Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060510 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 10. 2006 FOX CROSSING PARK - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING ...............1 332 W. MAIN ST. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) DEMOLITION, AND VARIANCES -CONTD PUBLIC HEARING FROM 3-8-2006 ..................................... 1 705 W. MAIN - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING........................................................................................................................... 4 WORKSESSIONS - NO MINUTES ................................................................................. 8 311 S. First Street - Sandler windows ................................................................................ '8 City Hall Entrance............ ......................................................................... .......................... 8 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 10. 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Alison Agley, Derek Skalko and Michael Hoffman. Jason Lasser was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Jackie Lothian, Deputy Clerk MOTION: Michael moved to approve the minutes of April 12, 2006; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. FOX CROSSING PARK - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing for Fox Crossing until June 14,2006; second by Sarah. All infavor, motion carried 5-0. 332 W. MAIN ST. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) DEMOLITION, AND VARIANCES -CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING FROM 3-8-2006 Amy said the total project is 3,500 square feet and the allowable FARis 4,500 sq. ft. They are not asking for aFAR bonus and they are under the maximum. The board is pleased that the house is not being picked up but the result is that there is not a lot of build able area for the addition. They are asking for the full rear yard setback variance, and going as far toward the east as allowed. We wouldn't want them to come out to the west because then they would be jetting out in front ofthe historic building. Footprint wise, this is the only viable solution unless the house was moved. The main focus in the memo is the roof forms; they are not entirely derived from the house and need restudied. Staff is recommending continuation for restudy of the roof plans. John Muir, architect John said there is a large hip element and a number of smaller subordinate elements to break down the overall scale of the new construction. The northern part of the existing house is a hipped roof. Our reason for doing so is the lack of side area to work with. The hip element is a way to reduce the mass and give more dominance to the 3RD Street side. John said they can make adjustments to simplify the form. They propose to make a simplified 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 10. 2006 gable form and eliminate a dormer and retain the basic hip structure. On the east elevation where they had a large gable dormer they would reduce the scale of that as well. Regarding the light well they would like the board to give them leeway because they do not have enough side area to get the egress for light and ventilation for the basement spaces. There is a portion of the historic structure that we are proposing to put a basement underneath. It will be underpinned in place. Michael asked what the conclusion was forthe affordable housing. John said they would be charged cash-in-lieu on the difference between the original local unit and the smaller of the two free market units. John said they are providing two on-site parking spaces and previously there was only one. Both are proposed to be covered and accessed off the alley. Amy said right now there is technically no on-site parking for the commercial use in the front. They are making that smaller so there is no new mitigation and they are providing the appropriate number so it seems to be acceptable. John said they are provided two spaces for each residential unit. He is not sure how the lack of onsite parking for the commercial is going to impact things. Amy said in the worst case they would need a parking variance at final. John said the specific goal in terms of massing was to separate the old from the new. Jeffrey suggested that the height could be lowered and some of the program could be moved toward the alley to cause relief between the two structures. Michael agreed with Jeffrey. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing section of the meeting was closed. Derek said in looking at the mass and scale it is appropriate and not out of proportion. The applicant has simplified the roof forms. Regarding the parking scenario it is more important to have the two spaces onsite. 2 ~_~___,_,_~_,._,.~",_...~'___L____ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 10. 2006 Sarah relayed that she is OK with the setback variances. She is grappling wit the hip roof more from the west elevation. The simpler mass elevation that was exhibited today helps. She also agreed with Derek that the parking should remain on-site. It is fabulous that we are keeping the historic resource to retain a mixed us project in this zone. The only issue is the connector and how the roofs come together. Alison said the setback variances are necessary. The on-site parking is OK especially when the commercial will be generating street parking. She has no problem with the massing. The nature of the historic structure and the way the roof comes down at the back kind of creates the separation between the two structures. The simpler roof forms help. Michael relayed that he feels the addition is not sympathetic to the historic structure. There is too much density and he would prefer to see something much more modest but the land use code as it exists allows an addition like this. In terms of staff s comments the height of the addition is compliant with our guidelines and the applicant responded very well with the roof forms. Dropping the cricket is more sympathetic to the historic structure. Regarding the comments that the setbacks are necessary to accommodate this project, if you look at