Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910109HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMI'£1'gE Minutes of January 9, 1991 Meeting was called to order by Krabacher, Don Erdman, Charles Vickery and Roger Moyer present. Waggaman were excused. chairman Bill Poss with Joe Cunniffe, Leslie Holst, Jake Glenn Rappaport and Georgeann MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minutes of Dec. 12, 1990; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Charles: After the meeting of the Sportstalker, Welton called me and was rather upset and was accusing me of taking a personal vengeance on him. He said he was going to go to the press with the owner and say I had a conflict of interest on the building because I didn't like Welton. I do not have a conflict and I wanted the Board to be aware of this. 801 E. HYMAN - VESTED RIGHTS RESOLUTION-PUBLIC HF2%RING Roxanne: The property was not posted therefore the public hearing will have to be opened and continued. Bill opened the public hearing. MOTION: Charles made the motion to continue the public hearing and Vested Rights Resolution of 801 E. Hyman to the January 23rd. meeting; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION OF 309 E. HOPKINS (LILY REID) Roxanne: The applicant is asking for a 90 day extension. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant the request for the conceptual development extension of 309 E. Hopkins for 90 days, April 10, 1991; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. MINOR DEVELOPMENT - 210 S. GAT.RNA, HARD ROCK CAFE AWNINGS Roxanne: Generally in buildings where there are more than one business we ask that awnings be compatible or matching. Esprit's awnings are the same structural system but are very light and transparent. The proposal is a dark green awning. · The structural system is a shiny aluminum and I am recommending that it be painted a dark color. Charles: Is there any reason why the awnings should be different than Esprit's? We have always looked at the continuity of the overall building in both the structure and color. Roxanne: There are two different types of businesses and on two Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 different elevations of the building. Charles: Esprit's windows come around the corner. Roxanne: We are recommending approval with conditions: That the awning color shall be in a hue complimentary to the existing store front trim color. The width shall be reduced by 12 inches and the structural system painted a dark mat color. We further recommend that the owner remove the flag pole standards that are sticking out of the building. Representative of Omars Awning and Tent Co.: The Esprit's awning project out four feet and we would be doing the same projection from the fascia of the building. All the Brand Building awnings are dark green and the Hard Rock feels it would be a rich color in contrast with the red brick and they said they would remove the flag poles. We can paint the aluminum any color you choose. The factory also has a bronzing that can be done on the aluminum so that it wouldn't stand out as much as Esprit's. Joe: Is the color requested part of their trade mark colors? Representative: No it is not, they do it differently everywhere. The green is a rich color and they are very conscious about things like that. Charles: If you had the same structural device and just changed the material when you changed the store front maybe there is something that is less attached to the building about the fabric than there is about the awning device itself. If there is continuity in the awning device, the fabric changes for different retails it is not as onerous. Don: As a policy change I do not thing it is bad since the structural is the same. I agree that should be painted the color of the trim sash. in this case the aluminum Charles: I think this is better than what Esprit did and possible in the future we can get them to go more in this direction. Jake: There is a sizable interruption between Esprit's window. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minor development application for 210 S. Galena (Hard Rock Cafe) with the following conditions: The awning color shall be as represented in the proposal, forest green acrylic. The awning projection shall be mo more than exists on the Esprit facades. All exposed structural members of the awning system be painted a color to 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 match the gray sash on the building. prior to the issuance of a building All in favor, motion carries. The conditions must be met permit; second by Charles. MAINSTREET BAKF~Y Roxanne: There is a little porch that projects out of the building and they have a problem because the door is open all the time. This would be a temporary clear vinyl plastic that would hang in front of the door for the winter as an air lock. I think the system is not appropriate and I suggested to go around the side. Roger: They need a better door. Jake: Aspen Grove did a panel on the inside as you open the door and it works quite well. Don: For traffic flow the side door is not conducive. What about a seasonal airlock that can project into the space three feet, an aluminum structure. I think something inside would be better. Bill: I would recommend that they look at other alternatives. What about doing a permanent structure. Les: Change the door so that it opens out and have the plastic on the inside. Roxanne: I'll relay the messages. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENTANDRELOCATION OF ANON-SITE STRUCTURE PUBLIC HEARING - 100 PARK AVENUE Roxanne: They want to relocate the historic one story cottage and add a rear addition to it and a below grade addition and demolish the other four dwelling units that are on the parcel and build five new two bedroom townhouses. With the new location the cottage will orient to Park Avenue. There will be preservation work on the cottage and it will be deed restricted and affordable housing and a duplex. One bedroom up and two down. We will be reviewing on a number of standards, relocation standard and the development review standards. My main concern is the preservation of the cottage and also the general compatibility of the new structures to the historic cottage. We find that the massing and scale of the five units seems a little overwhelming and competitive for this cottage. There are a number of things they can do to the units to make them compatible to the cottage. Height reduction needs looked at, eliminate Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 chimney stacks. The east elevation needs restudied. Landscape buffer between the cottage and the new buildings might help separate the two. The fencing be more opened. Fenestration on the new structure needs looked at. They are recommending new metal roofing on the cottage which I strongly do not encourage. Wood shingled is more preferable and would help the cottage breathe on its own. There is a subtle pattern that has been developed along Park Avenue and certainly the relocation of the cottage will help strengthen that. You need to look at the diagonal orientation of the new townhomes in relation to the cottage. The partial demolition standards have generally been met but we need a structural engineers report and bonding. We are recommending tabling and we are recommending that the applicant submit for landmark designation of the cottage. David Gibson: The site area is a formalization of old mining claims and we have an RMF zone that comes up to and includes the property. Then there are R-15 PUD, R-6 PUD and R-6 that come up to it from the other side. A large scale development to the north and a smaller scale to the south. There is not a predictable relationship to the street. The right-of-way is the pavement width. We don't have allot of buffer and that is one reason for the solid fence. We are proposing to maintain the historic cottage and all the major cottonwoods on the peripheral. We are proposing to create a dropoff so that the auto's are screened. We would like to leave the kitchen like it is in the cottage except for the appliances and extend the bedroom and bath out. Downstairs there is a two bedroom unit and you enter through a sunken terrace in the back. We would berm up to the porch and have a walk on. Due to the setback we do not want to put in steps. At this point our site plan and floor plan meets all the inherent zoning restrictions. Our new proposed construction is very close to the height limit. Charles: Park Avenue faces East and Midland faces West. David: There are five new united with two different types. Jake: Are you keying off the old building? David: We are keying off with respect to roof slopes, fenestration being vertical rather than horizontal and materials being clapboard siding and trim. It is not a match and not a emulation. David: I have talked with the owners and they are willing to eliminate the chimneys. The fenestration makes the gable end appear larger with the very small panes and we could restudy that and simplify it to make it appear more domestic in scale. Parts Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 of the fence can be transparent to give it a variety as opposed to being solid. In materials on the cottage we would change to a shingled roof as it is more cost effective. Les: If you don't get the open space variance what will happen design wise? David: It is a tight site and without reducing the number of units I don't see how it could change a lot. I feel we have 25% open space. Bill: The siding material is proposed to be wood clapboard and it is all horizontal. David: It is all horizontal. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Joe: I applaud the applicant for the preservation of the historic house. Not opposed to the partial demolition on the back. A little troubled about raising the house up and have no objection to the principle being on Park Ave. On the new construction I would like to see the fireplace stacks eliminated. Overall it is a very massive project and possible it could be broken up more. Simplification of the very large dormer of the west elevation. No problem with the fenestration pattern on the north side. The balconies on the lower decks seem like a bulky treatment. David: We are open to eliminating the balconies on the lower decks. Les: I agree with Joe and possibly on the south side if there is a way to break up the ridge line. Don: The direction is promising and the only concern I have is the site plan at this stage. A model would be extremely important. Jake: My only concern is, do you see this building contributing something to the neighborhood or the street or is there anything you can do in that sense. You have turned your entries so that you enter the middle of the site as opposed to the street. The rhythm of all five gables is harsh. I like keying off the historical building. I also like getting rid of the chimneys as they are heavy. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 Charles: I like the chimneys. double hung windows into the elements. Possibly introducing some of the new building to tie into the Roger: The model should show the back street and if possible the building across the street as well as adjacent buildings. John Duffesey: Concerned citizen about parking and access. Bill: I am encourage by the proposal and with regard to Standard #1 which deals with compatible character with the historic structure, I find that the stepping of the structures attempt to duplicate the width and the rhythm of the small structure is good for the site plan. Standard #2 which deals with the development reflecting character of the neighborhood, if you drive around you find allot larger contemporary structures coming into that zone and you are finding a mix between smaller and larger structures. I feel that you are attempting to work with the old structure and the newer structures in the area and do meet that standard because you are breaking down the attempt of a larger unit for the structure. Standard #3 where you have the development enhances the cultural value; I think this is one that needs more work. Breaking up the mass on the west elevation that seems to be flat would attempt to work with the smaller structures. Try to get smaller elements behind that historic structure. I don't find the chimneys to be a problem as they might help give you some smaller elements and the same thing with the balconies. I like the fence the way it is because it attempts to tie the historic structure into the site and allow the building to be a back drop for the historic structure. I find in that standard we can break up the massing a little more on the newer structure behind, you will get more compatibility and it will also enhance the value of that structure. I don't mind the height of the larger structure but if you break up the massing it will relate more. With standard #4 we have the development enhances or does not detract from the architectural integrity of the structure. That is why you need to break it up a little more so it will not detract from the smaller structure. For the record the memo outlines the partial demolition quite well. Bill: If you are going to break up the massing you might want to do some sketches before doing the model. Charles: A working model is sufficient. Jake: My question to the committee: glaringly inappropriate in the concept? Do you see something 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 Charles: My recommendation would be to table .it to give the applicant time to reconsider the things we discussed and that information could be in the form of sketches that show us how this would be altered in an acceptable way. Roxanne: Jake's concern is the activity to the street and what is going on internally on the parcel. Charles: The traffic along Park Ave. is dangerous and having cars come out of the garages and into the lot and then going into the street is the best way. Jake: No units are faced on Midland or Park Avenue and that seems to be a basic element of the whole town. Charles: Your front yard setbacks are set that you would not have a project left. It presently opens up into the only open space of the project. If you open the units to the street you no longer have a good employee unit that you can live in because the street activity is too intense and you are right on the street. David: In a way I would like to face a couple units to the street but this is a bus route and it is ten feet from your porch so I have mixed feelings about the interface. Jake: Possibly a sidewalk that would go along that area would be a good contribution to the street. David: I am confident we can come back with a plan that the Board would be able to approve. MOTION: Don made the motion to table the conceptual development approval ~f 100 Park Avenue be tabled to Feb. 13, 1991 to allow the applicant time to restudy the many issues that have been brought up at this initial conceptual development review. Also that the public hearing be continued until February 13, 1991; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries. 212 LAKE AVENUE - SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIATION Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Roxanns: After the building plans were through the zoning officer found that it was an increase in a non-conformity therefore a variation would have to be granted through the HPC or a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Our standards require that a finding be made that the variation is more compatible. I cannot find that the dormer on the new addition is more compatible in nature to the historic resource therefore I am Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 recommending denial. His option would be to go to the Board of Adjustment of eliminate the dormer. Welton: The dormer is in the back half of the house. There is a skylight on the roof and the proposal is to do a double dormer. The upstairs of the back portion of the duplex has been designed as the master bedroom for my client's father. He is an older gentlemen and is going to be visiting Aspen in the summertime. His first requirement was that the relationship between his master bed and the place for the bathroom be a relationship that he was familiar with. The whole point of doing the dormer is so that he doesn't have to figure what house he is in. I did not realize that they had changed the setbacks in R-6 to 15 feet to lots over 10,000 sq. ft. which is why I got caught up in it. I thought since this was 7 1/2 feet from the property line that there would be no problem. The proposal is a pair of dormers because one single overwhelmed the addition. The dormers are not on the historic portion of the house and on the back of the house it would be more compatible than emphasizing the front of the house. This house was built to FAR and the FAR has changed three times. Joe: As far as our standards are concerned is the variation more historical compatible. Maybe the argument could be used if you push it to the front that is not as attractive because it more negatively impacts the historic resource. Roxanne: You might not have approved that anyway. Bill: If the mass was toward the front of the house would that be more detracting to the historic structure and would it be more compatible on the back side? Welton: It is less impacted on this back side than it is on the front side. Michael Herron, attorney: You have seen the project come through and to make him go through a delay and show you something that is not going to be acceptable to you or as not acceptable as this to me seems onerous. Charles: For us we need to contemplate would we have granted that approval in the first place had we known that a variance was required. Joe: The footprint already extends into the setbacks as far as it is going to extend in with or without the dormer so I don't think it is that big of an issue frankly. I would have granted it in the original application. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 Jake: Is it more compatible than it is presently. Les: For me to grant the variance I have to consider the key work "more" compatible. Is this double dormer more historically relevant which I do not see at all. Bill: In looking at the plans and the addition that was added on to the historic structure and the amount of roof that is in between the structures one could find that the dormers break up that amount of roof that is between the two structures. There are allot of gable ends on the historic structure. Charles: We may have granted this variance at the time of approval and I would vote in favor. Don: We have two issues here: It is the architect's and owner's responsibility to be aware of existing codes. We are not obliged to make this right. Charles: Because it is an addition to an addition I do not have much problem with it. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the side yard setback variation requested for the double dormer on the east side of the house located at 212 Lake Avenue finding that it is more compatible in character with the historic landmark; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. SPORTSTALKERREVISIONS WORKSESSION Welton: Opening the storefront bays between the structural bays is possible; widening the storefront windows and giving them a spandrel on the top or a transom on the top. Something that doubles the importance of the street level which is what the Board wanted all along. Material would be stucco or a brick facing. One scheme indicates vertical piers with cast iron and partial stucco/brick. Another scheme, #3 has straighter lines and the storefront is also opened with stucco material. All a materials for the three designs would have to be, light weight material. In order to get a masonry looking building it would have to be some sort of false veneer. We could combine elements also. Bill: I am encouraged by the brick and would like to see a sample. Sven: You couldn't tell it was brick facing unless you looked at the corners. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 Les: I would have to go to Denver to see the building that has the brick facing before I would approve this. Jake: I want to know what design you like Welton? Welton: I like the opened up ground floor incorporated with a three story clapboard building. Jake: I like the stucco and a simple block building, no clipped corners. Simplicity is the key word. Charles: In all of these schemes there has been attention to the separation of the bays. The ground floor now is the most predominant and in keeping with the other historical buildings in town. The general building is taking form. I like the third scheme for its simplicity. Don: I would tend to favor stucco. Charles: There may be a way to favor stucco with a brick color. A contemporary material used in an honest way and compatible with the surrounding buildings. Les: I like #2 and can live with the stucco. I am not sure with the awning treatment yet. Roger: These designs are a good direction and I would go with #3. I also like the idea of wood siding and there were some wood buildings in Aspen. Against brick panels. Joe: I like scheme #2 due to the window treatment and store front. You don't get a horizontal feel. Not in favor of the clipped corners. Bill: I prefer scheme #2 due to the stronger store front and the identification of the lower level and seems to reduce the massing of the upper two levels. I like the differentiation of the different windows. Each level has a different window style. No clipped corners. I would be willing to look at the brick but possibly stucco that is compatible with the district would be acceptable. Supportive of an encroachment for the steel cast columns as it adds a contemporary look. Straw pole: 4 for design #2 and 3 for design #3. 610 N. THIRD - I;3BAR RESIDENCE Welton: As you remember I said there would not be an increase in FAR. The Lubar's were in town for XMAS and they looked at the 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 results of that decision and the idea of a 12 by 12 sleeping room and a 10 by 12 ft. sitting room were too small to do anything with. Instead of having a raised turret they would like a bay window. I am requesting 45 degree bay window that look out past the McCoy house. Regarding the neighbors the amount of mass is substantially smaller. It is two feet below what the height limit is. Roxanne: Does the Board feel this is insubstantial? If so I can sign off on this. Welton: They are picking up less impact. It is a bay window. Don: The net impact is less. If you take a site line from Ann Altimus's house this does not stick up higher because it is on the opposite side. Les: My only concern is the neighbors. Bill: The Board directs Staff to sign off. MOTION: Charles made the motion to adjourn; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk