Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20000712ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5~00 p.m. In attendance were Mary Hirsch, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Gilbert Sanchez, Heidi Freidland, Lisa Markalunas, Christie Kienast and Rally Dupps. Melanie Roschko was excused. Staff in attendance were Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie and Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathleen Strickland. 419 E. HYMAN AVE. - PARAGON Minor Development and Variances Ted Skokos, owner, Mitch Haas and Dennis Wedlick were sworn in. Amy informed the board that the building is under construction presently for restoration and interior renovations of the building. Specifically we are looking at the roof plan tonight. The applicant plans to use the roof top as an outdoor living area. The problem is that the existing building is already over the height limit as it was built before height limits existed in the code. Anything that is added to the roof would require a variance. HPC has the authority to grant a height variance. The board will be looking at two sets of criteria, the minor review standards and the variance standards which address issues of hardship. Amy informed the board that most of the elements are not visible from the street and the issue is the variance standard. There are a few mechanical equipments that need variances; a mechanical chase and some chiller units. Staff has no concern with the mechanical variances as they are needed for adequate systems of the building. A proposed dumb waiter needs a 10' 1" variance and that is very substantial and the board needs to understand what other options would be available. There are two skylights on the roof that need variances but staff does not find the skylights to be problematic because HPC did limit the number of windows that they could have on the building. The skylights are very low in profile. A handrail is proposed around the edge of the roof because they plan to occupy the roof and staff is concerned about the impacts of the handrail on the historic masonry, specifically how is it attached to the building. A spa, wet bar and planter box are clearly something that is desired by the applicant and the HPC needs to discuss whether those items meet the variance criteria. The handrail provides access ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 to the entire roof and staff' s concern is that there may be items added in the future that would have significant impacts on the building, such as umbrellas, potted trees etc. Possibly the HPC should discuss limiting the area that could be occupied. A letter from Mitch Haas was added to the packet after the memo was completed. Amy addressed height that was mentioned in Mitch's letter. Height is measured by policy from the ground to the top of the roof surface and not to the top of the parapet wall. Everything above the 42 foot height requires variances. Also in the letter it mentioned the Elks' Club building as having set some kind of precedent. Last year a stair case was reviewed for the roof of that building and it is roughly a quarter of the size of the one proposed here and it was in fact required by the UBC to access the mechanical equipment. That is why it did not have to get a variance because it was a UBC requirement. Ted Skokos, owner introduced himself and informed the board that the third floor will be his residence and the top of the Paragon building will be his back yard. His goal is preservation of the building and he previously lived in an historic building in Little Rock, Arkansas. The foundation is being redone and the brick is being re-pointed. The building is sinking to the inside and has to be stabilized. The wiring and plumbing are all new. Water buildup on the roof has effected the masonry. All mechanical equipment was removed and put in the sub basement. Mitch informed the board that the bulk head has been reduced in size. It is not visible from ground level except from across the street by Vectra bank which is outside of the commercial core. The top of the bulkhead is the only thing visible. The bulkhead has been designed with transparent materials (photos were provided). The guard rails will be set back and will not be visible and constructed of reflective glass panels in certain areas where there isn't a parapet wall to attach to. 42 inches in height is required by the UBC. The masonry where the rails will attach to is from the 1970's. The entire roof needs new concrete due to drainage problems. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 Mitch suggested that a condition be placed on the approval that states that they cannot put temporary improvements on the front 1/3 of the building. In reviewing the variance request it is important to keep in mind the existing roof is already 3'4" above the height limit so any improvements begin with a 3'4" disadvantage. The dumb waiter requires a 10"1" variance and the height above the roof would really be 6'9". The bulk head would be 9'6" above the roof. Mitch brought up the Elks bldg. and its bulkhead which is over the height limit. Staff informed the board that the Elks Bldg. had a UBC requirement. With the exception of the bulk head, the dumb waiter and skylight everything else could be done on a temporary fashion and would not be required to be reviewed by the HPC. The equipment could be haphazardly placed and less sensitively placed and instead Ted has conscientiously designed this proposal and site improvements in an effort to ensure compatibility and minimize the impacts. The variance standards require a hardship and the applicant believes that since it is an historic building in an historic district that already exceeds the height limit it should be viewed as a physical constraint. It is an unmovable object that cannot be designed around. The owner does not enjoy the option of tearing down the building and building something else. The only way to do these kinds of things, given the site specific constraints is give variances. This would not set a precedent as it is site specific based on the fact that this building is at a certain height already. Dennis Wedlick stated since the last meeting the bulk head was redesigned to be transparent and slope. The guard rail is attached to the wall and is set back and very common on historic buildings with parapets. There is no historic brick on the inside of the parapet. Clarifications and comments. The board asked for clarification of the railing. Sworn in was Shannon Murphey, landscape architect. The railing would be steel posts and glass panels running in between on the West side. The railing on the East side has a transition at the comer and 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 instead of glass would have a wrought iron look. The railing would be attached to the concrete surface with a bolt pattern. Rally suggested that the architect look at a wire mesh instead of the reflective glass. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney asked the board to focus on the criteria sheet for variances. Is there a reasonable use of the building without a variance? Is there an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. When the applicant purchased the building they knew there was no activity on the roof. Mike Hoffman, attorney. What is the role of the decision maker in coming up with a variance decision? David's position is that it is strictly a legal decision. Mike feels that principles of equity and fairness are built into the criteria that the board has to review. What is unnecessary hardship? The question in Mike's view is what is a reasonable use of the roof?. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: Fasten the railing to the rear part since the brick is not old instead of to the roof. The bulk head is too large in scale. Roof top activity in a urban setting is appropriate. Is a spa, grill and dumb waiter a reasonable use? Reasonable and hardship are difficult terms to fit as there are numerous uses for each one. The bulk, head, dumb waiter and railing could be scaled down. Some use of the roof is appropriate. The guard rails should be simple, non-reflective and the material should be subtle and not over done. There are other buildings in town that are lower and enjoy rooftop activity. Susan felt roof top use is occasional, such as the 4th of July and Labor Day. The spa, bar and dumb waiter are over use. Railings with the cables are less visible than the reflective glass. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 Mary felt that the project is urban living and we want people to live downtown. The HPC also wants its historic buildings well kept. Gilbert agreed with Mary and he also commented on the site constraints. The project is consistent with the community plan. The owner of the building needs to take pride in what is going on with the roof top activity. Rally stated reading the literal interpretation of unnecessary hardship would indicate that rooftop enjoying is not granted as a right. He also supports urbanism in downtown. Suzannah informed the members that one of the issues that is being overlooked is that there is a third floor on this building which is a huge advantage to the owner and that is why they need the variances for the roof top. Mitch said the spa, grill and dumb waiter are the most troublesome things for the board to approve. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minor development and variances requested for 419 E. Hyman Ave. as requested on the basis that it meets the minor development requirements. 1. The variance is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. It is the minimum variance for reasonable use of the parcel. Reasonable use meaning for a residential use. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building, or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures, or buJ[dJngs Jn the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant, or 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings, or structures in the same zone district. 4. Also with a special condition that the roof mockups of the proposed construction need to be approved by the full board. Also the design which includes material of the handrail and location of the handrail need approved by the full board. Gilbert relayed that the mockup will show all of the construction items that are being proposed including the grill etc. 5. The finish and color of the rooftop mechanical equipment would be approved by staff and monitor. 6. The owner and representation committed to no trees in the planterper staff's recommendation in her memo. 7. Future roof top furniture that is movable shall not be greater or taller than six feet. 8. Regarding the variances Gilbert stated in this approval that we grant a variance that would not exceed the ones that are finalized in the application. Mary second the motion. Discussion: Gilbert relayed that the reason he feels comfortable with this notion, the notion that if this was an office building none of these things would meet the definition of reasonable use. But the fact that it is a residence and we do want to encourage people to live downtown this kind of residential activity downtown is worth while. The value is that we get over the hurdle of the uses of all these things and the actual size is something that we can deal with in another way. The big topic is the use and variance. Suzannah informed the board that typically when an item is in front of the board we are approving that. Daivd Hoefer informed the board that the variance runs with the property. Gilbert made a point that he would not approve this if it wasn't residential and there is nothing to prevent this from going back to commercial. That is why variances are intended to be so very rare to grant because you get into 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 these situations where you get unexpected results. The board needs to be very careful as to what they are granting. Amy informed the board with this concept that they are approving they are putting off the exact nature of the things they are approving. They are granting variances which should be specific. Mary said the variances requested could be designed to be lower but not higher. Gilbert feels the proposal is fine like it is but some members feel things are too big. The mockups could come to some agreement and some things may get shrunk down. Yes vote: Gilbert, Mary, Lisa, deffhey No vote: Suzannah, Susan, Heidi Motion carried 4-3. The mockup comes back to the entire board. The Assistant City Attorney relayed to the HPC that they need to schedule a worksession on variances. 