Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20000308ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 8, 2000 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Members in attendance were Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Gilbert Sanchez and Lisa Markalunas. Jeffrey Halferty was seated at 5:05 and Heidi Freidland was seated at 5:20 p.m. Staff in attendance were Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie; Nick Lelack, Planner and Deputy Clerk Jackie Lothian. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy informed the board that the E. Cooper Court project where the Langleys' live have had numerous issues regarding placement of buildings on the lot and a stop order was issued on the Langleys' because it was not built in the right location. There is a parking space on the site, which is actually for the Hatem house, which is the historic barn. Because they didn't get the barn located in the right site the parking space is not wide enough to meet our standards. They are going to the Board of Adjustment to ask for a variance for the parking space but legally need a recommendation from the HPC to present to the Board of Adjustment. MOTION: Mary made the motion to schedule the Langley parking issue at the next available meeting; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. Staff informed the applicant and board that the attorney will determine what type of notice will be needed for the meeting. DISCLOSURES Gilbert relayed that he will be stepping down for 7th and Main. Amy Guthrie relayed that she will be stepping down for 920 W. Hallam. Heidi disclosed that she will be stepping down on 920 W. Hallam and 110 W. Main. 7th & MAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINAL REVIEW Staff recommended approval of the project and felt it is an excellent addition to Main Street. Council has given approval of the project with the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 commercial comer store elements. All of the conditions are standard for HPC approval. The project is fairly large for Main Street and an important part of its success lies in the way they use color to break up the project into smaller buildings. In the code the Community Development Director can make a determination on color. Sworn in were Scott Lindeneau, Mark Mahoney and Lee Novak. Lee Novak relayed that the design represents a successful re-interpretation of an historic building and the project appropriately combines traditional and modem materials. Lee presented samples of proposed materials which include hardy plank. The small trees on 7th street will be transplanted in order to maintain the historic ditch. Openings were added to the lower levels of the carports to break up the wall. A traditional streetlight had to be added and an awning feature was added above the store to break up the commercial massing of the building. In response to the color condition the buildings will not be painted until next February and possibly the residents and owners might want to change the color. A suggestion would be to require the developer or any future owners to consult with the Historical Preservation officer before changes or modifications to the color could be made. Lee also requested HPC input on the canopy and its design. Lisa asked for clarification regarding the style of the streetlight and it will be a replication of the historic lights on Main Street. Jeffrey had some concerns about the hearty plank and the corrugated canopy over the store. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Lisa felt due to the significance of that comer on Main Street HPC should review future paint schemes. The awning material selection seems a little severe. The majority of the HPC also agreed that future paint schemes should be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 Heidi stated £or the record that she is not in £avor o£ the store. Susan relayed that the panels look too industrial and Suzannah had concerns about the corrugated fiberglass also. The detailing of the fiberglass needs reviewed, as the fiberglass material needs to look substantial. Amy suggested that the detail of the fiberglass or metal needs to be presented to staff and monitor. MOTION: deffhey moved to grant final approval for 7th and Main ~lffbrdable Housing presented March 8, 2000 with the following conditions: 1) The relocated ditch along Main Street shall match the size and character of the existing ditch. 2) The Housing./luthority shall place a covenant on the project stating that the ditches may not be lan&caped. 3) The paint scheme for the project shall be approved by the HPC in perpetuity. 4) HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 5) There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 6) The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are know and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 7) ,411 representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 8) Details' of the canopy showing the fabrication need to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Heidi. ,411 in favor, motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: Mary, Lisa, Susan, deffbey, Suzannah, Heidi 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 920 W. HALLAM STREET, LOT A FINAL REVIEW - PH Amy and Heidi recused themselves. Nick Lelack and Ron Robertson were sworn in. Nick relayed that staff continues to be in support of the project. The changes from conceptual are the addition of a master closet above the garage to the north of the master bedroom. The windows to the South and West of the master bedroom are larger than approved at Conceptual. The applicant stated that they grew to accommodate the views. The Community Development staff does not believe these windows are in the same style and design of the remainder of the house or the project as a whole. The west elevation is a prominent facade visually and should be compatible with the building. Staff feels that the monitor and staff should approve another design of windows that would be compatible. The living room has been increased by four feet to the North. The Community Development staff requested guidance of the three windows on the south and the fence on the south elevation. The Community Development staff still feels that Lot A and B still overshadow the historic house. Ron Robertson felt that the larger window on the south made the wall more of an open feeling. He presented an alternative design exhibit A5 showing the windows at the same height. He also informed the board that on the Sardy house there is a roof fence and it helps give the project a notion of variety. Susan commented on the porch and possibly it could be moved to the west side to create interest on that elevation. The representative said due to the floor plans that would not be possible. Ron said the plate heights are still the same. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 Jeffrey relayed that he has concerns with the addition of the four feet as the house then starts to compete with the historic house. At one point the historic house was prominent to the street and with the four-foot addition it starts to diminish. The closet is acceptable but the roof needs simplified. Jeffrey had no problems with the iron fence and he prefers Exhibit A5. He also has concerns with the scallop shingles. Gilbert is also opposed to the four-foot addition. Regarding the second story bedroom window he likes the distinctness. The closet addition results in more massing. Possibly look at a different roof form instead of carrying it all the way over to the closet, possibly a shed roof form that has a lower profile. The windows on the south are acceptable. The iron fence seems a little too much and a simpler detail is recommended. Mary informed the board that at conceptual the two buildings complimented the historic house and now at final they overwhelm it. She also agreed with Gilbert and Jeffrey that she would not support the additional four feet. The master closet addition is not acceptable and if it was desirable it should have been discussed at conceptual. The heavy metal material is not compatible and the proposed roofline is not appropriate. From conceptual the house has turned into a huge building. Mary stated to Ron that she supported him all the way on conceptual but will not support the numerous revisions. Susan also stated that she is not in favor of the additional four feet nor the roof. The historic house has to be the most prominent. The closet is huge and the request is inappropriate. The buildings need to be kept smaller in order to give the historic house prominence. Exhibit A5 in the window change is acceptable. The iron fence should be simplified. Lisa agreed primarily with Mary's comments. Both of the properties overwhelm the historic house. It gives you the feeling of a %anyon effect" with the little house stuck in the middle. She would not support the project as presented. The window changes are not appropriate for the structure and the massing is too grand. Suzannah agreed with all of the other commissioner's comments. At conceptual two simple straightforward modest buildings were presented and 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 now there are more roof shapes, numerous different kinds of window openings. The two buildings need to stay as simple as they can be. Suzannah also stated that she could not support the closet addition unless it had a different type of roof shape; possibly a simple shed roof and delete the metal railing. The rail adds complexity. Applicants comments. Ron relayed from his standpoint he tried to respect what was approved in the past. He felt the changes were small. He has no problem with eliminating the four feet and having a smaller roof on the closet. This is a massaging effort, as people have to buy these houses. Nothing else has really changed. He indicated the comments were very well received. He also stated he is concerned about the character of the two buildings. Suzannah relayed that the applicant should come back with final drawings. MOTION: Mary moved to continue the public hearing and final review for 920 W. Ha/lam until April 12, 2000; second by Gilbert. Motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: Susan, Lisa, Gilbert, Mary, Suzannah, defJhey. 920 W. HALLAM STREET, LOT B2 FINAL REVIEW - PH Nick informed the board that the living room window below the dormer on the east facade was removed to allow for an entertainment center. The second revisions are the enlargement of the windows on the south and west elevations for the master bedroom. Staff supports the changes. Comments: Susan had concerns with the arched window on the east. Ron relayed that the window is in the diningroom. Mary and Gilbert had no problem with the windows on the east side. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 Gilbert had concerns with the changes of the windows on the south as that elevation faces the historic house. Jeffery felt that the north elevation seems a little too massive. Lisa relayed in general that the massing is too large and she has no concerns with the window changes. She is uncertain about the dining room window, the arched window. Suzannah stated that her concern is the windows on the south elevation. Susan requested that the shingles in the gable be addressed at the next meeting. MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue the pubic hearing and final review on 920 144. Ha/lam Lot B to April 12, 2000; second by Lisa. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: ~/effhey, Gilbert, Mary, Lisa, Susan, Suzannah 333 W. BLEEKER STREET - FINAL - PH Amy and Heidi were seated. Amy informed the board that there are 20 recommendations of approval but that is due to the importance of the historic house. There are numerous preservation recommendations. There is one direct vent for a fireplace for the master bedroom out the roof instead of the wall and the contractor must pass the test. The drawings indicate meter boxes on the west wall and staff needs clarification if they are existing or proposed. Ideally they should be located somewhere else. Mary Holley was sworn in. The meter boxes are existing but ideally they should be on the alley side. Mary talked to the landscape architect about the plantings around the foundation and they would prefer some kind of transition at the base of the building. Right now it comes right to the grass and the idea would be to not block the stone foundation completely. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 The owner is requesting the brick patio and a water feature and he would like to have a fence around the perimeter of the property. The ballards could be eliminated and an iron gate could be installed instead. She is also not sure if the aspen trees can be planted. The hedge would be slightly below the top of the fence, similar to Saint Mary's church. That idea is to block some of the views along Third street. The entire landscape plan may change once the owner moves into the house. The board unanimously decided that the landscape plan should come back to the entire board. They focused on the changes on the house. Mary Holley relayed that two dormers were eliminated and some windows were changed to rectangular. On the north elevation the dormer slightly changed and french doors were added in order to access the back yard. Metal railings will be used around the light wells. Lisa inquired about the connector. Mary said it is the same width three feet but one of the walls is being pushed back to create a space. Suzannah asked if staff was concerned about the removal of the wall. Amy said at ground level they are removing a portion of the back of the house. If HPC is looking at reversibility the wall should stay. Mary asked if the wall was an interior wall or the back wall of the building. Mary Holley explained that at the end of the existing building there is a door and then there are three flat panes of glass. The porch that comes out will be removed and part of the wall. The outside surface of the wall is made of cork and there is no siding. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: Lisa had concerns about the width of the connector being almost as wide as the house. The railing on the roof top deck is appropriate. There is concern about the back wall. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 Heidi dittoed Lisa and agreed with staff' s recommendation. In terms of the back wall issue are we demolishing an original wall. The plans indicate that the wall was altered to begin with. Heidi relayed that she could approve the opening up of the wall as the exterior shape is still being maintained. Susan was in favor of one of the dormers being eliminated. The window revisions are OK but she has concerns about the two sets of doors. Mary Holly said the doors are a good distance back from the fence and not that visible. Mary informed the board that she can accept the proposed changes. She also feels the flagstone patio should be part of the landscape plan approval at a later date. Gilbert completely agreed with staff' s comments and recommendations. The project is one of the best preservation plans that we will have in this town. Gilbert has concerns about the rear wall. He encouraged the applicant to retain as much of the rear wall as possible. If they are willing to give up a little of the openness in the kitchen you might be able to retain some of the original fabric that would enhance the historic character. Jeffrey is in favor of the schematic design and supports the recommendations. He also feels the connector should be a little thinner. It will be a wonderful project. Jeffrey inquired about the light wells and their design. Mary Holley stated that the light well on the east and north will be a vertical gate and the west will be a flat grate. Suzannah also was in favor of the changes but agreed with Gilbert in retaining more of the rear wall. The only concern for Suzannah is the size of the siding. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 Mary Holley presented samples and she feels the width of the siding could be six inches instead of eight. She also feels saving part of the wall will be difficult because between the wall and kitchen there is eight feet. MOTION: Mary moved that HPC grant final approval for 333 W. Bleeker Street with the following conditions: 1) The HPC granted the following variances at conceptual review: a 7foot rear yard setback variance, an 8foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, and a 5foot east sideyard variance for a lightwell, and a 320 squarefootfloor area bonus. 2) The master bedroom fireplace must vent through the roof, to avoid adding an incompatible feature on the wall. 3) Information on all venting locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 4) If possible, the meter boxes on the west wall of the house should be located in a less conspicuous area not on the historic structures. 5) Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 6) Submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials', which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials' and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage. 7) No elements' are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials' other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 8) HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 9) There shall be no deviation from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 1 O) The preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 11) The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 8, 2000 application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 12) The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a buildingpermit. 13) All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 14) Six inch siding will be used for the new addition to be approved by staff and monitor. 15)HPC would urge the applicant and architect to look at retaining the historical part of the kitchen wall ~possible. 16) That the entire landscape plan including items 5-12 that were mentioned be submitted to HPC for approval. Heidi second. Motion carried 7-0 Yes vote: Susan, Lisa, Heidi, Mary, Gilbert, defJhey, Suzannah 110 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL Heidi recused herself. Sworn in were Alfred Beadelston, Augie Reno, Herb Klein, Bob Morris, and Tim Semrau. Amy relayed that the concern is the height of the addition. Only half of the property is in the Historic Main Street District from the alley forward. All of the third floor is over the height limit in that zone district. The P&Z will be weighing whether they want to offer a height variance incentive to expanding lodges. If the variance is allowed the addition should be minimized. They still have eight foot tall doors with transom windows over them and staff feels that height is not necessary. Staff recommends continuing to bring down the height. Chris Bendon relayed that the lodge preservation program has been in existence for several years and it allows lodge owners to convert to other 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 uses; residential, commercial and also to expand small lodges. In 1990 we lost 405 rooms mostly from lodges. The LP program provides incentives for small lodges to stay in the lodging business. They are provided an easier process through growth management. All of the zoning parameters really are negotiable so they can establish their height, setbacks and parking in a manner that the city believes is appropriate and in a manner which would work for their redevelopment. Chris also clarified that he was not encouraging a fourth floor. Applicant: Augie relayed at the last meeting direction was given to look at the overall height of the proposed third floor addition, central architectural mass in the middle of the building and to show the property and surrounding buildings graphically or in a model form. The main ridgeline has been lowered by almost three feet and the main architectural element gable was at 41 feet and is now at 35 feet. The two small gable dormers existed but have been embellished a little. The existing upper floor has a balcony and the walls of the rooms are set back roughly four feet. The flat part of the addition was put on in 1984. Lodges have to be competitive in the community and having a flat roof is not as desirable as having a little volume. Questions Susan asked if all the rooms have vaulted ceilings and could a shed roof be incorporated. Augie indicated that they all have vaulted ceilings. In order to do a shed one side would be higher, one side would be a minimum of eight feet and the other would have to go up a good six feet. Augie relayed the lower they go in height the more the building looks like a box and that is not desirable. Gilbert asked about the plate heights and they are 8.6 in order to get headers. Alfred said they could use 7 foot doors but they do not want to in order to compete in the lodge community. They do not want a %ox" building. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 The existing floor has eight-foot ceilings. Suzannah opened the public hearing. Tim Semrau, president of the homeowners association across the street. There are seven units in the association. The height limit is 25 feet and the applicant feels it is necessary to build the third floor entirely above the 25 feet height limit in order to get views to the south. That is justifiable and would improve the livability of those elements; however, presently there is nothing there and they could expand in a different location encompassing the views of Red Mountain. This structure dwarfs everything in the neighborhood and it also cuts off the associations views. Tim requested that the board contemplate what the outcome will be if the addition is built over the regulated height limit. Suzannah closed the public hearing. Applicant: Augie relayed that in this zone district there is a 30 foot height limit. They are asking to exceed by five feet to the ridge. The entire floor is not all above the height limit. Suzannah asked what the mid point would be? Augie said that figure would be at 30 feet to the dormers. Herb Klein relayed that the third floor is around 70 feet back from the property line. There are very few structures that have their higher element that far back. Comments Mary relayed that the board's responsibility is to preserve the historic look and feel and space of the Main Street Historic District. They do not need to show us what they are doing on Bleeker Street because it is out of the district. The addition continues to be too high and 11 foot door and transoms is not 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 compatible to the district. One of the reasons tourists come here is because of the historic district. Mary stated she could not support the addition. Susan dittoed Mary and supported staff' s recommendation. Lisa supports the improvements to the small lodges and allowing them to compete, as that is what makes Aspen affordable. She feels the design features of the third floor are more appropriate over a flat roof. She also has concerns about the height and impacts to the neighborhood. Jeffrey supports density downtown and is in support of the small lodge expansion program. The density is screened from the setback. The applicant is responding regarding the reduction of the height by loosing the central gable. It needs refined a little. Jeffrey supports the additional density. Gilbert said the revisions are a vast improvement over what was presented before. The height does not seem out of scale with the other buildings. There is still a problem with the massing and somehow that needs addressed. A thought would be to break up the massing into two smaller buildings. The plate height could come down in the main roof and you can get the views and glazing with the dormers. Gilbert also said staff' s suggestion of a flat roof and architecture that relates a little more strongly to what is there now makes sense but he also understands what the applicant is trying to do. The roof could be simpler. Suzannah relayed that simplicity is the key. Dropping the plate height of the low pitched roof that runs along the alley would reduce the feel of the mass of the building and the eight foot doors could still work within the dormer shapes with a modified transom. The curved dormers on top are not contributing but accentuating the length of the long vertical wall as opposed to letting the roof go away. The roof shapes on the alley side should be very simple, maybe just the two end curves and the two gables and not continue the smaller dormers. In general Suzannah can support the third story but the board needs to be very careful in determining how much higher over the height limit the board will approve. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 Augie said possibly the plate height could be dropped a foot and that maybe will drop the roof a foot and the question is does that accomplish the concerns that the board has. Suzannah stated that a foot would probably work but the transom will have to be compressed. The relationship of the tops of the dormers to the ridge are comfortable and that space should not get smaller. Going down a foot would make a significant difference. MOTION: Mary moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 110 W. Main Street until April 12, 2000; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote; Susan, Lisa, Mary, Gilbert, defJhey, Suzannah MOTION: defJhey moved to adjourn; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 8~ 2000 COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS ................................................................................... 1 DISCLOSURES ...................................................................................................................................... 1 7TM & MAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINAL REVIEW ................................................................ 1 920 W. HALLAM STREET, LOT A FINAL REVIEW - PH ............................................................... 4 920 W. HALLAM STREET, LOT B2 FINAL REVIEW - PH ............................................................. 6 333 W. BLEEKER STREET - FINAL - PH ......................................................................................... 7 110 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL .......................................................................................... 11 16