Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070509 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2007 Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman. Alison Agley was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counsel MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the minutes of March 28'\' second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Sarah will recuse herself on 434 E. Cooper 300 W. Main - Show Cause Hearing cont'd from April2St\ 2007 Jim True said his recollection was that the evidence was closed and the hearing was complete. This meeting will have discussion among the commission and make a determination based on a resolution. Michael said the destruction of the tailings by Dennis Larson was egregious. This occurred after staff had contacted the homeowner for essentially a year. Michael recommended that no building permits should be permitted between 3 and five years. Brian said he doesn't feel the applicant did anything malicious and there was a lot of miscommunication. He felt that the owner did things in the best interest of the property in order to maintain it. He is willing to take a lighter stance on the penalty. Sarah also said she is willing to look at lesser years. When you own property it is your responsibility to communicate with your maintenance person. The owner had months to sit down and deal with the situation. Jeffrey said clearly there was plenty of evidence and proper notice to do the right thing. There was somebody not knowing and chopping off the wrong pieces of wood and now we have to live with the aftermath. Jeffrey recommended lesser years. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 9. 2007 Jim True said the code allows a penalty up to ten years. Michael said he is bothered by the lack of communication between Corrine and Dennis Larson's actions. We need to send a message that it is not acceptable. Through November she was doing a diligent job of trying to address staffs concerns but then she left in December and Dennis took it upon himself to cut apart this historic residence. Jennifer Hall, attorney for the applicant said Corrine gave Dennis direction when she purchased the property over a year ago. He did his repairs as he felt timely. There was no communication. Jeffrey asked if the memo from Barry Magart was ever passed on to the owner. It is real clear about the suggested treatments. There was lengthy direction given. Sarah pointed out that the owner needs to take responsibility herself for her own property. There was time taken by our staff to deal with this and it is disrespectful. Maybe 4 years is a workable number. Michael said for the record that in his opinion, Corrine's mistake was not informing Dennis as to the situation that staff pointed out. Brian said we need to get the word out for the future. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve resolution #18 with the following three conditions: 1. That the property be restored as best possible through the proper procedure outlined in the code. 2. That there be a prohibition of obtaining a building permit for work outside of the restoration efforts for a period of four years. 3. A letter of apology and recognition of the conduct be made to the public in some form to be worked out with staff. 4. The prohibition needs to be executed through a deed restriction - 26.415.140A2 Motion second by Michael. Amy pointed out that we do want to leave the possibility of building permits for life safety issues or structural issues that might jeopardize the building. We need a specific time frame on the restoration. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2007 Amended motion: Sarah amended the motion that restoration needs to be permitted within one year from today. Michael second the amendment. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 4-0. 308 E. Hopkins Ave. - Final- Cont'd from April 25, 2007 Exhibit I - colored rendering Sara relayed that the applicant has addressed a lot of the concerns HPC voiced at the last meeting. The only two issues unresolved are the horizontal siding on the second floor balcony and we need clarification on the fence that is enclosing the outdoor seating area. Charles Cunniffe, architect said the fence will be a wrought iron fence and we will be working with the restaurant owner to design it. It will be open and transparent to bring people into the patio. We went to a more proportioned window and they are double hung on the second floor. One other are of concern was the stucco on the back side. We will change that to a copper shingled panel that would be weathered. The HPC also wanted us to look at putting more glass in the doors on either side of the building. We don't want to make the doors look like part of the store front. We are proposing a window in the door, a translucent glass piece so it reads more like a door than a window. The neighboring property owner, Bill Seguin is in support of the project. The restaurateurs of Range and Elevation would like to work with us to create more transparency between our restaurant space and their patio space. We are on the property line so we don't have the latitude to put windows in. If we can work with the neighboring property to the satisfaction of the building department which will allow us to take the windows around the corner so that we could have windows from the restaurant space to their patio space they would appreciate that connectivity. It would be a revocable license if their building was ever to be built. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Sarah pointed out that the changes are moving in a positive direction. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2007 Brian said the changes in the doors on the sides can be supported. Michael said his concerns at the last meeting were the glass brick, clapboard and fenestration. Michael pointed that there is a lot of balancing of the different criteria. Jeffrey said the improvements are flowing nicely. The fenestration changes are very promising. The horizontal clapboard doesn't bother him because the retractable awnings will add softness to the fa<;ade. The new muted grey tone will compliment the rest of the building. The only concern is the window vs. glass block which is a Building code issue. That will be difficult to detail as far as the fire separation is concerned. Charles said if they can't get the glass maybe they can stay with the rhythm of the fire proof wall but do it in a form that has flagged out windows so you at least have the rhythm of the west fa<;ade turning the corner. MOTION: Michael moved to approve resolution #19 for 308 E. Hopkins Ave., final development, second by Brian. Sarah requested information be added regarding the glass block windows. Amended motion: Michael amended the motion to include approval for the glass windows on the west elevation provided that is acceptable to the Building Department; second by Brian. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 434 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual- Cont'd from Feb. 14,2007- Conceptual, Mountain View Plane and Commercial Design Review Sarah recused herself. Jim informed the applicant that 3 affirmative votes are necessary for approval. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Sara said overall the proposal meets the design guidelines. In terms of the commercial design review it meets all the requirements. View plane: Sara pointed out that story polls have been erected. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2007 When you look at view planes one of the things you want to think about is the potential for surrounding buildings to be developed. We need to determine whether or not there is a negligible impact in the view plan or if there is an impact and HPC is not interested in pulling the building back we will have to discuss a different procedure for this application which would be a PUD. The view plane cuts off diagonally a corner of the building. Mitch Haas, John Rowland Mitch said they have stepped down the building toward the red onion building. They have also stepped back the building to create a two story element next to the historic building. John Rowland said the key points from the last meeting were stepping back the mass with regard to the two historic resources on either side. It is now 15 feet from the property line back to the third story wall. We went from 14 feet to 11 feet in ceiling height on the main level. The other issue was to diminish the verticality. Mitch Haas said the HPC can determine that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. The Wheeler view plane starts at the corner where Bentley's stairs come down and extends to the other end of the building. From the Bentley's corner you do not see the proposed building at all. We feel the view plane is negligible. John said the building is neoclassical with Victorian. Mitch pointed out that the entire building is lower than the 42 foot height limit and it is at 38 feet on the Cooper side. Michael asked what the impact was on the pedestrian amenity space. Sara said they are paying cash-in-lieu. Mitch said there is less than 10% on site. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Michael said he is very enthusiastic and supportive of this plan. His only concern is that it is almost too neoclassical for the downtown core. Brian said this will be a great addition to this corner of town. Bringing the building to the corner is a positive thing because it channels energy between 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2007 the Paradise building and the Ruth Chris building. The applicant has done a great job in addressing staffs and the HPC's concerns. This is the core of town and it has to be architecturally interesting. Brian encouraged the HPC and staff to allow some flexibility to the applicant in order to make this building stand out and define Aspen given the location of this building. Michael said the stepping down of the building to the Red Onion is commendable. The impact of the building on the view plane is minimal. Jeffrey said the real key piece is the inflection onto the Red Onion building. The current proposal is simplified and it also feels more horizontal and less vertical. The design review and mass and scale are consistent with Chapter 13. The mass and scale is properly represented. The view of Aspen Mountain is maintained and therefore the view plane variance is minimal. MOTION: Brian moved to approve Resolution #20 as drafted by staffwith an additional condition: The commission found that the impingement on the view plane is minimal. Motion second by Michael. Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Brian, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 332 W. Main Street - Final MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing andfinal development on 332 W Main to May 23rd; second by Brian. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6