Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940518Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 132 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 1 409 E. HOPKINS - FINAL APPROVAL ...... 3 WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ...... 6 229 W. HALLAM STREET - PARTIAL DEMOLITION .... 15 CARIBOU ALLEY - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 17 ASPEN TO SNOWMASS TPJ~4'SPORTATION PROJECT - MARGOT PENDLETON COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ......... 21 26 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Donnelley Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Linda Smisek and Scott Samborski present. Excused were Joe Krabacher, Karen Day, and Tom Williams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Amy: The shed at John Elmore's needs to be moved and the Elks Club members will move it to Snowmass. HPC has already approved demolition. Les: I will monitor the move. Amy: One of the members of the Elks called and they wanted to put an air conditioner unit in one of the windows. Donnelley: needed. I had an office in there and air conditioning is not Roger: I would recommend against an object being placed in an historic building. Amy: The Awards ceremony went well with the help of Linda and Roger. All of the recipients were grateful for their awards. Amy: I have two proposals for outside seating Takah Sushi and Mirabella. Scott: Doesn't the CCLC review that and if so it should conform to the mall lease regulations. Roger: I would think we should encourage that kind of activity. Roger: In the 1970's Francis Whitaker warned about the desecration of Aspen with houses being built out of mass, sale and height. It has been talked about since then. I ask the committee that we send a resolution to city council to adopt the Neighborhood Guidelines, Character Guidelines and that they adopt our guidelines. Staff will then be directed to fine tune them and the third part of the resolution is that the City Council adopt an overlay of Aspen as to height, mass and scale of any new building. Nothing will happen unless we ask Council. Donnelley: This is a proposal to be in an addition to the zoning envelopes that exist. Roger: We are asking for a moratorium overlay on Aspen as to height, mass and scale. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of April 13th and April 20th as amended; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 132 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Scott stepped down. Amy: When the plans were received I had never seen a site plan before and when a lot line appeared they are in their setback. They will need a variance from us and will be coming back the first meeting in June. The contractor would like to know if the proposed development can be done. As long as you are lower than 30 inches above grade it is OK to be in the setback. The steps are OK but the handrail and the porch above it encroach. Brian Busch, contractor: I would like the committee to discuss the window wells also. Amy: There are two proposed window wells one by the turret and one further over. They are not required fire egress but the owners would like them for their own personal safety because there are offices in the basement. They have agreed to use flat grates instead of a railing because existing is a decorative railing. It is not a required egress but the staircase downstairs is in an odd position and the owners are worried that they might not be able to get to it if their was a fire. The grate has to weight around 15 pounds, rather light in order to lift it up. Roger: They could use an aluminum grate. Brian Busch: The two windows on the west side barely meet the code requirement as an escape. Amy: I talked with the Bldg. Dept. and they thought the one out the front and one out the kitchen was enough. The only function of this door is a more appropriate entrance to the office. Brian Busch: The way the doors are now that would be correct but if we go ahead and divide the west wing in half and make two separate offices then with this divided we don't have a front entry out of this building it only comes out the back. Maybe we could just do a fire door. Roger: When Arthur's was there the window did not exist, it is not an historic window. Amy: They are dividing this but then you would have someone else coming through their office. Dennis Green: We would also like to avoid all the traffic going into the bathrooms and keep them separate. Brian Busch: We have a loading dock and I would hate to have a main Historic Preservation Co~unittee Minutes of May 18, 1994 entrance right next to a kitchen loading dock into an office because it is unsightly. We would like to put a screen wall just to block the visibility of the loading ramp and probably use some kind of lattice effect in there. Les: You need to save what you can. Jake: I do not have a problem with the door on the west wall but I am curious if it could be integrated as a common reception area. Les: This would require a variance and my experience is that when you give a variance you get an exchange with it. We are doing a variance so that someone can create offices. Roger: Concerning the west side and the proposed door if the door goes where the third window is I have no problem because it is not an historic window. I cannot object because it would add life to that side of the building and if there was a screened area it would enhance the building. It would create a lively part of the building with a trellis also. I also have no problem with the flat grates over the window wells. No one will notice it due to the landscaping. Les: I cannot justify the window wells historically. Amy: At this meeting you can approve a window well and the location of the door. MOTION: Roger made the motion to grant minor development approval for 132 W. Main for the following four items: A door to be installed on the third window on the west side which is the north window. That we grant a variance for the stairs in front of the door. That we allow a trellis to be constructed facing the door to the left but not attached to the building to screen the existing loading dock. That we allow for two window wells on either side of the front entry and that they are landscaped with a flat grate, second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. 