Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950308ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1995 409 E. HOPKINS .......... 1 624 E. HOPKINS - PUBLIC HEARING - CONCEPTUAL .... 1 ASPEN PHYSICS ........... 5 OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT ......... 7 MAROON CREEK BRIDGE - PH .................. 13 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1995 Meeting was called to order by Roger Moyer with Martha Madsen, Linda Smisek and Jake Vickery present. Don Erdman and Les Holst were excused. MOTION: Jake made the motion to direct Staff to send a memo to council stating that the HPC needs members on the commission as soon as possible; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: I will contact a few of the counciimembers. Roger: I also will call them. 409 E. HOPKINS Amy: They are proposing a material change that could be done at the Staff level but I wanted the Board to see what they were proposing. The reason this is being done is cost. They are removing stone detailing but trying to add brick texturing so all is not lost. Cary Lakeman, Poss & Assoc.: We were having difficulties with the original detailing that was approved and in an attempt to simplify the detailing without sacrificing the integrity of the design. On the street facade we broke up the window ceils. The stone corbling was simplified. The brick bands on the pilasters were simplified as well. We tried to keep the ornamentation on top. We dropped the height of the parapet eight inches to align with the parapet height of the street facade as you turn the corner. We eliminated some stone bands also. Roger: The committee has no problem with the changes. 624 E. HOPKINS - PUBLIC HEARING - CONCEPTUAL Roger opened the public hearing. Amy: What is being proposed is a residence and basically I found that it is compatible with this block. It is a very mixed area and the opposite side of the street does have three historic residential buildings and this side of the street does not. My main concerns were in the site plan this building has a much deeper setback than the adjacent building creating a front yard situation which is fine for a residential but this is a commercial zone district. Also the front yard seems elevated somewhat and I thought that should be discussed. Also their are large lightwells in the front which is typically something that we do not agree with although the applicant does not have options. They should a~ l~ast be minimumized. We also need elevations of the E, W, and S facades. Roger: The applicant should look at the recommended lightwells ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1995 that we feel are appropriate. Michael Lipkin, architect: The revised site plan shows a building set back 17 1/2 feet midway between the two adjacent buildings. We wanted to keep the urban feel so we built a masonry brick wall and a line of street trees and a little vegetated zone. We were trying to balance all the issues. We would like to use brick on the facade and have not yet found the appropriate color. Martha: I have a question about the height and going to 40 feet. Are both adjacent buildings 40 feet also? Amy: In the commercial zone district you can go 40 feet. The KSNO building is 44 feet. Amy: You added a new element on the roof that looks like a small house. Michael Lipkin: It is the stairs and elevator penthouse that gets us up to the roof. Amy: This house could be converted to a commercial in the future and that was my concern about the setbacks. Also did you address the eight inches between the buildings. Michael: We can work that out with the adjacent property owner. Linda: This is a single family residence and do they have future plans for the use of it? Martha: You are at conceptual and I feel the lightwells need worked on. You should visit some of the houses on the west end to observe lightwells that the Board approves of. The lighwells are more of a residential feel. Amy: If you terrace the lightwell out it gets larger so I feel they need to do more studying. Michael Lipkin: We are looking at you for direction. Marcia Rothblum, owner: Our preference would be a greater setback rather than a lesser setback. Amy: We do not want the feeling as you are walking down the street that you are looking into a pit. In general weldo~ not encourage lightwells in the front of residential buildings but you don't really have a choice. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1995 Roger: Does the Board feel their is enough information to give conceptual? Amy: This is a difficult project and we do not have a lot of guidelines to judge it by and it doesn't apply to most of our historical guidelines. The neighborhood character guidelines do not apply and there are a lot of good things about the project. It is friendly to the street and doesn't maximumize the height. It is a very modern building dropped in among other modern buildings. Martha: I like it because they are being resourceful. Jake: The building has been moved forward since the last application. Marcia Rothblum: If the KSNO building is back and the newish building is back it minimumized the thrust of the KSNO building in my mind. Jake: This is difficult to evaluate. It is urban and do you evaluate to the historic buildings across the street. There is nothing set up to work with. Phillip Rothblum: The FAR is so low in this area that it is difficult to do anything. Jake: You have a lot of open space area and it is interesting that you