Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910814HISTORIC PRESERVATION COIQ(ITTEE Minutes of August L4, ~99~ Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport, Roger Moyer Martha Madsen, Jake Vickery and Karen Day present. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minutes of June 26, 1991; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries. VIDEO ON QUASI-JUDICIAL BOP~RD RESPONSIBILITIES RESOLUTION 8, ~99X - IN-TOWN SCHOOL SITES Roxanne: This is appointing members to represent the HPC at the In-town school site meetings. Glenn Rappaport will be the representative and Jake Vickery and Les Holst are alternate liaisons. It states that the HPC is still concerned with the significance of this parcel. Jake: Use should be incorporate in the resolution. Les: I feel scale and mass should be added under design. Part of the process is education. Roxanne: This deals with the structure as it sits right now. If you feel scale and massing is an important element to the existing conditions and you want to add that to design to expound upon design then that is what I hear you want to do. Bill: I would not put scale and mass in because I do not want them coming back and saying you said scale and mass. We have had that come back to us, lets leave it open. Roxanne: We are talking about existing conditions and design includes everything. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to adopt Resolution 8, 1991 as amended to include use; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. RES. 9, ~992 - ASPEN AREA CONI(UNITY PLAN, CHARACTER COI~ITTEE Roxanne: Presently five different committees are working on the character analysis to get the entire plan finished. The HPC is appointing two people to two of the different committees. Bill Poss is on the Character Committee and Glenn is on the Community and Growth Committee. MOTION: Don made the motion that Resolution 9, 1991 be passed in its present form; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 14, 1991 332 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEV. AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION Joe stepped down. Martha seated. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Roxanne: This property is located within the Main st. Historic District and on a prominent corner. They are interested in expanding their commercial space to make their program inside work more efficiently. You are looking at the development review standards and the partial demolition standards and you will need to make a finding that this applicant meets all the standards in order to grant conceptual. They are demolishing the rear non- original portion of the building to add on a two story addition that comes to the same height as the original building that is 25 feet which is the maximum height limit in that zone district. They are going to actually increase the number of parking spaces. I had a public inquiry from an owner who lives across the street whose concern was the overall design of the property and also the parking spaces. A parking variation is not necessary as they are increasing the number of spaces. There is one free market residential unit. They are going to be doing excavation under the new addition including a basement. Some concerns are the remodel of the front porch. There is nothing that has been found to date by the applicant or Staff that indicates that the porch that is there now is not the original porch. We believe that it is in fact the original porch. Therefore there application to remodel the front porch is not based upon anything other than just their design goals. It is the Boards responsibility to look at any kind of changes to element and original fabric, therefore I am recommending that if documentation cannot be found, the porch should stay because it is original. The porch is unique as allot of the upper facade is shingled and the shingle has been brought down into the porch element and is unique in the historic district. Another concern I have is the compatibility of the addition specifically the height. I am recommending approval subject to the conditions as stated in the memo. Partial demolition standards have been met. Janet Leeverson, representing Snowcase Properties: I will address the main points that were brought up. We are requesting a demolition so that we can make the space more usable as an office building. With the demolition and addition we are providing extra parking spaces which is a plus to the site. We cannot find anything original on the porch so we took a survey of all the porches on the west end and they all appear to be a spindle type, columns and rails so we presented something similar. The height is as a result of providing an apartment on the third level. H~s2oric Preservation Committee M~nu2es of August ~4, ~99L Roxanne: The conceptual materials were not called out in the plans and that needs clarified tonight. Janet: The materials would be the same, a four inch clapboard siding. We are proposing siding on the new part. Roxanne: The clapboard width is the same as the original but it is not shingles. Janet: The roofing is presently proposing wood shingle. Karen: How many people will be building? asphalt shingle but we are working and living in this Roxanne: They are required to provide parking spaces for the new net leasable. They are not required to go back and fix all the non conforming spaces. Jake: What is the history of the gable windows in the front? Janet: They were done in 1979 when KSPN took over the building and created offices. Jake: Are you proposing changes in the gables? Janet: That is a cost item and we can discuss it. Gary Feldman, owner of the building: We inherited the windows as they are. We could use that money to repair other parts of the building. Bill: The drawings before us are leaving the windows that are there. At final you will have to state whether or not you are leaving the windows as is or changing them. Janet: Presently it still is in discussion. Martha: What is the height of the building? Janet: 25 feet. Les: Is there a way of dropping the mass and making it more compatible to the original building without sacrificing much? Janet: The peaks are in line right now and we cannot drop due to the head room. Possibly we could study a different pitch on the roof. Historic Preservation ccmmittee Minutes of August 14, 1991 Karen: My concern is the scale. the alley off of Main St. are Possibly the four or five spaces and put to the side of the building in the hopes that could be reduced at the alley side and stepped down. Almost all of the buildings in small and have small details. could be taken out of the alley the height Janet: This is a non conforming lot. We would have to apply for a variance also. Les: I feel the porch should be retained and do not have enough information to grant conceptual. The massing is inappropriate. Glenn: From the photograph you can tell that the porch was there originally. I would be supportive of the suggestions for the alley. Roxanne: In order to grant a FAR variation for cottage infill it has to be a deed restricted affordable unit and this is a free market unit they are proposing. Don: Any reduction in the roof height will compromise the dwelling unit and then you further compromise the available office space. On the front the evidence showing that the porch was the original one is something that we should adhere to. The treatment of the gable end on the south elevation is something that should be restudied to bring it more in accord with what was pre-existing. Jake: Differentiate the old from the new. The wall plane is out ahead from the wall plane of the existing building and also out ahead of the addition that you are removing. Possibly that should be moved back so that it doesn't move ahead of the original wall plane. I am in limbo regarding the porch. When stairs are attached onto structures they detract from the structure and I would be willing to consider an increase in FAR to allow you to close that area. The addition should appear lower even if it is not and possibly moving the wall plane would accomplish that. Roger: We encourage applicants to submit a model particularly when it is a demolition and add on. It appears that the addition is perhaps too large. I concur with Don that the break is enough. On the model all the windows should be to scale so that they do not look like they are over done. We worked on this house in 1968 and the peak had stucco stuff in between the boards. When we worked on the porch the curved shingles were original. There were not many houses that had the curved shingles. In the 1950's the house was fixed up and the porch was put on. Bill: The Committee feels that the development review standards 1,2,3, have been met and that partial demolition standards have Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of ~ugust 14, 1991 been met. Any original windows and doors should be restored and kept unless you can otherwise show us they cannot be saved. I would agree with Jake on the rear enclosure as it would be more practical to have some sort of cover on it. If the parking is to remain the screening of the parking should be done with some landscape material since it is on the corner. If the applicant does not choose to have a small structure on the alley I agree with Donnelley that the height of the ridge broken up is appropriate. Gary Feldman: That lot is too narrow to be detaching buildings. It is our intent to enhance that residential unit that is there. Regarding the model I have been opposed because part of the building that we are remodeling is consistent to what is there. Karen: Possibly the back facade could address the alley instead of being an impersonable wall. Janet: Possibly you are not reading it as there are different forms. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to grant conceptual development and partial demolition to 332 W. Main (Showcase Properties) contingent on the following conditions: That the partial demolition standards have been met. A restudy of the addition height. Denial of the facade porch remodel pending historic documentation to support the porch remodel as proposed. Detailed preservation plan and detailed site and landscape plan; landscaping should be done in the parking area and walkways where appropriate. A massing model showing the relationship of the main structure to the addition. Specific material representation; second by Roger. ~MENDED MOTION: The south facade should remain as it is today unless historic documentation can support the redesign proposal; second by Roger. DISCUSSION Les: The restudy of the south hinges on what is done with the porch. Bill: I do not think the facade should change unless you can demonstrate what it should be. Jake: I want to add the issue of the wall plane. The fact that the wall plane of the proposed addition is out ahead of the old wall plane. That combined with the matching eave height and ridge height start to make the addition competitive. I am talking about the west elevation. 5 H~stor~o Preservation Committee Minu2es of ~ugust ~4, L99~ Roger: If that could be done without a hardship it should be looked into. /%MENDED AMENDED MOTION: Glenn amended his motion that the applicant explore transition area between the existing historic bay window on the west side and the new addition; second by Roger. All in favor of motion and amended motions except Les, motion carries. Glenn: Possibly the concern could be solved in the surface treatment. Gary: I have no objection for leaving the porch as it is and just restore it and reinforce it. Roxanne: You have to look at this from a couple of different ways; age, evolution of the building and level of significance and value. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to adjourn; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6