Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20050413ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko,Valerie Alexander, Jason Lasser, Michael Hoffi~an and Sarah Broughton. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the March 23ra minutes; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Monitoring: 216 E. Hallam- windows Sarah pointed out that there have been too many changes to this project. Applicant said they are proposing a copper window which has previously been denied. It would be a patina copper. They would rather go to a copper window instead of a Pella clad. Derek said his concern is the window trim detail and he would need drawings. Valerie interjected that better preservation is going with something that goes with the guideline 10.4. Copper is a very competitive element. The applicant suggested a painted metal. Jeffrey said Chapter 10 talks about additions to historic resources. The newly added materials need to be subordinate of the historic resource and there is a lot of competition in the copper clad especially when it is viewed from the street. Michael also said the copper gives you the feeling of a more elaborate addition which is not compatible with the historic structure. Innsbruck Inn - Roof A metal shingle roof was approved but the roofers won't give us a warranty. We have to do a locked seam. A standing seam metal roof was approved and to be worked out with staffad monitor. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13~ 2005 Independence Bldg. Amy said there was a request to replace the existing storm windows. The windows area all metal sash that were installed some time ago. Right now there is a single pane storm window. Staff is somewhat uncomfortable approving this. There are also air conditioners that possibly could be addressed to clean up that facade. Applicant proposed brown storm/screen operable units so that the units can get some air in them. Sarah asked why the manager didn't just put in screens in the double hung windows. Applicant: There are a lot of drafts and cold air and the storm windows have a better R value. Amy said another alternative would be to just replace the windows if need be. Our policy is wood screens but they have metal windows and it is a commercial building etc. That is why it is before the board. Derek said if it isn't a detriment to the building he could approve this. The applicant said if you take out the windows the estimate is $260,000 because you have to take out some of the brick to do it. Jason said this is a big improvement to what is there now. Sarah suggested that the manager ask if the owners would be happy with just screens. Jason said with the double hung window you can at least slide the top down or slide the bottom up. Applicant said the windows are up high and if you wanted to get to the top and pull it down you would have to stand on the sill. The windows are at least 70 inches tall and 30 wide. Michael said he is uncomfortable with the incremental approach. Valerie said even though the storm has a division you will loose the look of the double hung window. Sarah's suggestion of a screen is a good idea and maybe there are ways to caulk or clean up the windows. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13~ 2005 Amy clarified that the board is interested in encouraging interior storms or a screen that is only for the bottom sash. Certificate of no negative effect issues for Belly-up enclosing some below grade spaces. 629 W. SMUGGLER ST. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - ON-SITE RELOCATION, VARIANCES, DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING Michael and Derek stepped down Gilbert Sanchez Amy said at the last meeting the project didn't garner much discussion other than the garage. The applicant has provided additional information regarding the orientation of the garage toward 6th Street. The project is appropriate for this particular site. There are some constraints along the alley and it is a narrow parcel and there is an outbuilding that is trying to be preserved. There is a long standing precedent for this garage to be oriented toward the street but it is only a single stall with a flat roof. A lot of the impacts have been minimized and the single stall is appropriate in this situation. There are variances being requested and staff supports the project. Gilbert said after the work sessions the idea of achieving balance came up and finding what the best solution would be with the available options. 3 options 1. Do nothing and leave everything the way it is. 2. Do what is currently approved. 3. The proposed plan in front of you. Gilbert said not every guideline has to be met and they should be on a case by case basis. We have reduced the mass and our proposal enhances the streetscape. There was a discussion about reorienting the garage. When we studied that what happens instead of having the garage door facing the street the longer faqade faces the street. That creates a 26 foot separation instead of a 36 foot separation from the historic house. Also we would have to mitigate about $12,000 to move two trees for the garage. The final topic is the skylight which staff opposes. It is on the east face of the historic house and is 4x6 and would site on the slope of the roof. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Jason said he supports the project and the one-story garage. It is the least offensive and he can support the variances. On the rear facade the scale of the glass is the issue. The skylight is not appropriate on the historic roof and it would be setting a precedent. Sarah said her concern is the foundation proposed for the shed and that should be minimized. She is in support of the setback variances and opposed the skylight. Regarding the back gable the eave overhang is throwing it off. She could support that as a window. She supports the garage facing the street. Valerie said the presentation was very clear. She supports the restoration, massing, connection, and all are very successful. Addressing Chapter 1 & 14 having cars and activities on the street that were historically located on the alley do not comply and she can not support the FAR bonus. She hopes that a balance can occur because 99% of the guidelines have been met. Jeffrey supports the application, variances, partial demolition. The new addition is in compliance with mass and scale principles. The garage placement is the most aesthetically pleasing orientation. The skylight is detrimental. The window on the alley side in the gable is in some competition of the historic resource. That can be restudied. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #I 3and with the condition that the applicant re-evaluate the scale of the gable end on the alley. The skylight be deleted. Motion second by dason. Amended motion: #12 minimize the foundation on the relocated historic shed. Motion carried 3-1. Yes vote: dason, Sarah, deffrey No vote: lZalerie 435 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION, DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES - CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING FROM MARCH 9, 2005 Affidavit of public notice - Exhibit I 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13~ 2005 Amy said at the last meeting it was concluded that HPC wanted to see two things, one a site plan maintaining the L configuration of the historic cabins along Third Street and the alley and the other one would contemplate the removal of the Third Street cabins in order to break the structure into two pieces and create more of a central court yard. The applicant has provided both of those. Staffrecommends scheme 1 which is one building with some revisions in the interest of putting the one story program close to the cabins. We also suggested the relocation of the sunken courtyard to the southwest comer of the site. In all of the discussions we have been consumed with the site plan and how are we going to preserve the historic buildings and we have seen a lot of different varieties. Staff has some concerns with the complexity of the roof forms whether they are totally within the context of Main Street and that was one of the things that led us to suggest that maybe we are still not quite ready for conceptual tonight. We are going to be asked to waive some of the parking requirements. Alan Richmond said the first question that they would like answered is to choose among the two schemes and come up with a preferred site plan. After that decision we will be looking for feed back on the massing and architecture. We desire conceptual approval before going to council and P&Z. We would like to have the site and design fixed by the next meeting and with that there would be one more issues to discuss and that is the historic preservation incentive of waiving the on-site parking. Arthur Chabon, architect. Scheme #1 basic strategy is to use the L of the cabins on Third Street and the alley to define a semi-public courtyard. The cabins would frame the courtyard. You would enter from Main Street into the plaza and in the center is a sunken courtyard. The school would be along 4th St. and is a one story. Scheme #1 is very traditional and addresses the on-site parking. It is extremely difficult to relate the cabins effectively to a building that is basically a civic stature in scale. In scheme #2 we use two buildings with the cabins as a back drop to a central courtyard. The school would still remain on the 4th St. and the sanctuary and auditorium on the Third Street side. The cabins are put in a very dynamic dialogue. Alan pointed out that the board specifically asked for a two building scheme and a single building scheme with the cabins preserved. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13~ 2005 Arthur went over the schemes. In both schemes the cabins are in their original location. Derek inquired as to which scheme would integrate the cabins in a functional way, adaptive reuse of the cabins. Arthur said scheme #2 more effectively relates to the cabins. The L protects six, three cabins along the alley and three on Third St. Alan said they are using many of the cabins for affordable housing and they will have office functions. Amy felt that the plan submitted on the Feb. 9th meeting had some benefits. The pre-school was in the center of the property and it was more of a one- story in general. The chair opened the public hearing. Doug Allen said he was an adjoining property owner. There is not enough property to do their program. They haven't dealt with the traffic or parking issues. Parking is deficient in this neighborhood. A lot of small children will be going to the school every day and there is no provision for a safe way to let the kids off. I haven't heard how many people will be coming here etc. unloading children twice a day. There is way too much impact on this property and in doing that they are destroying the historic context of the cabins. Sebastian Autowitch, one of the owners of 315 W. Main. Sebastian presenting all seven owners. Based on how this is laid out and if it is approved Scheme #1 would better serve the historic resource directly relating to 333 W. Main which is to the east. If you do scheme #2 1 will wake up looking at a two story auditorium. He also agreed that there is entirely too much program going into this site. The design should be a single story space so that it doesn't tower over the historic cabins. He also has concern about the parking and how it will be accommodated on such a large parcel. It need re-thought in location or in size. John Beaty, representing the condominiums on Third and Hopkins. Scheme #1 is preferred but he agrees with the comments from Sebastian. This is a facility that is just too large for this location. Parking is also an issue. The drop-off in the alley is totally an inappropriate use for an alley. Hopkins is a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13~ 2005 pedestrian walkway during the summer and people will be driving up and down the pedestrian walkway looking for a parking space. He commended the architect for all the attempts he has made. Etar: When something wonderful is about to happen it needs to be encouraged and not knit picked as to how it should not happen. We need to figure out how to make it happen. This is a wonderful opportunity for Aspen. This is a newness that unifies the world. If needed, she can provide many signatures for this project. Kathleen Milbreath, resident at 333 Main Street. She was a past director of a community center and was wondering if any activity surveys were done for this facility. Alan Richmond responded that they have never presented the land use issues or parking issues because that is not what HPC does. We have been focusing on design. We did a full on parking study that was presented to staff but the hearing is focused on the design. The chair closed the public hearing. Comments: Derek said this is an incredible opportunity for the community as a whole. If there is too much program on the site there will be other people that will review that and make that determination. Our purview is to look at what is best for the site and making it a viable piece of the downtown area. From an historical preservation context the single element building is doing a lot of things favorable that engage the preservation of the cabins in the relationship to the building itself. This is a positive thing for the community and he would like to see it go forward. Valerie said the level of review tonight is mass and scale and the guidelines have not been met. If we could just pull the project apart and just look at simple rectangles. The idea of inflection and being subordinate need addressed as there is so much detail. We are trying to respond to the historic cabins. A simplification of the studies would be very useful. In general scheme # 1 is desirable in that you are preserving the context of the cabins. There are many ideas about the activity of the cabins and their relationship to the new program that bring vitality in scheme #2 but keeping the majority of the cabins together is preferable. Preserving the open space is preferable. The Main Street entrance falls under Guideline 11.1 that discuss entry and 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13~ 2005 the street presence and the Main Street entrance is preferable. The roof forms are very complex and need some simplification. There were earlier scheme where the massing was at the western end of the project and at that time I thought we were in a pretty good place here. We just need the idea of stepping down to relate to the size and scale of the cabins addressed. Perhaps if the children's outdoor space was reorganized you could accomplish that. Maybe having one open space as opposed to two would give you more utilization of your space. Michael said he thought the board made it clear that you are simply asking for too much program on this site. I thought we made good progress at that meeting because you are coming back with the same amount of program. These buildings overwhelm the historic resource. It saddens me to say that because I have worked hard on this commission to try to come to a resolution. I cannot support this amount of program, rather the amount of above ground development. Maybe some of the program could be put underground. Jason echoed Michael's statements. We are here for the cabins and I feel they are being pushed aside by the design. To be clear the program is too big and I cannot support the project. Maybe some of the program can go sub-grade. All of the cabins should be kept. Sarah said she cannot support the application right now. Guidelines in Chapter 12 specifically 12.14 talks about the new building carrying some of the similarities in scale to those seen traditionally in the district during the mining era, We are not only dealing with the cabins but we are also dealing with the Main Street historic district. This is a very challenging project. The use is very important in this town and needs to happen. If we can get a consensus on program we can go forward. We keep trying to shift the program and we aren't successful. It seems we are doing well then it tums on the guidelines and the historic resource. Maybe the massing and scale of the program can be looked at and maybe we can go sub-grade. I am tom between the two schemes. Each scheme offers very unique site solutions. While scheme #1 gives us the relationship of the L shape cabins she is somewhat concerned about the sub-grade courtyard. You are also relocating more cabins in this scheme. I scheme #2 1 do agree that it could be a wonderful discovery of these smaller cabins as you go through the campus with the parallel street along 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13~ 2005 the alley. I hope there is an architectural solution to the massing issues and that you can keep your program. Valerie said in the context of Main Street there are some very big buildings. 7th and Main is several story's tall and the yoga studio, (Mesa Store). You can do a large structure on this site. It needs to be on the west end and it needs to step down as it relates to the historic resources. You have a lot of allowable FAR. As the rest of the commission has said we are not going to turn our backs on these small cabins. To study the proportions and relationships of these other successful large buildings in the neighborhood would help inform how you make a bigger building work with smaller buildings. Derek said Valerie made a good point. Derek commented that in reality there is going to be a mass on this site whether it be this person on the next. The only concern ! have with this in regards to the cabins is that I understand the value of the cabins and I am not neglecting them. For us to just adamantly say we have to absolutely keep the cabins, I want to make sure the cabins become an active integrated part of this solution. Just for the sake of preservation and preservation alone that is not enough and not nearly close to enough to ensuring that this actually something that works. We aren't doing preservation any service by just saying the cabins are intact. They would be more neglected if they are not integrated. There has to be a way for us to allow the client the ability to really make these usable and part of the entire master plan. Jeffrey said this is by far the most difficult proposal I ever reviewed and looked into in my tenure often years. The design reiterations from a year ago have come an incredible long way. The applicant should be commended because they have many obstacles. The fact that we have all of these preserved cabins on the plan now warrants some discussion. The first scheme had a view cabins. I agree with my other commissions concerning its program and size and ultimately on how that evolves into architecture. I also agree that this is a civic place and very important spiritual place and sanctuary and it does have a different scale than a one-story motor lodge cabin from the middle 20th century and it is very difficult to get all the program; the outdoor play stations, classrooms of ample size, parking requirements achieved. I feel the massing on the western portion of the lot was by far the most successful scheme because it does try and inflect down to the cabins on a one-story scale. The amount of architectural exercises that ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13~ 2005 have gone on here in a year are incredible. There has been a lot of hard work done and very detailed work done. I would like to keep working on this and continue to find a way to manipulate the architecture that is responsive to our guidelines and respective to our motor lodge court period as well as the Main Street corridor. Arthur pointed out that in earlier schemes we had more program and we have reduced that program each time. The square footage of the ground floor is less than it has been in the past. In the earlier meeting the HPC was comfortable with the direction of the mass and scale and that the issue was the historic resource. Now I am getting a sense that you are comfortable with the historic resource and not comfortable with the scale and massing. Alan Richmond pointed out that the very first design in July 2004 had the mass on the western portion of the property and the board denied that and asked us to come up with something else and that is when we started the campus approach over toward the east. The desire for the sanctuary to face east is for religious reasons. The sun comes into the sanctuary during periods of religious worship. Form follows function and there are very important functional things that need to happen. This is not a residence and it is not a lodge development. This is a religious facility and the driving force here. Arthur mentioned that Michael talked about the issue of relating scale to the cabins. You have to have it clear in your mind the size of these cabins. I cannot imagine any new structure other than more cabins that would relate perfectly well to the scale of those buildings. Anything on that side of the block is going to be of a substantial scale. Michael said staff has given you two suggestions. Sarah asked if there is a way to minimize the overall scale and still keep the program. Do we have consensus on a site plan? Alan asked which preservation scheme is most appropriate, #1 L and the open space or #2 keeping everything along the alley. Jeffrey commented that scheme #2 keeps the character of Main Street because it is not one long building. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13~ 2005 Arthur presented a third drawing in which the play yard would be enclosed and you wouldn't see it from Main Street. Staff said that could be a fence and not a wall. Arthur said it should be a wall and enclosed as a point of security for the children. The Rabi is not totally comfortable with this design and has not approved it. Valerie said even if the buildings connect closer to the alley so that your circulation is maintained and you can stay indoors from classroom to another or wherever you are going to and from. If the massing is at the west end and then stepping down providing the sense that this is more than one structure whether it is the change in the faqade plane or a shadow line that falls more within the character of the neighborhood. Arthur said that is what we are really doing in this third scheme. Jason said there were a lot of comments trying not to make one building go the entire length of the walk and I just think you need to rethink your idea about a solid wall fence. A fence would do the job for the children. Amy suggested the play yard be in the court yard and possibly the other outdoor area could be used for the cabins. Amy suggested to the board that we give them one site plan even if it isn't completely there yet. The majority of the board supports the L scheme. Amy said the L configuration is important and there is still not a consensus on the massing scheme. There is some interest in the two detached buildings. MOTION: dason moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development until April 2 7, 2005; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 310 PARK AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) A1 Beyer, architect Alan Richmond, consultant Affidavit Exhibit I Jeffrey recused himself. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2005 Michael chaired. Amy said staff recommends approval with two conditions. This is an excellent project and meets all the guidelines. A1 said everyone has seen what we are doing and we tried to honor the proximity of the little cabin and make some relationships to it. The scale is 2,500 square feet and we made the connecting element to be the second story element like a bridge. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Alan Richmond said the lot split process works and this is an excellent project demonstrating how the mass is broken up. Derek mentioned the canopy on the deck and maybe it needs reduced in size because it projects out ten feet across the front area as a cantilever. Derek supports the idea of a cantilever. Valerie said this deck is represented very thin and there is no feature on the historic house that you would be talking too that it would be in competition with. MOTION: Jason moved to approve resolution #14, second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12