Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19930224Historic Preservation committee Minutes of February 24, 1993 PUBLIC COMMENTS - RED BRICK PUBLIC COMMENTS - FARFALLA . SCHEDULING ROUND #2 INVENTORY RE-EVALUATION 210 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING PIONEER PARK NATIONAL PRESERVATION AWARDS 1 3 4 4 9 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of February 24, 1993 Meeting was called to order by vice-chairman Joe Krabacher with Don Erdman, Les Holst, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen and Linda Smisek present. Bill Poss and Karen Day were excused. MOTION: Les made the motion to add Pioner Park to the agenda; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. Roger Moyer: This board is trying to be a pro-active board and in reviewing this application I feel we should try to do a newsletter and educate and inform architects throughout town about preservation and what we are trying to do and why. Possibly get the slide show from the state. PUBLIC COMMENTS - RED BRICK Bill Efting, Assistant City Manager: We have been looking at options for the Red Brick School Building. #1 option would be to go through the entire building and renovate it. #2 B Would be where the 1941 section would be demolished and the money put into the middle section and the gymnasium as an Arts Center. #3 would be to close a section and spend the majority of the money on the middle section and the gymnasium. Council would like comments and direction from HPC on the Red Brick School. Whatever option the City takes we are looking at a year renovation. Les: We have to look at this historically and Council would like it in writing in order to review all options. Roxanne: In 1991 we had done this and the minutes were approved from that meeting. We had talked about whether it would be eligible for designation. The HPC stated whatever happens on the site that HPC wants development review over the parcel. Just like you did on the meadows. #2 The open space was a sacred piece of the west end and you wanted to make absolutely sure the open space stayed. The third discussion was that the Board was split as to whether the building itself met all the standards very clearly and is it a landmark. I, very clearly feel that it is. It is very unique in Aspen and very unique for the west slope and may not be eligible for listing on the State register but that does not preclude it from being a local landmark. I had talked years ago with the school board about getting it on the inventory and they said no way. Now that the city ownes it it should at least be on the inventory. We are in limbo right now and Council wants a clear direction from the HPC. Don: Since we were split on whether the structure had adequate or significant architectural importance to be saved as an absolute edict, I believe we were all in agreement that the open space to the south of the building presently and historically has functioned Historic Preservation committee Minutes of February 24, 1993 as open space and as a park. The open space should be maintained as open space. That the height and general massing and scale of the building be maintained even if the building is desroyed i.e. that the footprint not be violated and that the scale as a one story structure be maintained. Those were the important aspects. Roxanne: We had talked about the reason why it should be retained , open space. It wasn't that it was historic open space as the two queen Ann houses beside it one was destroyed by fire the other torn down. It has been a park since the 30's and 40's. The reason why the open space was important was to give breathing room to the resources across the street in which that block has the highest percentage of victorian resources in Aspen. It just wasn't for the sake of open space. This protected the integrity of the streetscape across the street. Don: This is not a typical block, therefore to the north there is the possibility of development which would be unusual in the typical west end block with an alley and being a rectangle it is set up with an alley and two street frontages therefore it is quite easy to invision further development to the north of a small scale which would not impede the many different uses and still keep the scale and open space. There is a lot of flexibility in the present configeration. Les: I tried to look at this objectively based on where the HPC was going in this town and also where this was placed in the community plan. I looked at the development review standards and designation standards and to me the entire building meets these standards. It is a good example'of a 40's school building. The scale and massing is very important historically and the use is very important historically. Within the Aspen Area Community Plan it qualifies. Roger: Do you feel the gymnasium will be utilized over the years for recreation no matter what happens? Bill Efting: We intend to move the recreation office to the red brick gym as we want to improve the ice garden. We are currently turing children away from the gymnastic program. Jake: We are only taking about demolition of the 1941 section. Bill: Correct, the recommendation of the committee for the Red Brick School is 2-B, demolition of the 1941 section and the mothball idea was added as a possible alternative. There is cost in mothballing also due to the condition of the roof. The challenge of the Art Museum is at another date when funds are raised to look at adding on for the arts groups. There has been 2 Historic Preserva21on Committee Minutes of Febru&z~ 24F ~993 talk about going to a second level. Roxanne: HPC has never allowed demolitions without a redevelopment plan. The issue is demolition of the 1941 section. Martha: We were split as to whether the building should go or stay. Joe: I feel it is historic and meets the standards. favor of demolition without a re-development plan. I am not in Les: I feel the building should be designated in order to get review or add it to the inventory. We need review of the project. Joe: Part of the board is willing to allow partial demolition (the 1941 section only) with a redevelopment plan. Martha: To me mothballing is inappropriate. Don: Also the Board is in favor of putting the school on the inventory which would require review. Roxanne: I feel on the inventory is the best way to go. It doesn't meet all the standards. Bill Efting: Roxanne should draft this up for the city manager and I will meet with her. Roxanne: There is asbestos in the building. Les: There is asbestos underneath the floor. PUBLIC COM)IENTS - FARFALLA Brent Sullivan, Property Manager for Fleicher & Company: I would like to know if I can get lights on the Farfalla restaurant on Main Street. Roger project manager for Farfalla bldg. Don: There are similar to Hard Rock. Brent: They will be between the windows on the brick columns. They will go up approximately six feet high and six inches from the building and 15 inches is the length of the lighting. Don: Farfalla is a one story building and does not have a strong victorian character. This lamp has a strong victorian overtone which I do not approve of. Secondly we would not allow surface 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 24, 1993 wiring at all and no surface box. Everything has to be recessed and the canopy would have to be flush. As an example of the wrong thing to do, take a look at the Hard Rock Cafe. I do not think this styling is appropriate for that building. It is more appropriate for a higher building that has more historical details. Brent: The tenant had that concern also and we looked at a lot of lighting and decided on this type and shape. The picture does look victorian but when you see it on the building verses all the other lights it looks good. Roger: It is not an appropriate light for that particular part of the building. Also I agree that the wiring should be hidden. I would also look at energy efficiency in the selection of the appropriate bulb. Possibly compact florescent which might give a warm glow like the old gas lights. We do not require this but we have been working with the Energy Board. Les: I would feel comfortable with the project monitor now that we have one making the decision on the lights. I feel it can be solved. Martha: I do not feel strongly about the light but feel it is a bit victorian for the property. MOTION: Don made the motion that the lighting on the exterior columns of the Farfalla restaurant be reviewed and approved by Roger Moyer who is going to be the project monitor. Ail wiring must be concealed and the mounting assembly concealed; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. SCHEDULING ROUND #2 INVENTORY RE-EVALUATION Roxanne: I was going to talk to you about scheduling the public hearing for the 24 parcels that are not officially on the inventory. We have changed our mind in the Planning Office. This would be a good project for the preservation officer. I would recommend that the Board wait until that person is here. 210 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Roxanne: This is an application for conceptual development for a rear addition and a parking reduction request and a demolition of an out building and a temporary relocation on site of the historic resource to allow the excavation of the rest of construction to occur. You should know that the second public hearing was scheduled for March 10th which will occur and the public hearing 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes Of February 24, 1993 will have to be opened. The applicant knows that ordinance one does apply. This is a landmark and I find that it does not meet any of the landmark standards. I am having trouble supporting any of it. I feel the entire design approach needs to be re-thought. It violates everything in relation to the integrity of the historic form architecturally, characteristically, culturally. The addition should not overwhelm, not be higher than or at least allow the historic resource breathing room. I find that it does not meet the guidelines or standards. The applicant states about the development down the block regarding massing. Doug Graybeal, architect: I apologize for not addressing the four criteria and will address those points. The first is compatibility to the historic structure and adjacent parcels. There is extensive landscaping here that blocks off inbetween the two house and blocks off the view of this structure from the road. There are cotton wood trees all up and down the street. There are two neighbors that are remodeling to the east of the W.W. Shaw subdivision. They are similar cottage arangements. On one the roof form was double in size and portion and impacted the street. We have strived to minimumize the impact from the street and keep the front frontage entact. We literally pulled the entire addition,to the back. We are returning the porch back to its original condition. The guidelines also talk about the roof lines. The original cottage here is a cross hipped roof. We have maintained that form and in fact have simplified that same form on the addition. We have used that to break up the mass. The house has been added on to and the