Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20070228 Pl ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Wednesday - February 28, 2007 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISIT: Please site visit all the properties on your own. I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - Jan. 24th and Feb. 14th 2007 minutes III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #8 ) VIII. Ob BUSINESS A. Cooper St. - Mi\\olj Development, continued public hear 0 min.) ~h~~\ <!.- Itr" L ). ')~~ B. 205 S. 1 ... reet - Minor Development and Commercial Design Revi~-;-, To be continued. (tvv1 '/,d. ~ ~ I ,L II fA IX. NEW BUSINESS ,) (J A. 114 Neale Ave. - Major Development, Final Review, Public ----rv:,o () Hearing (20 min.) X. WORKSESSIONS A. Innsbruck Landscape (15 min.) B. Design Guidelines discussion (40 min.) IX. ADJOURN 7:00 p.m. P3 PROJECT MONITORING Jeffrey Halferty 213 W. Bleeker (Schelling) 555/557 Walnut 701 W. Main 314 E. Hyman, Motherlode 930 Matchless 212 W. Hopkins 205 S. Galena 202 N. Monarch Mike Hoffman 216 E. Hallam (Belford) 308 Park 640 N. Third 435 W. Main Jewish Center Derek Skalko 501 W. Main Street (Christiana) 114 Neale Avenue 2 Williams Way (Hicks) 423 N. 2nd Street 811/819 E. Hopkins (Fellman) wi Sarah 135 W. Hopkins Sarah Broughton 311 S. First 811/819 E. Hopkins (Fellman) wi Derek 110 E. Bleeker wi Jason 530, 532, 534 E. Hopkins 435 W. Main Jewish Center Jason Lasser 110 E. Bleeker wi Sarah 334 W. Hallam Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows 629 W. Smuggler Fox Crossing Park 233 W. Main: Innsbruck Hotel Jerome Alison Agley 529 W. Francis 205 S. Galena Brian McNellis 435 W. Main Jewish Center CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS THAT HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL REVIEW: 1r~, P25 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 114 Neale Avenue- Major Development Review (Final)- Public Hearing DATE: February 28, 2007 SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and contains a miner's cottage. The parcel was granted a Historic Landmark Lot Split in 1998. In the early 1990's this miner's cabin was considered to be very deteriorated. A rehabilitation project was undertaken that included moving the cabin uphill, demolishing Sdme rear additions, rehabbing the building, and constructing a contemporary addition. The addition was very small relative to what the parcel size would have allowed at the time, and the design was one of the first, and most successful, Aspen examples of how a contemporary addition can achieve compatibility with an older building. When this property was redeveloped, there was little or no accommodation made for on-site parking. Parking on the surrounding streets is difficult and not allowed in some locations, causing a logistical problem for the parcel. The original developer resolved this by creating a curb cut on King Street without approvals (or tree removal permits) which became an enforcement problem. Ultimately the curb cut and resulting parking pad were allowed to remain. On May 24, 2006, HPC reviewed a proposal for a new garage accessed from the King Street driveway. The application included an enlargement of the master bedroom area and the construction of a free standing guest house. The project required a setback variance, an FAR bonus, and variances from the "Residential Design Standards." After receiving feedback from HPC, neighbors and the Parks Department, the applicant revised the project to place garage access on Neale Avenue, with the guest unit above it. HPC granted Conceptual approval and a variance from the Residential Design Standards related to garage placement on October 25, 2006. Conditions of approval were to push the garage back further from the street and to restudy the mudroom addition. Staff finds that the detached garage and the master bedroom addition comply with the guidelines. We do not support expansion of the mudroom finding that it conflicts with maintaining a good transition between the historic house and the new construction. APPLICANT: Bret Thoeny, owner and architect. ADDRESS/Parcel ID: 114 Neale Avenue, Lot I of the 114 Neale Street/17 Queen Historic Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, PID#2737-073-80-00l/002. P27 Desi!!n Guideline review Final review focuses on materials, landscape, and lighting. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." The master bedroom extension affects non-historic construction, is relatively small in size, and is at the back of the property. It complies with setback requirements, carries on the architectural detailing used on the existing building, and staff finds that it complies with the guidelines. Staff has had concerns throughout the review related to the small expansion proposed for the mudroom on the north side of the house. We have found that it affects the extent to which the northeast comer of the Victorian is exposed to view. This addition fills in what was likely an intentional gap left to reveal the back comer of the house and to allow some separation from the new construction. There is conflict with the following guidelines: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to iuterpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. The applicant was required to restudy this issue for Final review. The mudroom addition has been notched out to provide some relief from the back of the historic house, but staff finds that the small slot achieved is not adequate and the form of the addition has become complicated in comparison to the miner's cottage. We do not support this aspect of the project. The garage/guest unit was discussed at length in the previous HPC hearings. Staff finds that the design submitted for Final meets HPC's direction that this new structure cannot project in front of the historic house. The proposed materials are consistent with the other new construction on the site. The applicant has provided an acceptable design for the new light fixtures on the garage, and has indicated that no landscape changes are planned. \ 3 P29 Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines- Final 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. o The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. o The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. o All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. o Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. o Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. o Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. o Do not wash an entire building facade in light. o A void placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. o Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 5 P31 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR 114 NEALE AVENUE, LOT 1 OF THE 114 NEALE/17 QUEEN STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. _' SERIES OF 2007 PARCEL ID: #2737-073-80-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bret Theony, has requested Major Development (Final) for the property located at 114 Neale Avenue, Lot I of the 114 Neale/17 Queen Street Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 260415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 2604I5.070.Do4.b of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated February 28,2007, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 28, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of _ to _' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants approval for Major Development (Final) with the following conditions: I. The proposed mudroom addition is not approved due to its lack of adequate separation and compatibility with the historic house. 