Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940427/ Historic Preservation Committee ~. ..... Minutes of April 27, 1994 CONFLICT OF INTEREST .................. 1 706 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING 3 132 W. MAIN - ASIA - LANDMARK DESIGNATION PUBLIC HEARING . .. 6 132 W. MAIN STREET - ASIA AMENDMENT TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT .. 7 132 W. MAIN STREET ASiA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ........ 8 939 E. COOPER AVENUE - LANDMARK DESIGNATION ........ 10 939 E. COOPER AVENUE - WORKSESSION ............................ 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 27, 1994 Meeting was called to order by Linda Smisek with Les Hoist, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Scott Samborski and Tom Williams present. Chairman Joe Krabacher was excused for one hour of the meeting. Excused were Donnelley Erdman, Karen Day and Martha Madsen. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of March 23, 1994 as amended; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Tom: I have been disturbed about the inconsistencies of the last meeting and I would like to site an example. George vicenzi was presenting and got an elaborate lecture on his presentation and that the presentation was not clear and I totally agree with that. Then the committee was presented with the European Flower Market and given three choices to pick and choose as if we were the clients. Most issues are between the architect and client not the Board. The presentation with a minor section was not an appropriate presentation. There is this unfairness and somehow we have to come up with a consistent approach to reviewing issues. Les: I have thought abo~,~t this and it is too bad that we can't go through the projects before the meeting and get most of the discussion out of the way then. Amy: That is not legal. Roger: we need to be careful about presentations. Tom: We need to have a consistent program. Amy: I somewhat agree but the final decision of the Board was to have Glenn come back with three elevations. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Amy: I had talked with the City Attorney and he clarified the issue but also stated we probably have a conflict of interest with Joe's project. John Worcester City Attorney: In reading the code one sentence conflicts with the others and t s very d ff cut to understand. The ASS stant Attorney and myself interpret the code to state that a city official may appear on his own behalf before any board except the board to which he is a member. A member may appear on his own behalf before a board through a firm provided that he says what his conflict might be and doesn't participate. I recognize that this puts a particular burden upon single practitioners because they do not have someone else to come forward and make a presentation in their behalf. Jake: Does that mean we have to leave the room as we have done that in the past? Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 27, 1994 John: The code doesn't refer to that specifically but it is probably the better I~ractice because the code does say that you should not be in the position of ~nfluence over other people. Jake: We cannot make a presentation of any kind. John: No, theoretically that person cannot make a presentation either or debate the issue even though they would refrain from voting. You have at that point already imposed the partiality to the problem. Amy: There is no way that Jake (who is an architect, one man firm) on the board could make the presentation and leave the room. John: He could not make a presentation on his own project or a project that he was representing. Presumably Jake has some interest over this body. Jake: What if I did a video presentation. John: No, the object is that you have a special "In" with the Board, that is you are a member of this body and have a special interest that a member of the public doesn't have. Theoretically there are a number of reasons why the code would say that you can't do that as people will come to you as a lawyer or architect or whatever simply because you are on this Board and have some influence over this Board. That is what the code is trying to avoid. Amy: What if Jake's client or someone else make the presentation. Can Jake be in the room and answer questions? John: If he is representing the client he shouldn't participate or exercise any influence over the decision of the rest of the Board whether his client makes the presentation or he makes the presentation. The best practice would be to remove yourself from the room. Jake: In my case I would have to have a proxy. Joe: I am in a similar situation as I am the owner. John: If you are doing it on your own beha f or on behalf of another there is no distinction. A City official may appear on his or her own behalf or by him or herself or through a firm representing another on a city transaction before a board commission or authority with the exception of the Board that he or she is a member. I recognize that this is a harsh rule for a sole practitioner. Amy: YOU are saying that they should leave the room. John: There is no purpose for them to stay in the room if they cannot participate. Amy: If you are an architect or property owner you want to hear the feedback that is being offered and it is important to know what is happening. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 27, 1994 John: You don't have to leave the room but to avoid any problems that is what I suggest. Jake: We have had situations that a proxy is in the room and can't answer a question so they get up and leave the room and get the answer from the person in the hall. John: is that person influencing over the decision making process. Jake: I could have a self contained graphic illustration with the information but I could not do something on a tape recorder. John: No. It has to be an impartial dueprocess hearing. Les: In some towns even firms that Board members belong to are not allowed to present. Actually this is fairly liberal. Les: My feeling is everyone should be gone out of the room. Roger: My feeling is that they should be allowed to stay and if they interfere then told to leave. Amy: Anyone can listen to the tape also. Joe: Traditionally we have asked them to leave the room. I have never had the situation where someone on the Board owned the project that came through. The committee should clarify what they intend to do. I agree with what John said because I would not want to jeopardize my clients approval because I have an obligation to them. 706 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING Linda Smisek opened the public hearing. Joe left the room as he is owner of the property. Dick Fallin and David Panico are the architects for presentation. project and did the Amy: T. he al~plicants have given us new. drawings tonight and I feel this is a better DUild ng that they nave aesignea than before. I like the sloped roof and there is more of a connection between the two buildings which is what we were looking for. Dick: We went over the minutes to determine what the problems were. The new drawings are a little more residential in character and we are getting away from the facade treatment that we had before and changing the front elevation. There was support for a front porch being added to the historic part even though the references were vague so we put it on the illustrations so that we could discuss it. The owner thinks that ultimately it would provide 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 27, 1994 protection to the drip line on the front entry of that particular element of the building. On the dimensions we are showing four feet and Amy mentioned around three feet. We also are showing a design of a fence that might add residential flavor. We would like to discuss that also. David Panico: The underlying intent was to have more reference between the two buildings. I had thought initially that the gable end should face the street and the ma~n address of the new building should be a gable end facing the street this way. All the studies I did on that did not work. We did not want to overpower the other building. We then looked at turning the ridge in parallel with the historic structure and that opened up a whole new vocabulary of what could be done. somewhat of a bungalow could be compatible with the historic structure and that is where the design started. I feel this is a very good solution. When we found out that we could have a porch with an HPC variance it allowed us to make an architectural statement on the historic structure. As you can see from the south elevation we made the statement with the porch that will be added to the historic structure then walking around the corner you will have a similar detail that happens at the entrance of the new structure. The roof pitches are similar and the volume that we need is made by shed roof dormers which are complimentary in slope and scale. The structure continues to the back and connects to the element that we submi~ed with the previous application. We feel strongly about the rear element in that there is no graceful way of adding a sloped roof to it because of the square configuration. We also feel it is very consistent with traditional housing that was present in Aspen specifically the hotel that was built where Wagner Park is. David: If we can find siding similar to the historic building we will try to carry that around the entire perimeter of the building in a band with a cedar shingle gable end and that would set the pattern for exterior treatment and then we would carry that theme around the entire building. CLARIFICATIONS Roger: On the historic cottage don't you think it would have had a shed roof full length or just over the door, not the combination of both? Amy: That is my problem with the porch as we know it ran the entire length of the building and I would prefer that it did that a.gain instead of clipped in at the corners. I also agree with Roger and do not I~ke the pediment. David: You have one practical problem with that and you don't want to shed water. You do have the situation of liability in that you have to protect your customers as they walk through to the door. Roger: Regarding the COlL~mns in front of the little cottage are they meant to be much wider? DaVid: Yes they are. Roger: In an historic context around town that would not be the case. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 27, 1994 David: This is not an historic porch. Roger: At Pioneer Park the dimensions of the post are too wide for all the dimensions on the house. If the posts were narrower the fence would work better. The posts are too heavy. Is the fence metal or wood. David: it would be the fence that is there right now and it is wood. Jake: How high is the ridge? David: 28 1/2 feet. Dick Fallin: In this plan we have asked for 452 sq. ft. of which 200 sq. ft. would be employee housing and the rest part of the addition. David: The rear of the property is above grade and the square footage has changed with the new design. Les: This is closer to what we are looking for. I do have some concerns about the shakes on the gable ends. The shed roof works. I like the idea of the porch on the house but would prefer seeing it as historically correct as possible, no change in scale. Dick: On the porch if we end up with a shed roof that begins under the existing eave line of the cottage and we have to maintain clearance we may get to a pitch that doesn't work well with singles and would the Board object to another material on the roof? It might end up being a tin roof. Les: I feel we will have to deal with that at final. Linda: This addition is very much an improvement over the previous and I am concerned about the porch also. Did you say if it went all the way to the end there would be problems with snow and water? David: No, you could go the entire width. Linda: It seems choppy with a new element introduced with everything else that is going on. I like the connection and it is much more compatible with the historic structure. The fence adds definition. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for 706 W. Main with the condition that the porch be restudied and the gable ends be presented at final. In addition the Board approves the additional FAR of up to 500 square feet and the four foot setback on the front elevation; second by Scott. Passes 4 - 1. Tom opposed. Amy: The applicant is required nine spaces for the amount of commercial space that they have but they can only fit five onsite so they need four hParking spaces waived and HPC has the ability to do that for a landmark. We ave in the past waived the parking. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 27, 1994 AMENDED MOTION: Les amended his motion for 706 W. Main to waive four of the nine required parking spaces; second by Scott. Passes 4 - 1. Tom opposed. 132 W. MAIN - ASIA - LANDMARK DESIGNATION PUBLIC HEARING Linda Smisek opened the public hearing. Scott Samborski stepped down. Chairman Joe Krabacher seated. Amy: This is landmark designation of a portion of the existing buildings. The western most house at Asia Restaurant has been designated since 1976 and the eastern portion of the house was moved from the Floradora Building to this location and moved forward on the lot and then connected to the house. Both houses seem to have historic significance and theyare victorian houses that in general maintains victorian features. They havebeen altered through the connection and I did recommend approving landmark designation finding that it met standards B, architectural importance, E neighborhood character and F community character. Dennis Green, attorney: It doesn't make sense designating one side and not the other half. We can provide more detail as to the h~storic basis of the building. Amy: They are asking for designation to take advantage of some of the benefits. They can expand their net leasable at the basement level and not have to mitigate employee housing etc. Linda: Am I understanding this right that we are putting two historic houses together and calling this combination one designation? Amy: They are already together and it will be the entire parcel as a landmark. Linda: That can be done, two house stuck together and landmarked? Amy: It iS something that we don't want to encourage but happened 14 years ago. Amy: The part on the west with the turret now was designated in 1986 and the houses were joined and changed in 1980. Brian Busch, contractor: Basically it gives us the opportunity to change a 500 square foot storage area into an office in the basement. That is the only benefit. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC approve the landmark designation of Lot M and the west four feet of Lot N, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen finding that standards B, E and F have been met; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Historic preservation Committee Minutes of April 27, 1994 132 W. MAIN STREET - ASIA AMENDMENT TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT Linda opened the public hearing. Linda: No public comments, public hearing is closed. Dennis Green, attorney: This consists of two parts and one is the new windows between the two buildings or on the new building between the two bud ngs I would note that it is only visible really from the existing building and actually would improve the appearance. The second portion of it is the relocation of the staircase and Staff has recommending that the Board apply the guidelines. I would urge the board to not apply them. Chapters four and five are talking about heating and air conditioning equipment. We are proposing to move the staircase from inside the building to the outside of the building. The guidelines talk about fire escapes etc. and that is not what we are proposing. I feel the stairway would actually improve the appearance of the building. We are not trying to get square footage. When we went through the actual construction drawings we lost some square footage due to the FAR calculations, we were approved under growth management for 2 841 sq. feet net leasable. The way the actual plans came out we lost some As proposed we only have 2 760 sq. ft. f you allow us to move the stairway outside and that would still be under the amount that we were given. We have limitations of a narrow site and narrow building. Amy: The amendment to the guidelines occurred about a month ago and it does specifically says satellite dishes firescapes etc. and that they should be incorporated in the design of the bud ng. This is a second egress so it Ds a firescape. My concern is that we just recently made this a po cy and for us to overturn it so quickly doesn't look appropriate. In general we do want to see staircases inside the building. I also understand that some of your net leasable space has been taken away. Les: Is this changing anything regarding the parking? Kevin McLeod, architect: No. The FAR reduced the net-leasable of the entire building and it is increasing only because the stairwell is four feet wide so a foot width of it counts against FAR. There is an elevator. Les: In the winter how will you deal with the snow? Brian Busch: We could put a cover on it. Kevin McLeod: I chose not to cover it because I thought leaving the upper gable more clear the w~,¥ ~t !s shown was more appropriate on that facade. Joe: I do not see any difficulty with this as it is an infill project and I find it a little more friendly when you are coming in the alley. It looks better than just the flat facade. I would prefer that it not be covered as when you add a cover you are adding another element. With regards to the light wells is that all office space? 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 27, 1994 Kevin McLeOd: Yes it is. Joe: I have no problem with that either and we have seen a lot more light wells utilized in the basement spaces and it makes them a little more friendlier. Jake: What do you intend to use for the railing detail? Kevin: We intend to match it to the existing. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC approve the request for the amendment to the final development application for 132 W. Main Street finding that it meets the development review standards and that would be an approval for the new window, lightwells and staircase without any covering; second by Tom. Question called, passes 4 to 1. Les opposed. 