Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920226ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of February 26, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Karen Day, Martha Madsen and Linda Smisek present. Donnelley Erdman was excused. MOTION: Bill made the motion to approve the minutes of February 12th as amended; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: We have submitted a CLG grant for $16,000 to the State for approval and it would be effective July 1, 1992. The funds would encompass our guidelines and neighborhood design review. 92-1 OOALS RESOLUTION MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the goals resolution 92- 1; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. ST. MARYWS CHURCH - 533 E. NAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: At the last meeting the applicant wanted the Board's comments and the model to be presented to the congregation for comment. The applicant has revised and simplified the roof form of the addition. They also revised the front porch, non-conformity that encroaches into the public right-of-way. We are recommending approval based upon everything that the Board has looked at. Standard C, the cultural value should be considered carefully as to whether or not it diminishes or enhances. Ted Guy, architect: I will bring you up to date on the changes that have occurred. At the last meeting for snow control we had dormers and the parish didn't like the appearance of dormers and that they were inappropriate for the simple look of this building. We have removed all of the dormers and controlling snow slightly differently. We have removed the ramp up further away to give us a safe area and we have created a flat roof to catch snow and there will be a snow melt system underneath. We will stay with the stone base and a heavy rail around the porch. The detailing will be the same brick with simple forms without any real ornate detail. I also talked with Bob Gish about the pros and cons of the sidewalk. It has occurred at the court house and it would enhance that corner. Moving the cars back would improve the safety of that corner. Jake: What are the columns? Ted: Brick Karen: You stated that the louvre would not be the same but similar; explain similar. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 26, 1992 Ted: They are similar in profile and they are not exactly the same because they are taller and the width is not the same. The spacing and depth will be the same. Les: I am strongly in favor of the streetscape proposal. It is important that pedestrian traffic becomes enhanced. I feel the verticality of the louvre is too strong of a statement. Martha: I thought the tower was divided before with an upper and lower window? Ted: The earlier tower did have this opening broken up but at that time the Board felt uncomfortable with that which led us to the single opening. We will look at that at final submission. Bill: Public hearing opened; no comment. Public hearing closed. Karen: Would you talk about the flat roof portion in the back? Is that addressing the snow build-up? Ted: The primary purpose of that is to give you a roof over the door and protect you from the snow coming off the main roof. Karen: Ted has addressed our requests and I am in favor of this project and it meets the standards. I also agree that the extension of the sidewalk area is appropriate. Joe: My only concern is the louvre treatment. I would like to see a restudy of that and I am in favor of the sidewalk extension. Jake: Basically this supports the criteria and I am a little uncomfortable with the window treatment even though I know they are the old windows. They look a little squeezed in or something. Possibly that could be looked at. Ted: We can restudy that area. Linda: I feel the sidewalk extension is appropriate and moving cars away from the front entrance of the church is appropriate. Roger: On the louvers, do they have to be full length? Ted: No, they could be on the upper half only. Roxanne: The windows on the side are stained glass, are you intending to keep the stained glass. If the HPC decided that the historic window should not be on a new addition what would happen with the windows? 2 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of February 26, 1992 Ted: We would probably move them into the stair tower and replace some of the windows there that are not as historic. Bill: I am in favor of the new roof shapes and the smaller scale of the addition and am in favor of restudying and doing more of a brick vertical element relief as opposed to the louvers. If you have to have the louver maybe it could be on the back side. I would be in favor of passing conceptual with the condition of restudying the use of louvres and restudy the windows. MOTION: Les made the motion that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for St. Mary's addition, 533 E. Main with specific conditions to be met at final, including meeting the partial development standards (Section 7-602-C) In addition restudy of the louvres and restudy of the windows in elevator tower to be presented at final; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. NOTE: Linda was seated and voted. Roger was not present at the beginning of this presentation. MOTION: Les made the motion to direct City Staff to write a letter stating that the HPC unaminously recommends that the sidewalk/curb extension in front of the church be pursued and we recommend that the City Engineers proceed in this process based upon the historic significance of the building and pedestrian passageway and contribution to the landmark; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Bill Poss monitor of St. Mary's. 627 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Bill stepped down. Linda seated. Joe chaired. Joe: The applicant is requesting changes to the rear of the non- historic addition to the residence. Roxanne: The Planning Office is recommending approval subject to a restudy of the north elevation transom window proportions. No changes are proposed to the historic portion of the building. The only changes are proposed to the rear of the relatively new addition. We find that overall it doesn't detract or enhance; they are neutral changes. Kim Weil, architect for Bill Poss and Associates: I will present Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 26, 1992 the changes. This building is at the end of Main Street essentially across from the Hickory House. The house is 100 years old and the addition was done approximately 10 years ago. What the client has decided to do is what we pushed for all along and that is to get the stairway to the back internally. We were showing a spiral stair behind an opening and now what we have done is gotten rid of that and added a window near the other window and the stairway is internally from the house. It was decided when the basement didn't make economic sense to him. We will now have a stairway up to the deck. We are proposing a flat skylight and not visible. We are moving the back section of the mansard roof which is out of character and proposing a gabled end. The only changes to the existing house is a window of the back which will be changed into a door and incorporate the skylight into trim. There is a window punched into the wall and there is a door punched into the wall and we are going to incorporate that all into one kind of an assembly of trim. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for the project at 627 W. Main as proposed, subject to the restudy of the south elevation transom window proportions. Revised plans shall be approved by Staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Karen: Can you talk about the transom window and why they are that size? Kim: We were running into ceiling height and needed room on the inside and wanted to make them as tall as possible because one of the main focuses is to get views out of this room. If the Board feels the transoms are too tall possibly we could move them up and play with the proportions underneath. There are a number of things we can do to address that issue. Jake and Martha are the monitors. 715 W. SMUGGLER - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING - GARAGE Bill Poss seated and chaired. Roxanne: The applicant is asking for HPC approval to demolish the non-historic one car port that is on the alley that is at the zero lot line and is asking approval to construct a new two car garage that is five feet in from the rear lot line; therefore, no setbacks are being asked for the rear. There is a side yard setback that is being requested and in order to bring the parking nonconformity legal or current they are asking for a two car parking variation that the HPC is able to approve if it is determined that it is 4 Historic Preservation comm{ttee Minutes of Februar~ 26, 1992 appropriate for the site and in that particular neighborhood which is why that aspect of this is a public hearing. They are also seeking an approval to add a small one story multi-sided diningroom addition off the rear south east corner of the building. The Planning office finds that there request for the demolition of the car port and the construction of a new car garage is appropriate and meets the development review standards. The side yard setback is appropriate also. Our concern lies with the change in the overall massing of the building with the addition of the diningroom and we ask that the HPC review that carefully and we are recommending tabling to give them an opportunity to restudy with specific direction from the HPC. Jake: Point of clarification: You are saying that you need four cars and two will go in the garage and you need a variance for the other two. Gretchen Greenwood, architect for project: We are trying to preserve the victorian heritage of the house. The only old part of the building is at the front. Four years ago we totally remodeled the back of the house. We needed a parking variance when the house was done the first time so we are trying to get legal for the parking. We do have a carport that was built on the alley and we want to bring that into conformity on the north side by allowing for a five foot setback. We would be making a better situation by moving the carport toward the house five feet. We are asking for an east side yard setback. The scale of the building is very small only 17 by 19 and only 10 feet tall. We would like you to review a gazebo diningroom that is a one story addition right off the new part of the addition. We are proposing to do all the development toward the back and toward the alley. The gazebo addition is a diningroom. The reason for moving the car port to the very east side is it doesn't infringe on the victorian itself. The property to the east of the car port has a 15 foot setback where the building starts and also 22 feet form the rear property line. There is not a problem with vehicular traffic on that side. Jake: My question is on the garage and the infringement on the side yard setback. For us to grant that there has to be a demonstration that this is more compatible to the historic resource so I need to see or hear a convincing argument on that respect. Gretchen: Like most little carriage houses in the west end, they are right on the corner of the property and are set back away from the house and that is what we want to maintain. Jake: Part of that is looking what you would do within the setback. What prevents you from sliding the garage over five feet that maintains the integrity of the historic resource. H~stor~o Preservation Committee Minutes of February 26, 1992 Gretchen: It would be a cleaner detailing and the applicant has developed a rose garden. Jake: You are saying that the garden is some how part of the overall effect of the house. You could ask for a three car variation. Bill: On the east elevation you show the garage draw up at the floor level, is that correct? Gretchen: The alley is higher than the back yard. There is a 2 1/2 foot grade change between the alley and the fence line going up from there in the back yard. There is a planted bed. Bill: How would you deal with the base of the garage? Gretchen: On the property line we will have to just make a grade change and take the siding down and build it up. Ann Miller, owner of the property: I would like to address why we are putting the garage five feet to the east. I had pictures taken last year and it made a tremendous difference on the appearance from the back of the house. I use the deck and garden. If I had to go into my yard five extra feet I probably wouldn't do the garage. It is a small yard. Due to the duplex being built next door I will never use the side deck. Joe: I feel it meets the standards and the addition on the back is one story and lower than the existing house in the front and you can read it clearly as a new element. I am generally in favor of the addition finding that it meets the standards. As to the garage and its location, it is not attached to the building so I feel that it does not detract from the existing historic resource. The side yard setback variation I would be in favor of finding that it is more compatible with the historic resource than building it in compliance with the dimensional requirements primarily because as you move that over I think it really does start to impact on the existing house. As to the parking variation I am in favor of the variation. This is a single family residence even though it has four bedrooms. I don't see where you need to have four parking spaces just because you have four bedrooms. I have a philosophical difference with the code as to the parking spaces and feel a two car garage is sufficient for a single family residence. Personally one parking space per bedroom is over-kill. Les: I feel the addition is probably compatible in character with the existing residence. I don't feel I have enough information to approve the setback on the garage. I don't think it meets the criteria. The parking variance meets the criteria. I would like 6 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of February 26, 1992 to see a separate application for the garage itself. Karen: I am in favor of the proposal and the addition is in scale with the house and neighborhood. This is an extremely shallow back yard as I recall it and the fact that there is room for a rose garden on the back is an enhancement for the alley scape. A larger garage right there would be more out of scale to the house and to the back yard and to the alley right there. I feel the variance should be granted. Jake: I do not have a problem with the addition because it is not on the primary facade and is recessed enough from the front far enough that it is not a competitive element. I am having trouble with the garage. I understand what you are trying to do and the rose gardens are beautiful but there is the option of a three car variance instead of two which would reduce the size of the garage even further. I support the variation in the parking. My major concern is the area of precedent and the potential conflicts that are surfacing with the P&Z and Board of Appeals. If you could really demonstrate to me that the garden is supportive of the historical building then I could approve this. There is a massive addition to the rear of the house so it is hard to make that link. At this point I cannot support the variation for the garage. Roger: The addition meets all the standards. Possibly if it were on the front of the house it would not. Because of its location it is really not visible. I concur with the feeling on the garage, it would probably work but this whole parking situation and number of cars per bedroom I really have a problem with and do not think that is particularly necessary. We have this and then the city government wants to discourage or find another solutions to automobiles. Gretchen: I doubt if Ann would tear down a car port for a one car garage. Jake: What is really happening is we are trading a rear yard conformity for a new sideyard variance. Roxanne: Keeping in mind that the existing rear yard conformity requires a three car parking variation. Two cars is palatable to zoning. Bill: I find the addition compatible in size, scale and character to the new additions that have been added within the last few years. I find that it meets the standards of compatibility and does not detract from the historic nature of the structure. There is a clear differenciation between the old and new. I would support the parking variation of two cars because I think the 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 26~ 1992 nature of 6,000 sq. ft. lots on the west end, that two cars is adequate to park onsite and to add more than that would detract from the nature of that structure. I am in support of that variation. I also can find support for the relocation of the garage finding that it is more compatible in character with the historic landmark because in the west end alley structures tend to be on the alley and to the far end of the sites. Since this is a public hearing and has been properly noticed the neighbors to the east have not come forth or presented a letter in objection to this, so I could find because of its distance to the structure and historic location it would be more compatible with the character of the historic landmark than would be in accord with the dimensional requirements of the code. I also had a meeting with the neighbors (Sugar's) and Ann Miller and there was no opposition. I am in favor of the proposal as it is presented here tonight. MOTION: Joe made the motion that we grant conceptual development approval for 715 W. Smuggler finding that it meets the development review standards and finding that the standards for the parking variation and sideyard variation have been met; second by Roger. Motion carries 6-1. In favor, Bill, Joe, Jake, Roger, Martha and Karen. Les was opposed. Joe Turner: As an observation if the members on the committee could do a walk thru and take a note of what really is taking place in the neighborhood because it is hard to tell what the alley looks like and what is next door. It was obvious that some of the committee members were not really aware of the particular block and now things fit into the scheme of things and that is helpful as a committee if you are able to really visualize what the neighborhood looks like. It becomes a clearer picture. Jake: I would also say that the applicant needs to present the case in a highly organized fashion and I was being rigorous with that because I want to get that level of presentation up. 204 S. MILL - COLLINS BLOCK - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: The applicant states that he needs headroom in the third floor loft, something that we discussed at final. The changes that are taking place are finished tile and materials. There are also proposed changes to the roof and a skylight. The concern that Staff has is the monitor, a projection on the roof. We have not seen any kind of site view or studies as to whether it is visible. With the original approval the roof form was to remain flat on this neoclassical national register building. We find that the monitor is not in keeping and inappropriate and does not meet the development review standards. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Februar~ 26, 1992 Rod Dyer, architect: I am representing Harley Baldwin and we are proposing changes that are a result of changing the third floor plan. The changes of the elimination of two windows on the west side of the master bedroom of unit A. Replace two previously approved fixed glass windows with glass panel doors onto the existing roof deck for egress purposes required by the building code. He wants to add a roof top monitor for natural light and ventilation. Also change the location of previously approved skylight or actually replace the existing and change in the Collins alley a storefront for a retail unit #202. The windows that are being removed are not visible from the street. The reason for removing the windows is because of the interior design of that particular space. The roof top monitor is essentially a skylight to give more height feeling to the master bedroom. The windows would be operable and allow ventilation and natural light. We don't believe that this would be visible from the street but if the committee wants we can put up story poles to indicate the actual height. On the retail space the reason for moving the door to the alley location is so that they have direct access onto the alley. There existing rear door enters into the entryway of the condominium unit B and we thought it better to have that on the collins alley instead of the entryway. Joe: How high is the monitor above the parapet? Rod: Six and a half feet above the existing parapet and 24 feet horizontal. Les: Without seeing the original plan something is different on the roof top and we had numerous discussion regarding the roof top. Bill: Did Staff review our recommendation or resolution when we passed conceptual approval because my last memo states, which was a public hearing, that we had approved that the roof not exceed 14 inches higher than the existing parapet and that no roof top equipment or items should extend above the parapet including mechanical equipment. Since that was a public hearing and this is only a minor development we might be approving something that other people who attended the public hearing left knowing that we had not approved anything to go higher than 14 inches or to be higher than the parapet. Roxanne: The last action at the final development review, the Board did that recommendation. Bill: At conceptual there were people who spoke against the roof top addition and here they would not have the opportunity to vote against it. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 26, 1992 Roxanne: I found this to be a minor but if the Board feels uncomfortable about this being a minor development we can have them come back and do a conceptual. Bill: I feel everything is minor but the monitor is my concern and I am concerned about taking action when the public doesn't have the ability to respond. Roger: In light of that everything could be approved and the monitor would have to be resubmitted with a public hearing. Roxanne: The many hearings we had on the Collins Block said specifically that it would not be higher than 14 inches above the second floor parapet. Anything that is above what is currently right now will exceed that. Jake: The skylights would exceed also. Karen: For clarification the third floor loft is part of the second floor apartments. Bill: They were sinking the third floor within the existing roof structure and not to exceed 14 inches above the parapet. Karen: We do not know how much we would see because we do not have a view plane from the street. Joe: I was here and Bill was here when we reviewed that and we went through numerous public hearings on this and we turned down this third floor the last time. This is one of the most significant buildings in downtown Aspen. In my view this monitor whether it is six inches tall or six and a half feet tall is totally incompatible with this two story flat roof building. Maybe you can't see it when you are standing right in front of the building but you will be able to see it around the block, from the Wheeler etc. These are the same issues we went through the last time when we went through the process before. I like Harley but this I am absolutely opposed to. We fought this thing when he tried to get the third floor put on before. It would be great to have a two story residential structure or three floors in this building that was designed for two floors but what we are trying to do here doesn't make any sense. I don't have any problem giving him skylights to get light and ventilation but I am certainly not in favor of this monitor. It is not compatible at all with the building either in its height, shape or placement. I am not clear how high the skylights go above the parapet. Board members, we have been through this process many times and I am not in favor of it, at least not in favor of the monitor. Maybe we could look at the skylights and possibly they would make sense. When we went 10 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of February 26, 1992 through this before we talked about where is this third floor going to be visible from and the committees consensus at that time just because you couldn't see it from the corner of Hopkins and Mill it doesn't mean it is not visible from other important locations around town. This is an extremely important building and Harley has done a fabulous job renovating and I would hate to see it damaged by this proposal. Les: I concur with Joe. Bill: I feel we have a duty to carry through what was represented before by the Committee. I would probably be in favor of the skylights if they were anodized and a darker color since they are not so visible. We have had numerous discussions on roof top equipment and we have been trying to hold true to that on any additions we do talk about since then. I would also be opposed to the monitor. Roxanne: The flues also project and they have to be 3 feet above parapet for gas burning