Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950426HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO~I~ISSION APRIL 26,1995 435 W. MAIN STREET - L'AUBERGE FINAL .... 1 205 S. MILL, CHANIN'S - MINOR ....... 5 434 W. SMUGGLER - PARTIAL DEMOLITION ..... 5 834 W. HALLAM - POPPIE'S BISTRO - CD-PH .... 5 316 E. HOPKINS - HOWLING WOLF - CD - PH .... 6 925 E. HYMAN - DISCUSSION ........ 8 AJAX MTN. BLDG ........... 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Donnelley Erdman with Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Linda Smisek and Sven Alstrom present. Excused were Les Holst, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko and Jeff McMenimen. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes of April 3, 1995; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Sven moved to add Ajax Mtn. Bldg. air conditioner to the agenda; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy: P&Z approved Aspen Physics plan B reduced by 20 feet in length. Sven: I like the long building but not at the end of Gilespie. 435 W. MAIN STREET - L'AUBERGE - FINAL Amy: This project has received its GMQS allotment and they can proceed with the project. They have responded to the conditions set at conceptual. They are requesting support to go to Board of Adjustments for their front setback variances along Main Street. Some of the cabins will be 1 1/2 feet from the lot line. That being the case I feel those cabins need to address the street a little bit differently than they do now. The conditions from conceptual were that one of the cabins should be removed and that has been done. Ail new construction be differentiated in a positive and contemporary way than the existing structures. Detailing of the existing cabins not be significantly altered. As many parking spaces should be surfaced with grass-crete or a similar porus surface not a hard surface. That they study the Main Street elevations especially the 1 1/2 story massing and look a opportunities for making a combination building. That has not been done and they give reasons in their application. Dave Gibson, Architect for Gibson & Reno: The vegetation is a major element in this project. Along Main Street we have the concern of how it fronts and how severe the elevations are. I have been trying to engender and to magnify a soft edge to this development. One of the ways we get this is through the recessive spaces that go back through the buildings and we have also removed some of the fencing and substituting hedges. There are several trees that will remain and we will add cottonwoods and aspen trees along the street to create a canopy. There is a layer of vegetation between the curb line and the buildings. The existing buildings are wood and shakes and board and batten. Our new cabins are a slightly larger volumes and we are finishing them in wood and corrugated metal. We want a progression within the complex. The materials change as well as the forms. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26,1995 Jake: What about the wall surface material? Dave Gibson; We have broken them down so that you can read the volume, fenestration and the roof forms. There will be no ornamentation. There are three wood treatments, one board and batten at 12 inches and one has two feet and there is a combination metal/wood. We want to retain intimate courtyard spaces. We have created an architectural front that addresses the street architecturally but that the actual opening of the units really needs to orient inward and that is both for function, noise and dust. Main Street is not a hospitable environment. Some cabins enter off the sidewalk and some enter from the side. Donnelley: Cabin 16 and 11 enter from the side. Jake: On cabin 16 and 11 there are parking spaces that are indicated as grassy areas. Are you using grass-crete? Dave: We are looking at grass-crete, grass-block, grass pavers and we are pricing them right now. Jake: From a streetscape perspective we are trying to get the cars out of the front yard and in both of the those locations including #9 the cars are pulled right up to the property line. I do not trust the grass-crete. Dave: It is working on this project as there is roadbase that has been hardened over the years and has successfully revegitated. Those areas would remain. Jake: I am talking about the actual placement of the car. Was there any study about off-centering the buildings and I am having a hard time supporting the frontyard setback. The interior spaces are less valuable to me than having that space out at the street edge. Sven: I am concerned about the numerous cars also and I feel there is a pedestrian visual density. I do feel the project fits Main Street and cries out to be completed but I am a little concerned about the visual density. Donnelley: Yes, the cars are not shown on the model. How many parking spaces do you have? Gideon Kaufman: This is an old fashioned motor court and it offers people who come to town with bicycles on their cars etc. the ability to drive right next to the cabin. If that doesn't occur what they are trying to do will not work. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26,1995 Jake: Part of the motion was to look at the Main Street elevation. Donnelley: Cabin 11 and 17 have a fence in front of them the height of the car for a screening element. Dave Gibson: Cabin #9 has a dense hedge of pines. Today there is zero screening for any of these and in the new plan you either had a fence or hedge for screening the parking so it will have less of an impact. Gideon: There are three curb cuts that currently exist and it will be landscaped and you access off the alley. That was a requirement of engineering. Roger: Did you look at introducing one or two doors along Main Street rather than a window? Dave: It was partly to reduce the noise typically the bathroom is where the windows an additional buffer from the sound. from Main Street and are so that you have Gideon: My only question is whether you want too much density and will it stand out. What does the board recommend. Donnelley: The size of the trees and spacing can be indicated here to a certain extent and worked out at construction. An even grain should be maintained. If you make it self conscious then you are trying to hard tie the architecture and the architecture is making a subtle statement about this being the central portion of the project through the massing and higher eave height and chimneys. If you try and play other games with vegetation it might not come out as well. Roger: I would approve the project and I see it as a motor court and I feel we need Jeff's input on landscaping and I feel there needs to be a well defined path from the entry of the cottages to the Main Street sidewalk and that you don't have a large tree blocking that. I like the feeling of a village within a village. Dave: I like that idea and can incorporate it. Donnelley: This is a complex of structures in a very small scale and I feel that the entrances should stay more directed toward the interior. Jake: On cottage A the all metal design, does the metal go straight to the ground? Dave: It would stop short of the concrete. We are using corrugated metal untreated and it would also be on the roof. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26,1995 MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant final approval and support the applicants request for front setback variances at the Board of Adjustment; second by Jake. Motion dies for lack of vote. DISCUSSION Jake: I would separate the motion into two motions. Sven: I would like an amendment on the landscaping. MOTION: Jake moved that HPC grant final approval for 435 W. Main Street; second by Sven. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC send a letter to the Board of Adjustment supporting the applicants request for setback variances at 435 W. Main Street for the following reasons: 1) To develop the architectural feel of a village within a village. 2) To allow less large massing and thus maintain the feeling of small scale and space between each unit. 3) And it continues a setback pattern that already exists on much of Main Street. 4) As an historical perspective there was a front and rear variance granted in 1959 by the board. second by Jake. DISCUSSION Jake: The space that is being gained by the variance I do not feel is being utilized. I am also looking at the impact on the pedestrian as he walks down Main Street. For example if you moved the two little cottages forward and moved the entries so that they faced the little street going through then there starts to be an exchange in the public realm in theory. Roger: There are benches at the bus stop at that location. Gideon: There is a pedestrian feeling already there as you have 20 feet between the street and the property line. Sven: I support the variances because I feel it is a good solution in dealing with the entire block. I feel the density of the cars and cottages 13 and 14 fills the site in too much so I would not have approved conceptual. VOTE: Motion carries 4-1. Jake opposed. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26,1995 205 S. MILL, CHANIN'S - MINOR Donnelley: This is a minor development for a railing and deck changes. MOTION: Jake moved that HPC approve the minor development application as submitted for 205 S. Mill Street with one condition that the doors that are outward swinging be made to swing inward; second by Roger. DISCUSSION Jake: If outward doors are left open it causes clutter and I feel the inward door are a cleaner solution. Donnelley: In this case one can swing 90 degrees and the other would swing 180 back against the fenestration of the inside. Functionally they work better outward swinging. This is not an egress deck so they could go either way. There is always the problem with weather on inswinging doors. Roger: I don't see a problem if they open inward. Donnelley: You only see it from across the street not from the sidewalk. Dave Gibson: We may desire screens in the summer over the doors in which case the screens would then be on the outside. MOTION WITHDP~AWN MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant minor development approval for 205 S. Mill Street as presented, second by Linda. Motion carries 4-1. Jake opposed. 434 W. SMUGGLER - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Sven stepped down due to conflict of interest. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC approve partial demolition of the non historic garage at 434 W. Smuggler Lots K and L Block 33 City and Townsite of Aspen as drawn; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. 834 W. HALLAM - POPPIE'S BISTRO - CD-PH Amy: We looked at this project about a year ago and the applicant has been working with city council and was given an increase of FAR to match what is allowed in the office zone district so that they could do an employee unit. I am recommending approval with some 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26,1995 discussion about the proximity of the gable end to the historic house. It appears that the addition that lies behind the historic house is original. Jake stepped down. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Mike Hull, owner: We re-zoned the property in order to get more FAR. It was residential with a non-conforming use and is now office with a restaurant conditional use. We are looking essentially at the same project. We are extending an existing wall out three feet on the eastern exposure to locate another bathroom. It amounts to around 50 sqft. The impact is minimal. Amy: They also want to change the front walk. Michael Hull: We want to make the sidewalk handicapped accessible. I hope at final we will have something. Amy: The porch is not original to the house. MOTION: Roger moved to approve conceptual development at 824 W. Hallam as drawn lots K & L Block; second by Sven. Ail in favor, motion carries. DISCUSSION Donnelley: Do you want to make an addition to the motion about the sidewalk. Sven: I have landscape and streetscape issue but they will be handled at final. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. VOTE: Ail in favor, motion carries. 316 E. HOPKINS - HOWLING WOLF - CD - PH Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Amy: The goal is to provide an upper floor deck for additional seating. In general I am in support of the project but there are a number if items we need to discuss. Their parking spaces do not function as parking spaces in the eyes of the zoning department. A cooler door opens into one of the parking spaces and a trash enclosure is not easily accessible to the alley. It is possible that the parking will not work and they may need to request variances. They did propose a solid railing wood siding on the 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26,1995 second floor and I am recommending they break that up with areas of open rail. Their designer said they didn't use rail all the way around as they thought it would be a busy element. The canopy over the bar drains over the neighbors property and that may be an issue. They have shown siding at the ground level to screen the cars and I feel that adds to the bulk of the structure not to be removed. They