Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900912HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of September 12, 1990 Meeting was called to order by senior Cunniffe with Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Glenn Rappaport and Roger Moyer present. Jake Vickery were excused. Vice-chairman Charles Bill Poss, Les Holst, Georgeann Waggaman and MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minutes of May 23, 1990, second by Roger with all in favor. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the minutes of August 22, 1990, second by Les with all in favor. MINOR DEVELOPMENT, ASIA 132 W. MAIN Charles stepped down. Roxanne: The cumulative effect of the changes is not a significant development and I am recommending approval of the revisions. The placement of the handicapped ramp has been changed from the back to the front and that issue needs discussed. Kevin Klein, architect: The handicapped ramp is located in between the two buildings and our decision to locate it at that position best serves the public. The parking in the back will be used by people who work in the office building or restaurant. The ramp will access both the restaurant and the office building and people will be able to get to it. There is planting and an iron fence in front of it and it will not be a wooden ramp. It will be a concrete ramp with planting and follow the grade. Dennis Green, attorney: It is shown on exhibit A. the parking situation we had to move the ramp. Also due to Kevin: There will be a walkway from the main entrance of the restaurant across to access the ramp. Glenn: How much elevation are you gaining. Kevin: 18 inches to two feet, some across the front and the rest going back. Bill: The wooden ramp on first street will be removed. Dennis: On the plan we have provided two walkways between the parking and feel this will improve the parking, we also have provided landscaping. We will remove the small shed on the back of the building and we will reduce the stairway on the north east corner which reduced to some extent the mass. To satisfy the parking requirements this is the location that the ramp has to go. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 Roger: Is there a requirement for a handicapped parking space in this area of town. Roxanne: Not at this time. Dennis: We have created a landing between the two buildings and we believe this enhances the livability for the affordable housing in the basement rather than just a light well, they how have a sunken patio between the buildings which provides more light, ventilation and access. The exact location of the door has not yet been determined. Kevin: We received final but have never been to working drawings. Glenn: My only concern is that you keep the rise on the south side to a minimum. Kevin: The whole concept on the new building is to have it slightly raised like an older victorian building. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for the Asia parcel as proposed with the condition that a restudy of the handicapped ramp placement be accomplished for Staff's and the Project Monitor's approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Don second. DISCUSSION: Dennis: Are we OK with the location of the ramp between the two buildings. Les: Yes, that is what we are saying. Bill: The committee believes that the location is fine and you need a final plan submitted to Staff in order for her to sign off for the Building Dept. Roxanne: When final plans are submitted for plan check I review them and will discuss with the project monitor. Dennis: We need detail of the ramp and location of the door etc. How the landscaping works and where the planters are. AMENDED MOTION: Les amended his motion to delete the restudy of handicapped ramp and include that a submittal of the final plans be given to Staff and project monitor for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Don second with all in favor of motion and amended motion. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 Bill Martin: Since this is a restaurant are they required to concrete or asphalt the alleyway. Roxanne: Not that I have ever heard and HPC can only make a recommendation. Bill Martin: I would recommend that the HPC consider this due to the activity that is around that corner. Bill: That is a P&Z issue and should be brought up at that meeting. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - 610 N. THIRD STREET Charles reseated. Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting a conceptual and a final development approval for this project. It includes a partial demolition and a new addition to the historic landmark. The HPC has reviewed it and tabled it on June 27th. The FAR variation has been reduced it is 76 square feet as opposed to 156 sq. ft. The existing structure already exceeds FAR. The height of the tower has been reduced by 1 1/2 ft. HPC can only grant FAR variation making a finding of character compatibility which I find still has not been met. We do support the variation request because there is already an existing encroachment of two feet into the setback. With this addition and the demolition of the car port it is going to reduce that encroachment so I am recommending in favor of the variation for 10 and 3/4 inches be approved because of the reduction. Standard #4 deals with the architectural integrity of the structure. We are recommending that HPC grant conceptual approval for the proposal and the side yard setback of 10 and 3/4 inches finding that the setback in the non-conformity is being decreased and in this particular variation it would be more compatible in character with the historic landmark. We are further recommending that the addition be scaled down to not exceed the maximum allowable floor area and that a revised application be submitted indicating the reduction for final review. We are recommending that HPC not grant conceptual and final at this meeting. Welton Anderson, Architect: In this application I did not request conceptual and final. Two months ago I appeared for conceptual and allot of neighbors showed up and I have been trying to analyze what happened at that meeting and why there were such feelings of frustration that the neighbors exhibited 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 toward this project. I determined it wasn't the Lubars, it is the general level and character of the development that is happening all over the west end and the frustration that they feel and I feel at not being