choose to go from building to building. Martha: How high is the pent house? Michael Lipkin: About eleven feet high. Roger: If the front lawn went back and was level to the walkway and you have the trees and vegetation in front of the light wells would then the lightwell be less obtrusive than if the lawn were at grade. Michael: There would just be a subtle difference. Roger: This is a modern building but in the neighborhood character guidelines the feeling of the entry is that it is more like a building in a city rather than a building in a small town and therefore the entry is almost commercial, rather than residential. Is there anyway of softening the bui~dfng, possibly a bench etc. so that it is more of a residential ~eel. Michael Lipkin: The front door is set back in and when it is 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1995 landscaped that will dramatically change and feel like a residence. Martha: Explain the windows. Michael: Ail of the windows are clear glass except the studio which will have sandblasted diffused glass. Roger: I feel the setback is to the applicants prerogative and what you have done to the lightwells is a good response to Amy's comments. Historically we are relating to existing historic buildings across the street and this is an infill that is working well. I feel there is a concern about the friendliness of the entry. MOTION: Martha made the motion to give conceptual approval to the project at 624 E. Hopkins with the condition that the light wells be furthered studied for final; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. Jake: I would like to make a few comments. The lot patterns in town are all narrow and that kind of sets up the rhythm of the buildings. This building is interesting because it goes the other way, east west. It kind of connects to the other two buildings and makes for one long mass as opposed to if it ran north south with a separation between the buildings that would serve to relieve that condition. The entire block is out of control. If you look at the 50 scale map their are a number of cuts between buildings and those things serve as some relief such as light and air and occasional views and potential circulation and use of ground floor space. Possibly a stepping concept would honor the street and scale of the historical buildings across the street. Bring it back down to a human scale. Linda: I have a comment on the top little building and you said it wasn't to scale and wouldn't be seen. Michael: It will be seen a little and is set to the back of the building. Linda: To have that mass on top is a concern to me. Michael: We haven't designed it fully. Roger: Did you look at a different orientation with spacing? Michael: If you look at mo~t parts of the downtown the streets are pretty consistent and the only break on this side of the street is the alley between the KSNO building and the professional building ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 199K that leads to a parking lot. When I walk down that street I do not find that a particular relief. It is true that the little victorians have spaces in between them but that is from another era. This is clearly a neighborhood in transition both in use and scale of structures. We feel this is infill and we are trying to make sense. ASPEN PHYSICS Amy: An amendment is being requested to the Aspen Meadows SPA final which specifically is the Center for Physics. There is a wooden vertical sided building which is proposed to be torn down. ,It was built in the 60's as a temporary structure and now they want to demolish it and build a new lecture hall. It has a different orientation and has a larger building although it has the same number of offices and spaces. The primary issues for us to talk about is that it will not impact any of the historic elements. It will have a greater impact on the neighborhood as this building will be a lot more visible. It is a one story building and basically the same design characteristics as the Herbert Beyer buildings. Roger: Have you heard from the neighbors? Amy: The public hearing will be at P&Z. The reason why they are turning the building longways is because of the circle of serenity. They want to make an interior courtyard. Jake: This should be looked at in relationship to the neighborhood character guidelines and how well it fits or doesn't fit. Martha: I feel it should be broken up or an L shape. Jake: No one is here to answer questions. Martha: We should formulate in mass and scale what we like as it doesn't fit for what we have designed in the neighborhoods. Roger: It doesn't work within the neighborhood character guidelines. It is somewhat similar to the Bayer design. Amy: You are expressing concerns about the unbroken length and how that is effecting the neighborhood since it is moving closer to the neighborhood. Martha: They a~so need to be made aware of the neighborhood in the west end rather than it supporting the Aspen Meadow's master plan goals and policies which is OK but they are not relating it to the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 199K neighborhood. They are just relating it to the Meadows project and it should relate to the neighborhood and are recommendation would be that the long building be broken up more in a neighborhood fashion. Amy: I can't see why it couldn't be an L shape that would enforce their circle of serenity even more. It would create the edges that they want. Jake: It blocks virtually all the visibility into the campus from North Street. It is all cut off. All you can see is a wall in that area. Amy: The physics area is just a small portion of the campus. Where this building is now there is a lot of natural or man made burming and things like that which makes it nestled all in. Martha: It doesn't make a statement as it is presented right now. It is 247 feet long. Amy: Compared to the length of the Red Brick school it is probably a lot like that in height etc. Jake: There is also a lot of repetition of the window element. Roger: I would encourage P&Z to review if in fact compatible with the neighborhood character guidelines. it is Martha: I do not feel it relates to the neighborhood at all and that is not their intention. Amy: I do not know how well this campus fits into the neighborhood character guidelines. Roger: It would be interesting to hear from Harry Teague about what is going on even though this is only advisory. Martha: We could go to the P&Z meeting if we have concerns. MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC finds that the replacement for the Aspen Physics Institute does not co~form to goal 1, policy #4, architectural character and it is not compatible with the neighborhood character guidelines and should be looked at in that regard~ i.e. length and linearity. Also it does not meet goal 4, Mit~ga'tes to the maximum extent feasible, the effect of the development on neighboring properties; second by Martha. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1995 DISCUSSION OF MOTION Roger: It is 247 feet long on one continual Ii.near plane. The landscape plan looks great and we approve of that. Jake: They are mitigating with the landscape plan to soften the impact. It is set back 75 feet I believe on one corner. Jake: Yes, I agree with that. Roger: That may in fact be enough. AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended his motion to add that the design does not meet one of their master plan goals, number 4, mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, the project's impacts on the overall community. Where this is only one story in height and is set back from the road, none the less it is a 247 sq.ft, plane with a lot of repetition of the building elements and windows; second by Martha. All in favor of motion and amended motion. OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT Amy: Caroline McDonald was at our last meeting and she has some ideas of new conditional uses that should be considered for historical landmarks to help their business viability on Main Street and their vitality on Main Street. Gideon is representing the small lodge community who has been meeting with city council to discuss ways to improve their viability as well while new uses, new flexibility. Roger: I did not know kitchens were not allowed in small lodges. Roger: If two small lodges a year could convert to 100% of something else how long would it be until all the lodges were gone. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: When they were trying to help the small lodges they designated it LP and unlike any other designation they had only one use that was allowed for their property. For example if you have a small building with a restaurant and you decide you cannot make money as a restaurant anymore and want to go to a different use or business you can do that. Only the LP designation says this is the only use you are allowed on your property so rather than helping them it has turned into a real problem. Roger: You allow mixed use and change the code. If you allowed two lodges a year to convert to 100% of something else then you ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 199K could very easily loose all the lodges. Gideon: I do not feel you would loose all the lodges because there are a lot of people that want to stay lodges. The problem that they are having is that if you look at occupancy in the small lodges in the last 7 or 8 years they have gone down dramatically. There isn't enough of the kind of clientele that sells a small lodge coming here and their occupancy is going down. We have two lodges that are not even operating because they are loosing money. Roger: Who are they? Gideon: The Fireside Lodge and others that are contemplating. The Fireside operates 3 months in the winter and shuts down the rest of the year because it is more economical to do that than run it all year round. Linda: How many units is a small lodge, what is the classification? Gideon: There isn't a number. The biggest small lodge is 30 rooms and the smallest is about 11 rooms. Roger: If the Fireside remodeled and had kitchens in which they would basically be mini apartments, would it be more successful? Gideon: You have an infill structure that is 35 or 40 years old and Aspen used to 'be a funky experience and people are not interested in spending $120. a night to be able to hear their neighbor. Roger: If the Fireside were town down could a mini hotel be built that would be successful? Gideon: Giving them the right doesn't mean they can do it, you still have all he other change in use and growth managements to deal with. They would be forced to compete like every other property owner in the zone district. It is that now they can't do anything, they are locked in to having to be a lodge and that is a real problem since the market is diminishing. Amy: There are a number of lodges along Main Street. Mary Lackner, Planner: Their are 8 zoned LP on Main Street. Jake: You mean they are like little spot zones. Roger: That needs to be changed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 199K Amy: Caroline McDonald is also here to discuss other uses along Main Street. Right now you have a list of permitted uses, conditional uses and prohibited uses. We are talking about at least expanding the conditional uses. That might have additional impacts in terms of traffic or drawing commercial business down Main Street. Jake: Would this be for the 0 zone in general? Amy: We are talking about lodges and specifically historic landmarks, not just everybody unless that is something that we feel needs talked about. Caroline McDonald: We would love to have Main Street as a community use instead of having it the highway to the super building on the other side of town. The conditional uses now are from the 60's. You can have an antique store and a daycare center and mortuary and they are old and limited and could be expanded. We would like to have them owner occupied and that we didn't have national franchises. If the HPC could formulate something. People on Main Street are interested but their energy level is low. If something could be formulated and taken to them. Residents do not wish to live on Main Street anymore and it is changing the character. We need to get a stop and go pattern established along Main Street before you get downtown. We do not need T-shirt shops and do not need national franchises and we don't need souvenir shops. We need a list of something that the businesses could move in and out of as they seem needed and they are hampered by the process. Right now we would have to go to P&Z and be subjected to heavy mitigation. For us to go to a different conditional use we would be subjected to P&Z, new employee housing mitigation, parking etc. and if we wanted to go back to a restaurant you are talking two or three hundred thousand dollars. We need something more realistic and like Aspen used to be, resident oriented. Amy: I met last year with the Main Street group and some of their concerns with the character of Main Street is traffic and safety issues and also do some beautification things, to make it less of a freeway and more part of our community again. Some df the small lodges were concerned that it has become less of an appealing part of town for guest to stay in. Caroline: We need to leave the latitude for free enterprise and individualistic businesses to try and regulate what you don't want. You want to make sure that it is resident owned, owner occupied. National franchises would not be appropriate. We want to do something that will create the stop and go along Main Street so ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1995 that when people hit town they will stop. Probably the same type of things you are focusing on with the super block would be appropriate but you need to leave it open enough so that businesses can expand on their own individually. You never know what tomorrow will bring. Jake: What specifically would you want if you changed the ordinance? Caroline: You would need a purpose and scope then access what would be a positive impact to the neighborhood. Originally we wanted a kids sports wear which would be 8 to 18 years of age. Expand the conditional uses. Jake: Would changing the 0 zone to a NC zone do it? Gideon: You don't want to change the offices on Main Street to make them non-conforming. For example, even though their are eight or nine lodges on Main Street lodges are not even a conditional use on the o zone. That would be a good step to add lodges as a use that is permitted in the zone district. Amy: The office zone was created with the idea that their was not enough affordable office space in downtown and we do not want to encourage people to not have offices down their if we need that. Caroline: If you leave it under historical uses those could be the ones that apply for a conditional use and under it they have the latitude to move in and out of different conditional uses as the community needs it. It would be an incentive to keep the historical buildings that are left on Main Street. Gideon: We are looking for the flexibility of short term and long term. The ULLR has the flexibility of short and long term. If you were to take some of your rooms and put kitchen in them you would have definitive income coming in. It is the type of use that makes sense in the community. Certain lodges lend themselves to certain things. The small lodges are locked into no other use. Martha: It sounds logical to me. Roger: I would concur with everything except the 100% conversion although perhaps there should be the ability to do that. Simply that you apply for it doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get it. Linda: area. I feel it will be hard to keep Main Street a residential 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1995 Amy: I don't mean that it should be residential uses, I just mean that the historic character is residential and we have always struggled with that and how it has commercial uses and how does that impact it. Keep the residential boulevard. Gideon: While they have had residential character they have never had residential zoning. Probably what happened is that the development took place in the core area and it became less and less desirable to live on Main Street in terms of residential. Main Street is not exactly a quiet ambiance. Linda: Didn't historically residential areas like on a main boulevard have the option of renting rooms and