Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20061115 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15. 2006 Connor cabins .. ........................ ............ ............................ ... ........ ........ ... ..... ... ... .... ... ........... 1 510 E. Hyman - Elk's Lodge - Minor Development......................................................... 2 320 W. HALLAM - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING.......... 3 WORKSESSION ................................................................................................................ 7 214 E. BLEEKER - ISIS - No minutes ............................................................................. 7 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15. 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Jason Lasser, Brian McNellis and Michael Hoffman. Sarah Broughton was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Alison moved to approve Oct. 25th minutes; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Connor cabins - BJ Adams - Michael Adams. Amy said staff and the applicant are having trouble trying to come to an agreement with a sign for their real estate company. Michael Adams said he is president of the company and they are trying to come to an agreement on the size of a sign that will work for everyone. We want to be respectful of the historic building. The signage is not to block a motorist's view coming down the street. Staff said the size proposed is obstructive and out of character for the building. The sign on the wall is an identity sign. Staff discussed blade signs and signs that would be put in the ground. Right now they have a wall sign that is hanging next to the front of the double hung windows. Amy said if it were to hang off the building you need the proper clearance. There are also issues if it is placed in the ground you need to have the proper visibility from a car. The board reviewed different signs. Jeffrey said Telluride uses a blade and forward sign. We are trying to open up the view of this Victorian. We also understand the objection of getting the product out. Jason said the angled sign scale is too large vs. the size of the historic porch. He also recommended that the sign not attach to the fa9ade. The photos inside the sign could be smaller to accommodate the businesses needs. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15. 2006 Brian also agreed that the scale is too large. The board recommended that two monitors review the sign and work with the applicant. Michael and Jason are the monitors. 510 E. Hyman - Elk's Lodge - Minor Development Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Drawing - Exhibit II Sara said the minor review is for a 12 x 12 flat deck placed on the rooftop. There is also a height variance for a 3'6" railing which is the minimum required by the building code. The deck would not be visible from the pedestrian mall. The deck proposed is set back 9'4" inches from the parapet wall on Galena Street. In terms of the Design Guidelines, staff finds that the proposal for the deck and railing does not impact the visual appearance of the Elk's building. Height variance: For granting a variance of this nature there are three different criteria: The first criteria is that the variance granted is consistent with the goals of the AACP. Staff finds that this is fulfilled. AACP encourages appropriate and lively design. A rooftop deck will add vitality to the down town. The second criteria is that the variance is the minimum made possible for the reasonable use of the parcel. They are proposing the minimum height of the railing that is required by the Building code. Criteria three relates to hardship. Staff finds that there is a hardship present. They do exceed the height regulations because the building was built before the regulations came into effect. The building is about 48 feet tall and because it is an historic building and an icon in Aspen there really is no option for redevelopment so staff finds that there is a hardship. Mike Haman represented the Elks. The deck was built in 2000 when w~ got approval for the stairway access. Weare going to shift the deck away from Galena St. Mike said it is a bare bones railing around an existing condition. The height is 3' 6" inches. Mike Hoffman asked about the use of the deck. Mike said it will be used for maintenance of equipment and possibly some vitality. This is an in-house legal issue that we maintain the deck. Sara clarified that HPC will not have control over movable objects that are put on the deck such as umbrellas and tables. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15. 2006 Amy said HPC in the past has put conditions on permanent fixtures such as heat lamps. We would have a concern if something was obnoxiously placed. Jeffrey asked about the egress. Mike said up to 50 people you only need one egress. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Steve Saunders said he is a trustee. The Elk's has a committee that will keep an eye out as to what is happening. We intend to watch the fire works and the Winterskol parade. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Comments: Jason said it is better to have the railing as a safety feature. Alison agreed with staff's findings that it meets the three qualifications. Michael and Brian also support staffs findings. MOTION: Jason moved to approve Resolution #34 for the height variance for the railing on the roof top deck of 510 E. Hyman; second by Alison. Motion carried 5-0. Roll call vote: Jason, Alison, Brian, Michael, Jeffrey 320 W. HALLAM - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Photographs - Exhibit II Elevation oflight well- Exhibit III Sara relayed that the subject property is a 6,000 square foot lot that was created through a landmark lot split in 2002. On the property is a 2 story Victorian that was built in 1884 that sits in the front of the property. There were three unoriginal out buildings that were encroaching on the alley and they were approved at conceptual for demolition and found to be non- historic. A shed roof dormer was added to the Victorian in 1983 to the front the fa9ade. The porch was enclosed around 1971 and a rear shed roof addition was also added in 1971. The kitchen on the east elevation was added after 1971. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15. 2006 Sara pointed out that adjacent to this property is a designated 1966 pan abode that also has an addition to the rear. The conditions from conceptual are included in the memo and in addition the removal of the non-original dormer that was on the front far,;ade of the Victorian. 2. Removing the proposed skylights that were on the Victorian. 3. Proposing to restore the front porch to the original opened configuration of the historic photographs. 