Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070124 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2007 '>''''''W 411 E. Hopkins - Caribou Alley - Minor Development & Commercial Design - Public Hearing......................................................................................................................... ....... 1 Rustique - airlock/awning - monitoring issue....................................................................2 205 S. Galena Street Minor Development - Public Hearing.............................................. 3 212 W. Hopkins Ave. - Final, Public Hearing ...................................................................5 435 W. Main, Aspen Jewish Community Center - Final- Public Hearing .......................7 .,,'~c 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2007 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis, Michael Hoffman and Sarah Broughton. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Michael moved to approve January 1 (fh minutes; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Michael disclosed that is working with Martin Horowitz, the principle of Dream Works who is the contractor of the Brand Building deck. This will not affect his decision because he is not the principle owner. 411 E. Hopkins - Caribou Alley - Minor Development & Commercial Design - Public Hearing Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Amy stated that the building was built about 16 years ago. It is an infill building and on the same parcel as the Collins Block, which is an historic structure. At the time the building was built 25% was to remain open to the sky. They didn't quite meet that but were close by creating the open arcade. Harley Baldwin had an awning approved that was to be a seasonal awning. That is not the case and the awning is permanent which created an enforcement issue. Billy Stoltz is here representing the ownership with the proposal to retain a canopy over the alley. Staff recommends that if this is permanent we suggest that the awning be something more of a permanent design instead of a vinyl that is stretched over an aluminum frame. The design should be compatible with the building. Staff also suggests that the pitch of the skylight roof not be as steep as it is. In terms of the Commercial Design Standards we find it acceptable to forgive the open space standards on the site. They would still have to pay cash in lieu and the applicant is asking to be forgiven as much as possible for that fee. Staffs recommendation is to require the fee because the original idea was that there would be open space on that site and it is being eliminated and we think that the money should be provided to the City for pedestrian improvements. The 'y",.,. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2007 .- recommendation is to continue the application so that a permanent structure -.... can be designed and presented to the HPC. Billy Stolz, represented that he discussed the issue with Richard Edward owner of the building and we are in agreement to pay the cash-in-lieu fee and we are also in agreement to make it a full canopy that fits in with the building. We can change the canopy and make it substantial and in keeping with the building. We are concerned about a flat roof and maybe we can just have a little pitch for snow removal. Amy mentioned opening the canopy and that is a nice idea for the summer and is in keeping with the idea of opening it up to the sky. Sarah asked if the applicant intended to retain their doors. Billy said they take the doors down for the summer and they can design a more substantial door. It is a good idea to have the doors open for the summer. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 411 E. Hopkins until March 28th; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Rustique - airlock/awning - monitoring issue Amy indicated that the guidelines talk about awnings being functional and associated with the building opening. Staffs concern is the length of the proposed awning. Staff suggested that the awning be broken into two pIeces. Rob Ittner, owner said an airlock already exists and the proposed airlock is wider. The building is set back 5 Yo feet from the actual sidewalk. The columns are set back 28 inches from the sidewalk. The space is used for light cocktails and we need shading from the western exposure. The airlock portion would be removed in the summer and the awning would remain. Staff said we are not in favor of airlocks of this type and with Asie we had them build it out of a more permanent material. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2007 _ Jeffrey said it is difficult in the winter when restaurants do not have an __ interior space. Sarah said the long awning fits in with the architecture. Her concern is the name on the awning five times. Alison also said the awning looks best as a full single awning. Alison inquired if the airlock would match the building. Rob said it would be a sandstone tan color. Brian asked if there was a way to construct the awning so that it doesn't encroach. Rob said it seems sensible to encroach a little bit, three inches to share that space with the sidewalk because this is a street front bistro cafe. Michael said he is not offended by the logos or if the awning extended further into the street. Michael said he is not prepared to make decisions about the airlock. Alison said she is not opposed to the length of the awning. "",.,.,., Jeffrey said the airlock should be addressed separately. Rob said we have an existing airlock and he has worked with the building dept. His desire is whether HPC can approve the airlock based on its look and appropriateness with historic preservation. Amy said in theory she could work with Rob on the airlock as a certificate of no negative effect. Michael said she feels the airlock should come back as a minor development. Rob requested that the awning be approved and he would come back with the airlock. The board accepted the awning and agreed that it could be lengthened a little into the street if the owner will agree. 205 S. GALENA STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24. 2007 ,- Exhibit II - 2004 letter from Stephen Kanipe regarding planters. ..... Sara stated that the application is for the expansion of a roof deck on top of the Brand building. In 2006 staff signed a permit approving the exact replacement of the roof deck because repairs were needed on the membrane. During construction of the deck the size was increased and brought close to the parapet wall on Hopkins Ave. and also on the west. The height of the deck was also raised so the City issued a red tag to stop the work and have the applicant come before HPC to discuss solutions. Staffs main concern is the visual impact of the deck and the required 42 inch railing on top of the Brand bldg. Staff is proposing two solutions, first cutting back the deck two feet to provide a distance of 4 foot 10 inches from the parapet wall along Hopkins Ave. and also cutting it back two feet from the west fac;:ade and lowering the deck down to its original height and putting up the proposed cable railing that is represented. The second solution, if the applicant wants the deck to remain at its existing height in which the deck is flat, the deck could be cut back two feet on the Hopkins side and the west side to lessen the appearance with the railing on top. If you add people and furniture on top of the existing height it does create a visual impact. Regarding the mechanical equipment located in the corner, staff could not locate any kind of approval. Staff recommends that it be relocated to the middle of the roof or to a location that is not visible from that view plane looking towards Aspen Mtn. down Galena Street. The applicant stated that they are amenable to the recommendation. Marty Horowitz said this originally started as a roof membrane repair and we had to pull the whole deck off to repair the membrane. An architect designed it structurally to spread the load on the roof. We basically put a similar deck down. On the east end of the building on Galena the roof starts to slope down to the west so we raised it up 6 inches and carried that straight across and with the additional slope we picked up the other two feet and ended up with 32 inches. Putting the deck all the way across covers mechanical equipment that Gucci put on the roof. The deck was chopped off and it is now 5.6 from the edge of the deck to the interior of the parapet wall. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24. 2007 Marty also handed out a letter from Stephen Kanipe dated 2004 in which he -.- approved planters as railings. The owners are very willing to move the mechanical equipment. Sara said she talked to Stephen Kanipe regarding the planters. In terms of the IBC they would have to be fixed and 42 inches in height. That height is determined by the proximity of the deck to the parapet wall. Marty said they have planters 28 inches high with evergreen hedges which comply with the Bldg. Dept. requirements. Marty said option 2 seemed like a workable solution. Sara said staff is not opposed to planters; they just can't be used as the safety measure on the deck. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Amy suggested plants in pots that wouldn't be up so high with a transparent railing. Sarah suggested a cable railing and then use potted plants. Moving it back on the east side from the street is very important. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #3 for 205 S. Galena with moving of the mechanical equipment as stated in staff's memo and staff and monitor to determine the appropriate west movement that helps screen the existing mechanical equipment and limits the visual impacts from the street with a transparent cable rail solution of 42 inches high as possible. Option #2 of staff's memo. Everything needs to be approved by IBC and the Community Development Department. Motion second by Brian. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. For clarification the air conditioner can wait till spring. Potted plants will be used to "green" the roof. 212 W. Hopkins Ave. - Final, Public Hearing Affidavit of Posting - Exhibit I 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2007 ,,~. Sara stated that the applicant got approval to demolish and replace the "'"- connector piece and the second story directly behind the connector piece. Landscape plan. The applicant is proposing a fire feature that will be part of the building and our guidelines do not specifically talk about fire features but it seems awkward to have the fire feature be a part of the building. Maybe there could be a more sensitive solution by detaching it from the building. Lighting: The locations for the lighting are appropriate. In compliance with guideline 14.6 a more simpler fixture would be preferable to connect the new and old architecture. Fenestration: Staff thinks that the glazing proposed is entirely appropriate. We recommend that the unoriginal bay window that will be replaced appear to be a double hung or be a double hung. Right now it is a casement window. Materials: The glazing proposed is appropriate for the connector piece. Staff has a little concern about the concrete tiling that is on the first story section of the two story 1980' s addition. The square shape is a new shape that is being introduced that is not very sensitive to the miner's cabin. Staff recommends approval with a few conditions: Staff and monitor to review the landscape and fire feature. Approve the new material for the replacement of the concrete tile. Review and approve the lighting and window changes. John Galumbos represented the owner. John said he has no problem with working with staff regarding the appropriate light fixture. The fire feature was integrated in the wall. The original wall on the 1980's addition is clapboard siding and he wanted material that was distinct and contemporary without stripping the entire siding. He could change the size to a running bond etc. and work with staff. The fireplace was built to create some glow outside. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Comments: Michael said he is not offended by the fireplace element. The dark color and heavy material chosen does detract from the historic resource. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2007 Alison said she has no problem with the fire feature being attached. - Lighting up the concrete material or changing the upper part of the 80's material might be a better solution. The issue is that there is a huge difference from the top and bottom of the fac;:ade. Ifthe concrete is preferred a running bond and rectangular shape should be used to have it speak to the historic piece a little better. The double hung window and lighting changes can be worked out with staff and monitor. Sarah commented that based on our guidelines there are too many materials and they are not working with the forms on the addition. The concrete pavers if done correctly, can work in the landscape. Brian said he agrees with the staff memo. The materials on the 80's addition maybe detracting from the historic resource but it is difficult to determine realistically what it will look like. It probably will not be as a stark contrast as you see in the elevation. Brian said he would entertain moving the fire piece out a little but still connect it with the 80's addition. He agreed with staff that it seems a little odd placed right up against the building. Jeffrey said with a commendable restoration proposal this does merit approval with a little massaging of materials. Guideline 14.6 should be adhered too. Regarding the new materials the modernist and proportions should be worked out with staff and monitor. John said he can work with the running bond concept. He will work with staff to come up with the appropriate siding materials. He would prefer a running bond with some kind of concrete on the addition and feels that material selection to be appropriate. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #4 for 212 W Hopkins with the condition that the fire place feature and the siding material for the fafade of the 80 's addition are dealt with by staff and monitor. The fire place location is acceptable by HPC. Motion second by Sarah. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 435 W. Main, Aspen Jewish Community Center - Final- Public Hearing Exhibits: Elevations, Photograph of interior and stone wall drawings. Amy relayed final review is landscape, lighting, fenestration and materials. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24. 2007 .' Historic Cabins: The 6 of the nine cabins will be repaired as needed and ...... they will be lifted and put back on their foundations on-site. There is some mention of replacing the roofs with a metal roof and staff is not in support of that. It appears in the photograph that they probably had more of a shingled roof or maybe an asphalt roof. We recommend something more in character with the rustic nature of the buildings. The chimney stones should be photographed and documented and dismantled and rebuilt the way they originally existed. Light fixtures: Staff is concerned about the scale of the light fixtures that are going to be used on the cabins. Possibly something a little more simpler could be used. Landscape plan: The cabins on Third Street have a reasonable buffer of green space but the cabins in the alley need a little greener soft scape. New building: The project has come together on a difficult site. The choice of stone needs discussed. There seems to be some conflict on the drawings that shows a cut course stone vs. a rubble mortar stone. Staff supports the use of a local stone. There are circular windows in a number of gable ends, and staff has a concern with the one on the furthest east gable end because it is right next to the cabins and it seems to emphasize the height more and maybe a more traditional transom window might be better on that particular fac;:ade. There is a stone wall proposed around the playground area and staff is concerned about the solid character. The guidelines talk about transparency in fences. Staff is concerned with the materials and height. The applicant is presenting option A and B for streetscape plantings. The only difference between them is the amount of existing street trees they can retain. The Parks Dept. supports option B. The last issue is the off-site relocation of the cabins. Relocation of the cabins has been approved with the condition that you accept the site that they are to be moved too. There are ten individuals interested but none are in the town limits. This issue should not hold up the process. Arthur Chabon, architect addressed the conditions of approval that need '0' discussed. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24. 2007' Condition 2 refers to retaining the shingles on the cabins. Arthur said '"-- changing the roof form of the cabins we feel is not as good for the project as a whole. It is better to have the same roof and there is also a cost issue with doing cedar shingles. Arthur said regarding condition #3 he agrees that the light fixtures should be smaller. They will probably keep the fixtures that are on the cabins. Arthur said Suzanne Richmond will address the landscaping, condition #4. Arthur said item #8 refers to the chimneys. They have always intended to keep the original stone of the chimneys. f""""- Arthur said item #9 refers to approving the stone mockups. As the project evolves they would like to work with the monitor on the exact detailing of the stone. Arthur presented two different stones, one a buff sandstone and the other is a red sandstone. Ifwe go with the buff we would prefer to do a larger joint more consistent with the photographs but the coursing would be the same as shown on the drawings. If we go to the red stone we probably would not do a mortar that is similar to the stone itself. - Arthur said condition #10 relates to the round windows. We feel quite strongly about retaining those windows. They relate to the interior of the building and the exterior. The round pediments are in the wood gables and in the entrance. We feel they add to the cohesiveness of the design because elements are broken up and it is good to repeat elements on various facades that give it cohesiveness. The round window in the sanctuary appears above the arc. Arthur said item #11 relates to the fence and we are happy to restudy it. Our intent is to have the 4th Street side and the alley side open. Only the Main Street for security ofthe playground will have the solid wall. From sight lines we are required to lower the wall on the 4th Street side. Arthur passed around new sketches. Arthur requested clarification of what changes would require full committee review and what changes require just staff and monitor. The primary change is the raising ofthe windows in the sanctuary. There is a change in grade at the playground in relationship to the sidewalk. They are below 30 inches 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24. 2007 ,- which is what is required and a variance needs to be granted. The Bldg. ''-~ Dept. requested that we lower the elevation of the entry. Suzanne Richmond, landscape architect relayed that they agree that more landscaping is needed along the alley. Around the existing cabins is proposed an herb perennial garden around the bases of the buildings and on the corner rose bushes that would provide different colors etc. Around the playground are shrub plantings and lilac plantings. Suzanne said at the work sessions there was discussion about the relationship of the sidewalk to Main Street and it was determined that the sidewalk needed to be relocated closer to the buildings in order to create a green buffer along Main Street. In addition there is an existing historic ditch that needed incorporated in the design and as a result a few trees need to be removed. The Parks Dept. would prefer the trees not be removed but suggested that the project go forward and be implemented and try to keep the trees and see if they make it and if the trees don't make it then we would replace them. Suzanne addressed the last issue regarding the rule that within the five foot -... setback from the property line you are not allowed to exceed 30 inches in cut in your property from the sidewalk. Due to the circumstances and that the building needed to be on one grade we find that we need a variance. On one end we are between 3 Yo to 4 feet below grade and we would prefer that we have some circulation area around the playground equipment. Amy clarified that the restriction of being more than 30 inches below grade is only in the five foot setback. Suzanne said they would like to continue beyond the five foot setback. Amy said HPC would have to public notice for that variance. Lennie Oates, attorney for the applicant. In the resolution we would like to have a clear statement that the lack of final resolution with the respect to the relocation of the three cabins off-site will not be an impediment to the granting of a building permit. Lennie said they have a bonding requirement with respect to the cabins and they have solicited proposals. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2007 - Steve Goldenberg, neighbor said he has been coming since the beginning of """. the process. His issues are the lilac bushes which were mentioned that they will be preserved. The other issue is the large spruce tree and it would be a pity ifit can't be saved. The Parks Dept. is aware and working on the situation. The tree is 50 to 60 feet tall. Everyone is on the same page and desires to preserve the tree if possible. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Sarah agreed with staff that the roofing material on the cabins should be a fabric that is similar in appearance to what was historically used. On the landscape plan Sarah was hoping to see more green along the interior hard- scape between the new building and the cabins. Maybe there is a way that the cabins could be buffered with green as opposed to the hard-scape right up to them. The landscape on the alley cabins is appropriate. In terms of the new building, parts of it seem more appropriate to different parts of the country as opposed to Aspen. Maybe it is the colored rendition. Seeing the stone, the red color is preferable. Possibly bringing in more vernacular materials and colors might tie it more with Aspen. With regard to the wall schemes, the stepped is preferable. In terms of the landscape she would defer to the Parks Department and the spruce tree is a great asset. Regarding the circular windows she has no issues with them. The raising of the windows and the proportions are fine. Sarah recommended that the applicant study snow fences on the roof. This is a great building and a great asset to Main Street. Michael commented that he feels strongly that the spruce tree should be preserved. A stone that is more modest like we see on that side of Main Street would be preferable. He also agreed that the wall around the playground area should be stepped down but in this case there is a safety concern for the children and he could accept a wall. Michael said he feels the applicant should come back with a different stone for the HPC to review. He could also approve the transom window over the sanctuary and the variance for the sub-grade space. Alison agreed that the historic cabins should retain the shingled roofs. Keeping the existing fixtures on the cabins is OK as long as they don't look like they were from the 80's. The landscape plan is commendable and option A would be the preferred plan. Keeping the historic ditch is an 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2007 ..~ interesting feature around Aspen. Regarding the stone color, the red speaks '.- to Aspen. Alison said she disagrees with removing the round window at the east end. She also agreed with Michael that the fence is a security issue with any playground on a main street. Brian also agreed that the historic cabins should retain wood shingles. On the stone, the red stone is the preferred option. On this project we are loosing a real vernacular along the streetscape. The wall along the play area compounds the length of that fac;:ade and anything that we can do to shorten that fac;:ade would be preferable. Brian feels the stone wall should be eliminated and some other kind of fencing should be used. In terms of the landscape the addition of greenery helps; however, we are missing opportunities. The concern is how the hard-scape abuts directly up to the foundation of the historic cabins. Possibly grass pavers could soften that area up. Brian preferred option B for the landscape plan and also that the spruce tree should be retained as it is an important element in this site. Brian had no problem with the variance for the playground area. Jeffrey also agreed that wood shingles are preferable on the roofs of the cabins. Regarding the landscaping he agreed with Sarah and Brian that a green space or buffer should occur between the foundation and hard-scape. Jeffrey felt that the stone meets our criteria and his recommendation would be the red hue. Regarding the fence, children's safety is extremely important. The stone wall is broken up nicely with the detailing and the stepping wall is appropriate. The light fixtures and vending locations can be reviewed by staff and monitor. Landscape plan B is preferable. Jeffrey said he is favorable for the variance for the landscape and recommends that the tree be retained. The application meets our criteria and standards for approval. Discussion: Amy clarified that after seeing the rendering of the circular window in the social hall she feels that it is not a top concern. The board did a straw poll to retain the circular windows. Sarah agreed with Brian that the wall is an issue. In major metropolitan areas they do not have fences around their urban playgrounds and there are ways to minimize the risk and safety of children without building a six foot high wall. Having a huge wall on Main Street is not appropriate. _. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24. 2007 ." Michael stated that he feels the stone selection is not appropriate for that side -00 of Main Street. Arthur explained that part of the wall is volume of a covered stair coming up from the basement. Brian suggested wrapping the fence from Fourth to Main Street. Jeffrey said some masonry edge is a justification for their program. Alison also said she could approve stepping the wall. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 435 W Main with the only condition, a restudy of the stone wall fence, second by Brian. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, no, Jeffrey, no. Motion carried 3-2. Arthur commented that they need more direction because they have gone through 18 months of restudy. Rabi Mintz requested a decision from the HPC not a continuation. Sarah said her clarification of the motion is the stone wall on Fourth Street and Main Street. Michael clarified that the stone wall, not the volume element needs to be restudied because the majority of the board feels it inappropriate. Suzanne said on Fourth Street we cannot have a stone wall, we are proposing a stone finish between one and two feet in height and above that a metal railing that would be open. Sarah suggested bringing the design on Fourth around to Main Street. Brian and Sarah said they have no problem with the design of the fence on Fourth Street. Main Street is the area of concern. Rabi Mintz said he took an active role in the design of the pre-school playground. The Mothers were very clear that a wall you cannot see through for the safety and security of their own children was warranted. ~ 13 .,........ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24. 2007 Amy said possibly a railing on Fourth Street could be done with a row of evergreens behind it. Arthur said to introduce another element on Main Street would be detrimental to the project as a whole. Jeffrey commented that the board has gotten around the preservation of the cabins, the landscape plan and the architectural treatment. To hold this application up over a simple wall detail is not in the best interest ofthe HPC or the applicant. We have looked at the massing and aesthetics countless times for the past 18 months. Brian said in order to move forward he could approve the stepped version. MOTION: Michael moved to withdraw his motion, second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. ,.", MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #4 for 434 W Main with the following conditions: 1. That the moving of the three historic cabins to a receiver site if it has not been found by the time of permit issuance that will not effect the permit process. 2. Historic cabins are to have wood shingled roofs. 3. Alternative exterior light fixture for the historic cabins will be reviewed by staff and monitor. 4. Applicant will look at providing more green space around the base of the historic cabins and try to minimize the amount of hard-scape going into the foundation of the historic cabins. 5-9 as written in the resolution. Elimination of condition #10. 11. Restudy the fence on Main Street as it goes into Fourth St. based on comments heard tonight to be approved by staff and monitor. Condition 12 -17 as written in the resolution. Motion second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn the meeting; second by Alison. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. - Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14