Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910313HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of March 13, 1991 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Charles Cunniffe, Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport and Jake Vickery present. Don Erdman and Roger Moyer were excused. CONCEI~TUAL DE~rELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC ~EARING: 620 W. F,t~T,T,AM Charles stepped down. Joe stepped down as neighbor. one of his partners is representing the Roxanne presented the overview of the project as attached in records (see memo March 13, 1991). At the last meeting general direction was given to the applicant to restudy the newly proposed tower element and restudy the over-scale chimney and breaking up the east and west elevations. Also looking at the curved windows and to provide a correctly revised massing model at this meeting. There has not been a reduction in the over scale chimney which was strongly recommended and with regard to the material they are proposing cedar shake on the chimneys and the Board might want to consider brick. Our primary concern focuses on the tower elements. We question whether the stair could be moved to the north part of the addition. We feel the tower becomes the focal point of that particular building instead of the historic resource which is bypassing the goal of preservation. Jan Darrington and Richard Klein presented: To accommodate the neighbor we have moved it over to the east property line and giving as much space between it and the neighbor. Richard: In reference to the fenestration we have simplified the area of the south elevation. Concerning the chimneys the height and width have been reduced by more than a foot. There are a number of steep pitched roofs in the neighborhood which are typical of a victorian building. The use of materials that are similar in texture and scale to those used historically are recommended. In the context of the neighborhood there are a number of areas where shingles are used and a number of different roof pitches and also metal roofs were used. We feel the tower element is a good transition element for the little house to the building behind. Chairman Bill Poss opened the continued public hearing. Ann Ware, neighbor who resides at 624 W. Bleeker (adjacent neighbor). The size of the addition is still an issue but we appreciate the attempt to mitigate. The tower element still needs restudied. There should be a commitment to open space in the City of Aspen. Elimination of the tower would simplify the south facade. I also have concern with the size and height of Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 the addition. When I walk out of the front of my house I see the "Berlin Wall Affect". I was under the impression that the front of the cottage was going to be moved forward seven feet and from what I measured it would be in front of our vestibule and in front of everything else in the block. Possibly put the parking place on the other side. The variances are allowing them to maximize their FAR and I don't feel they have proven that that is necessary. Steve Arthur, friend of the Ware family: From Hallam Street looking directly at the house, the rear addition portion overwhelms the historic cabin with or without the tower. It needs to be scaled down in size. The house is within 17 feet of the rear lot line and they are required to have 20 feet. They are asking for three feet there and a 4 ft. variance on the garage. The garage will come within one foot of the lot line. We feel they have not met any requirements for a variance since they are supposed to present a special need. The only special need is so that they can maximize their FAR for a speculative venture and maximize their profit. On the east side of the house there is more room and possibly they could center the garage to break up the "Berlin Wall". If the historic cottage is centered more on their lot that would break up the wall. We are concerned with the long line. Jan: The reason for the rear setback is because we were required to push the house back in order to get the separation link from the previous meeting. We are asking for these variances in order to make that work. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Les: My feeling is if they don't get the variance you will have a monolithic block. There needs to be a change in materials and a lowering of the pitch in order for it to blend. Steve Arthur: There are indentations but no major breaks. Glenn: I am concerned about the rear yard setback variance, possibly slide the garage over. I still feel the tower element is a good separation element between the old and new addition. Georgeann: Looking at the plan possibly the garage could be moved over and I would like to see that addressed. We need to consider the neighbors needs. Jake: I like the tower but when you look at it, it is creating a two story mass and I feel there are other options. The tower is exasperating the situation with the neighbor. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 Bill: I am in favor of the proposal and the architect has left the identity of the historic structure. I agree with Staff that the tower roof needs lowered. Calling attention to different materials compounds the problem; compatible materials would be recommended. If the chimneys had more of a horizontal siding they would be more compatible to the entire project. I have no problem with them being wood. I would be in favor of the rear yard variation if we could give more relief to the west side and redesigning the stair to allow more relief on the west facade. Richard Klein: We will look at moving the garage. Again we rather like the shingle but are willing to look at siding. Jan Darrington: One concern of the Board is the metal roof and we can look at making it the same pitch as the house and use shingles. Bill: Will they be painted or stained. Jan: Probably stained to be compatible with the original. Georgeann: I have no problem with the shingles but they should be painted similar to the color of the boarding. I am also not unhappy with the shingles on the chimneys because in both cases this makes a contemporary statement. MOTION: Jake made the motion to approve the conceptual development application as revised for 620 W. Hallam finding that the development review, partial demolition and relocation standards have all been met, including a finding that the variations for parking (reduction of two spaces) and rear yard setback are more compatible in character. All Final Development application requirements and relocation bond posting as stated in the Land Use Regulations shall be adhered to. Other conditions: 1) Tower element be lowered 2) 3) Shingle roof Restudy of siding material 4) Bond be posted with the Engineering Department as required in Sec. 7-602 (D) (4) for relocation. 5) Detailed preservation plan for cottage materials and architectural features, including all porch details. Partial demolition shall not include the removal of any cottage materials on the facade or other areas currently exposed that are proposed to remain exposed. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 6) Existing materials shall be salvaged for reuse on the historic cottage in particular the newly exposed east and west elevations. 7) Detailed site and landscape plan indicating existing vegetation and front (south elevation) plaza treatment. Fencing shall be detailed and shall be open in nature. 8) Restudy chimneys and surface materials of chimneys. 9) Restudy to move the original house and garage elements to the east as much as possible. Motion was second by Georgeann. Ail in favor, motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING - PIONEER PARK, LOT 1 Charles reseated. Joe stepped down. Proof of publication will be presented to Roxanne, applicant forgot affidavit. Roxanne presented the over-view of the project at attached in records (see memo dated March 13, 1991). Conceptual development including detached accessory dwelling unit, partial demolition, rear yard and side yard setback variations, FAR variation, site coverage variation for Cottage (detached ADU) and demolition of (non-historic) detached garage. The application did not deal with the historic fence and that needs to be addressed. An encroachment is required for this. Overall the detached dwelling unit is a good design and we are supportive. The roofline guideline has been met. Cresting is proposed and according to photographs it was originally on the house. We are also recommending a restudy of the bricked in ventilation pipes and possibly that could be addressed. We are recommending that all the original doors remain and replacement doors be detailed in the final application. The south elevation door on the carriage house is inappropriate and appears colonial. We are also recommending that the original windows stay and storm windows should be interior. The scale and verticality of the new proposed windows are excellent. The brick arched lentils should be eliminated from the addition on the east and west first floor rear elevation. Representation of porch material is required at final. The metal railing proposed needs to be restudied, possibly a simple wood railing. The internal garden wall is proposed to be brick and metal and we find it incompatible and 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 out of place. We are also recommending since this house was painted that it continue to be painted. A bond and a detailed engineering report should be included. The demolition standards have not been addressed and that needs to occur. Les Kaplan: I intend to be the partner of the present owners of the existing house. I will go over the problems of the existing structure and what our rehabilitation objectives are and what the five fundamental elements are of our design approach are to the project. What we do not have is a step by step detailed presentation of everything that we are going to be doing as it is in the packet. For the record everything that we have in the application that deals with the specific design elements be incorporated in the records as being proposed for this conceptual application even if it doesn't come up. Roxanne: Your application presented in each packet is part of the record. Les Kaplan presented problems association with existing structures, rehabilitation objectives, fundamental design elements, as attached in records (page 8 of HPC application for conceptual review of significant historic development). We do not need any variation at all on site coverage or Floor area in order to accomplish this project other than those variations which could be necessary to include the cottage infill project. *Slide show of existing elevations and proposed elevations for all four sides presented at the meeting. Les Kaplan: There was a cupula on the house. Les: The mansard roof is the orchestrating feature in this project that differentiates between the old and new. Bruce Sutherland, architect: The parapet existed around 1950 and when it was discussed nobody on the Board liked the rounded shape and that is why we have what we have here. On the west side of the house the six basement windows can only be seen in the courtyard. We would still like to keep the cresting and adds a level of class to this house. Our goal is to take the metal flu pipes and build a smaller chimney. On the doors we are proposing a french type door and plain. We will submit light fixtures for approval. We are asking for no FAR increase over what is existing today and no site coverage than what exists today. In the event we do a cottage infill we are asking some relief on the site coverage. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 Mary Martin: I approve of the plan and support keeping the cresting. Sally Roach, neighbor: The plan is very excitable and they are doing an excellent job. Mr. Stranaberg: I live directly across the street from Pioneer Park and I heard Mr. Kaplan say this was going to be a meeting place. Is this going to be sold as a residence. Les: It will be a residence and not a meeting place. DISCUSSION OF THE 18 CONDITIONS OF LOT 1 - PRESENTED BY ROXANNE Roxanne: Regarding condition #1 on the AUDunlt, it should be tabled until the numbers are figured out. The demolition standards have not been met for the garage. The Planning Office is preparing an amendment to the code to allow the demolition of non-historic structures on parcels within historic districts to not have to meet all the standards for demolition. Bruce Sutherland: We can meet the standards. Bill: The Board feels this issue can be worked out. #2 Detailed landscape plan. Bill: The applicant had agreed to submit a detailed landscape plan at final. Georgeann: I would like the terraces addressed. Jake: I would like the landscape treatment in front of the basement windows to be addressed. #3 Encroachment license for the wrought iron fence. Bill: They are required to do an encroachment and the applicant has agreed to do so. #4 Cottage: Reduced height and elimination of the bay window. Roxanne: This issue will be addressed at a later date. #5 Parapet of carriage house addition remains the same as existing. Bruce Sutherland: We will do it as it was. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 Bill: The arch will remain and be restored. #6 Cresting remain and be restored. Bruce: We agree on that issue. #7 Restudy, reduce bricked in ventilation pipes. Bruce: We will do that and keep them small. #8 Original doors remain, replacement door detailed in Final. Bruce: We agree on this issue. Les Kaplan: The only original door is the front door. In our renovation of the house we would like to replace the east door. #9 Restudy/revise south elevation carriage house door. Bruce: We agree to do. #10 Representative photos of all lighting fixtures at Final. Bruce: We agree to do. #11 Original windows be retained; storms used only on interior. Research for appropriate manner of window preservation and deteriorated sills identified in Final plan. Bruce: We agree. #12 Eliminate brick arched lintels from rear addition. Bruce: We like what we designed and do not want to eliminate the brick arched lintels but are willing to restudy them. Roxanne: The intent is to simplify the windows so that the historic element reads through. Georgeann: We need to discuss whether windows should be exact copies or slightly different. Charles: On Crossroads Drug that issue came up and the windows were very similar but when you got up close they were different. Bill: If Bruce would restudy and come up with a similar window that we could look at at Final. Mary Martin: The Committee needs to restudy what is appropriate 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 in reference to windows. Les Kaplan: The arched windows keep a harmony of design. #13 Restudy/reduce/eliminate basement level windows and light wells (light well placement as well). Glenn: The windows are behind the fencing and low and they are on the east and west elevation. They will not be perceived from the street and I am not opposed. Georgeann: I am not opposed but want to see at Final the exact details of the window wells. Jake: Possibly a restudy of the rhythm of the windows or the lentils. Bruce: I am willing to restudy but we prefer to keep them. #14 South elevation carriage house dormer - restore to original central position (one) Georgeann: Two dormers are fine. Roxanne: If two are going to be used they should be different. #15 Representative sample of porch materials at Final. Bruce: We will provide that information. #16 Metal railing on east stoop to be restudied. Georgeann: We were not clear on the railing as to whether it should be wood or metal. Bruce: I think we would like to see wood. Bill: The concensus of the Board is a wood railing on the east stoop. #17 Clarification on break in materials on carriage house and addition. Bruce: We will provide that. #18 Eliminate brick/metal interior garden wall. Les: What is required due to the swimming pool? 