Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20041027 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2004 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Michael Hoffman, Sarah Broughton, Jason Lasser and Valerie Alexander. Staffpresent: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk ASPEN INSTITUTE CONFERENCE AND MEETING HALL - REFERRAL COMMENTS Jim Curtis, Jody Schoeberlein, Jeff Berkus Jim Curtis said the architects have made refinements to the northwest portion of the building, and the landscape plan will be presented. Jeff relayed that the existing path will remain. The light well moved to the north side of the building. Jody explained that the campus is all about the edges. All the trees were installed and they cut the middle out for the campus, which makes it much cleaner. The paths make the edges. They looked at the trees to see which ones will wOrk for them. Some of the trees are old and damaged. They intend to move the trees, which are in the middle of the pond area. Th~ pattern is trees and the asphalt path. They will continue the line of the white aspen trees throughout the plan. Jim said the additional parking at the vicinity of the tennis courts would be for local events. It can handle 325 to 350 people at peak parking times, which are from five to seven events a year. Visually it would improve the entrance to continue the cottonwoods at the entrance to the Meadows. Valerie inquired about the cottonwoods being continued before the tennis courts even if the area might be changed into the parking lot. Jody said more trees can be planted but they would fit better if the tennis court moved back. The clay courts are used by older tennis players and the City putting in six or 8 clay courts out at Iselin we have found that the use of the clay courts are less. It costs $4,000 a year to keep up clay courts. We are investigation re-surfacing the existing courts and re-surfacing only two of the clay courts. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27~ 2004 Jason said he liked the stepping trellis but it might obscure the view to the Calaway building. As a suggestion, trees could be incorporated between the water and path. Derek said this is an excellent building. The landscape design is in tune with the entire presentation. He also said he doesn't feel strongly one way or another about the parking. Sarah said the simplification of the front of the building is much better. It is starting to read in "totality". The back still seems very complicated and not reading as purely as the front. The path to the Calaway building has the opportunity to add trees. Sarah agreed with Jason that the arbor seems to be protruding and might not need to come all the way to the ponds edge. Improving the entrance to the meadows is a great help. Michael agreed with Sarah. The enhanced Prince Bandar entrance will be more profound. Valerie recommended that the applicants explore removing the rock by the pond. Valerie had the same concerns about the trellis as Jason-and Sarah. The circulation to the athletic center is not carrying the same character as the refreshed paving and circulation that is going on with the new building. Maybe there can be a discussion about that intersection between the two paths. Valerie said she does not support the parking revision for a few events per year. Jeffrey said the trellis starts to encroach visually on the Calaway center and the 12 x 6 height seems tall. The landscape plan and tree selection are appropriate. The campus is a pedestrian campus and it is nice to have the clay courts if it meets the program as opposed to a parking lot. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #30 as presented with the new elevation. The tree removal and changes to the architecture of the building are approved. HPC is in support of the reforming of the pond and the entire landscape plan. The trellis needs restudied as it relates to the campus. HPC does not support the parking in the location of the tennis court. Motion second by Derek. 'All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMiSSiON MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27~20{j4 Jason said he liked the stepping trellis but it might obscure the view to the Calaway building. As a suggestion, trees could be incorporated betWeen the water and path. Derek saidthis is an excellent building. The landscape design is in tune with the entire presentation. He also said he doesn't feel strongly one way or another about the parking. Sarah said the simplification of the front of the building is much better. It is starting to read in "totality". The back still seems very complicated and not reading as purely as the front. The path to the Calaway building has the opportunity to add trees. Sarah agreed with Jason that the arbor seems to be protruding and might not need to come all the way to the ponds edge. Improving the entrance to the meadows is a great help. Michael agreed with Sarah. The enhanced Prince Bandar entrance will be more profound. Valerie recommended that the applicants explore removing the rock by the pond. Valerie had the same concerns about the trellis as Jason and Sarah. The circulation t.o the athletic center is not carrying the same character as the refreshed paving and circulation that is going on with the new building: Maybe there can be a discussion about that intersection between the two paths. Valerie said she does not support the parking revision for a few events per year. Jeffrey said the trellis starts to encroach visually on the Calaway center and the 12 x 6 height seems tall. The landscape plan and tree selection are appropriate. The campus is a pedestrian campus and it is nice to have. the clay courts if it meets the program as opposed to a parking lot. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #30 as presented with the new elevation. The tree removal and changes to the architecture of the building are approved. HPC is in support of the reforming of the pond and the entire landscape plan. The trellis needs restudied as it relates to the campus. HPC does not support the parking in the location of the tennis court. Motion second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF 'OCTOBER27~'20~04 114 NEALE AVE.- CONCEPTUAL Sworn in: Alice Brien, John Muir Amy said in response to the last meeting John brought in a plan with revisions to the gable forms and some window patterns that were more Victorian in nature. The plans have been refined and there are good improvements in terms of the architecture relationships. There is still some concern about the length of the building and how it relates to the modest miners cottage up the hill. There is also concern about the volume of the great room on the southern end of the property. Perhaps the great room could move toward the back of the property and the ADU on Neale Ave. so you have a detached small structure. Another alternative is possibly that the garage be under the ADU. John said at the last meeting there was a negative reaction to the tower element and that has been deleted. The transitional element is subordinate to the entry element and has a distinctly different form. The great room was design to be a buffer zone between Neale Ave. and the back area of the house which is the family room and kitchen area on the east side of the property. This is why it becomes problematic pushing the great room back on the project. The link has been re-worked to make it four feet shorter and the plate height of the great room has been lowered to ten feet. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Jeffrey closed the public hearing. Comments: Jason said you can still see the roof ridge from the historic building and possibly it should be a flat roof. Derek said the architectural language is very close. Aesthetically how the plans are broken down works well. Instead of bringing the plate height of the great room down maybe there is a way to lessen the volume. Sarah said the rendering is very clear and the north side of the building fits in with our guidelines. Maybe there is a way to alter the roof slope of the great room as it is out of scale with the historic resource. The rest of the house reads as compound volumes. ASPEN HISTORiC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER27, 2004 Michael said'the applicant has made tremendous strides. Guidelines 11.3 has been met. Valerie said 11.3 has been met. The modules and pieces of the building have a nice rhythm. The roof plane of the great room is out of scale. The dormer on the south seems to be hanging off the end. The uphill side of the building does compliment the historic building. Jeffrey said the uphill side of the building is working well. Maybe if you pulled the pitch of the roof to a 12 x '12 the scale of the great room might get a little smaller. He also said the dormer on the south side seems to be towering and top heavy. At final, there needs to be some consistency on the material palate in its relationship to the historic house. John responded that they used the 13/12 pitches to be more consistent with the Victorian guidelines. If the roof pitch drops the central gable will have to be altered. We can try 10/12 or 11/12. Any comment on exterior materials will be welcomed. Valerie said the design is a mix between Castle and Victorian. John said he would study all the roof pitches so that they essentially match. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #31 with the deletion of#1 and that the ridge line on the northern most element be reduced by four feet. The pitch of the ridgeline of the great room be restudie& motion second by Sarah. Motion died 4-2. Yes: Jason, Michael No vote: Valerie, Sarah, Derek, Jeffrey MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development of 114 Neale Ave. until Nov. 10th with the condition that the southern end be restudied ( the pitch and ridge of the great room dormer). Motion second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Sarah said before we can give conceptual approval we need to see the renderings. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2004' 435 W. MAIN - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - DESIGNATION - PUBLIC"~A~NG Sworn in: Alan Richmond, Arthur Chabon Amy said we looked at this project in July and it was a significant building in terms of its mass and height and there was a lot of discussion as to how it transitioned into the cabins. The applicant has done a lot of restudy of the roof shapes and the footprint. The height and scale of the building has been brought down by separating the pre-school function into a free-standing building at the east end of the site. In doing so three of the historic cabins are lost. The covered breezeway obstructs the western cabins and that should be discussed. The board needs to discuss whether there is flexibility in removing any of the historic cabins. The important thing about the property is the way you see the cabins on the edge of the property and certainly on Third Street. In the interest of accommodating the program maybe the two most western cabins get relocated. We need to discuss whether any of the program can be condensed at all by sharing some of the interior spaces to maintain the open space. Alan said the original plan focused the majority of the building into the western side of the property. At the last meeting there was a suggestion made that possibly some of the new cabins might be removed with the concept to create the open area on the eastern side of the property. The board also looked at this half block somewhat like a campus. There needs to be a discussion whether the tall mass should be at the comer or next to the open space. The curb cuts are an integral part of the design. Alan said the goal is to find a home for the Jewish resource center. It holds religious services, classes for children and adults. A daycare program is incorporated for toddlers. Each particular function has particular needs that dictate how they form and function. This is a complicated plan. Arthur went over the curb cut on Main Street and the circulation pattern. You would drop off at the curb cut and go into the loshia and then either go to the school or sanctuary. They tried to create a building to the scale of Main Street and bring in the single Story to relate to Third Street. There are six historic cabins along the alley and three on Third Street. Staff commented that the loshia obscures the cabins. In the design there needs to be a major fa¢ade facing east. Arthur said the cabins that would move are on Third Street. The idea is to harmonize the entire site. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER27i'' 2~004 .......... Alan said the FAR is .75 and we are under that about 2,500 square feet. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. No public comments. The public hearing was then closed. Valerie said the curb cut is a great improvement than the head in parking on Third Street. The campus idea is starting to work but is not totally resolved. The project is very complicated because everything is linked together. Retaining pedestrian energy on the street is important. The height might be OK but the glazing on the sanctuary makes it feel bigger. With some shifts - in materials it might make it feel like it is two separate stories. Valerie does not support the removal of the three cabins but she does like the vitality that has been brought to the street. Michael had not concern with the massing or curb cuts. He does not support the removal of the cabins. Michael said the loshia does not respect the historic resources. Sarah stated that the campus setting is great. The curb cuts do not comply with Chapter 12 and they are not functional. When you get two mothers dropping off kids it is going to create backup on Main Street. The massing is successful with the bookend approach, but the breezeway obstructs the cabins. Sarah said she would be comfortable with some relocation of the historic structures if it helps the overall planning of the block. Derek said he is willing to explore the drop off. The massing, scale and campus idea are great. He is also willing to look at relocation areas for the cabins. Jason said the loshia looks like a long wall going down the street from one end to the other. It reduces the public feel of the green space as you already have designed. It doesn't feel like it is part of Main Street, it feels like it is private. Having all the little cabins in one sport is a good idea as you look down Main Street. Regarding the scale of the building, Chapter 12.15 needs to be studied. The design is a rustic look and meets the guidelines. On the western facade there is the tenancy that it looks like a fortress and that should be investigated. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF' OCTOBER 27, 2004 Jeffrey said the project is very ambitious and unifying the site is very successful. The cabins should be included in the program. Maybe they can be relocated on-site. Historically; the curb cuts on Main Street pose a functional problem with bicyclist, pedestrians etc. Parking, in a small scale on the eastern or western end is a more appropriate place. The lothia is a very functional aspect but the long elevation has a negative effect with the shed roofs. Maybe a flat roof could be studied. There is a need and a desire for this project and if we can continue our role of the preservation aspects and the applicant as a growing integral member of our community there is a way, with challenges, to make this copasetic. Arthur showed the board a working drawing without the lothia. Valerie suggested linking the cabins. MOTION: Jason moved to continue 435 W. Main Street, conceptual development to November loth; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 701 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - RELOCATION, DEMOLITION, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: Jake Vickery Amy said at the last meeting we reviewed different options for the lot split and the presence of the huge tree in the front of the 'lot. A plan has been submitted showing a lengthwise lot split. There is also a drawing showing what the adjacent structure might look like in terms of bulk and height. HPC needs to determine if this plan is the direction you favor. There was an error in the FAR calculations and the FAR bonus is particular important for the viability of doing this as a residential development. The question in staff's mind is that we do not know much about the house and we are unlikely to find anything. Is it OK for the bonus to be based on good massing and site planning while we do not have the historic restoration at the level that we have asked some of our other applicants? Maybe visiting a mixed-use lot split is another alternative. Jake said he has two tiers of feedback that are needed tonight. As he got into the project he hit a barrier as he didn't know which way to split the lot, where to put the existing structure and what to do with the tree. He is looking for feedback on those three issues. Jake presented six different site plans. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER'27~ '2004 1. House might be a secondary structure in a primary location. If we were going to do a secondary structure we would have to take the tree out because there is an inadequate amount of area to build another house. The functionality of the grout lot is mined by the tree's presence. 2. Take the tree out and move the historical shed to the front and put the new house to the back. 3. The historical house moves to the west and an addition would be built to the rear and the shed would be removed and a new house on the east side. 4. The tree is taken out and the historical structure moves forward with an addition. 5. 'The historical house goes to the comer with a two-story addition and a new two-story structure on the west lot. The tree remains. The board needs to determine whether the tree should be kept or whether they want the facades to line up. Staff said the Park's Department would not support removal of the tree. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Jake said historically he supports #2 because it puts the secondary building on the alley with a connector but the tree would be lost. Comments: Jason said his concern is what would be most beneficial to Main Street. Sarah said she does not necessarily support one line of buildings along the street. Maxing out FAR to setback lines is somewhat a detriment to the neighborhood. That would be one reason why the tree should not be removed. MOTION: l/alerie moved to continue 701 W. Main Street until Nov. 1 Otb; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Depu _ty Clerk