Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070926 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26. 2007 135 W. HOPKINS A VB. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, FINAL, V ARlANCES, PUBLIC HEARING........................................................................................................................... 2 408 E. COOPER AVENUE. - ASPEN SPORTS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - . PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................................................... 7 REFERRAL COMMENTS - ORD. #30 - NO MINUTES - ANNUAL HPC A WARDS 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26. 2007 Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Michael Hoffman, Sarah Broughton and Nora Berko. 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: Michael moved to approve September 12th minutes, second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. 135 w. HOPKINS AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, FINAL, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING Gretchen Greenwood, architect Sara said on Sept. Ith the project was continued to look at the west facade of the new house. There have been changes in the roof forms and massing. The material palate was restudied and there is now a thick horizontal wood siding proposed for the west elevation and a standing seam roof for the new residence. Staff finds that the front porch is in scale and the proportion is consistent with the design guidelines, 11.2 and 11.4. In terms of the roof forms staff finds that it is still too complex. We are also concerned about the utility shed that is being proposed. In the other two iterations it was behind the front porch and how it is pushed forward. In terms of the materials we think the siding is a little too wide and it doesn't comply with guideline 11.8 and 11.9. Staff recommends continuation to study the roofforms and the west elevation. The front porch is better in scale but roof forms etc. changed. Staff pointed out that they did not review the information that was handed out at the meeting Exhibit I - #4. Gretchen said the direction from the meeting of Sept. 1 th was to break up the long roof modules on the west fayade of the new house. The mass of the house is directed to the north away from the Victorian house with significant plantings between the two houses. The roof form of the new house on the north side of the lot was brought down one foot the entire length and the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26. 2007 plate height was lowered a foot on the west elevation. We decided to maintain a strong horizontal line with the architectural deck element. The existing Victorian has a very fiat fayade on the west elevation. When I read over the guidelines this building meets it to the T. Jim True made a point of order. He heard staff say that they had not had a chance to review the drawings submitted tonight. Although it is the pleasure of the board to whether this should be continued staff wanted to have the opportunity to review what Gretchen is talking about and I am concerned we might be getting ahead of ourselves. Jeffrey said the staff memo went out Friday and Gretchen has tried to respond to the issues even though staff and the board have not reviewed the elevations. We can determine whether the changes our too complicated or not. Gretchen said from Sept. Ith to the 26th she has broken up the roof line on the north ofthe new building. When the roofline broke up into three simple modules it complies with the guidelines. The front door was lowered a foot and staff has reviewed that. Other changes that Sara did not review are the utility shed. Because the building is three feet on the side of the alley and we need utilities I was trying to create a good utility shed and bring it out. Since the memo I'll deal with utilities at another date. On the south elevation instead of the roof form going from grid line 7 to 9 it is just pushed back to be in plane with the line of the building on the line 7 entry. The porch is an element onto itself. Material changes: We decided that we wanted to have a variety of different sidings on the building. We ended up as the final a six inch horizontal wood siding on the new building. At the break in the line of the railing we will go with a 4 inch horizontal square edge siding and a 4 inch vertical square edge. The main goal after the last meeting was to lower the roof. We are only six feet above the existing Victorian building and the plate height was lowered. Sara said she is concerned where the utilities will go knowing the setbacks that were granted for this project and also that the drawings are not to scale. Sarah asked ifthe building has gotten wider from conceptual. Gretchen said an elevator was added to the south of gridline L, 3 Yz feet. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26. 2007 Sarah said there have been numerous mass and scale changes on this building. Amy said the code says once conceptual is awarded HPC cannot insist on any changes in mass and the form of the building but it doesn't say anything about the applicant initiating changes. Jeffrey pointed out that Exhibit B is the approved conceptual drawing for this project. Final we usually go to materials, landscaping, lighting etc. There has been some variation, some to the success of this project and maybe some not. Is it enough for the board to approve or are there too many changes. Gretchen explained the changes: Roof dropped one foot and the plate height brought down on the second fIoor level. She also pointed out at the last meeting she was directed to bring in options. The form was added and it is 14 feet long at the very center ofthe building. Jeffrey inquired about the square footage of the southern structure. Gretchen said the square footage is the same except for the below grade bedroom that was added. Jeffrey said but the elevator was added. Gretchen said she had to make the building smaller in order to accommodate the elevator. The west elevation went back one foot so the building got smaller to accommodate the FAR. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Brian said the extra square footage was added to the elevator and taken away from somewhere else. Brian said his concern is that we retain the 320 square footage bonus and do not exceed that threshold. Sarah asked if there were any changes in height from conceptual. Gretchen said they are down a foot from conceptual. Comments: Sarah said the new drawings are successful and comply with our guidelines is with the front porch and scale of materials. There are a lot more roof lines going on than we had at the approved conceptual specifically the north elevation. We also have a new gable added. On the south elevation we how 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26. 2007 have a new gable introduced as well. In hind site we should have never approved conceptual with the porch still outstanding because that is why we have gotten where we are today. Michael said the front porch is adequately addressed. The front door can be left to staff and monitor. Regarding materials, the siding in the new plan #4 adequately address staffs concern about the inappropriateness ofthe wide siding. Michael agreed with staff regarding the roof forms. They are inconsistent with the conceptual approval and do not comply with our guidelines; 11.4 front elevation should be similar in scale to the historic building and 11.5, use building forms that are similar to the historic property. The design is way too complex for a Victorian neighborhood. Nora also agreed that there are a lot of roof undulations going on and on the other side of the street it is a small scale. Nora also had concerns about heated sidewalks and if the city had energy efficiency regulations. Brian asked for clarification if the roof line was a request from conceptual. Sara said the only condition placed on conceptual approval was to restudy the front porch element. Brian said the roof line is definitely a different design now than what was presented at conceptual. Brian said he did not review conceptual and would prefer to recuse himself from voting. Jeffrey said the porch element is getting into compliance. There are some absolute differences from conceptual to final on the mass and scale of this building. As a board at conceptual we should have asked for simplifications of this project. Final we should be dealing with materials, fenestration and lighting and we are still dealing with mass and scale. The southern building has been changed many times and it seems like a moving target. The addition to the historic resource is in compliance with our guidelines. I have reviewed this project since the beginning and still feel I do not have a handle on what is going on. As a board we need to offer creative insight to the applicant and try to come to a conclusion. Sarah explained that the mass and scale changed from conceptual to final because of the addition of some program items. Gretchen agreed and the only change was the elevator structure which was not discussed at the last meeting and adding a gable on the north side. The elevator bumped out on the north elevation. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26. 2007 Jeffrey stated that the north, south and east elevation have changed on the structure from conceptual. Gretchen said she wished the board had the discussion last week. Michael said he does not believe we as a board should be actively providing design solutions for applicants. Gretchen said she is just responding from last week which is to break up the mass of the roof. Michael read the minutes and they state that the porch element should be restudied to make it compliant with the regulations. Sarah also agreed that the resolution was clear. Michael said he would move to continue this agenda item. The only thing that needs restudied are the roof forms. Brian also agreed with Michael after reviewing the elevations the roof forms need restudied. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing andfinal development for 135 w: Hopkins until October 24th. Roof forms on the new building that were presented tonight Exhibit I - Elevation #4 should be simplified. Motion second by Jeffrey. Discussion: Sarah said that is the right course of action. Sarah suggested that a model with the roofform would be helpful and all pertinent information for final. We need a clear sense of what is going on. Jeffrey asked if the HPC had any questions about the landscape plan etc. that need to be considered and what is the boards feeling on the porch. Sarah said the fenestration etc. of the porch meet our guidelines and are successful. Michael said one of the things that was successful from the conceptual plan was that the second story mass was moved away from the historic building. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26. 