Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20090114ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 214 E. BLEEKER -PROJECT MONITORING -ROOF MATERIALS AND WALKWAY ....................................................................................................................... 1 GREENWALD PAVILION -FINAL REVIEW -CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING . 6 426 E. MAIN STREET (GALENA & MAIN) SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT............ 9 PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................................................... 9 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Ann Mullins and Nora Berko. Jay Maytin was excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Disclosures: Nora will excuse herself on 214 E. Bleeker MOTION.' Brian moved to nominate Michael Hoffman as Chair and Sarah Broughton as Vice-chair. All in favor, motion carried. Resolution #1, 2009. 214 E. BLEEKER -PROJECT MONITORING -ROOF MATERIALS AND WALKWAY Jim True noted that the project monitoring issue if approved requires 3 positive votes. Dave Rybak, architect Sara relayed that the property is next to the Community Church in the West End. There was a material change on the roof without approval. They were approved for a corrugated metal roof on the secondary garage element on the alley and a shed roof that was existing. They were replaced with a copper roof. Right now we have a copper standing seam roof where there should have been a corrugated metal roof. At the site the stone steps that where to be retained where not retained as part of the front walk. There has been copper flashing detailing that has been added to the front porch and around the pediment on the front porch that was not called out on the permit and not approved. Sara said the main issue is the roof material. Corrugated metal is utilitarian and a lot of thought went into the approval of the corrugated metal and it has been replaced with standing seam copper. There are three recommendations: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 1. HPC can require the project to revert back to the original approved material. 2. Approve an alternate material to replace the cooper roof material which would be discussed with the architect and owner. 3. Approve the copper roof. Sara said the stone steps and cooper flashing detailing are up to HPC to decide what to do. It sounds like the steps were in bad condition and staff does not feel they were original but it was a condition of approval that they be retained. Amy added that miner's cottages typically had stone or wooden steps. Brick would not have been used in a tiered or flared design. Dave Rybak said the approved landscape plan had a straight walk which was modified because the Parks Dept. wanted it away from the trees so we now have a straight walk to the property line and a curved walk to the street curb to miss the street trees. Sara pointed out that the walkway was changed without HPC approval. Dave Rybak said the change to the copper roof is an easy explanation of our interpretation of the guidelines. What occurred between the owner, contract and architect was simply we had to made the decision of putting the flashing package together to install as we were putting the stone back on the building and the wood siding back on the building. We knew we had a corrugated metal roof approved. We had to start with the flashing at the stone and flashing between the stone and the wood siding. In reviewing that the color choice of a tin colored flashing and a rose stone, it did not make sense to us so we went through different scenarios and came to the determination that a copper flashing would be best. When the copper ages it would be a dark brown patina and look great against the rose stone. In light of that it also made sense to use copper as the metal roof. When I read the guidelines it clearly states that metal roofs need to be approved and we had a metal roof approved. In my interpretation the difference between tin and copper is a color. Color is not an issue before the board. I made the determination that the change to copper is a color change and not a material change because it is a metal roof. The roof is at the back of the building on the west face against the Community Church. The other roof is on the west side on a porch addition. From the street the roof is only visible for a very small portion as you walk past the house toward the Community Church or from the alley. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 The color scheme with the copper roof as it patinas is utilitarian. If we had brought the copper roof during conceptual or final to the HPC we believe the board would have approved it. We apologize for the misinterpretation and we were not trying to go against our approvals. Dave presented pictures of cooper roofs being used throughout town. Dave said the flashing that is exposed on the front of the house the construction documents do show flashing. There is a six inch piece of copper at the bottom of the wall that will be covered up with wood siding. Sarah said she reviewed the changes and suggested that the changes go in front of the board. Dave said several things occurred with the stone steps. At the final hearing I made statements that we were unsure of the conditions of the stones because we hadn't taken them apart and they were on the ground. They had also been sitting in water. We do not know when the stone was placed there. We found that