Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19941102HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 306 S. MILL STREET - UTE MOUNTAINEER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT 316 E. HOPKINS - HOWLING WOLF - MINOR DEVELOPMENT . 939 E. COOPER AVE. - LANDMARK CONCEPTUAL - SPECIAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 Meeting was called to order by vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Linda Smisek, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen and Tom Williams Present. Excused were Joe Krabacher and Roger Moyer. COMMITTEE & STAFF COMMENTS Donnelley: We have a site visit at noon on 930 King Street regarding a pre-demolition and how the fabric of the old building will be saved. MOTION: Martha made the motion to approve the minutes of September 28, 1994 as revised; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries. 306 S. MILL STREET - UTE MOUNTAINEER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: They are trying to visually connect an existing non-historic building to the adjacent non-historic building which is Ute Mountaineer right now. They are doing this by creating a gable form. Bob Wade, owner: The designs matches and the sign that will hang matches the existing. There is not clapboard below the gable and we are suggesting beadboard as does tie into the beadboard on the other side. The color would be painted similarly to our other building. The buildings are 16 inches apart and the other part of our project is that we are going to build an eight to ten foot corridor between the two buildings set back in and you wouldn't be able to see it. Just the gable alone looks stark to me and it is a big expanse of brick which to me is not good looking. Donnelley: This is a removable element and you are scabbing over what is underneath. Bob Wade: We want to do something tasteful and your input is welcomed. Donnelley: I find no problem with it and it is better. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minor development for 306 S. Mill; second by Tom. Tom: I feel the gable projection ties in with the other one. Jake: I wish there was something here that could tie in with the historical commercial area of the town. Bob Wade: Art-tee gallery rents part of the building. have already received our sign permit. Also we VOTE: Ail in favor, motion carries. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 316 E. HOPKINS - HOWLING WOLF - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: This will be a coffee house and a handicapped accessible bathroom and entrance way are being proposed. They are proposing to do that in the back of the property so it will not be visible from the street. The only real issue is the shed that appears on the maps around 1904. Original windows have been removed. I do not feel there is a problem approving this as proposed. I want to be sure where they attach the addition to the back of the house that they do that as gently as possible and not remove more original materials and store the existing window if it is indeed historic. Stephen Levitt, owner: I do not believe it is historic. Paul Levine, owner: We will propose an airlock at the next meeting. Without it, it diminishes are ability to seat people inside. We are very conscious of the way the building looks. We are trying to find a door of the same period and the airlock would just be on the porch and hardly noticeable. Stephen Levitt: The airlock will be a temporary structure and we might even try to incorporate the turned posts. Paul Levine: We have an awning that we would like to change with a white awning and a logo of the Howling Wolf. Amy: Main Street Bakery has an airlock that is wood and glass and totally encloses the porch and in my opinion that is preferable. Jake: I have concern about the roof line and snow melting off it. Stephen Levitt: We did many designs and if we changed the roof then there wouldn't be room to stand in the bathroom. Linda: Regarding the awning you might want to change to a darker color due to the dirt factor. Martha: When you come back with the airlock try and come up with an alternative to plastic. Stephen: We do not want to use plastic either. MOTION: Martha made the motion to approve the request to construct a new addition to the rear of the structure at 316 E. Hopkins to be know as the Howling Wolf with the condition that the connection between the new and older portions of the building are limited and that the removal of historic materials is minimumized; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 939 E. COOPER AVE. - LANDMARK - CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL Jake stepped down. Vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Donnelley: This is a public hearing, landmark designation, conceptual development approval including on-site relocation of the historic resources, partial demolition and special review to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR. Amy: I am recommending approval of the landmark designation based on it meeting standard B, architectural importance, standard E, neighborhood character and standard F, community character. There is a victorian structure that has been modified on the site and also a shed barn from the 1930's and both are to be retained in the proposal. The property is zoned residential multi-family. Rather than do the typical buildout which would be one large structure with a number of units the Langley's are proposing to do five detached buildings. They range from 800 to 1700 sqft. each. The historic structure will be relocated and it currently is in the center of the lot and it will be moved to the east. The shed will move to the west. The concerns I have with cottage A, the existing building I think there needs to be a little more accuracy in the changes. They are proposing to move the siding and restore the clapboard and replace windows and also there is an original addition on the back that needs to be addressed in terms of how it is going to be demolished. Cottage