Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20050112ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 2005 631 W. BLEEKER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING. 1 435 W. MAIN - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION - PH ..................................... 3 205 S. MILL - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING ............................. 8 629 W. SMUGGLER - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ......................................... 8 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 12~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Michael Hoffman, Derek Skalko, Jason Lasser, and Valerie Alexander. Sarah Broughton was excused. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 17th and Dec. 8th; second by dason. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Derek and Michael will recuse themselves on 629 W. Smuggler. Michael relayed that he had his interview with council and brought up that some of the eventual results of our lot splits were more dense than he felt comfortable with, particularly in the west end. The lot splits are a wonderful preservation tool. Valerie interjected that the program has only been out for a short time and maybe we should have a review and reflect upon the different projects. Jeffrey suggested a worksession and possibly site visits. 631 W. BLEEKER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING David Hoefer said the posting occurred and HPC may proceed. Affidavit of mailing Exhibit I Affidavit of posting Exhibit I! David Warner was sworn in. Amy said at the last meeting there was a debate about some of the architectural features and roof shapes and whether they were related to the Victorian next door. Ultimately the project was granted approval by a 4-2 vote. The only condition was that the porch be trimmed so that it didn't have such an extension to it. The architect has done that and also has revised rooflines and dormers. Staff recommends approval. In the memo it was mentioned whether the windows under the front porch disturbed the solid void that the historic building has but ultimately it is appropriate for this new construction. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 12~ 2005 David Warner said the designations of the elevations northeast and southwest got shifted. The front of the house is north and the back is south. We reduced the size of the porch. On the back of the house we had reversed dormers, which are very different but they have been modified to be regular dormer. On the south elevation and west elevation both dormers are now shed dormers. On the front of the house one whole dormer was eliminated on the left hand side because it was creating too much confusion. The window underneath the Porch is not different from buildings of this type. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Comments: Valerie said this is an excellent project. The modifications to the porch are great and they are much more compatible with the historic structure. She feels the guideline that addresses the void to solid in the relationship of the historic structure has been met. There is enough shadow and scale from the front porch roof. Valerie also pointed out that she was disappointed to see that the roof form on the southwest comer was removed. Jason said in context the model looks good. He said it seems more sensible to have all the same size windows instead of having smaller ones when you make the turn on the front elevation comer where you have the two windows. Derek said he supports the project and it looks great. He thanked the architect for the model, which indicated all the changes. Everything including the windows is in compliance. Michael said what has been presented is consistent with the previous meeting. The few changes to the deck area have been made and the project is worthy of approval and is consistent with our guidelines. Jeffrey said there has been ample response to our constructive criticism at the last hearing. It is consistent with Chapter 1, 11, and 14 of our guidelines. The landscape plan can be a condition of approval and handled by staff and monitor. The porch simplification helps the streetscape. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 12~ 2005 David mentioned that they are unsure about what the chimney should be. Jeffrey said it can be worked out with staff and monitor. MOTION: Valerie moved to approve Resolution 1, 2005for 631 ~. Bleeker with the conditions described in staff's memo. Motion second by Derek. Motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Jason, Derek, Michael, Valerie, Jeffrey Jason is the monitor. For clarification the landscape plan can be submitted and approved by staff and monitor. 435 W. MAIN - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION - PH Sworn in: Alan Richmond, Arthur Chabon Amy stated it has been almost a year since the applicant has started and all along she has expressed her concern about the cabins and how the changes etc. would meet our guidelines. At this point we have cabins linked together. Staff's concern is whether this is a project that can be supported under our guidelines and whether there was an historic designation to be had here. One of the decisions was to refer the plan to Debbie Abele. This was done because Debbie has had experience in modem architecture and she describes herself not as a "purist" so to speak. She understands that tradeoffs have to happen in order to have a successful project. We need to look at our scoring system and call the question on designation. Staff recommends that the property should be designated. The idea of putting the east pre-school building down by Third