not selected. He will participate in the discussions. Derek said he withdrew the first time Fox Crossing was presented because he had an economic interest and he is no longer involved. Bob Witek, developer of the park relayed that he had no problem with Derek participating in the discussions. Michael said similarly at one time he represented a member of the LLC that is the applicant but that member has withdrawn his involvement. Michael stated that he had no conflict. Certificate of no negative effect issues for 414 N. First, Jonathan Lewis (pool). 705 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL - (cont'd public hearing) Dirk Danker, architect Marshall Olson, owner Amy relayed that the conflict with the guidelines had to do with the ridge height of the building and how that related to some of the adjacent structures including the one story cabin. This property is an historic landmark lot split and they are restoring the cabin on the adjacent lot. This lot has a large tree that needs protected. There are certainly some site constraints. A single family house is proposed on this interior lot. The staff review relayed that the height has not been fully resolved. In particular, the broad gable ends facing east and west and how that is compatible with the historic district. Staff recommended continuation to restudy the height. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2006 New drawings Exhibit 1. Two letters Exhibit II 3-D images Exhibit III Dirk went over the drawings that were submitted, Exhibit 1. The major change was on the east elevation where we created a gable end and changed the configuration of the roof so that the 22 foot width of the front of the building became the gable end on the side and there was a gable end added to the back. In doing so we further reduced the height and it is now 32.7 to the ridge. It is a foot or so lower than the coach house. Jeffrey asked the applicant if they looked at the gable running north south instead of east west. Dirk said it seemed that it would present too tall of a face on Main Street. We wanted it to look like a two story house with an attic. Jeffrey said there is roughly 26.9 feet from the front of the porch to the front of the historic resource. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Amy relayed that two letters were entered into the record, Exhibit II in opposition of the project; Gary Wright, Mary Lackner and Rob Wien. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Board comments: Sarah said the additional drawings help her with some of the concerns from the information that was in the packet. The mass is still domineering toward the historic resource. Option B on the north elevation with the gabled front is preferable. Breaking the mass on the east elevation is also helping. This lot is narrow and trying to get 3 stories within that envelope is difficult. With regard to the residential guidelines the back window on the south elevation is a concern. Derek said his biggest concern is the long side gable that has no correlation historically in context with the surroundings. In reality, the house has to go upward. From a mass and scale standpoint the revised drawings are going in the right direction. Derek also said he has concerns with the windows on the south elevation. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2006 Alison said there are definite constraints and the tree is huge. She has no problem with the mass, scale and FAR. Jason pointed out that staff has concerns with the mass and scale. This is a difficult site. It is difficult to match the cabin with a single story low pitched roof. He feels the height could be dropped a little more. Option B which has a break in the roof line is preferable. Possibly the gable could go edge to edge which is a more traditional form for Main Street. He suggested that guideline 12.1 and 11.5 be looked at. The front porch needs to be restudied. It would be great if the height was reduced from ten feet to nine. Michael relayed that Exhibit II, the letters relate to height. He asked what the height difference was between the building that is built on the adjacent lot and the proposed building. Dirk said it is one foot lower. It is difficult to criticize this structure from being too tall when it is approximately the same height as the one we already approved. The height has to be acceptable because of what we already decided on the previous building on the adjacent lot. Sarah said Option B helps the overall scale. The gables should be studied and the porch roof. If the east west gable was tucked in it would help with the overall mass. Jason pointed out that the coach house is two feet higher than this building and this building is two feet lower and one foot taller due to the grade difference. Dirk said the coach house dimension at the center of the coach house is 33.6 and the dimension of the center of the new house is 22.7 but there is a foot of grade change. Dirk said this house is one foot lower in physical height. Jeffrey concurred with staff's concerns. The large massing toward the rear of the lot is successful. There is flexibility in the plate height for lowering the secondary mass. The design needs to conform to the guidelines in Chapter 12.14. This building feels like a three story with the extensive height of the roof. The dormer is a small enough form but it is not helping with the massing. The porch overhangs to the east and west are causing greater conflict with the massing. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2006 Marshall said this is a difficult site and if we were to follow lowering everything from ten foot to 9 foot for the ceiling it would get claustrophobic. The allowable FAR is 2,400 and we are below that. Marshall afiked the board to take into consideration that the building is hidden behind the tree. Marshall said they worked with the Parks Dept. and the tree is going to stay the way it is. Dirk said we wanted to get more than an 8 foot ceiling. If the trusses can come down we would be willing to lower it four inches or so. As far as the gable end on the north side they can do the entire face as a gable end; however, he feels that it will look more massive. They are trying to keep the roofline down as low as possible. Derek said he feels an 8.6 ceiling is appropriate. Alison said tweaking the roof forms on the third story may make some difference but if we really want a two story house we need to say that. We can't keep trying to make the three-story a two story. Michael said the neighbors are saying that the building is too tall and as a result the neighborhood is changing. We, the HPC have already approved a tall building next door and this lot has constraints by the large tree. Amy said the resolution should be predicated by the guideline 11.3, construct a new building that is similar in scale with the historic building on the parcel. Design a front elevation to be similar in scale with historic buildings. Amy said HPC is justified in talking about height. If the third floor wasn't there all we would loose is the dormer. Jason pointed out that on the adjacent lot we accommodated the applicants because they were restoring an historic building. On this lot we are accommodating them because of the tree. The building is not massive. He feels this building will compliment the one next door. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution #7 for 705 W. Main as presented in option A of Exhibit I with the following conditions: I. The over hang of the eaves on the east west direction be restudied. 2. Reduce the size of the north porch. Motion second by Sarah. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 6-0. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2006 ASPEN INSTITUTE, LANDSCAPE SCULPTURE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - to be continued to April 12th MOTION: Derek moved to continue the Aspen Institute, public hearing until April 12th; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. FOX CROSSING PARK - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Letter from the applicant - Exhibit II Bob Witek, contractor Scott Chism, City landscape architect Amy relayed that approval was given to the subdivision about a year ago. There is a designated Victorian house that is very deteriorated. The designated property includes the Victorian, two log buildings that were built in the 60's and the meadow. All three buildings will be restored with additions behind them. Nothing in the resolution was said about the meadow except that it would be a park. When council saw the project a trail was to go through the meadow to connect to the existing trail system. Amy said there are no clear guidelines related to the development of a park. It is something that is not before HPC very often. Language from the guidelines refer to identifying the character of the landscape as it exists right now and how does that contribute to the integrity of the buildings and context of the site. Staff's concern relates to the topography that is being proposed. The grade on the property drops 15 feet from Race Street to Gibson Ave. About six feet of that happens within the area of the park. The site is complicated due to the new building sites, new road, controlling their drainage on-site sub grade etc. Staff also has concerns with the retaining walls and how they affect the context of the site. Bob Witek, contractor said our biggest concern is detaining the water on- site. We met with the Parks Dept. and were given specific direction that it is a park first and a detention pond second. The pond will be underground with grass over it. We can eliminate the boulder walls but it would create a park that is more sloped than flat. To maintain the park at its present elevation boulders are needed. Bob pointed out that the design of the park came from the direction of Scott Chism. Any revisions can be made. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2006 Scott said it would be better if the center space was flatter but the site plan was already draw up. We tried to maximize the public space and retain the existing trees. We tried to make sure the historic houses were visible. We introduced plant choices that were appropriate in the vicinity and plants that were appropriate for the long term needs of the park. It is the position of the Parks Dept. that this is a good plan. Jason asked why the trail had to be down the middle of the park as opposed to putting it at one side and keeping the middle open. Bob said the trail can be moved. Scott said they also had to deal with sewer lines. We were trying to achieve a positive trail experience. Having the trail experience adjacent to a house wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. Jason said the historic pattern is fields and meadows. Alison inquired about the concrete trail. Scott said they followed the city standard for a buff colored concrete trail. The trail had to be ten feet wide in order for service trucks to access the area. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Comments: Michael stated the elements of the application do not indicate how the park relates to the historic resources. The easement for the trail is on the plat. The question is whether the retaining wall is offensive to the historic resource and the answer is no. Derek relayed that a lot of time and effort went into this project and the park is fine as presented. Sarah said given the PUD process and the plat with the trail, if the trail cannot be altered she will focus on the plantings. Historically the park was a meadow. The site is being over planted. Guideline 1.13 indicates that plantings should be consistent with the historic context of the site. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2006 Amy pointed out that HPC is not approving the landscaping around the houses at this time. Sarah pointed out that the project was approved because of the park component. The meadow context needs preserved. Alison agreed with Sarah that the site will look extremely different when all the houses are built. Anything we can do to keep the meadow feel vs. a lot of plantings would be preferable. There is probably not much we can do with the trails within the easements. The continuation of the trail to Hunter Creek is good. Jason also pointed out that a lot of work has gone into the design and any kind of connection to our trail system is good. In relationship to historic buildings, boulder walls do not look good or natural. Flat terraces on the hillside would be better. He feels the trail should be pushed all the way to the west side and keep the existing trees and meadow. Jeffrey said more of a meadow like treatment would conform to our guideline 1.13 and 1.14. The trail amenity is excellent but it does seem to look like a lot of activity is going on in that small area. The boulder walls will work if treated properly. If possible, Jeffrey could accept a change in the trail alignment in order to protect the resource. The pedestrian experience should be a pleasant one and a natural one. Scott Chism said they shared some of the points raised about the plantings. We will continue to work with the applicant on the actual plantings. We are asking the applicant to use the City's meadow wild flower mix. The drawing does not give the right justice as to what we are trying to accomplish. There will be a wild grassy edge and mowed in the center. Some of the retaining walls are necessary for the retention of the buildings that will be built. Bob said we have been directed to put in native grasses, lilac bushes and the retaining walls on the east and west side of the property are on the property of lot 6 and the lot to the east. They go a little bit onto the open space but the retaining walls are there to maintain the grade so the park has its natural slope from east to west about six or seven feet. Those walls are necessary because of the pre-approved building envelopes. This plan is level and as historic as we can get. The plantings will be dictated by the Parks Dept. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2006 because we are giving it to Parks when we are finished. It will be the City's park. As we grade it if we can eliminate some of the boulder walls in the middle we would be more than happy to. Jason said the meadow needs opened and the visuals to the historic resources. Bob said we are willing to accommodate everyone's wishes. Michael suggested that Scott get with Amy and see if they can come up with a compromIse. Scott said we mayor may not ask the applicant to realign his sewer line design. The trail is aligned to provide service access for the sanitation district. Scott said that is why the trail is ten feet wide as opposed to being narrower. Derek said the easement is what it is. It is not quite that simple to have the trail moved over. Amy pointed out that the park is land marked. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearingfor Fox Crossing Park until April 19th with further restudy of the trail alignment; grade change and how that is mitigated with trying to do less built objects with the grade change and the planting plan to retain more of the meadow historic quality that is existing currently; second by Alison. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, no; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5- 1. 430 W. MAIN STREET - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES 980 GIBSON AVE. - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES 302 E. HOPKINS AVE. - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES MOTION: Derek moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 8