Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060830 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 MONITORING ISSUE: FOX CroSSING - RETAINING WALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. ........................................................................................................ 1 501 E. HYMAN - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING ...........................................3 134 W. HOPKINS - MINOR REVIEW - DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES _ PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................................................... 4 408 E. COOPER AVE - MINOR REVIEW - COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW _ VIEW PLANE REIVEW - PUBLIC HEARING .............................................................. 7 202 N. MONARCH STREET - NO MINUTES .............................................................. 12 312 W. HyMAN............................................................................................................... 12 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.rn. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Derek Skalko and Jason Lasser and Sarah Broughton. Michael Hoffman was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Disclosures: Jeffrey will recuse himself on 202 N. Monarch work session MOTION: Alison moved to approve the minutes of July 26th and August 9th; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Jeffrey abstained on the August 9th minutes because he was not present. Public Comments: Toni Kronberg said the current moratorium is proposed to be extended for another six months and what their objectives are. Many objectives have to do with bringing in HPC guidelines with infill regulations. The Civic Master plan will be published and this is a good time for people to comment on key properties. Toni said she has concerns with the Conner cabins. Jeffrey said he would have to take that issue up with staff and monitor because the Conner cabins already have approved drawings. If they are in violation he will make sure staff and monitor are aware of it. Derek stated that he is looking at property that will probably take him out of the City of Aspen. In that event he will be stepping down. Sarah said Conner Cabins is off the agenda. Fox Crossing and 312 W. Hallam have been added to the agenda. Monitoring issue: Fox Crossing - retaining wall on the west side of the property. Jason requested that the plans be reviewed by the board. Scott Chism, Parks Dept. - Stephanie McClurg - Clausen & Associates Stephanie said they were last here June 14th to discuss the park and it was well received except for a few minor issues which we were to work through with Jason, the monitor. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 Issues from the first meeting were to rotate the seating so that it looks into the historic resource and park. Decrease some of the vegetation on the western side of the property and add lilac bushes. There was a minor issue with the wall stepping at the time. When we shifted the seating over to the western side we felt that stepping the wall might be too busy because you run into the back of the seating. The revisions were either to terrace the wall and bringing it far in and dropping some of the trees down. In looking at the meandering wall if we do it too much we cut into the park plan and the land on the other side would be taken over by private residences on the other side. We came up with looking at tier ring the wall, a two foot lower wall and then an upper wall. In the notches we can put ground cover what would take away the linear effect. We do have some constraints because we don't want to get into the retention area. Scott Chism - Parks Dept. We met with Jason and all agreed that the meandering wall was a good idea. We couldn't come to consensus the extend of the meandering wall. The concern of the Parks Dept. is that the area essentially gets absorbed by the private property. We would like to maximumize the public park area. Jeffrey said your concern is that the area will be taken over and planted by private home owners. Scott said we just need to determine the extent of the meandering and protect the use of the park as much as possible. Jason said basically the design had a semi-circle with a terrace. Jason said he recommended an undulation instead of a straight edge. Derek said he feels the plan is successful. Alison said having the step down is an improvement. It might not be as much as Jason wanted to begin with but the property line is an important issue. Sarah also said she supports the change. Jeffrey agreed and mentioned that every time the park is looked at improvements occur. The double tier boulder system with planting beds is great. Jeffrey said he appreciates the more curvilinear wall and it is difficult to define maintenance etc. Jeffrey said the board is in support of the revised plan submitted. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 501 E. HYMAN - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING Exhibit I - new drawing. Exhibit II - affidavit of posting Sara Adams said the architect has submitted a revised plan that is only slightly different than what was in the packet. This is a two part development review: The first part is the windows along Hyman Ave. which are to be replaced. The second part is for a new accessible lift at the covered entry of the arcade along Galena Street. The architect, Ted Guy came up with a ramp solution that complies with the Building Dept. Staff had originally proposed that the original storefronts be restored. The storefronts were originally pushed forward and then the entrance to the commercial area was recessed. Staffhad proposed a ramp along Bloomingbird's but Exhibit I may work better which has the ramp in the middle. The storefront would still be brought forward and there would be a ramp and only one entrance into the Aspen Arcade. The proposal would also bring the building into compliance with accessibility. Right now it is not in compliance. Ted Guy, architect said basically we are re-creating the historic storefronts that were there which was a central bay and a recessed door and two display windows on either side. Currently that entry is recessed about seven feet so we will move fixed glass panels out to the street and remove the steps and in the center we will use the sidewalk level as a landing and come in approximately four feet so the doors don't swing out into the sidewalk. That landing then continues about five more feet inside and then we will have a ramp. If the landing stays perfectly level this ramp will go past the Bloomingbird's about 2 feet. If the landing is sloped a quarter of an inch per foot you get two inches of fall across and now the ramp will be short of Bloomingbird's door two feet. There will be a nine inch step so railings will be needed. Jason asked about the windows. The double hung windows show a thin horizontal band. Ted said they intend to match the historic windows. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 Comments: Alison said the replacement windows on Hyman Ave. conform to our guidelines. The windows should match as close as to what was there originally. The drawing presented today improves the lift. Jason said the new drawings will restore the fal;ade to its historic proportions. Derek, Jeffrey and Sarah are in full support of the revised drawings. MOTION: Jason moved to approve Resolution #23 for 501 E. Hyman, the Aspen Arcade Building - Minor Review. The drawing submitted August 3(/h is also approved, Exhibit I. Staff and monitor to review the windows. The goal is to match the window as close to the historic windows as possible, i.e. historic photograph. Derek second the motion, motion carried 5-0. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 134 W. HOPKINS - MINOR REVIEW - DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of notice - Exhibit I Sara said this is a minor review for variances, demolition and a FAR bonus. The subject property is an 1880's miner's cabin. The lot split occurred in 2003. In the 1980's the home was rehabbed and an addition was added to the rear. The applicant proposed to demolish and replace a 60 square foot attached storage shed and extend an addition. Staff finds that the project meets the design guidelines. Sara said the FAR bonus needs discussed. When the lot split was approved in 2003 the HPC granted a 336 square foot bonus to the fathering parcel to bring both of the existing structures into compliance. The subject lot was inaccurately recorded so they received more of the FAR bonus then they needed. Basically any construction done on this property needs to be granted an FAR bonus because as the property exists now there is no FAR available to do any sort of building even though they are demolishing part of the structure. The main part of the application is the FAR bonus. Staff finds that the new design does meet the criteria for the bonus; however, there are no rehabilitation aspects to this project so staff is not in support of granting the FAR bonus. The house was rehabbed in 1980 and the only part of the house that staff found that could be restored at this point is a dormer on the primary fal;ade that is a gabled roof which originally was a shed roof according to the historic photographs. Even if this alteration occurred it is not enough to grant an FAR bonus. Staff is in support of granting a setback 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 variance for the existing home that was never granted previously. It is a west side-yard setback of one foot. George Winney, architect said he is here to request the bonus in order to do the addition. The existing house is in excellent condition except for the one dormer. We want to open the back of the house and add an addition. What is really there is 1760 square feet on the property and when you add that up with the square footage of the adjacent house, 1704 you get 3464 square feet. The allowable is 3240 square feet. We are asking for half of the square footage allowed. Alison clarified that there are two historic houses on each lot. The adjacent property owner added to the back of their house. Sara said what was recorded was allowing the subject property too much FAR. The intent was to bring each property into compliance. George said he thought he could request the difference which is 112 square feet. Derek pointed that the calculations should have been clarified with Todd Grange, Zoning officer. Amy pointed out that the applicant is requesting half the bonus that is allowed. George said they are going to repair any bad siding and the house will be re- painted. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Sarah said when we add onto historic structures we want a link and keep the mass away from the historic structure. Jason said they are taking the shed off and replacing it with a different structure. The restoration of the dormer to its historic integrity would be preferred. Derek also recommended that the applicant look at restoring the dormer back. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 Amy pointed out that more than one of the bonus criteria needs to be met. Our concern is that HPC has made some people do a lot of rehabilitation and restoration in order to earn their 500 square foot bonus. Derek said he would be willing to accept the sky lights. Derek reiterated that he wished the HPC had the correct figures. Sarah said the HPC tries to hold to our standards regarding bonuses. It would be easier to grant a bonus if the addition complied more with our guidelines such as a link. Right now you have a 12 foot wide sun room coming into the fascia boards of the gable and it is starting to mar the historic resource. Similarly the shed room over the mud room is not allowing the back gable end to be realized in its overall form. Jason pointed out that bonuses are granted to exceptional preservation projects. With our current guidelines the addition would not have been approved that was put on in the 1980's. If the proposal and the elimination of the addition and a link added that would be something that was worthy of the bonus. Jason also pointed out that the skylights are a visual impact. Sarah said the addition was added on in the 80's and now we are adding on agam. Alison said basically the back half of the house is new. The suggestion that Sarah had changes the project. Knowing the back of the house is not historic makes this confusing. Jeffrey said he is in agreement with staff. Bonuses are given to exemplary projects with a restoration effort. This is a challenging project. It is hard to support a variance with this level of restoration. Amy said under the circumstances that we have adding another addition that extends the building may not meet the bonus criteria and Sarah suggested that the applicant might have to undo some things to get back to a situation that is bonus worthy today. George said he can treat the center 80's part to read differently than the historic house and develop out from there. George asked for direction. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 Derek said it may be beneficial for you to do one more design and look at everything in a broader scheme. HPC said they were open to suggestions. MOTION: Derek moved to continue 134 W. Hopkins to October 1 th; second by Sarah. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 408 E. COOPER AVE - MINOR REVIEW - COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW - VIEW PLANE REIVEW - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Photo of mechanical equipment approved by Chris Bendon - Community Development Director - Exhibit II Amy relayed that Aspen Sports has been in this location for 50 years. The building was originally a one-story building and in 1968 Caudill and Assoc. redesigned the fal;ade and added on and a few years later they added the second story. The ground floor is a yellow brick with some arched facades and the upper floor is a stucco material. Amy stated that the application is to replace the existing exterior fal;ade of the building. They also intend to add new light fixtures, awnings, signage and windows. At the staff review we acknowledge that the proposal meets many of the design guidelines for what infill buildings downtown are expected to do but we also discussed guideline 13.15 which is the one that tries to explain how infill buildings should be clearly different than the old. We also discussed the development of Aspen and some new buildings that have been constructed that aren't of the period of some of the surrounding structures and that are what set them out from others. In this particular case it was designed by a firm that has legacy in town. I guess we are expressing regret of loosing this fal;ade. The project is also subject to the commercial design review but staff feels there is no conflict. There is some mechanical equipment for the roof and actually much of this building already projects into the Wheeler Opera House view plane. There is an exemption available through the Community Development Director for mechanical equipment only and they have received that exemption, (Exhibit II). Stafffeels a number of things can be approved in one form or another but we feel the fal;ade on the ground floor should not be removed. Paul Todd, architect Joe Larkin, store manager 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 Paul thanked staff for helping them during the application process. Aspen Sports has been a fixture in Aspen since they first opened their store in 1853. They have a commitment to the community that has been proven. Last Nov. they engaged with me to take a fresh look at the store in order to bring it up to the level of other first class stores in Aspen. Accessibility issues are a concern. There is no wheel chair access to the second floor, or accessible fitting rooms. Customers have to go down to the park to use the restrooms. We intend to bring the entire building up to code. The interior layout and functionality of the building do not work. The arches in their current condition obstruct a great deal oflight from entering the door especially the smaller half arch on the west side. The low bearing kind of masonry look and the spandrels of this arch restrict light. There are also some ADA issues with the arch and threshold issues to accommodate accessibility. We are also proposing to add automatic doors. The frog eye lights are outdated and unacceptable per the lighting code. In 1974 the stucco box as added. The proposal involves moving the portion of the arched spandrel which obstructs the existing wood storefront that is set back approximately four or five feet behind the masonry. We propose to maintain the existing brick and infill slightly at the corners to create a vertical piece to accentuate the verticality of the building. We are also proposing adding a structural steel lentil and stripping back the original masonry in the west side and introducing low bearing steel columns with awnings and a new store front which carries the existing transom line all the way across. A simple cornice will also be added to give the building a three part design. Jeffrey asked staff about Sam Caudill. Amy said we have been talking about modern architecture in Aspen as being something that is significant as the Victorian buildings. We have written a paper describing the evolution of that philosophy coming into Aspen and how it changed the whole town in the late 40's and early 50's. Sam has received a lot of accolades. Derek asked the architect ifhe though of any other way of bringing natural light into the building other than tearing down the concrete? Paul said they intend to add skylights on the second floor. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Amy said she had a phone conversation with a neighbor that lives directly across the street and she asked that there be some kind of screening of the mechanical so that it is not so unattractive. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 Board comments: Jason said the hard part is to see the arches go away. They are such a visible part of the mall. Possibly there is a way to keep the arch and provide light from the center. Jason said he understands what the architect is trying to accomplish. Derek said the arches on this building are a key entity to this building. He is not in favor of removal of the arches. He is also confident that lighting, compliance etc. could be done with a successful interior renovation. The addition of skylights on top and bringing in additional lighting on the second floor will help. Derek is also in favor of screening. Alison agreed that the arch is the building. If the architect embraced the arch there could be some really great things with the amount of money you were going to use to do the entire fal;ade restoration. Lighting improvements are necessary and the second floor is open for improvements. It is important that the arch be on the bottom and preserved. If the arch is kept the building could be great and very different where as the design proposed looks like a lot of other things in town. Sarah said the proposal is interesting and maybe there is a way to layer the history with the proposal. Leave the trace of architecture and achieve the problematic goals. It is not an all or nothing situation. The mechanical absolutely has to be screened. It is a disservice to our town what every tenant in this town does to our roof line. Part of the charm of our town is riding the gondola down. The fact is you see copious amounts of mechanical equipment that has not be though out. Jeffrey agreed with staff on this particular aspect. He understands the new proposal and it does conform to our commercial core guidelines. Again, Sam Caudill is a local legend. Jeffrey said he remembers another fal;ade on another mall that had the arched windows and nobody on this board had any problem with updating the fal;ade. For consistency sake this is a non- landmark. Jeffrey said he could suggest a redesign but he cannot absolutely say no. It does confirm to our commercial core guidelines. Guideline 13.15 could make the case that this proposal does meet that guideline. The proposed architecture is generic and we have been seeing a lot of that style. Caudill used a lot of circular forms and curves in his architecture. I am at a tear and the board does understand the accessibility, lighting etc. issues. The arch is a character defining feature that has helped define our malls which 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 we believe are historic. He is torn about a position on this project. Possibly we could see if there is a compromise between the schemes. There might be some architecture that could pay reference to the historic but at the same time allow your client the same right as other property owners go through. Jeffrey said he is not willing to approve this tonight but could continue to a date certain. Paul Todd said he researched Sam Caudill and he is a well respected member of your community. He also went to school at Cornell and his primary practice was schools. He is of the Wright Ian philosophy toward more organic architecture which is architecture that is more connected to the site. When you look at this building you wonder ifit was his focus. Is this building something that was indicative of his philosophy? The other point, this building is not on the inventory of historic properties. It is not eligible and missed the cut off by three years. Paul said he has the original blue prints of this building. He also researched modern architecture which was recommended by staff and Caudill was not mentioned. When the staff report came out it was the first time we received formal notification that