the language in 26 415.110 it doesn't meet it. The setback should be similar to the pattern features and character of the historic property or district. Enhances or mitigates and adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Amy explained that if we didn't allow these variances and there weren't any way to express the rights that they have on the property they would probably be asking to move the building forward, and we are avoiding that. We are giving them the ability to build some kind of addition here. Michael said if the goal is to lessen the mass and scale of the additions on historic structures then we should look at that in relations to variances. Amy said this is kind of meeting each other halfway. Jeffrey agreed with staffs comments. He also relayed that he appreciates the applicant restudying the elevations. Simplifying the roof forms works. There is a collision at the link form and shortening the cricket helped. Possibly the plate height could be reduced a little. The mass and scale looks 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 10. 2006 great from the street elevation but on the west elevation possibly some simplification and a dormer change could be restudied. The variances help with the relief from the historic resource. Not moving the building is commendable. With restudy of Chapter 12 and 10 conceptual could be granted. Derek commented that in general the board would not want a light well on the west elevation. He would encourage that if the light well is approved that one large one vs. two smaller ones be approved. John said the biggest issue is the connecting element. They can reduce plate heights etc. Ifwe want to approach old vs. new we would have to eliminate one parking space. The parking spaces are an amenity to both units and we thought it an enticement to not ask for a parking variance. Amy said she though the compromise will work and the applicant could have come in and said they would like to build a 1,000 square foot addition. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution 11 for 332 W. Main Street with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the revised elevations submitted today. 2. The protruding light well be removed. 3. Approval of a 3 foot setback on the east and a 0 setback on the alley. 4. Demolition is approved as outlined by staff. Motion second by Michael. Roll call vote: Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Derek, yes; Jeffrey, no. Motion carried 4-1. 705 W. MAIN - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL VARIANCES- PUBLIC HEARING Proof of publication - Exhibit I Amy relayed that this is final review for the new house on 70 I W. Main Street lot split. HPC discussed the nature of the setbacks that are needed to preserve the tree and the applicant has some constraints in that regard. The square footage is the same even if the lot split wouldn't have occurred. There is no addition to the historic building and the square footage is allocated over three buildings. Variances from the Residential Design Standards are needed: Built to lines and secondary mass. Staff recommends approval ofthose two variances. The third variance that is needed is called 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 10. 2006 Building Elements, where it is required that your front door face the street. Staff does not recommend granting that variance. The architect feels the location of the tree is part of the problem. Staff feels that the tree might not be there forever and we need to make as much of a connection to Main Street as possible. We find the project is mostly in compliance but there is some concern with the slightly craftsman character finish that is not in character with the Historic Main Street district. We asked for restudy of some of the window patterns and mullion patterns. Staff recommends approval as outlined in the resolution. Dirk Danker, architect said based on staffs comments we simplified all of the window mullion patterns on all of the elevations. We are using a simple cross shaped mullion in lieu of a craftsman style. In terms of the fa9ade we are going to use the same material palate that is on the coach house: Metal roof with a slightly grayish tone and the same shiplap siding. The shingles would be natural cedar. We would also be using similar stone that is on the coach house. In terms of the front elevation two plans are shown. One shows a porch with a center stairway with the door perpendicular to Main Street. Because of the tree the sidewalk is moving to the west. The other way that we can do it is we can provide a small platform with a landing and the front door at the front of the building. We are 150 square feet below the FAR. The corner cannot go within the drip line of the tree. Amy asked about the proposed landing. Dirk said the porch itself is in that buffer zone and we have worked that out with the Parks Dept. where those are really piers. The lighting is can light in the porch. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner, owner of the property immediately to the west. Mary said they have been following the project but they still feel there is a mass and height issue. This structure is going right between the historic structure that we live in and the one on the corner. It seems that there is a large vestibule area on the 3rd story and if height and mass is a concern, is that a necessary thing on the building. The ceilings are 9 feet and 8 feet is a generous ceiling. Could HPC require an 8 foot ceiling which could bring down the entire structure? The coach house was approved at its height and the board feels they should continue approving buildings at that same height. This 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 10. 2006 building is very large in comparison to other buildings on the street. It is even taller than the three-story condominium behind us. In summary is the 9 foot ceiling necessary and can the building be reduced in size to be in more character with the historic buildings that are around it. Regarding the willow tree in the back, it is proposed to be removed but it is very close to the property line and it does provide dust retention from the alley. Mary recommended that the tree be retained because it adds to the historic character of the area. Rob Wien, owner ofthe property to the west, 709 W. Main. The snow sliding from the high pitched roof onto our property is a concern. Rob said he don't see anything in the design to keep it from impacting his property. Last winter the cottage was moved to the west of the property and it slid and almost killed our dog. Has the architect addressed the snow load, i.e. fence in the design and if so could he explain it. Amy passed around an e-mail from a neighbor. They are being impacted by the construction. Amy said the comments are not complimentary to the interactions that have been going on. That is concerning and there are laws when one can build. She hopes the owners are not building on Sundays. Sarah pointed out that the Community Development is very busy so time being taken on violations of things like this is time taken away from other approval projects. Jeffrey relayed to the owner and contractor to keep communication with the rules etc. on parking and construction work. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner comments: Alison said as long as the drip line of the tree doesn't become a problem with the Parks Dept. she supports facing the front door toward the street, especially in the light that at some point the tree might die. Simplification of the window mullions is better and the roofing materials, siding etc. is fine. We can monitor the lighting and landscape plan. As far as the height we discussed that at the last meeting about the owner looking at lowering the plate heights. Amy confirmed that in the minutes it was discussed about reducing the plate heights from nine feet to eighth foot or 8 Yz feet. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 10. 2006 Derek agreed with Alison about the door etc. His only concern is to hear what the Parks Dept. says about the drip line. He can support the revised drawings of the mullions. Regarding the snow load, by law the snow has to fall on the owner's property, it cannot escape. That will be dealt with by the Building Dept. Derek also said he would like a response in regards to the reduction ofthe plate heights from the owner and architect. Sarah she would like an explanation about the plate heights. There was a lot of talk about it and there are engineering systems out there that can lower the heights. The mullions are OK. It would be helpful to have a colored rendering of the siding so we can see how all of this goes together. We need to see the textures and scale of materials. In terms of the back window either window would work and comply with our guidelines. In terms of the snow retention, snow bars could be installed and by all means it should not be going into the neighbor's yard. The street oriented entrance does comply with our Residential Design Standards and should be followed through with this project. Michael said he reviewed the revised plans and appreciates the simplification ofthe window forms and the design adequately addresses the street. In response to the construction management issues raised in the e- mail, it sounds like someone needs to make sure the rules are adhered to and respect is paid to the neighbors. So much density is being added to lots on the West End, like this one, but it is not relevant. He supports the project. Jeffrey also agreed that the amendment to the application with the simplification of the fenestration, mullion patterns is a better to attempt to conform to our guidelines. He is in support of the material palates. The door relocation on the latest scheme does address Main Street and conforms to the guidelines. Jeffrey also said he is sympathetic with the neighbors about construction and the architect has ways to prevent snow disasters'. Jeffrey said he can support this proposal. Dirk introduced Pat Hunter the contractor. Dirk said we are trying to look at building the front of the building first and try to get out ofthe way on the site. We want to be good neighbors. Regarding the snow load we are designing a cold roof and there is an insulation panel over the sheathing then an air space and another piece of 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 10. 2006 decking material and then the roof material goes on over that. Weare trying to keep the snow on the roof form melting. We would put in snow breaks etc. per code and that will be incorporated. Regarding the Third floor that whole area on the stair is underneath the roof on the second floor. The roofing at the front of the house begins with the ceiling of the second floor. In terms of the plate height we are looking at a radian floor system which usually takes up to 2 1/2 to 3 inches of space and we are looking at 14 inch trusses. We are in the range of 16 to 17 inches of floor structure and that gives us an 8 foot 8 ceiling. We are trying to keep everything as low as we can. Pat Hunter, contractor apologized for the problems that they are having at the construction site. They are renting parking space to accommodate a few cars on 6th Street. We were there on a Sunday only once in six months. We are going to try to work between the two buildings that are existing and bring the materials back and forth from Sixth Street. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution 12, 2006 as recommended by staff with the following amendments: Deletion of#l- Deletion of#2 Add adequate snow shedding and that measures will be added to the final design of the roof to be confirmed by staff at the time of the building application. Drawings approved as submitted 5-10-2006. Motion second by Derek. Sarah said in the motion as it is stated the front door would be facing east. Jeffrey and Alison were also concerned about the door facing east. Michael amended his motion to include condition #1 to the motion. Derek amended his second. Roll call vote: Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Derek, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-0. WORKSESSIONS - NO MINUTES 311 S. First Street - Sandler windows City Hall Entrance MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Alison. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 8