Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070214 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 640 N. Third - Parking Variance and encroachment license ~ Public Hearing .................1 202 N. Monarch - Major Development - Final Review - Public Hearing ........................ 6 434 E. Cooper ~ Bidwell Bldg. - Mountain Plaza - Conceptual- Commercial Design Standards - Public Hearing............. ... ... .... ... .... .............. ...... .......................... ... ...... ............ 8 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Michael Hoffman and Sarah Broughton. Alison Agley was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the minutes of January 16th, second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 8th and Dec. 13th; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried 3-0. Yes vote: Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey. Yes. Disclosures: Brian will recuse himself on 640 N. Third Jeffrey will recuse himself on 202 N. Monarch Sarah will recuse herself on 434 E. Cooper 640 N. Third - Parking Variance and encroachment license - Public Hearing Brian stepped down. Valerie Alexander, Bluegreen represented the owners. Shara Dame, Bluegreen Jim Daggs, owner Amy pointed out that since there are only three members, an affirmative vote of all three members needs to occur in order for the agenda item to pass. Exhibit I - Affidavit of publications Exhibit II - drawings Exhibit III - 3 photographs Exhibit IV - letter from Marianne Lubar in opposition of the variance Amy said this project was approved and is well under construction. This particular site has had an ADD on the property for some time and in the deed restrictions it was a voluntary ADD. The site requires three on-site parking spaces, two for the single family home and one for the ADD. This property 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 does not have alley access and it is sandwiched between two streets. In order to provide the three spaces it requires a curb cut that is almost twice as wide as what City Engineering allows off a primary street. Only one curb cut is allowed per property. The applicant has asked for a variance so the space for the ADU does not have to be on the site but on the street. It seems more appropriate to narrow the driveway and retain the parking on the street and provide the variance. Staff supports the request. There is an additional issue related to this project that they would like to discuss. Because there is no alley the only vehicular access is at their back door and the applicant is requesting that we consider some parking on Lake Ave. The street comes to a natural edge and there is no curb or gutter and a prohibition of parking on the street. They would like to create a little pull off so that they can have two spaces where people can park and enter the front of the house. Staff has concerns because it would require a retaining wall and do we really want parking on Lake Ave. Jeffrey said he is the monitor on the project and this is a quaint historic street on Lake Ave. Jeffrey said he would like the board's opinion. The hillside erosion is a concern and the character of the neighborhood. Other City departments also need to review the Lake Ave. proposal. Valerie addressed the Third Ave. variance request. At the time when the drawings went through the building department it wasn't picked up that the parking area was in violation of the residential design standards. When we went to prepare the encroachment with engineering they caught it as a wider curb cut. The space would be behind an existing conifer tree. We do feel that the pattern of parallel parking in the neighborhood is a strong one and parking is a basic need. Having the wider 36 foot curb cut takes away a parallel parking space and we feel it is a better solution to have a modest 18 foot driveway. Jim Daggs said it seems more useful to have a public parking space on the street than a private space adjacent to the ADU to be used part of the time especially in summer with all the concerts at the tent. Sarah inquired ifthere is anyway to do the third spot without increasing the curb cut? Valerie said the narrowest we can get it is a 24 foot curb cut and that would be tight and awkward to get around the comer of the garage. It would be 36 feet to negotiate it comfortably. The curb cut right now is 18 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 feet, the same as the two car garage. Engineering is willing to provide a variance to go to 24 feet if that is desirable. Jeffrey asked if the two spots in the garage are for the owner only or one for the ADD. Jim Daggs said the spots are for him as the owner. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Claude Salter, neighbor. Claude said she has no problem with the proposal and her only concern is related to the air conditioning units adjacent to her courtyard. The pine tree that sits in the right-of-way is not in the greatest health. Claude said she has no problem with the Third Street side proposal. The on-street parking might improve the parking if the ADU tenant isn't there then someone who is going to the music tent can actually park there. Ifit was a driveway to the ADU you couldn't park there because you would be blocking the ADU spot. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments Michael relayed that he can support the variance. Sarah also supports the on-street parking as an amenity to the neighborhood. Jeffrey said he would prefer to see a smaller curb cut but he does see the need for the tenant of the ADU needing a parking space. The applicant is spending a lot of time and energy to design a way to help with the parking situation. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #6 as drafted by staff, motion second by Sarah. Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Lake Avenue discussion: Valerie said there is a slight rise in the topography in the middle of the lot then gently slopes back down. Driveways come off Lake Ave. and 3RD Street because there are no alleys. On the site Basalt volcanic rock exists that is placed irregularly along the slope of Lake Avenue. Valerie pointed out that parallel parking is a common condition in the West End. The landscape plan was to be a condition of approval to be worked out with staff and monitor. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 Michael asked if this item is a monitoring issue. Amy said the parking is not on their property, it is on city property. This should be treated as a referral comment. Valerie said they are looking for a nod that the request is in compliance with the HPC guidelines. Valerie said the landscape plan accommodates street parking and reconfiguring the existing boulder wall into a wall that is a little more regular and provides for an 8 foot dimension for parking. The plan shows two spots and a path from the home. The parking can be kept in front of the lot split lot in front of the non-historic resource. We are balancing a lot of objectives; the Parks Dept. wants the 4 cottonwood trees protected. We are proposing a dry stack wall that allows for plantings where vines and plants can grow in the wall and keep a very soft character while protecting the trees. The wall is low, 30 inches. Valerie said the City Departments are willing to work with the applicant to make all of the standards met. HPC is the first step in this process. Jim Daggs said he has lived at this location for 30 years. No one uses the front entrance on Lake A venue because there is no parking. It seems a shame to restore the Victorian house and not follow through to have it used as the front entrance of the house. Without parking the front will not be used. At considerable expense we are hoping the HPC will allow some parking to be used as the entrance to the house. The Engineering Dept. did not want a driveway cut. Claude Salter pointed out that the retaining walls on Lake came about in the late 60's, neither one is original to the road cut. On the other side of Lake Ave. there are no parking spots because there is a ditch. That is why people have driveways because you can't park there. Claude said the proposed parking area on the street will block the view of the historic resource. Amy pointed out that the parking cannot be for the owners use because it is on City property. It could be used by anyone. Comments Sarah said there is value being able to access the front of the historic resource and there is an issue of parking on Lake Ave. Sarah said she is 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 open to discussion with the other departments as to how we bring in parallel parking. The entire street needs addressed. Sarah said she is favorable with having some on-street parking on Lake Ave. but it needs to be kept with the historic context of what we have currently. Michael also said he is open for discussion with the different departments. Jeffrey said this street has always been a challenge. Jeffrey recommended that the entire Lake Ave. be studied and possible be a one-way direction. Also, the discussion that it is a pedestrian way in the summer needs addressed. Michael said the sense of the- board is that HPC likes the idea of on-street parking but it needs to be worked out with the other agencies that have purview over this. Michael also pointed out from a procedural point of view notification needs to be given to the neighbors. Valerie commented that it is great advice to look at the big picture but realistically it is going to be years down the road before we have each owners nod. The financial burden comes at Jim Daggs expense and he is willing to do that. Jim Daggs said we can't go forward without a recommendation from HPC. Michael said in reality Mr. Daggs doesn't own the property. You can't make an application for property that you do not own. The sense of the board is that we are in support of the idea. Amy pointed out that from the site visit other agencies have less interest in the design aspect. Ifwe bounce it back they may say they are OK with the design. Jeffrey said this is the City's property and we do not have the jurisdiction to say this is what we are doing on this property. There are other properties on this street that have no parking. Sarah said her comment is that the wall needs to remain very low. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 Valerie said she believes that the HPC represents the City and HPC is the first step of our formula. We will continue to coordinate with the other departments. Amy pointed out that an encroachment license recommendation does not need public notice. MOTION: Sarah moved to more forward with the recommendation from HPC that Lake Ave. and the bike pedestrian way along Lake Avenue be looked at by the City as to how on-street parking can be implemented as it fits in historically with the context of the neighborhood; motion second by Michael. Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 202 N. Monarch - Major Development - Final Review - Public Hearing Jeffrey recused himself. Affidavit of publication- Exhibit I Photo - Exhibit II Amy informed the board that this property is 9,000 square feet. The house was built in 1886. The applicant has received conceptual for a project that entails moving the building forward, constructing a new garage, and some associated outdoor space, driveway access etc. They also received a square footage bonus and some setback variances and it is their intent to restore the building. There are no variances requested tonight. Final deals with details in materials, lighting and landscaping. Recommended conditions of approval: 1. The applicant provided an alternative roof pitch for the garage and staff supports the steep pitch which is more in character with the historic building. 2. All historic materials that exist on the building are to be preserved otherwise staff and monitor need to approve any materials that cannot be salvaged. 3. Staff and monitor need to see any drawn details of any reconstructed elements that they are restoring based on the photograph to make sure the dimensions are appropriate. 5. Walkways need to meet the guidelines so that the primary walkway is perpendicular to the street and have a straight form up to the street. 6. Identify the proposed materials. 7. South patio material selection needs identified. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 8. There is a proposed railing on the connector between the historic house and the garage that is meant to be glass and very transparent. That is something we allowed before but after looking at our guidelines our recommendation is that it be somewhat more traditional in materiality. The glass just seems to be a little too contemporary. 9. Study a different light fixture that is more residential in character. 10. The rest of the conditions are standard. Stan Clausen, Clausen and Associates Stan said the existing house is 2196 square feet. The floor area that was allotted to this was 2597 square feet which is a modest addition. The house will be moved 14.9 feet from the property line on East Bleeker and the front porch will be set back 10 feet 9 inches. The alley of Block 24 was discussed and it was determined that the alley would be retained by the City but will not be vacated or used for development. It was also determined that the paved parking area pad which is at the entry point to the alley on N. Monarch would be moved. Currently there are concrete pavers there. There is an existing hedge row oflilacs which will remain even with the installation of sidewalk along E. Bleeker St. Stan said there are no issues with the conditions of approval. The materials for the patio are brick pavers. The walkway may be brick pavers or concrete but that has not been determined and will be worked out with the monitor. We will also restudy the railing and lighting with monitor and staff. Tim Semrau, representing Semrau Family LLC, owners of this property. Tim said he feels they have met every quest in the conceptual approval. We are meeting all the setbacks. The FAR is 2527 and all the conditions are fine. Sarah asked if another location could be found for the light well that faces west. It seems that it could go north a little bit. Tim said he is willing to restudy that. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Brian said in general he agrees with staffs recommendations and also agrees that the light well should be restudied. There has been a lot of work done to accommodate the guidelines. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 Sarah also agreed with staffs memo with the exception of the roof pitch. She feels a 12x12 pitch is a better fit. The l2x12 on elevation 3.3 relates more with the pitch of the front porch. Stan pointed out from a design perspective the l8x12 emulates the other gables that are on the historic structure. Michael also agreed with staffs comments and Sarah's suggestion on the roof pitch. Brian said he is tom because it somewhat makes it disconnected with the existing pitches of the gables. Tim pointed out that his preference is the l8x12 that emulates the historic house. Sarah said there are pros and cons on either pitch. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #7 for 202 N. Monarch; second by Brian. Motion carried 3-0. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. 434 E. Cooper - Bidwell Bldg. - Mountain Plaza - Conceptual- Commercial Design Standards - Public Hearing Sarah recused herself. Jeffrey was seated. Affidavit of publication - Exhibit I Letter from Bruce Carlson 415 E. Hyman indicating structure is too massive and tall. Sara informed the HPC that the building occupies 3 city lots. The applicant will be presenting changes that were not in the packet. Generally the guidelines for a three story proposal are dealt with case by case. The main idea for infill is to strike a balance in design variables. The sunken courtyard will be gone and the space filled in. Staff is not opposed to filling in buildings to the lot lines as the guidelines suggest in the commercial core but we want to bring to everyone's attention the idea of filling in that entire space and having a very subtle cut on the comer might bring on impacts from people sitting in the Paradise Bakery space and the pedestrian mall. In terms of the height the majority of the building is below the 42 foot height limit. Some of the cornices and the elevator shaft are 46 feet. In general we 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 are in favor of the height but some undulation in the cornice line might be necessary to break up the massive feeling or some change in materials might help the design fit in better as a piece of contemporary architecture but also relate to the historic buildings around. In terms of plate heights the store front is 13 feet and the second story is 10 feet and the third floor is proposed at 13 feet. Staff feels that is a bit awkward and possibly the floor heights should relate to the historic resources. Staff recommends that the floor heights be changed to have the store front larger than the two upper floors. Stafffeels what is proposed is very complex in terms of recess and projection of different planes of the two facades that face Galena and the pedestrian mall. We basically recommended an overall simplification of the design. We appreciate the effort to break the mass into modules but we feel what occurred was a vertical emphasis rather than a horizontal emphasis that we generally see in the historic resources. In general we request that the applicant restudy mass, scale and height and the relationship to the historic context. This site has a lot of potential to represent architecture of our time although fit into the historic resource. Mitch Haas, planning consultant relayed that it is their intent to get feedback from tonight's meeting. The belief is that this is not a place to have a timid, bland building. This location should make a statement. We do not want anything that recedes and it would be an injustice to the City of Aspen. John Rowland, architect relayed that their design principles are very simple and straight forward and respect the historic patterns of Aspen. This building looks like other buildings on comers of Aspen. Another important principle is modem interpretation of architecture and we took cues from other substantial buildings in town. Another important aspect is that we have historic resources on either side. One of the successful buildings is the Kandycom building with the regard to the use of metal accents. There were concerns about the open space and removing the courtyard. What is the pedestrian experience and what are the open spaces. This neighborhood has substantial area for pedestrian experience. One other important piece is the signature piece on the comer of the building. Mitch said there are benches up and down the mall and putting more seating by the building is essentially creating second row seating behind the benches that are already on the mall. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 Clarifications: Michael commented that at the last HPC meeting it was indicated that the infill structure of the building was failing and that you might reuse part of that building. Mitch said as they got further along there was less and less worth using. This will be a new building. Michael also asked if the applicant has had any charettes with the neighbors. Mitch said they have not. John said they plan on using some of the rail elements that were on the building and will incorporate some of the columns. We will use some of the materials but not the structure itself. Jeffrey asked if they looked at other options with some inflection regarding the continuous cornice line. John said their first gut instinct was a two story building with a step back 15 feet. The team determined that it didn't feel substantial enough to hold the entire comer. Amy suggested varying the comers and perhaps the height could be dropped in some locations, perhaps on the alley side or the Red Onion side. Sara said on the alley possibly taking off the cornice line. John said they can massage the cornice line on the alley. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Comments: Michael asked if the project impacted any of our protective view plans. Sara said part of the building is in the Wheeler view plane but that is not being asked to be reviewed tonight. Mitch said we are asking the view plane to be reviewed by Planning & Zoning. Michael said he didn't know how we could make a judgment of mass and scale without reviewing the view plane. Michael said he like the building and it is a good start. Staffs comments are consistent with improving the proposal. He hopes we have enough commissioners who can participate in the application to make a meaningful contribution to improving the project. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 Brian also said he likes the building at first review. Staff suggested simplification of the building. Depending on what that simplification is, it might take away from the architectural character of the building. The building needs to stay interesting and keeping the strong lines of the building is necessary. The issue he is struggling with is the orientation of the building and giving away to pedestrian activities. The ground floor should be developed to encourage pedestrian activity. Currently we have the theme on the comers with the Ruth Chris building set back and the Paradise Bakery is set back. Bringing the building up to the comer the way it is designed might take away something in that area that is very positive. That issues needs weighed. Brian said he is not so concerned with the higher 3rd floor. In terms of the verticality there could be subtle things done to make it more horizontal. The switching of the columns and the four bases rather than having them recessed might add more horizontality. He also agrees with staff that the west end of the building on Cooper and it relationship with the Red Onion might be a relative issue. The pedestrian space can be successful by pulling back that comer. Jeffrey said he agrees with a lot of staff s comments. He voted against the designation because this building is not one of the best examples of Fritz Benedict's work. The applicants have made very strong strides. Staffs comments on the retail scale are good. The plate height of the commercial could be re-visited and the second and third floor could perhaps have a recession. Staffs comments about the cornice line genuflecting down to the lower massing of the historic resource is a positive comment. The massing model is excellent. The mass and scale competes somewhat with the historic resources that it joins. Possibly some plane changes could occur. Some of the vertical elements although they are dominant and excellent do overemphasize the height. Using the modules of the historic building is very successful. The decks in the fayade are a good concept. Staffs comment that the pediment to the west side does compete in size and scale to the Red Onion building. Continuation with massaging such as the cornice line is recommended. Possibly we could see some drawings of two story elements that pop up to three stories. Michael agreed with Jeffrey regarding the cornice line along Galena Street. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 435 E. Cooper until May 9, 2007; second by Brian. All infavor, motion carried 3-0. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007 Amy requested that at the next meet it needs to be clear what the view plane is; if you intend to go to P&Z or this board. You need to accurately reflect to this board what the impact is. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 12