Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20110126 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Chairperson, Sarah Broughton called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Ann Mullins, Nora Berko, Jason Lasser and Brian McNellis. Excused were Jamie McLeod and Jay Maytin. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Nora announced that Ann was awarded a National Parks Grant for Historic American landscape surveys in Colorado. Congratulations Ann. Election of officers Sarah commented that she is happy to serve as the chair on HPC. Ann said she became interested in preservation ten years ago and has gained a lot of knowledge and with the grant an incredible amount of knowledge will be available. For the next few years this board will be focusing on Ordinance #48. I am starting to see how we can make it work. Having the extra experience being on the task force has helped. Thirdly, I have very few conflicts on the board. Sarah said she has been on the board for seven years and she feels she brings an understanding of not only the preservation guidelines but also the multitude of other codes that this city looks at when reviewing development. I am also an architect which is very important for this board and passionate about preservation. Brian said Jay has also put a lot of tenure on this board and would be interested in being vice - chair. Brian nominated Jay as vice -chair and Jason second the nomination. Ann nominated herself as vice -chair and Sarah second the nomination. Vote 4 -1 for Ann. Sarah nominated herself as chair. Jim said someone could move to accept Sarah by acclamation, which is a unanimous vote 5 -0. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Motion: Jason moved to create an alternate vice -chair position, second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Jim said that position is in the event that the chair or vice -chair aren't present. Motion: Sarah moved to nominate Jay as alternate vice - chair; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 610 E. Hyman — Landmark Designation — Major Development — Public Hearing — Ord. #48 negotiation- Commercial Design Review Amy said staff is interested and supportive of this building being a landmark and we find that it meets the criteria and the negotiated benefits are appropriate except for the request to waive the accessibility requirements. At the last meeting it was clear that more restoration of this building is necessary to truly convey what its original character was. We did get some information in the packet about restoration on the front facade about recreating the arches over the ground floor windows and putting in a translucent canopy for the upper floor courtyard. Right now there is a vinyl vaulted piece that is up off and on which is distracting from the original architecture. The submitted materials did not give us enough information to say that it was adequate. Exhibit I — New photographs Staff does not have any particular concerns about the addition and we are recommending continuation. Mitch Haas and Janver Darrington presented for the owner Charles Cunniffe Mitch said Charles is unavailable and we cannot make decisions but can explain the rationale around our presentation. Janver said the photograph handed out is of the city shops anodized material above the windows and it shows the infill panel. Amy suggested spandrel glass but we haven't received the samples yet. The second photograph is of the canopy we are suggesting. Regarding the trash that was mentioned in the memo we have an agreement with the neighbor to put our trash in their container and they put their recycling in our recycling bins. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Janver said regarding the materials on the alley side we favor a single material rather than a two tiered material. We are going to a lighter color and the only view is from the alley. The samples of the photovoltaic canopy material have not arrived . Clarification: Sarah asked when the horizontal band was added to the window because it was not there originally. Nora agreed that the brow was never there originally. Janver said on top of the parapet is just a metal cap. That metal piece could be part of the canopy attachment. Sarah said if the canopy goes away will that horizontal banding go away. Janver said they have not figured out how the photovoltaic system is attached. Sarah clarified that the rendering is overplayed a little. Sarah asked if there is any way to do the arched windows within the height of the historic proportion of the windows on the first level. Mitch said the arches shown are more of a facade than a window. Sarah asked why the decision was made to make the arches higher than they were historically. Janver said Charles wants to keep the awning windows as they are and add the arched element above to simulate the original arched windows. The windows are all fixed. We are trying to keep the same curved radius as above. Nora said she has been struggling with this building for two months. How far are you willing to go back to the original design. The operative word is restoration. Or do we start at a different place and say this is a compromised building and there is a compromised discussion. Mitch said it is his understanding that Charles is not willing to back 100% on restoration. The points he is unwilling to budge on are putting the doors back in the center and getting rid of the garden level and taking out his operable glass window. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Mitch said the arched topped windows at the base of the building have been changed. At the garden level there are offices with a conference room above it. That part has not been real flexible. The stucco color has been changed. We are trying to figure out the canopy. The roof, canopy opening, and the lower arch openings we are trying to work with. Nora asked if they would consider re- working the proportion of the arches. Mitch said you can't without replacing the operable windows. Janver said if you had operable windows below the arched tops the bottom of the arched windows would be at eye level which would be impractical. Jason asked if there was discussion about reworking the south facade. At the last meeting we talked about the rhythm and the proportions of the brick columns on the south facade. Janver said it is set back so far we didn't think there was a relationship. Jason said on the west facade we need to talk about the windows and why there isn't fenestration to break down the mass and height. Janver said that level is new office space and those windows would have to be fire resistance because it is a party wall. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Preservation: Ann commented that she is not sure this property should be landmarked. It has changed so far from the original with simulations. Simulations are not restorations. The arches are in a different place and economically it is not feasible to take it back to the original. The entrance and light are all important parts of this building and they are all gone. Brian said he does not have enough information to make a decision one way or the other. MOTION: Ann moved to not designate 610 E. Hyman; second by Nora. Discussion: 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Jason said he is not willing to give up on this and we are not done negotiating and we need to get a compromise. I can bend on the door and keep it where it is presently. If we had the transparent roof that would be a compromise. The arches in the original location is the key and I would be willing to have a metal panel so you can have a functioning window which is a compromise. The brick columns need to read like they are going into space which was the intent of Ellie Brickam. We can accomplish designation on this building. Sarah said she has similar views as Ann. There have been so many alterations. Is this a new use and a new life of this building. Sarah commended the applicant for voluntarily coming in for designation. The facade needs to get back to the original configuration. I am flexible on the door location and understand why they have moved. I would also like to see the arches brought down for the mass proportions that were there historically. Ann said it is a building that has evolved and has been changed out for the users. It has changed too far from the Ellie Brickham building. This building should not be part of Ord. #48 negotiations and should go through a normal process. Brian said he likes the building and it has evolved but it does contribute to the downtown area and the streetscape. It is a trade off as they are requesting the 500 square foot FAR and no parking mitigations. This building has parking issues but I am willing to have the applicant come back. Sarah said she is also willing to continue the application because the owner is not present. Jason said this needs to be an exemplary project and we are basically talking about the south facade. Sarah said the beauty in this building is it's simplicity. The proportions are everything. Mitch pointed out that structurally the doors moved out of the center. The columns have not changed and the brick work has not changed. The upper 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 windows and openings haven't been changed. Not everything has changed on this building. Vote on Ann's motion: Ann,yes; Nora, yes; Jason, no; Brian, no; Sarah, no. Motion denied 3 -2. Mitch said we need to look at the restoration and incentive package. MOTION: Brian moved to continue 610 E. Hyman to February 23 second by Jason. Ann, no; Nora, no; Jason, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes. Motion carried 3 -2. Incentives: Brian said he is willing to entertain incentives but not the package that is presented. Amy pointed out that the dollar value is over a million dollars. Can't you have an operable window that is an arch shape? Amy said it is the windows and bringing back the white color and roof solutions. Jason said the FAR bonus is for exemplary projects above and beyond and that would mean if the window went back to the original location. Mitch said the parking waiver is less than one space. Jason mentioned the affordable housing. Mitch said if it is designated the affordable housing is not an incentive anymore. Jason mentioned that in the current configuration it is not worth a million in trade off's. Sarah said you can't put a price tag on a great building. The long term benefit is worth more than the short term dollar value. Nora said as a tax payer the amount of these waivers is staggering especially with the Given. If the tax payer is taking on the burden then the project needs to be a community asset in its historic value. Sarah mentioned that she doesn't see any clients talking about TDR's. We built 100 projects and had one TDR. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Jason also mentioned the addition and the loft on the south side should reflect the rhythm of the historic facade. There needs to be more detail on the west which is the alley side. Sarah echoed Jason's concerns. Referral comments on Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendments No minutes MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. L74 2 / 24_ / - Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7