Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20110817 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 Vice - chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Jason Lasser, Jay Maytin, Brian McNellis, Jamie McLeod and Willis Pember. Sarah Broughton was seated at 5:15p.m. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Nora will recuse herself on 205 S. Spring St. Her son -in -law works part time for the applicant, Greg Hills. 130 S. Galena, City Hall — Minor review, public hearing Public notice — Exhibit I Amy said outside the north entrance to city hall there is a raised platform that has been the location for mechanical equipment over the years and the city would like to install a generator and place it on that pad. The generator services the city and county. The pad is unsightly and the mechanical equipment is exposed to view. As part of the project a fence would enclose the mechanicals. This generator also needs a roof shelter to prevent snow slides onto the generator. The architect has designed two shapes of roofs, one a butterfly and one more of a traditional shed. Materials will be similar to the heavy timber that is on the non - historic shed entry. This side of the building in the past has had sheds and it is somewhat utilitarian. We don't have a great opportunity to put mechanicals on the roof. Staff recommends approval. Jeff Pendarvis, asset management Jeff said he is the project manager for the improvement of the city's data center. The data center will be relocated to a vault and the interior space remodeled. A backup generator will serve all of the city's network. We have tried to mitigate the snow problem on the roof with heat tape over the past few years but we don't want to take the risk of purchasing $100,000 worth of equipment and putting it under a potential snow and iceberg. A structure needs created to protect the equipment. The second part of the project is to screen it. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 Jeffrey Halferty, architect. We have worked with Jeff on numerous projects and the idea was to help them come up with a scheme to protect the equipment below and screen it so the mechanical equipment is not visible. We feel the design complies with the guidelines. We have two options, one a conventional shed form and the other a butterfly roof form to help light into the existing historic windows below it. We are also trying to take the water and use it in some kind of cistern. Sarah asked about the budget. Jeff said we have drainage and concrete work and the structure and fence is roughly $45,000. Sarah asked if they had looked at removing the existing cover and coming up with something the whole way across. Jeff said we are treating this independently as a standalone. We just had the roof re- shingled and stained last year. Willis asked if there is any anticipated new mechanical equipment being positioned around the footprint of city hall as part of the scope of re- working the mechanical room? Jeff said we have two condensing units adjacent to the transformer that serve city hall that will be relocated and the air handling units are new but they will come in below the existing fencing. Jason asked if the existing roof was considered with the non - historic entry. Jeffrey said they would be happy to look at the existing entrance. Part of the design was to build it like a pavilion and not ledger onto the historic brick. Whether we engage the entry to the east we can look into. Our scope was to focus on top of the vault with this roof structure. Jeff said the city has a long range plan to remodel the building with design work in 2013 and 2014. It would be best to hold off addressing anything else. Originally the generator was to be near the garden but due to zoning we couldn't locate it there. The transformer has to have full access around it and we have a limited budget. Nora asked about leakage problems. Jeff said waterproofing will go on top of the pad and on the inside. Vice -chair Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Jason commented that city hall has a lot of patch jobs inside and out. It would be nice if all the mechanics were at one location. I don't think this 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 project is in the best interest of the city aesthetically. I am unclear why we are tacking on a new project on top of an old project and neither is a good solution. A simple shed roof across the back might be a better solution. I do not know if putting a roof on complies with guideline 14.14 and 14.15. I would like to see a master plan of the city. There are things popping up everywhere. $45,000 is a lot of money to put a roof on over mechanical equipment. If you are spending that kind of money it would be nice to see a plan that incorporates the entry way that is there now. You should think about a consolidation of the mechanical equipment. Ann asked if the $45,000 included the mechanical. Jeff said it includes site work, drainage, concrete, dry well. Jeff said there is roughly $165,000 for the data center equipment inside the building. Brian also said city hall is to be an icon and as we need things, band aids appear such as generators etc. It is too bad that we couldn't tie this in with the master plan. If I were to choose a design I would go with the shed design. We don't want to draw attention to that area. We just want to hide the mechanical equipment. Ann said this is a good solution in lieu of a complete remodel. Ann suggested that the architect look at bringing the shed roof all the way to the west side of the gable so that it looks like one continuous roof. Ann asked about materials. Jeff said the existing materials are composition shingles. We have thought of a rusted metal. Ann said if you simplify things it will look better and draws less attention. I would suggest using the same materials and the same colors so it looks like everything was built at the same time. Aim pointed out that it is the back side of the building and if you bring the shed roof over and design it to conform with what is existing it could work. Sarah said there is an opportunity here to meet our guidelines better. Sarah suggested the architect look at the entire area and possibly there could be covered bike storage. A lot of people do enter the building from this end so maybe there is a way to do the shed and integrate it. I know we are asking 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 you to go beyond your scope in order to meet our guidelines better. Maybe a little of the roof can go over the bikes. Jay said he doesn't see this building being remodeled anytime soon. Jay said he would like to see a restudy of the current entryway and maybe integrate bike storage. The remodel is off many years and I would ask for a restudy and follow the comments from the commission. Jamie echoed the board. Jamie suggested the proposed shed should go to the west instead of the north. The drainage would go to the trees. You could also slope the slab. Incorporating the two roofs would be nice and possibly reroofing with the same materials so that you don't have different materials. Also you could incorporate some eave details so that it looks like it was planned as one. On the plan elevations one roof sticks out further than the other so you need to determine how far you need it to come off the building to protect the transformer. The materials should match what is on the site. Jamie commented that the rendering was very helpful. Willis commented that the concept should be one thing instead of two things. You presented us with two things. The question is do you come up with a new vocabulary for that one thing or do you extend the vocabulary that exists, which is extending the singles and brown stain and the hanging plants which is probably a less expensive option and would meet your budgetary goals. I don't accept the premises that we should accept a compromise solution because something may happen in ten years. We are all trying to make city hall a better place. Nora said we need to figure out how to make this harmonious and not have a visual impact. Perhaps this is the opportunity to change the entry. Jason said he would like to know what has been spent on city hall within the last five years; all individual departments and include paint jobs etc. It is a number we should see if we are approving this project. It is an historic building and an historic shell and we are spending a lot of money on the inside. Jim said if the commission is requesting this as a whole asset can provide the number but I don't understand how relative this request is to the decision. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 Jason said it will be clarity to the amount of money is spent on city hall and to continue to do that without a master plan is a mistake. A master plan should be done sooner than later. It is an historic building. Aim said the request muddies the water and we don't know what the next project will be and if an individual wants to find that out on their own that is Ok but it is not something that should be brought to the committee. Jay said the city spent money to fix the inside of the building and what percentage are they willing to spend to fix something on the outside of the building that is required and it is not in the master plan. The city is trying to do this in a band aid fashion. Jamie said the cost factors have not been part of our decision historically and it shouldn't come into our discussion. Sarah suggested when the applicant comes back they should bring a site plan indicating where all the other utilities are located on the site so we can understand what is going on. Ann said collectively the board would like to see a restudy of the existing entry roof and the entire north side and tie it all together. Willis suggesting looking at whatever it takes to get the job done. It is not something that should call attention to itself. Tie the existing entrance in with whatever you are proposing for the utility platform. Jeff said it is his understanding that the direction is to go with the minimal approach and go with the shed roof and not go toward new modern. Do something more traditional. Jeffrey said we may propose a simple shed form shedding toward the east and west and tie in the corner. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 130 S. Galena to September 14` ";second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 Red Onion restaurant Amy said the city struck an agreement with the owners of the Red Onion building Garfield & Hecht to preserve several original features on the inside. Everyone was concerned what would happen to the bar. The historic bar was restored and is very successful and they would like to build a free standing extension to it. The historic bar is not being touched. Jay said his concern is damage to the existing bar which has inlay on the side where the new bar would butt up to. How will the new piece connect to the old piece. My concern is liquid going over the bar and if there will be damage to the old bar. My other concern is the material selection. Jay said he doesn't have a problem extending the bar but the applicant needs to be sensitive to what is there and that it doesn't get damaged. Sarah said she is supportive extending the bar but we need clear details and a site visit should be done with staff and monitor and the mill worker so everyone is clear as to what is going on. Ann commented that the new piece should not connect to the historic bar. Brad Smith, general manager explained that it will be free standing. We have been talking about a beer cooler anchoring the bar to keep it immovable. A thought on the surface would be historic ski passes and historic photos under the resin which would mirror the existing ADA bar which would create like two bookends. 