Street seems to have caused all the deterioration of the historic structures because that is where they are. We propose to go back to a more compact plan in some form or consider allowing them to build in front of the historic buildings. The reason we have recommended taking away the 90's cabins was to open the open space back up to create the setting of the historic buildings and that is not really being achieved here. We need to call the question on the historic designation and then evaluate the project under the standards and probably lead to a continuation. Alan Richmond reminded the HPC that they will be seeing buildings along Third Street. We brought that plan forward in October and November. We are very aware that no statements or actions were taken and clearly we had a sense that you were encouraging us to continue to work on the campus 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 12~ 2005 approach to this property. That led us to locating a building along Third Street. We are disappointed that staff feels the Third Street approach should be abandoned. We do not think that is the case. One of the factors behind the design tonight has been our desire to identify beneficial uses for the seven cabins that remain on the site. We really tried to integrate them into the project. That has lead us to connect two cabins along Main Street and to take four of the other cabins in to two pairs that would be affordable housing units. What we have concluded is that it is just important that these cabins have viable uses and that they not be historic artifacts on the site sitting empty. The cabins cannot work as classrooms. They are only 200 to 225 square feet each and that is not affordable housing that works for people in this community. 400 square feet or 450 square feet is a livable size. Regarding the cabins along the alley we have always thought it important to have some drop offparking. I£ this approach doesn't work we can keep the cabins where they arc today along the alley. We connected the cabins along Main Street because that brings a viable use for the cabins. We can work with the board on whether the cabins should be connected or not. Alan said a very big issue is staff's recommendation to vote for designation tonight. In July when we met with Amy and James Lindt they gave us several alternatives to process this project: Designation, Code amendments, SPA. Right now the disadvantages of designation outweigh the advantages of designation. This site plan cannot go forward if we go into a designation process tonight. Staff did mention that this project is consistent with the Main Street guidelines. We cannot bring this program back into a compact form to the west side of the property and come up with a design that meets the guidelines. We have proved that early on and the program has grown. We have learned that our school classrooms have to be much larger. Guidelines do not apply at all times and you have to make tradeoffs. Arthur Chabon said our basic strategy is to do a campus type setting. We all agree that the historical cabins and their relationship to the space around them is our best strategy. Arthur explained the site plan, a courtyard and the entrance between the two cabins that function as gate houses. Cabin 1 will become the entry foyer. Discussion on procedure. Alan said they do not want to go forward with designation at this time. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 2005 David Hoefer said the HPC should consider the entire project before making a decision. . Amy clarified that HPC does not need owner consent for designation. The discussion was that there are a couple of opportunities for how the project could go through the project. One is landmark designation followed by a conditional use for a religious facility on Main Street and SPA. Alan said from reading the staff memo if we designate the property today we are incapable of complying with the relocation standards. We are proposing to move two cabins off the site and there is nothing in the guidelines that would permit that to be done for a historically designated landmark. David said the only thing on the table tonight is what the applicant has brought forward. If staff or HPC wants to go forward with designation then they would have to go forward as the applicant. Alan requested that HPC review the conceptual application and not designation. If we have to re-notice we will but we are requesting feedback from our design that is being presented. Amy stated that the site is unique. We have 9 little historic cabins as opposed to working with one house. Designation does not necessarily mean that you have to meet the criteria. You could make a finding that moving two cabins complies. Staff feels that there is still some kind of compromise position. Alan said the standard is very ambiguous. Valerie asked staff is the concurrent request provide leniency within the guidelines? Amy said no because they are two separate decisions. However HPC wants to apply the guidelines in the case before you need to be determined. David said based on what he is seeing tonight he feels the application needs re-noticed to cover what they are proposing. Continuation to a date certain should occur and then the applicant, staff and the attorney should sit down and do a re-notice. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 12~ 2005 Michael pointed out that the applicant is asking for things that have not been properly noticed so we really can't go forward. Alan said they are working with individuals to try and find a receiving site for the two cabins. Jeffrey pointed out that there has to be a plan in place for the relocation standard. MOTION: ?alerie moved to continue the application on 435 W. Main Street to Feb. 9th, second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Worksession on the design. Arthur said he would like to see the designation in the context that we are proposing. Alan said he feels the design is compatible with designation. His concern is the two cabins moving off the site which wouldn't comply with the relocation standards. Jeffrey said he feels we need to keep part of the history of our town. This is a Western tourist motor court. Derek said the first worksession illustrated the mass to one side and we have proven that it doesn't work. The plan presented tonight works better for everyone involved. Preservation means to keep viable and alive. He would much rather see something that can continue onward. The massing is very respective to what is happening on Main Street. The nature of enveloping this entire block and turning it into a viable living entity is very sensible. Derek said the benefits of this project out weight the negatives. Jason said with the gate it seems like the courtyard is being closed off. The east side is one big curved roof which is a design issue that could be broken up. He also feels there are a lot of hallways etc. and some of the square footage could be eliminated or condensed to make it smaller. He also feels that all of the cabins should stay and the design should be restudied to address all the cabins. He would support designation. Michael said the most important aspect is maintaining the scale of the buildings and their relationship to each other and maintaining the open ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 12~ 2005 space. Linking of the historic structure is destructive. The roof forms are not consistent with Main St. If we can find a compromise that preserves the historic pattern he would be supportive of the project. Valerie said if the project was designated we would be moving along on this project. With the way the program has grown if it was designated today it is not compliant with the degree of relocation and demolition. She would like to see this process go forward with some flexibility but it is going to be a difficult process. The program has been changing, and do to the varied interpretations of the guidelines in this concurrent process it is going to take a lot of patience on the applicant's behalf to be able to get approval. Valerie supports the campus idea. The removal of the loshia was an improvement but it now almost has come back in with the new design. Thinking of positive uses of the buildings is good but the links that are proposed today are non-compliant. The location of the parking is by far one of the best explorations but not at the detriment of the relocation of the cabins. Perhaps it can be parallel parking. The roof on the main structure has changed and it is no longer subordinate and stepping down and providing a secondary mass so that it relates to the smaller features. The demolition and relocation is out of control. Jeffrey said the program has gotten bigger and educational facilities always demand additional square footage. The links of the historic cabins are detrimental. Relocating the cabin off the alley is problematic. Also, the roof forms are inconsistent for the Main Street district. Jeffrey supports the campus idea but not at the expense of the existing historic resources. Arthur said the square footage has been consistent over the last three meetings. The interior spaces of a public building are critical. We have emphasized circulation throughout this project especially when getting to the sanctuary. The lobby is where people meet and do things. The links can be adjusted. We are emphasizing getting to the place (sanctuary) is an experience. The roof forms and links can be adjusted. David Hoefer said the applicant and staff should get together regarding the ' appropriate noticing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 12~ 2005 205 S. MILL - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in; John Allen, architect Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Amy stated that the Louis Vuitton store is moving from the Brand Building over to the Mill Street Plaza building which is in the historic district. They are taking over a couple of store fronts and proposing to replace the windows and changing the pattern somewhat. Staff has some concerns with the storefront windows that face Mill Street. The design is moving away from the traditional details that exist on the other units. The recommendation is to restudy the windows that face Mill Street. The project also alters the storefronts that follow on the pedestrian alley as you enter into the central courtyard. Signage and lighting will be handled as a staff review unless the board ahs comments. John Allen said Louis Vuitton is a 150 year old business. We have made a revision to the storefront design Exhibit I that reflect the historic nature of · the building and address maintenance issues. The base of the window would remain as is and we would remove the transom which is almost entirely hidden by the awning anyway and create two vertical mullions basically where they are now. We are still recommending the full height door. One of the features of the store is showcasing trunks that are 100 years old. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public. The public heating was closed. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #3, 2005 reflecting the plans as submitted tonight; second by Derek. The film and window treatment will be approved by staff and monitor. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Valerie is the monitor. 629 W. SMUGGLER - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 2005