Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20100224ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24,201 Chairperson Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jason Lasser, Ann Mullins, Jamie McLeod, Jay Maytin, Brian McNellis. Excused were Sarah Broughton and Nora Berko. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Jason will recuse himself on 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery. Jason was on staff when they initially presented. 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery Affidavit of Posting — Exhibit I Amy said this is final review for the maintenance building at the Red Butte Cemetery. The conceptual process took some time and originally the building was to include a caretaker unit and in general it was slightly a larger structure. There was a lot of neighborhood concern and the project evolved into a tighter footprint on the site. HPC granted conceptual approval with , conditions. The area is a 17 acre parcel and there are 2,800 grave stones and numerous cottonwood trees. There is a lot that needs to be done and the organization is made up of volunteers. Staff is in support of the concept. One of the conditions of the HPC approval was to consider orienting the building square to the grid established by the cemetery plots and the applicant has analyzed the situation and determined that it isn't appropriate to square it to the grid; for one because it would actually increase the size of the work yard that surrounds the building and two, the little Victorian structures at the bottom of the site, the office and the outhouse aren't perfectly set to the grid. Staff can accept the analysis. One of the main discussions in the previous meetings was about the maintenance of the entire site and the fact that there had been some disturbance on the north end of the property over time. Some noxious weeks come into play and access to the property. One of HPC's conditions of approval was that a landscape management plan be created and the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24.2010 neighbors participated in putting that together. There were several neighborhood meetings. Amy said a good landscape plan has been provided to you in your packet which talks about the impacts on the site from the construction and the long term perspective. The Parks Department is in favor of the plan and has offered services and has offered services such as inspecting trees and looking at the vegetation conditions as needed. This is a good partnership that has evolved out of the situation. Staff provided the application with the Ute Cemetery maintenance and management plan as a possible guideline even though it is in a more natural state. As part of the landscape maintenance plan trees and shrubs were proposed around the maintenance building and it included Aspen trees and staff objected to that because Aspen trees are not dominant on the site. Sarah Shaw, landscape architect has revised the plan eliminating the Aspen trees. The remaining condition has to do with materials on the maintenance building. Staff has no concern with the fenestration or the garage doors. As a suggested condition of revision we recommend that the materials be revisited. What are being proposed are rusted metal panels on both the sides and the roof of the building. We feel in some ways that it is too informal for the cemetery which really is a designed landscape. The two structures that are on the site are modest but they have wood siding and right now they have metal roofs but they probably had wood roofs originally and they are painted. We suggested perhaps a wood siding be used with a transparent stain or perhaps a different roofing material. We're concerned that the strong uniform color might be distracting and too informal to the site.. The applicant feels strongly about their proposal which may have some maintenance benefits. We recommend that it be discussed but we do recommend approval. Graeme Means, architect: The site is 17 acres and Cemetery Lane goes off at an angle. There is a steep bank that goes down into Castle Creek. The site is located in the northern part of the parcel. The southern part is developed with a landscape of cottonwoods trees and is mostly filled in with grave stones. The northern part is more empty and an open field. The reason for putting the facility in the northern end (1) there is not enough space in the southern part to put it. (2) we are able to avoid impacts to the existing landscape and grave sites. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2010 (3) we can maintain good distance from the neighbors. The closest neighbor is 175 from the property line to the building envelope. Two of the major objectives that we were trying to achieve with this activity envelope and working with the neighbors were (1) internalize all the activity such as trucks, backhoe and spoils cribs. On all sides is buffered either by vegetation and a swelling of the grading. This plan serves to buffer activity and noise. The land does slope four feet down to the north and we have put the building essentially on grade at the lower end. The building is called out at 19 feet measured from existing and finished grade to the very peak of the roof At conceptual we suggested the rusted corrugated siding and we have worked with the neighbors on that and they are in agreement with that. The reason that we chose that, we feel that it does blend well with the back ground of the scrub oak and service berries etc. We don't want to bring attention to this building. This is an issue for the board and they would like to have a material that does not have any maintenance and cost is a big issue. They want the material to be durable and last a long time. We feel the metal panels historically have a precedent and obviously they were used back in the mining days on buildings with a similar use and now they are used on a lot of modern buildings. We feel the material spans the generations to a certain extent. The feeling of the durability of the material is appropriate to the building. We are open to the conversation about the materials but we did discuss it and we feel it is an appropriate material. At this point we feel the corrugated steel material is appropriate. The windows have been kept small and are utilitarian and help break up the fagade and also provide light into the building. On the windows we would like to go with clad windows and a residential garage door that has metal cladding on it. We can get the doors with a finished baked on paint which is maintenance free in a brown color. In order to give a little bit of life to the fagade the light and main door will be a different color. The colored rendering does not show the proposed vegetation, it is shown with a foot of grass. The landscape plan has been altered from your packet to eliminate the aspen trees and fill in with service berries and scrub oak. All the vegetation is native vegetation and a seed mix of grasses. Graeme thanked the neighbors for working so hard in order to attain a landscape plan that everyone supports. The Victorian cabin and out house are in stable condition and the intent is to do nothing that will change the exterior appearance. Some interior renovation will be done but they will not be heated. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2010 Alan Richmond, planner for the applicant: Alan said at conceptual there was the requirement to prepare a comprehensive plan to manage the landscape of the cemetery. We have worked with the Parks Department to strategize the vegetation on site particularly the cottonwoods. We met with Chris Forman, the City Forester who gave us suggestions on what the plan should contain and how it should be organized. The plan is organized into an existing conditions section and a proposed conditions section and then within each of those sections we go into looking at the developed cemetery; the area below the top of the bank, the natural area of the cemetery; the north meadow and the area where the development is going to occur. For each of the geographic areas we have specific actions we are proposing. We have a detailed plan for eradicating the weeds and reestablishing the native grasses until such time the north becomes a cemetery. This a collaborative effort with the neighbors and Sarah Shaw, landscape architect. Questions and clarifications: Ann asked if the amount of spoils on the spoils yard has been reduced? John Thorp said there is a substantial spoils yard that exists and in the spring the excavator will reduce the berm and spoils yard. The west and north side berms will stay in place to shield the view plane from the temporary building until construction is done. Ann said her main concern is weed control, restoration and storm water management. Graeme said the city requires a site engineer report for the building on the storm water. We will submit a plan during the building permit process. Jamie asked if there was any consideration for planting on the bluff side. Graeme said there has not been any talk of that. Because of the small size of the building and the fact that it is quite over on the meadows nobody has brought that up as a visual issue. It is approximately 40 feet back from the, bank. Michael inquired about the cost out and what the plans were for constructing the building. Graeme said it hasn't been totally costed out. We are going to 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24.2010 have $100,000 in utilities because it is so far away from the utility line, about a 500 foot run. We will also put out a fund raiser. The cost will be around $300,000. Grame said it is possible that a metal framing system would be used but everything would be the same as presented. Michael said his concern is that the building doesn't look like it came out of a stock magazine. John Thorpe said whatever is done it will be done to the architectural renderings. It would be a custom building even if the metal framing is put in. Graeme said there might be fire issues with a wood roof. Graeme presented samples of the corrugated steel and siding. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Howie Malory, neighbor within 300 feet of the property. Over the past 18 months the applicants have worked with the neighbors on various issues that came up. Most of the neighbors are pleased where we have gotten and it is a good compromise. In the fall grass seed was planted in order to return to a pasture. Howie said the neighbors have not discussed the use of wood on the building. Whether the building could be a compromise of wood/metal is a budget issue. Sarah Shaw, landscape architect Sarah said this has been a very collaborative process and the solution works for all parties involved. Regarding the revised landscape plan initially we wanted to get more height and break in the verticality to soften it up a bit. The trees that can be used are limited. In order for the grouping of oaks to flourish we need a commitment of irrigation for at least five years. We also request that the number of plants on the proposed plan not be reduce anymore. Gamble oak and service berries will be incorporated in the site. Arm asked for the identification of the material on the driveway. Graeme said it is a concrete apron and a gravel area. Exhibit II — updated landscape plan Exhibit III — Gubser letter ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2010 The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Michael commended the applicants for doing a great job of bringing the neighborhood into play. The board agreed that the building did not have to follow the grid. Jay also commended the applicant for a good job. Brian said a lot of Amy's comments have been incorporated in the landscape plan and he can support the project. Ann said in regards to the landscape plan no further cutting down on the plant materials should occur. With the service berries the building will be well screened. John Thorp said they will extend the water line and have a complete irrigation system in the cemetery. The water is supplied by the Holden Ditch from the City of Aspen. Brian said the landscape palate is appropriate and when it is grown and maturity occurs the building will not stick out. Jamie said she is in favor of the proposed materials vs. wood. The rusty metal works well on the building. Jay said it is a utilitarian look with the corrugated metal and it is a utility building. The material is also cost effective. Brian said he has no strong objection to the corrugated metal siding. A blend of wainscoting of the metal and wood siding would look better but because it is a utilitarian building it is OK. Ann said she disagrees with her other commissioners. It might be too monotone between the metal roof and siding; too much of one material. If it gets dinged u� etc. it is a hard material to repair if it gets any damage to it. I'd rather see some type of standing seam wood siding. I'm afraid that the colors are too strong with the landscape. The wood siding would be more of an option. 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2010 Michael said he is afraid it will look like a pre -fab building because of the character of the material but would still vote for the project. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #3 for 808 Cemetery Lane as proposed with one condition to study the option of wood siding and have staff and monitor discuss it with the applicant before the applicant goes to permit. Materials need to be approved by staff and monitor. Jay said the monitor can make the decision to bring it back to the board and say they are uncomfortable with the material selection and want HPC to look at it. The point of the condition is that you at least look at a different siding material for the concerns of our two commissioner members. Remove condition #3. Change condition #1 staff and monitor and applicant will study the materials. Amy asked for clarification: Final selection of materials are to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. The board agreed. Ann second the motion. All in favor, motion carried 5 -0. Michael and Jay are the monitors. MOTION.- Michael moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeti adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk