Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080123ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2008 300 S. Spring -Hannah Dustin ........................................................................................... 2 420/422 E. Hopkins .......................................................................................................... 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23.2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Nora Berko, Ann Mullins and Jay Maytin. Alison Agley was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counsel MOTION.• Ann moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 28`h °"d Dec. 12`h 2007; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Michael will recuse himself on Hannah Dustin. Brian disclosed that he is on another board with the architect, Charlie Eckart that is working on the Hannah Dustin project and he also worked with Stan. Brian said he can evaluate the project objectively. Stan Clausen said he had no issues with Brian reviewing the project. 300 S. Spring -Hannah Dustin Michael recused himself. Sarah chaired. Proof of legal notice -Exhibit I Amy explained why the application is in front of the HPC. The building came through the subdivision process in 2006. This component involves the commercial Hannah Dustin building and an addition that is being proposed. It was entirely approved in 2006 under the design of a different architectural firm and different owner. Now CCY is the architect and they are proposing some fenestration material changes. That requires an amendment to their commercial design standards approval but it is also coming up in the midst of our discussion about preservation of post war buildings, ord. 30 and ord. 48. Essentially they have voluntarily decided to come to the HPC and have the board handle their design review amendment and a minor development approval. The footprint, massing and shape have already been approved. HPC is only looking at amendments to the materials. Minor Development The architect that designed the building got their start from Fritz Benedict's office and designed this building in 1969. The firm also designed the Aspen 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23 2008 Chapel. The addition abuts up against the older building. There is an elevator that has already been approved and does overlap the corners of the building but does not detract. Initially the architects thought that they were going to do some reconstruction of the primary staircases and balconies to deal with floor level changes and they have somehow made that issue go away which is great. There is nothing happening to the Hannah Dustin building proper it is just the addition on the north side. The amendments involve material changes and a green building product is being proposed and a lot of reconfiguration of the window system. In Sara's review she only had concerns with the north facade. The adjacent part of the project that is already under construction was designed by a different architect. There has never been a coherent design between the two buildings. They were always separate buildings. Sara brought up that the window pattern on the north elevation needed to relate as best possible to the adjacent and surrounding buildings. There are some concerns with the flat 3 story wall and possibly there are ways to soften the wall. There is also an issue with the light well on the north side of the building. It has been changed from what was originally approved. To some degree this is a building department issue. The light well is in the setback and there are limitations to when you can do that without a variance. The proposed material is unique and will add character to the building. It also has a nice relationship to the brick portion of the Hannah Dustin structure. Commercial Design Standards Staff is concerned about the north facade and the recommendation is to continue. The applicant is eager to get their review completed and they have time issues that are not easy to amend. Possibly we can work together tonight and resolve it or continue to the next meeting. Overall staff feels this is an improvement to the project and is a nice relationship between the addition and the Hannah Dustin building. Stan Clausen stated that this was approved under Ordinance 16, 2006 but with a different design and a substantial greater amount of glass. When the project was initially approved it had two components, one a residential building which abuts onto the existing Hannah Dustin building and the other was a 9,000 square foot commercial addition. It is the commercial addition that we are talking about. The entries have changed and we have a revised site plan with recommendations from the Parks Dept. incorporated. Different plantings are required due to the light wells. This project was a complex one in its initial approval that involved the inclusion of two 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23 2008 affordable housing units below the townhouse units and one below the commercial addition. Because the 3 AH units are taken together, mitigate both aspects of the project. They will be brought online by the subdivision approval relatively at the same time. That is the sense of urgency that we have. The question whether the Hannah Dustin building should be put on the register of historic properties is not one that is subject here. Because of the provision of Ordinance 48 we have withdrawn that aspect. Basically this is a revision to the design of the commercial addition. Robin Schiller, architect for CCY. The massing is