everything below the roof on the porch, columns balusters and siding were all replace in the 60's and 70's. Aesthetically transitioning from the walk to a wood porch with a stone foundation it seems odd that you would have stone steps. The original builder would have made the porch out of stone as well. Sarah commented that condition #5 states that the steps will be reused in the construction of the front porch. Amy pointed out that condition # 10 states that no deviation from the exterior elevations approved without first being reviewed by HPC, staff and monitor. We don't review paint color but we certainly review color that is integral to a material. Ann said the steps were clearly outlined. They should not be the design chosen or the brick steps chosen. What would be appropriate is a stone step or wooden step to that era of house no masonry steps. The stone was approved in the architectural plan. Dave said he has many pictures of houses in the West End with brick steps. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 Ann asked if the corrugated metal roof was the material indicated. Sara said it just stated corrugated metal. Sarah pointed out that the roof is on new portions of the project. The struggle is whether the copper is a better material choice than the corrugated metal. The house is a little more formal than other historic resources in the west end. It would definitely need to be pre-patina. Sarah agreed with Ann about the steps and aesthetically the steps want to be the red rock and match the base that is going around the house. Ann and Michael expressed their concern about the process. Ann said a corrugated roof is very different than a standing seam just in appearance no matter what the material is. The material was changed without approval. Michael said his concern is that a very different roof material was installed. On the other hand if his interpretation was reasonable are we being unreasonable by not accepting it. Brian said he is also struggling with the roof. Potentially the roof material installed could be more appropriate. Sarah said the architect has been forth right with getting drawings. Hopefully we can be proactive in moving forward. This should have come before the monitor first. Ann said coming in for approval after the fact puts the H PC in a very difficult position. Michael said we are either going to hold our ground, yield or be aggressive. Michael proposed continuing this for two weeks in order for the board to think about the situation. Dave Rybak said he feels the board doesn't truly believe him which he takes offense to. We came in only because Sara and I have a different opinion of my interpretation of the code. We are here because what it came down to was the correct material selection for us as the construction team. We would like to go forward and the examples of other standing seam copper roofs that have been approved have been submitted. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 Brian said the HPC could take the same stance as Dave and say we are offended as well by the architect taking assumptions without coming to us in the first place. Dave said we don't want to take up the board's time and we didn't want to be here in the first place. We want this project to run smoothly. Michael reiterated that he is not ready to make a decision. Ann said the steps are very clear and the roof material is a tough decision. Sarah pointed out that our ultimate goal is to have the best project. Ann said she feels the corrugated material is more appropriate. Brian said he can support Michael's decision to table the item. Michael said he could support the walkway as constructed other than the flaring that staff has identified. The change in the roof is a different situation. Brian said possibly in HPC's view the copper might be a better roof. Michael said he is concerned about the process that was used and he doesn't want to invite architects to take a broad view of what their interpretation of the guidelines are. They should confirm their interpretation with staff. Kris Church, owner said we have been through a lengthy process and we really appreciate all your time. In our meetings even with the light fixtures Dave as been concerned with the entire process in trying to keep it in line. We do apologize but the contractors said the copper would be a better roof with the copper standing seam. We thought we were giving a better quality to the house and a good look and it is on the alley and on the new part. The brick for the steps is reclaimed brick. Sarah, Brian and Ann relayed that they are adamant about the stairs. Sarah pointed out that every project that comes before the HPC is unique. Brian reminded the board that the roof material is on new construction. Corrugated systems are not as good as standing seam. If our purpose is to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 help preserve the historic resources we have a better chance with a standing seam roof which is a higher quality. Dave said through the 90's rusted corrugated was the material of choice for metal roofs. Now we are having a glut of zinc and we like the copper because it is timeless. Copper is a ready available material throughout history and patinas to an innocuous brown. MOTION: Sarah moved to amend the resolution approving 214 E. Bleeker with the following condition: 1. Brick stairs be removed and the stone stairs be replaced to match what was in our approved resolution. The stone should match the stone coursing on the foundation. 2. The copper standing seam roof remains on the new addition as currently proposed. 3. Realigned walkway approved as built per the Parks Department. The reclaimed brick is OK. Motion second by Brian. Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, no. Ann, no. Motion failed 2-2. MOTION: Ann moved to continue 214 E. Bleeker until January 28`"; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. GREENWALD PAVILION -FINAL REVIEW -CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Nora was seated. Amy said at the last meeting there were a number of issues such as fire access and the discovery of a significant utility easement that would push the tent location back. There was discussion also about the tent size and that it had increased in height from conceptual. The meeting was continued until the issues were reviewed. In the staff memo the only condition of approval is related to the landscaping. There is a proposal to create a landscape barrier across the back of the tent to soften it from the neighbors across the way with a row of Aspen trees. Staff has concerns that the proposal is a little bit unnatural. Staff and monitor and the Parks Dept. can work with the applicant on the placement of the trees as a condition. Jim Curtis represented the Aspen Institute. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 Joede Schoeberlein, architect on the project. Jim Curtis said the new tent center of the roof is below what the old tent was and it is 20 feet even and the five points go up to 25.6. At P& Z there was a discussion about the location of the tent on or off the utility easement. Basically this would be a city council decision. We would also like to keep the tent color white with a white mesh. The critical issue is whether the tent is off the easement or on the easement. Planning & Zoning, the Water dept. and Sanitation District are in favor of the placement of the tent directly to the south of the main utility easement. The tent would be two feet behind the easement and the tent is located parallel to the easement and we have landscaped the back side. Joede said the existing tent is 20.3 feet. The new tent is 3 inches below that at 20 feet even and the five peaks go up to 25.6. We were able to accomplish the height reduction by reducing the width from 60 feet to 55 feet. P&Z recommended the location off the easement parallel to the easement. Nora said the Bayer landscaping is intentional throughout the campus and open to the community. The landscape around the tent needs to be sensitive to the community and not hidden by a row of trees. Possibly use a berm as opposed to a wall of trees. The back side of the tent is an opportunity to do something unique. Jim said the Institute agrees with Nora's philosophy. Joede said originally the entire mesa area was tree free and the trees have grown naturally because of the irrigation. On the front side we would something similar to what was planted around the marble garden where aspen trees are used to form an edge and also that the irrigation ditches would be woven through them. It would be a simple arc of trees on the edge of the gravel entry area and the back would acknowledge a more natural condition on the back. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Fred Pierce, attorney representing the neighbor across the river who looks at the back side of the tent. The existing tent sits on the easement. One proposal is to move it back and closer to my clients. We would like the 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 location on the easement with an asphalt pad. My client doesn't want a wall of vegetation but we do want landscaping that softens it. We are in no way suggesting that the tent not be there we just feel it should be pushed to the front of the property. A white tent might be stark and not fit in with the environment. Paul Taddune, attorney for Pitkin Reserve. Paul echoed Fred's remarks as their concerns are identical. Paul pointed out that the P& Z followed the recommendation of the Water Dept. Easements in the city are always getting torn up. Alternative A is off the easement. It would be helpful if you invited the neighbors to the table to discuss the landscaping. The front of the tent should be somewhat open. If the tent could be a little less white it wouldn't stand out as much. Chairperson Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Ann pointed out that regarding the historic context either location works. Keeping it off the easement might avoid future problems. In terms of the landscaping the front design works very well. The lineup of trees in the back seems a little formal and you would be better off with a grove of aspens. Sarah concurred with Ann's comments. Maybe the berm becomes a nice place to sit. The white mesh is on the two end walls and the front and not the north facing on the back. Michael said he feels either location is OK. Nora said she would like to see a site plan of the landscaping. Sarah agreed. MOTION: Ann moved to approve Resolution #2 for the Greenwald Pavilion with the representation that either location of the tent is acceptable. Staff and monitor will work with Jim Curtis on the landscape plan to be presented to the HPC. The neighbors will be invited to the meeting on the landscape plan. The proposed tent as represented in the plans Exhibit A is approved. Motion second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Monitor for the tent -Ann Monitor for the Auditorium -Michael ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 