409 E. HOPKINS - FINAL APPROVA3~ Scott seated. Dave Rybeck, architect for Poss & Associates representing Kandycom Inc. owners of the project. Amy: At the last meeting at one point it was motioned that a restudy of the metal work occur but the motion was withdrawn. It was recommended that they look at the west wall. Several things were mentioned such as a trompe l'oeil painting on that wall and what they came up with was windows infilled with concrete block and I am concerned about that solution because it implies that there was something there before. I am recommending approval and that the wall Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 can be worked out between staff and monitor. Dave Rybeck: I will address the stone infill pattern. We were confused after the first meeting as to whether you wanted us to go with a brick pattern or infill. Our approach is to go with sandstone panels to distinguish that they are newer. Donnelley: What is the relationship between the panels and what is going on inside? Dave: Nothing what-so-ever. Roger: This infill project is between the Smuggler Land Office and does the old Alpine Jeweler building get torn down? Dave: Yes it will be torn down and the new building will touch the Collins alley building. The west wall hands above the alley building. Donnelley: It faces the apartments of the Collins Block. Roger: There are numerous walls around Aspen and historically they were used for advertising. Dave: We had discussed that and the question came up do we want to draw attention to that side and roof line of the building. Roger: I do not think we can demand they paint a mural but we could ask them. Donnelley: What about a panel so that it is not obvious from the sidewalk, possibly CMU's so that in the future a mural could still be done. Amy: When you are standing in the alley and look at two walls above you I don't think it will be that easy for a person to see some beautiful mural. Scott: What is the width between the buildings once it is built? Dave: None. Roger: The simplest solution would be CMU block stained a color of the brick. Then there is the ability to do something in the future. Donnelley: You would probably want to wrap the corner by a certain amount. Dave: I would be apprehensive in doing that because we do not want the appearance that we stopped the quality of the building. Donnelley: If you had brick up toward the parapet it would mean that Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 there would be something specific about it. You would go to a definable area. Les: If I was Harley Baldwin I would want to see the entire thing bricked in a smooth style because if nothing happens for five years at least he has brick to look at. Donnelley: Maybe we should discuss what the options are. Jake: I am more concerned about the front than the side. Donnelley: Do we have any feelings about the elimination of the fake windows. Jake: Just do straight brick. Roger: I agree with the brick. Amy: The only reason we are concerned about the west wall is the neighboring building. I have not spoken to Harley. Possibly this should be discussed by Staff, Monitor and property owner. Dave: We have been trying to work with the city in cleaning up the alley and they have approached us to put a trash compactor in there and there is not enough space. Roger: Did we discuss roof top equipment? Dave: No we did not. Jake: There needs to be a roof top equipment plan submitted. Dave: There will be a compressor if anything and we do have a parapet wall and the compressor will be to the back. Donnelley: There are two issues one the wall and the other the north elevation. What changes have been made to the north elevation specifically the decorative steel trellis over the central portion of the building. Dave: Some of the members thought the steel was a very solid piece and after we discussed it, it is very open with panel insets. We have refined the design. Jake: Can you describe the steel. Dave: It is a quarter inch plate with an opening. The sign plate will hang from the beam. Jake: I voted against this because I felt the steel work was extremely competitive and attention drawing and this building is sandwiched Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 between two prominent historical buildings. suggested that it become simpler. In terms of restudy I Amy: It was part of the motion then withdrawn so they were not asked to restudy that. Les: This works for me because it is totally an historical block and in the middle is this whimsical metal thing and they absolutely make sense and it fades. It is not powerful and not dominant and the historical buildings are still part of what you see. It does not take away from anything. Roger: Also this building is recessed behind the historical buildings. Dave: At one of the meetings it was discussed whether this building should be on the street or not and through the committees comments we set the building back but there was always the feeling that you loose the street presence so this is an attempt to keep the mass back and make it less of a building but at the same time keep the entire building a presence on the street. It also adds an interest within itself. We framed the inside so that it would be submissive. Jake: To me it is a matter of being subtle. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC grant final approval of 409 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: That the treatment as drawn for the west wall be rejected and that the applicant work with the neighbor, monitor and Staff to determine if this wall should be brick or CMU and they may do either. We would encourage the treatment of a tromp l'oeil but that is not a requirement. The second condition is that a roof top plan be submitted to Staff; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. Roger is the monitor. WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING Amy: The Neighborhood Character Guidelines are still in their draft form and we do think this is very important because it is adjacent to the national registered site and is visible from town. There are seven guidelines and several have been met. My main concern is the impact on the historic area. The architectural design of the new buildings should break away from the victorian style. There was a concern about garages and orientations to the street. Gary Wright, attorney for the project: We are trying to take all the input and come up with a good project. The concept is behind a model of the west end and that came from two primary motives one that we felt it appropriate for that area and the other that it is visible from Aspen Mountain. The four-plex townhomes have been eliminated. Ail the affordable housing will be duplexes or single family. We are building Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 category 2 which is the second lowest income guideline housing and we can still manage to do those in a duplex format. We are concerned about things getting busy and we are also very concerned about cost and value. We are trying to take the best things from a victorian design and we do not want to replicate. We intend to use 2 and 1 pitched roofs and to use the basic victorian window style. We do intend to use metal roofs and may use some metal siding. Regarding parking we had hoped to have two from behind which was typical in the west end but it just doesn't fit and we have problems with slope and grade with the tunnel and the required open space. Stefan and his Mother were the people who were responsible for the Smuggler Mine listed in the national register of historic places and it is Stefan Albouy's commitment to historic preservation that we are doing what we are doing. The entire area is part of the EPA operable number 2 study area. We extensively have worked with the EPA and this whole areas has been tested and we particularly tested the buffer area. The lead levels and topography will have a natural buffer to separate the residential and existing mine. We are applying for with the county a mine land reclamation permit for the mine. Stefan wants to restore the mine so that you will see visually what was there at the turn of the century. The mine master plan also makes the EPA happy as far as what they want done on the tailings. Roger: Will the entrance be where the existing entrance is to the mine? Gary: We need an easement across county property. There is a dump that we propose to make into a park as part of the approval process for the county. The county has to clean up and fix this area. We will work with the EPA on the county land and complete the active park. We have know that the Cowanhovan tunnel is located on the side so we have kept the building area away from it. It is fairly deep throughout and it is flooded. Jake: How many buildings do you have? Gary: We have 38 units of which 16 are single family and twenty are duplexes. Of those duplexes four are category 2, 8 two bedroom category 2, and four three bedroom category two plus. Meaning they will be about $105,000. Amy: In regards to the site plan in terms of lot location we need not dwell on that issue because P&Z and Council are dealing with that issue. Jake: We should stick basically with architecture. Donnelley: Since it has gone through so many boards of review how many of them have dealt with styling? Amy: None. Historic Preservation Co~ittee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Donnelley: That seems to be a critical issue here especially when you look at this project from other points or from Centennial. It is a very important issue and one that we are best qualified to deal with. Roger: How many actual structures do you have? Gary: 42 structures, 26 and 16. Jake: Are you building the free market buildings? Gary: We are not going to build those but will incorporate the Pfister guidelines. Jake: How open to design options are you? Gary: We would like to stay with the west end as a model because most of the lots there are 6,000 sq. ft. and our employee lots are going to be 4,000 in general. Roger: We are looking at architectural style and scale. My assumption is that we are looking at mass, scale of the other 16 buildings of the free markets. Amy: We can recommend only. Roger: I am concerned about all the height, mass and density. The architect should have the freedom to do what he wants. Gary: We are using Tom Stevens are the contractor and Brad Reed as the architect who is presently living in New Mexico and lived here until the early 70's and worked with Fritz Benedict. Roger: I know Brad Reed who is also a pilot and he is an excellent architect. Amy: The character guidelines are critical in this neighborhood and one of the reasons they should be incorporated is because there was nothing up there and this is not a victorian neighborhood. That neighborhood is a great mix of different styles. There is nothing wrong with the proposal but possibly we could incorporate different designs. Jake: Our charge is to review this project relative to the project. It is important that the applicants get familiar with the guidelines. Gary: The guidelines are not even adopted and our designs were done 10 months ago. We have had designs started 10 months ago and now you want us to incorporate guidelines. City council wants to change the GMP and we have been waiting three years for the council and county Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 commissioners to design an RO housing that the housing authority spent 2 months on and there is an element of fairness here. We are open to suggestions and we respect the people but all of our stuff was done last year. Stefan Albouy: Let me throw in one thing to clarify the west end concept. My reason for wanting the buildings comes from not really the west end but from little neighborhoods that were typically around mines such as Molly Gibson and Little John, all the ones similar to what is in Leadville. That is were a lot of this comes from not necessarilya gingerbread house. Miners homes that were located close to mines such as this development. This was a ranch. Donnelley: The HPC does not encourage the building of victorian houses unless they already exist. To ask the architect to change the program or any of the formal aspects of the buildings is not something we intend to do. Perhaps the internal plans work and the relationship of the buildings is adequate. These buildings seem to be too busy and possibly they just need cleaned up a bit to become quieter. Nobody wants a replication of a little victorian village. The scale, 12 & 12 roofing, the use of metal and the use of clapboard siding can be a valid approach. There is a lot of decoration going on here. We don't want to see anything that looks as if it were built in the 19th century. That is a real danger in Colorado. Roger: My suggestion would be this, knowing Brad we need to get him a copy of the neighborhood character guidelines as well as our own guidelines and standards. I also concur with Donnelley. Centennial was an attempt to mimic the traditional mining building and in some regards it did that. As far as its mass and scale I don't feel it was very successful in that way. The real danger is if you create an exact west end victorian. A simple building is what would have been built first and as the town continued and prospered those very simple buildings would become embellishments. Perhaps you could stay with the victorian and get rid of the embellishments. Work with a simple material. Stefan Albouy: You would be amazed at the discussions that Brad and I have had which discuss your same issues. Donnelley: We agree on the direction but will need to meet with the architect. Roger: The architect can come in with a design and sell it but he also needs input before hand to make that happen. Gary: We have so many different agendas to keep etc. that I will never do this again. Stefan Albouy: I can second that. Historic Preservation Co~ittee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Scott: We are in need of employee housing and to go through this has to be very trying. Roger: I feel it is great that Stefan wants to go restore the existing mine and whatever gets built there looks like what was there originally. Gary: We are trying to reduce the size of the buildings above grade and use the basement space. Les: You are on track and sometimes I see porches on employee housing units that serve no purpose so when you are doing this think of ski's and kayaks. Gary: I would like to think we are taking that one step further in that Stefan and I are going to live there. Stefan: When we get Brad here he can answer all the questions. Les: This will be a great project and we appreciate what you are doing. 303 W. MAIN STREET - CONTINUED CONCEPTUAL Vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Jake stepped down. Amy: We started to review this April 20, 1994 and it was continued so that the applicant could make clarifications. The committee seemed to be in favor of the mass and scale of the addition and asked for a restudy of the railing; roof form on the addition; differentiation between old and new; whether or not brick was to be used on the addition; details on the light wells; site plan and landscape plan. Also why the house is being moved. Amy: Architecturally this is a good project but I am really concerned because it is a very important building and on a prominent corner and there are two others next to it that could take the same path in the future. This is a terribly visible project. I suggested that the tower be reduced in height somehow whether that means eliminating the parking on the site which has it's problems or as another option that the carport element not be included and that the outbuilding keep its original orientation because that is important to the street scape and it is being turned sideways. I did recommend tabling with those issues. Roget Kuhn: We are coming back with clarifications and studies for 303 E. Main owned by my parents. I would like to show and explain the diagrams that are in your packet. The survey indicates that the shed is encroaching and also the side lot. We plan on solving those 10 Historic Preservation Couunittee Minutes of May 18, 1994 encroachments. We also have the proposed roof plans and have indicated the landscape plan. We have 60 1/2 feet at this proposed half lot but our second story is actually going to be set in three feet on each side so that leaves less than ten feet and the walls are six inches on each side. Most of the area will have a three foot corridor so I do not think it would be livable in that respect so that is the reason we want to move the main house four feet forward and two feet to the side. On the back we want an entrance to the unit and there wouldn't be room for an entrance if we did not move the original house four feet forward. Roget: On the basement plan we have a proposed lightwell in the front and we also have a proposed lightwell where the entrance will be going down to the basement. On the Monarch elevation (west L) we need a lightwell for the entrance to the basement and we would like to cover the entrance with an extension of the roof line. The reason is snow and water will fall into the light well so we wanted it protected as it might be a potential problem. We also have the Main Street elevation (north L) and there is a required lightwell for egress for anticipated employee housing in the basement. We are going to go back with a simplified railing, vertical pickets around the deck and around the lightwells. Donnelley: That is not shown on the drawings but is a change. Roget: On the carriage tower the roof is at a slighter pitch than the model, it is flatter to reduce some of the height. I would like to discuss differentiation. On the roof form we considered doing the arch but were scared of the cost so we were thinking of doing a shallower roof. We also studied doing a hip roof and I have colored studies for reference points. Regarding exterior materials on the tower addition the brick would distinguish between the new and old victorian. It is a material found in the commercial core. We are flexible on color and texture of the brick and it would be easy on maintenance and provide better protection on the alley side. We would like to handle this at final. Donnelley: You are talking about brick to the entire addition to the east. Roger: Yes, that is our desire. I would like you to approve the wood siding scheme. Regarding the parking variance we feel we need this space for storage of the store and we want to set it up to use it as a garage for the apartment unit if things change. The only way we can do that is get this variance. We need the outside parking space for the old victorian and it is real important to have onsite parking. We have looked at this property as a whole, as a master plan. We believe our concept accomplishes two goals and one is to preserve the existing structure with minimal alternations and impact. The second goal is to provide reasonable use of the property for my family and in order to proceed this design in more detail we need to know if this concept is 11 Historic Preservation Couunittee Minutes of May 18, 1994 acceptable to HPC. The key elements that allow the that need your approval are: 1) The carriage tower. of the out building. 3) The stepping addition. 4) minimal connection that we have. 5) The shifting of and the parking variance. concept to work 2) The shifting The hyphen, the the main house Roger: Is there any way of getting access to the basement other than on the west side? Roget: We looked into other things such as using the new addition but it wouldn't work. Roger: On the Monarch Street elevation west there is a connector between the existing house and the tower. It has a door and dormer roof over it. Is that connector flush with the exterior of the west wall on the existing house or does it sit back? Roget: You can see it on the basement plan and we are only putting a basement under everything that is covered above se that gives you a print of that. Roger: Would it be possible to put a stairway on the north end of the existing building going down to the basement rather than going on the outside Monarch elevation. Roget: I am not sure if that would work because we are going to have an entrance there for the apartment and it will also be a back entrance for the shop. I do not know if that would cause problems with the traffic. Roger: If the roof were extended over the entrance as drawn on the west side to push the snow away from that stairway where then would the snow go, onto the sidewalk. Roget: I can ask the architect how much space we have there but I feel it would be close. Roger: Is the shed in the rear the same vintage as the house? Amy: I believe so. Roger: Does the shed have a foundation? Scott Lindenau, leasee: There were newspapers dating 1887. Roger: We keep coming up with parking and it gets thrown at us and it seems that the City wants less automobiles and some of us want no automobiles in Aspen. Somehow we need to deal with this issue. I do not like making decisions about parking when they want less autos and auto disincentives and I resent that being put to us all the time. 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Amy: A site can only tolerate so much development so we eliminate development rights or we eliminate the parking to fit everything onsite. I do not necessarily feel that is the solution. Donnelley: There is a requirement for four spaces and three are shown. Amy: They are asking for us to waive three so they can use the garage for storage. Roget: We actually want to deed restrict one of the spaces. Donnelley: It is show as parking and if it qualifies as parking it is not an issue that we should be involved with. It has garage doors and a space for two cars. Amy: If it is required parking and he has boxes in there and Bill Drueding checks it, then they are in trouble. Roget: I am looking at the future and if we deed restrict I can't put a box in there. Roger: Does the Board feel the tower is overpowering? Linda: I feel it is. Donnelley: Technically you can say it is but you can't look at the tower any place but the street. It does not dominate from the street and is subordinate. In the alley you have to consider what the commercial activity currently and the future of the alleys and the types of structures that will be there. Basically it is an alley structure in the commercial core. Roger: What about moving of the historic structure, how does the Board feel about that? Would you move City Hall four feet to do something? The question is, is it necessary. Donnelley: That is a question of the applicant. Roget: We are trying to differentiate between the buildings. are talking about a very narrow living space above the shop. You Roget: Right now it is 16 feet and by moving it it is two move feet that we gain downstairs and upstairs. There is a three foot corridor up above. Amy: This is on the national register of historic places and my concern is that we are jeopardizing that. It does worry me that we are picking things up and moving them around. Donnelley: Roget brought some options that we need to discuss so that we know what we are approving and not approving. 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Donnelley: On the gable end vs. the hip roof, hip roof being similar to the form of the tower. A hip roof will make the addition look smaller. In terms of reducing impact the hip roof is appropriate. Roger: I agree the hip roof is much better in this instance. Amy: I disagree. Donnelley: I can see Amy's point because the addition is significantly different in terms of materials and detailing anyway. We need to make a decision on the gable end and in terms of the railing will the pickets go all the way down? Roget: We are open to suggestions on the pickets and they can be open all the way down. Donnelley: I agree with Amy after looking at the diagrams. Scott: I agree that it would be appropriate as a gable. Roger: I also agree with Amy that a gable is appropriate. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Les: I follow the development review standards and I have a serious problem moving the main building and I can live with the tower. I would like to see it reduced in some way. I do not like the lightwell in the front. This is a very important building. I would like to see the studio in the back stay. It is important that infills stay. My biggest problem is the streetscape being changed radically by moving this building. We cannot meet the development standards if we move the building and reduce the tower in the back a little bit. Scott Lindeneau: The two questions that I had were evidence of a snow problem between the buildings. The tower would be much more successful if it were detached and stood out as its own element. My office which is the outbuilding is successful because they are tucked back off the alley. When you bring it to the sidewalk it looses its significance and importance as a public building. Roget: It is connected due to the apartment as the kitchen is shared and the livingroom is shared. Roger: Part of the apartment is in the tower and part of the apartment is in the second story of the building over the store. Donnelley: Your plate height on the second story is seven feet. Roger: If the tower were free standing and there was a hallway between the tower and the second story apartments would that effect the height? 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Roget: We were trying to keep the front back and sure it would work if you allowed us to extend forward more. We are trying to make it less dramatic from the street, that is Jake's intention. Roger: In light of what is going on I would like not to approve this as that is my preference. But if I am going to be persuaded to allow this I do not think the tower or the addition fits with the historic structure and our job is to preserve what is historic not keep adding all this stuff onto it. If additions occur I would prefer the tower a solitary unit with a connecting link like a greenhouse and I would not object to moving it forward. I would not want to see the historic house moved period. I don't buy it that you have to move the house in order to make this show as a separate entity and I do not feel that is necessary. I think this can be recognized as an addition by other means. This is definitely a big problem with snow and I brought it up the very first time it was dealt with. I know there is a better way of dealing with the stairway and the roof extended over. I would prefer to see the stairway in the back in some manner. I do not want to see a lightwell under the window. The little building if it is going to be moved should be stepped back not on the sidewalk so that it is traditionally as an outbuilding would be. Donnelley: Roger you are recommending a complete redesign. Roger: I feel this should be tabled for further action. I am willing to work with them because they grew up here and lets do something. Donnelley: We need a motion. Roget: The concept is to get this passed and go further. I do consider Mr. Moyer's comments seriously. My parents plan on keeping this the rest of their lives. Roger: I hope the store is a great success. Donnelley: Can this particular scheme be approved conceptually. Les: If we table this they need direction. Scott: I think Roger had some good ideas about eliminating the lightwell out front and doing the stairway out back and I do not like the idea of moving the building either. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC table action recommending that the applicant look at not moving the building, removing the lightwell from the front; restudy the length and connection of second story addition to the east. That the applicant restudy the connection between the addition to the east and the tower and minimize that connection as much as possible. That the applicant move the stairway from the west side which would require extending the roof of the 15 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 original building to the rear or to the north which is then in the alley and that the applicant relocate the existing historic studio office away from the sidewalk. I am agreeing with the concept of the addition to the east and agreeing with the concept of a tower. The applicant come up with a good solution to the snow problem on the east side between the two buildings. That the exterior materials be studied because brick might be too over powering over the historic structure, although practically I like it; second by Les. Motion passes 5 - 1. Martha opposed. DISCUSSION: Linda, Donnelley, Les and Scott stated that the brick was not compatible. Martha: Is there anyway that the tower can be free standing? Donnelley: Not with their present program. Roget: Can you go over the six points. Roger: In the motion I dealt with the tower, out building, the stepping, the connection and dealt with moving the main house. The only thing I did not say anything about was the parking. Donnelley: We can give a parking variance if the committee satisfied with meeting the standards. Les: I have no problem with getting rid of parking. Roger: I do not either. MOTION: 8th for carries. Roger made the motion to table the public hearing until June 303 W. Main Street; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion Les: Roget, this project is going to work. 229 W. HALLAM STREET - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Amy: On this block there used to be three houses in a row that were identical. I have no problem with the addition but with the treatment of the historic house. I do not think any windows that are historic should be removed. I do not think that the ornate trim should be added and I am concerned about the solution on the entrance porch. Generally porches were only shed porches. The dormers are original and the wrap around porch is not historic. Scott Lindeneau, architect: Right now it faces north and the snow sheds on the entry. The entry is currently on the side door which we have determined is not historic either. We would like to change the 16 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 roof due to snow and the columns will be single four by four raised off the concrete. The rear is non-historic. We would like to add dormers that are similar in the same language as the house. We will not move the windows. The conservatory in the back will be added and a deck that faces the vacant lot. Amy: The thing in question is that there is this type of little closed vestibule entrance-way and a hipped roof and that is somewhat represented of what used to be the front of this house. You might want to look at 314 Gillespie Bruce Berger's house which is a different house but it also has an enclosed entrance area. Donnelley: We need to know what has been eliminated. Scott Lindeneau: The fish scale stays. The front entry dormer the spring point is from the corner board as opposed to extending beyond. It will be slightly smaller. We have added a window above the conservatory to the east. On the west elevation we have eliminated the vertical mullions in the lower windows. Donnelley: The east elevation is basically buried against the adjacent house. Roger: There is an existing door on the east elevation and you are taking that out. Amy: Ail we are reviewing is partial demolition but I consider demolishing historic windows and things like that in the application. Linda: The back of the house had an addition in the 1960's and that is being removed. Donnelley: The main issue is the north east corner, the changes to the entrance as far as demolition and of course removal of the new addition. CLARIFICATIONS Roger: Most probably when that house was built the original house peak had a door and an alcove. At some later date someone put something over the doorway. It is obvious what is there is not original. Amy: On the adjacent house the architects who worked on that project said the roof was part of the structure of the house and that the vestibule below it had been changed too. That is what I am basing my opinion on how the roof should have looked like. Donnelley: You are proposing not restoring the entry as it was original built. You are proposing pulling forward the front door so you have an air lock. 17 Historic Preservation Co=~ittee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Donnelley: I would like to see the entrance different from the house next door so people do not think that they both were original. Amy: I am proposing that he bring it back to the original because that is part of the partial demolition. He is asking to change the entrance and there is a window there now but there is also an historic door. Scott: The problem is how does the roof meet and gonnect. Roger: To me Scott's proposal is not a major issue because I do not feel it was original looking at the entire configuration. I feel whatever was put there was put there later. A lot of these houses were simple and then things were done to them. Roger: If the porch on the model were flush with the gable face wouldn't that be less overpowering? Amy: That would be less awkward. Scott: It is for the snow conditions and that is very important. one next door is set back. The Donnelley: Scott has improved the entrance because now you can see it from the street. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve partial demolition to 229 W. Hallam with the following conditions: That the north gable face not be changed in any way except for the removal of the shutters. That the entire historic west side not be changed in anyway except for the addition of a gable on the second floor as shown on the model. That the east side is approved as shown on the model and that the entrance be restudied with Staff and monitor to pull the existing roof in line with the siding of the north face and that all attempts be made to not have the little gable over the entry and that the posts on the wrap around porch be made to the same scale of the traditional posts used in Aspen which is a turned round post, the lower part of which does not exceed three feet and that the upper top be between a foot and eight inches in height so that it is not like the posts on the house next door but more of a traditional victorian; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Amy: What about the shed dormers? Roger: In the motion it is OK to add the shed dormer that is indicated on the model. Donnelley: Do you have an objection to the shed dormer? Scott Lindeneau: I feel it is inconsistent with the language developed. 18 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Amy: I am trying to avoid making an example of the house next door. Roger: I have found nothing historic about that dormer. Linda: I feel these are more in keeping with the architecture of the house rather than a shed dormer. Scott will be the monitor. CARIBOU ALLEY - MINOR DEVELOPME~FT Harley Baldwin, owner: I thought Alan Richman was out of his mind when he told me that there was this 25% open space. I was in the middle of a project and didn't have time to fight him so I just tried to deal with it. Creating a plaza on the northern face is a very difficult thing and is probably something that shouldn't happen and the requirement for open space has created some of the worst spaces in Aspen. Ever since I started the building I have been trying to make that space work and more warmer and inviting. The thing that is working is the Alley Cafe and it has brought in lots of people. The tables in the summer really work and we have flowers and are doing architectural xmas decorations in the winter to try and make it an inviting space. To create this cafe we need something over it that is unobtrusive. We would also like to find some late 19th century gas lamps and install two at the front of the Caribou Alley and two in the back next to the cafe. The whole idea is to come up with ideas on how to warm up the space. A lot of this is how humans feel in the space not all architecture. We are trying to create a space that people want to be in. Roger: What will the canopy be made of? Harley: Nylon and will be attached but Memorial Day to October 15th. it will be seasonal from Roger: Why did you not proposal some kind of clear canopy? Harley: There would be an FAR problem and it is not allowed. Amy: They are required to have 25% open space and the only reason he can do this at all is because of the ordinance that allowed a trellis at the Cantina. The County and City Staff decided this would be acceptable over the open space as long as it can roll away and open up. The space is to be open from the ground to the sky. Roger: I feel it should be covered with glass as you can see up to the sky and you are creating dynamic activity in that space. Harley: If we did that we would have to have doors on the front. I did the Alley Cafe non at all as a business. I thought that space needed it and it has really worked. I also feel it needs that flicker 19 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 of a gas lamp. It would be hung from the top and there would be this beautiful glass hanging down. Donnelley: You are asking for two things. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the canopy to be installed at 411 E. Hopkins Caribou Alley with the condition that it is only used for seasonal use and that the installation of gas lanterns be approved to the outside of the building depending upon approval of Staff and monitor of the actual fixture and the detail of how the gas is hooked up should be approved by Staff and monitor. Such approval meets all four development review standards found in section 7-601 of the landuse code and that the applicant give Staff and monitor adequate notice before beginning any work regarding installation of the gas lighting; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. Donnelley will be monitor. ASPEN TO SNOWMASS TRANSPORTATION PROJECT - MARGOT PENDLETON Margot Pendleton: I am on the board of the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Project. I will brief you on how all the groups fit together. Regarding the background, the Aspen to Snowmass project picked up where the last election left off with the 1/2% sales and use tax which was passed last November. Our charge is to develop a transit system connecting down town Aspen somewhere around the airport Tiehack area and the mall in Snowmass and have something ready for the ballot this November. In the process right now we have formed a project team of which I am a member and I communicate with different groups. We had a symposium to look at what vendors were presenting and we had a round table discussion at the Aspen Institute and three transit experts come in and critique what we have done so far. We have enough funding in place from the 1/2% sales tax to leverage for a bus base system on a fixed guideway which means it doesn't have to compete with a car to Snowmass and the Owl Creek corridor. Anything beyond that would require creative financing. The RFQ defined a base line approach with rubber tires connecting downtown Aspen via the airport and the mall at Snowmass. On June 8th and 9th we are sponsoringa financial symposium. By the middle of August we should have something selected. Owl Creek is the preferred corridor and is owned by the county. Donnelley: This is assuming it is a surface base system and nothing elevated. Margot: We can't afford anything elevated. One of the requirements in the bid package is that it cannot be obtrusive. If we should not get a bus based system the county has decided that they will put in their own bid for a bus based system. Donnelley: Will the buses be the type that can be deployed during off peak hours or on peak hours to coincide with the county? 2O Historic Preservation Conunittee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Margot: For a lot of people a plain old bus is not acceptable. They want something that is bus like and there has been thought to electric buses which can pull the grades, they are quiet and non-polluting but then your trade off is overhead wires and poles. Donnelley: But you have a dedicated roadway. Roger: Electric buses are in fact very polluting because you have to have a source of electricity. Our source of electricity is coal burning plants out of state so you are just upping an immense amount of pollution and that is not a viable means to me regarding the entire concept unless you put Aspen on its own grid like it used to be. Under the current system of electricity it is immensely polluting. Margot: When we discussed this at the symposium we thought everyone would have rebelled against it and again we were surprised. I have found people are open minded to see what really comes back even with the over head wires. Roger: We are just getting rid of those all over town. Martha: What about battery operated vehicles. Margot: I have heard they can operate a battery on the flats but once they pull up Snowmass they have to hook up to a cable because they cannot pull up those grades. Les: If we go with the lowest bid will this carry us through the next century? How much car traffic will it cut down and will it mitigate the car traffic in Aspen ten percent or what? Margot: I have no figures but one of the ideas of the entire plan is that the traffic will not be any worse than it is right now. I have heard two thoughts one that the communities down valley will become self sustaining and will not have to come to Aspen anymore but there will be people who always want to come to Aspen because of what Aspen has to offer and a lot of houses down valley are second home owners and this traffic will still be there. If you figure out what the traffic will be in 20 years there is volume. Right now we do not have the traffic for trains and stuff like that. You have a choice of maybe buying for the future and that the volumes will get to that point or you buy what you can afford right now and get the alignments and then switch to different technology at future times. Les: It seems critical to me that you should acquire the right-of- ways now. Margot: Yes, the right-of-ways and the actual mechanics of using some other transportation. A bus system that works with ten to fifteen minute headways as opposed to a half or an hour. 21 Historic Preservation Coaunittee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Les: Has the intercept lot been solved yet? Margot: The county tells us that the city will have an intercept lot by this winter. Right now they are looking at the south end of the airport but I think the FAA has to sign off on that somehow. Amy: What is the proposed route after it gets to Aspen? Margot: The base line route is Ruby Park probably looping Galena up Main Street across a new Castle Creek bridge then across the Marolt property and up Maroon Creek and then goes on a dedicated lane on HWY 82. Then it will go to a transit center or maybe a station. Then it will go up the Owl Creek corridor once it comes out onto Brush Creek and Owl Creek and then will have a separate alignment up to the mall. Amy: So it is a given that you will not go around the S curve on the Castle Creek bridge, you are going to build a new bridge across the Marolt. Margot: That is the preferred route but the road is another issue that will come out of the Entrance to Aspen study that is going on right now. Roger: If you build a straight shot you do realize that you are crossing a National Historic dedicated property and has anybody talked about how to deal with that? Margot: They have discussed it but nothing was resolved. This would be on a separate guideway and not compete with the cars and right now buses compete with the cars. Les: What is the time frame? Margot: We are doing a six month project which should take about two years to do. Construction wise I would think it would take a year and a half plus the entrance to Aspen has to get done which is not even scheduled for at least a year and a half until the EIS release. Les: My experience is that the community solves its problems by itself. I would like to see little buses go out right a way so everyone gets used to riding the bus and we have some interim thing for up to five years. Margot: There is no one solution here either. Donnelley: It looks like on the surface that it will be some kind of bus transportation. Margot: At the financial symposium it will be discussed as a possible toll road and when you start thinking about it what scares me is the 22 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 199% number of growth in the valley and the other thing is the amount of money that we aren't going to get to finish the highway and waiting around for the state and federal to give us some is ridiculous. I have been talking to people down valley and they would like to see the highway done in a reasonable amount of time. We are going to pay one way or another. You either stay the way it is right now and you will have choices. Roger: If you want to ride the bus it won't cost but if you drive there will be a substantial cost unless it is a service vehicle that has to provide delivery of groceries or perform a function. If it is people riding to get somewhere it is entirely different. Margot: With this Ice Tea legislation there are more people wanting funds. Right now people in Grand Junction are trying to get money politically. Amy: Can we get involved again when the bids come back? Margot: Yes and letters will be written to everyone here and they will be kept informed. Donnelley: This has nothing to do with how to connect the ski areas. Margot: The ski companies have said if we improve the transportation to truck their skiers better than what they already pay for right now they would donate. The worst would be skiers and people competing against each other. Margot: We are good at arguing but not making decisions. I have seen a good change in attitude up and down the valley seeing the communities getting together and discussing the tab of 3.3 million dollars. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Amy: Council is receptive about our character guidelines, preservation, mass and scale and they want direction from us. When I discussed lowering the FAR they asked what it should be. Leslie mentioned a temporary overlay that was done in Boston where they set a 10% reduction or something like that while the figured out what was happening. Donnelley: Are you talking about FAR, height or setbacks. Roger: I was thinking of three things: A resolution to council asking for acceptance of the character guidelines as written with refinements to be done by Staff. Acceptance of our guidelines as written and refined by Staff and three overlay over all of Aspen that no building is to exceed any existing structure in mass, scale and height without review. For example the west end with three little small victorians 23 Historic Preservation Co~ittee Minutes of May 18, 1994 and between two you have a house that exceeds the height, mass and scale of the adjacent victorians by at least 30%. The moratorium is that no building will be built any larger than an existing structure on any block without review, council will adopt something that can be refined by Staff. If we had the overlay the larger building could not have been built. Amy: The idea of design review through the entire town makes me nervous. We don't always get great architecture through design review besides the case load will be increased. Roger: You might say in an historic neighborhood. Roger: Another example is the McCoy house and when you stand and look at the enormity of that structure in comparison to the rest of the neighborhood it is ludicrous. Granted it is screened but the trees can die. It doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood. Amy: In architectural school surroundings and neighborhood. as if it were floating. all you talked about was context, Every lot here seems to be developed Les: It is because second homeowners use their home architeots. Roger: It is because people don't build houses they build private hotels to sell and make money. The house is not designed as a year round living house. They could care less what is next door. Roger: What is killing us is scale and mass. Martha: The house by Triangle Park some people may like with all that brick etc. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Amy: We have a guest Paula who owns a condominium in the old gray Herron building on Main Street. Roger: It was the building that built from One Nights Run in Durant Mine. Paula: It was a wedding gift to his sister when she got married. Roger: The mines paid for themselves by lead and the silver was all profit. Donnelley: We need to be explicit as to how these limits will be put on. Roger: We cannot formulate what we want and that is why we have a good Staff. Martha: Lets say I want to tear down something next to me and you are 24 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 saying I cannot build to a specific height, Roger: No your situation is different you are not in an historic block. Linda: We want the scale and mass down. Donnelley: If you are talking about 10% across the board on height you are talking about 22 1/2 feet rather than 24 feet. We need to try different scenario. Roger: If the City has to hire another person they have to. I would rather see my tax money used for this as opposed to a trolley up Galena Street because this makes sense. Les: I would ask for 20% and take 10%. Scott: I agree with Les ask for 20% and take a lesser amount. Amy: 30% of Main Street has not reached its potential. Les: People don't care what they get as long as it is the top amount. Donnelley: Everyone attempts to get the highest FAR. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC send a resolution to Council asking for adoption of the neighborhood guidelines, adoption of the HPC standards as written with refinement to be made by Staff and a 30% reduction of PAR for an undetermined period of time and that the 30% reduction for all of Aspen be refined by Staff. Any projects requesting to exceed the 30% limit must come before special HPC review and compliance with the neighborhood guidelines; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Les made the motion to adjourn; favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. second by Linda. Ail in Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 25