original house has a break in the facade. We are using similar roof forms and a dormer element to build up into the new addition. One of the difficult things in this project is working with the neighbor's garage and cross circulation. We are anticipating sharing a driveway and we have had discussions. As far as roofing materials we intend to remove the metal roof and restore the shingled roof and bring it up to snow load. We have been toying around with the roof colors to differenciate the difference between the roof materials. We will preserve all the roof overhangs and the detailing on the original structure. The doors will remain in their original positions. We will replace window to get them up to thermal code with todays technology. The house has been sided by the previous owner and the owners are requesting that we be able to reside the house with material proper in scale. The porch will be restored to its original conditions. As far as parking, the existing house has three bedrooms and no off street parking. There is a driveway and the shed in back is to store a car in the winter so it is not a proper driveway and access. We were using three onstreet parking places. We have five bedrooms and will provide four onsite and will request a variance of one space. The house will be used by an older couple with two sons and their families. They will be using the back half of the duplex and the sons the 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 24, 1993 front. They anticipate only two automobiles at any one time. Roxanne mentioned the relocation of the house and we are discussing it. One option is to raise the house and work underneath it or relocate the house to the back part of the property temporarily then move it back onto the new basement. As far as the character of the neighborhood we fell it is appropriate with what has happened in this neighborhood through time. We did a comparison of the three houses on the avenue, 210 which is ours, 212 and 214. We are a smaller percentage on site coverage. As far as the cultural value of the property it was a residential structure used during the mining era. We feel we are maintaining enough of the street frontage and profile of the house to still present the character and style that was used in that era of time. We feel we have successfully broken down the scale and proportions of this property and have provided the differenciation between old and new. We had problems with the two existing spruce trees on the property. There is an out building in the back and it was undetermined as to what it was and we are requesting that it be removed. Roxanne: We don't think it is original. Doug: Tom Cardemon thought it had been a combination of two structures and when Nancy moved in modified them with the spance of glass windows over Hallam Lake. It violates every code. CLARIFICATIONS: Roger: You are renovating the porch to its original configeration. At the pre-application meeting there was discussion about HPC's philosophy in regards to additions to existing structures. Roxanne: Yes and the minutes reflected that. Doug: I heard at the pre-ap meeting that the addition was imposing upon the original structure and to pull it back. Martha: Is this one lot of 10,000 sq. feet. Roxanne: Anything over 9,000 sq. ft. they have a right to do a duplex. Is the porch a restoration? Doug: The pictures indicate a porch at an earlier date. Roxanne: I did not look at the Sanborn map and have never seen a vernacular cottage of this scale with a porch like that as original. The Board should be clear as to restoration of what period. .This is certainly not architecturally an original porch. If this is going to be rehab to renovate that is one thing but if you are going to restore it back to the original then we need to 6 Historic'Preservation Committee Minutes of February 24, 1993 see some documentation. Jake: The porch doesn't look like it was replaced. Roger: Tony Gobel who is a photographer in Aspen with six children lived in the house but the house was actually owned by the lady who lived next door (Peggy Clifford) and in 65 the porch did not wrap around and had different detailing. Doug: The roof is original and there is a flue in the middle for the mechanical. Jake: Are the windows in the hip original? Roger: Those were added as I painted the house in 1971 and there were two additions that the owner did: One was windows to the side where Jake is concerned about and make adjustments in the roof and at that time we tore off all the shingles and put new ones one. Then she added the little addition out to the back with the linear windows. Doug: I feel I have done everything within the HPC guidelines considering my client's needs. We wanted to keep the street frontage. I also feel this is appropriate for the west end of Aspen. Roger: Do you feel it would benefit the architects in getting together and trying to define or relay to them what are goals are? Doug: As architects it is difficult for us to keep track of everything that happens in this town and the valley as they all have different landuse codes. COMMITEE MEMBER COMMENTS Don: The drawings are very clear and the changes that you made are in a positive direction. Your solution is much more successful than what is to the west. You have manipulated the project so that the entire project is kept small and I am not sure we can read the addition and possibly it is competing because it is so similar. Doug: I though of that also but when you look at the proportions this is a larger building and to take the proportions larger than that was too much, to