4. Reducing the height of the detached residence I' I 0" inches so it is lower than the historic porch seen from Hallam Street. There is also a variance request for the distance between the two detached buildings and also a variance request from the Residential Design Standards regarding windows. Sara talked about the rehab and the windows that are proposed comply with the design guidelines. Staff recommends approval with the condition that no historic openings are discovered on the west elevation during construction. This is a standard procedure that we have per section 3.3 of the design guidelines. The application also mentions the replacement of window units on the historic home. Those windows will be reviewed in the field before they are replaced. Staff has a question about the roof material. In plan the roof material for the west facing dormer is corrugated metal where as the rest of the Victorian is proposed to be wood cedar shingles. We are questioning whether it is intentional or not. Staff feels that the entire roof should be wood shingles. Also regarding the opening on the front porch we find that to be a great rehab action. The south east corner of one of the porch columns appears to be square in plan and staffrecommends that they should replicate the column on the historic photograph which is a little more detailed and ornate. We also wanted to bring up the proposed light well on the east elevation beneath the historic bay window. We find that it does not fulfill guideline 9.7. We think that the size of the light well could be minimized or possibly the light well could be moved because it does create a void below the historic resource that you can see from the street. Possibly it could be moved to the west side and still get light into the basement level. Overall, staff finds that guideline lOA is met which recognizes that the addition is a product of its own time. The windows and horizontal wood siding is larger than the original wood siding and is a really nice detail that complies with our design guidelines. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15. 2006 With the new detached residence most of the design guidelines are satisfied. The street facing far,;ade has a row of windows and glass doors but we found that the glazing and large light well proposed on the east elevation is an appropriate trade off to maintain the small scale of the detached residence and still make it a habitable space for natural light. Residential design standards: HPC is being asked to grant a variance for windows between 9 foot and 12 foot on the front far,;ade. This criteria is created to avoid large volumes of space on a front far,;ade that are out of character with the rest of the street. We find that criteria A is fulfilled which talks about providing an appropriate design or pattern of development concerning the context. Keeping the scale of the detached residence is the most important priority on the property. Staff is in favor of that variance. There is also a variance required for space between detached dwellings. R-6 zone district requires 10 feet between two detached dwellings and the applicant is proposing 3 feet. Staff finds, based on the site constraints that it is appropriate for the site. Mitch Haas presented for the applicant. The variance is a 3 foot variance so we can have 7'6" apart. Mitch said the applicant is willing to do everything to make this a better project. Mitch went through staff's memo and they agreed to do wood shingles on the roof. With regard to the corner post on the front porch we were trying to match what we saw in the historic photos which was a square post; however, if the board would rather have a turned post we can do that. Derek Skalko, architect said the photograph showed a rather stout post. We want to do the restoration to its historic nature. We can change the corner post ifHPC feels a decorative post is better suited. Mitch said the one item we would like to discuss is the light well which does sit in front of the kitchen bump out. We have cut it back 3 feet further from the front of the building so that it is the minimum egress size window. Our feeling is that it is not a visual impact. There are issues with tree roots and drainage concerns that made it stay on the east side of the building. Derek presented photographs of the area where the light well would go and explained the situations in different areas with tree and drainage concerns. Another concern is the pan abode next door. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15. 2006 Brian suggested approving the light well with a mandatory vegetation plan around it. Derek said they intend to do vegetation. Amy said the idea is that there is a void and the ground is not coming up to the foundation of the building. This is also butting up to a very decorative feature. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Alison thanked the architect for an excellent package. The posts on the front porch should match the existing and the double hung windows are preferable. Regarding the light well if it is landscaped properly and we can see the landscape ideas, it won't be noticeable from the street. The setback variance up to 3 feet is OK. Jason also agreed that the column should copy the existing. The double hung windows are a good change. The only problem is the light well and possibly it can be switched to the other side and put the recreation room on the east. Brian said the applicant has made a lot of effort to accommodate the changes made. He agreed with all of staff's comments and would support them. A decorative post in the front would be preferable. With regard to the light well, it is not in the best place aesthetically for the house. This is one of those things that is a trade off in order to preserve an historic resource. It will not be hugely visible and landscaping will make it less visible. Brian can support the light well given the changes and suggested a mandated landscaping plan be approved by staff and monitor. Jeffrey said he appreciated an excellent thorough package. Guidelines 3.3 and 3.4 have been met concerning ration/window. We appreciate taking back the front porch to its original use. Regarding the light well he has some concerns. Light wells create uses out of unusable spaces and functions for safety light and ventilation. The light well on the east is flush and is set back. He doesn't have as much a concern as he did initially with the reduction in size. The detached residence meets guideline 11.8, 11.9, and 11.10. Jeffrey said he has no problem with the applicant working with staff on the appropriate size of the light well and can approve the project. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15. 2006 Derek said he has looked at five or six options as to how this could work. The problem is when it comes to that corner it is really being driven by 7 other entities in order to make this project a reality. We have reduced it three feet and we might even be able to take it back three or four inches. The size presented tonight is about as small as it can be in a usable function. We have listened to the HPC in every positive fashion. MOTION: Alison moved to approve Resolution #35 for 320 W. Hallam with the conditions as stated by staff; #2 Change the 8 feet to three feet for the variance. #7 Light well on the east will be monitored in conjunction with a landscape plan. #17 Include a landscape plan. Motion second by Brian. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Jeffrey,no; Jason, no. Motion died. Amy said part of the issue with the light well is exposing two walls and the ground is falling away from the building. If it were pulled out of the corner it might work but you would loose one of the windows. MOTION: Brian moved to approve Resolution #35 for 320 W. Hallam with approval of conditions 1-17. #7 condition amended. East light well be redesigns to be pulled away from the corner from the grid F and become somewhat centered with the windows above it. There is also the option to move north or west. Motion second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. WORKSESSION 214 E. BLEEKER - ISIS - No minutes MOTION: Jason moved to adjourn; second by Brian. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7