Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20071212ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 604 W. Main Street -Major Development cont'd from 11/14/2007 ................................. 2 311 W. Main -Aspen Mtn. Lodge -Minor Development ................................................. 7 980 Gibson -Final -Public Hearing .................................................................................. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Nora Berko, Alison Agley, Ann Mullins and Jay Maytin. 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 Nov. 14`h; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 604 W. Main Street -Major Development cont'd from 11/14/2007 Sara said in reading the minutes many aspects of the project were appropriate in terms of HPC's approval. The staff memo focuses on the 5`h Street new building facade which is the direction HPC had given to the applicant. The height has been undulated and they simplified the facade. Basically staff finds that the proposal meets the criteria. There are two variances being requested. One is for the 5th Street building; the second floor balcony extends into the setback .8 and the affordable housing unit on the alley needs a zero foot setback. There is a little visor that extends up to the property line so they need a variance for that. The actual building extends two feet into the five foot rear yard setback. In referencing the shed the applicant has hired an engineer and they have determined that the best possible way would be to dismantle the shed and reassemble it. The question is whether the board feels reassembling is an option. A site visit can occur at a later date. David Brown, architect said the shed has been artificially framed from the interior about a year ago. Should we try to remove the framing, the shed would collapse. In order to save it each piece needs numbered etc. It needs a new frame and foundation. Regarding the visor on the alley side over the affordable housing there are two walls that project two feet out. The idea is to break up the mass and make them look like two smaller buildings. The visor over the overhang ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 extends to the property line to help shelter the cars and keep the snow and ice away. We are looking for a zero foot setback for the visor. Roof plan. We made some adjustments and have broken up the 5`h Street building and punched up the roof of the employee housing unit two feet. Sara said at the last meeting the board determined that the relocation was resolved because they are relocating the Wylie house. Demolition of the two 1950's buildings seemed resolved and the facade of the front of the new building on Main Street was resolved. The flat roof on the 5`h Street building, the setback variance were OK with HPC. Amy said she walked away from the last meeting with only the 5`h Street facade to be discussed. Michael said he recalled discussing the articulation of the roof at the last meeting. Sarah said on the Main Street facade there was a step over the first floor elevation and now it is designed to be flat. David said from the ground floor it would exactly be the same. It is designed to be a covered porch element with a shadow. From the cardboard model there is a subtle difference from the sketch up model. The sketch up shows that element coming the whole way forward so that it is a continuous plane. Sarah said once you do the structure you are probably going to need the step for drainage etc. Sara commented that the change on the Main Street facade (covered porch) is a conceptual issue and it should be resolved before going to final. Ann asked if the applicant every found out if a sidewalk was required. David said he hasn't research that. Ann said she feels the board should be looking at landscaping at the conceptual level. The sidewalk really does change the way the site needs to work. Amy said there are no sidewalks at this end of town. David said the sidewalk would get in the way of the ditch and the trees. The sidewalk would have a serious impact on the ditch. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 Brian said if there is a sidewalk mandated by the Engineering Dept. we do not want to see the parking space. Ann said she would prefer to see the parking space gone and the curb cut gone if there is a sidewalk. Brian asked if the height of the units behind the garage changed. David said the height has been increased two feet but the lowest point to the ground has not changed. When viewed from the west side you can see there is a step. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. The chair identified three topics or issues to be discussed. The roof design. The 5`" Street streetscape. The extension of the deck toward Main Street on the new building. Engineering -sidewalk. Shed. 5"' Street streetscape. Alison said the design has improved with the two planes. The stepping back of the element closest to Main Street is a good change. Alison said she is not sure about the fenestration but that will be discussed at final. The roof stepping is also an improvement. Ann also agreed that the fenestration needs restudied. The massing works well on 5`h Street. As a suggestion the guidelines state use a similar window and door size to create continuity along the street. At final we will probably press that the windows get smaller. All the glass is so different than what is going on and at night it will really stand out. Nora said she continues to refer back to guideline 7.14 and 7.15 which say define a new building to appear similar in scale as to those in the district during the mining era. Cubes and triangles are not similar in size. Jay said he feels the project does work in a sense that the building between the historic white building and the garage is narrow. The setback seems to work. When looking at the streetscape the white house is still the dominant feature. Breaking up the roof of the new building between the historic house and art studio is great. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 Michael said part of him wants to restore the one-story scale of Main Street but evolution is part of the game and this proposal meets guideline 7.12 and the program is balanced. Brian said he is OK with the changes and they are an improvement. Everything complies with the guidelines. On the 5`h Street facade the height of the affordable housing roof line and the roof of the new building in the middle should be brought back down. Brian said the additional height compromises the garage on 5`h Street. Sarah said the 5`h Street facade is a fast improvement and more in line with our guidelines. Sarah said we were at 23 feet for the 5`h Street building before and now we are at 25 feet. The affordable housing unit in the back went up as well. The higher height compromises the project a little and possibly the height could be brought down a little bit. The new roof form for the stairs is great. Sarah asked the applicant what drove the increase in height. David said primarily everyone's comments. We can go back to the previous dimensions. From anywhere it will be very hard to pick up that it is flat or changed. Ann asked what the conclusion was on the height issue. Michael said the applicant has offered to reduce the affordable housing height and the 5`h Street right hand side element of the new building by two feet and I would certainly like to accept that. Brian also agreed that the reduction in height on the 5`h Street elevation is appropriate. Jay said he felt that the employee unit should be brought down two feet and the taller part of the 5`h Street building be brought down one foot. Sarah said she would prefer in the motion that we asked for an overall reduction and let the applicant tell us what it will be. Issues identified by the chair. Extension of the deck on the new building on Main Street. Sarah said she brought it up but the step is more successful and once the structure is there you will need the step because the structure will be cantilevered out and you will need a roof drain. The step made the front porch feel like a porch rather than the flat plane coming out. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 David said he will keep the step which is what the HPC wants. Sidewalk. Michael pointed out that the board prefers that no sidewalk be installed but if Engineering mandates the sidewalk the parking space would be removed. Shed: Alison said she looked at the shed and feels dismantling it and rebuilding it is the appropriate manner for restoration. Jay said it should be reassembled exactly as is. David said they will reuse the original material and only add new material when it is absolutely mandatory. David commented on the roof design. His team feels from an architectural standpoint and design standpoint this is the best solution however, that being said if we get a majority approval from the board that they want a one to two foot reduction of the employee housing unit and the 5`h Street element we are more than happy to make that adjustment. MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve Resolution #43, 2007 for 604 W. Main Street as stated in staff's memo with the following amendments: That the two additional setbacks be included. That the relocation of the historic shed goes through a dismantling and reconstruction. That the overall maximum height of the affordable housing and the 5`" Street buildings be reduced by at least one foot. A step be brought into the south facing Main Street side of the new building of the deck floor of the porch roof to help delineate that porch element. HPC recommends to the Engineering Department no sidewalk be built on the 5`~' Street sidewalk that it is subject to review of Parks and the overall sidewalk plan of the City. Setback variance of .8 feet is granted for the S`" Street building for the balcony that extends into the setback on the second floor. Setback variance of 0 feet where five feet is required for the affordable housing unit for both the building that extends two feet into the setback and the visor projection that extends to the lot line. Motion second by Jay. Discussion: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 Michael said he would be more comfortable if the right element of the 5`" Street facade be reduced by a foot or more and reduce the employee housing module by a foot. Brian said he would be more comfortable with the condition to state that if it is mandated by the Engineering Department that a sidewalk does need to be there the extra parking space should be removed. Michael said if the Engineering Department says a sidewalk is necessary then we need to see the entire application to see how it would impact the 5`" Street facade. Alan Richmond said at final we will tell the HPC what the Engineering Department has recommended and identify the implications. Sarah amended the motion to add HPC would not like a sidewalk; however, if the city plan mandates a sidewalk we would like to revisit the site plan and its parking space and pedestrian paths on the east side of the property at final. Sarah also amended her motion that the right element of the new building on the 5`" Street facade be reduced by a foot or more and reduce the employee housing module by a foot. Motion and amended motion second by Jay. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Alison, yes; Nora, no; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Ann, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 6-1. 