go the other it would be too small. I decided to blend yet allow the bigger form and use a simialr roof. It was a tough battle because of the size of cottage. Don: A addition needs to be noticably an addition. You have very artfully produced a composition that is a continuation of what was 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 24, 1993 already there and you have recognized that the roof form of the original structure has a certain integrity and have carried on from that. It does not produce for me a strong enough break with this delicate cottage. I am concerned about standard #4, (does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of the designated structure. That is my only concern. Roger: The model is very helpful and I concur with Donnelley. Possibly do a break between the two structures. The two buildings to the west are major mistakes. The concept of the front porch restoration is very interesting to me and feel that works within our guidelines. I have no problem with the parking. The compatibility is a concern to me. Jake: The presentation is very clear. I realize that you have to put a larger structure on due to investments etc. I am suggesting that the larger structure be broken down so that they read as elements of 1,400 and 2,000 square feet. In your case you could have three identifable masses. I like that you have broken down the architectural elements on the surfaces. Linda: The front part is very workable for me but the back part (turrett) is almost a whole house in itself stuck on. With that I am having a hard time addressing historic compatibility. Les: This is an excellent job but also feel tightening up the separation is my only problem with the presentation. Martha: I concur with the comments made by the committee. Joe: I agree with the committee's concerns also and the main goal here is to show a distinct separation from the historic resource and the addition. I do not have a problem with the parking variation. Doug: I have come a long way with the client and from an historic context they find this appropriate. Joe: Having a break in the roof line to distinguish between the old and new should be apparent. Don: The massing and physical break is my number one concern. It is a very complex roof form. Secondarily the physical change of materials between old and new is very important. Roger: Any applicant has to defend their statement regarding the guidelines. Joe: No comments from the public. 8 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of February 24, 1993 MOTIONs Don made the motion that the conceptual development proposal for 210 Lake Avenue be tabled with a continued public hearing to March 10th to allow the applicant to restudy the break primarily in the roof area between the existing structure and the proposed and also restudy the use of materials for a better definition between the existing and proposed. Also table the rear and side yard setback variations until the next meeting; second by Joe. Ail in favor, motion carries. Don: The presentation was excellent as the project is very complex and the Board appreciates the applicant's cooperation. PROJECT MONITORING Jake: I have a few changes for the project at 134 E. Bleeker and the owners are Paul and Susan Penn. Roxanne: There are a few changes occurring and Karen and Linda are the monitors. They need a FAR variation due to the living space. Don: This is an opportunity to be creative to develop a roof that has a 12 and 12 pitch or a 10 and 12 pitch and not be obliged to go to a very shallow pitched roof. Roxanne: There are window changes and they all deal with the addition portion and do not alter the character of the building in my opinion. Paul Penn: I will present the window changes. There was a window on the west and we moved it to the north~ When we got into the structural the aluminum members needed to be fatter. Almost every bay window in town has a hipped roof on it and ours looked too linear and broad so we clipped it back. We have eliminated one window. MOTIONs Don made the motion that the minor changes to fenestration to 134 E. Bleeker are approved as presented and can be administered by the project monitors; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. Roger: The applicant should meet with Planning & Zoning and the Zoning officer to view the project for interior living space. COMMUNICATIONS Les: What about the Hard Rock cafe? 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 24, 1993 Roxanne: They have been red tagged. PIONEER PARK Les: Larry Levin, Firestein's attorney wants to review everything on Pioneer Park. In reference to the conditions that he put on the four lots vs. two lots, I do not see a problem. I had talked to JaneEllen Hamilton and it has always been our thought to sterilize this property, we are buying development rights. That concept was explained to them and should be in the contract. NATIONAL PRESERVATION AWARDS Roxanne: The Elizabeth Paepcke and Welton Anderson awards are always given out and my recommendation is Fritz Benedict. The Paepcke award is for excellence in preservation and conservation efforts over lifetime and the Anderson award is design specific. Joe: I would suggest that Les get the Paepcke award for all his efforts in acquiring Pioneer Park. MOTION= Roger made the motion that HPC grant the Elizabeth Paepcke Award to the Aspen Historic Trust represented by Les Holst and the Welton Anderson award to Fritz Benedict. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; second by Joe. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Assistant City Clerk 10