B you received revised plans based on comments forwarded to the applicants and I think this is a major improvement in its relationship in terms of form to the historic structure. Some of the victorian detailing really isn't necessary and it could even be more playful than it is and be compatible. I am still concerned about the fact that the garage is the most prominent feature as it is the closest to the street but I understand the applicants have points to mention that I agree with. Cottage C is the historical shed that is being converted and a few other alterations in terms of windows. Cottage D I recommend not to have the heavy stone. It is not a typical or native form. Cottage E was fine s proposed. There are a number of setback variances being requested and those are listed on the supplemental sheet. Also a number of parking spaces will be asked to be waived and that will be clarified. The project will exceed 85% of the FAR and they have to comply with the neighborhood character guidelines. There is an historic building listed on the inventory directly to the west of this one. Impacts to that house need to be taken into HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 account. Bob Langley: The genesis of this project was for us to find an affordable way to live in town. We are familiar with the Aspen Area Community Plan and with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines and we wanted to re-inject into this are a sense of community and sense of neighborhood. There are not a lot of people living in the area on a full time basis. Our idea was to have a community within a community. We have three free market homes. We will be glad to work with you in anyway we can and we have tried to listen to everyone that has an interest in this project. We do feel what we are doing on the conceptual is compatible in character with the designated historic structures located on the parcel. We want to make the historic house more livable. With the revised guidelines we are allowed 7200 sqft. and the project which we are envisioning has 6900 sqft. We are not trying to squeeze this for every dime that we can get out of it. It is not as dense as other projects in the area. To our east is the Villager and to the east of that is the Chateau Roaring Fork and then on the west Mark Thai's house. We are trying to recapture the essence of the community of the town. The Brass Bed In is right behind the property. The homeowners association will take care of the property. 80% of the units will be occupied by full-time locals. We are retaining the historic outbuilding and complimenting it. Bob Langley: Under partial demolition we would like to not maintain the back 66 sqft. and we feel it is not that significant and is not seen from the street. If we keep it one option would be to move the project forward by four to six feet. The offstreet parking requirement states that it shall not exceed one space per bedroom or two spaces per bedroom whichever is less. Most of the traffic that comes by is pedestrian traffic and there is presently no sidewalk but we will incorporate one. Darnell Langley: Visually when you look down Cleveland Street towards Aspen Mountain you will look into the courtyard and visually see it. Sewart Lusk did the art work and Marsha Goshorn pu~ the packet together. Donnelley: We should start with cottage A and we need to determine what is going to be removed from the cottage. Darnell Langley: It would be a total of three or four feet off the back. Donnelley: We can assume that the historic element is the taller element and you are stripping the garage and the shed in the back of the historic house and stripping a gable form newer addition off HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 the south which is the back. The demolition of the 66 sqft. is demolition of the historic resource. Darnell Langley: With the lot split we either had to get into the setback or cut part of the historic building off. Stewart Lusk, architect: The garage shown is on the setback line and the main part of the house is a few feet back. Donnelley: Cottage B which is a new structure is misleading. It is trying to pick up a victorian structure and it is in opposition as to what we are trying to get at. It is busier and there are a lot of added on design features which could detract from the historic resource. Bob Langley: We could go back to the original cottage B. Donnelley: You have a wonderful situation here. Tom: I like the concept of the site plan and all the wonderful amenities that the sit plan reflects but it concerns me and it has been the criticism of the~neighborhood guidelines that people are lead into doing this miners cottage vocabulary and I would rather see something different. Aspen does not presently have a miners cottage character. If you walk all over town there is almost every period since 1900 represented. In Cottage A it seems fussy. Donnelley: The buildings should be subservient to the historic cottage and should not cry out. You have wonderful manipulation of volumes and roof forms and if one took this totally as a monochromatic project and just looked at the light and shade plate in these forms you would be well on your way to success. This project will present a welcoming picture of what can be accomplished in Aspen and what has been accomplished~i.e, rather blocky commercial situations. Darnell: We just want to give you what you want and we just don't understand where to go now. Donnelley: We are not looking for replication of past structures. Stewart Lusk: We started off with the garden court and we feel strong about that. Then you get the shape of the house. Donnelley: No one is criticizing the shape of the houses. We are talking about historic references or non-historic references and trying to distinguish between the historic resource and the newer resource and you may be creating more of a problem for yourself than actually exists. · HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 Les: The process will work