Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19921209HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of December 9, 1992 Meeting was called to order by Don Erdman with Les Holst, Jake vickery, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Bill Poss and Linda Smisek present. Excused were Karen Day and Joe Krabacher. Roxanne: Nicklaus's Kunes would like to add an addition onto the structure. This is on the national register and he would like to be added to the agenda. MOTION= Roger made the motion to add 303 E. Main to the agenda; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. 308 S. HUNTER - SILVER CITY ORILL - AIRLOCKS Roxanne: An airlock is a windshield. Applicant: When we open the door we have a pressure problem and get an incredible draft into the restaurant. It would also change the appearance of the building. Roxanne: What they want to do is a clear plastic window that comes over the railing and snaps. Roger: The real issue is that more airlocks presentations will be coming to the Board for review. I would allow them presently and then have a worksession to get guidelines as to what we want on historic building and in the historic district. Les: I feel it is important that we look at airlocks and that we also do a study on this. The architect should take this into consideration when he is designing a building. Maybe we should talk to the building department and factor this in when they talk about windows etc. and R factors. Don: The Silver City existing looks like 36 inches square. Is the new proposal a new airlock that people will be eating within that area? Applicant: The airlock is larger and the increased space is for energy efficiency. Don: It appears quite wide. Roger: Our recommendation for this season would be to approve it as a temporary measure and that we would like to have a worksession with the P & Z in the future. Jake: We have no criteria. Roxanne: Your development review standards are your criteria. H£storic Preservation Committee M~nutes oE December 9, ~99~ Don: The only traffic is what is generated by the establishment because it is not on the sidewalk. MOTIONs Les made the motion that HPC approve the airlock located at 308 S. Hunter, Silver City Grill and that it meets one of our four guidelines. This approval is on a temporary basis to be reviewed after we have had a study session; second by Linda. Don: We would want to see it down by April 15th and that it can be used for another season starting in Oct. and that they would have to reapply. Martha: We definitely need a worksession. Applicant: I would like to know that it could be longer than four months. All the awnings are being changed but they are also going to fit the airlock. I would like not to have another additional expense. If the Board changes its specifications I need to change the frame. Martha: You will be able to take this down in the summer? Applicant: The airlock system will snap on and come off. support system will stay. The Linda: Is there a double door that could be utilized as an airlock? Applicant: No. Don: The motion needs some amending with having to do with the explicit time limits regarding the renewal. Jake: What about an option where we table this for two weeks and within that two week period we find a solution. I am real uncomfortable with this and we do not have criteria to make evaluations. If this is a minor development should we use that criteria to evaluate this. Roger: I have no problem with this. Les: I do not either. We do need to establish criteria. Roxanne: April 15th is the date the Planning office recommends. In reviewing this you would use the development standards. Les: I would like to still give two winters to the applicant. MOTION WITHDRAWN: I will withdraw the motion. H~sto~io P~eservation C~mmittee Minutes of December 9~ 1993 MOTIONs Roger made the motion to allow the proposal for 308 S. Hunter to be installed as presented. This is applicable with our historic guidelines; second by Les. Question was called; Carried 5-1. In favor, Don, Les, Roger, Martha and Linda. Jake was opposed. Don: The planning office has established April 15th as the removal date so we do not have to mention that in the motion. 609 E. COOPER - POPPYCOCKS Applicant: We want to use clear plastic strips. It would be a hoped overhead with canvas and clear plastic strips hanging down. The sidewalk and door are indented. Linda: Similar to a box. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the airlock for 609 E. Cooper finding that it meets the development review standards one and two and that the applicant complies with the time frame mandated by the City; second by Roger. Question was called by Don Erdman; Carries 5-1. In favor, Don, Les, Roger , Martha and Linda. Jake was opposed. Bill Poss seated. 303 E. MAIN - NIKLAUS KUNEB - WORKSESSION Niklaus's son presented: I really would like to have my own business and that would be the only way I could stay here in Aspen after graduating from CU. I would like to have a collectable store along with antiques. I looked around town to see if there were vacancies. There are numerous franchises coming to town. I then approached my father. He is presently renting out the victoria and the shack in back of the house. My father wants to keep the people in there. I want to keep the historic dominance to the front. Niklaus Kunes: The house exists right now on 1 1/2 lots. The proposal is to build something to the back but away from the property line. Roxanne: I told Niklaus that the addition would have to be very small to the side to the back part of the facade to meet the standards. I recommended that he come to HPC and get feedback. Les: My concern is the streetscape so that the addition doesn't take away what we have there. Don: The proposal is a porch addition which is not enclosed. They Historic Preservation committee Minutes of December 9, 1993 have an original structure on the west. side which is not appropriate because important as what is existing. It is duplicating the west it then becomes just as Niklaus: We need to know what the Board would prefer. Linda: The addition should be subservient so that you can visually see the historic addition. to the main structure building and see the Roger: You now know that you do not want to copy the main structure and it should appear to be an addition. The roof as it attaches to the main structure will be the hardest element to deal with. Possibly it should be lower or a flat roof. Les: The applicant needs to get a copy of the development standards. Jake: Don't forget the technical side and calculate your FAR etc. Martha: I recommend that they continue with their idea and I support them regarding the addition and that they come back to the Board with plans based on the research that they will be doing so that the Board can be very clear. MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PIONEER PARK Roxanne: Arthur Stromberg is the new owner of the house. The overall changes do not constitute a character change. There are a few problems with the rear addition and how the stairway is working. Kevin MacLeod, Cunniffe & Associates representing new owner Arthur Stromberg: We are adding a privacy fence near the pool and cleaning it up from what is there now. The other two additions we are doing would be one small mudroom area behind the house which is under an existing roof and also the addition of a rear stair to the back of the house. We tried to keep this to a minimum due to FAR considerations. On the carriage house the upstairs bedroom has no egress windows and without disturbing the other windows that are visible to the public we have decided to change the fixed window to two casement windows. Roger: Why would you want to have a deck rather than the historic patio design? Kevin MacLeod: The steps tend to remove the patio from the living space. The deck would be at the same level as the living space. It will be behind the privacy fence. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of December 9, 1993 Roger: Kevin: Roger: fence? What is the material? Wood on the deck. Could there be a break between the carriage house and the Kevin MacLeod: Our last pier will be away from the carriage house and not attached but we have to attach the fence to it due to the pool. Don: The piers seem to rise above the height of the fence. We are getting close to seven feet. The new deck is an element that is virtually the whole width of the facade. Martha: I also have a question about the deck and possibly some more thought should go into the design. Les: I just built a fence and nothing can go over six feet. Bill: What is the height of the deck? Kevin MacLeod: Whatever the existing floor is. Bill: If it is over 30 inches it would require a railing and if that occurs the cumulative impact of this deck will be more of an impact. Roger: Have you had the opportunity to look at the model and past plans that were approved? Kevin MacLeod: I have not and have been instructed by the owner to not get involved with anything in the past. Roger: The reason why I asked that is because there is a lot of valuable information that you might want to review. Arthur Stromberg: I am the owner and it was clearly stated to me by Kaplan that if any idea that we generate appears to be an idea that his architect did he would sue us. I then instructed my architect to not look at any past plans and have letters stating SO. Jake: I do not think this is a minor development application. There are too many things going on. Kevin MacLeod: If the deck will be a problem in the approval process we will remove it. It seems that numerous questions and Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 9, 1993 concerns are about the deck. Don: If the deck is being deleted from the proposal it helps a great deal regarding the approval. We have discussed the fence height and that is being dealt with. The third issue is the addition to the rear. Historically when buildings of this nature were added on too the rear addition being an extension of profiles were quite common. I have no problem with the stylistic extension of something which is not a principal facade. I feel in this case it is more appropriate than branching into another type of expression. Roger: In the past, this board spent a lot of time on the fence which was a design that came from a rendering of the original architecture. That is how we worked with it. I ask the board if it is Ok with them that the fence now is not a brick fence and that it is brick and wood? Secondly, that the fence was not a predominant feature to the landmark so that when people walked down the street it was not a barrier. There were openings in the fence where you could see through allowing a minor view of the carriage house and pool area but closed enough so that you could sunbathe. How does the Board feel? Kevin MacLeod: Regarding the height between the main house and the mansard our proposal is to continue the plane of our addition to the mansard. Bill: It is at the same height. Linda: Roxanne is indicating that this plane should be lower and not an extension of the original roof. I would like to comment on the fence and giving a minor view to the public. Historically people did not sunbathe in their back yards in large estates. I would go with the feeling of having some kind of view instead of having people wondering what is over that fence. Les: I have no problem with the addition on the back because it does not effect the massing and it meets the design criteria. I think the separate elements in the fence might be an asset because it softens to go from brick to wood. I have walked down that block numerous times and there might be a step that they could take to make it even softer. Don: We are looking at the hard elements without landscaping or shrubbery and things that will happen as part of the landscaping plan. With that in mind I feel Roger's recommendation that there be some articulation, some voids that do not necessarily have to be large but an articulation between each pier in the wood elements which also helps when you come to the termination of the fence. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 9, 1993 It will be easier to create articulation between the fence and the carriage house. While they may appear like large visual slots in the drawings, in reality you see things at an angle and also I trust that there will be plantings to help this. It would be a good recommendation for the Board to direct greater articulation between the piers in terms of real voids which may only be three inches. Bill: I agree with all of the committee member comments and they are additions to meeting our guidelines. I would specifically like a little transparency between the piers and the fence as Donnelley stated to give you privacy but a little transparency while walking by. I am concerned about the height of the deck because if you go over 30 inches it forces you to have a railing and an additional impact. I am concerned about the cumulative effect of adding on. I am in favor of the additional stair on the back but find it a duplication of the stair that