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 Bruce: I believe 6 feet. Georgeann: A simplified cresting would be appropriate. I would like to see the brick part lower and longer cresting at the top and keep it as low as legally possible. I don't want it to become a powerful element. Bill: I might recommend that we restudy the brick metal interior garden wall. Bruce: We are trying to reduce its impact on the outside and on the inside it is five feet. By the time the landscaping is complete it will be around 4 feet. Glenn: Functionally to make it more private due to the pool etc. the fence is a nice proposal. Bill: Possibly lower the brick a little. #19 Bond and detailed Engineering report for excavation structural work on the main house. Bruce: We have no problem with providing that. #20 Detailed preservation plan for materials and architectural features. Bruce: We can provide that. #21 Compliance with Demolition Standards found in Section 7-602 B #22 Detailed preservation plan for historic materials and architectural features. #23 Existing wrought iron fence on the perimeter of the property would be repaired in place. #24 Massing model of how the other buildings relate. #25 Exact material representation be given. Roxanne: The material for the addition has not be addressed. They are proposing brick and Staff recommends that in this case brick is appropriate. Bill: The existing addition that is going to be taken down is wood. I feel it is up to the applicant. In the applicants favor he is trying to create a presence of permanence that this building has and the brick does do that. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 Glenn: I can go either way. Bill: Possibly Staff and the the applicant and work out the and old. monitor could work together with details of compatibility of new Georgeann: The front of the garage has been pulled out about three feet but the gap between the carriage house and the garage is very tiny now and it will not be big enough to read as a separation. I would like the architects to restudy that a little. Also the steps in the back of the house seem over powering for the back of the house. Doesn't seem in keeping. Bill: What does the committee feel about the steps. Bruce: We can restudy that issue. Roxanne: · The Board will have to table the detached accessory dwelling unit. Bill: The Committee in general is in favor of this conceptual design. Bill entertained a motion: Georgeann: # 12, 14, 18 of Roxanne's conditions are restudy and #4 is on hold and #7 is to reduce. Chairman Bill Poss entertained the motion. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed for 442 W. Bleeker St. finding that the Development Review Standards have been met, Demolition and Partial Demolition standards will be met at final. The applicable Secretary of Interior Standards have been met. All final development application requirements shall be met per code. Conditions placed upon this approval as discussed at this meeting 1 thru #25 as revised with the appropriate re-study for #12, #14 and #18 be a part of this approval. Additional restudy of the rear stairs be included as a condition of this approval. #4 of the conditions is tabled. Motion second by Georgeann. Ail in favor, motion carries. Bill: The HPC encourages the cottage infill that is proposed to take place and the Board recommends whatever method to do that in the way of site coverage variation. (straw poll taken and passed) 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 PIONEER PARK, LOT 2, ADVISORY ONLY Roxanne: This is regarding the advisory review of Lot 2. Staff finds that the design is contrary to the goals the applicant told Staff he was trying to achieve with the new development. Its exuberant mock Queen Anne styling competes significantly with the adjacent National Register structure. Due to the tremendous number of formal decorative elements that these demand attention and detract from the adjacent historic resource. This is quite a challenge for the HPC to give advisory review of a victorian revival structure, one that is compatible in the west end and takes its que's from the historic resource yet doesn't compete and doesn't try to be deceptive in age. The Board needs to carefully consider the perpetual impact this design will have on Pioneer Park and does this particular level of victorian revival diminish the integrity of the west end, of the neighborhood context and of the adjacent historic resource. HPC needs to work together with the applicant and come up with a solution. Les Kaplan: We have said the Pioneer Park project should be the dominant structure on the block. Whatever we do on lot 2 that will be the case by virtue of the way the trees surround the property on Lot 2. Lot 2 is much less exposed than Lot 1. The house on Lot 1 has the capability to stand on its own. On Lot 2 we have set back this house four or five feet and it is set within the trees. We have maintained as much open space between the two houses. The style is victorian and we are open to comments by the HPC even though this is advisory. Charles: I wonder why we don't have a model as we have had models for other advisory cases. We are to study scale and massing relative to the Pioneer Park building and I don't think we can do that properly without a model to show how the two buildings relate. Les Kaplan: What is advisory review. There is a set of covenants on this property which indicate the HPC is to have advisory review. I have had this discussion with the City Attorney in the hope of clarifying what advisory is. He interprets advisory to mean once I have my plans ready to submit to the Bldg. Dept. I have to run them by the HPC. Roxanne stated that advisory means that I have to submit everything as if it was a mandatory review but the extent of comment that the Board has is only advisory. So I don't know. Bill: In past reviews it has always been easier for us to review with massing models etc. when we are dealing with massing and siting. That is why we ask for models. 