consistent to what was approved in 2006 and our footprint is actually smaller than what was approved before. The setback on Spring Street that was 8.6 has been increased to 10 feet and on Hyman the setback of 6.6 has been increased to 6.8. We have also recessed the ground floor along both sides to give identity to the commercial space and to break up the sheer facades. Overall the floor area is 200 square feet less than what was approved. We have put restrooms in and an elevator which are required by code. In designing this we asked how does it fit into the neighborhood and how does it relate to the existing building and how does it relate to the current expectation in terms of energy usage and green design. What was designed before was a three story sheer facade and floor to ceiling glass. Directly across is a residential building. With the previous design there would be tremendous light pollution and heat loss. The design we came up with is a building that works between the commercial neighborhood to the west and the residential to the north and the Hannah Dustin bldg. The west facade is open with large glass areas beams and spandrels. The north facade is a complimentary blend and we greatly reduced the window areas. The material is recycled PaperStone that is a durable hard material. It is recycled paper in a resin binder which is weather proof and water resistant. It will be applied in a series of horizontal bands. To address some of staff's comments staff commented that the north elevation was not in keeping with the existing building. We agree that it is not tremendously in keeping with the existing building but we feel it is appropriate not to be. In the commercial design guidelines the standard are there that an addition should be differentiated from the existing and be of its time. We feel the west facade is complimentary. On the north side the approved massing of the addition basically means that the Hannah Dustin building is not seen from the north. The north wall of the Hannah Dustin is 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2008 basically a big blank wall. Our west fapade is more articulated and open and the north is less articulated. We feel the character of the north facade meets the intent of the guidelines. Staff also suggested stepping back or undulating the height of the roof. The massing and height of the roof is consistent with the prior approval. Secondly this is a small addition; it is only 19 feet wide. If we step the third floor back it would harm the utility of the building. Section 2.21 calls for stepping back a third floor where the floor to ceiling height is in excess of 10 feet. That doesn't apply here we've 10.4 feet from the upper floor to the roof and when you take out the roof structure our floor to ceiling height will be less than ten feet. Given that we have the match the existing floors we really have very little flexibility in the height of this space. There was another comment referring to section 2.16 where staff suggested subdividing the mass into smaller modules. What was approved previously was on continuous facade. We have recessed the ground floor in several areas. Given the constraints of the site we cannot stack the building into modules. The issue of the light wells has been raised. We needed daylight into the units and we worked with the building department to come up with a scheme for a second exit that comes through the building and per the building department we do not need egress windows from the below grade unit because we are sprinkled and have two separate exits so the area ways that we are providing is to get natural light into the AH unit. For that purpose they can be 30 inches deep. We combined two light wells into one large one. If it is important that we make the two light wells separate we certainly can but we feel the large well will provide more light at different angles. Finally staff referenced guidelines 10.11 that new materials should be similar or subordinate to the original materials. We believe that the proposed material, PaperStone product is an interesting modeled color and it is darker than the Hannah Dustin building but keys off the existing stain color that is on the timber work etc. One area on the building has stucco. Larry Yaw said the design premise is to create a sympathetic contrast to the Hannah Dustin bldg. The contrast clarifies and gives the integrity of each piece. We also have an energy packet that Aspen should be thinking of these days. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23.2008 Ann and Sarah wanted to know the dimension of the gap between each panel. Larry said he thought about a''/z inch so that it would take on a planking quality rather than a monolithic quality. The fasteners would be exposed. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Fred Mortel, resident at 702 E. Hyman. Fred said he hasn't heard anything about parking which is limited. Are there going to be additional structures higher than the existing elevation. Fred said there is nothing wrong with using brick in Aspen. The reduction in light pollution is greatly appreciated. The elevator is facing west so we would not see it. It looks like a nice structure. Robin Schiller said the height is 32 feet and our addition matches. The only part that goes higher is the elevator shaft which goes approximately five feet higher which is allowed by City code. It is set back 19 feet from the north wall and 8 feet square. Stan Clausen said the ordinance that approved the project has a provision that the project provide 16 off-street spaces. Four are designated for the use of the free market units. Three for the affordable housing units and nine are designated for the commercial space. They are all on the site, sub-grade and some off the alley. Thomas Hales said this is actually quite nice. With the two buildings needing parking how is access granted or gained to the parking spaces. Sarah said Stan Clausen can address that issue after the meeting. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing. Amy said the board needs to make sure that the addition complies with the standards for minor development. All we are dealing with are the materials and fenestration. You also need to confirm that the design complies with the commercial design standards only related to materials and fenestration. Amy said the landscape was addressed in the ordinance. Stan said in the ordinance it calls out that the applicant shall install a sidewalk detached from the curb with a parkway strip along E. Hyman Ave. that meets the City Engineering standards. Appropriate street tree planting shall occur in the 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23.2008 parkway strip along the property frontage. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for plantings in the right-of--way for review and approval by the City Parks Department. Stan said what is different is that we changed the walkway area and opened it up for more public access. We changed the bench seating and added bicycling parking. Perennial and wax flower shrubs will grow to 12 to 14 feet. Commissioner comments: Jay said he likes the material but is concerned about how it is hung or attached to the building. With the landscape, is there an agreement with the two property owners? Brian said he knows the building and worked in it for a couple of years. The material is very interesting but I am not sold on it yet but I am inclined to give credence to the architect to come up with new and innovative ways to design and this is probably a good example of that. How the new fabric is fastened is a concern. The reduction of fenestration on the north side is important. From a landscape perspective it is an interesting design. We are dealing with a building that is very much modern and orthogonal in its design and we are dealing with a lot of curvilinear lines in the landscape. Maybe the landscape design could have more orthogonal lines to tie into the style of the building. Brian said regarding the light well he would like to see less of the light well from the street. Jay said he sees the necessity for the light well but it is on the north side of the building and how much light will come in. Nora said she is delighted to see the project. The job is quite appropriate and the material selection is also appropriate. The pocket park feeling of the seating areas is certainly needed. Ann said the west elevation works well with the existing building. On the north elevation the reduction in light pollution is favorable but the fenestration on the north is almost too orderly. The setback is great and the material is fabulous. The biggest concern of the material is how it holds up in this climate. The bicycle parking is needed in that area and a good idea. On the landscaping the concern is the spurs that go out to the street and it is not just a sidewalk along the street. Ann also said she agreed with Brian that a more orthogonal design would be more appropriate. One other concern is how the perennials will look through the winter season. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2008 Sarah said the massing is appropriate and does relate to the guidelines. On a whole there is a missed opportunity with the materials and the fenestration. In looking at the existing building it is almost as if the building was not finished, the way the southern portion of the building jets out and is close to the street. The materials are very interesting and cool but are against our guidelines 2.25 and 2.26. Brick would compliment the building and tie in. On the north fenestration there could be a little more tie in with the existing building. Sarah echoed all the landscape comments. It will be a great pocket park but right now the landscaping is competing with the building and not in harmony with it as currently designed. The light wells are a necessity and two are appropriate. Stan said the landscape plan has not changed. The public improvements and removal of the curb cut and installing the sidewalk are jointly the responsibility of each building owner. With respect to the landscape and the curvilinear nature we can change that and make it more orthogonal. We can look at replacing the perennials in the areas of the light wells with things taller such as an alpine current that would have some form and color during the winter. With respect to whether the material is paper stone or brick is another issue. We would like to see an approval with conditions to be worked out with the monitor. Robin Chiller said the material will be either fastened invisibly or with an exposed fastener that will be a dark non-reflective fastener that would be in an orderly pattern. Larry Yaw said he didn't like the suggestion of brick particularly in the urban design context. We didn't want to wrap the entire block in brick. The material is complimentary and allows the individuality of the building instead of having a monolithic block. Sarah said basically we are lopping off the side of the building and replacing it with a different material. In doing so it makes the existing building feel incomplete. Ann said she feels the building should read as a new building. Blending a newer brick with an older brick will be difficult to find in order to get the right mix. If you added another brick piece it would diminish the entire building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23.2008 Sarah said this is a building of brick wings and we are getting rid of the main brick wing on the north side. There is an opportunity to complete that building. Brian said it does read as a different building and that is OK especially because it is on the corner. Brian said if the elevator shaft were brick it might work. Robin Chiller said from the photograph he sees a large mass near the street then the open frame work that is set back then there is open framework and glass. Robin said he envisions the design as having bookends, mass on either side or the central portion pulled back. There is a completion of the composition. Standard 10.4 talks about designing an addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. The addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building. Jay commented that the board does not seem they are coming to a conclusion and he recommended continuation. Brian also said he could support continuation. Nora said she likes the solution presented. Ann said she is still in support of the material. Sarah said the materials and north fenestration are the issues. MOTION: Jay made to continue the minor development of the Hannah Dustin building until Feb. 13`". The motion also includes a restudy of the material to see if there is another option that might be more acceptable to everyone on the HPC. Motion second by Sarah. Discussion: Robin Chiller pointed out that the owners have the right to approve the previous design. At some point if this process is going to go on they might choose to do that which we think would be tragic and we would advise against it. Ann said she would approve the project as presented. It is a very handsome solution. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Brian, yes; Nora, no; Ann, no; Sarah, yes. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23 2008 Amy asked if the core issue is the module of the material. Do you feel it should be in more of a similar shaped brick? Sarah said brick is not the only solution here. Brian said the bookend could be articulated in another material. Stan said we will provide the board the facade elevation for the proposed residential building which is really quite busy. When you see it you will appreciate more the quietness of this facade. 420/422 E. Hopkins Michael was seated. Affidavit ofposting -Exhibit I Amy said this is final review in terms of the HPC criteria and the Commercial Design criteria. At conceptual there was a suggestion that the applicant look at some variation of the roof plane on the main body of the fire station, the museum entry tower and the thrift shop. Both the tower element and the thrift shop have come up slightly in height. Staff feels there is only one area that needs discussion which is the roof-scape. Staff complimented the applicants for a thorough application. In the application it was mentioned that the roof would be a green roof but there was not a lot of detail as to what exactly that means. We have had a number of applications for roof decks etc. and HPC has been very conservative about what you can see from the street and what people see when they look down from the mountain. The Commercial Design standards require every new building to have air lock entries. That is the case on the museum entry but not on the thrift shop so that needs to be addressed. Gilbert Sanchez, architect Gilbert said we provided better differentiation between the height of the museum piece and we also raised the parapet of the Thrift store and it is now two feet higher than Zele's. Solar panels are proposed on the back portion of the Thrift store and we would have a hard time masking the solar panels. One of the things this meeting is about is materials. We are looking at brick. The third floor over the fire station has a horizontal brick element with punched windows and the brick chosen is Emperor Brick from Grand Junction. The colors will be a blend of maroon red colors. The first station will have precast colored concrete sills. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23 2008 On the bay doors we are proposing possibly three different materials, a precast concrete; stone or metal. There will be a steel horizontal element that separates the upper level from the lower level. The material on the thrift shop would also be brick but of a different texture. The window systems will all be aluminum and glass. The thrift store will have a darker aluminum window system. The green roof is being explored but might not fit our budget. If you rode down the gondola you would see 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, of plantings on the roof. With reference to the street landscape we will have textured patters of pavements so that the modular quality of the bays is respected. We also have maintained some green space in front of the museum and thrift store. We intend to work with the Isis Theatre in reference to the seating that they are proposing. The last topic is the notion of the airlock that the commercial design standards 6.49 requires. It states that using a temporary or vinyl fabric airlock to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. An airlock that projects forward of the primary facade is inappropriate. Gilbert said most of the airlocks happen in front of restaurants and not retail spaces. Gilbert talked to retailers and they expressed the notion of putting another barrier in front of the entrance to stop people from spending money is something that does not fit into the idea of retail. The Gap has an airlock built in and they leave the doors open in the middle of the winter. Gilbert requested an exemption from the airlock. Amy agreed that the only businesses asking for airlocks are restaurants but it does come up enough that people want to retrofit due to the weather and then the retrofit is not compatible. The ideas are to basically have people accommodate the requirement now and who knows, the thrift store might not be there forever. Gilbert said a typical airlock is 4 feet deep and 6 feet side which would be around 24 square feet. Because the footprint of the thrift shop is 1,000 square feet on one level is that the impact of that to their use of the space is much greater than the impact of the Gap which is a bigger building. Jim said the HPC could make a condition that no exterior airlock would be allowed on this building in the future. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2008 Sarah explained when you go to the thrift store you don't take off your coat. You go for ten minutes then leave. It is not like you are in a restaurant. Gilbert said the building code requires airlocks if you exceed a certain amount of square feet but with the thrift shop we don't exceed that. Sarah said as a public building and given our code if there is additional money to have a plaque on this building saying it is LEEDS certified would be appropriate. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Daryl Grob, Fire Chief pointed out that at the North 40 station they worked with CORE on energy needs. The energy system will not roll back the meter but when the energy is not being used by the facility it pumps back into the grid. A radian heat system will also be installed. Daryl said they are going to discuss having solar water to support the facility. Sue Colby, president of the Thrift Stop. Nancy Gensch, chairman of the building committee. Sue relayed to the board that the Thrift Shop is thrilled to be part of the co-op process. We are very happy with the results and the entire process. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Ann said at a later point we can talk about what can be done with the seating area in from of the Isis. This is an exciting project for the City. The only issues are the way Zele's comes out to the edge of the thrift store wall exposed. Maybe some horizontal elements could be incorporated or a window. When you work with a green roof there are structural issues that need to be considered when constructing the building. Jay said the green roof should be pushed to the forefront to get it constructed and funded. We need to set an example for the future and the community would back the fire department. Nora said she likes the sunken solar panels and the green roof would not be visible from the street level so the impacts are minimal. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23.2008 Ann said green pots are a distraction and require a lot more attention. Ann said she is envisioning a green carpet with sedum or another low plant. Sarah said you also could put trays down that sit on your roof and they are self sustaining. Ann said you can also have wall to wall and then a grading system. Brian said as a landscape architect he is in favor of the green roof. Gilbert said we are reserving the legacy of building an additional floor on the building so the building is being structured to hold loads for the future. One of the benefits of that is that we will be able to accommodate the green roof. Ann said for clarification the metal on the garage doors is the board's choice of material. Sarah said the pattern of the sidewalk needs to be discussed with the Engineering Dept. Michael said his concern is the alley scape. The exterior design of the wall should be reviewed by staff and monitor. Nora and Jay said the roof changes are appropriate and the materials selection will work well with the Isis. Jay also pointed out that the metal window color on the thrift should be a darker color. Amy pointed out that the board approved certain materials and they need to be indicated in order to sign off on the building permit. MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve Resolution #3, 2008 for final development of 420/422 E. Hopkins Ave. with the following additional conditions. 1. Approve the plans as submitted today with the clarification of clear anodized aluminum store front windows on the fire station museum component and a dark gray storefront system on the Thrift store. 2. The articulation of the east facing brick wall of the Thrift store needs to be further clarified in collaboration with Zele and brought forward with staff and monitor. A visual interest should be incorporated into that facade. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2008 3. Waiver of the requirement for an airlock. 4. HPC supports the green roof. 5. As textures of the stone, precast concrete change staff and monitor will be review the changes. 6. Landscaping to be integrated with the landscaping of the Isis building. Length of the bays continue to the street as proposed. 7. Final design of the alley scape to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 8. The PB panels have been moved to the back of the lower roof which are on the roof plan. Motion second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Jay Maytin, monitor. MOTION.' Michael moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ~~L~Ce-w /1~2~r~~-~i~6( Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14