2. The parking area/curb cut along King Street must be abandoned and returned to landscaping. 3. A variance from the requirements for placement of a garage as expressed in the Residential Design Standards was granted at Conceptual approval. 4. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. P33 ...... ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 Sarah said the side entry off King Street should look more like what you have on the north elevation. In terms of the garage she is concerned with the closeness to the street. Maybe it can come back a little bit. Alison said as long as the mudroom is pulled back from the historic resource guideline 10.3 has been met. The garage should come back to line up with the front of the historic house. It is unfortunate that you are loosing yard space but you are gaining square footage in the house. Jason said retaining the north east comer is important. He is also in agreement that the garage should slide back. Jeffrey also agreed with the commission. The mud room addition blurs the historic comer and should be restudied to pull it away from the comer. The new addition to the south is acceptable and the scale conforms to our guidelines. He also agrees that the garage should be set back to the face of the historic house. Bret said he is OK with lining the front of the garage with the face of the existing house. He will work with the mud room to make it more like the north elevation. Amy suggested that HPC include a smail setback variance on the south yard so that if the garage moves back it can also move over to push it out ofthe sight line a little bit. Jeffrey said that is a excellent suggestion. MOTION: Jason moved to approve resolution #27 for 114 Neale Ave. with the following conditions: 1. Garage as drawn should be pulled back to match the existing face of the historic resource and align with the west wall. 2. Proposed mud room addition needs to be restudied to expose more of the historic resource of the north east and south east corners. 3. Approve the variances from the residential design standards for garages. Motion second by Alison. Motion carried 4-0. Jason, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 212 W. Hopkins - Major Development - Conceptual- Public Hearing .- Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I 3 P35 ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 2006 ......,... 312 W. Hyman - Historic Designation MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 312 W. Hyman until Nov. 8, 2006; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 114 Neale Ave. Conceptual- Public Hearing Bret Thoeny, owner Amy said the project is focused on trying to add a garage on the property. It is Y, of an historic lot split and this is the half that contains the historic resource. The garage is proposed to come off Neale Ave. and at the last meeting HPC was in favor of that proposal. The primary concern is where the garage is located. Staff feels it is too close to the front of the site. The historic building needs to maintain its prominence. The residential design standards require that the front wall of the garage be set back 10 feet from the front wall of the house. Staff feels this standard is not being met. The other question is the FAR bonus. The second proposal is to extend the non- historic bedroom wing and staff has no concerns with that as it is at the back of the site. There is also the proposal to expand the mud room on the north side of the building. Staff has a concern because it fills in a comer that we feel was intentionally to be left open. Bret said he reduced the overall height ofthe garage from the previous version and reduced the pitch of the roof also and changed the materials to a corrugated metal roof. He has studied moving the garage backward but in reality there are large mature trees between the historic house and the proposed garage. Bret pointed out that the porch does extend closer to the street than the garage. It is 14 feet and the garage is 16 feet. The mud room has been slid over and notched 18 inches between the historical and new part of the house. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Amy pointed out that the applicant needs to resolve driveway before coming back to final. Bret said Engineering did approve a 16 foot curb cut for the adjacent house but then sold the property. .- 2 ~A.\ P37 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Innsbruck- Landscape discussion DATE: February 28,2007 HPC approved a substantial remodel of the 'Innsbruck in 2004. The project involved converting what had been a pull in parking area off of Main Street into a landscaped courtyard. The plans presented to HPC at the time indicated that grade between the fayade ofthe Inn and the Main Street sidewalk was flat. In truth, there is a grade drop of approximately I '6". The applicant has submitted various plans to HPC staff and monitor related to fencing, signage and ADA compliant pool and spa facilities. The plans have not received approval and it has only recently become clear that aspects of the plan that were viewed as problematic were in response to the grade change that was not presented to HPC. Among the staff and monitor concerns expressed are the overall height of the fence, placing a portion of it on a plinth/retaining wall, and maintaining transparency between the street and the courtyard. The owner has asked to approach the board to discuss their plans. ., "E-<:s> "-" \IS- -"'t': ~.x uw "';S-" ., u \\)., o \IS "-2 o tt~ " '\\i E ., ~ o I- , ., "E- "- \IS -'" ~ U . <:s> " 7\3 \\) ;B " 'l'&" E ., ~ ~ , ., U ::J ~ \J) <:s> " 7\3 \\) J:'i , 15~ ::J > .... 0 "-E <J)., ~~ ., ., >\)lD -0 J:'il- , ., IS.. "-"';S \IS ., ~e; .... E u ., <:s>~ " ., 7\3lD >\) .- 0 J:'il- ';> ~ I I \ I I. 'ill' ..' i ,.,... -{""O'" .--".,...-':;~"'" ...... ,. <:O.~_'!" . , . h :>.,........ I \ I I , o \. .0 if J C)-~ ~~ . L...~ _ "':/I/l'J"} Ip39 I -t. :. '.- "-ll~' .~ . . . '" '.' to' ~ '..... '. t- " '". \ I .-L )l \j ., \ '.'-.J ("~ 0 , -: I () ~( ~\ -----c I ~\ 1) L ~h..:j I- -;~ \ 1 \ '~ 1 \ -::s " ~ ---~