fire places. I would recommend that they be painted a dark matt. Joe: I would like to see the profile of the skylights reduced. Possibly do a flush skylight. Rod: We can't do a flat skylight but we could do a lower pitch. Instead of a gabled skylight we could do a single pitch. If you do a flat skylight it doesn't drain and the snow just sits there. Jake: How was the 14 inches determined? Roxanne: They did view plane studies from the sidewalk all the way around. They had story poles and six public hearings and we even brought the State in to work on the project. This is also a tax act project and they are going for federal tax credits on this building. The view plane studies were done and it was determined that 14 inches back from the parapet nothing could be seen. Jake: There could be a motion to approve everything but the skylights and monitor. If they really want to pursue this the monitor would have to come through the conceptual process. Rod: 1. 3 o We have five items proposed: Elimination of two previously approved windows on the third floor, west wall. Replace two previously approved fixed glass windows with two 3'x6'8" glass panel doors. Addition of a roof top Monitor for natural ventilation and light. 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 26, 1992 Change roof top skylights to accommodate revised third floor plan. Change existing door and storefront at east end of retail unit #202 in the Collins Alley. MOTION: Bill: I would entertain a motion that HPC grant minor development approval for the Collins Block at 204 S. Mill for the elimination of two previously approved windows on the third floor west wall as shown on sketches one and two. Replace two previously approved fixed glass windows with two three by six foot eight glass panel doors as shown on sketches three and four attached. Approve change of an existing door and.storefront at east end of retail unit #202 in the Collins Alley as shown on sketches seven and eight presented. This approval would be granted subject to the elimination of the roof top monitor and a restudy of the skylights not to exceed the 14 inches previously approved in public hearings as presented on the plans. Any revisions that meet within the 14 inch height be approved by Staff and project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. Les: I so move; second by Roger. Joe: With respect to the gas fire flue it appears that they are not in compliance with the prior approval because they exceed the 14 inches. I would like to propose an amendment that the problem be addressed and remedied in some fashion, possibly painted in a dark mat. Les: I do not think they should be painted. Joe: Possibly the applicant should come up with a proposal to remedy that problem. AMENDED MOTION: Joe: That we approve the gas fire place flues that were build in violation of the prior approval on the condition that the applicant propose some mediation of the problem. Mitigate the visual impact. Les: I so move; second by Roger. Ail in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carries. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of February 26, 1992 204 S. GALENA, SPORT STALKER Roxanne: Due to a tenant change the remodel will only occur on the first floor. They are phasing the project. They are eliminating multiple doors along the store front and have one central entrance now. They are proposing a temporary parapet. They have vested their rights so they have three years to finish the building. The approval was done and the only change is the parapet width. The concern that I have is that the parapet width seemed out of proportion. Sven Alstrom, architect: We are phasing the project because I cannot get the working drawings done in time for the construction to start this year. Construction deadlines are driving the schedule. The only change is that we have changed tenants on the first floor from five to one (GAP). The only change is the reduction of storefront entrances. The height from street level is six inches higher than existing. Rather than recommend denial we can reduce the height if the Board desires. Les: What about the structural materials for the other two floors. Sven: The building will not be occupied for seven months and it will be contained in this building. Roger: You said you could reduce the parapet, how much? Sven: We can go down two feet but that would be odd, the height of the storefront was worked out with the committee based on the three story building, so we don't want the curb up too short. We are taking the existing roof off. The existing parapet is six inches less than the one proposed. Roger: Are you keeping the same ceiling height when you take off the roof? Sven: We are going to increase the ceiling height in proportion to the building. Roger: How could you lower the parapet if you are going to increase the existing ceiling height. Sven: Because it is occurring behind the plane of the building. Bill: The parapet height now is about the window ceil height of the second story when it got added on. Les: If you do this now will it save you money later on. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Februar~ 26, 1992 Sven: It saves us money because we won't have to delay the project. Jake: The focus of that question is are you doing this because this is an efficient way to do it in anticipation of finishing the building? Sven: Yes, as that was what was approved. Bill: They are talking about the parapet height and you are talking about the first floor. Sven: We will remove the cornice at the top of the parapet. Jake: The point I was trying to make is there a logic for having it where it needs to be because of the efficiency of the building process. This could be dropped a foot or two. Sven: I really don't want it dropped two feet because I feel it will look too short. We drew what we wanted and Roxanne wants it a little less. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for the proposal at 204 S. Galena, the Sportstalker; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Roxanne: I feel it out of proportion and out of character for the historic district and very top heavy. Bill: If you lower it you are not going to have enough boards above the metal fascia to make a point. MOTION: Bill made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14