620 W. BLEEKER STREET - ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY - Minor Development Mary recused herself. Christie was seated. Amy reiterated some concerns. The original gutters need identified and the system that is being proposed needs to be looked at to determine it's appropriateness. The handicapped access lift in the back needs to be explained further as it entails widening a doorway in an historic house. The condenser units are a little obtrusive on the garden side of the building. The style of the lights needs presented to staff and monitor. Sworn in were Bonnie Murray, president of the Trustees of the Historical Society and Vincent Partyka, general contractor. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 Bonnie informed the I-tPC that the historical society retained Anders & Anderson who is a prominent historic preservation architect out of Denver. The lift does not detract from the appearance of the house in its proposed location. The front was looked at but the configuration would not work. Bonnie agreed with Staff that the condensers could be moved back toward the garage. The gutter in the front was put on near the time the building was built. The gutters on the porch were added at a later date and they are definitely not historic. The architect suggested that we keep the gutters the same and minimize any changes. Rally inquired about a lift off the east stairs. Bonnie said they looked at that area also but the doors have different heights and they couldn't overcome having a greater impact on the home by changing the profile of the front doors and raising the deck. The architect is recommending a full screen door. Gilbert asked if the brick lintel is to be widened and reconstructed above the proposed handicapped door. Vincent replied that it will be reconstructed and existing old brick will be used, approximately six new bricks will be used. The door size will go to a three foot opening to get adequate clearance. The door would be a new door. Staff indicated that a drawing of the widened door needs to be submitted to staff. The gutter detail also needs submitted. Bonnie relayed that the State Historical Society was very explicit about detailing the ~march of time" and keeping the gutters. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments The landscaping should be done according to staff' s recommendation. The condensers should be relocated further north of the building. The new door and brick detailing should be reviewed by staff and monitor. Lisa and Christie were opposed to the doorway change due to the historic masonry and arched opening. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 Jeffrey informed the board that the detail to the brick where the gutter fastens to the brick and the water proofing issue are a major issue. A cut sheet on the lentil should be submitted to staff and monitor. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minor development for the Wheeler-Stallard House at 620 W. Bleeker Street as submitted with the following conditions: 1. The HPC will need to review an elevation that shows the dimensions and detailing of the existing and widened doorway for an accessible entry. 2. Staff recommen& that the condenser units' be moved back toward the non-historic garage as suggested in the application. The units' should then be painted, screened, or otherwise camouflaged to the degree possible. 3. If the existing vents' and flues must be replaced, it should be clarified that they will be no larger or more noticeable than what currently exists'. All vents' and flues must be painted to match the building. 4. Cut sheets' showing the exact fixture proposed will have to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 5. The new screen doors must be wood, and the design of the doors must be approved by staff and monitor. They should be simple and compliment the style of the front doors. 6. These changes and the ones that have been authorized on the building permit are all approved but any additional proposals need to come back to the HPC for approval before it happens. 7. Lan&cape changes need to be submitted to the HPC board. 8. Review of the cut sheet on the lift, handicapped access nee& submitted to staff and monitor. 9. Recommend that the architects' re-evaluate the flat roof section over the area in the back over the lift to see if there can be a more simplified design. Motion second by Susan. Motion carried 6-1. Yes Fote: Gilbert, Susan, Christie, defJhey, Heidi, Suzannah No Fote: Lisa 406 W. SMUGGLER STREET Christie recused herself. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 Rally was seated. Amy submitted to the clerk the proof of publication. Amy informed the board that an ADU is being added in the basement of the house and they need access and UBC light requirements. A site visit occurred today. A new window will be installed. The railing detail will be discussed with staff and monitor. There is an existing lightwell and it will be dug out and made deeper. Suzannah relayed that the problem is that the ceil heights do not meet the egress requirements. Chair-person Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Rally moved to approve as submitted 406 144. Smuggler Street the minor development with the following conditions: 1. That the staff and monitor review the handrail design once that has been decided. 2. HPC must be provided with additional information as to the design of the fencing and windows. 3. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 4. 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 known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation OffJcer prior to applying for the building permit. 5. 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. Motion second by Heidi. Motion carried 6-0 Yes Vote: Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Lisa, defJhey, Heidi MOTION: Suzannah moved to adjourn; second by Christie. All in favor, motion carried. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 Meeting adjourned at 7:48 Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ July 12, 2000 419 E. HYMAN AVE. - PARAGON ..................................................................................................... 1 MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES ................................................................................... 1 620 W. BLEEKER STREET - ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ..... 7 406 W. SMUGGLER STREET .............................................................................................................. 9 12