Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20071010 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 435 W. MAIN - ASPEN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 2 PARKING METERS .......................................................................................................... 6 604 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION - RELOCATION - COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW - VARIANCES - PH .........................................................................7 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.rn. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Nora Berko, Alison Agley and Ann Mullins. Excused were Michael Hoffman and Jay Maytin. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counsel MOTION: Brian moved to approve the minutes of Sept. 26, 2007; second by Jeffrey. All infavor, motion carried. 435 W. MAIN - ASPEN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT Elevation - Exhibit I, II Affidavit - Exhibit III Amy pointed out that the proposal is for an amendment to downsize the project. The circulation and lobby space has been consolidated and rethought and 2,500 square feet is being taken out of the project. It has also eliminated a portion of the building on the far east so there is twice as much distance between the new building and the historic cabins. The project is about 10,000 square feet under what is allowed. There were a couple issues brought up on the new building. They are requesting that the roofs on the cabins be standing seam metal instead of shingle and staff s position is shingles were discussed at final and that should remain. On the new structure we will be discussing the stone. The stone should be of a native material that was used along Main Street. Staff has some concerns about the hardy plank. On the east end of the social hall there is a patio proposed. Arthur Chabon, architect presented. Arthur pointed out that they will keep the cedar shingles on the cabins. Arthur said they will come back to discuss the stone at another date. The amendment is that the social auditorium building be entirely stone instead of a combination of stone and wood. We are proposing that because the building has gotten substantially shorter the social building seems to be disengaged. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 The condition of the wall at the comer on Main Street is now stepped and it does not continue to the corner at Fourth Street. We eliminated the wall and replaced it with a wrought iron fence. The wall is stepped and echoes the stairs that are behind it. The patio has to accessible from the auditorium. We dropped the building another six inches. Nora pointed out that Main Street is an historic corridor and there is no stone in the corridor. The stone on the auditorium changes the character of coming into town. Amy pointed out that stone was approved and the discussion is whether it can be expanded. Jeffrey asked if the new stone veneer on the auditorium was studied to the proximity of the cabins and how the materials might relate to each other. Arthur said there is actually less stone on the sanctuary. We didn't want the area to the patio to be chewed up by ramps and stairs. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Don Erdman pointed out the historic facts about the historic character of Main Street. There are approximately 6,300 linear feet on Main Street between ih and Mill. Of that only 250 linear feet involve stone. 450 linear feet involve brick starting from the Jerome. The Sardy house and Miner's buildings being the principles. This makes stone only 4% of the linear frontage on Main Street. Brick is 7% on Main Street. I have been here 35 years and was on HPC for about 7 years. Stone as represented here is not at all in charact~r of the historic frontages on Main Street. Stone fayade reflects rural lodge like buildings. 89% of Main Street has wood facades. The planning is well done on this project but there are implications with this much stone on the fayade. David Brown, public: In the guidelines you ask for differenciation between historic buildings and new buildings. It might be true that there is not much stone on Main Street but there is stone on Main Street and it might not be dominant. The stone would differenciate itself from the wood buildings on Main Street. There would be no confusion of the historic nature and it would be appropriate and fitting. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 Commissioner member comments: Sarah said our feeling was that given the institutional and cultural significance of this building that it might be appropriate to use this more substantial material, such as a church you would find in the West End which is a predominantly wood sided neighborhood. Tonight we are not being asked to look at the stone. With our guidelines it would be more appropriate to keep wood on the auditorium as submitted. The size reduction is a great asset to this plan and gives breathing room to our historic resources. It is very positive. In terms of the east terrace it seems too manicured. We need a more congruent site approach. Ann said wood relates better to the cabins and you don't' have such an abrupt transition from the massive stone building. The horizontal design element makes it a much more massive building. In terms of the wall most people will only see it from their vehicles. It is only 2 Yz feet tall. Alison agreed with the comments of other members of the board. Stone is not a foreign material on Main Street. There is not as much of it but there can be more and it does help differenciate the building. As a matter of balance in the elevation the hall would benefit from the wood siding also. On the patio possibly the jog could be straight in order to provide a smoother transition. Arthur said the cement board, (hardi-plank) was presented at the final review and we brought samples of it. It was approved. It would look exactly like the rendering. A layman would not know the difference but a trained eye such as the HPC board would realize that it is not a wood building. Brian agreed with everything said. Wood would break up the continuity of the building and add an aesthetic variance on the streetscape. Wood on the auditorium is appropriate. It is a nice transition to the cabins. The jog in the wall is not necessary and having plantings in front of it is a good suggestion. The changes to the plan are great and the shortening of the building is admirable. Nora said she is looking at this building as it relates to the historic corridor. This is the entrance to Aspen and we are stewards to that entrance. It is our responsibility to keep the integrity of it. The figures presented by Don Erdman are compelling. This building stands opposite of the Floridora Bldg. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 It is surrounded by buildings that have historicity. The translation to stone is overwhelming and the auditorium would work better in wood. Nora pointed out that the Christiania Inn is a very successful project. Jeffrey thanked the applicant for taking away the square footage and it is greatly appreciated. The size and scale of this structure getting smaller is beneficial to the structures to the west. Under two years of hearings with this structure stone was discussed. Jeffrey agreed with the comments about the auditorium being lowered which is great but in order to conform with our guidelines wood as indicated on the prior submission is successful. It picks up the board and batten from the cabins and wood helps the mass and scale of the structure. The east terrace and the patio design and the need for outside space is excellent. The step on the west fayade is successful and it is a good pedestrian friendly solution and well executed. Jeffrey said the project is in support of our guidelines and he could recommend approval with some modifications. Arthur agreed about the terrace and bringing the wall back to the social hall and putting the plantings in front. Arthur asked the board to think about doing the auditorium in stone. The parishioners felt that the auditorium was second fiddle and didn't have enough prominence and felt that it should be constructed in stone. Rabi Mintz said he hoped that the board could give this building some kind of prominence. We have doubled the space between the buildings for the betterment of the project and reduced the square footage. Brian said he is not willing to approve stone on the auditorium. The stone presented is very cold. If stone is approved it needs to be softer and put cedar shingles and landscaping to the streetscape which will also soften it. As we continue I am almost disappointed I agreed on stone at all. Amy pointed out that stone was part of the final approval. MOTION: Alison moved to approve Reso. 37 for 435 W. Main Street. Amendments: Strike #1. #3 add mockup will be presented. #4 Review options for east patio front wall condition. Add #9 approval of the elevations in the packet. Motion second by Sarah. Discussion: 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 Sarah pointed out that the applicant is coming back with the stone. Possibly it should be presented as a total palate. The applicant has not found the stone that they are excited about. Sarah suggested approving the amendment of the change of size and the larger east side. Jeffrey said it is difficult to take one piece of stone and bring it into a hearing and say this is the stone. Rabi Mintz said he is hesitant to approve some things and not others. It might be that they will go back to the original plan. He needs to discuss this and get feedback. Rabi requested continuation. Jim True also agreed that splitting the motion might not work for the applicant. Jim suggested continuation. Alison withdrew her motion and Sarah withdrew her second. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 435 W. Main until Oct. 24th; second by Ann. All infavor, motion carried. PARKING METERS Tim Ware, Parking supervisor indicated that there will be no new meter locations. The meters are currently electric and we want to go to solar. The Parking sign will be removed from the street light poles if approved. Sarah asked about the paid parking concept. Tim said that has been withdrawn. Sarah said her concern is approving something that might be expanded. Tim said he can use brackets on the existing light polls for the solar panels or do a free standing poll. The P sign would be removed and put on the free standing poll if that is approved. Tim pointed out that it is cheaper to do the polls. Ann asked about signage on the polls in order for people to recognize that they are in fact solar. Sarah asked how long the battery lasts. Tim said five years. Sarah asked if the battery could be recycled. Jeffrey inquired about rechargeable batteries. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 Ann said she would prefer a single poll and keep the light polls as clean as possible from signage etc. This is a great idea. Ann said at some point someone should look at grouping the newspaper boxes. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Sarah said she would like to see a full plan of where the polls would go. Tim said they are located in the middle block. Jeffrey said the locations are specific and we need to see where they are located. Brian agreed that we are spreading out the urban clutter and we need to see a plan. It will be great to get them off the light posts. Tim said the cost is $17,000 a piece. The decision was to go solar and the technology is there. Sarah said she would like an energy analysis. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve Resolution #37 with the condition that a plan for where the parking meters go be presented to staff and monitor; second by Brian. Roll call vote: Sarah, no; Ann, yes; Alison, yes; Brain, yes; Nora, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-1. 604 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION - RELOCATION _ COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW - VARIANCES - PH Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Elevation - Exhibit II Sara said this is a large project. The size of the lot is 9,000 square feet and it is within the Main Street historic district. Right now there are five buildings on the property, three are considered historic. There is a miner's cabin that fronts Main Street and an 1880's out building/barn located along the alley on Fifth Street. There is a 19th century shed that straddles the property line between 604 and 612 W. Main. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 The applicant is interested in developing the property to include commercial and affordable housing. There are no free market uses involved. The design is well under the allowable FAR on this property. The ratio proposed is .85 to I, where I to I is the maximum allowed for the mixed use zone district. HPC had a work session and overall stafffeels this project is moving in a very positive direction. There are five reviews: Major Development, Conceptual; Commercial Design Standard review; Demolition of2 1950's buildings; Relocation of the primary historic residence, the miner's cabin that fronts Main Street and also relocation of the 19th century shed. There are also dimensional variances requested for this application. Design: Staff recommends that the parking space proposed along 5th Street be removed. Removing the curb cut and reducing the hard scape on the historic property is a positive step. The applicant is asking if the parking space is removed that there be a reduction in the parking requirement which is something HPC has the authority to do. Height: In terms of what is proposed for the new buildings staff recommends that the applicant look at lowering the floor plate heights to better relate to the historic resources, particularly on the 5th Street side. It is sandwiched between two historic pieces. We found that the floor plate heights of the 5th Street building was a little out of proportion to what the historic resources are so we request that the plate heights be dropped. During the work session there was discussion about the elevator shafts and the stairwells that were adding access to the roof decks. The first issues is the maximum height. The proposal is roughly 38 feet and that is in violation of the height requirements for the mixed use zone district. What is allowed is 28 feet. You are allowed 5 feet for mechanical so that brings you up to 33 feet. Staff feels the height variation needs more study. Scale and massing: Sara said the scale and massing is moving in a good direction. The flat roof keeps the height down. Maybe some material changes would create a better dialogue with the historic resources. The alley elevation is broken up which 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 is positive. Overall staff is recommending continuation oflooking at the massing and the floor plate heights in relationship to the historic resources. Demolition: Stafffound that the criteria for demolition of the two 1950's buildings were met. Relocation criteria: There is a shed that is straddling the property line. The owner owns both properties and he is asking to remove the shed onto the 612 property. Staff is in favor of that. The owner is also rehabbing the shed. The miner's cabin facing Main Street is proposed to be moved forward and is appropriate for this site. Right now it is central on the property which makes it difficult to develop anything on this site. Setback variances: Overall the variances requested are appropriate and they help the development stay spread out and it increases some of the distances between buildings on this small site and it allows the development to be broken up into modules. Overall staff is recommending continuation. Neil Karbank , owner said he practices law in the main house and has a tenant in one of the cabins in the back. All the buildings are not energy efficient and basically dumps. What I would like to do is renovate the buildings, move a couple of buildings and build new buildings for offices. We would like to have new and modern energy efficient well built buildings. We don't anticipate any change in the current uses just more of it. We will also have the affordable housing unit. We have proposed less FAR than what is allowed. The flat roof portions of the project are proposed to be usable, not every day but for an occasional function. David Brown, architect: David said there is a barn and the historic Rebecca Wylie house. We are proposing to move the Wylie house forward and move the shed and demolish the other three structures on the site. A basement w~uld be built under the Wylie house and the other 2 buildings as well. We will be adding another building beside the Wylie house on Main Street and one behind the Wylie house connected by one rooftop. It would be a one story element that steps up to a two story element. Because we want to activate the roof we need to have an elevator for wheel chair access. The third structure is on the alley where the existing garage barn is. We are 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 proposing to have an employee dwelling unit float above the parking spaces and dumpster/recycling area. At the work session we were asked to break the building up and we broke the materials up so that we have vertical siding and glass in between. There are two means of egress provided. Models were presented to show the project and elevator. David said there is a shed over the stairs. Some of the contemporary materials might be a little jarring but it is intentional not to confuse the community that this is not an historic building. David explained the concept of the three buildings. Regarding the parking currently there is a parking space with a shed over it and we are proposing to remove the shed and keep the parking space as an historic element. Height: David said if we have 28 feet as an allowable height and ifHPC grants a 4 foot addition we would be at 32 feet. The predominant portion of the roof deck is 22 feet. One of the reasons to extend the height is stated in guideline 7.13, to make a demonstrable contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance, by providing improved day lighting. One of the reasons we want a 9 foot ceiling is so that we can have a light shelf at 8 feet that reflects light into a 9 foot ceiling and bounces light for the interior. A 9 foot ceiling would also allow for stratification of hot air and reduce the need for an air conditioner. The shed on the west side has a stair down to the basement and if we have to cover that we can do a trellis with some kind of solid material. We might need a variance for that. Alan Richmond said Neil owns the property next door and the setback variance in reality would be in the middle of his two properties. In effect he is the only neighbor that would be affected by the setback variance. Ann asked about the use of the art barn. David said Neil's wife is a painter and is contemplating using it for her studio. Neil said his sister-in-law Judy Haas has expressed interest in using the studio. Neil said it seems like the right use for the building. Ann also asked about the existing trees on the site. David said they feel they can stay out of the critical part of the root structures of all the trees on Main Street. Nora asked about the lilac trees on 5th Street. David said the intention is to retain the pine tree on 5th Street and he didn't see any lilacs but if they can stay out of the way of the lilacs they will do so. If the entire roof is usable it has to have a guard rail which is solid. David said they are proposing a very 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 light hand rail. The intent is to meet the code have a guard rail at 42 inches and have the thinnest possible steel handrail that we can achieve. For the four inch elements it would be airplane cable. Nora said with the guard rail we are added 42 inches to the entire height. Neil said the height of the flat roof buildings is 22 feet and with 42 inches it is 25 Yz feet and the height limit is 28 feet. Alison said there are five parking spaces along the alley and you are requesting that HPC waive the 6th one. Alan said there are five for the commercial and one for the affordable housing. Ifwe loose one we would need HPC to waive one. David said parking is a premium and keeping one space on the site is the reasonable thing to do. Alan said we are willing to provide the six spaces but we recognize that it is visible from 5th Street and does contradict that aspect of the guidelines. Alison also asked about curb cuts along 5th Street. David said right now there is a continuous curb cut at the barn. Across the street there are a few curb cuts. The Ullr has a continuous curb cut. David pointed out that the two story structure echoes the two story structures across the street. Alan pointed out that there are variances because we are trying to set the buildings away from the historic structure. Nora inquired about the FAR. David said 7,600 square feet is above grade and there is no FAR below grade. The space below, the basement is 5,700 square feet. That includes mechanicals etc. Jeffrey asked about the elevator tower and what the rationale was to go with the flat roofs. David said it creates a different identity from the west building. It creates a very interesting massing to brake up the stair tower and elevator into three pieces. The flat roofs are neutral and one of the goals of the two buildings is to be a neutral background to the historic resource. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Don Erdman, public said HPC should never approve a variance unless it proved a true hardship to the applicant. This is a commercial application. The applicant said that the proposed roof deck will be used for fund raising and other functions. There is a great space at the Jewish Center that will be approved that could be used for functions and also there are numerous patrons who are willing to give much more amenable private spaces for fund raising than a place right on Main Street with all the traffic going by. If the roof deck was eliminated there would no railings in the air, no stair tower, no elevator shaft. There would be a lot less impact on Main Street. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Sarah indicated that she cannot support the height variance given the historic resources that are single story. It seems inappropriate and contradictory to our guidelines. In terms of the variances for creating a better site plan the overall campus feeling needs to be studied regarding the spacing between the buildings etc. Sarah said she is not sure the mass and scale is appropriate yet. Ann said her feeling is that the overall footprint and massing is too large for the site. The site is very crowded and dense compared to the texture and development on the rest of Main Street. It is commendable to create a distinction between historic buildings and new buildings. These buildings are almost too distinct. The entry to the west building is somewhat screened and more commonly historic buildings on Main Street have dominant entry features on the fayade. Ann pointed out that there needs to be enough space between the five buildings. Alison also agreed that a height variance should not be granted. Regarding the parking she feels the 6th space should not be removed. We should be keeping as much off street parking as we can. Regarding the scale and mass the applicant has worked hard and the program is not out of scale. A restudy on the spacing between the historic structures would be helpful. Brian said the architecture is wonderful and the design. He questions the context that it is in given the numerous surrounding historic resources. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 There is too much of a variation. The historic resource is being absorbed by the new development. Brian said his suggestion would be to scale back on the new building being built right behind the historic resource. The elevator shaft and roof tops are well above what is appropriate in height in this particular area. Brian said he cannot support the height variance. We are dealing with a series of small vernaculars along the streetscape and then you get to the subject lot and the mass is significantly larger than what is on that particular lot. The parking variance is Ok because we need to get cars off the streets cape if we are able to. Nora pointed out that the addition on the west is appropriate because of the scale and it is wood. It is unusual to have three historic structures from the same era on a block. The entire block has a very low profile. It seems as though the historic resource has become a postage stamp and isn't put into value. The height variance is not in compliance with guideline 7.13. The scale and mass is very large. Jeffrey concluded by commending the applicants for their excellent study materials. The need for office space on Main Street is a significant need. The height, scale and mass of the structures are fairly well orchestrated. The elevator and egress tower is the focal point and the difficult part because that is where the height variance is. The rooftop and how it affects Main Street and the surrounding historic neighborhood is important. The architecture is being overwhelmed by the elevator towers. Jeffrey can support the parking variance of one space because it might help the separation between the barn and the alley on 5th street and it meets 7.3 and 7.7 of our guidelines (minimize curb cuts). The height variances requested are somewhat cumbersome. The alley housing component is an important need and they are interesting structures and it is an appropriate place for them. The design proposal of the project is moving forward. The demolition is OK and it meets our criteria. The relocation of the historic structure forward is appropriate as it makes the historic house more prominent. With a little redesign there could be support of the application. Jeffrey announced that this is his last HPC meeting. He has been on the board for 12 years. Jeffrey thanked the board and the applicants. Neil Karbank said he would like to have the roof deck but if it is his life's work to get it he will give it up. Ifit makes everyone's life easier lets just forget the roof deck. If we have to get rid of the diagonals we can do that 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10. 2007 also. I would like this to be as simple as possible. Neil thanked the board and he can work with everything else. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 604 W. Main, conceptual and public hearing until Nov. 14th; second by Alison. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Ann, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ~LL[{c.n ~lla~~ Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14