Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20041013 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 701 E. MAIN - HISTORIC LOT SPLIT - GMQS ............................................................ 1 114 NEALE AVE. - CONCEPTUAL.............................................................................. 1 110 E. BLEEKER - AMENDMENT TO FINAL (conl'd from Aug. 25th) ....................... 1 ASPEN MEADOWS CONFERENCE AND MEETING HALL - REFERRAL COMMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 5 314 E. HYMAN AVE. - THE MOTHERLODE - CONCEPUTAL -PUBLIC HEARING - P ARKlNG W AIVER....................................................................................................... 7 WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES.................................................................................. 12 530 - 534 E. Hopkins........................................................................................................ 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Sarah Broughton and Jason Lasser. Valerie Alexander was seated at 5: 10 p.m. Michael Hoffman was seated at 5:20 p.m. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of Sept. 22, 2004; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 701 E. MAIN - HISTORIC LOT SPLIT - GMQS MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and lot split on 701 W. Main until Oct. 27, 2004; second by Derek. All infavor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Jason, Derek, Sarah, Jeffrey 114 NEALE AVE. - CONCEPTUAL MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 114 Neale Ave. until Oct. 27, 2004; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 4-0. Yes vote: Jason, Derek, Sarah, Jeffrey 110 E. BLEEKER - AMENDMENT TO FINAL (cont'd from Aug. 25th) Valerie was seated. Amy relayed that the owners desire to make amendments to the addition that was approved a few years ago. They would like to change the form of it somewhat. The board had concerns because the addition had Victorian trim on it and it was a little bit confusing about the date it was constructed and there was also a new window in the back of the historic house that they wanted added that was very Victorian looking. Another concern was the stone that was to be used for the new construction. The applicants revised the plans and have taken away all the ornamentation which staff finds successful. After they remove the paint from the historic house they are committed to looking to see ifthere were any historic openings on the east gable end. Staff is requiring a mockup of the stone material for the board and monitor to review to make sure it has compatibility with the Victorian brick. Sworn in: Mitch Haas 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 Mitch presented a number of stone samples and handed out revised plans for the board to review. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. No public comments. Public hearing closed. Jason's concern is the proposed stone on the south elevation in the gable end which might conflict with our guidelines. Sarah said she had a concern about the north elevation on the historic resource where new French doors are being proposed with a shed roof over them and then a new bay window with a gabled roof over it. She feels the forms are conflicting with the historic resource. You are adding a level of complexity to that fa9ade that was not there historically. Similarly, with the addition, the stairwell volume, in looking at our guideline 11.5 (use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property) that volume is isolated and is foreign to the vocabulary on the historic resource. Sarah requested a drawing of the west elevation of the historic resource showing the proposed link coming into it. Michael was seated. Mitch reminded the board that the garage doors would be moved to the alley side. Valerie said she focused on whether the stone was an appropriate material. Her concern is whether the stone material is overwhelming the historic resource. The board needs a clearer direction of the application before we can decide. Valerie requested a mockup of the material choice. The board members commended the applicant on the proposed restoration of the historic house back to its wonderful original detail. Derek had no comments. Jeffrey said on the concept and use of the stone on the addition in the schematic packet the original south elevation had cedar plank siding and clad wood and that seems to make the stone stand out more. The historic resource has a wonderful patter of brick. Maybe the material is too different and too overwhelming. On the north elevation, the rear elevation in the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 schematic set it was much simpler. A mockup of the stone is recommended. Chapter 10.3, 10.4 could be supported with some adjustments. Mitch summarized. On the North elevation we are removing a non-historic addition that is there now and replacing it. The bay window design that was there before looked too original so the new design was meant to address that and not make it look historic. The idea was that the stone compliments the historic stone structure and doesn't compete with it. The client desires a brick addition. The addition is 10 feet further back than the historic house and 16 feet from the street. We though we made great strides regarding the landscaping plan which is now very simplified. The rear elevation visibility is very limited and the thought was that it is a new addition and should not look like the historic house. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #30, 2004 as stated in staff's memo with the following conditions: 1. Drawing of the west elevation of the historic resource to be approved by staff and monitor. 2. Mockup of the stone to be approved by staff and monitor. 3. Restudy of the northfa{:ade of the historic resource with the bay window and the French door and conflicting roofs. To be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Derek. Valerie added that the mockup be reviewed on-site and that we include the stone next to the copper so that we can get a clear picture of what is occurring. Amended motion: Sarah amended her motion to include Valerie's statements and that the mockup come back to the entire board. Discussion: Amy asked for clarification of the stone. Sarah said we have been presented with five different types of stone and we are not here to do a multiple choice. We need to be presented with a stone that they think is appropriate. Valerie said Jason had a good point that maybe the stone should not go all the way to the top of the addition. The stone should be used in a secondary way so that it is not overwhelming the historic resource. Guideline 10.11 states that on a new addition the use of exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building should be used. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 Jason said there are quite an array of different materials being used in this project; stucco, siding, stone. Guideline 11.9 has not been met. The windows on the north and south elevation in the upper gable are so big that they are taking away the size of the stone in the gable end. The scale of the windows isn't matching the historic building. Sarah withdrew her motion. Valerie said there are too many issues for staff and monitor to handle. MOTION: Valerie moved to continue the application to Nov. 1 dh with the following recommendations: 1. Present a drawing of the west elevation of the historic resource. 2. Provide a mockup of the stone. 3. Restudy of the northfa{:ade of the historic resource with the bay window and French door and conflicting roofs. Motion second by Jason. Mitch said this is the same discussion that we had at the last meeting. Regarding the stone the guideline says the stone should be complimentary. Our feeling is that the stone is complementary to the historic house. We softened the landscape. Mitch said he was given direction to study materials and come up with some samples. He feels the board should look at the project with all of the improvements being made. From the existing fence we are back 27 7 Yz inches back to the start of the deck railings and then the building goes back another five feet. Mitch said he does not want to undo a lot of progress. Amy said the staff summary was reviewed Aug. 25th and continued for restudy of materials and detailing of the addition which was thought to be too Victorian in nature; however, there was discussion about the windows on the back of the Victorian. Mitch responded by saying the ornamental fans and porch columns have been simplified and changed from the Victorian style. The ornamental balusters have been removed and replaced with simple rectangular balusters. We have replaced the turned porch columns with rectangular ones. All the roofing on the historic house is cut cedar shake shingles. The fencing drawings have been detailed and provided. If we find historic evidence on the windows of the east gable end we will return to the board. The north 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 elevation kitchen bay has been redesigned. The oval window on the stair of the north elevation has been removed and replaced with an orthogonal window. The wood trim detailing in the gable end of the new house has been removed. Numerous changes have been made from the responses that were brought up. Mitch said he thought that the only issue left was the stone selection. Amy stated that the last meeting was an amendment to final and was continued. Michael asked what other issues are of concern besides the fenestration and the stone selection. Amy said there is a concern about the windows on the rear of the Victorian, which can probably be revised easily. How the stone is applied is a concern and how many different materials are at work here. The scale ofthe upper floor window on the addition is of concern. Amy said it is appropriate for the board to review anything about the addition that is different from what was approved. Michael said his concern is the stone and the second story window. Amy clarified that the concern are the two windows on the back of the Victorian and the one upper floor window. Jason also said there is concern about the windows on the north and south elevation ofthe new addition and the upper stone. Guideline 10.3 has not been met. Amended motion: Valerie amended the motion to state that guideline 10.3 has not been met. Motion and amended motion carried 5-1. Yes vote: Michael, Valerie, Sarah, Jason, Jeffrey No vote: Derek ASPEN MEADOWS CONFERENCE AND MEETING HALL - REFERRAL COMMENTS Jody Schoeberlein, Jeff Berkus and Jim Curtis presented. Amy said after the last session the applicants decided to flip the plan so that the end ofthe structure that had a little less massing was closer to the health club. With the flip the circulation has changed, allowing the meadow and pond to remain open like it is today. In general staff feels this is an enormous improvement. Staff feels there should be some discussion about the element on the northern end of the building, which is a lounge. Possibly 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 it could be oriented somewhat differently to keep it more of a connection to the health club. In the area of the pond numerous cotton wood trees have sprung up over the years and you actually can't see the health club as you clearly once could from any direction so the applicant is interested in speaking to the Parks Dept. to see if some of the trees could be removed. Staff would like feedback from the board regarding the removal of the trees. Jim Curtis said they took the comments from the last meeting and made major changes to the project that they are very excited about. JeffBerkus stated that they restudied the entire circulation pattern and paths. They engaged and widened the pond. The walkway is a smoother curve. When the water moves it will contour toward the rocks. The pathway from the parking is along the edge and away from the edges of the pond. The building is now 46 feet from the Calaway Center. Regarding the lounge we could project out 3 Yz feet instead of? feet. Comments: Jason said trees would help screen the second story element of the new addition. The applicant has made great strides pulling the building back. Jason questioned the need for the stairs. Derek said this is a great project. There is now a level of coherence in the plans. The water feature and widening of the pond is a good idea and it provides language coherency between the whole site plan and the actual building itself. Derek said he would be willing to look further at removing some of the trees, and in the long term that could be successful. Sarah said the energy is right now. Getting the open meadow back works well and moving the light well to the other side would be beneficial to the project. The water pond now makes sense with the water element and ties them together. There has been a lot of thought put into this revision. Sarah commented that she feels there are too many trees. Michael relayed that he is somewhat tom about the trees. He would be supportive of the removal of some trees. Valerie said the team is very open-minded. Valerie asked about the glazing. Jeff said they are thinking about making it simpler and not having as many breakups. Valerie said she supports the pond modification and supports a 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 selective removal of trees. She also agrees with Jason concerning the need for the stairs in the middle of the lawn. Jeffrey echoed everyone's feelings on the design. It is a wonderful campus and the new building should be complimentary as well as adjusting to a very philosophical place. The site analysis is very important on this project and the team has spent a lot of time on the sequence, natural light, view plane, context and scale. People who use the path to the Calaway Center might extend their experience and walk by the new building. The form of the building is much more contextual and it fits with the adjacent Wexner building. Jeffrey also said the pond modification works and he agreed with Jason about re-sculpting it to make it feel more natural. The southwestern orientation of the light well is best for the natural light but maybe it could be restudied as it sticks up a little bit. Amy said this is not a noticed public hearing and the applicant will be back with final revisions Oct. 2ih. 314 E. HYMAN AVE. - THE MOTHERLODE - CONCEPUTAL- PUBLIC HEARING - PARKING WAIVER Sworn in: Doug Brown, Bill Poss, Mike Hamburg, Ruth Kruger, Gorden Whitmer, Sunny Vann, Kim Weil, Howard Ross Amy said the proposal is to retain the historic portion of the Motherlode building based on the Sanborn maps and historic evidence of what was there at the turn of the Century. They propose to demolish some non-contributing additions that are on the side of the building toward the alley and to replace them with a new mixed use structure. Regarding the Motherlode, nothing specific is going to happen. There will be no basement underneath. All the construction is behind it. The parking requirement will be based on the number of residential units and what P&Z requires for affordable housing. We do know that they cannot provide any more than the four spaces that are shown on their site plan. The request is that HPC waive everything above and beyond that. There are very few examples left of this kind of early development of a false front building. They either burnt down or were knocked down in favor of a masonry building. The team has great experience in historic preservation and the concept they had was to look at the overall character of downtown by doing a masonry building. Staffis somewhat concerned as to whether that is really the right thing to do in 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 response to this small frame building. The concern is about the collision between the materials, volume and the forms of these two buildings, and not having the transition that HPC always asks for consistently in projects. Staff mentioned that they would be comfortable with the new construction coming forward on the property. As a possibility they can ask to mitigate their affordable housing off-site by constructing units elsewhere or buying down a free market unit. That might give them some flexibility as to how they allocate the square footage. Staff recommends continuation for restudy. Bill Poss said this is a prime example of a western storefront, which will be restored. You need the gable behind the false front to identify it as a western front. The first 30 feet of the building is historic and behind that are additions. This building is on a prominent street in town, beside the Crystal Palace and the Wheeler Opera house. The building is bold but the brick design was chosen due to its surrounding buildings. It coincides with the forms, floor levels and streetscape. The verticality is also depicted in the design. Rose sandstone and rose color brick were chosen because it allows us to make a statement within the street and not detract from the historic resource and allow that building to exist as it did 100 years ago. The approach of stepping it back is a major part of our presentation. We do not intend to do something that copies the historic resource. Doug Brown said when he originally came to Bill he wanted to bring the building up as close as possible to the street. What he wants to do is bring it back as far as possible to save the gable and the fa9ade so you can frame it and keep it rich in identification. Regarding the wood it won't be a natural project if you try to match it to a look alike. The brick is much richer. Bill said a garden feature on the front of the street identifies that something else is going on. Bill said he discussed with the key designer, Mike Hamburg the wood aspect, which is somewhat foreign to the block. The materials will be rose sandstone around the bottom and on some of the other levels. We would work with a masonry company that would make a brick or cast stone that would replicate the rhythm of the wood on the historic resource. This would enable us to get the horizontal textures incorporated into the building. Bill stated that Chapter 10.7 states that ifit is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. This is the approach that they have taken. He also stated that they will come back with the design of the connector. They do not feel 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 the addition detracts because it is a contemporary approach. Bill said the masonry makes the building stand on its own. Questions Sarah asked what has changed? Bill said they had more of a sloping design and that has been squared off somewhat. Sarah asked if the rock on the west/east and north fa9ade had a different pattern. Bill said yes and they will address the materials at final. Sarah also asked if underground parking was explored. Bill said yes, but because of the depth you can't get a ramp down quick enough and you can't turn cars. Michael said this is a very important site for Aspen. Michael asked Amy to research other historic cities for some comparisons. Bill said they researched other cities and they had additions that came over the top and he doesn't find that to be successful. Their desire is to have the infill building and the historic building stand on their own. Bill said in his research he could not find cities that exemplify their proposal. They did not want a straight fa9ade behind it so they designed an angular approach that would allow the transition so that it wasn't such a strong break. The angles are a more exciting design. Howard Ross said in his travels to Park City the new buildings encroached upon the historic storefronts. He feels this project is really great and the City and HPC should move forward. This is a great infill project and it gives the City exactly what they would like to see. This project could set an example for the town. Commissioner comments: Jason said the distinction between the huge Wheeler building and the Motherlode makes this a very difficult project. The size and scale and pulling back from the fa9ade some 30 feet is great and maintaining the gable of the Motherlode works well. His only problem is the fa9ade and its relationship to the Motherlode. Guideline 13.11 and 13.10 should be looked at. The dining room module that is a pop out at the top looks like everything is spreading over the top of the Motherlode and if that was a flat fa9ade it might not look like everything is growing forward. Jason also said modem interpretation works well. The proposed angle seems like it is tilting everything over to the Motherlode. Derek said he is a big advocate of the project and he remains firm in his position that this is a wonderful opportunity for the City of Aspen and their 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 whole idea of moving toward infill. Derek pointed out that the beauty in being in Aspen is that we are not Park City and we are not Telluride. This town has the opportunity to do work that will challenge the community and will become a living breathing viable part of what we will do for the next 100 years. This is a great catalystic opportunity. As far a compatibility of material, our guidelines are tailored toward the historic Victorian west end. It is a different ball game when you are describing the one-story Motherlode, which is a 100 year old wooden structure. Derek said he has lived in Australia, Dublin, Ireland where there is this integration and mix of the old and new with materials. Sarah said she is all for infill and she commends the lower density and it is the right thing for Aspen. The 30-foot setback is also incredibly appropriate and keeps our historic resource intact. Sarah said she is struggling with many of the guidelines. Addressing 10.3, this addition is completely inconsistent. 10.4 states that an addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building. The historic building is distinguishable but the addition is not dealt with in a subordinate way. The fa9ade should be an unadorned fa9ade that keeps the historic resource as the primary focus of the development. The addition is visually competing with the historic resource. Guideline 13.12 deals with rectangular forms and they should be dominant on commercial core facades. Rectangular forms should be vertical. Sarah said she is completely distracted by the diagonal moves on the fa9ade. The applicant has not defended why they are there, except to say that they are a contemporary move. She also said guideline 13.18 relates to repetition of similar shapes along the block. You are trying to defend certain patterns in the block but she doesn't see those patterns coming up at all. The other facades of the building are successful. The north fa9ade addresses the alley very well and creates a nice living space for the units. Michael requested comparisons because he is struggling with what are the possibilities for this site. Clearly it is a downtown Aspen site and we haven't really dealt with downtown sites. He doesn't have a good feeling for what is possible for this site. The new construction seems to be something that you would see behind an historic art deco structure. Valerie said she views this project from a district perspective. She feels the mass and scale is very appropriate. Valerie's primary concern is the void that is created in the addition set back from the street. Valerie said she also voiced that concern in the worksessions. Guideline 13.6 describes 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 encouraging pedestrian activity. Pushing the commercial space back from the street comes at a detriment to the bigger picture of the community. She appreciates exposing the false fa9ade. It is less important to show that little slice of history than it is to maintain a vital street. The contemporary interpretation on this site is appropriate, looking at the entire block. You are starting to express some linearity in the stonework and reflecting and interpreting what would be wood and that is supportive in masonry and steel. She would not support pushing the affordable housing elsewhere. If it did move it should stay in the urban core. The trellis is further making this feel like a gated kind of entry community. The playful pop outs of the hanging spaces are set so far back from the street that in perspective it would not feel like it is looming over the resource. She also stated that she can support the parking variance. It would a major re-design to bring this commercial space forward, but aside from that she supports the project. Jeffrey said as far as mass and scale he appreciates leaving the historic resource and it is an anomaly anymore to have that western storefront. It is important to have that open space next to it. The relief of the open space next to the Wheeler Park is very successful and appropriate for the site. The simplification of the southern fa9ade is coming together. It is important to address guideline 10.3,13.10 and 13.11. This is not a residential project, it is in the commercial zone. As Valerie mentioned looking at the project as a whole is very important. Having affordable units in the commercial core is important. The entry trellis is in conflict and it is becoming a private entrance to the residence. He understands the architectural reasoning for it, to give it some prominence and architectural direction for the entry of the residential units but it should be simplified. The cantilever elements are intriguing but maybe looking at them from a street level might help, as they seem a little intimidating on top of the historic resource. The lower density context is much appreciated. Overall, this is a good project that needs some minor tweaking and he could support conceptual with modification. Michael suggested that the space in front of the residential units be used by the public. Bill Poss responded. We have a very quiet resource and a vibrant response to that is a nice contradiction in the design so that is why we chose to come forward and not be so flat. The straight forwardness in our city is along the street line. With regard to the garden feature in the front we wanted something more open and this is simply merely to relate to the street front. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 If this remains a restaurant that space will be outdoor dining. We would be willing to study that area. Bill said they do not believe in coming in with six options and asking the board what they want. This is what it takes to make the element work. We feel it can be bold and it has more vitality. It is our intent to have dual usage for the open area. Possibly use it for outdoor dining and outdoor gallery space and allow people to access the four units. Bill said this is a strong approach and they like it. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on the Motherlode until Nov. 17th; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Sarah asked for clarity for the client as to what is needed for restudy. Amy said there is quite a difference of opinion. Guidelines to be restudied: 113.12 - 10.3 - 10. 11 - 13.10 - 13.11- 10.4 Amy asked the board for direction on moving the building forward. Derek likes it as is. Valerie wants to see commercial space where the patio is. Amy said you mayor may not get a restaurant and if you get a restaurant do the tenants and residents want to walk through a bunch of tables and restaurant seating to get to their apartment. Bill said only Valerie wanted the commercial first floor to move forward and he offered to study that. Sarah said she would not like a flat fa9ade but would like some reasons behind certain moves happening on the fa9ade. Why is the diagonal line important to this historic resource and this building. Sarah said she is hearing an overwhelming concern about the south fa9ade. Jason said the vertical rhythm is no problem, it is the relief and the angle that are an issue to him. Sarah said she agreed with Jason. WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES 530 - 534 E. Hopkins MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All infavor, motion carried. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13. 2004 Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 13