132 W. MAIN STREET ASIA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: This third part of the discussion tonight on Asia Restaurant is a request to install a new door with a porch overhang on the west side of the historic building and to put light wells in the building. The portion of the house in question is the George Moser house and is an Aspen landmark. First off there were no drawings or deta s so felt we could not approve those until we see all the details we need including railings and where they will be. I did not have a site plan. As far as the porch I do not recommend approving it and I feel there have been enough changes made to this house. I feel the access to the office should be through the interior the way it is now. Dennis Green: We believe we can present a good argument for that and if you could all look at the floor plan. We are thinking of having two leasable spaces separated by the wall which is basically in the middle. The main front entrance is not shown on the floor plan but it is just to the right in the front. If we have two leasable spaces due to the code we need two main exits and entrances. We would have to incorporate a new entrance on the west side. With the new entrance it would separate the traffic that goes to the restaurant. Amy: There are three windows on that side that run down the side and one would be removed and turned into a door. Kevin McLeod: They have requested two window wells to go into the basement space and basically we would put one in front of the turret and one between the next two elements. Because the existing bud ng sits up higher I think we will not need a railing n front of it because the window well will be able to be less than 30 inches below finished grade. If a rail is required it would be the plan to match the existing iron rail detailing that runs along the sidewalk. They would be below grade and not visible and just a simple square type window. Joe: On the existing west elevation the window that is closest to the turret is that an historic window? Historic Preservation Committee ~. Minutes of April 27, 1994 Amy: Yes and the one on the other side where the door is proposed is historic also. Brian Busch: I did check the glass and there are new thermopane windows in there so it is not the historic glass. Les: I personally feel there is a lot going on with this building. My feeling is table it and site visit and see what the window wells are going to look like. You say you are going to do landscaping but that dies and everything changes. This might be compatible but I would like to see it all at once. Alan Busch: We would be agreeable to a tab e on that and would be happy to do a site visit. We tried to look at other solutions for the door but nothing came up except utilizing the window. There is a little landing there right now in front of the windows. Joe: I have no objection to the light wells but I would like to have the opportunity to look at the site. As to the new entryway I have a problem because it is an historic window that is being removed. There should be a way to reconfigure the inside space to get the access. I am not thrilled about adding another entry to this building as it is one of the main facades. Brian Busch: We might be able to use the existing entry if we could put up a stub wall coming out toward first street which would block the loading dock from the view of the entry and give it a more of an office space entry. Joe: I assume that I~ort~on of the addition is new. Brian Busch: That is an add-on to the building. We would do a wall out about six or eight feet to block the loading dock. Amy: Possibly that could be a trellis instead of a wall and we would need to look at that. MOTION: Joe made the motion to table the application of 132 W. Main and request that the members go out and look at the proposed light wells and the handicapped access and direct the applicant to restudy the entry way to see if we can utilize the existing handicapped entryway and to study the use of the trellis as opposed to a solid wall; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Joe: Make sure that you accurately present all elevations of what is going on and clearly show the materials proposed at the next meeting. Be complete as you can over the design aspects. Amy: Lets schedule a lunch site visit. Dennis: The restaurant is closed so anytime will work. Joe: Wednesday before the meeting will be May 11th at Noon at the site. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 27, 1994 939 E. COOPER AVENUE - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Linda opened the public hearing. MOTION: Joe made the motion to continue the public hearing until May 18th, 1994; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. 939 E. COOPER AVENUE - WORKSESSION Bob & Duranella Langley: In July HPC members were over at the house and we are living at 939 E. Cooper which is owned by Jenny Cowling and we are considenng a purchase option that gives us until the first of September to determine whether or not we can do a development there. The original buildings on the property were torn down by Earl Cowling and that included a toilet house, smoke house, chicken house and tool shed. John Pugle was the owner before Cowling dug a sub-basement and the rocks that came out of there are the foundation for the shed. This took place in the 30's. John Pugle built the shed oul~ o~: scraps out of old mine buildings. The source of my information is Richard Cowling who is the son of Ear Cow ng and Jenny Cowling who is in the assisted living center. We would like to move this off the property and we have one person who has already offered to take the shed and put it on her property out toward Difficult Creek. Another option which we have not explored is the community schoo They are doing some things with older buildings. The parcel is 10,500 sq. ft. It is 105 by 100. We would like to rezone the )~roperty so that you have 6,000 RMF and 4,500 sq. ft. of affordable housing. We are just rezoning the 4,500 to AH because the entire property is RMF and essentially we could put up two free market houses. We have two young children and our concern being a family in Aspen is I want my children to grow up in a neighborhood where there are other kids. We would like to use the rezoning to have two free markets on the 6,000 sq. ft. parcel and on the AH parcel have an RO free market and a deed restricted three bedroom house. We could max out at optimum 4,100 of FAR. Here we could max out at 4,950 FAR. What we would like to do have essentially families in here and we know there are families that do not fit the affordable housing criteria that we are hoping would be interested in free market homes. We are going to have to allocate the land costs among the three free market houses and ,the one R,O.uni.t beca..use the cate. go .fy h.ouse, can't pay for tse f Essentially wnac we wan[ [o oo is a~ocace the ~ano va~ue co these and sell them at cost. What we want from the HPC is guidance and direction. We need direction on how to get the shed moved off the property. If we were to maintain the shed it would probably cost $80,000 to do something with the shed. Duranella: Because of the number of units we would have to make that shed into a living dwelling and to upgrade it at that point would be cost prohibitive. We have been working on this for about a year. Our sole goal is to try and get an affordable home in Aspen. We recognize the need and desire to maintain an historic flavoring in town and want to maintain the most historic part of the property which is the house but we feel people are more historic than the building. Aspen as a community is loosing families. On the west end you don't 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 27, 1994 see little wagons etc. We are looking at purchase prices of under $700,000. We are trying to find something that works. Amy: The Langley's are trying to get onto the Planning & Zoning agenda last night to get some of their ideas. There is a question as to whether the P&Z would support the lot line etc. If they do zone partially an AH there is the possibility of breaking the buildings up and they would not have to be connected. The Juan Street project just did a code amendment so that they could be spilt up. Duranella: I would like t,o have the front house like the main historic house and possibly do some victorian styles pushed back and combined into a guest carriage house. Amy: Possibly do a landmark designation. Duranella: We want to also do a courtyard to have a central openspace and possibly they could have little decks on each unit so that they could have a private space. Amy: The shed is the thorn in the project and I do consider something from 1930 historic but that doesn't mean that everything is worth saving. One of the possibilities is using it as a garage type of thing. Les: I love the shed and on the site visit last year we figured out how it could stay. Explain what is going on with the pricing? Bob: We are looking at the free market houses carrying a purchase price of about $700 000 (3 units) and the category unit we are ook ng at $195 000 and the other wou d be a deed restricted RO unit and we are looking at that hav ng to carry a land cost in the neighborhood of $75,000. We would take one of the free market houses. What we are getting out of this is a reduced land cost. Joe: Under the existing RMF zone how many lots would you be allowed to build on that? Duranella: 15 studios or five two bedrooms. Joe: I would like to go out and look at the shed again and I feel I would be receptive to doing something that would accommodate your plans. I can't comment from a footprint what the rest of it looks like. Personally in concept I would be willing to work with you. You need to know if the Board would recommend relocation of the historic building which I don't have a problem with and whether or not you would be allowed to demolish the alley structure. Bob: The alley structure will just be relocated off the site. In order for this project to make sense the mechanics of this is if we can get approval on the development then we have to secure an investor to come in and provide the funds to develop it. 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 27, 1994 Les: If you moved the shed over and moved the existing house over what can you do on the other side? Bob: Because of the size of this if we move it anywhere it has to be productive and it is so large the economics aren't there. Amy: What if we kept the shed for the shelter of parking spaces? 8ob: The expense involved. We are looking at $80,000. We are trying to establish a community within a community. Les: You can't build two free market units on the left? Bob: No, not if it is zoned AH parcel. The AH parcel has to be built according to their guidelines. Linda: Couldn't the shed be incorporated into the left group at all? Bob: The cost involved makes it impossible. It was a tool shed made out of mine pieces to accommodate the owner. Amy: In the AH zone you can have as many units as will fit. Scott: I feel we should site visit this and see if it can work somehow. Amy: What are the plans for the historic house, do you plan on taking off the asphalt or what? BOb: We would like to add an addition to it and will work with the architect. The historic part is where the current livingroom is and there was a garage that was.a,tta, ched probably in the 50's and the bathroom was attached later and the Ki[cnen attached later. We want to maintain the character of the historic house and add on to it. Keep the victorian feel to it. We want it all to work together as one. We want to have the open space. Les: My concern is everytime we get a good project like this as soon as we give approval they are gone. Jake: We should look at the barn because I am not sure Jt is recyclable. Duranella: The property next to the Wildwood School wants the barn but we would still like to talk to the community school. Les: Karen Day needs to give her input as she feels is barn Js one of the most important outbuildings left in Aspen. Amy: The entire parcel is on the inventory and even when they do the subdivision if they would landmark part of it we would still have design review conceptual over all the property similar to Juan Street as it will still be considered on the inventory. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 27, 1994 BOb: We want this to fit in with the character of the historic town. A friend of ours who is an artist is using the shed to do her painting. Joe: Lets schedule a site visit. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Tom: I need someone to take over my project monitoring while I am away. Scott: I will take care of Tom's projects. MOTION: Tom made the motion to adjourn; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Sl:rickland, Chief Deputy Clerk