is in there and I am not familiar with the clients needs nor need to be but if other additions come on I have a concern. Kevin MacLeod: There are no plans for another addition. Bill: I do agree that if the deck would be taken away it would be a minor addition and we might be able to review this as a minor review. Roxanne: Did the committee decide addition should just extend from the plane? that the roof line of the new the rear without any break in Donnelley: If you look at it in three dimensional it would be quite awkward because Kevin's suggestion here is that the mansard roof not break in plane. If it does not break, it makes it very difficult to break the top plane of it. If it broke back in plane it would be easier but right now it would make it awkward I think to change the height of the top of the roof in this case. That is the way I read it. Bill: I would tend to agree with Donnelley, and architecturally Kevin has taken the right approach, although the Committee might be concerned that additions should be identified, I feel it would be quite difficult to drop that roof, make the windows work, it is a small enough addition that it should go along with the historic nature of the structure and it would tend to complicate the issue by making it more busy, different height effects and I feel that since this is a minor addition to this historic element it should attempt to replicate what is there. There is enough history to show that it was added onto. H~stor~c Preservation Committee ~nu2e$ of December 9~ ~993 Jake: I agree and agree with the comments. The Board will treat this as a minor development in the interest of allowing the applicant to proceed with his plans and knowing that these changes are less than the previous application. If we had a two step process we would have final and that would have more details in it. I would suggest that you do a similar process with a monitor and Staff so that any points raised here can be followed through on. Bill: I monitor that. feel that is a good point to work the process out with the and Staff. The recommendation or motion should reflect Roger: It seems that everyone is comfortable with a wood rather than brick fence so my question is whether the wood fence would be painted or leave it natural. Kevin MacLeod: We would probably paint it. Roger: If the fence were brick with cedar and could patina out over time it would be much more attractive than a painted fence because a painted fence would give you heaviness. Kevin MacLeod: We are open to those suggestions. Donnelley: It is inevitable that this fence is going to be a back drop for landscaping and when you have landscaping materials against a fence that is painted it is very hard to maintain the fence without destroying some of the landscaping materials and also you have a lot of watering going on which breaks down paint surfaces quickly. Roxanne: I did not review the carriage house dormer which was brought up today on the second floor, south elevation. On the Kaplan plan they were doing a good restoration of the Schweitzer cottage. They were getting rid of an inappropriate shed/dormer that was on that elevation that the Board fully supported. Unfortunately that is not taking place and I would recommend that the whole end of the mansard be restored. I am disappointed that it is not being restored and also disappointed to see that they are going to have to put in casement windows. I have a real concern about that and the Board should look at it more closely before making a motion. Kevin MacLeod: hung window. There is an egress problem and we need a double Roxanne: The Building Dept, Planning Dept. and the applicant have not sat down to talk about this issue. H~stor~c Preservation Committee N~nutes of December 9~ L993 Roger: The dialogue has to take place between the three entities. Is this a structure which someone is living in; it has existed for over 100 years. That is an important item in an historic structure. Roxanne: It is a condominiumized separate unit. Roger: Can we restore it with integrity and still have egress? Roxanne: We need to discuss the options. Bill: This is not part of the application to restore it, it is for egress. Jake: But it is a replacement. Roger: Is the replacement the same size as the existing opening? Kevin MacLeod: Yes. Don: Since the opening is not being changed, the addition of two vertical elements somewhat helps the appearance. At some point the carriage house may be restored. Roger: I concur but would ask for a little restudy. ~OTION~ Donnelley made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval based on the drawings presented to us subject to specific conditions as follows: These conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit 1) Fence be restudied and the new proposal be approved by monitor and Staff. No elements in the fence be greater than six feet high and greater transparency be achieved which was discussed among the Committee. 2) No deck be built at this time and any deck above grade be subject to separate review 3) The Carriage house dormer be approved subject to further study of the fenestration keeping in mind that egress is required. 4) Materials be consistent with those that exist on the original structure and be approved by monitor and Staff; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Bill: How many committee members would agree with Jake's point of differentiating the addition to the existing structure as opposed to following along and replicating this minor addition to the historic structure. Jake: I am talking about subtle things that are very compatible. Kevin MacLeod: I understand what Jake is saying and I could discuss that with the monitor and Staff when we discuss materials. Historic Preservation Comm~22ee Hinu2es of December 9, ~993 We are willing to look at ways that there would be some difference. Roxanne: When the working drawings come in we can all sit down and go over them. Roxanne: The vested rights process needs to be started also. COMMUNICATION MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minutes of November 11, 1992; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minutes of November 25, 1992; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Linda made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk R~stor~c Preserva2~on Committee ~inu2es o~ Decen~e~ 9, L993 308 S. HUNTER - SILVER CITY GRILL - AIRLOCKS 609 E. COOPER - POPPYCOCKS 303 E. MAIN - NIKLAUS KUNES - WORKSESSION . MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PIONEER PARK COMMUNICATION . 1 3 3 4 10