205 S. Spring St. Conceptual Major Development, On -site relocation, conditional use review, demolition and variances Public notice — Exhibit I Jay, Sarah and Nora recused themselves. Greg Hills, owner Michael Otto, Oz architects Darcy, Oz architects Amy stated a site visit occurred and this property is zoned C -1 commercial and it is a landmark. There is a Victorian era house that has changes on it 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 which are reversible. There are two sheds on the property, a gabled roof shed which will be preserved and moved on the site. That particular shed has been moved once in its history. There is also a shed building on the alley that is on the Sanborn map but caught on fire years ago. The applicant's proposal is to demolish that particular shed. The property has only been owned by two people in 127 years. The Bird family built it in the 1800's and Adam Walton purchased it 1970. The project is maintained residential and there are two structures above grade and they will be connected below grade. The height of the new structure will be lower than the Conner Cabins and there will be more space between the historic house and addition. The applicant is asking for some setback variances and the historic house is to be preserved in its existing location and it will be picked up for a basement and then put back down. Once the property lines are established it is very close to the property line on Hopkins and a variance is needed. They are also asking for a rear yard setback variance to provide as much separation between the buildings as possible. They are asking for a 500 square foot FAR bonus. We think the project worthy due to the amount of restoration that is going to happen. There are some historic windows and doors that are gone and will be put back. The front porch that is enclosed will be opened back up again. The existing chimney is three times the size of the historic one and that will be reversed. Skylights will be removed and two non - historic additions will be removed. The non - historic bay window will be removed. HPC should focus on the relocation of the gabled roof shed. The applicant is tight on square footage and in this zone district you get penalized for maintaining a single family house. There is a certain preference for having it be mixed use which is not the proposal so they only have about 2,800 square feet above grade to work with. They had hoped that the gable shed could be exempted for use of a trash enclosure but that is not possible. Staff has some concerns with the massing of the new structure which might relate to material use. It might not totally be in context with the historic house and HPC needs to consider whether this is the most sensitive transition of this miner's cottage to the scale of the surrounding buildings or not. Staff recommends continuation. Michael Otto, Oz architects Michael talked about the context of the existing miner's cabin. The cabin is between 17 and 18 feet tall. Our new addition is 25 feet tall. We want to make sure that we have a stepping effect on the corner to the new addition and then to the Crandall bldg. which is 32 feet. We kept the historic cabin at the corner of the site in its existing location and built around it. At the work 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 session there were concerns about the connector and making sure the structure was appropriate in scale with the cabin. There was also concerns about the materials. The new addition is a two story brick with a setback contemporary top on it. The new structure is setback 15 feet from the cabin. We could have built something bigger if we did something commercial but we thought the best use is to have a two story flat roof brick structure. Buildings in the area are two and three stories of red brick commercial buildings. The shed has been moved toward the alley so that the actual facade of the cabin protrudes a little more and is distinctive. Historically a lot of secondary structures are located on the alley. The shed is counted as FAR and will be part of the master bedroom. On the historic building we are removing the existing circular window and putting in historical openings. We will rebuild the chimney and opening up the porches and re- landscaping the rear yard between Susie's and the cabin on Hopkins. There is no connection between the historic cabin and the addition, the connector is underground. On the corner of the addition it steps down from 25 feet to 18 feet. The intent is to not mimic the miner's cabin. We are highlighting the existing cabin on the corner and the brick for the addition matches those buildings in the core area. We have several options for the shed. Option #2 for the shed is shown on the Sanborn map and we could move the shed there. Option #3 is we could make it a connector and option #4 would be to move it between Susie's and our cabin. Each one has its merits. Option #4 clutters up the Hopkins elevation. Option #3 is not the best use of the cabin in terms of connecting it to a new structure. Option #2 will be difficult for the Parks to deal with because trees will have to be taken down. We like option #1 because the use of it accentuates the alley. We will create a nice landscape and walkway using flagstone. Ann asked for clarification on the shed. Greg Hills said the shed counts as FAR. It is about 146 square feet. Since it has always been a shed we thought it appropriate to remain a shed and use it. Willis asked about the below grade plan. Greg said there is a laundry room, TV room, exercise room, bedroom etc. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 Jason said this is a mixed use site and a transitional zone. Philosophically you have two separate buildings separated on ground level. Can you explain how you went from the idea of commercial /residential to all residential. Why did you not decide to use mixed use on this site as it would help on this decision. I would prefer the shed in its existing position even though it is not the historic location. Greg said we did look at the commercial extensively and decided it wouldn't work. The commercial zone allows 36 feet tall and that could be overwhelming for the historic house. You could do a zero lot line and that would be significant as well. With all the issues the building would become a tall skinny building that wouldn't be appropriate for the Victorian. 2,400 square feet above grade seemed to be appropriate to the transitional site. We are trying to make the shed usable and right now our concept is the closet off the master bath. All three of the projects throughout the core that we have done will be blended. Michael Otto said we wanted to keep the building a very simple form that blended in with the urban town. Amy pointed out that they could do a duplex and the FAR would be a lot more and they would have to do affordable housing mitigation. Jason asked if the cabin could be separated. Greg said we really don't want to rent it. The unit might be for a guest or our son. The below grade space is designed to be flex space. Vice -chair Ann Mullins opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis said the proposal represents certain improvements over the urban design potential of Conner cabins. I like the distance between the elements and the scale is softer than the Conner cabins. I also like what it does to the street edge and the planting strip that will be there is good. The decision on the site elements is well done and thought out. The location of the shed is appropriate and the idea of activating the alley is the right strategy. Maybe there could be some paving connection to the Crandall bldg. The renovation of the historic resource is appropriate and it is beautifully done. The massing of the new structure is fine but the architecture seems a little 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 "warehouse" but it actually doesn't bother me. Possibly bring in other elements than just brick; elements of Aspen's history. The entry off Spring Street is fine and picking up the house is OK. Amy said they would need a variance for the front door windows on the new building as they don't comply with the residential design standards. Ann said there is also the demolition of the second shed and moving the house. Willis said the garage door could be improved to look like two instead of one. Jamie thanked the applicant for taking into considerations all of HPC's comments. Jamie said she applauds the two -story and the fact that you get a gradual increase to the Crandall building next door. With the glass facade on the corner it breaks up and brings down the mass and scale. I'm a little concerned with the connection between the second shed and the sheer wall, it's almost turning its back to it. Jamie said she applauds the residential square footage rather than commercial and I am pleased with the scale, massing and height and where it is going. The garage door needs a little work. I am also in favor of the 500 square foot bonus because the historic structure is in its existing location. Regarding the shed location option one and two should be looked at. I'm ok with the variances and the Spring Street entrance. Ann said she would recommend the FAR bonus for the cabin. The relocation of the shed is OK because it was relocated before. I do not see where this project is adhering to our design guidelines as laid out. Even with the building being lowered the mass over shadows the historic building. The variety of shapes wasn't mirrored in the new structure. Once the adjacent properties are all built you are going to have a lot of commercial and a lot of brick and stone. These little Victorians will look like little XMAS ornaments and they will have lost their context. This building has a lot of visual impacts on the cabin. I am having a difficult time with materials, size and shape and the building should be restudied. Brian said he is excited about the project and seeing the cabin go back to its original grandeur. It was brought up that you might not be restoring it to its exact iteration as it was originally build and with that said I would deal with 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 the 500 square foot bonus at final. One of the guidelines for the bonus is to restore it to its original state. Greg pointed out it is there intent to restore it back to its original state. The intent is to eliminate all the stuff that was done over the years. Amy said we want to make sure we get the house back to the original state as possible. Brian said regarding the shed he like option #1 because it energizes the alley. I am concerned about the integrity of the trees and we need to make sure the root structures will survive. Before I totally make up my mind I need to look at option #4 for the shed. Regarding the setbacks I am ok with them and the demolition of the out building. We also need to look at option #1 of the shed and the way it relates to the building itself'. Maybe you can look at the materials and do something distinctive so that it doesn't look like all the other red brick buildings in town. I'm a little afraid of the over use of the red brick. Jason thanked the applicant for explaining their choice of direction on the project. Guideline 10.9 talks about similar roof forms and 10.8 talks about visual impacts from the addition. It is a great design but when you read the guidelines they don't comply. I am trying to find a way to get around those guidelines and I am torn with the visual impact. It is an elegant design and the width of the element is compatible. I'm not sure you can pull it back anymore and have a couple of balconies. The patio building is wood and the historic cabin is wood and I wonder why use brick. Regarding the FAR I am looking at shrinking down this building as much as possible and I feel it is too massive with the historic resource. I am cautious about the bonus at this stage and could only grant it if the doll house is its own building. The connector piece to the doll house disturbs me as I like it independent. The walls and planter in front of the doll house disturb me, there is too much site work in front obscuring the house. Everything around the doll house should be cleared away so that it is prominent. The entry on Hopkins is crucial. Recommendations: 1. Relationship of new building to the doll house. 2. Rear setback and relationship to doll house. 3. Any possibility of having the doll house represented as a separate structure. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 4. Emphasize horizontality. 5. Garage doors can be addressed at final. Greg Hill said the doll house could be separated. Greg said we did brick because we were trying to make the new structure as a back drop and let the cabin stand out. We are in the C -1 zone and we want the house to feel more urban because we are not in the west end. The location warrants more of an industrial look in the house. Having the separation of 20 feet and pulling back the new structure is what you will notice on the site. We can't shrink the new design down so that it isn't viable anymore. The bonus is important and we already have the penalty of 20% having a residential house in the core area. We also have 150 square feet of the doll house which is calculated FAR. We can't make it smaller and make it work. On the new structure we need guidance and do we have to re- design it to make it more residential in look or do you like the industrial urban feel to it. We can play with the shed and disconnect it and make it its own building. Ann said she did not hear a re- design of the building. Maybe it shouldn't be as "hard edged ". The materials need restudied. Is it going to be 100% brick or some kind of mix. Brian said he feels the building is moving in the right direction. It is probably going to be a blend of materials. Jason also said he feels they are going in the right direction and a total re- design is not necessary. Jason said he is caught up with the materials. He is looking for horizontality. Willis said the industrial commercial is the right approach. The palate is great and we are only talking about mass and scale at this level. At final we can address softness vs. hardness. Ann said the issue is the location of the shed and we need research on the historic building whether it merits the FAR bonus. Willis said in terms of the variances and residential design standards I thought there was consistency among the five of us and the demolition. Brian said he is willing to grant conceptual with a few conditions. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 Greg said putting the shed of 150 square feet might be the answer. It would have to have a very delicate relationship to the root system that exists. We are trying hard to keep the big trees. MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve resolution #7for conceptual approval which includes the variances and 500 square foot bonus of 205 S. Spring with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the relationship of the doll house to the building. 2. Re- define the entrances. 3. Garage door and materials to be addressed at final. 4. Research on the historic building to make sure it is a true restoration. 5. Restudy the planter walls. Michael said the cabin will have a Hopkins address and the new building will have a Spring Street address. Jamie said it is hard to look at the form without the materials. Willis said the bonus is granted because of the restoration which they are doing. Motion second by Willis. Motion died 3 -2. Vote: Willis, yes; Ann, no; Jamie, yes, Brian, no; Jason, no. MOTION: Jason moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development of 205 S. Spring until Sept. 21', second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. WORK SESSION Presentation and Historic Preservation program evaluation by the Colorado Historic Society aka History Colorado — statutory- State Historical Society of Colorado - Dan Corson Dan said they have 113 local governments that have an ordinance of some type for designations. This number continues to increase. There are 49 certified local governments and that is continuing at a greater rate. Aspen was one of the very firsts in 1985. Meeting ad'o rned 48:00 p.m t Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ( /L c 4 - C -ei- - -�-�' 13