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 Les Kaplan: A model is an expense. If the intent of an advisory meeting is to maximize the amount of committee and public input, then I would ask why a public hearing isn't necessary for advisory review and I would request that we conduct this advisory review the same way you would conduct a mandatory review and have a public hearing for it. I would also ask that at the conclusion of the advisory review in the same way you do a mandatory review you pass a resolution indicating that you have reviewed this on an advisory basis and what the findings are. Keep it exactly the same way. If the requirements on me are the same then I ask that the procedure be the same. Bill: We don't have a model but we want to review it and Les Kaplan wants our comments so we should do that. We are here to work together and work this out. Les Kaplan: What is expected of me at advisory review and what do I expect from the Committee as a result of the advisory review? Bill: It is not spelled out in our code as to how we do advisory review. Jed Caswall, City Attorney: There is no provision under existing ordinances that #1 provides for advisory review or, #2 defines what advisory review should be if in fact an application is submitted for advisory review, so I cannot direct you to any hard and fast rules and guidelines. In the absence of specific provisions it would be my judgment that what you should do is do what you feel is reasonable under the circumstances to conduct what you believe is advisory review. There were covenants that were executed on this property pursuant to previous landuse approval which defines the authority of the Historic Preservation Committee in regard to development on Lot 2 as follows: Prior to any new construction on Lot 2 the owner thereof shall submit to the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission sufficient information (architectural drawings and the like) so that the HPC can evaluate the proposed construction and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate. In this respect the HPC shall however act and shall be seen as acting only in an advisory capacity and shall not be in any manor obligatory upon the owner of Lot 2 to incorporate any recommendations of the HPC into the proposed construction and the disapproval by HPC of any proposed new construction of Lot 2 shall be without consequence what-so- ever. Based upon that language and to address specifically, Mr. Kaplan felt that the expense of putting together a model was not warranted so he didn't do it. I wouldn't find that that does any violence to the covenant that I just read. It states that he shall submit architectural drawings and the like. I hear the HPC 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 saying that it would have been nice to have a model say that you would require it of him. Roxanne: Unless the HPC considered that to be information. but I can't sufficient Bill: We are not dead locked on the model. Jed Caswall: The key is: It says so that the HPC can evaluate the proposed construction and make such recommendations that it deems appropriate. If the HPC feels that based upon the information presented by the applicant is insufficient to make recommendations it just should note that. I feel the intent was to have HPC input and help the applicant design and construct a structure which would be compatible with the historic nature of the property. PUBLIC COMMENT Mary Martin: I agree with Staff this time and it is architecturally out of place. If HPC needs help on this one the neighbors should in fact get together and form a committee to help. This house has to satisfy the community and this is a very important property. As you know the people did try to raise money and buy it. As neighbors we would like to come and talk about it and subdue the design to some extent. Chester Firestein: I reside at 407 W. Hallam which backs directly up to the proposing structure. I would have allot of comments if there is going to be an official public hearing and obviously this is not one. Also if notice is to be given to all people within 300 feet of the project so that there will be an additional opportunity to make comment. As the public we are caught in the same kind of bind that the committee is caught. We need to know what the procedure is going to be so I can make my comments now or wait for the public hearing. Bill: We are not required to have a public hearing. Jed Caswall: If the applicant so desired to understanding with the HPC to go through a formal so wishes to do so. enter into an HPC process if Representative for the Weavers: I would have to confer with the Weaver's council, Bob Hughes. By in large Mr. Kaplan is an option owner on this lot and the option price is variable. I know that Les Kaplan intends to abide by the recommendations of the committee and I know he wouldn't mind meeting with the neighbors. I could not extend, without having Mr. Hughes here to 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 advise, as to whether we should consent to a public hearing. An informal meeting with the neighbors offered by Mary Martin is a good idea. We could offer the house as a place for it. Bill: There was notice regarding lot 1, and most of the neighbors are here. Georgeann: We are bogged down with legalism. Lets give Les our recommendations and suggestions and invite him if he would like to come back and show it to us again with changes but it is not incumbent of him. Les: We have a great opportunity to give you input that would be very valid and hopefully you will take some of it under advisement and we will keep it simple. Les Kaplan: By advisory the review would be approached as one meeting and if I want to come back for more advice and respond I have that option to do so or is there a final stage to the review. Jed Caswall: The HPC is willing to give you their comments and if you want to come back and follow up they are willing to do so. Bill: We are willing and look forward to working with you. Bill: There are people here who came to speak. Chester Firestein: I came to speak but it is confusing to me. I want the opportunity to speak at the correct forum in which to make my comments. It is unfair to me to be left in this kind of dilema. At the beginning of the meeting I was encouraged by Les Kaplan's offer to cooperate with the Committee and work with the neighbors and to do allot of things. But unless there is a format for that and for example if you say the committee will have a public hearing, it is not authorized to do it therefore it is within your purview to do apparently according to council. If you will hold a public hearing at the next meeting then in the interest of time tonight I will not make this presentation and be very happy to send copies of it to the committee members and Les etc. It is unfair to leave public comments in this kind of limbo. Jed Caswall: I will render an opinion for the HPC that pursuant to my understanding of the covenant that by appearing here tonight and presenting the information that he has presented that the owner of lot #2 has probably complied with his obligations that have been set forth in the covenant. If he feels satisfied after tonight then he not need come back and it would be solely 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 within his discretion as to whether or not he wishes to come back for further comment. If people wish to be heard regarding this they should speak tonight because this may be their only opportunity. Jane Ellen Hamilton, representing Chet Firestein: Is it not true that the HPC has to make a recommendation in order to conclude this application. Jed Caswall: No, because it says that HPC can make such recommendations that it deems appropriate and they could refrain from making a recommendation. Potentially what I have tried to say is that after tonight's meeting that it would be my opinion that the applicant has met the requirements of the covenant and there need be no further action what-so-ever on his part. Jane Ellen Hamilton: I would like the HPC to consider the consequences of that because if the applicant wakes up tomorrow morning and decides not to sit down with the neighbors or anyone else to consider their recommendations he does not have to. He can go out tomorrow and pull a building permit with the plans that he has submitted without making a single change because that is what the deed restrictions read. You need to do two things tonight #1 Consider the consequences of that, this is a very historical sensitive project. Anything that is done there will effect not only the Pioneer Park parcel but the entire west end. If you give final recommendation tonight you may not like what you see. #2 There may be some opportunities for you to assume what some people in the room feel you should have and that is the ability to have a mandatory review over any part of this parcel that gets developed. There is some questions whether or not it was included when it was designated in 1983 as an historic site and so you may wish to petition City Council to designate the entire parcel as historic or you may wish to table this and re- visit among yourself what the consequences are. Mr. Strenberg: The Weavers own the parcel and they aren't here. What is the situation, is he going to develop it and sell it to somebody for the Weavers ? Jed Caswall: the developer the property. It is my understanding that Mr. Kaplan is here as of the property on behalf of the Weavers who own Mary Martin: This is a spec house so there is no owner who says I want to have that specific house. If Mr. Kaplan will set a date I will call all interested parties and put a notice in the paper to discuss the application. 15 Les Kaplan: Mary Martin: Les Kaplan: weeks. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 Les: All I can do is make a recommendation to you and we need that to happen tonight. I would like to see another public hearing with the neighbors. Bill: I would suggest a work session. I am very interested in getting input. I will contact people. Can we handle a worksession within the next two Jake: Bill: an obligation to keep the meeting on schedule. Why can't we handle this now? We are 1 hr. behind and this could take an hour and I have Georgeann: We are asking Les Kaplan to come back and he has agreed to do so. Jane Ellen Hamilton: Is this a proper way to continue this not terminate the process? Jed: There is no designated process and this is a solution. Bill: Do I have a motion to table? and reasonable Les Kaplan: We simply have agreed that in the spirit of exchanging ideas we have decided to table this until we have had the opportunity to do so. MOTION: Les made the motion to table the advisory review of Pioneer Park Lot 2 to a worksession to be scheduled within the next two weeks; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC }~2~RING - ASPEN MEADOWS ACADEMIC & MUSIC/~EHEARSAL Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (see memo dated March 13, 1991). Materials will have to be brought in for final review; landscape plan; fencing etc. There are issues regarding the fox mound and the walk way that need to be clarified tonight. We are also recommending that the roadway width into the chalet area for emergency use only be reduced to as narrow as possible. The bus drop off area by the parking lot near the tent be detailed. Bike parking needs to be 16 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 addressed. If the mound is the correct way to go it should be reduced in height and pulled away to the south east from the tent to allow for breathing space between the tent and that the treatment of the walls be restudied. The treatment of the mound needs to be addressed also. The berming around the tent needs to be addressed as to whether it is appropriate or not. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: The institute has always felt that the HPC's advisory role of the chalets included all the lodge buildings including the Kresge bldg. There are now seven lodge buildings instead of six. That change came about after meetings with the sub-committee. The sub-committee was concerned about the proximity of the one building to the health club and to move the building back away from the health club. The second issue addressed the health club, in the original presentation that was made we talked about 1800 sq. ft. of addition to the health club. After further study we decided to bifurcate and will have one mens and one ladies locker room. There is no change in the square footage. On #14 diagram we are enclosing the deck. Another change has to do with the pro shop drawing #18. One issue raised was to break up the linear quality of the tennis courts by the road. We were going to do it with the two stone walls and then the architect came up with putting a bathroom in that vicinity. Also the size has increased by 200 feet because in the transportation study they wanted to encourage bicycles so we will now have bicycle rentals and needed the extra footage. A question was made about the intrusion of the tennis court into the race track. The tennis courts are being moved back to a flat area that is not historic. We will not intrude into the historical race track. There was a question concerning open places for bicycles. We are planning for storage of up to 100 bikes in the parking garage in addition to the regular storage places. The concept has been addressed and the encouragement. Fred Smith, architect: Roxanne talked about the width of the roadways. They are shown as 16 feet per the fire marshal and there is discussion of reducing them. Level of demolition: We desire to preserve the location of the buildings, scale and image of the building and much of the structures that could be saved as possible. Building 1, 2, 4 are in the same location and 6 is the existing Kresge bldg. #7, #3, #5 are all new. We are looking at predominantly wood structures with painted steel forming the lines of the balconies and decks. The next issue is the dirt mound next to building #6 today. The idea is to reduce the scope and scale of that mound to a degree that it will still provide a separation between the highly textured landscape of Anderson Park, the natural area and the limited amount of manicured landscape in front of the new building #7. There will be conifer and aspen trees planted to pick up the same kind of landscape 17 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 that is on the rest of the site. 2000 sq. ft. to the restaurant not force individuals at the facility to go down town. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Committee member comments in response to the seven items in Roxanne's memo dated March 13, 1991. Georgeann: In general we worked very comfortably with the architect and they have responded to our concerns. 1) Remodeling of the existing Kresge building and new Kresge II building. 2) Expanded building envelope of the health club. 3) Remodeling and expansion of the restaurant. 4) Parking structure and pro shop 5) Expansion of the tent's backstage and remodeling of seating area to add 400 seats. 6) New Rehearsal facility 7) Landscape alterations ( berm and mounds added, mounds taken away, ditch rerouting, tree removal and new plantings) Georgeann: Regarding #7 at Final we would like to see the contour or shape of the mound. Fred Smith: Possibly you would like to see a cross section rather than a model. On #14 drawing, the addition of is reflected. The intent is to Bill: That would be appropriate. Glenn: My concern is how the transition is dealt with between the proposed building and Anderson park. Bill: Lets discuss the rehearsal facility Harry Teague: We are creating low seating mounds that go around the tent around 4 feet high. Herb Klein, representing Evelyn Leonard Lauder who live adjacent to the proposed rehearsal facility: We think the design is appropriate given the acoustic needs. Our concern is the site. At the Dec. 20th Council hearing, Council chose the easterly 18 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 site. Our concern is the visual intrusion of this site of the music tent. The tent becomes cramped and secondary. If you put the facility on the westerly side it won't interfere with the zone of tranquility for the institute. The sage meadow would remain open. The east is the inferior site especially from an historical point of view. Evelyn Lauder: The draw back is the lack of future opportunity to sit outside in the shade of the tent on the side where you can hear better and have shade. The