Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20050608ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~ 2005 435 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPUTAL), RELOCATION, DEMOLITION, VARIANCES, CONT'D PH PROM APRIL 27, 2005 ................................................... 1 ASPEN MEADOWS - CONFERENC HALL - DOERR-HOSIER CENTER - REFERRAL COMMENTS ON MATERIALS ............................................................. 8 "DWELL ARCHITECTS" IMPROVEMENTS TO MALLS ...................................... 8 WORKSESSION - 308 E. HOPKINS - NO MINUTES ............................................. 13 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Jason Lasser, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sarah Adams, Intern MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of March 9th and May 3, 2005; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. A certificate of no negative effect was issued on the Roaring Fork Building. There is a fourth story apartment that sits quite a bit back from the street and they asked to raise the roof by a couple of feet. It is a non-historic building. 435 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPUTAL), RELOCATION, DEMOLITION, VARIANCES, CONT'D PH FROM APRIL 27, 2005 Amy indicated that the property is eligible .for landmark designation. There is a request for designation and staff recommends that the property meets the criteria. There are 9 cabins along Third Street and the alley that are original to the site in the 1940's. There has been discussion as to how many need to be preserved. There has also been some movement toward an agreement that the two western most properties along the alley could be relocated to another site in town but that has not been determined yet. Staff supports the off-site relocation of two cabins. The third element is demolition for all of the construction except for the original miner's cabins which include cabins that were built in 1995 and the manager's house. Staff supports demolition of those buildings. In order to legalize the placement of the historic cabins, setback variances are necessary. Staff is in agreement. Amy: The other discussion is the design of the new buildings. Scheme A - A single building that spreads across the site and steps down to a one-story close to the cabins and there is open space around those cabins. Staff recommends not pursuing scheme A because it is a large building in comparison to the small cabins and also it is over scaled to relate to the Victorian buildings on Main Street. Main Street is designated due to the Victorian buildings not the lodges that are on the street. There needs to be more direct relationship to the Victorian buildings. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~ 2005 Scheme B - Detached two structures. It is a one-story building next to the cabins which was encouraged by the HPC. Staff supports this direction. Perhaps the distance between the two buildings could be tightened up so that there is more open space around the cabins and so that you can see the cabins more from Main Street. Amy said we need to focus on architecture. We need to try and break the larger building up a little more into components that feel more like the Victorian era buildings that are around the area. In the memo it discusses parking that is a requirement and possibly the applicant should get input from another board. Rabi Mendel Mintz explained that the floor plans presented are essential to have for the community uses that they want to offer. He would be glad to explain why things are laid out a certain way. Arthur Chabon, architect said our meetings have been focused at arriving on a reasonable strategy of preserving the historical cabins. We concurred that preserving the three cabins on Third St. and the three on the alley represent a good balance between the programmatic requirements and the preservation of one of the last remaining examples of the 1940's motor court motel cabins in the rustic style. The most challenging task has been creating a religious building of civic stature that serves the clients program and is an appropriate expression, and is compatible with the historic resource. One of the strongest criticisms has been the size and scale of the buildings, although we presented proposals that are at or below the FAR and below the height limitations. We are trying to shift certain functions below grade and generally trying to make things smaller. The library and administrative functions have moved to the basement and the pre-school classrooms have become smaller. The processional spaces have been reduced and we have lowered the overall height of the building. In previous meetings the primary access was recommended to be off Main Street which complies with Chapter 11.1. Scheme A - In staff's memo it indicates that we are in conflict with 12. 1 which relates to setbacks, orientation and open space and 12.15 relating to massing. With each presentation we are trying to create a proper scale of open space to comply with 12.1. The setbacks are consistent to what occurs throughout Main St. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~' 2005 Scheme B - This scheme allows for more open space in the middle of the block while A allows for more open space at the Third and Fourth street sides. The two building scheme alludes to the memory of the original configuration by creating open space in the middle of the block. Staff recommends that the space between the cabins be increased and the space between the auditorium and sanctuary be decreased by as much as ten feet. While this idea is worthy of exploration it is my thought that it is preferable to have the lower buildings closer together and the larger building farther apart. By pushing them together it would defeat the idea of the two buildings scheme. We have tried hard to relate our buildings to the commercial and residential buildings in the historic district. We have especially with the auditorium used the scale of the cabins as our basic modules. We have broken down the overall mass in Scheme A and B. In scheme A, the largest expanse of the faCade is 43 feet and that is the school on Fourth Street. Arthur went over the sizes of different buildings on Main Street and the length of their facades. 605 Main Street has a faCade of 47 feet; The Christiania has an uninterrupted fafade of 51 feet. The Floradora bldg. is 22 to 33 feet. Scheme B is also broken down into modules. The main lobby is a two-story module of 25 feet in width. Arthur said staff mentioned in the memo the continuous length of the building. The comment is understandable if we compare our building to the free standing residential structures but if we look at commercial and religious institutional buildings of the Victorian era we can see that our building is actually lower and less monolithic. It is important to not apply a residential standard to an institutional building,. We all agree that this building should be of civic stature but at the same time we understand the issue of scale and we hope we are close to dealing with it effectively. We have abandoned the abstract forms and changed to a traditional form. We were instructed to simplify, which was though by the committee that we had overly complex forms and we believe that both of these forms present a vastly simplified massing. We designed a building of our time and not a period piece. Scheme A - Stone building with standing seam metal roof and the pergola would be a heavy timer structure. The pergola trellis at the entry which service to break down the two-story mass into the first and second story ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~ 2005 level would also be heavy timber and the panel above the stone base would be board and batten. Scheme B is similarly stone, board and batten and we are proposing a wood shingle roof. Arthur pointed out that the two buildings would be much more expensive to build because there would be two mechanical systems etc. Jason inquired about the tower. Arthur said we substantially lowered the sanctuary and we wanted to do something that gives the sanctuary a sense of grandeur. The tower would be all glass at the top and bring light to the arc facing west. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Dan Honek said he has lived in Aspen for 23 years but he is not a voting resident. He also has a home in Florida and serves on their P&Z with a community of 30,000 people. He has been following the project all along and it astonishes him as to how long this is taking. Two buildings vs. one building; one is a better facility for the community and the people who are going to participate in it. He would like to encourage the HPC to look at the project from the eyes of the people who are proposing it and who are trying very hard to comply. Doug Allen said he is a neighbor and resident of Aspen. He commented that the applicants have made substantial progress with the design; however, they are still trying to get too much of a program on too small of a property. The two buildings are much more in scale than they were before. Stewart Roffman said he is a voting resident who lives on Third Street and Hopkins. He feels that the one building alternative would provide the advantage of aesthetics and economics to the project. They are trying to put a lot on the parcel but have done it in an efficient way. The missing piece is parking and the traffic flow. The applicant has made compromises and it serves the community and is well thought out and he hopes the project moves forward. Harriet Zimmerman stated she has resided in Aspen since 1990 but is not a voting resident. She served for 6 years on the National Endowment of ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~ 2005 Humanities and for the last two years she served on the public projects committee. There are numerous reasons why people do or do not object to projects like this. It is very important to get everything right out it the open and be sure that people know exactly what we are doing something and why. Most structures like this are one building. There are buildings across the street that are higher than this building. This building is something special, it is going to be the center of the Jewish community of Aspen and it should be given the dignity and respect that it needs. Joe Myers said he resides at 421 W. Hallam. He is in favor of any kind of project like this if it promotes the presence of God in the community. He is not so much in favor of it in this location. What exists now at the location is the perfect entrance to Aspen. Seeing the small and historic buildings is precisely what Aspen is all about. Jesse Boyce said he lives at 134 ½ W. Hopkins. He stated that the project is wonderful and he supports the one building. The Rabi offers a lot to the community. Trying to conserve energy and resources is important and should be taken into consideration. Julie Roth said she lives in Pitkin County. Jewish people are historic people and what they are trying to do here is provide some kind of continuity of their history that will be long and lasting. She encourages the board to think long and hard about the two buildings. Aesthetically she favors the one building design. Barry Shock stated that he is a voter and lives in Aspen. He strongly supports the one building approach. Two buildings make it difficult to manipulate. As to the location where else could it be that isn't in a residential neighborhood. Main Street is appropriate. Adam Goldsmith, Pitkin County resident. He explained that he has no financial interest in the project. He went to pick up his child and previewed the plans. Both schemes look alike and one building makes more sense for energy reasons and everything else. The City talks about being "green", and this is an opportunity to let the applicant do an energy efficient space. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Board comments: 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2005 Jason informed the public that the HPC got to the two building scheme through a long series of meetings addressing guidelines 11.5 and 11.6 related to roof forms. The issue is scale and mass. We are here because of the historic cabins on Main Street. We are trying to break down the size of the building as you enter Main Street. The entrance to Main Street is important, "the human scale", the trees, the grade of the town and being a pedestrian town. The project is difficult and we want to see to go through. Jason also thanked the public for their comments and suggestions. Jason said he understands the function of the tower but it is massive and extremely tall. The two building scheme in the site plan is more successful but it still is quite long on Main Street. Possibly pushing back one of the two buildings a little will help break up that long faCade on Main Street. Derek said he has been at every meeting for over a year and is well aware of the community amenity this project will add to Aspen. He totally agrees with Jason that the two building massing works and he is willing to go forward with that proposed design. The HPC is very empathetic to the main street corridor. Scheme B addresses mass and scale and the general aesthetics fit in with the Main Street corridor. It is better to space the two buildings out somewhat. Sarah also said this is a difficult project but we have seen a lot of forward movement here tonight. In both schemes a lot of our guidelines have been met. By dividing the project into two buildings does not better our historic resources or the historic pattem of development. She favors scheme A with some modifications, a better addressing of the comers. Right now there is a low wall where the kid's playgrounds are. I terms of the historic settlement Comers are very important and it bothers her that the building is being pushed toward the center of the site and maybe there is a way to hold the comer better. Possibly by doing that it would pull the new building away from the cabins. Sarah also stated that she is a bid advocate of less parking. She is also in support of the relocation. Scheme A's gable structures coming off the auditorium are a nice gesture and the mass and scale is very responsive and respectful to the historic cabins. Jeffrey stated that the preservation of the cabins has always been an underlying issue and part of our guidelines. The two building scheme helps the massing on Main Street. The one building has a lot of undulations which 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~ 2005 respondto guidelines 11.3. The historic settlement patterns guideline 12.1 addresses the comer which is very important and was brought up by Sarah. 12.14 - Design new construction as similar in scale as historic patterns. Both schemes achieve this very nicely. 9.1 - Relocating buildings only a case by case basis when it helps the historic resource. A buffer is preferred between the new construction and the historic cabins. That is difficult due to the courtyard. 11.1 - Primary entrance. Both schemes address that. 11.3 - Scale of the context. The ground studies are very thorough. Jeffrey stated that he supports designation of this property for its history of the motor court and the evolution of Aspen began with this type of thinking and it needs to be preserved. He also supports the setbacks requested that help give a greater buffer between the cabins and Third Street and the alley. The new design with some of the programming going into the basement has made both schemes more successful. The two building, scheme B would be more consistent with our main Street corridor guidelines. Looking at some of the tower elements the concern is material, scale and overall appearance. Jeffrey said he can support scheme B and possibly with some kind of connection between the building and maybe not a physical architecture. Maybe a trellis element or using something that doesn't feel like a mass but has the shelter. Amy said it sounded like the roof forms on Scheme A were successful and possibly incorporate some of that in scheme B will help it be more successful. Scheme A has a lot of roof forms and scale that are related to the Victorians and importing that into scheme B and not having so much like the hipped roof and other things that might be effecting its relationship with the surrounding buildings. Jason mentioned that Scheme A has a good relationship scale wise to the cabins, the proximity to the cabins and where it connects to the two story structure feels like an older miner's connector piece. Jeffrey said Scheme A's architecture respects and reflects more to the historic cabin scale and that proved to be a successful point. That should be incorporated into B design. The board selected Scheme B. ASPEN HI,~TORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2005 Arthur asked about the connector and how that can be done successfully. Jason said a recessed transparent treatment between the buildings might be successful; something thin and transparent. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 435 W. Main until July 13, 2005; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 4-0. ASPEN MEADOWS - CONFERENC HALL - DOERR-HOSIER CENTER - REFERRAL COMMENTS ON MATERIALS Jeffrey Berkus and Joede Schoeberlein Jeffrey said we are only showing two materials on the building, white concrete and gray metal panels. These colors respond to the existing two colors on the building. Jeffrey Berkus said there are a group of donors involved in this building and 3 have signed off and one has said there is too much aggregate in the Colorado concrete. We will try to smooth that out in the final sample. The board was in favor of the material palate. Jason is the monitor. "DWELL ARCHITECTS" IMPROVEMENTS TO MALLS Affidavit- Exhibit I Sarah Adams relayed to the board that the improvements are proposed for the Cooper/Galena pedestrian mall and the Hyman pedestrian mall. In general staff finds that the elements within the proposal to be acceptable as new street furniture and not constrained to a design relationship with the Victorian district since the elements are products of modem development. The only concern is the scale of the "red i graphic" on the guest kiosk. It may need restudied and rescaled because it is not in compliance with Section 14.25, 14.26 and 14.27 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Scott Chism, Parks planner - Lisa Baker, Downtown Catalyst Willis Pember, Kevin Dunnett ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~ 2005 Lisa said Henry Beer and Ford Frick did a report about our downtown core. One of the issues they focused on was that Aspen had no dwell areas. From some of their recommendations and drawings it was determined that infill structures were needed and the company D3 Architects was chosen. They have gone through a series of public meetings and met with City Council and got approval for a budget over $200,000. In addition handouts were done to over 60 retailers and restaurateur's to get feedback from them as well. All responses were positive. The proposed changes are minor but will make a difference to the downtown core. Kevin Dunnett, site planner and landscape architect stated that the design is a culmination of 8 months of work and numerous task force meetings. Five items are being proposed and if approved, hopefully will be installed by this winter. The area with the most consolidation is by Paradise Bakery, Manrico, Ralph Lauren and Kemo Sabe. Guest service pavilion Fire hearth Seasonal event kiosk Curb bench prototype - two twenty foot segments. Bike Rack Willis Pember stated that the pavilion will replace the existing ACRA booth. The structure would be up all year. It will be portable and movable. It will be built off-site and dropped in by crane. It will be illuminated on the inside and is constructed of steel and will have an awning. Dunnett said the existing tables put out by the Parks Dept. have activated that space. The fire hearth is supported by three pylons in a circular theme. If the hearth is successful possibly one could be installed on the Hyman mall. Infrared heaters will be installed underneath the hearth to provide lower heat. The kiosk has a two dimensional feeling where you can actually walk in between the panels. Small light fixtures will be connected underneath the roof which will be corten. ACRA will also have information on the kiosk. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~ 2005 Kevin said one of the curb benches will have a back with solid white oak stained. The one without a back enables someone to sit on the bench both ways. The proposed material for the bike rack is corten. There are opportunities to do branding if some of the merchants want to pay for half the rack. Jason said the seasonal kiosk has a solar panel on it. Kevin said the City directed us not to pursue that based on the complexities of it and the budget. Derek asked what the shelf life would be for the pieces. He has seen Willis's work and trusts that it will be a high quality product. His only concern is that it doesn't becomes "pop" art. It looks great for five or ten years then it resonates into an awkward piece. He also stated that he is not sure this will be 100% successful but is willing to take a chance. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Toni Kronberg inquired about the horse drawn carriage and if they would still be able to be at their existing location. Willis said they will remain and they can make the radius and get through. Toni also suggested that something be over the hearth so that people don't through things into it. She also asked if the Fire Dept. has reviewed the plans for access. If we are going to encourage cycling it would be a good idea to have some place near the bike racks to store back packs. People are always riding with their back packs. Michael said his concern is the consistency of these very foreign pieces in an historic commercial core. The only piece he has concerns about is the hearth but given its size he can support the project. Jason said he cannot support the project because the two malls are open spaces and putting buildings in open space blocks the views. All you see are buildings. He could approve the fire hearth if it didn't have a roof on it. Why are we forcing buildings on our mall, block off another street. Information is important but a guest service pavilion is not necessary. Guideline 1.14, 1.16 are not in compliance. Regarding the permanent structures, if they were wood they could be disassembled in four hours but getting the kiosk in with a crane is not appropriate. Removing the light posts 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~ 2005 is a waste of money. Jason said he feels we are decorating a mall that is already successful. He feels we are dropping a bunch of architectural pieces in the mall when information can be obtained at the Wheeler or the ACRA. Sarah said the malls can be better utilized which in mm would help the retailers on the mall. As a whole she does not support pedestrian malls. What is successful about downtown areas is the downtown traffic and that involves pedestrian, bikes and vehicles. Pearl Street in Boulder is successful because every block has traffic flow. When you are in a vehicle you can be dropped off and enter the pedestrian mall. Sarah lived on Cooper for 2 ½ years and her concern is the amount of items that are being placed in that particular area and the traffic flow. The scale of building to open space makes good public space. By bringing in volumes that create mass you need to make sure the balance is still there. The most successful thing in the proposal is opening up the middle of Cooper Street mall into a more plaza area that forces people to stay in the middle of the mall. She is also leery about the amount of items that are being placed in one space. Jeffrey supports the downtown improvements but has concern with the cluttering of spaces. There is a real flow issue. Understandably we need a place for information that serves the area. The existing kiosk works in the summer. The proposed comer is a prominent comer for Winter sculpt. He supports the bike racks and benches. The scale and lettering of the information kiosk is not in scale with our guidelines. Fire hearths seems to be an area for trash. The location of the kiosk vs. the fire hearth is a good comment. The event kiosk makes sense but not at the demise of our open space. Michael said the area is a unique place and the proposal does not violate the historic nature of this intersection. Sarah said the historic nature of this intersection is a grid; it is not a pedestrian mall. To put a building in the middle of what used to be a street is against the historic pattern or our downtown. Derek said the Wagner Park bathrooms were of concem and people said it would ruin our open space but it has been completely successful for that area. Looking at the size and scale of these entities if it is a failure, it is something that we can undo. He is willing to take a chance. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~ 2005 Applicant response. Kevin said they looked at a temporary kiosk but felt it would tend to look cheap. In the discussion with the task force it was determined to do something more permanent. It is a steel frame and unbolting it and moving it would not be difficult at all. All the items can be moved. Willis said he wished the HPC members could have been involved in the early discussions. The malls are from the 70's. The malls are very dark now and linear. There is no interest at eye level. Willis pointed out that signage is architecture. Scott pointed out that the things presented tonight were not designed in a void. It was the result of a lot of people's opinions and thoughts. They can go away if they fail but a lot of people are willing to take the chance. Kevin pointed out that the Frick and Beer report identified the kiosk in the winter as one of other major problem areas and that it would be open all year long directing people. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #20 as drafted with the five conditions as set forth and the restudy of the sign; second by Derek Derek said the architect brought out good points about signage and architecture being integrated and he highly encourages everyone to look at the California transit authority which is a wonderful building that incorporates signage. Yes vote: Michael, Derek No vote: Sarah, Jeffrey, Jason Motion failed 3 -2. Sarah said the graphic signage does not comply with our guidelines. Also that the positions be relooked at. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the dwell project with the following condition: That the event ldosk and guest services pavilion are re-evaluated for their positioning and permanentency to be approved by staff and monitor; motion second by Derek. Discussion 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8~ 2005 Sarah asked why everything had to be at that particular, comer. Jason said he feels some of the information should move over to Wagner Park. Kevin said ACRA wants a live body in the kiosk to help instill year round dwell activity. Amended motion: Sarah amended the motion to approve the dwell project with the suggestion that more consideration taken to the move-ability and flexibility of the objects so that the items can be moved around during the different seasons; second by Derek. Motion carried 3-2. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Sarah, Derek No vote: Michael, Jason Sarah said there is the concem of putting the event kiosk in this mall and how all of these elements affect the downtown pattern of development that the HPC is specifically interested in. Not only in buildings, but in building relationships. Michael commented that if HPC feels this is bad preservation we should vote it down. If we think it is bad urban planning we can still vote it down but bad urban planning is beyond our scope. City Council can overturn our decision. Jeffrey said he reviewed the standards and we do not have standards to not approve it. WORKSESSION - 308 E. HOPKINS - NO MINUTES MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13