Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960424 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Chairman Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 5:10 with Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen and Sven Alstrom present. Excused were Susan Dodington and Melanie Roschko. Sven was seated at 5:20 p.m. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Amy Amidon, Planner stated that St. Mary's would like to consider new windows and I indicated that HPC would prefer retaining the old and add an interior storm. Jake stated that they would have to make an application as it is a major element of an important building. 1012 E. HOPKINS AVE. - WORKSESSION Amy stated that this property was located by the pedestrian bridge and the issue is whether the house can be relocated off the property. Dave Mylar, attorney representing the owners Rae and Roland Marasco stated that he would like feedback from HPC as to whether the house could be moved off the property. On-site relocation was discussed in addition to relocating it off the property. Relocating the house might make sense as the house was not originally located on this site. The house was moved from 420 W. Francis and secondly the neighborhood has changed dramatically. The house is surrounded by huge new buildings and an apartment complex. This resource might show better in a different location. Dave also stated that the City's water plant housing is a location that might be considered for the house as an affordable housing site. Upon research the house could have been one of the sears catalogue homes that were shipped out to provide housing for miners. It would be good if it the house could retain the work housing roll. We are seeking HPC imput before investing money in engineering to see whether the house can be moved without destroying it. Jake stated that he felt another site in town would be better than Water Place housing as it is located by the hospital and out of the city. He is concerned about the compatibility of the house with the employee housing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Martha stated that it should be moved to an area in which it can be enjoyed rather than just tucked away. The building should be visible. She also asked what was proposed to be built on the property after the house is moved. Dave Mylar stated that nothing is proposed for the property at this time. There will be other housing projects being proposed in the city such as the Snyder Property and the Ted Guy and David Gutherie project. Sven stated that he was in favor of allowing the house to be moved but it should be in an area where it is compatible. He also stated he was unhappy with what happened to the historic house at Juan Street. Roger asked if the purpose to move the house was in order for the lot to be sold and any new prospective buyer doesn't have to deal with an historic structure. He also wanted to know if the house could be incorporated into a project on-site. David Mylar stated that the site is very narrow, only 45 fl. wide and 120 fl. long. It makes it lot easier to develop the site without the house on it. It is programmatic to leave it on the site. Roger stated that the small cottage would be in front and a larger addition to the back. As the house exists, it does not fit into the neighborhood. The house came from the Townsite and he could consider giving approval to moving the house as long as it was within the City. Another condition would be that the house be restored back to its original state. He also stated that the applicant should explore the Sanitation District, ACES and The Aspen Art Museum. The house does add charm to the neighborhood. Amy stated that she is not convinced that there is no reason why it can't remain on the site and developed like all other historic houses in town. If moved it should face the street. Jake stated that he would like to see investigative sites within the city limits. He also stated that it should be demonstrated that it cannot reasonable be used on-site. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 TENNIS TOWNHOMES, ASPEN MEADOWS Amy stated as part of the SPA area for the campus HPC was given some element of design review over aspects of the project. The trustee townhomes as well as the tennis townhomes were reviewed. There is a potential developer who would like to purchase the property and build townhomes and they have a slightly different design. Stan Mathis, architect for project stated that the original proposal had seven townhouse units and the proposal represents the elimination of one of those units. The setback has not change but ten feet will be placed between the three duplex units so we have a less massive program. The square footage of the unit that was eliminated is then divided into each of the six units so that we maintain the same allowable FAR that was specified in the SPA. The units have been shortened by 18 feet and they have been pulled back from where they were originally located. The underground parking still remains. The difference in the proposals is that the entrance will be on the side of the units. The original proposal had the doors facing the driveway. Since we are changing what was previously approved we have to fall under ordinance #30 which dictates that if we don't have a doorway directly from the street we have to have a porch of at least 50 sqft. at the front and side of the house. Bayer's architecture had huge cantilever structures and on the east side it extends out five feet to form the porch but ties in with the Bauhaus program. The drawings show vertical siding but it could also be stucco. Bayer is symmetrical in the design and in order to understand it one must be symmetrical. We are pulling back the homes from the stream side. The buildings are stepped on the site plan. This proposal is less bulk, less mass and we meet most of the items in ordinance 30. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger stated that the buildings have been shortened and the height has not been increased because of the removal of the gabled roof. He also asked if they were on a street. Stan stated no and that they were set back further than the existing proposal. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Jake stated that the agenda states that the application is an amendment to final but there are substantial changes from conceptual. Amy stated that the determination from the Community Development Director was that this would not be a public hearing. It is an amendment from a project. Stan stated that they are seeking an amendment of the SPA that the P&Z can grant that will allow the applicant to go forward but in the last meeting of P&Z they wanted the HPC to review what was proposed to make sure we are going in the direction that HPC deems appropriate. Amy stated that she was unclear about the street facade elevation. Stan stated that it was unclear as to whether there was a porch at all. Stan stated that he was trying to pick up elements of Bayer that he might have done in the design. He also stated that Ordinance #30 is a Building Dept. check list issue. He also stated he needs a statement from HPC that they are not that far of as to what was previously approved. Amy stated that if the Board could make a referral comment that was appropriate but that they still have to come back to HPC with material and present the items that are within question. Sven stated that he finds the bulk and mass favorable and the reassemblage of FAR on the site and the rectangularity overall references appropriate. He also stated that he has concerns with materials shown. He has concerns about the mechanical etc. and where are they on the roof. The roof should be as clean as the building forms. Roger stated that the over approach in the design is compatible with Herbert Bayer. We would need a full description of materials and a good discussion of that and that the roof element is clean. He also stated that he felt Ord. #30 is not applicable to the Hebert Bayer design. Roger favored the spacing between the buildings and this building does not sit on the street and in that regard Ord. #30 would not apply. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Martha stated that in broad terms she has no problem with the presentation. She also feels that the HPC should reapprove the materials. Jake stated that the solution proposed is less consistent with what was initially proposed. It is too far from the original design in terms of massing and the way the columns and doors are handled. There are a lot of large roof overhangs. In some ways the old design was a good solution because it stepped down the hill. The stepping helps the WL. The WL doesn't have the kind of overhang visions articulated between the units. There seems to be a lot of glass. Sven stated if you look at the conceptual approval you now have a different type of space. Give an interpretation of usable balconies that are more sheltered. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC encourage P&Z to accept the overall mass and scale of the amendment to final finding that it is fitting within the Herbert Bayer design. HPC requests that the applicant come back and we look at landscaping, materials, and possibly some redesign of porches before we grant any final. Regarding the HPC support of Ord. #30 a better functionality of porches and decks meets the requirement of Ord. #30, second Martha. Motion passes 3-1. Roger stepped down. 426 E. HYMAN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that HPC no longer has four members present and in order to get approval a positive vote of all three members must occur or the applicant can request continuation until the next hearing. Chairman Jake Vickery opened the continued public hearing. George Lathan, applicant decided to proceed. At the last meeting it was recommended that we redesign the front due to the elimination of the stairway. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Amy stated that at the last meeting we talked about eliminating the staircase and centering the entrance door. Dick Fallin, architect for the project stated that new drawings were presented at the last meeting and the majority like #2 but Jake wanted a combination. The impression was that the building should stand alone as far as design goes and that the historical references would be materials and the alignment of the windows. Amy stated that Jake was concerned with the height of the third floor. Dick stated that tapes were put up on the building to identify the two new facade heights. We lowered the building on the third floor a couple feet. A new packet was presented today and the first floor proposed is changing the floor plan on the mall end of the building to reflect the new elevation. The second floor proposed reflects the two story opening in the middle of the building after we were allowed to now count the stair as FAR. Dick stated that the owners need enough visual display on the second floor from the street as it will be a separate retail operation. The second stair on the west end has been eliminated entirely from this scheme. There is a recessed entry with windows on both sides. The connecting element between Sportstalker and this building will be the unglazed openings on the first floor that go into the stairwell. There will also be an unglazed opening on the second level that goes into the Sportstalker on the half level and that element would be a stone facing sawn grid pattern. Basically the facade is brick and stone on all three levels. Sven stated that he was concerned about the alley side and what was proposed on that side and had a few comments on the front facade. He also has concerns about lighting. Dick Fallin stated that the existing yellowish tone brick will remain and there will be an elevator element added. There would be a wooded picket railing painted. The second floor wall will come out to the balcony line and we will build a new balcony that comes out to the stair. Sven asked about the mechanical equipment. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Dick Fallin stated that there is meetering and gas lines exposed in the back of the building that will remain and air handling equipment we do not anticipate any changes and if so it will be on the back of the building not the roof. There are a few things on the roof that are abandoned and they will be removed. Nothing will be visible from the mall side. Jake went over the seven recommendations from the last meeting and all were addressed. Amy stated that there may be windows in a no window zone which relates to ordinance #30 on the third floor but HPC can waive that standard. Dick Fallin stated at the last meeting it was mentioned that Ord. #30 could be waived. Jake asked if anyone had concerns about the changes on the mall elevation. Sven stated that the applicant definately responded to the imput at the last meeting. The use of the stone emphasis is appropriate. Sven commented on the second floor fenestration with regard to compatibility in an historical sense. He stated that the second floor windows should at least look like they were operable in the same proportion of more vernacular historical buildings. The windows should be of a more vertical proportion and the grouping needs restudied. The windows should read as functional and possibly use an operable sash on the second floor. Dick Fallin stated that they could look at a stone mullion between the windows. Five windows could be incorporated. Sven stated that he wants to see the proposed lighting on the building at final. Martha stated that she preferred the proposed windows. Dick Fallin stated that there is a compactor in the alley that will be used and he assumes that the trask regulations will be waived due to the dumpster. George Lathan stated that the tenant downstairs wants to put a cafe in the alley to draw people. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Jake stated that the scheme was a great improvement. He also agrees with Sven that possibly the use of masonry between the windows would increase the verticality. The building is an infill building and should have flexibility in the design. The recess cornice on the third floor should be a little plainer and less dominant. MOTION: Sven moved that HPC grant conceptual approval for 426 E. Hyman Ave. with the following conditions: 1. At final bring a restudy of the second floor windows. 2. Restudy of stone banding. 3. Address Jakes concern of the upper cornice being plainer. 4. Present a lighting plan. 5. HPC waives Ordinance #30. Second by Martha. All in favor, motion carried. Dick Fallin stated that the square footage has been revised and has been presented to Amy. PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Amy stated that the awards are the week of the 12th. 330 Gillespie Scott Lindeau 229 W. Hallam Scott Lindeau 409 E. Hopkins - Poss 520 Walnut - Greewood 202 W. Francis - Greenwood by Paepcke craftsmanship to preserve all the original. 955 King Street - Harry Teague, Curtis house 130 S. Galena - City Hall Benedict Commons Paepcke Award - Francis Whitaker Markalunas Amy stated that a ballot will be mailed out. Martha asked if Sam Claudhill was recognized for anything in the past. MOTION: Sven moved to adjourn; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 1012 E. HOPKINS AVE. - WORKSESSION ........................................................................................1 426 E. HYMAN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 5 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ......................................................................................................... 1 PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS .................................................................................................8 TENNIS TOWNHOMES, ASPEN MEADOWS ................................................................................... 3 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 1012 E. HOPKINS AVE. - WORKSESSION 1 TENNIS TO WNHOMES, ASPEN MEADOWS 3 426 E. HYMAN- CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 5 PRESER VA TION HONOR A WARDS 8 11