able to do anything about it. Most of the development is new construction or tear down of non designated structures and when you see the neighborhood change so radically over a period of a season or two and given the opportunity by a public notice you can voice your opinion. Allot of that frustration was channelled toward this application. The committee comments were responsive to the neighborhood comments but basically it should be scaled back. The revised application asked for the FAR bonus to be scaled more in half to 76 sq. feet. The tower portion of the addition has been lowered 18 inches and the portion to the right of it between the sleeping tower and the bathroom element has been lowered by 2'4". These are in direct response to the neighbor immediately to the north. The FAR bonus was devised after Mary Martin's question of what if someone wanted to add a bathroom and their victorian house is already at FAR, do they need to tear down a portion of their house to add a master bath. It was devised as a bonus to discourage tear downs and be responsive to some of the problems victorians have in efficient space but mostly to allow for changes in the neighborhood. If we are at the maximum FAR do you want to force us to tear down part of the house to do that bathroom. The size of the tower is 12 feet square inside. How many master bedrooms in Aspen are 12 feet square, not too many. What has changed from the first application and now is the amount of the existing structure that is being demolished. Before the net FAR increase was 156 sq. ft. and now the net FAR increase is 76 sq. ft. which results from more of the existing square footage from being demolished. If you do not grant the FAR request the tower will move East about two feet. By granting the FAR variation which we have cut in half to be responsive to the Committee and neighbors would result in much less destruction of the existing non- historic portion of the house as well as make the portion that remains an usable portion. Cutting it back two feet makes it cramped. I am requesting that you approve the side yard setback variation that Roxanne recommends you approve for the garage. It is turning a 22 1/2 ft. wide car port into a 20 ft. garage and that you approve the design. The Lubar's purchased the house in 1985 with the knowledge that the bonus would be available and they could do something with the house. Ann Altimus: I feel the Lubar's are using the HPC to circumvent the variance process. The house is too big and wasn't existing when our houses were there. It was moved onto that lot and in 1985 the Lubar's had the opportunity to do what they are asking to do now a second time and that is enlarge. They do not live here and we who are present live on Third Street. We are not 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 second home owners and we object to this kind of invasion. Why should the west end or the Hallam addition have to do this. Mary Martin's addition did not block the view. This one is not a full lot. Third Street is not 30 feet wide. The roof is not the same, the porch and the windows are not the same. To invade Third St. because that is the end that isn't new doesn't seem to me a viable job. Jim Baggs: I live at 640 N. Third and I am opposed to any variance to increase the density exceeding the FAR at all. It seems to me a situation of trying to gain additional density. John Case: I live at 620 N. Third and am directly next to this project. Building codes are for the benefit of the entire community. My skyline is the Lubar house and I am impacted. Bill Martin: I live at 710 N. Third. I am very much aware of the 500 sq. ft. deal that has been spoken too but the difference is that my lot is 11,500 ft. and I have a total of 4,500 sq. ft. and own two houses. At the time I had my addition added and P&Z made that finding to an historical building I had 4,000 sq. feet on and 11, 500 sq. ft. lot. This structure is oversized now to the size of the lot and they have a variance. Speaking for the Board of Adjustment I don't think we would approve it because there is not hardship involved. They have a livable home. Carol Craig: I live at 707 N. Third and I am opposed to any variation also. There isn't any hardship and that house already is over sized for that lot and I went over today and looked at it and see no reason why that tower needs moved for anything. I think he is using moving the tower as a threat to say if you don't approve what he wants to do he is going to move it anyway. I don't know why it is that you have to give variances all the time. Roxanne: Dr. Martin Block called and was against the variations. Amelia Trentaz stated that there were too many tall buildings around her already and feels impacted. There was allot of discussion about the structure on the size of the lot. The site coverage has not been exceeded. Maybe if the West End people here feel that site coverage needs to be looked at again it needs to be brought up with the Planning & Zoning Commission. Welton: At this point the neighbors have come out in a unified voice and it would be wise to drop the request for the FAR variation all together. The tower would just push over and there would be no variation. Bill: The tower would still exist and there would be no Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 variation. The addition would conform to the allowable FAR. Welton: It would not increase the non-conformity. still be 25 feet over. It would Don: They ars changed the area of the non-conformity but not increasing it. Charles: We need to ask if this addition makes the house better or is it compatible. The addition doesn't enhance the viability of the existing house as a landmark, it doesn't improve it's status. Welton: It meets changing needs and changing situations in the neighborhood and it does it on the extreme opposite end of the original historic structure. No where in the standards does it state that it has to make it more historic. Les: We are dealing with the variance and the height, the domino effect. Charles: Couldn't you add next to the existing tower. Jake: What about reorienting the existing tower. Welton: That is the master bathroom. If this does not happen we would move the master bedroom over to the original portion of the house and open up the roof with a bay window on the right hand side of the house. Glenn: Welton has conceded to the FAR issue due to the neighbors concerns. I see two issues the FAR and the views and impact issue. The envelope is set up on every parcel and that is what you accept so I do not have much sympathy for the view issue. The building has gone through to the point where it is not identifiable as a miners cottage at least to me. I do not have a problem with what you are proposing as long as it is within the FAR and height limits. The applicant has the right as all applicants to build to the maximum height limit. Bill Martin: I will only comment on view. If this lot was vacant this board would have to consider whether or not you would permit the car port in its present location to exist. I don't think you would or do I think you would permit the blocking of the view of the people next door because you could relocate that house closer to Lake Avenue. You have to consider where it is and right now permitting the addition it is blocking and disturbing the neighborhood. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 Welton: When it was built the setbacks were five feet, three or four years ago we went to the sliding scale and as the lot size got bigger the setbacks were a minimum of five feet for a total of 12 to 13 feet. The site is shaped like a ham hock but the 13.6 goes along both sides without regard to the fact that the lot is narrower on one side. It was conforming when it was built but because of code changes it became non-conforming. Don: What is the height from natural grade to the top portion of the roof. Welton: The tower in the middle of the house is 25 feet this would be 23.6 inches and 18 inches less. Don: The problem that I have, this may be legal in terms of code but neighbors are much happier with adjacent structures that have roofs that have a steep pitch and a ridge because it does afford the neighbor a better sight line. I find it difficult to say that this development is compatible with development within the adjacent parcel. All the adjacent parcels do have roofs with ridges and pitches. If the entire town of Aspen were developed with second empire style we would have much more stringent height regulations then we have right now. Joe: Since the FAR is not an issue it really comes down to whether it meets the standards. Given the style maybe it is not compatible with the neighborhood. Charles: The standards do speak to enhancing an historic structure. To me it does detract. The addition already does detract. If we make it worse we have to question the merits of it being on the inventory. Glenn: There are many different types of architecture in that neighborhood. This development is compatible and he has the right as a designer to do what he wants to do. Roger: There are two factors for me; the size is being reduced and the second point is the public comment. Bill: The public comment might be enough to sway your vote and that is the process. We need to rule on the standards you either feel it is compatible or not compatible. Bill: I do not feel that it detracts from the standards or its compatibility. It fits within the framework of the floor area. I have walked around both sides of building and it fits within the code. It is not overpowering. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 Welton: This is a mansard roof house and if we put a gable on it, it wouldn't be compatible with the house. If we put a mansard roof on then it will not be compatible with the neighborhood. There is no way of winning that argument. I am trying to make the addition compatible to itself rather than the neighborhood. The frustration goes allot deeper, it is over the 4 or 5 thousand sq. foot houses. Charles: Is there any way to do the addition without asking for variances. Welton: The car port as shown is 22.6 inches and the garage requested is 20.6 inches wide and is as narrow as we can get. Joe: Your proposal that you are requesting is what you would be allowed to build if it wasn't designated. Les: I find it compatible. Chairman Bill Poss closed the public hearing. MOTION: Les made the motion that NPC grant conceptual development approval for the proposal and side yard setback of 10 3/4" for 610 N. 3rd St. (329 Lake Avenue), finding that the setback non-conformity is being decreased, and that the side yard setback variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. I further recommend that the addition be scaled down to not exceed the maximum allowable floor area and that a revised application indicating such reduction shall be submitted in addition to information showing that the revised addition meets all height and standards and shall be submitted for final development review. Charles second. DISCUSSION Joe: For purposes of this given the fact that they are not asking for the variation of the floor area it is basically within what you could build by right, it is significant to me as I do not want to see our landmark designations have dis-incentives. Given the fact that you have dropped the request for additional floor area I am in favor of the motion. Ail favored the motion except Donnelley. 204 S. GAT~NA STREET - SPORTSTER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: The last meeting was tabled due to a number of considerations primarily the requirement of the proposed restudy Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 of massing with regard to the use of clapboard in the context of a three story massing scheme. It appears to Staff due to a number of design alternatives being provided by the applicant that he remains unclear on the direction to take and that we are unable to review any of these; therefore, we are not making a recommendation. We are recommending that a two member sub- committee get together with the applicant. Welton: I will discuss diagram C and do a perspective of it. The third floor setback didn't achieve much and it adds to the cost and complexity and it didn't transform it into a two story building. We have done numerous studies in response to your comments. Using different material on the third floor doesn't make a two story either with or without the setback. It just confuses the viewer as to why something is different on the top than on the bottom. Window studies were done also. The windows are cases so that they would not be confused with an historic building. I also took out the board between the windows and pushed them together in order to read more contemporary. We also simplified the trim and made the boards wider around the window. The proportions of the windows are vertical and relate better to the windows below on ground level. The scheme shows a major reduction in height and prominence of the pediments in the corners. I haven't given up on the recessed corners. The more I looked at eliminating them, the massing looked liked every landmark building in town except the Collins Block. I would like to maintain the recessed corner on the Third Floor with a much less dominant peak pushed back to reduce visually that corner on Galena and to make it different. None of the masonry buildings have cutouts. The corner cutouts are important to the apartments above. We designed this to meet the new standards for construction. It meets the 0 lot line setbacks, it meets the massing, the storefronts are transparent and you have to give some latitude as this is also an employee housing project. This is for the employees of the Sportstalker. Bill Poss, chairman opened the public hearing. CLARIFICATIONS Don: Discuss the setback glass wall on the west elevation on C. Welton: I deleted the archway that goes to the parking and retained the awnings. We put the kick panel below the windows on the ground floor and increased the height of the windows. Charles: It seems like there are high ceilings on the upper floor and not on the second floor. As a design means, to make the second floor read as a more important level than the third Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 and the first floor more important than the second. Glenn: To me none of these proposals address "how do you make a building on the corner in the middle of a downtown area". Why are we no changing the first floor. The other issue is that the corners that are clipped off do not work. Don: The second level needs more study in terms of its architectural character. The third level is being emphasized perhaps at the expense of the second. I would like to see a cohesive design. Les: I see a building coming together but still have problems with the balcony for the free market unit. Joe: I agree with Glenn concerning the corner that possibly an entryway could be done instead of just windows. I also agree with Charles and Don that the second floor is being ignored but I feel we can deal with that on the detail level. Overall it is a big improvement. Roger: The basic direction is very good. It is important that the first floor is the dominant floor and the second and third floor are balanced in some way. It is important that there be "life" on the corner. Bill: I am encouraged by scheme C and like the massing with the broken up recessed corners. It is a more contemporary three story building. I am not so fond of the casement windows and possibly the double hung in scheme D four over one, would be appropriate. I would like to see a restudy of the awnings and the first floor should be more important. If you look at the corner the awnings are giving a strong horizontal and it looks like you were non-committal where the awning would start and stop. Maybe if it were held back it would add more vertical orientation to the windows. I am in favor of the recess because it is one more strengthening point that accents a subtlety of a two story design. There needs to be more study over the entrance and possibly the corner could use more importance. I like the kick plates but would like to see a contemporary rendition of that as opposed to a mimicking of historical storefronts. I favor the mixture of double hung. I like that kind of movement in the building as it is contemporary. I would not like to see the continuation of the same window all the way around the building. I like the subtlety of the one band at the second story states that there is some break above the facade but not too much so that it reads as one building and not a layering. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 Welton: The middle floor is entirely employee housing. If we can possibly avoid it we are not tearing down any portion of the building, storefront improvements were just done on the first floor. Charles: Part of the problem that we are having is the proportions. If the ground floor appeared to have a higher ceiling read on the exterior of the building and the awnings were within the bays of the window the entire attitude of the ground floor would be increased. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant conceptual development approval for the Sportstalker building at 204 S. Galena St. (scheme C prime) with the standard conditions for Final which would be submission of detailed drawings, exact material representation and that as an additional condition that the applicant restudy the corner and restudy the detailing differentiation on the second and third floors with the committee members who had concerns with that, Charles and Glenn. Restudy balcony on Galena. Les second. DISCUSSION Roxanne: Technically we do not have a full application for conceptual. I would add to the motion that submission of complete elevations be accomplished by Monday. Bill: We could empower the sub-committee to accept the elevations and review the conceptual drawings in order that Welton does not have to come back to the entire committee. AMENDED MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant conceptual development approval to the condition previously stated above plus the additional condition that Welton bring in all the elevations etc. that would be required for a complete conceptual development application and that those elevations, floor plans etc. would be reviewed by a sub-committee of two and Staff within two weeks, September 26th, 1990. Don second. All approved of motion and amended motion. Subcommittee: Bill, Charles, Les. 210 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: The public hearing was not noticed by the applicant. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. MOTION: Don made the motion that the application of Nancy Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 Oliphant represented by Bracken Raleigh for remodeling the landmark structure at 210 Lake Avenue be tabled until the 26th of September to allow for adequate notice to the public hearing. Charles second. All favored, motion carries. Les: I would recommend that if anybody has any strong negatives that we communicate them now. CODE CLARIFICATION UPDATE Roxanne: The Planning office is doing a very large ordinance for code clarifications for the entire code. HPC issues need cleaned up and we need a worksession to discuss those changes. MOTION: Les made the motion to adjourn, second by Don. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Kathleen Strickland, Deputy City Clerk