426 E. Main Street (Galena & Main) Substantial Amendment Public Hearing Sara explained that the building is a mixed use building being constructed on the corner. The applicant would like to change the material that was approved by HPC. They would like to switch out the architectural metal that was approved for the corner piece with stucco panels. There will be two tones of stucco, one for the fapade that faces the street and another tone for inside the balconies. Staff is in favor of the change. The corner piece is successful and there is already stucco on the rear of the building so we are not introducing a whole new type of material to the material palate of the building. Dave Ritchie, Poss and Architects Dave said before they had a metal screen that was standing outside the building envelope. For cost reasons it has become very difficult to do that and we would like to take the wall material that already exists behind the screen and reconfigure the surfaces a little bit to recapture some of the presence and character of the metal screen element. The windows would remain the dark brown. Brian said he is somewhat skeptical of stucco and would like assurance that the construction method is acceptable. Dave said this is a fine stone system that is actually a three coat on a cement board as opposed to an eps soft back. It is far more durable and a long lasting system. My fear is that the stucco would detract from one of the most prominent buildings in town, the court house. Stepping away from the metal might tone down the building where you aren't competing as much with the court house. Sarah said the mass has also changed. Ann said she feels the change is an acceptable solution. Michael said the change won't detract from the historic court house. Sara explained that the change is in the corner element and it is recessed in the plan. Dave said essentially the height and mass is the same. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 Brian said with the stucco potentially we are moving into the same family of materials. The metal was really great and created the corner element and broke up the materials. Ann said after the explanation and the reveal and the fact that it looks smaller it is an acceptable solution. Nora said the scheme feels as though it is a little more modest. Sarah commented that the new massing is better. The change in material is inappropriate and against our guidelines 6.59 and 6.60 and 6.61. This is a downtown location and stucco is an inexpensive material to be used on the corner of a prominent building especially the color choice of red. The entire building is red. The new form has been minimized which means the amount of metal has been minimized which helps the cost concern. I feel we are losing value and an important material on the corner of this building. Stucco is more of a background material. Brian commented that he has reservations on the stucco and agreed that it is a filler material. Ann pointed out that the reveal is there but the color might be a little harsh. In combination with the other materials it is somewhat minimized. Sarah said if the HPC chooses stucco we would need to have a mockup of the color. A darker color would be more successful than the red. You will notice that this is a thin material. Dave said the darker color is already installed on the north side of the building. Sarah reiterated that the stucco is not the appropriate material for this building. Michael said he could support a continuance so that we can see a mockup. Dave said there is a mockup in the building. Dave said the concept is to have three strong material elements. Brick on the Main Street side, metal/now stucco on the corner element and the bush hammered stone with the water table base stone which references the court house. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2009 Bill Poss explained that the clients have asked us to look at keeping the costs down. This is the best solution that we could come up with. A lot of the materials are installed and this is the last. Windows are ordered and the water table is installed. The brick on the Main Street side is also installed. Nora pointed out that the corner of the building is a very important corner in town. Bill said if we go to stucco we can save between $70,000 to $80,000. Sarah asked if a bronze sheet metal could be used. Dave said for the size of the area it really needs to be a composite and a stiffer panel. Bill said we have explored everything. MOTION: Sarah moved that the form as presented tonight is approved and that the applicant come back to us with some alternate material options for the corner that fit more with our guidelines 6.59, 6.60 and 6.61. Motion second by Michael. Bill explained if they are delayed two weeks it is a $50,000 decision. We would like to go forward with some recommendation. Amended motion. 1. Keep the current design and materials as approved. 2. New massing with the approved metal materials. 3. New massing with an alternate new exterior material to be approved by staff and monitor. Michael amended his second. All in favor of the motion and amended motion. Amy pointed out that the HPC is comfortable with staff and monitor picking a new exterior material. Main Street pedestrian improvements -work session - no minutes 316 E. Hopkins Ave. -work session - no minutes. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah: All_in favor, ~/ ~..- ~ motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ~-'"`^~L~ ~~,~~ 11 V