Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19921028Historio Preservation committee Minutes of Oct. 28, 1992 311 W. NORTH STREET - LANDMARK - CONCEPTUAL - VARIATION 520 E. COOPER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - STOREFRONT 1 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of October 28, 1992 Meeting was called to order by Don Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Karen Day, Linda Smisek, Joe Krabacher and Martha Madsen present. Bill Poss was excused. PUBLIC COMMENTS Linda Romero discussed Isis Centennial Celebration. Gary Daniel: Liz Plassman is the general manager for the Crystal Palace and we were told to be here to discuss the proposed awning over the sidewalk. We would like to know if the HPC would be interested in looking at this encroachment before we go too further expense. The CCLC was favorable. Our patrons come all at one and it bottlenecks and when it rains and snows it makes for unhappy people. We would like to have a canopy that would cover the front entrance and extend nine feet seven inches to the tree line. It would not be a barrier for people walking down the sidewalk. The height would be eight feet. Roxanne: Because this is a large encroachment I wanted them to get basic feedback from the Board. Les: I am in favor of this. Roger: Direction from the board would be to proceed with the application. 311 W. NORTH STREET - LANDMARK - CONCEPTUAL - VARIATION Roxanne: This is a 1962 house and a Herbert Bayer design and very vernacular in nature. It is a small scale three bedroom house. They are seeking landmark designation to construct a new single family addition which will be attached only slightly to the original structure but it will become a duplex. In order for them to do that because they are on an undersized parcel they have to receive landmark designation. They are also asking for a parking variation with a reduction of two spaces. Since they have three bedrooms now on the existing structure and three new bedrooms they are actually required to have six spaces. Staff supports the variations. Roxanne: Regarding the landmark designation, standard D really applies in this case which is the structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. There are very few left and Herbert Bayer was a very significant part of our post war history. Also standard F which is community character. This structure is in the west end and blends in with the eclectic styles that are found there. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Oct. 28, 1992 Don Erdman: Trying to identify this as a Bayer structure you would have a hard time doing so. I feel the only supporting condition would be F by virtue of its small scale and vernacular characteristics. Joe: I feel the problem that will come up is are they doing this just to get the additional development right and get the parking variation. Roger: What other options do they have? Roxanne: They could tear it down and the new unit could become an accessory dwelling and deed restricted so that it doesn't have to go through the HPC. I feel this is a stretch also and have thought about this building a lot. If there were a number of these buildings then I would have a hard time recommending designation. Roger: If we allow them to do this we retain the much smaller scale for that neighborhood and have a better project. Roxanne: Our criteria doesn't say that it has to be a representative of a certain period. It can be simply by virtue of an architectural type. Joe: Standard C could apply in this case as it states structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Jim Weaver, representing the owner: When I moved into this house 13 years ago I knew it was a Herbert Bayer house. The materials and construction techniques are original and unchanged and the house is in immaculate condition. There are only around three original residence left. Les: I feel this project meets many goals community. I feel this building meets B, D, sense. of the HPC and the E and F in the broad MOTION: Les made the motion that the HPC recommend landmark designation for the parcel at 311 W. North Street finding that standard B,D,E and F have been met; second by Roger. the Roger: I feel we should just mention one standard (F) in motion which is the requirement. AMENDED MOTION: Les amended his motion to recommend landmark designation for 311 W. North Street finding that it meets standard F; second by Roger. All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Oct. 28, 1992 Joe: I will not vote against the motion because if we can do it, great but you are creating two lots out of one and we are approving this on the basis that it is small. I will have trouble going through conceptual with a 1962 house without a lot of guidelines that apply in the 60's. If the doctor were not getting his duplex he wouldn't be landmark designating it, he wants the two lots. Roger: I feel the review would be similar to how we reviewed the Meadows. Don: In reviewing this I feel standard E may apply also. MOTION: Don made the motion that 311 W. North Street be added to the inventory; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: The existing structure is 1,314 sq. ft. and is a three bedroom house. They intend to add an addition that is above that square footage. I feel even though the addition is larger that it is compatible due to the method in which it will be attached which is very minor at the far corner of the car port. There is very little demolition occurring in order for this to happen. It is almost a detached structure it is that close. The Bayer resource reads through. It is a very tow scale building and is under 20 feet. Jim Weaver: Half of it is underground. This is very iow scale. I should explain why the Blocks want to do anything with the house at all. They have owned this house since 1965 and purchased it as a summer home and I rented the house. Now they are ready to retire. They have an apartment in Chicago which they want to sell. They have two grown children with their own children and the house is too small for that many people. They need a second kitchen and that is how we ended up here because the lot is too small for a duplex. They do not want a second unit for income just family. I designed the wing to look similar to the older part so that the addition would have the same character as existing. Don: How is the addition subservient to the original structure. One of the criteria is that we are able to identify readily what is new and what is old. Jim Weaver: The roof has changed and mainly the windows. We could change the siding. Joe: A good example of old from new is the Elli's building. Historio Preservation Committee Minutes of Oct. 28, 1992 Jim Weaver: I might need direction because I thought it should be similar. Joe: You look at color, materials, and scale of detailing. Don: The drawings are very easy to read and clear and that is why I brought up the issue of old and new. Linda: I think we are fortunate to have someone who is well versed in the Herbert Bayer architecture and has lived in the building. Jim Weaver: I have enjoyed living in the house and would not want it remodeled or spoiled in any way. Les: I like the fact that it is integrated and subtle. Karen: The present house is around 1300 square feet and are you doubling that amount? Jim Weaver: The existing is 1576 sq. feet. One side of the addition is lowered. Karen: I am trying to determine how much mass you are adding and what will be visible. Roxanne: A site visit for all the members should occur. Would perspective drawings or a massing model work for clarification? Don: A massing model would be a lot of extra work to show something that really doesn't need demonstrated in a model form. I feel a site visit is much more important. Roger: I feel a massing model is not necessary. The addition is lower than the existing house except for where the roof line comes down and there is only one point where you can see it and it is totally consistent with mass and scale. Roxanne: I show that the addition is 1,884 square feet. Joe: I have no problem with the parking variation. MOTION= Roger made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development approval for the addition at 311 W. North Street subject to specific conditions to be met at final review: 1) Site visit by all or some of HPC members. 2) That the applicant clarify the FAR. 3) That the applicant shows a distinction between the existing structure and new addition. 4) That HPC recommends a parking variation of two spaces finding that the parcel is able to contain four spaces of legal size which is ample for the needs of 4 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of Oot. 28, 1992 this parcel; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion to state that the development standards one through four have been met, second by Linda. Ail in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. Don: Also a reminder to the applicant that part of a criteria is that there be distinction between the old building and new addition. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 520 E. COOPER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - STOREFRONT Roxanne: This is a storefront renovation and Staff finds that this is a definite improvement as it brings the storefront forward with the rest of the building. They are using stucco, sandstone and glass and it is proportionate. Andy Wisnowski, representing the client: We are steadily improving this building and the present storefront does not make a statement from the street as it recessed back. We are trying to upgrade the window system to a more contemporary feel. The stone wall presents an obstacle to the viewing of the retail space. We want to improve the visibility. We propose to drop the wall 18 inches and create more visibility down toward the storefront. From the view of the sidewalk level is a rail that comes up three feet and we would like to drop that rail 18 inches and do an open rail. We feel that improves the visibility. We have talked about bringing a planter out to soften the building. There is a double tenant lease. We used the sandstone to wrap around and identify the separate leased space. Michael Germarick, tenant: We intend to do a home and personal accessory furnishing store. My wife Becky is in retail and I am a crystal glass engraver and I do single piece commissions. I work for Stuben and Corning in New York. My pieces will be in the store also. MOTION: Don made the motion that the minor development application for the storefront remodel at 520 E. Cooper be approved finding that standards one, two and four have been met; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 5