Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060419 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 FOX CROSSING PARK....................................................................................................1 308 E. HOPKINS AVE. - CONCEPTUAL PUBLIC HEARING ..................................... 1 COPELAND TWINING PIONEER PARK GAZEBO - ON-SITE RELOCATION, PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................................................... 1 508 E. COOPER AVE. - CONCEPTUAL, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING ..............................................................................4 430 W. MAIN - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ...................................................... 10 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.rn. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Derek Skalko, Jason Lasser was seated at 5:12 p.rn. Michael Hoffman and Sarah Broughton were excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of March 8,2006; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Derek said he received numerous phone calls in the last 36 hours regarding a project that is on the agenda tonight. David Hoefer informed the public that it is inappropriate and in violation of due process to contact a board member outside the meeting. We are asking members of the audience to not call members of the board. We need to be fair to both sides. FOX CROSSING PARK MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and minor development for Fox Crossing Park until May 1 rJh; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. 308 E. HOPKINS AVE. - CONCEPTUAL PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 308 E. Hopkins until June 14th; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. COPELAND TWINING PIONEER PARK GAZEBO - ON-SITE RELOCATION, PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Amy told the board that the park was purchased through an effort of a number of citizens to preserve this from future development. This is a 6,000 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 square foot portion of an entire half of a city block. There is a beautiful Empire home on the property. The park has had minor improvements to it since the time that it was established. A new bench is being added, plantings and a new section of wood fencing where the wrought iron ends. Tonight's discussion is mainly about the shed. A picture was found and it is believed to be from the 40's or 50's. The shed just sits on the ground and is deteriorating. The plan is to raise it up and put a proper foundation on it and make repairs to the building. We need to discuss what the proper way is to treat the foundation. Accessibility is another requirement. A walkway or ramp will need to be built into the landscape so that you don't really see the rise or we will need to cut out the floor of the building and come in flush. Julia Marshall informed the board of the existing conditions. There are beautiful evergreens on the site. Some trees will be taken out to create openness and preserve the longevity of the older trees. Flower gardens will we planted on the four corners. There will be a seating area in the center. Junipers are growing into the fence and they will be removed. The fence will be painted after the welding occurs. The gazebo area is in need of repair. Water from the irrigation system has destroyed the bottom of the gazebo. Flagstone is proposed for around the building, about 18 inches. The building will be lifted up and put back down in the same place after the new foundation is constructed. Jason requested that the doggie bag holder be moved to an area that isn't so apparent. Julia said they can move it a little away from the gate but it needs to be in an area that is used. Stephen Elsperman, Deputy Parks Director relayed that at one point the park was over planted. None of the large species will be removed and they occupy 80% of the site. We will be doing some thinning. Around 6 trees will be removed. Jeffrey inquired about the detailing of the bench. Julia said the photo ofthe bench seems urban. Julia said there was discussion about have a backless metal bench to keep the maintenance down. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Georgeann Waggaman said after 10 years it is appalling that the council chambers aren't any better acoustically for the public. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 The chair closed the public portion of the meeting. Commissioner comments: Alison said the major reason we are looking at this is because you are picking up the building and moving it. It is great that this project is being undertaken. The 8 inches of concrete at the base is OK because it should be kept simple or traditional. Does a ramp need installed? Stephen replied that they will have to do some kind of ramp. Alison said she originally had concerns with the metal bench but it seems like it will fit in with the iron fence surrounding it. The meandering path that goes to the circle and gazebo should be more rectilinear to comply with our guidelines. Derek said this is a very compassionate proposal. Regarding the path itself, we prefer more of a linear path with Victorian houses but in this situation it is appropriate. Jason said the big issue is moving the building. Staff recommends that an architect be involved. The foundation replacement should be minimal exposure and incorporated with the accessibility ramp. A suggestion would be to have the path go to the gazebo and the patio space. Possibly the path could be grass or another surface other than cement that looks like it is incorporated with the park. Jason said the final drawing of the fence detail should be submitted with the resolution. Jeffrey echoed the commissioner's comments. The proposed planting is consistent with our guidelines, Chapter 1 - 110 and 112. The component of the gazebo and foundation detailing is also consistent with our guidelines. Possibly the surface material of the path could be crusher fines in the path. The fence detailing, replacement parts and design need to be submitted to staff and monitor. The exact locations and how the fence is going to be restored should be submitted to staff and monitor. Staff and monitor should go through the restoration of the exterior siding that is in the view plan of the public. MOTION: Jason moved to approve Resolution #10 as stated with the conditions 1-. Condition #4 Fence drawing to be approved by staff and monitor prior to construction. Condition #5 Walkway material to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 508 E. COOPER AVE. - CONCEPTUAL, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING Mitch Haas, planning consultant representing the owner. Bill Poss, architectural firm representing the owner. Amy disclosed that a few years ago her husband was the project manager for the applicant's home and that relationship has ended and her family has no financial involvement with this project and she has been advised by the attorney's office that this is not a conflict of interest. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Chris Bendon, Community Development Director informed the HPC and the public that the hearing has an architectural focus to it, and whether or not the aluminum window system and corrugated metal of the building is in fact historic and whether or not the revisions to the fa~ade are appropriate given the architecture of the downtown district. This hearing is not about the use of the building that is determined by the owner. HPC cannot force any owner to maintain a particular business. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney relayed that the procedure is very formal and is used at all hearings. Basically it begins with the applicant submitting an affidavit of notice of public hearing. This means that people within 300 feet ofthe project have been notified and that it has been published in the paper. That gives the board jurisdiction to proceed. Next, a staff presentation is done following by the applicant presentation. Then the commissioners have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. At this point they do not comment as to whether they like the applicant or not. Then the public hearing is open. Public comments in general help the project and they help the applicant understand how everyone feels about the project. The board reviews every project based on review criteria and that is what they base their decisions on. After the public comments the commissioners can then comment on the project. The applicant can then respond and give a summation. Then you go to the motion and vote. Amy relayed that the subject property is in the Commercial Core Historic District. The site has always been viewed as a non-contributing building to the district and it is not land marked designated or was it ever considered. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 The applicant proposed to demolish the existing floor structure and fa~ade of the building but to retain existing masonry walls that are on the east, west and rear portions of the building. They will reconstruct the project with mixed use, residential and commercial space and a unit on top of the building. They are asking for conceptual approval and also commercial design standard reviews and demolition review. Staff recommends continuation to restudy designs that do not comply with the design guidelines. The photographs reveal that at some point the entire brick fa~ade was demolished. The store front windows continued to exist into the 1950's and later that was destroyed. In the 1970's the metal "Cooper Street Pier Fa~ade was constructed. What was demolished at one point was a bay that contained a staircase to the upper floor. What we have on the west is an interior wall not an exterior wall. The staircase came up .the side of the building. There is little 19th Century fabric left on the building. The important part was the fa~ade and that is gone. Staff finds that there is no architectural reason to find that this building should be considered historic or that we should be concerned with the demolition. A number of the aspects of the development are not into compliance and staff recommends continuation for the following reasons. The proposal includes recessing most of the ground floor level five to seven feet. The guidelines indicate that store fronts should meet the street and have windows right up against the sidewalk. There is a pattern in town where you had a grand first floor level which the applicant is providing with a 14 foot plate height but the older buildings had smaller additional floors of consistent height and here the second floor is around a ten foot plate height and a third floor that leaps to 14 feet and we find that is not in compliance with the guidelines. Another point is that there should be a strong cornice line and the proposal does not represent that. The cornice in the packet actually is pulled back from the second floor. There is also a deck that is cut into the cornice which projects over the street which would require an encroachment license that takes away from the a strong cornice line. Amy pointed out that the board and staff greatly welcomes new designs to the community, this is an historic district and that design needs to be strongly informed by the context. Commercial design review needs to be dealt with. Staff finds conflict with 3, one of which deals with requiring that store fronts at the ground level be right up at the sidewalk. Another requirement is an airlock which is not 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 being provided and also a trash and delivery area. This project does not have very direct access to the alley. Mitch said after reading through the memo they agreed with most of the points brought up. Our intent is to explain some of our rationale for the type of design that was taken. Bill said conceptual is to look at the design and get comments from the board. We feel the approach goes along with what the public wants. We have attempted to save all of the historic properties and elements that are in the building now. The interior wall and the eastern exterior or party wall are being exposed. We are going to expose the peach blow sandstone in the lower level. This building was the impetus for a view plane that still exists today and a protection of a view plane. It is called the East Cooper Ave. view plane. It initiates from about six feet inside the building. The existing indoor/outdoor dining area is the start of the view plane and we intend to keep that area. The design of the building can be done to give certain attributes to the design to encourage dining for particular spaces. There are not a lot of outdoor dining areas designated in the buildings that we have for downtown. Using that as a start of our design it allowed us to expose the interior walls and set it back and guide a potential tenant to use that as exterior dining. Bill said when they take the paint off and restore the walls they need to make sure they have the proper water proofing etc. In trying to preserve the front dining that is why we are setting back the glass. The elements are to preserve the historic walls, keep the brick and in order to get more vertical height to the building we would take the railing and create that as a cornice. We are using the one wall as a key feature inside as we enter the different levels. We are also lowering the level of the basement to make that more conducive of a restaurant space. The footprint of the bldg. is 2,642 and in that we have to have two stairs and an elevator for handicapped access. The owner of this building owns 7 spaces along the back alley and they are proposing to take 1 or Yz spaces to meet our utility and trash area. Mitch said at P&Z in the growth management review there will be a special review to alter the trash utility service area requirements, basically turning it sideways along the alley. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 Alison asked about the lower level which indicates a door opening into the parking next door. Bill said the owners also own two parking spaces in the lower level of the garage and they will go with pent house. Derek asked if there was any rationale why 6 feet was chosen as opposed to coming out further etc. What is the rationalization for the second level parapet? Bill said they wanted to go with what was existing and go vertical to use up the height. Mitch said none of the guidelines indicate that the trash area has to be on your property it just says it has to abut an alley. Derek asked if the City has looked at what may be development down the way and how the recycle ordinance and trash will be affected. Bill said trash companies have given different containers to sort and recycle and have trash. Chris Bendon said the trash section was amended a year ago and Environmental Health was very much involved. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Georgeann Waggaman applauded Amy on her critique and Bill Poss for trying to keep a restaurant on the first floor. The proportions on the first and second floor are OK. The railing into a cornice is a good idea. Georgeann recommended a kick plate. The upper floor has become the tail that wags the dog. HPC needs to look at these seriously because they are an impact to our community. Bill Sterling asked Amy what the percentages were for commercial and residential with reference to the new ordinance that council just past. Mitch pointed out that this application was in place before the ordinance was adopted and they do not have those figures. David Hoefer pointed out that applicants only have to abide by ordinances that were in effect that the time the application was made. Chris said top floor is 27 hundred square foot and the new ordinance says 2,000 but they are not subject to that because the application was submitted several months ago. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 Bill Sterling said the ordinance says no more that 50% residential. The residential is the economic engine that has been unsettling for people downtown. Georgeann said visually the building is too tall. Ann Wycopp said even though the buildings are not on the register they add personality and flavor to our town. We are all concerned that this town is going to look like Vail. We do not understand why our town is moving in the direction it is so quickly. David McClure, two year resident. He is new to the process and wants to get involved. It is surprising that the proposal doesn't come in any Closer to the guidelines. The chair closed the public hearing. Derek addressed to the general audience and said this group in this room is not so different. We are all on the same boat. Some of the phone calls made were out of panic or plain ignorance. A lot of what came up was that HPC members don't care about Aspen. Derek said he doesn't want to see Aspen destroyed. We do have the idea of what preservation is. Preservation is keeping something alive in the course of changing times. Ifwe can find a medium and balance and getting to a place where all sides are represented and we are conscientiously looking at what this means to the bigger picture of preservation which is the vibrancies and vitality of Aspen. What people feel is that we are loosing a special place of what Aspen is. We are working within a set of parameters and we will be conscientious in our decision making. Derek feels the massing and scale is close but he also understands the concerns of the third and fourth level. Regarding of where the facade of the wall has to sit at street level he is open to the idea of pushing the space back. The material palate is appropriate. Jason said the HPC is a voluntary board and we are here because we care about Aspen. We are here to protect our buildings. This building is not historic but it is historic in our hearts. Jason thanked the public for being part of the process. We are dealing with the new view of Aspen vs. the old view of Aspen. Aspen is a marketable place and this is an opportunity for 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 people to invest here. Maintaining the visual impact from the street is important. The existing entrance could be the airlock and raising the cornice will solve staffs problems and concerns. Regarding the location of the glass fa~ade, guideline 13.19 talks about repeating patterns along the block. With the building there is a recessed entryway. Possibly the front should be recessed instead of at the street frontage. There is a need to create for the public what Cooper Street pier looked like. The solid brick second story is true to what the secondary story looked like. Alison said we sit on this board because we do love Aspen and take a lot of time and thought with each project. Why things have changed fast is partly due to property values, they have sky rocketed. Also codes within the town change. Keeping the walls is wonderful and we are fortunate to have an architect who thinks about that. The changes in the second story and the lower cornice being the railing are appropriate. Alison said she likes the idea of the store front moving to the left and there should be an air-lock. The suggestion that a kick plate be added also enhances the project. Regarding the third story, it should be kept in line and the upper cornice should be smaller. Jeffrey said he has similar concerns as staff. Relating to Chapter #13 Jeffrey likes the concept of having a recessed seating area that is enclosed but he is still feeling that there is a strong representation to make that fa~ade be at the original property line that was historic. The recessed entryway is recommended. The historic elements of the second course and the store front on the first story are very close to what the guideline intents are. The third and fourth floor needs additional study. Possibly the two story fa~ade should be reconstructed as Amy mentioned. The concern is the height of the cornice and how it relates to the other context around it. Modifications to the third story would help the relationship to the pedestrian and the street and the scale of Aspen. Jeffrey said it is commendable that anyone should sit through a meeting in excess of 2 hours to voice their opinion. The height requirement has been met. Perhaps a study of a few corner relationships will help the overall mass and scale of the structure. Bill said the kick plate is very important and will be added. They will work on the upper floor and take down the height. The idea was 14 feet on the first floor, lOon the second, third and fourth. The national guidelines ask that we not replicate Victorians. The mason historic buildings have stayed and the wooden ones got torn down. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 508 Cooper Ave. until June 14th; second by Alison. Motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 430 W. MAIN - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 10