Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19961023 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23, 1996 Meeting was called to order by 1 st Vice Chairman Roger Moyer with Susan Dodington, Sven Alstrom, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski and Donnelley Erdman present. Excused were Jake Vickery and Melanie Roschko. 214 E. BLEEKER MOTION: Donnelley moved to table 214 E. Bleeker until Dec. 11, 1996; second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. ENTRANCE TO ASPEN Stan Clauson, Community Development Director provided Council with a copy of the letter that HPC sent Ralph Trappani and he provided HPC with the Blue Chip study that was commissioned by the Aspen Valley Improvement Association. The purpose of this meeting is to address issues that may represent a disconnect between the meeting that Stan had with some of the members of HPC where they looked at the staked alignment and resolved some issues with regard to the Holden Marolt site. John Bennett, Mayor asked HPC if there were questions or clarifications that they needed regarding to the alignment/Marolt open space issue. Donnelley Erdman stated that one issue is the impact on the historic resources, one is the Marolt Barn and the other is the ruins of the Lixiviation plant. They are on the National Register so any impact would be of great concern. John Bennett stated that everyone shares the same goal to ensure that the automobile does not destroy the historic character and scale of this town. Donnelley stated that they did not look at a plan that would reduce the impact of the bridge on the historic resource. In order to do so the assumption would be that the bridge would have to be curved in its design. Rachel Richard's stated that until a final ElS is completed we will not know how they responded to that concern. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 Amy stated that the straight shot crosses on the historic site and the concern is to try to get off that particular area of land. Georgeann stated that she had the same concern to divert the road and it was stated that it was a possibility but that the last people who looked at the design wanted to see as little of the bridge as possible. If the City were to say they support moving the bridge as far as possible away from the Marolt and that that is more important than making the bridge narrower. At this point they just stopped making changes. Donnelley asked what the cost and what kind of bridge would it be. The Glenwood Canyon bridge has beautiful work and wonderful curved stretches. Aspen deserves something of that quality in its bridge. Randy Ready stated that the base bridge cost would be around 4.69 million and to curve it would be more. Stan stated that the fact they are entertaining cut and cover suggests that they are willing to do what is necessary to mitigate. Rachel stated that the thought on the bridge is an European suspension model without having footers to protect the riparian zone in the river. At some point a balancing will have to come back. We have no idea what a curved bridge would do to the riparian. John Bennett stated that they made it clear that they do not want a bridge that would destroy the bottom of the river. Georgeann stated that everything is still schematic. Sven stated that the committee has talked about the impacts of rail on Main Street. Suspension bridges are easier to solve on a curve. There should be a design competition for the bridge not just relying on CDOT if the City is paying for it. John Bennett stated that the city is not paying for the bridge. Rachel stated that the final bonding and design will come back to a public vote. There are technology questions as to whether there should be wires, 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 self propelled diesels or not. Whether the rail should be in the center or south side of the street. Donnelley stated that the Otak design has no means of support for the wires. The City of Los Angelos is commissioning new buses which are zero pollution, diesel electric propelling a high output electric motor which drives the vehicle at a cost of $300,000 per unit. Roger asked about the stakes and what they represent. Stan stated that the stakes represent a 104 foot platform from edge to edge for a project of two lanes, one for general and one for a dedicated bus route. Georgeann stated that she feels you will more clearly see the Marolt site, Berger cabin and historic Main Street. Rachel stated how she came to her conclusions. Sven stated if rail is the decision Council has looked at the long term interest of the community in the sense that we are better prepared for the future that we do not know about, 50 years from now. We do not know when oil will run out and you could do nothing better than to prepare the community for the unknown. We maybe the only class ski resort that you can get to by rail. Susan stated that in her personal view the S curves have always been more historic and they are all over Colorado. She supports rail by itself. Rachel stated that the rail funding decision will have to go back to a vote to bond it. Donnelley stated that from an HPC perspective the Marolt Barn is diminished in size and its location in relationship to the proposed alignment is off. It is closer and larger to the historic complex. Georgeann stated that a more graphic plan with projected shadows should be drawn up. All the drawings right now do not show how the hill side drops off. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 624 E. HOPKINS (amendment) Mr. Rothblum presented a photo of how the building looks today. He is requesting a modification to remove the trellis or structure over the large front facade window and the other is the curved arch over the entrance door. He feels strongly that the building as is achieves the goals of HPC in that it blends in within the streetscape and what is going on around it. The size and shape of the windows give it a softness. The roof trellis is an interesting aspect. Adding a trellis over the window would be like adding an apendage that does not serve any function. Initially it was to be a sun shade but in doing the drawings it would not accomplish that and would not be of any benefit. Sven stated that the tree canopy and landscaping will break down the block more than the trellis. Landscaping is crucial. Mr. Rothblum stated that aspen trees and juniper ground cover will be in the front area with large rocks. The aspen trees will give us the shade and they will still be able to look through them. Donnelley stated that the horizontal projection is a strong visual element. Suzannah stated that she feels the horizontal banding isn't strong enough and it should be a bigger element or take it off. MOTION: Suzannah moved that HPC approve the mod¢~ed plan for 624 E. Hopkins; second by Mark. Motion carried 5-1. Don opposed. 447 E. COOPER AVE. - GUIDO'S Amy stated that the applicant want to take a door out and put a window in. Cunniffe & Assoc. stated that there is inadequate display space for the windows. They desire to enlarge the openings and change the design of the existing door and provide a glazed door to enhance the retail space. Sven stated that he likes the cleaness of the glass area. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23, 1996 Donnelley stated that typically with this particular type of building the glazing was not taken to ground level. Susan agreed with Donnelley and it looks chalet like. Roger stated some windows in chalets in Europe went to the ground. Stefan Kaelin, owner stated that the windows need to be proportioned with the beams. Suzannah also reiterated that she felt the glass going to the ground was inappropriate. Functionally with the snow etc. it would be difficult to maintain. Roger stated the building has the basic mass and scale of an European building and either window elevation is acceptable. Sven asked what the material would be on the windows. Stefan stated wood. MOTION: Suzannah made the motion to approve diagram/¢2 that was presented at the meeting for the window modification; second by Susan. Motion carried 3-2. ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CONCEPTUAL Roger stated that this is conceptual continued from Aug. 28th. Amy Amidon, Planner stated that this project has changed in numerous forms. In 1991 the existing units were proposed to be expanded and three new units almost identical would be built next to them. Recently the property owners decided that the expansion of the existing units was not feasible and that the three new units would still be built to match the existing remodeled units, therefore not maximizing ultimate size of the FAR they could build to. What has come back to us is that the three new units will be at their maximum FAR, therefore you have three units that are larger than the historic resource. On Aug. 28th conceptual was tabled with five conditions outlined in the 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 memo. The conditions mostly tried to bring the new units into a more similar vocabulary like the existing and also HPC talked about separating the new from the old because of the difference in scale. The applicant has come back with revised architectural plans for the new units and a revised site plan. In applying to our standards they have really responded to the conditions of approval and Staff feels that the new design is much more compatible, much more sympathetic solution. The existing units will remain as their own grouping and not be added onto and altered. Staff has some concern that the public has indicated that they did not have an opportunity to read the plans and they would like HPC to table. The applicant is concerned with their due diligence period. Assistant Attorney David Hoefer stated that Staff should read the letters into the record. Amy stated that Bob Maynard wrote a letter to request postponement of HPC'c consideration of the plans for the three new units for the Aspen Institute, a hearing scheduled for Oct. 23rd. The developer Doug MacPherson assured us that we would receive new plans in advance of the hearing, and to date we have not received them and obviously cannot review them relative to the site. We respect Mr. MacPherson and would hope that he would treat us with respect as well. Consequently we request that the hearing be rescheduled to a later date so that we can have the opportunity to receive and review the new plans. Amy stated that the second letter is from Harris Sherman. This letter concerns our telephone conversation of Oct. 21 st in which I have requested the postponement of HPC's Oct. 23rd consideration of the new plans for the three units at the Aspen Institute. I am the property owner adjacent to the proposed new units under consideration and I earlier expressed my concern regarding the size and location of such units because of their corresponding impact on the architectural and historic qualities of the existing town houses. The