there was concern about the arches. In am conforming to the guidelines and it's not on the inventory and it's not mentioned in any materials where is the authority to protect this particular fal;ade? Amy pointed out that guideline 13.15 is important. Paul Todd said he is talking about the significance of the Caudill design and staff is talking about the new proposal. In were to do a glass front or swirling front you would approve it. HPC needs to tell me why this storefront is protected. Ifit is not protected you need to help me make it better. Sarah said it is not protected. It is more of what the variety brings to the mall scape. Ifwe can help bring some of that to the proposal so that it isn't lost she would feel more comfortable moving forward. There is an opportunity to do that. It is paying homage to the traces and history of the site. We need to keep some of that history alive. Derek said we have very definitive guidelines. Where he is coming from with this building is what role Sam Caudill had in the community of Aspen. The other identity is that this building does provide a very specific central character on that particular mall in Aspen. We have another building in 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 question that is in limbo regarding the "character" of the building. Derek said he feels the character of this building should be retained somehow. Alison said her comments and Jason's and Derek's were to encourage the architect to look at a different way to think about this building. It is two or three years shy of us being about to force you to do anything but we can encourage it. Amy said she tried to say in the staff memo that arguably the solution that exists now is a creative response to the Victorian storefronts. What is proposed meets many of the guidelines but it doesn't bring that same level of creativity or the kind of response of the genesis of the store front that is there now. That is why guideline 13.15 is not met. Paul said they have a limited budget and they are required to do all of the accessibility and mechanical upgrades. He does not want to short change the store front and tried to reuse many of the elements as possible. We are saving the brick piers and continue the solider course. If staff would have come to us during the planning stages and said the existing fal;ade is unique and what you are proposing could be improved we would have been very receptive to that. Now we find ourselves in front of the commission and there is nothing in the staff report to tell me as an architect what I need to improve it. It simply talks about keeping the old fal;ade which he though was not an issue. Sarah said she would feel comfortable continuing the agenda item based on the comments. Paul said he would feel better if the board made the decision that the fal;ade was protected or not. Does the HPC have the authority to protect the fal;ade? Derek said the HPC has the authority to vote yes or no on the project. Right now he feels there are creative alternatives that could be explored. He would encourage the architect to further explore the opportunities of incorporating this existing element as it is now and incorporate it in some adaptation. Amy stated that the HPC has authority to make changes in the historic district and the application and interpretation of the guidelines. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 Jeffrey said it is our purview based on the historic district. Derek said he feels very strongly about the stone and the value in keeping the stone and seeing how that can be re-worked. Paul asked if there was anything we can propose that would involve removing the existing arches. The board said possibly. Jeffrey said it is the form and masonry aspects that need protected. Paul said is it the arches that are important or the person. Sarah said to her it is the interesting design. We are open to an interpretation. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 408 E. Cooper to Sept. 1 fh based on a re-look of the fa(:ade design complying with guidelines 13.15, which encourages a more creative look of the mall presence. Motion died for lack of a second. Derek said he feel the motion pushes the language to be directed too strictly in one direction, which is the mall interpretation. MOTION: Derek moved to continue 408 E. Cooper to Sept. 13th; second by Sarah. Jason said you need to convince HPC that you tried options and determined what is the best option. HPC is not convinced this is the best solution. Jason said try an arch and see ifit works with the design. Roll call vote: Sarah, yes, Jeffrey, yes; Alison, yes; Derek, yes; Jason, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 202 N. MONARCH STREET - NO MINUTES 312 W. HYMAN 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 30. 2006 Jason said he feels HPC should freeze demolition on the chalet until we find out what else is going on with it. There might be new owners who will propose something. The board members agreed. Sara said your recommendation is to open an application to research into designation. MOTION: Jason moved to initiate an application for designation of 312 W. Hyman; second by Derek. Roll call vote: Sarah, yes; Alison, yes; Derek, yes; Jason, yes. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Jason moved to adjourn; second by Derek. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ~JU{A~vL Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13