311 W. Main -Aspen Mtn. Lodge -Minor Development Amy said this building is considered anon-contributing building. This is not a building that was identified in Ordinance #48 and we have not seen any potential historic significance. The property owner is interested in some minor upgrades to help the building relate to some of the adjacent development. This is a small scope of work but unfortunately we feel it didn't meet the guidelines. There are improvements proposed to a pool area and staff is not objecting to that. They are actually replacing the pool with a hot tub and adding fountains that will not be visible from the street. The intent to create a cornice across the upper edge of the roof made with copper is a concern because it isn't a material that was used in the Victorian era on Main Street and we don't feet it is typical for modern structures. We are also not sure that type of building would have had a cornice line in the proposed design. Along the cornice is proposed a series of light fixtures and we feel there is conflict with guideline 14.7 which talks about not washing 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 the entire building in light. We are concerned that this type of lighting scenario might not be consistent with Main Street. The lighting code says lighting should not be any more than 12 feet in height. You are allowed to have it more than 12 feet if it is shielded. The front door is slated to be replaced and right now there is a little shed roof to protect the entrance and it is to be replaced but the replacement is a barrel shaped roof and the barrel form is not consistent with Main Street. Staff is recommending continuation with recommendations. Kelly Condon, Reno Smith Architects, designer for the project. Ke11y Vance, Reno Smith, implemented the design and specifications. Kelly Condon said with the copper band we were not proposing shiny copper it would have a patina. We do see copper in a lot of historic buildings, domes, gutters and flashing. Presently there is copper in the building. The awing that exists over the door is a standing seam copper look. Our intent is to break up the fagade a little. It is not that attractive of a building and we are just trying to give it a face lift. Part of the reason with the barrel roof it will push the snow off to the side to protect the user somewhat. We aren't going to replace the front doors. The Isis Theatre has an arched form so there are arched forms in the historic district. Kelly Vance said the existing lights look like they were from a factory. We were hoping we could improve the fixture. If the style of the light is the issue we can change to a different style. Just doing a basic sketch I do not think the bulb would be visible from the pedestrian. We would be glad to further explore the detail of a light fixture. Chairperson Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Copper Band Ann said she likes the copper band and it looks great. Ann said she commends the whole effort to improve the building. The copper band brings down the scale and adds interest to the building. Ann also pointed out that the proposed lighting really doesn't work well. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 Jay said the patina is good on the copper banding. Jay pointed out that you would see the bulb and that is a concern on the lighting. Sarah said the barrel over the door is minimal. The lighting should be used as a way to de-emphasize the blank walls and right now the way that it is designed it emphasizes the wall. Brian also agreed that the copper barrel roof adds to the design because it is a different element. It recedes more than a gable and is minimized. Kelly said it would be a standing seam copper that would tum reddish. Kelly also said that the lights would hang from the wood trim board. Kelly Vance said there are lights also lower down on the facade and it would be good if the board clarified what they felt about those lights. They are replacing the tube looking lights and the design is a can light that lights up and down. Alison suggested that the stone be lighted but don't up-light the entire wall. The center section could have the up and down lights. Jay suggested that the entire lighting be restudied. MOTION: Michael made the motion that the copper band and copper barrel roof over the door and acceptable. The proposed lighting needs to be restudied. Michael made the motion to continue 311 W. Main until January 9`~'' motion second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 980 Gibson -Final -Public Hearing Alison and Jay stepped down. Sara indicated that HPC granted the relocation of the historic cabin, demolition of anon-historic addition and car port, setback variances and residential design standards for the new addition and a 221 square foot FAR bonus for the new design and the rehabilitation. This property is maxed out on their FAR. There were a few changes from conceptual to final. Basically there is a different roof form over the garage structure. Overall staff is in support of the change because it moves the mass away from the historic cabin and breaks up the secondary piece. To point out, the footprint has not ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 changed from conceptual so it is just the massing on the second floor, roof form. Landscape plan: Sara said there is no landscape plan proposed at this time. There is a stone retaining wall on the east of the property that is required due to grading issues. Staff recommends that the overall site plan be natural and soft. Staff is also recommending continuation of the project. Fenestration: Sara said the applicant is proposing a variety of window shapes and gazing for the new addition. We think they are very contemporary in nature and maybe there could be more of a relationship with the historic resource. Materials: Sara pointed out that the applicant is rehabilitating the historic cabin which is commendable. They are proposing wood siding for both the cabin and the new addition which is appropriate. For the new addition they are proposing a corrugated metal roof, rusted and for the historic resource they are proposing wood shingles. Staff is a little concerned about reading the two dimensions of the small wood shingles and the corrugated rusty metal roof and we are not sure that is the best choice for a roof material. We feel the roof material is in conflict with guideline 11.8. and 10.11. Architectural details. On the historic home the applicant is proposing a chimney in the middle of the historic home. Staff finds that inappropriate as they were awarded a bonus for rehabilitation. Unless there was a chimney in that location they should not be placing one there. We are also concerned with the proposed double doors on the east elevation of the home. Basically they are cutting into a wall which confuses what the historic building looked like. Addition: Staff is somewhat concerned about the complexity of the double porch element. The historic home's porch is very simple and the double porch is a little distracting. Jim True, Special Counsel pointed out that there is a flaw in the public noticing. The list from conceptual is different than the list obtained from the GIS department for final. If the agenda item is going to be continued we can 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 fix it with a new notice for the continued hearing. Jim suggested that Alison and Jay step down at this point. Scott Bartleet said he got the list from the GIS department. Jim said there was an error in the list when it was given to Scott. Michael said it is likely that the agenda item will be continued and at that time we can have the applicant re-notice. Scott Bartleet of Flux Design Studio, Basalt. Scott said there is a grade change about four feet where the landscape wall exists. The fenestration i.e. windows have been designed for function not style. We would be reluctant to change the windows for the sake of decorations and loose their function. They are a utilitarian design. The roof materials -the corrugated metal is of a human scale as opposed to a standing seam and the texture is a lot smaller. We are open to discuss a more appropriate material. We would be reluctant to use a wood shingle because of maintenance issues. Architectural details: Scott said the historic structure obviously was heated somehow but we have no evidence of what it was. We are suggesting that we revise the chimney element so that we only have a small flue that pops out at the ridge instead of the chimney. Double doors on the cottage exist so we would like to keep them. We have no evidence that they were not there originally. The window above the doors we feel was added and it will be removed. Michael pointed out that the list provided was not correct so this meeting will be a work session. Scott said he feels the porch on the addition is as simple as it gets. We feel the roofing material is appropriate for Aspen. We would be glad to revise the chimney so that there is a minimal impact on the roof line. Ann suggested that in the future landscape plans be submitted at conceptual. Michael pointed out that it is clear that this new HPC board has a real interest in seeing the landscape as part of the submittal. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman identified the issues. Roof form over the garage Retaining wall Landscape plan New architecture fenestration on the windows and porch Roof materials on the new structure Chimney Double doors on the historic structure Double porch on the addition Roof form over the garage. Sara said staff is in support of the change presented. Retaining wall. Brian suggested that the retaining wall that is four feet tall and 12 feet long be stepped down and used for plantings. Brian also suggested that the height of the wall be minimized. Scott said that would be better from a planting perspective. Sarah asked that the architect show the walkway to the house in the site plan for the next meeting. New architecture on the windows and also the two story porch deck element. Sarah said the fenestration is appropriate because it off-sets the cabin. Sarah also agreed that she is troubled about the craftsman style of the porch with all the exposed members. Scott said they would be glad to look at the front porch to see what could be changed. Brian said he is not concerned with the style of the porch addition but the scale is an issue. The windows are very large compared to the historic resource. Maybe Scott can restudy the windows to bring down the scale somewhat. Scott said the reason for the large windows is to get light into the living space below. Scott said it might be a matter of looking at window mullions to break down the scale. Michael recused himself. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 Sarah said the other issues are the chimney, double doors on the historic structure and the roof materials. Brian said the changes the architect is presenting for the chimney are appropriate. The double doors since they are existing should be kept especially for a functionality point. With the roof Brian has no problem with the choice of material. Sarah agreed with Brian. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the final development and public hearing for 980 Gibson until January 9`"; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at~8~:1~5 p.m. athleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13