need to provide more about the structure of the canopy and they intend to use planting around the deck. Possibly some other materials should be used to soften the effect in the alley. Steve Levitt, owner: It is imperative that we increase summer seating. Rod Dyer was the architect. There is horizontal wood siding and we can eliminate it but we would have a problem with the cars parking diagonally at the bank. The bank could put in curving so the cars do not come onto our property. The parking space issue: There was a shed removed in 1991 and the back lot now has six parking spaces. Paul Levine, owner: Rynco has been renting the spaces out and we rent from them. The beer cooler will be in our parking spaces that we are renting. If there is a problem with the door we can shift it. We are taking the two spaces and turning them into one for the purpose of using another cooler. Amy: I feel you have a restaurant and it needs onsite parking. Steve Levitt: The parking is a separate lease with the property. The parking is not within our control. If we were acting as landlord on those spots we would take them but we aren't. They are rented in pairs. The drainage is on the drawing also. Roger: You haven't designed your canopy yet? Steve: No we are trying to design something that is functional in the summer but is also sturdy enough not to be damaged. Donnelley: Is the dining deck going to be a water material and where will it drain? Steve: We are doing a steel structure with wood and an 1 1/4 concrete which would have ice melt in the winter and then draining into the sump in the parking lot. Steve: We could run system gutters on the east side. Roger: If this is built will the people parking at the bank getting out of their cars on the little sidewalk hit your structure? HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26,1995 Steve: The sidewalk does not run all the way to the back. The bank has two teller booths set up and the third spot has the company van so you can't get through except by the walkway. Jake: You don't intend to use this in the winter but you are snowmelting it? Steve: Yes, for the purpose of snow removal in the winter we are heating it. I do not want to have to shovel snow. Amy: I recommended interspersing the siding, open rail so that you could look through it a little. It looks better than a solid wall. Sven: On the railing it would be more interesting if you treating it as a wall. Pretend the entire thing was on ground level. Steve: We are concerned about customers looking out and we were thinking of spruce trees or a flower lattice, something to screen it. Sven: You will have south sunlight. Jake: I want to encourage a few things: Think in terms of working with the historical components in forms of materials. I also feel landscaping is important. Sven: You need an articulated surface on the east elevation. Roger: I would urge the committee to grant conceptual with conditions and I would be willing to give some time in a worksession. Amy: We could grant conceptual and final at the next meeting. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. MOTION: Roger moved to table the application for 316 E. Hopkins, Lot 0 Block 80, Howling Wolf to May 10th at which time the applicant can present conceptual and final with the understanding that there will be a worksession; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. 925 E. HYMA/~ - DISCUSSION Amy: We have gone through first reading of the rock with council and the applicant want to discuss the issue. Roger: I Donnelley: feel the rock should be pursued. I also feel it should be pursued. 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26,1995 Chuck Brandt: Ail sites designated similar to the rock are public ownership sites. Here we have a private ownership and we have a hardship created by the rock. It is 23 feet from the property line. Donnelley: This is a unique situation and if removed we would have no other old reference that had historic references like this. I don't think that the owners design representation has been inspired as his legal representation. We felt and there are a number of architects on the board that this was a great opportunity to come up with a successful design which would even been enhanced by the presence of the monument. The design presentation that was made was perhaps fighting with it rather than using it as an inspired take off to produce a worthwhile project. The project was not particularly inspired be there a rock or not. If we had someone that represented the owner who could prove to us that it could not be developed successfully then we would have considered that. Those of us who are familiar with the design possibilities of the site felt that there were a lot of benefits that could be offered to the owner that far out weighed any negatives that were presented by the presence of the bolder at one point on the site and we still feel that way. We feel strongly that there are a lot of design opportunities by having this landmark designation and the owner would be given flexibility which otherwise would not be given. Chuck Brandt: Where are we now with those feasibilities? Amy: You are not affected. Ord. #35 does not affect the 500 sqft. bonus or parking and setback variances. Sven: I agree with Donnelley. Part of the strength of this issue is that we are trying to hold onto our history to the extent that the industrial age was represented in Aspen by the mining era and perhaps a corporate age was represented by Paepcke's as a corporate retreat and now we are in a post industrial information society and that was one of the strengths the Physics building as it is a building of communication at that level. We would like to see history traced as you go from industrial corporate. It is the marking of time. Roger: I would ask that the owner walk around town and put down his thoughts of what he wants to do with the property and how he can innovate work with the landmark. There was no thought to the neighborhood character guidelines. 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26,1995 AJAX MTN. BLDG. Amy: You cannot see any of the rooftop mechanical equipment. is three feet high. It Roger: I do not think it will exceed the parapet wall and if it does it can be painted out. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC allow the insulation of the airconditioning unit at Ajax Mtn. Bldg. as draw. If it should exceed the parapet wall that it would be painted to match the brick of the building; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. second by Linda. Ail in favor, Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk