Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20061011 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006 205 S. Mill St. - Minor Development - Public Hearing ................................ I 922 W. Hallam - Minor Development, Variances Public Hearing ................ I 134 W. Hopkins - Minor Development and Variances - Continued public hearing............................................................................................................. 2 635 W. Bleeker Street - Minor Review.......................................................... 7 Information Kiosk - referral comments.......................................................... 9 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Jason Lasser, Sarah Broughton. Michael Hoffman was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 205 S. Mill St. - Minor Development - Public Hearing MOTION: Alison moved to continue 205 S. Mill, Minor Development and public hearing until Dec. 13th; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Amy will recuse herself on 922 W. Hallam - neighbor 922 W. Hallam - Minor Development, Variances Public Hearing Sara said at the last meeting HPC directed staff and the applicant to sit down with Parks and try to come to a resolution about the hedge row that was created with the spruce trees that were planted in the front yard. The conclusion was to remove three of the spruce trees. Two will remain and one of the two was originally there. By removing the spruce trees there is no need for a variance from the residential design standards. There are two totem trees that will grow to be 12 feet high but the owner intends them to be more ornamental and she will retain them the same height of the fence. Staff recommends approval of the minor development. Staff also recommends discussion of the totem trees next to the historic cottage. Christine said she will be happy to take out the three spruce trees. The totem trees are ornamental trees and don't get as tall as a normal totem which is 8 to 10 feet. She wants to keep them at the level of her fence and does not want to block the lilac tree. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Alison said she could accept the plan as long as the totem trees are trimmed. The plan is a good compromise. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006 Sara said in the resolution she mentioned keeping the bushes at a height of no higher than 42 inches which would include the totem trees ifHPC is in agreement. Sarah said she feels this is a good compromise but there are still a lot of trees in front of the house. Jason said his concern is where the height is measured from, is it from the sidewalk height or down at the grade. Jeffrey said this is a good compromise and in fairness to the applicant the tree should not be measured at the high elevation and should be measured where the trees are at grade. Sara said measurement occurs at grade. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #27 for 922 W. Hallam as stated in staff's memo with the following addition: 1. The two totem trees are also kept to a height of 42 inches to match the shrubs in the front yard. Motion second by Alison. Motion carried 3-1. Roll call vote: Jason, no; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 134 W. Hopkins - Minor Development and Variances - Continued public hearing Exhibit I - New drawing Sara relayed that the property is on the corner of Hopkins Ave. and S. First St. It is a I Y, story miner's cottage that was built in the 1880's and was subject to a landmark lot split. IN 1980's a big addition was added to the rear which does not comply with the design guidelines. There is no connector piece and things like that. At the last meeting HPC requested confirmation of the square footage. Currently there is 1760 square feet of FAR existing on the property and 138 of the FAR bonus is available for this property. The proposal is an addition to the rear and a storage shed. Staff finds that the proposed roof form is inconsistent with some of the design guidelines 10.9 and 10.14. The main problem is with the gablette which is not consistent with the historic resource and we recommend its removal. The materials selected do comply with the guidelines. The height of the proposed shed is about 14 feet and stafffeels it could be lowered a little in 2 I I I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006 order to not compromise the historic structure. In terms of demolishing the storage shed that is currently there staff finds that it meets the criteria for demolition. FAR bonus: With alterations to the roofform stafffeels the design could comply. Regarding the rehabilitation measure photographs indicate that the dormer on the primary fayade used to be a shed roof and now it is a gabled roof and staff suggested that would be a good rehabilitation measure that could help qualify for the bonus but that is not proposed with this application. HPC had an idea to redesign the 1980's rear addition because it is difficult to distinguish between old and new. The applicant came back adding board and batten to create a differentiation between the materials. Staff finds that the proposal does not exhibit full compliance with the guidelines. A few setback variances were never granted for the existing house and staff is in favor of granting those variances. There is also a request for a 3 foot east side yard setback variance for the addition and staff supports that variance. Staff recommends HPC approve the storage shed but in terms of the addition stafffeels there is not enough rehabilitation aspect to the proposal to warrant granting a bonus for the addition. George Winne, architect Michelle Snyder, owner George said the back section was added on in the early 1980's. It was finished with the same material as the house, horizontal siding. We came in with a shed roof and incorporated it into the roofline and changed the materials. Alison asked the owner if they were opposed to changing the front dormer back to a shed. George said that would be an option that we could do. Jason commented that the height of the east elevation seems foreign. Sarah asked if they are proposing doing the same vertical board and batten on the previous addition that you are proposing on the west elevation. Michelle said there is a fence there and you can't see it at all but ifHPC desires that we could do it. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the meeting was closed. 3 I I I I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006 Sarah commented that this is a different kind of project in which we are being asked to grant a bonus above and beyond area that you have already used than what is allowable. Her concern is the height of the addition in the back. Architecturally how it is interacting with the gable volume seems problematic. Alison agreed with Sarah. The material change helps. In order to grant the FAR bonus the front dormer needs to be taken back to a shed roof. We were more on target when it was a simple shed roof on the back addition. The addition is modest and it seems that we should be able to work this out. Jason also said the project has moved in the wrong direction. The glazing vs. wall is too drastic. He suggested that the board and batten could be horizontal and the storage roof could be lowered. I I Jeffrey is currently in support of staffs recommendation. The new proposal is too much of a contrast. The gablette causes disruption on the historic west elevation. The suggestion that the storage form have a different spring point or a flat roof would minimize the size of the north elevation. Guideline 10.9 and 10. 14 are the guidelines that the applicant needs to be responding to. As Sarah stated this has to be an exemplary project for us to consider adding the square footage and the restoration at this point has not gone far enough. Returning the dormer to what it was originally is recommended. The addition is lower but is competing with the historic west elevation. I Sarah said with the 8'6" doors they might be able to be lowered which would help a lot and there is area for improvement in the overall mass and scale of the addition. Michelle said they interpreted the last meeting to totally make the back addition different and that is why they went offin that direction. We misunderstood. We would eliminate the sky lights and lower the storage area and change the roofline to make it different from the addition. Michelle said she wasn't sure what can be done on the 1980's addition as it was there when she bought the house. Any ideas would be welcomed. We can definitely change the dormer in the front. Michelle said they want to do whatever it takes to get this done. She loves the Victorian and understands what HPC is charged to do and we certainly do not want to make a monstrosity. We are concerned more about the inside space. I I I I I 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006 Jeffrey said the material change is something we discussed and not mimicking the existing. Sarah said her concern is the scale and mass. The scale before was more in keeping with the historic resource. If you look at the front elevation and the gable volume of the window there is proportion and scale and we are loosing that in the back. As you think about the inside think about the outside also. George said he explored the shed roof on the center before. Sarah said it is the gable conflicting with the upper gable fascia. Look at the front of the house and use that as an example. Jason said there is an opportunity to make the storage lower. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 134 W. Hopkins, minor development and public hearing until Dec. 13'h; second by Alison. Motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Alison,yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Aspen Meadows - Conference Bldg. referral comments I James Curtis, presented Amy relayed that HPC reviewed the conference as a referral comment a couple of years ago and during the SPA and other approvals. It went under construction and during the process they changed some aspects of their H V AC system in order to try and be more "green" and it changed the character of the mechanical equipment that they needed and they made an adjustment to increase the parapet wall to hide it. They didn't realize they needed additional approvals that were contradictory to their SPA which was very specific about all the height limits. Sarah asked what the height limit was on the SPA. Jim said it varies depending on the building point. Amy pointed out that the parapet wall is going up an additional 2'6". The end of the building where the height is increased is the closest area to the health club. Jim said about 45 days ago the rooftop mechanical was put up. There are two large pieces of mechanical equipment behind the parapet wall. Without even thinking about it they built the mechanical wall to hide the equipment. A Pitkin Green neighbor asked us to check the building heights. When we did we discovered that the parapet wall was 2'6" higher. The SPA drawings I 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006 were approved in 2005. In Nov. of 2005 the Institute decided to have this a lead certified building either a high silver or a low gold. To accomplish that we upgraded the mechanical equipment and in doing that it became larger. Secondly the acoustical engineer wanted all the rooftop mechanical equipment to be set on sound isolation pads. So the equipment is sitting on an II inch pad. Those two things together raised the height. Why it is preferable the way it is built if we bring it down you will have a funny visual, the parapet wall 4'3" inches and the upper two feet of the mechanical sticking above it. It would be like why have a parapet wall. You let the equipment be seen or your hide it. The acoustical engineer has determined having the parapet wall slightly higher than the mechanical equipment about four to six inches it will tend to focus the sound coming out of the mechanical equipment and direct it upward and then it can be dispersed. We are trying to address the concerns of Pitkin Green by landscaping and creating some shadow lines. Alison asked about the SPA and if the mechanical can be higher than the parapet. Jim said the SPA allows the mechanical equipment to exceed five feet above the highest point of the roof. Basically the trade of is do you look at mechanical equipment and hear a little more of it or do you look at a finished parapet wall and hear a little less of the mechanical equipment. Sarah asked if they explored the possibility of putting a guard rail up, something that is not so solid. Jim said no because of sound reasons and they want to direct the sound upward. Amy asked if they could put something around the equipment to baffle the sound. Jason said he checks the site weekly and he is the project monitor. This building is enormous and the site is trashed. He is embarrassed that HPC approved the project at this height and the parapet is making it even taller. He is not in favor of the parapet wall. We are violating the historic resource. We should have taken the time to look at the lake and see the relationship with the glass of the gymnasium and that is completely destroyed. Any kind of charm that was there is gone. Sarah said the wall is large and affects the overall proportion of the building. Possibly with a round guard rail there is a way to minimize the height. Having something that you see air through makes it feel less tall. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006 Jeffrey said as far as the program we tried to push it back as far as we could to try to preserve the entrance of Herbert's Heath center as best we could. Visually there is a lot and a lot of program. The south west elevation from the west side is pretty rigid especially the slop and grading of the river. As a general principle I like screening of the mechanical but am not thrilled with enlarging it another three feet. Possibly use another material. It is very challenging. Possibly look at the guard rail as another architecture treatment. Amy said she is reviewing the design and was wondering if there were material changes and the plan indicates stone will be used at the entrance. Jim said they are proposing zinc panels and he didn't realize they needed review for material changes. Jeffrey said the drawings are at the height it should be but the discrepancy occurred out in the field. The Board determined that a site visit should occur to determine if the proposed change in materials is appropriate. Recommendation: Drop the parapet wall 2'6" and have nothing else built at that height. Keep it as low as possible. Sarah said ifit is dropped is there another way to screen it. The board determined that a decision should be made after the site visit. 635 W. Bleeker Street - Minor Review Edgar Hernandez, contractor presented. Amy said this is a Victorian across from the historical society. Amy said the client, the Bonesdale's came in for a permit to replace the loose flagstone with a brick sidewalk that would be snow melted. They though they were representing something on permit that I did not see. It wasn't clear when this permit was issued. They actually intended to take out the stairs and wooden steps that were there. It was red tagged and we are trying to resolve the problem. They want to retain the functionality of the snow melt but are willing to look at way to change the materials to make it look more like it did before. The steps that were there were wooden but they were not the original ones, they were rebuilt. Staff said the stairs were built to match what was there before. The elevation of the house was not raised. Staff supports a resolution that takes everything back to the original form; replacing the steps with wood, replacing the treads with wood. Staff 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006 suggests that the little knee walls be taken out because they are quite a bit fatter than they used to be. Jim Bones said they might just want to cut them down and cover them with wood. Edgar relayed that he started at the top of the landing where the old one used to be and did not raise anything. Edgar presented some proposals and the board decided on D. Edgar said that is on the steps is the stone that is on the window wells around the house. Jeffrey said the big issue is the presentation toward the front. It is dressed up with this modest addition. Typically on a house like this you would have wood steps. The material and how it is applied is beautifully crafted but it is a treatment that is done with a Victorian and stands out too much. Edgar said he came to the City at least 20 times with different materials to submit to the Building Department. He had no clue that the Building Dept. and HPC were two different worlds. He brought in information that was asked, new surveys etc. He worked with Dennis and described what he was doing. Everyone missed HPC review. Jason said it probably will be cheaper to demo everything and put in wood framing. Edgar said the new owner is a retired builder and is versed in construction. Edgar said he would like to keep the concrete and then face it with wood. He would do wood risers and bring the knee walls to their original wood look. Sarah recommending everything go back to wood. Alison also agreed that wood should be used. Shaving down the concrete enough might work. The idea is to get down to the dimensions. What is there changes the character. Amy said if you re-poured a skinnier wall that would be OK as long as you get down to the dimensions that it used to be on the outside. Edgar said determining the original width will be difficult because he has no records. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006 The board determined that the monitor should do a site visit after the brick comes off to see the core concrete wall and decide if that is OK. Edgar said the concrete wall could be six inches. Amy pointed out that the red tag will be lifted. Amy said the treads and risers will be refaced with wood. The sidewalls will be cut down and strip them back to concrete and Jason will do a site visit. MOT/ON: Alison moved to approve Resolution #28 with the following conditions: The treads and risers will be refaced with wood. The sidewalls will be cut down and stripped back to the concrete and a site visit will occur to look at the core concrete; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried 4-0.. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Information Kiosk - referral comments I I Sara said Council has requested information regarding the location of the kiosk and feedback about urban design in the historic core. Could any improvements be made to the kiosk. I Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager: Once the booth got placed people had fairly strong opinions about its look, placement and location. There has been a significant amount of pressure put onto certain City Council members to move it. At the stafflevel we were directed to look more at a nearby location. The only viable alternative on Cooper Mall is by the fire hearth due to fire access in which 17 feet is needed. It was intended to be moved by it can't. . Sarah said the decision before was to look at other locations and that never happened. Jason said the pavilion is a travesty and sois the one in front of the Popcorn Wagon. They are just places for kids to hang out. Originally it was supposed to be movable. When you look at other buildings around there it is conflicting. All three pieces should be removed. Wasting more money is a big mistake. Bentley said the chamber has seen a huge increase in the number of people getting information. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006 Jeffrey said the kiosk becomes a problem because it gets closer to the historic resource which is the Hotel Independence. From a City aspect we understand the need for information. This whole board was against the objects in the first place. We said OK with signage and we agreed with mobile. It is very "Santa Montica" modern architecture. Alison said she thought it was the Frick and Beer report that generated these things and when we went on the walking tour they hated it. Maybe near the bathroom structure could be an option. Bentley said the preference by this board is not to have it on Galena Street. An information booth of appropriate scale and character might be Ok and it needs to be movable. Jason said the public always says the City is wasting fuel and polluting the air with the fire hearth. Amy said the first preference would be to remove all three objects. The second preference would be a different Visitor kiosk, smaller one and more in scale with a different design. The location to be determined. Sarah said incorporating it into a building would be the best option. Jeffrey said the corten steel is hard but visually it is cold. Amy stated that HPC feels that they should come back with a new design and a location to be determined. It should be something to scale. Sarah suggested Ruby Park or the Gondola plaza. Alison said the area by the trees is photographed constantly. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10