Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20120815 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Patrick Segal and Sallie Golden. Jane Hills was absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jamie moved to approve the minutes of August 81h second by Patrick. All in favor motion carried. Ann abstained because she was absent at the meeting. 435 W. Main — Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for Parking, Setback Variances — Public Hearing Public notice — Exhibit I Deborah Quinn said the public notice requirements are complete except for the mailing list and it will be supplemented into the records. Amy said last week HPC discussed architectural changes to the sanctuary building at the west end of the property and those were approved and they are moving through the building permit process. The social hall will not be built but they intend to build a parsonage for the Rabi and his family. This is a major development two step review and it also has to go to P&Z and council. The social hall spanned across 3/4 length of the block with continuous construction. The parsonage has an immediate advantage because of its detached structure. There is a lot to be said having the open space created around it. It is a taller building than the social hall was and the height is being placed next to the historic cabins. Staff has a few issues with the design guidelines: One is the proximity to the historic cabins and can there be any more breathing room and can the parsonage building move a little closer to the sanctuary building. In this immediate block there are some of the biggest Victorian mansions that are left in town. This building will have some context to support its size but the Victorian buildings look to be approximately 35 feet wide and this building has a width of 50 feet. The building is set back but it seems wider than the historic buildings and staff has concerns about that. HPC needs to address parking and there are not regulations; it is case by case. The applicant is proposing one parking space in a garage. The Rabi and his family will be in a live work situation so we feel there is no need to provide more than they have requested. They are 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 asking for a setback variance to keep the parsonage five feet from the front lot line. That is closer to the street than most of the houses in the block so that might not be considered appropriate; however the sanctuary and the historic cabins are only a foot or two off the front property line so there is a reason to continue keeping the construction closer to Main Street. As a point of discussion whether the proposed garage should be integrated with the house or whether there should be some way to accommodate parking with a structure on the alley or uncovered parking. Staff is recommending continuance. Ann said there are five issues: Proximity to the cabins Width of the parsonage Parking Setback Garage Alan Richman, representing the applicant. We will do this in three pieces; introduction of Rabi Mintz; Arthur Chabon will address the design issues and I will conclude specifically focusing on the design guidelines. Rabi Mintz said for the success of the organization and the services we offer to the community and for the community itself it will have a big impact to have the two buildings side by side. It is not just really a home it is part of the Jewish center that will be next door. It is a great importance to my growing family and for the success of what we do. My wife and I spent a lot of time with Arthur designing this and we made every effort to eliminate any extra space. We made every effort to maximize the space for the community and our family. The size of the parsonage was dictated by the size of my family and capacity of events that we want to hold in the parsonage. It is important for us to move forward in a timely manner and it is important to do this simultaneously with the construction that will happen next door. We hope to leave here tonight with a vote in favor of the parsonage and allowing us to go forward. Leba Mintz said this is an emotional issue because it is our home. We live 1.2 miles from the center and every Saturday we walk to the center and if there are storms sometimes my children don't even go to the services due to inclement weather. It will make a big difference being next door to the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 center. We have made this home as simple as possible. I ask you to not drag this on and hopefully it can go forward. Arthur Chabon, architect— Elevations — Exhibit II Arthur said there are three primary issues: One is the overall length of the building parallel to Main Street. Proximity of the parsonage on Third Street blocks the views of the cabins and the issue that the parking should not be brought so far to the center of the lot. Site plan: Arthur said there are two site plans A and B. The basic strategy was to nestle the parsonage in the L that is defined by the cabins on the alley and cabins on Third Street. As required by the guidelines the main entrance is off Main Street and you enter on a porch which runs parallel to Third St. and then you enter the foyer, living room, dining room, kitchen, mud room and garage. On the Main Street entrance there is a smaller gable and the south elevation a pair of gables and at the west a larger gable to relate to the sanctuary itself. There is a gable over the garage, kitchen and mudroom. The gables are all centered exactly between the cabins. When looking through the cabins they create focal points. We deliberately did not copy the slopes of the cabins leaving a more dynamic dialogue between old and new. The parsonage is much smaller on the site than other properties that you see. Arthur went over Victorian houses with different facades dimensions within the vicinity. Our fagade is 27 feet and the overall is 53 feet but the element that brings you to 53 feet is 12 feet back. Cabins: Arthur said the social hall as approved obscured the three cabins completely. In moving the parsonage inward option B we lose the diagonal view of the cabins. The repetition of the cabins and the space and shadows between the cabins in a way subordinate the parsonage. From the Main Street side they are preserved and enhanced. Parking: Arthur said we have to be ten feet away from the adjacent property and the guidelines require the parking to be off the alley. The options are extremely limited and parking has to be accessed between the cabins. We also want to limit the amount of driveway into the property. There is no better proposal 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15 2012 for the parking than what we have. We feel our scheme is consistent with the general scale of Main Street and keeping the parsonage closer to the cabins further enhances the historic resource. Alan Richman said the parsonage brings many benefits to the project and it serves critical functions for the congregation and it provides a home for the leaders of the congregation and it creates a free standing residential structure that creates more of an open feel on Main Street as compared to the social hall that which stretched all across Main Street. The relationship between the parsonage and the cabins has been addressed by the guidelines. Your guideline 7.12 says a new structure should step down in scale. In terms of the location of the parsonage and staff's comment to move it to the west we think that there are three significant benefits to the location of the parsonage where it is. It opens up the views from Main Street to the cabins along the alley. By keeping the parsonage close to the cabins we create a playground in the middle of the property which is right next to the pre-school and it is big enough to be usable by the pre-school. If you move it over it cuts into the open space. It also breaks the mass along Main Street into distinct building forms because it keeps the parsonage far away enough from the community center that you actually read them as two separate masses. In the staff report one of reasons to move it west is guideline 7.5 which reads respect the historic settlement patterns. It talks about consideration of building setbacks and entry orientation and open space. We have oriented it to Main Street and keeping the building close to the cabins you create the open space in the middle of the site. The question is the setback. The pattern on our block is not like others. We have a 26 foot primary gable and a cross gable that is set back 12 feet from the primary fagade and is subordinate to the primary fagade. By the nature of the cabins being behind the building the only way we can accommodate the program the congregation needs is to begin to have the subordinate elements. Alan said they are clearly proposing to access the garage from the alley. We can't place the garage on the alley because we have cabins across the alley. In terms of floor area we are way below. The total build out with the six cabins and the two buildings is about 17,000 square feet. We are 3,000 square feet below the public and 10,000 square feet below what is allowed on the property. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION - - - - - - - - MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Patrick asked if it was thought of to flip the project so the parking would be accessed from Third Street. Visually it would be best to see the cabins coming from the west. Arthur said 7 years ago we did propose relocating the cabins and HPC determined that the cabins should not be moved. Jay inquired about the use of the cabins. Alan said the three along Main Street are deeded as affordable housing. The three along the alley are deed restricted for lodging for guests associated with the community center. Willis asked about the square footage of the parsonage as compared to the social hall. Allen said the parsonage is approximately 700 feet smaller than the social hall. Nora said we all worked hard to keep the program low with the social hall and is there any way to get the parsonage into that program. Rabi Mintz said we tried that and it could work if we got bigger but then you would have less of a view of the cabins. Alan said with rearrangement you could have a one story more spread out building. We went with the vertical building because that is the pattern you see on Main Street. Chair-person, Ann Mullins opened the public comments. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. - - Ann stated the issues: Proximity of the new building to the cabins. Width of the new building Parking The requested 5 foot setback Garage entry Entrance to the new building 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Patrick said in flipping the plan and putting the parsonage on the alley you would get a view plane of all the cabins and it would benefit the community and the Rabi. The reason why the cabins are where they are is because of the massing to the west. Amy said the proposal by Patrick would have to be a new public notice. The location and setting of the cabins is an important significance and that is part of why it was not,brought forward. Ann and Jay said they would not agree to support moving the cabins. Jamie said she would have to review the past meetings before making any decisions. Willis pointed out that the applicant has not requested the change and it was important that the cabins remain in their original location. Sallie said she would consider it if the applicant requests it. Proximity to the cabins: Jay said typically we don't nestle things toward the historic structure. Jay said he supports option B so that there is more breathing room around the cabins. I have no problem with the overall width. I do have an issue with the roof over the dining room because it creates more mass. I have no issue with the parking or setback variance or the garage. I don't support the front door entry. The chimney creates more mass and a heaviness as it comes to the ground but that can be discussed at final. Jamie said she can support Option B. Along Main Street there aren't a lot of windows and other Victorians have windows that open up to Main Street. The building also seems a little top heavy with the mass of the roof. How are you nodding or stepping down to the cabins in the back of the alley? I also support what Jay said that the front door needs to face Main Street to give it the presence of the entry. I am also OK with the five foot variance. Sallie said she likes breaking the two buildings up and having the little cabins between the spaces. There is more breathing room. The entrance is fine and the garage and variance are OK also. The building does seem a little top heavy. I can support Option A. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Willis said Option A has the best site plan. Site lines enhance the reading of the resources which is what the site plan is about here. The parking and garage are not a issue. I am also fine with the entry and the width of the building has extensively been researched. I am fine with the front door because it is read from both Main Street and 3rd Street. Where the door is located is not critical because it is not likely to be read at all. The entry is clearly marked as a one story element. Nora said she feels the building is too close to the cabins and doesn't honor the cabins enough. This is now a house and not a social hall so I cannot support the setback variance. It has a front door and should also have some front space. The garage is OK. Ann said the entrance needs to be restudied and come off Main Street. The door looks more like a back door rather than a front door (guideline 7.9) I cannot support the setback. Guideline 7.14 talks about stepping the building down to the historic resources. The garage and parking are fine. By moving the residence to the west it reinforces the historic use of the cabins which was a motor court accessed off Main Street. Patrick said he can support Option B. Since it is a residence my recommendation would be to move the chimney around the corner and put windows on the front and take the overhang off. The front door and windows should be on Main Street. Response to comments: Arthur said the front door is clearly articulated off Main Street. Whether it is perpendicular or parallel is not significant. That said it is an easy plan change. The Rabi specifically requested an entrance off the side street. You can't stop in front of the building on Main Street because there is a bus stop there. The reality is that you will enter from the alley and side street. We consciously did not put a lot of glass on Main Street because there are bedroom there. There are a lot of buildings on Main Street that are 12 to 15 feet apart. Alan said they will look at the requirement for the playground so that state standards are met. Willis said you need to look at the site lines. This is not just a house it is a parsonage and a synagogue. It is a parsonage that is attached to a particular 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 organization. Submitting the sanctuary and parsonage separately makes it difficult to read wholly and holistically. The reality is that you will enter off Third Street. Nora suggested we continue the meeting to a date certain. MOTION: Patrick made the motion to continue to restudy the setback and restudy of moving the house west closer to the sanctuary. Restudy the front Main Street fagade which includes the chimney, door, windows, and fagade overhang. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #20 for 435 W. Main Option B with restudy of the roof line over the dining room and that the front door faces Main Street. Motion second by Ann. Amended motion: Willis amended the motion to approve Option A, second by Sallie. Vote on amendment only. Patrick, no; Jamie, no, Jay, no; Ann, no; Nora, no; Willis, yes; Sallie, yes. Motion failed 5-2. Vote on entire motion with the conditions in staff memo. Patrick, yes; Jamie, no; Jay, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, no;Willis, yes; Sallie, no. Motion carried 4-3 135 E. Cooper Ave. work session — no minutes Deborah Quinn, assistant city attorney said a work session is not a recorded public meeting and it is basically getting opinions of members of the board on a proposal that you place in front of them. There can be no approvals and the applicant cannot rely on anything that is said by the commission as a whole or by any individual commissioner. There is nothing that can be stated up front that you can rely formally on. Certainly you are trying to get impressions and input and you need to understand that work sessions are not for making final determinations. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 8