other issue is the funneling of people between the two berms. I ask you today to move the hall over to the west especially because the Aspen Institute has no objection and the MAA has no objection. Bruce Berger: When you walk up the Roaring Fork Road to the tent and walking along Gilespie this building will intrude on the view and it is a detriment to the neighborhood in that respect. The berming will detract from a lot of serious music listeners because they bring children etc. and the formalization of outdoor seating will be lost. Most of the people using the parking lot enter from the west end of the site and would have to cross to the east to get to the facility. The intrusion on the view has been lost to the community. Harry Teague: This is addressing issues that trees. a very delicate situation and we will be come up. We will be planting numerous Bill Martin: In view of the fact that the Institute and the MAA will take either site, the HPC should take the study position and find out what are the specific objection to the western site. The western site provides more of a campus atmosphere and contains the building. Perry Harvey: During the conceptual review the east side of the tent was determined to be the appropriate site. City Council passed a resolution granting approval of the SPA stating that the rehearsal hall shall be located to the east side of the music tent and shall be screened along the eastern MAA property boundary with a vegetated buffer. During a duly noticed public hearing it was noted that the rehearsal facility would be on the east side. We would have to go back to Council, P&Z and amend the SPA if this Board says it should be on the west. I would ask the Board if that is in the purview tonight. Herb Klein: It is within your purview to discuss the site. It states that all master plan elements shall be reviewed by the HPC. If you select the west site it goes back to Council and P&Z and they have the authority to over rule your decision. 19 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 George Vicenzi: We are trying to preserve the tent and the historic views around the tent. Given those facts the design is too big. We are loosing site of the historical tent. If the whole structure was moved to the due east of the existing tent and the berm reduced all around. That way people coming out of the tent will have the view of Independence. The berms are creating impediments to visual lines. Floyd Mann: I am dismayed. I have gone through this process and I can't understand why these people didn't speak up at the beginning. Perry Harvey: With the absence of my legal council and it is not in the purview of this commission to review a site planning issue that has been approved through an spa process. I am afraid of potential legal challenges and you are sending us down the road of going back through public noticing, conceptual approval of P&Z and Council and just from a personal fear it is endangering this process beyond the council elections and the appointments of a new city council and putting us back into a master plan with a council that has no authorship in the master plan process. Harry Teague: The drawings radiate from the center of the tent and there would have to be numerous alterations, such as hallways, ceilings etc. There would have to be significant design changes. Jake: We need to review this as presented to us and make our findings. Bill: There are real issues from an historic nature that have to be addressed and at this time I do not feel we are going to get something out of this committee at this time of night. I would like to entertain a motion. All the HPC have to be there at the meeting to make this work. Georgeann: Does the Board feel the concept on the west site would be acceptable? Bill: We are all in favor of the design concept on the west site. MOTION: Charles made the motion to table the conceptual development for the Aspen Meadows academic and music sectors to March 27th and that we organize as many work sessions as necessary with P&Z, Council, Planning Dept. Second by Les. Robert Hart: Our architect will be out of the country as of Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 13, 1991 March 26th for 10 days. Gideon: I would like to try the 22nd. Charles: We could do a special HPC meeting Friday March 22nd. Jed: I would suggest that you continue the hearing to a date certain. Bill: The majority of the Board is in favor of the design concept. AMENDED MOTION: Charles amended the motion to continue the public hearing until Friday March 22, 1:00 p.m.; second by Les. Georgeann: Lets schedule it for March 21 st 9:00 a.m., Thursday morning and if we have to we can continue it to another time. AMENDED AMENDED MOTION: Charles amended his motion to continue the public hearing and conceptual development , academic and music portions of the Aspen Meadows to Thursday March 21st 9:00 a.m.; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC ~EARING RUBY PARK TRA~SIT STATION Roxanne: The applicant would like to expand the north side of the terminal northward by approximately 9' plus add a stair to a new loft space which is to expand into the attic space over the existing office space. This area will be for personnel use only. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Gibson & Reno representative: The addition on the north side would increase the window area. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the Ruby Park addition as presented; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 21