for you, us and the neighborhood. Saving as much of the original building is what I like to see and you have done that. The neighborhood is the scale and massing. Linda: I do not know if what I have to say will make it more clear but the confusion comes when you look at the victorian and you try and make everything else kind of like it but if you look at the group of houses and have the historic structure be the most prominent and the others taken down into a more simple structure or level. Bob Langley: We need to make it evolve and show some transformation through town. We want to set the tone for what is coming after the miners cottages. Amy: I feel this is too complex and it imitates a victorian house and that is not the direction we want you to go. You find a common line of the things that are important about that historic house, mass and scale, rhythm and you work from that. We are not asking you to reproduce a victorian. Martha: I feel cottage A is appropriate. Donnelley: In Cottage B it is not clear what is intended. How do you deal with styling within the site. Darnell: Also the historic barn, how do you deal with that. Tom: Why can't you make them all different. The barn is appropriate. Marsha Goshorn: We were lead to believe you wanted it to look like an historic victorian, flashier. Amy: Compatible does not mean it has to look like something and it does not have to be victorian. Donnelley: You also haven't talked about shingles or siding. Tom: I do not want it flashier. Donnelley: We are on the wrong dialogue. The quietest building in the world could be contemporary. You are there in scale and massing. Don Crawford: There is only three feet of buffer between the building and I can reach that far. We need more respect for the neighbors privacy. My major concern is the people density on the neighborhood. If this project is not designated and remains in the zoning that is now you could only have ten bedrooms above grade. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 In this particular designation there will be 18 bedrooms and only ten parking spaces. I feel it should not be designated. Lisa Miller: I live in #8 of the Villager on the alley side right next to theirs. I would loose my light to the downstairs. I also feel 8 feet is not much of a variance. Density is a problem. I see more congestion and noise occurring. I also feel the parking is a disaster there anyway. I feel the concept is good but the density is our main concern and what is going to happen when the parking comes into effect when people already park up there that work in town. Donnelley: Does anyone know what the set back is on the Villager on the west property lie. Bob: It encroaches and the property is elevated three feet above our ground level. We have seven bedrooms above ground. Also everyone has two parking spaces. Darnell: We are also on the bus route and people will be taking the bus to get to work and leaving their cars at home. Marsha.Goshorn: This kind of development discourages the use of cars. Donnelley: Cottage D is taking something and trying to make it different just for the sake of difference. Darnell: Our concept was because that was between two barns we wanted to keep the board and batten and on all of our units we wanted a stone foundation that will have the continuity throughout all five units. We wanted it to look more like a farm house because it was sitting between two barns. Donnelley: The competition comes from detailing. What is hard to understand is D and B. Linda: D and B need to be compatible with the historic structure and that is the challenge. Donnelley: We are also dealing with other issues such as designation, setbacks. Amy: I feel we are near but feel tabling is appropriate. We need more discussion on how the project effects the neighbors in terms of the setbacks. One of the reasons we have three foot setbacks is that the left the historic barn in its existing orientation. If they twisted it they would have all the room they need but I do not think we want to see that change. In the front they could move the buildings close together and not need a variance. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 Les: One of my considerations is the setbacks which can violate the flow of the neighborhood. Donnelley: In this particular case we might want to rotate the barn in order to provide a better setback. Darnell: That would cut down on the parking. Tom: I agree with rotating the historic barn and it might be an advantage to turn it and get the buildings away from the property lines. Martha: I would like to site visit the property before I approve rotating the barn. Les: Saving it is my concern and if turning it is a benefit for the project and neighbors on either side and you can show me that then I have no problem. Martha: It is worth exploring. Amy: I haven't seen a structural report on the barn to see if it can be moved. Darnell: I concerned about the exterior finished of B and D, what can we introduce that will not clash. Donnelley: Stucco, shingles, corrugated steel are possibilities. Amy: I feel stucco is not appropriate. Tom: It is a non-material and is positive because it is not trying to say something about history. Donnelley: I agree with the use of stucco. Les: I also don't mind the use of a few logs. Martha: Isn't giving approval of the locations on the site for the buildings enough and he should work from that. Sewart Lusk: The historic one sets the pace. Tom: On the three new buildings your architect should use his imagination. We are not trying to guide you to make a horizontal siding or anything. Your architect should give you an imaginative design. MOTION: Les made the motion to table Landmark Designation, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 Conceptual Review, Special Review to exceed 85% and on-site relocation for 939 E. Cooper to a date certain Nov. 9, 1994; second by Martha. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion to adjourn; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk