Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060614 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 "- 701 W. MAIN - MONITORING ....................................................................................... 1 308 E. HOPKINS AVE. - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION - PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE, AND VIEW PLAN REVIEW........................................................... 1 UTE CITY BAR AND GRILL........................................................................................... 6 508 E. COOPER AVE. - CONCEPTUAL - COMMERCIAL DEASIGN REVIEW AND DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING .............................................................................. 6 FOX CROSSING PARK - MINOR DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED PUBLIC ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 .~, Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.rn. Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Alison Agley, Derek Skalko. Jason Lasser was seated at 5: 12 p.m. Michael Hoffman was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Adams, Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of May 10, 2006; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. 701 W. MAIN - Monitoring - The historic bldg. has been picked up and put it on its new foundation and they are getting ready to start the rehab work. The question is about the door. There is an original door opening on the east side of the shed. It will be the entry to the living unit in the basement. The applicant has asked if they can shift it northward in order to make it more of a standard 6.8 door. This is required by code but historic buildings have some flexibility. The building official indicated that the door could remain in place as a 6.3 door. Patrick Hunter, contractor said he was asked to put in the new door per code. We will do whatever everyone agrees upon. Jeffrey pointed out that they are trying to get the head room clearance. Patrick said he just needs some kind of agreement. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve 701 E. Main to keep the historic door opening and work with the City on allowing non-code requirements in height. Motion second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 308 E. HOPKINS AVE. - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION - PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE, AND VIEW PLAN REVIEW Charles Cunniffe, architect Amy said in general the project has made a lot of progress from what was initially proposed which was a three-story building with decks on the front. ,_. The latest is a two-story that fits in with the scale of the neighborhood better. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 There is a one-story outdoor seating area in the front which does have a relationship to the smaller structures on the street. A few things need focused on, one of which is the one-story element then the two-story that is set back and actually conflicts with some of the guidelines. You need to make the rationale why you would make an exception, which might be that the context of this street is so different rather than other streets that have buildings right up to the street. It also conflicts with some of the commercial design standards which talk about flat fa9ade buildings. This property is two lots wide and a lot of the buildings on this block are only one lot wide and is there something more that can be done other than the way they staggered the building. Staff supports demolition of the existing building. The remaining discussion is really about the view plane. The applicant has made a response by trying to make a one-story element in the front and as a result things get pushed back into the view plane. Is it the right solution to pull the building forward and get them out of the view plane or is the context of the street more appropriate. If the building is pulled forward it would comply with our guidelines. The view plane is not something this board has reviewed in the past. We have asked the HPC to review it because we are consolidating the application. Charles Cunniffe, architect. We are trying to find some ways to balance conflicting forces. We have been trying to relate to the Genre building, Seguin building and the building on the comer by having a one-story element at the street with a receded area for the courtyard for a restaurant. Part of the commercial guidelines is to liven the street area. At the same time we are tying to deal with the view plane from the back which is a sliding view plane. At some point in time the two buildings on either side will be added onto. The two Victorians on Main Street in all probability will have a two-story addition which would put more mass between us and the view plane. Charles pointed out that there are buildings on this block that are larger than this building. The part that we are intruding into the view plane is 4.3 feet. We are asking for an exception from the view plane. Alison pointed out that there are a few buildings that received view plane relief in that same area, the Matshisa building being one. The Conner Cabin project also got relief. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no -- public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner comments: Derek pointed out that the height of this building has radically come down since we first saw the project. He understands the unique architectures adjacent to the building that they have to work with including the view plane. Pushing the building back is more consistent with what is existing in that area. From a view plane standpoint the height is negligible and as more and more development occurs in the core we are inevitably going to find that this issue will continue to come up. The height is 36 feet and it was reduced from 42 feet. Derek is very supportive of the massing and scale but would like more information regarding the first floor fenestration. Jason said the street level stepping back is very successful and is sensitive to the Range building and Genre building. The hard part is that our guidelines are conflicting and a lot of effort has been made to accommodate thern. Jason's issue is the flat favade in the back and the width of the upper loft. Possibly it can come in two feet on either side. As far as the view plane is concerned the ceiling height is 10 feet and maybe it can come down to 9 feet to reduce the height into the view plane. Possibly a material change could divide the first and second levels. Alison said the width of the favade of the second level doesn't read that wide to her. Alison commended the architect for listening to the Boards comments and make revisions to the plans. The proposed building fits into the street a lot better after the revisions. She would prefer that the favade not be broken up. Massing - The second-story being pushed back works because we know that the Genre and building on the comer will stay at those levels. View plane - The height is below the allowable but also in the view plane. P&Z gave view plane relief to the piece behind the Matshisa building and that needs to be considered in setting precedents. With some of the other Victorian's in the alley we are going to have these tall additions. Alison said with dropping the building a foot it would not be a significant impact on the view plane. Sarah said this building has come very far. Her issue is guideline 13.11 ." (dividing the building into modules) maybe there is a subtle way to do that. 3 ".~,,,, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 In terms of view plan Jason had good suggestions in terms of plate height reduction etc. Breaking the building into modules like Conner Cabins might work. The thought would be to minimize the long favade. - Charles said the idea is to have an open air cafe and they intend to construct a landscape fence and that fence would become the edge. Amy said there are two issues we need to be comfortable with: This building is very close to the Genre bldg. and we need to know what kind of separation is there. Jeffrey said the building department has rules and regulations on property line protection. Amy said it was her understanding that the awning would be retractable. Derek interjected that he could approve the project as is. Charles said one of our goals is to make the favade as transparent as possible so it looks like it is engaging the sidewalk. The open air patio would have dining tables with a retractable awning and engage with the street. Alison asked what the distance was between the Genre building. Charles said probably a couple feet. Alison said the eave would probably touch the Genre building. Charles said he will work with Joe Krabacher, one of the owners of the Genre building to make sure they have a fire proof protection. Charles said they could pull the upper floor back a little more to provide a shadow line and break the favade up a little. Jeffrey said he is in agreement that the proposal has come a long way. The two conflicting guidelines are the view plane and our commercial core guidelines. It is an anomaly to have two historic resources in this proximity. He is in favor with reducing the plate heights and the possible differentiation of the planes and how this building affects the Genre building. With further massaging we can get a consensus across the board for approval. Jeffrey pointed out that we do not want to approve a building then all of a sudden have to fire proof the historic resource next door due to its proximity. Placing the door to the street facing element works well. The differentiations of the facades help moderate mass and scale. Jeffrey said he is in total agreement with reducing the plate heights. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 Jeffrey stated that in the future he would prefer that the HPC & P&Z have a '" joint meeting or work session. Charles said he has heard tonight that half the board feels the favade should go straight across and others feel it should be stepped back. He asked the board for clarification. Alison said she is fine with the shadow line. Charles said he can drop the plate height and incorporate the shadow line. Sarah stated that she would prefer to see the drawings again because we are working with mass and scale. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution #15 for 308 E. Hopkins Ave. for conceptual development as proposed. Motion dies for lack of a second. MOTION: Jason moved to approve Resolution #15 for 308 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1. Reduction of the roof plate heights upper loft to nine feet ceiling height inside. 2. A step in the facade of the upper and second storybrickfa9adefrom the lower level at both points to two feet each side. 3. Reduction in the width of the upper loft. Motion second by Alison. Sarah said she has difficulties putting design constraints on a project that need restudied. Jeffrey said the board in general is in favor of an exemption of the view plan. Amended motion: 4. Keep separation as close to the building but not replace Genre's siding. Provide functionality for access to Genre. Roll call vote: Jason, no. Derek, no. Alison, no; Jeffrey, no. Sarah, no. Motion dies 4-0. MOTION: Derek moved to continue Conceptual development and the public hearingfor 308 E. Hopkins until July 12, 2006; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 UTE CITY BAR AND GRILL Jerry Cavaleri requested to take out temporarily and salvage one column and the two bottom panels, kick plate of the store front in order to get dirt out of the building. It appears that the column has already been moved once. Alison asked how long it would take. Jerry said four weeks with mechanized equipment, 8 weeks without. Jeffrey said you are dealing with an historical wall. It is also in the middle of the commercial core. It seems very evasive and he cannot support it. Amy pointed out that the store front has been changed and this might give him the opportunity to put it back to its original state. Derek said anything we can do to expedite this he is in favor of. Jason said he would allow it to be opened up but it must be restored back to the original state. Jerry said he can agree with Jason's recommendation. The board decided to do a site visit. 508 E. COOPER AVE. - CONCEPTUAL - COMMERCIAL DEASIGN REVIEW AND DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING Bill Poss and associates. Amy relayed that the applicant has made a number of changes. They raised the cornice to emphasize two stories. They brought down the height of the third floor component of the residential building. Stafffeels there needs to be discussion about the ground floor storefront. Pushing the display windows back is not meeting the guidelines and maybe it is not the best long term solution. There is very little area in there to put tables in. If the intent is to do a restaurant then there should be operable windows. Staff is also concerned about the void that is created by having a long hallway which goes down the side of the building to access a basement space. We also brought up that the staircase column is very solid so we might want to discuss the materials. Amy also said the memo discusses the residential unit on the top. '0 . Unfortunately for the applicant they are the first project coming in proposing 6 ~,_._..~...~"._.I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 a fourth story. Our guidelines envision a 3 story building. I am not entirely sure how the board treats a building at this height. Possibly we acknowledge the building at least as being three stories with a minimal residential space on top. The stepping back is not necessarily consistent with the downtown and that area needs discussed. Staff recommends continuation. Mitch Haas, planner Mike Hall, project architect Andy Wisnosky, director of design Bill said the main issues are the store front with the potential kick plate and whether the store front is forward or back. Raising the parapet which would reduce the impact of the residential unit on top. We looked at Amy's idea of having a three-story but looked at the history and all of the buildings at that era were set up with store fronts of varying height and parapets of varying heights. The initial intent was to preserve what is historical here and accentuate it. We tried to keep visibility to both historic walls. That is one of the reasons we were stepping the front back to expose the walls. We also stepped it back due to the political pressure of having the indoor/outdoor look. We can bring the store front forward if that is what we want to do for historic preservation. We can still have the indoor/outdoor look with opening windows. We are only 30 feet wide so we stacked the stairs. The cornice line was added and the residential unit is very subdued. Andy said there was concern about the fourth floor and how it impacted the character of the street. The fourth floor is set back twice as far as is required. We are only required to be 15 feet back and we are 30 feet back. The design is a modem insertion between the historic walls. Bill said Amy has proposed a rain screen so that we can see through it but keep the rain out of the stair corridor. We proposed that the entrance appeared in the older era style and open but we can restudy it. Bill pointed out that the building no longer exists but the stair remained. Clarifications: " 7 -- ..I,~,", ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 Jason asked why the staircase isn't entered from the street. Bill said instead of having two stairs, one going down and one going up we are stacking them. One goes up to the second level and we also didn't want to loose floor area. We are trying to have two exits and not have a third stair. We are using the stair to embrace the historic wall. Andy said coming from the side is a better solution when it snows etc. Alison asked about moving the store front forward. Andy said he elected to pull it back to provide for openness and make the wall more significant. Alison pointed out that the building to the east is four stories. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. ~ .,...... Sarah pointed out that our massing doesn't really deal with four stories. The massing and context of the building has been dealt with very well. Her concern is the street elevation. Historically, if the store front came to the front of the street it would conform to our guidelines. The dialogue with the brick walls is interesting but historically all you really saw were the ends. Exposing it is interesting but we need to look again where the positions of the windows area. Where the third and fourth story steps back is very interesting. Alison also agreed that the third and fourth story is in better scale with the rest of the street. The 3D model is great. It helps you perceive how the building looks from the street. She is tom on the store fronts. There is mixed history for the past 30 years where buildings are stepped back. But to go with the guidelines, moving it forward and having windows that open the way that they do at Ute City Bank would give you more rentable square feet and maybe useful all year. The entire project is an improvement. Derek said massing and scale work with our guidelines. This is an empathetic solution to what is going on with its surroundings. One area of concern from a functionality point is the use of the outdoor space and how that works with a side access door. Jason said the massing changes are a great improvement. With regards to the Cooper Street Pier what made it work was the sliding panel door because it is such a narrow space. We talked about moving the panels to the street 8 ,.."__~M___<I.._ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 favade at the last meeting. For me it is a bigger issue with the new wall scheme and why can't it be seem from the inside and reconfigured. Jeffrey said we struggle with the property line at street level. Exposing the party walls is a nice gesture but we would prefer to keep it as much as we can as a public amenity. He can understand how you engage into the public/private space. The improvement of the cornice lines with their horizontality is helpful. The rain screen might cause too much attention to the historic walls. The reduction in height is in conformance with our guidelines. Mitch said we tried to pay homage to the evolution of the building with the two side walls from the original building. The front is paying homage to what has been there the last 30 years. Sarah said this building has always been a solid building so why are we eroding it with a store front step back. It is very clear that the buildings were at street level. Even the ones across the street have the historic pattern. Bill said we were working with a political out cry and we do not know what is going to be in that space and we can restudy the storefront and if it is the consensus of our guidelines to keep that straight we will. MOTION: Derek move to approve Resolution #15 for 508 E. Cooper with the condition that the fenestration of the fa9ade element of the first level be restudied; second by Jeffrey. Derek pointed out whether you access from the front or side the mass and scale remain the same. Jason said he doesn't want it set in stone that the louver will be closed off and the hallway left open. The doors could also change. Amy clarified that the motion includes - major development, conceptual, commercial design review and demolition. Derek said the motion also includes the access of the stair. They are all interconnected. Jason said we talked about movable panels which change the scope of the design and there is the question of the difference in theory of entering where 9 M____.._,.___._I. "-'" ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 the louvers are and having the whole favade go through a corridor. Jason said he would rather have the two issues figured out before we approve demolition. Roll call vote: Jason, no; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, no; Jeffrey, no. Motion dies 3-2. MOTION: Derek moved to continue 508 E. Cooper, conceptual and public hearing until July 12, 2006; second by Jason. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried. 5-0. FOX CROSSING PARK - MINOR DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Amy stated that the revised plans are much simpler and the trail has been moved away from the historic building. They only thing brought up is the plant materials. There is a very limited plant palate, some lilac bushes that are native to the period and staff feels we should stick to what was existing. Possibly lower hedges should be used instead of deciduous trees. Stan Clausen & associates. Stan said the new design has incorporated the bio-retention storage which is a very successful solution for storm water management on the site. We worked with the same type of plant palate initially that was approved by City Council. There is a clear view to the historic resources. There is a considerable amount of grade difference. An ornamental seed mix will be used and two locations for signage at the entry to the public areas of the park. We request that a monitor be assigned to work with us on the signage. We also incorporated backless benches and would like HPC's guidance on the design. With respect to guideline 1.13 if the board feels the row of Aspen trees is too much we can make substitutions. Brain Flynn, Parks Dept. said the park now has a very active and passive use to it. The cherry and maple trees proposed add color to the scheme. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 Jason inquired about stepping the retaining wall on the west. He also suggested that the bench be oriented out toward the historic house. Sarah reiterated that the design is great. Alison also suggested that lilac bushes be included in the design and agreed that the bench should be facing toward the historic resources. MOTION: Jason made the motion to approve Resolution #15 for Fox Crossing Park with the condition that any further changes be approved by staff and monitor; second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Sarah, yes; Alison, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Derek. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.rn. ,-"".- Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk -.. '- 11