developer Doug MacPherson promised me approximately six weeks ago that he would provide architectural and site plans well in advance of this meeting. By numerous phone calls, the latest of which occurred ten days ago, I have still received nothing and it is impossible to review this proposal without some advance notice. Therefore, I strongly request the following: 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 Postponement of this matter at Wednesday's meeting. That the plans be given to me at least two or three weeks in advance of the next meeting. That I have the opportunity to meet with your Staff. Roger asked if the public had comments relative to this proposal, for or against. David Bellack, attorney for Aspen Skiing Company stated that he is representing Mr. Sherman and Mr. Maynard as they are both out of town. David Bellack stated that he recognizes that there may not be any perhaps strict legal rights for them to receive the plans at a particular time before this meeting he feels it is the sense of the neighborhood in a large part of this community as a whole that should be sought to be protected by this commission and without a fair opportunity to look at the plans by the neighbors especially as plans continue to change and evolve as they go through the process in a reasonably amount of time to look at those and consider how they impact the feel of the historic area. He feels that this is an important voice in the decision that should be heard. A reasonably short term postponement should be allowed to have the property staked so that the neighbors can visually see the proposed area and that the plans be distributed to review the impacts of the individual property of the overall sense of that unique area. Cindy Vinesky, Vice-president for Administration at the Aspen Institute stated that David McLaugahlin is in Germany and she is representing the Institute. She stated that the Institute supports the applicants proposal and have worked closely with Doug and the neighbors trying to accommodate most of the conditions that were requested. The developer is well within the original proposal that was approved by the HPC and that it will be detrimental to the institute if we hold this up much longer. The Institute intended to sell the lots at the same time they sold the trustee town homes but unfortunately the arrangement didn't work. The Institute is in need of funds and we are very concerned with our neighbors because they are also on the campus. Doug and David McLaughlin have worked closely with Bob Maynard and Harris Sherman and have resolved most of the issues that were out standing. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer asked the applicant Doug MacPherson when the plans were available and if there has been an effort to provide them to the interested party. Doug MacPherson stated with the new plans they addressed the concerns of Harris Sherman who he and Dick Lamb own the end unit. Bob Maynard he assumed is speaking as a concerned citizen because he doesn't believe he is in the ownership or does not have a letter from the owner saying he can represent the unit that he represents. Dave Bellack, attorney stated that Bob Maynard is the tenant of the unit which is owned by his client, which is the property owner Bell Mountain Partners. Doug MacPherson stated that Maynard is a sometime resident but isn't a full time resident. He also stated at the first meeting Harris spoke and his concerns were, basically as approved the two end units are right up next to him and he wanted some separation. One of the diagrams today shows a separation and he told Harris this before todays meeting. He also faxed to him at his office in Denver plans in which his secretary stated that he would be in his office until 2:30 p.m. today. He may not have seen the new diagram. He told him over the phone that he moved the units as far as they can. He also stated that they will probably need a variance on the five foot setback off that northerly line. He stated that they also separated unit # 1 from the unit that Bob Maynard resides in. One of Harris's concern were the trees in which were not to be saved on the original plan. Roger asked the applicant what the minimum amount of time the applicant could be delayed and still do what they need to do and satisfy their need and supply information to the people who David Bellock are representing. Doug MacPherson stated that Mr. Maynard and Mr. Harris are managing this project for me, they do not want to see this project go forward. They do not want to see anything built here. He also stated that if the Board tables his application tonight it should be because his design is bad or that he didn't address the concerns that were mentioned in the first meeting. He stated that he hopes he isn't tabled because an attorney from Denver calls and stated that he doesn't like what the applicant is doing and therefore he needs two weeks to look at the project. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 Gretchen Greenwood, architect stated to address the neighbors concerns they have moved the building over to a point that it increases the amount of meetings for an approval process. Legally they have the right to build right up to Mr. Sherman's unit. They will have to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance and do a two step process with Council and the P&Z. They have a long road of self-imposed approval processes. This meeting has always been Oct. 23rd, it has not been changed. There is nothing else they can do for Mr. Sherman. It is an approved lot to build on and she feels they ae out of line in requesting tabling. Doug stated that the three sites are on lot 5 and he has to stay on lot 5. David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney asked when the plans were provided to Amy Amidon and did the applicant make any effort to provide them to the neighbors. Gretchen and Doug replied Tuesday the 15th as Amy was leaving town and they did not contact the neighbors. David Hoefer stated from the last meeting it was indicated that the applicant would show the new designs to the neighbors. Gretchen stated that has never been something that you have to do in an approval process. David Hoefer asked the applicant if a delay of a week would impact the applicant in the long term. Roger asked the HPC if they desired to table or go on with the meeting? Gretchen stated that she specifically came for this meeting and will not be available for the another meeting next week. David Bellack, attorney stated that it was his understanding that 54 days ago at the original meeting the concerns of some of the neighbors were voiced about design and some commitment was made to change the design and a representation was made that before that design would be considered for approval it would be shared with the neighbors and that was inpart echoed by 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 Mr. Hoefer's comments. It is a fundamental principle of landuse law that representation made by a developer in a development process become part of the developers commitment as he goes through the process and develops the project. Roger stated that HPC does not have a regular meeting scheduled for next week and a special meeting would have to be scheduled. Sven stated that he would be in favor of a special meeting. He also stated that he did not pick up on negative opposition of the project. His concern is when somebody gives the commitee notice that they haven't received adequate information and since we are a citizens group appointed by Council he feels the board needs to be careful about that and when he sees letters in writing requesting tabling he feels the Board should oblige. Susan stated that she agrees with Sven. Donnelley stated that there is nothing in the minutes that says there is an obligation for the applicant to provide detailed plans and drawings to the neighbors. To set a precedent like this that neighbors can table a project and take more of HPC's time which he really objects to he viamently objects to this action. No one has any reason to complain about this project. The applicant has made every effort to move the proposed development as far away from the existing as possible. He feels it is a stalling effort. He would never approve a delay like this. Mark stated that this is a tough call. He subscribes to both comments so far but in this case as Donnelly indicated we have no obligation to provide notice to the property owners previously. In looking at the new design he is interested in reviewing the project. Suzannah stated that she agrees with Donnelley that the HPC Board should proceed and if the neighbors felt it important to be here they would have been here. Roger asked Amy Amidon why she recommended tabling. Amy stated that she felt it critically important that the surrounding property owners do have their opportunity to review the plans but more information 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 has come to light since she had written the memo. She believes it is the property owners who should contact the Planning Office who hold the records not contacting the applicant. She did not hear from anyone until Monday. David Hoefer stated that if HPC decides to proceed we would note for the records that any implication of giving the plans to the neighbors prior was not a jurisdictional condition. Secondly it is a public hearing and they received notice of the public hearing and consequently you have jurisdiction to proceed. Roger asked the applicant to address the five concerns from the last meeting. Gretchen Greenwood stated that the goal was to move the buildings as far away from the existing Aspen Trustee Town Houses as much as possible in order to serve as its own identity because they are larger buildings and they are not a 1/1/2 story building but they are like a split level two story. The entire site has been surveyed. One of Sherman's concerns was whether the buildings could be moved onto the otherside of an evergreen tree and to preserve as much of the trees on site as possible. They are moving the building approximately 33 feet at this point to the opposite side of the tree. The footprint has always been the same as what was approved. Unit one has existing connifers on the side and the car port will be ten feet away. Some of the concerns of HPC were to eliminate the hipped roofs and they did that and went to a 3 and 12 pitch that meets condition #2 which is the exact same pitch as the existing town houses and in effect lowered the overall height of the building to 25 feet from the asphalt. On the overall fenestration a horizontal element was added to the south side of the elevation which creates an illusion that you are looking through the building. The garage is recessed behind the front facade six feet with a heavy shingle surrounding it. They also picked up over hang elements, sloping eaves and sloping soffets and beam detailing to add visual relationship between the detailing of the existing and bringing it into the new units which meeting condition #3. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 Gretchen stated that they took the time to survey the site with regard to condition #4, the separation of the new work from the existing town houses so that the new development stands alone. The massing was restudied of the different pitches and there is a level change among the roofs. There is a lot of depth within the building. Regarding the materials they are using a combination of a one by four like square edge vertical siding with shingles in very much the same location as in the other buildings. This makes for a visual relationship. The FAR and floor plans have stayed the same. Amy stated the applicant needs a letter of support to the Board of Adjustment to allow them to push the buildings into the side yard setback. Gretchen stated that the movement of these buildings outside the footprint is a hardship for the applicant because they have more approval processes to go through which was not originally intended for the project. She indicated that they need a strong approval for the design by HPC. Suzannah inquired about what was on the other side of the property line. Doug stated a road used by the Sanitation Dept. to service the area and that is the only use of that road. They are in favor of Doug paying to gate it off and giving them the key. Donnelley asked for a clarification of the fenestration on the new drawings. Mark asked if the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings and inquired about the trees that are to be saved on unit 10. Gretchen stated the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings. They have moved the building to the north of the tree that Sherman wanted saved. Mark asked about the excavation depth on the south of unit # 10 as he is concerned about the tree. Gretchen stated that she thought it would be about 8 feet, just outside the drip line. Mark stated that he recently lost a couple of trees because they were so close. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 Doug stated that they may loose some of the trees and he will be planting 200 to 400 trees on this site. Some will be planted between Mr. Sherman's unit and some down below. They will pick the best places for them to survive. CO1VffdENTS Donnelley stated he was concerned with the darkness of the entry that is back 18 feet. When you read it from the vehicular and pedestrian entry side which is the east elevation it is dark. Gretchen stated that it will not be completely covered. Part of the car ports have openings in them similar to a trellis. Over the entry will be solid then an open trellis the rest of the way. It will be light and open. Sven asked about the change on the vertical siding. Gretchen stated the existing units have a combination of vertical siding and shingles and in order to break up the mass of the building it was put on to be sensitive to the Bayer units. Visually it is important to have the same kinds of materials. Suzannah stated that her main concern is not having the adjacent buildings on the drawing elevations to see the spacing between the units 10 and 11. Gretchen stated that Harris's roof height is 7,853 and unit ten height is 7,847 so it is approximately 6 feet below and it is also 33 feet away. The unit next to that is four feet lower. Roger stated that he would vote to approve conceptual and support a letter to the Board of Adjustment. He also stated that the applicant addressed the neighbors concerns and they are not impacting any other sites. Before final he would like to have a site visit. At final a superb landscape plan should be presented. A drawing of the adjacent building to scale should also be presented at final to address Suzannah's concerns. Story polls should be placed on the site. Gretchen stated that they will stake the building for their own use. She will let Amy know. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 Sven stated when the motion is made he would like a restudy of the chimney elements as to how they relate to the other buildings as he did not see the relationship in the drawings. Gretchen stated that she met the conditions. Motion: Donnelley moved that HPC grant conceptual development to the proposed addition to Lot 5 vacant units' l , l O and il with the following conditions: Prior to final fenestration be restudied and that the materials' be accurately described. That the chimneys and termination of the chimneys be adequately described as there is no termination on the present drawings. Details' must be enlarged for finals. The fenestration has problems with framing and site lines. A letter be sent to the Board of Adjustment in support of the side yard variance; second by Mark. Motion carried 5-1. Sven voted no. Motion: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:O0 p. m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23~ 1996 214 E. BLEEKER ...................................................................................................... 1 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN ............................................................................................. 1 624 E. HOPKINS (AMENDMENT) ................................................................................ 4 447 E. COOPER AVE. - GUIDO'S ................................................................................ 4 ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CONCEPTUAL ....................................... 5 15