2007 Gretchen said there is not much more to study. The element that is different is the elevator on the north side. The gable on the west side was moved closer to the east side which is more successful. Gretchen also reminded the board that they do have a contractor on board and as soon as the project gets approved they can go forward. Brian and Nora abstained from voting. Roll call vote: Michael, Sarah, Jeffrey. Motion carried 3-0. 408 E. COOPER AVENUE. - ASPEN SPORTS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Amy said the scope of work is the renovation of the fayade of the Aspen Sports building, the main arch opening and the side bay. Aspen Sports has been in this location for 50 years. In 1968 Sam Claudill created the fayade that we know today and shortly after that the upper story stucco was added and the yellow brick was added that is on the ground fIoor. The proposal is to replace materials, new signage, lighting and awnings. There are two sets of guidelines that apply: The HPC guidelines and the Commercial design guidelines. Staff finds that the Commercial design guidelines are met. In terms of the HPC guidelines staff has basically raised the same issues during the course of the three reviews. We can't approve alternations that move the building further out of compliance with the guidelines. The design is somewhat responsive to the comments made at the last meeting regarding the upper fIoor. Staffs objection centers around the ground fIoor because the guidelines talk about the importance of creating a strong fayade line. The existing building does have the store fronts recessed about four feet. We feel the project is in confIict with five guidelines in Chapter 13. Staff recommends not approving the remodel. Joe Larkin, manager said at the last meeting we were given clear guidance and brought three options. We were directed to merge A & C. We used the ground fIoor from A diagram and the top fIoor from C diagram. We did that very literally. We were clear and removed the cornice on the upper level. The setback in the main level has not come up as an issue. For that block it is not consistent with what you see on the rest of the block. The setback of the windows is an existing condition and we are not proposing to modify that. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26. 2007 Brian said he read the minutes and the applicant took the recommendation from the board literally. Brian said he is ready to go forward with an approval. Nora said there is no historic memory on the fayade that was there before, i.e. arches. Joe Larkin pointed out that the brick will remain but the central portion of the arch will not. Amy pointed out that the building is in the historic district and it is not individually designated. At the time the applicant first came in we were operating under the ordinance that the building had to be at least 40 years old and it is around 38 so there was no opportunity other than if they volunteered to be designated. The rules have changed and staffs position is that this is a worthy building and it is on the proposed list. Should this application not go forward it is something that we would consider. If the application goes forward they have the right to go forward with their remodel. Jeffrey clarified that they are grandfathered in if approved. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Brian said at the last meeting all three members said there should be a meshing between option A and C. The windows are not too far off from our guidelines. Sarah said what has been presented does meet our guidelines. There are however missed opportunities pertaining to some of the architectural interest that was originally in this building. Michael said the architect has done a good job on the eastern side but on the West side there seems to be too much glass that does not meet our guideline 13.15 and 13.18. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26. 2007 Jeffrey also reviewed all the meeting minutes throughout the project. The applicant as Brian indicated has presented exactly what was recommended from the board. Jeffrey voiced his support for the project. Michael said he feels strongly about the western fayade that it is inconsistent with the rest of the block. It would be a mistake to approve it in this form. Sarah said when she goes by the western fayade that area feels so dark and confining when she walks downs that mall. There are arguments in portions of our guidelines that support large glass windows. Sarah feels the western fayade complies with our guidelines. Guideline 13.16 talks about store front windows and developing the ground fIoor level to encourage pedestrian activity. Michael agreed that there is always a balancing of our guidelines. Joe Larking said one can interpret guidelines differently. There are also store fronts on the block that have glass on the ground level. Joe said he appreciated Michael's suggestion but would hate to turn back at this point. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #36 for the minor development of 408 E. Cooper as discussed with the drawings dated Sept. 17th, 2007. The resolution should include our standard conditions for approval, second by Brian. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes; Michael, no. Motion carried 3-1. REFERRAL COMMENTS - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 30 AND ANNUAL HPC AWARDS - NO MINUTES MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Brian. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9