little inns and shops and to restrict it to one use doesn't give them much chance to be successful. Roger: I certainly would recommend to council mixed uses. Caroline: Council had indicated to me that HPC should initiate the vision for Main Street. Jake: I feel Main Street should be downzoned including the historical properties because the last few projects that have come through have over powered the historic resources. If you set a priority up on Main Street of trying to preserve historical structures on Main Street you all most have to downzone from a FAR point of view. From a use point of view I would love to open it up and see all kind of. different use opening up. The FAR presently in terms of preservation and compatibility is not working. Roger: The last office building approved is sitting empty. Martha: Most of the buildings along Main Street are lodges on the west end. There aren't many opportunities for retail. Gideon: If you are suggesting FAR reduction then you have to suggest along with it affordable housing mitigation reduction. When you have a .75 on a 3000 sqft. lot you got the affordable housing requirement that takes up so much of your FAR that you can't do it. If you are looking at something viable they have to have some FAR and that is what the .25 did. Jake: Any residential on Main Street is not a good idea because of noise, safety, pollution and if any area should get relief from requirements it should be Main Street. In order to change uses you would have to set up an equivalency program. If you were a restaurant and wanted to do a new change in use you would equate 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1995 that to be such that it doesn't require any additional parking or additional employees all you are is changing the nature of what you are doing not the net impact. I see no problem with that. Caroline: Changing a restaurant would be a downuse. Jake: You are saying the uses are not broad enough. You want to circumvent the process and be able to go from A to B. Caroline: We want to be able to live here. We could go through a developmental review right now and go to a retail. We can't do that because it would cost $150,000 and who knows what else. It is 30,000 a parking space and we were under the line of doing employee housing mitigation and we would have to pay that in lieu. Then you would have to hire someone to get you through the process. Gideon: It always ends up to who can afford to go through the process and that is why we get large companies. Jake: Possible if you can't afford to go through the process you would could mitigate with only part of the size of the change in use requested and not pay the fee, possibly something like that would work. If you have a restaurant and have 5 employees and four parking spaces and you want to convert to retail, fine but when you do the conversion you can only do that much retail that yields 5 employees and x amount of parking spaces. There would be no mitigation costs to you. You also want to be able to have credit for the stuff you have already done. Someone would have to decide if their was an equivalency usage. Caroline: It should be straight forward, we have a 49 seat restaurant and that entails employees and what type of impact is on the neighborhood. Linda: Does out town allow us to do the country inn concept? Gideon: No, in the LP you have one use lodge and in the O office zone you aren't allowed a lodge as a permitted or conditional use so you have dilemmas there. Many of the conditional uses in the office zone tie into historic structures. Linda: We have said what we feel and changes need made. Martha: I like the idea of giving the lodges the flexibility that has been requested. Jake: What is magical about 2 per year. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1995 Gideon: That was something we just discussed and in reality the process is what you have to go through and in five years it will be determined impractical. We have a tendency here to reward the people we want to punish and punish the people we want to reward. Caroline: We need to find a way to make it palatable for those people who are trying to live here. Amy: The two issues are tied together and if we are going to have flexibility and optional uses then maybe in some way those properties don't cause impacts to neighborhoods. We need to continue to work and decide how procedurally it will happen and I feel it will be a good idea. We need to do another worksession. Martha: I feel a P&Z member should be included at the worksession. Gideon: Before if you had an historical structure and you expanded it within a certain amount you could be exempt from the affordable housing and other mitigation and that has been taken away. COMMlrNICATION Amy: We need to formalize the maintenance guide for homeowners hoping we could do working groups. design guidelines and make a who have older houses. I was MAROON CREEK BRIDGE - PH MOTION: Roger made the motion to table the Maroon Creek Bridge until April 12, 1995; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. 303 E. MAIN - KUHN WORKSESSION Discussion as to the use of brick or a brick combination on the addition. Also metal was discussed as a possible use. Roget Kuhn: Discussed lightwell and extending the roof. Roger; The committee feels we need to see these changes but probably they can all be worked out. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn, second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13