Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19901010AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OCTOBER 10, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 5:00 I. Roll Call (no minutes have been attached for approval) II. Committee Member and Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. Old Business 5:10 A. Minor Development (Amendment to Final Development approval) , 501 E. CoopeF, Independence Building c,Rve~~~§) 5:30 B. Amendment tb Conceptual (Request for Phased Final Development approval), 17 Queen St. 60 T Fl O W -6 V. NEW BUSINESS 6:15 A. Landmark Designation Recommendation: 700 W. Francis (staff presentation at meeting)=TOLL - VI. COMMUNICATIONS , 6:30 A. Sub-Committee report on the Sportstalker Building B. Project Monitoring: 215 W. Hallam report Guido's buildings 430 W. Main (Beck house) All others 7:00 VII. ADJOURN - We extend our deepest sympathies to Georgeann Waggaman with the recent loss of John. Georgeann will be taking a two month leave from HPC activities. ' I ••.... i.. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development - Amendment to Final Development approval - 501 E. .Cooper, the Independence Building € Date: October 10, 1990 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking Minor Development approval from the HPC for an amendment to the Final Development approval. The applicant wishes to maintain the existing center storefront flush with the facade, instead of restoring the recess, trim and door as previously approved on the Cooper St. elevation. This request is due to the tenant's interior finish program. I $6 1 + Please note that the ·.,applicant originally discussed this amendment as "insubstantial" with staff by phone, however, after reviewing the subsequent letter from the applicant with the Planning Director and city attorney, we found that such amendment could only be made by the HPC, not by the Planning Department (Section 7-603 (A) and (B). The Planning Office apologizes for any inconvenience this may have caused the applicant. Please refer to staff's letter attached. PROJECT MONITOR: Bill Poss PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: June 27, 1990, Final approval was granted, subject to a number of conditions that were met prior to the issuance of a building permit. The HPC made detailed and specific preservation/restoration requirements of the applicant, based on staff's recommendation, with a great deal of attention paid to storefront detailing. The restoration of the center recessed storefront entrance on the north elevation was enthusiastically approved, due greatly to balance the applicant's request for a new storefront opening proposed on the west elevation. The degree to which the HPC reviewed the details of the storefront restoration are indicated in the conditions of Final as stated below: "Due to the extreme nature of attention to detail that is required to preserve the integrity of this storefront and general landmark structure, staff has the following concerns and recommendations regarding the details of storefront renovation: a) The "storefront" shall remain in tact, and preserved (maintained) according to preservation standards. Wholesale removal of original windows does not meet the criteria Of "preserve first, restore second, reconstruct third". It appears to staff that the existing large storefront panes are not original. The applicant is requesting double pane/insulated windows be installed for energy efficiency, which we understand, however, we are requiring any glass replacement done within in the existing exterior - framework, retrofitted inside. All new glass used shall be cle'ar, and not tinted. b) The transom windows shall be maintained in nlace, not removed, set aside, reworked and reinstalled. The risk of failure is high with the procedure of total removal. c) The cast iron columns shall be cleaned with the gentlest method possible - no abrasives or blasting will be allowed. Any missing capitol sections shall be restored in cast iron material. d) Cast iron threghold plates sh'all be carefully removed and cleaned for reuse at grade and the storefront entrances. If necessary, this detail shall be worked out with the project monitor. e) All masonry patching due to removal of non-original light fixtures shall be done to match the existing mortar in texture, color and strike. The percentage of portland shall be no more than 10-15%. Areas within the first floor storefront where previous incompatible repointing has occurred shall be repaired with the appropriate mortar mixture and application. f) Sidewalk texturing and/or new use of colored concrete shall be approved first by the CCLC. g) The original sandstone steps leading to the basement on the west elevation shall be removed, sliced to reduce depth, and replaced with snowmelt system underneath. Any concrete patching to be done shall occur in an aesthetic and appropriate manner. Should technical considerations make that highly impractical, such information should be presented to staff for review with the Project Monitor. The wrought iron fencing shall be preserved on site. h) Revised final plans with the above details called out shall be submitted for approval to staff and the project monitor when submitted to the Building Department for permitting. DISCUSSION: Staff reminds the HPC of the original concerns 2 surrounding the new storefront opening. and the necessity to restore the original center recessed storefront on Cooper St. The Planning Office feels this concession was a significant aspect of the previously approved plan. The Planning Office recommends that the tenant consider the benefits from an increase of exposed storefront window space, and the value of a restored storefront in a Landmark within Aspen's Commercial Core Historic District. I I ALTERNATIVES: We understand that tenant does not wish to utilize this center storefront for egress, therefore, one alternative may be the elimination of the door, simply converting this to a proportionately correct storefront window. All other details shall be accomplished as previously approved. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny the proposed Minor Development as an amendment to the Final Development plan for 501 E. Cooper St. We recommend that the previous approval remain as is, howdyer, the exchange of the center door to a window,7, as discussed in "alternatives" above, appears to be a reasonable compromise that the HPC should consider. memo.hpc.501ec.fd.2 3 tf CITY¢fa*SPEN 130 ~~reet asp@~~W~~81611 3Fj'*25~020 October 3, 1990 . . M & W Properties Att: Tony Mazza 205 S. Mill St., Suite 301 A Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Independence Building Dear Mr. Mazza: I have reviewed your letter addressem-to staff dated September 12, 1990 regarding ybur request for an "Insubstantial Modification" to the plans that were previously approved by the HPC for the renovation of the Independence Building, first floor. Upon further review of Section 7-603, "Insubstantial Amendment of Development Order", I find that the Planning Department does not have the ability to grant such amendment, and that your request must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Committee. I understand that your letter was written following an initial discussion with HPC staff, Roxanne Eflin, however, upon further reflection, she and I have determined that a good faith error was made in trying to accommodate the development. Clearly, an amendment to the previously approved Development Application of this type may only be allowed by the HPC at a regular meeting. To proceed without such approval would be in conflict with the provisions stated in Section 7-603 of the Land Use Regulations. Roxanne has informed me that this amendment request will be reviewed by the HPC at the next meeting on October 10, at 5:00 p.m., and is the first item on the agenda. A copy of the review memo will be available to you by this Friday at 5:00 p.m. We apologize for any inconvenience. Sincerely, ~ t'411< L '11/.i - 1 V· lI<..Yul/K Amyj. Margerum l Planning Direstor CC: Roxanne Eflin Jed Caswall M & W PROPERI'IES SurrE 301 A 205 SOUTH MILL BrnErr ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 FRANK J. WOODS. III TELEPHONE 925-8032 Septlmber 12, 1990 F: i- 14 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Crossroads - Insubstantial Modification Dear Roxanne: 3.: 1 This letter will"confirm our telephone conversation of Monday, September 10. I informed you that we were in the process of entering into a Lease with The Gap, Inc. for a Banana Republic =tore. Said Lease would take the three store fronts on Cooper Street, namely the exi,ting corner, the existing east doorway and the present middle bay which is glassed. Banana Republic desires not to have a new doorway in the middle bay, as has been approved by the HPC. As per our discussion, we have agreed that our not installing said new doorway would constitute an insubstantial modification of the plans which have previously been approved by the HPC and that said change could be accomplished by virtue of my writing this letter to you and informing you of the change. The change will be done on the same finish level as the rest of the facade of the Crossroads Building, namely wooden kick plates, the historical tinted glass on the "transoms". the same and/or replicated trim with thermopane glass. I will supply you with copies of the am-builts concerning this middle bay when same is built, together with pictures of iame. We have also agreed that we would be entitled to •ub•titute thii changed middle bay with the additional doorway, as already approved by the HPC upon my giving you written notice of our desire to do •o. Thank you for your %66po-rati~Bhdn this matter. Very tru~Y yours, Anty J. Mazza AJM:dr MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 17 Queen St. - Amendment to Conceptual; request for phased Final review Date: October 10, 1990 PLEASE NOTE: A COPY OF STAFF'S NOVEMBER 29. 1989 MEMO FOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR REFERENCE. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant's request is detailed in her letter (see attached); she is seeking HPC's approval for a phased . Final review for the on-site relocation,and new development of 17 Queen St. Final plans" have not been prepared for the new structure, however, the applicant wishes to pursue the on-site relocation as soon as possible, and wishes to meet with the HPC regarding this request. STAFF'S RESPONSE: There are no provisions in the code that allow the HPC to grant a "partial" final development, and a building permit cannot be granted until all approvals as required in the code have been granted. A final development review regards the entire parcel, not simply one element of the whole development. Staff has met with Jed Caswall, the City Attorney, to discuss procedural issues in the proposal, to examine any and all "phasing" possibilities, in an attempt to accommodate the applicant and the tentative situation of the unstable cottage. The options are as: 1) Require a full Final Development application for the entire parcel as required by code, taking the following interim measures until the Final is granted: a) Extend the Conceptual Development application, which was granted November 29, 1989 (the recommended time petiod should not exceed six months) b) Stabilize the structures in their present location, as required in Section 7-606 (A) and (B), *Minimum Maintenance Requirements". Staff has attached these ~ reauirements for your reference. c) Possibly allow the applicant to demo and salvage the two small sheds on the south end of the parcel, which appears to be a large concern of the neighbors. These two are of lesser importance than the remaining outbuildings. 2) Allow the applicant to amend the Conceptual Development approval, to cover only the landmark designated portion of the parcel and the on-site relocation activity as restoration/rehabilitation as proposed. This Will preclude the„HPC from reviewing any new development on the remainder of the parcel. B Final Development approval for the landmark parcel is still required prior to the issuance of any building permit. This option, though not recommended by staff due to the loss of ability to review the new development on the parcel, may help speed up the review process of the cottage relocation and rehab, which is the most important element of this proposal. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office Decommends that the HPC not take action on the applicant' s request for a phased Final Development approval (denial), and require a full Final Development ·application for review, as well as immediate compliance with Section 7-606 ("Minimum Maintenance Requirements) as stated above in Option #1. memo.hpc.17qs.3 2 Aspen Land Use Regulations Sec. 7-605. Variances. The Board of Adjustment shall not take any action on a Development Application for a variance pursuant to Art. 10, in the H, Historic Overlay District or development affecting a Historic Landmark, -without receiving a written recommendation from the HPC. r. Sec. 7-606. Minimum Maintenance Reauirements A. Purpose. The intent of this Section is to reduce the incidence of "demolition by neglect". B. Emmli.a=nti. All buildings and structures identified in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as described in Section 7-709, and all structures located within a historic district, fghall be maintained to meet the requiremerits of the uniForm Conservation Building Code (UCBC) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Said structures shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate for the preservation, protection, enhancement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, perpetuation or use in compliance with .i. the terms of this article. Every person in charge of such building or structure shall keep in good repair: 1. All Of the exterior portions Of such improvements. 2. All interior portions thereof which, if not so maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior portions of such improvements to deteriorate, decay or become damaged or otherwise to fall into a state of disrepair. The Historic Preservation Commission, on its own initiative, may file a petition with the Chief Building Official requesting that said official proceed under the provision of this Section to require correction of defects or repairs to any structure covered by this article so that such structure shall be preserved and protected in consonance with the purpose Of this article. C. Demonstration of Hardship. Any owner of a structure identified in the Inventory of Historic Sites and 7 -36 Revisions incorporated through August 14, 1989 #FEAE U CE MEMORANDUM -Jet tij 6115 To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 17 Queen Street - On-site Relocation and Redevelopment Public Hearing Continued Date: November 29,r:19226 LAkek CIJAc•(dutil •--"--5 A atphVUL APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the on- site relocation of the historic cottage and the redevelopment of the parcel to include a new residential structure. The relocation plan is a revision of the original submittal, which requested demolition approval for the historic cottage. To update the HPC at this continued Public Hearing on their revised proposal which involves the on-site relocation of the historic cottage as opposed to a defolition, an& f redevelopment. : E BACKGROUND: On September 27, 1989, the HPC reviewed an application for demolition and redevelopment for the structure at 17 Queen Street. At that meeting, the applicant amended their request for demolition of the historic cottage, preferring instead to examine an on-site relocation plan. The HPC tabled action until October 25, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal and report back to the committee on what action they will be requesting. At the continued public hearing on October 25, the applicant requested action be tabled one additional time, to November 29, to allow the architect additional time to develop the revised proposal. The HPC voted unanimously to continue the hearing to November 29. ADDITIONAL ON-SITE REVIEWS: Staff met on-site with Bill Bailey (Bailey House Movers) and Steve Peightal of Theodore Guy Associates (Structural Engineers) in the middle of October to initially review the steps necessary to insure a successful on- site relocation. A letter from the structural engineer is enclosed in this packet outlining the relocation issues. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The revised information attached for your review includes the following: Conceptual elevations for both structures Floor plan for both structures Architect's narrative Letter from the structural engineer The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). The applicable Guidelines are found in two sections: Residential Renovation and Residential - New Construction (beginning on page 47.) The Standards for Relocation are found in Section 7-602(D). Standard 1. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels with the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into fromt yard, side yard and rear yard isetbacks, extend into the:minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: An application for landmark designation has been submitted by the applicant at this time. Cottage: We find that the restoration/renovation plans for the historic cottage meet this Standard. The orientation to Neal St. : has been preserved. The spacing pattern between the old and new appears compatible. The new siting for the cottage appears to be ideal alternative. To preserve as much of the clustered setting as possible, we recommend that the applicant consider relocating the outbuildings (or at least one) to the vicinity of the new site. The applicant has not addressed fencing or landscaping in the application, which staff recommends be submitted for Final review. On-site parking must be addressed in the site plan as well. Materials must also be fully described. We recommend a wood shingle roof for the cottage, with the alternative of metal over shallower pitches (i.e. porch). The existing materials must be preserved (as opposed to removed and replaced) where ever possible, particularly the windows and the porch. The Final Development application shall contain detailed preservation and restoration plans for the cottage, including the porch columns, chimneys, etc. Although the HPC has no purview over color, the Final Development application shall also address paint as a material. Staff will discuss the relocation activity in its relation to the Standards in Section 7-602(D) below. New Construction: The Guidelines state: "Creative design expressions of modern design solutions are sought, rather than recreations of 19th century architecture". We find that this proposal certainly addresses this statement. The challenge for the applicant, designer and the HPC is to insure that it remains compatible with the cottage, yet speaks to its own time. Landscaping will be a very critical element of compatibility. The two distinctively different architectural styles can be separated yet linked with effective and innovative landscaping design solutions. We recommend a detailed landscape plan for 2 Final Review. The setbacks and spacing appears appropriate. The parcel's unusual shape creates a narrow, long building envelope, requiring creative design solutions to fit the building into the topography, an important feature of this parcel. Height in relation to surrounding parcels and the cottage is an important criteria. It appears that the architect has kept the height relatively low, which is more compatible with the cottage. The architect's narrative S.*addresses this Guideline in relation to breaking up the ;facade into smaller components to include facades that have similar widths and heights to those found elsewhere on the street. However, when reviewing the conceptual sketches, it appears that while the forms are articulated, the west elevation is one, long unbroken plane. This should be clarified at this meeting. On-site parking has not been addressed, and should be significantly minimized. The conceptual sketches of the proposed new construction are difficult to analyze when reviewing prnamentation, roof forms, fenestration and doors, r,tios of solid/to void, and materials. The Final Development·; application shall include detailed elevations, site and floor plans and a massing model. Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the preservation of the historic cottage clearly meets this standard. However, when reviewing the conceptual sketches of the new construction in relation to the character Of this particular neighborhood, consistency is difficult. The character of this neighborhood may be described as eclectic, with a mixture of historic, old and new. As staff has stated above, a thorough analysis of how the new construction meets this Standard cannot yet be determined by the Planning Office. Standard 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that the preservation and renovation of the cottage will greatly enhance the cultural value of the parcel, and commend the applicant for their interest in this project. Standard 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a k designated historic structure or part thereof. i Response: Our concerns are focused on the necessary steps to 3 insure a successful relocation, and the preservation and restoration o f the historic cottage. The architect's narrative stated a "systematic dismantling and reconstruction" would be necessary. This is not the case, as previously agreed upon by the HPC and applicant. Please review the letter from Theodore Guv. Structural Engineer. attached. The following issues must be clarified: 1. Demolition oL porch elements 2. Demolition of chimney 3. Demolition on rear additions 4. Excavation plan \ The Standards for Review of Relocation are found in Section 7- / \602(D)1-5. Staff finds the application has met these standards, / however, per Standard D. 4, a bond is required to be posted with ) the Engineering Department, to "insure the sale relocation, / preservation and repair (if required©:of the structure, site / preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site < shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for the proposal, subject to the following conditions to be met at Final Development Review: 1. Detailed elevations, site, floor and landscaping plans shall be submitted and approved, calling out all materials 2. Detailed preservation plan for the cottage be submitted and approved. All original materials shall be preserved where possible; restoration shall only occur when material is found to be too badly deteriorated. Documentary photographs and measured drawing shall be submitted. All elements and materials to be repaired, replaced, removed, restored or preserved are to be discussed. Removal of porch and chimney shall be carefully done; porch columns shall be preserved, (as well as other details as noted above); porch shall be restored. Foundation information shall be submitted. 3. Relocation time frame and physical move details shall be clarified. Excavation plan and general information shall be included. Staff recommends the applicant consider relocating at least one outbuilding to cluster with the cottage to strengthen context. 4. All other site improvements, such as fencing, shall be 4 addressed and detailed. 5. A massing model shall be'submitted for Committee review ~ and approval. 6. On-site parking shall be clarified, as well as garage/drive orientation and egress. 7. All variations *hall be specifically requested in writing. ir.· ., Note: A condition of Final will be the bond posting as described in Section 7-602(D)(4). Final Development review cannot take place until the Landmark Designation process is complete. memo.hpc.17qs.3 5 • • I.·• ·4..r./ . ATmaIMENT i * * 1/1 f IAND USE APPLICATION FURM 1 0 A 1) Project Name 710 n E. 2) Project Location 11 4)ueen 64£ Eer , ae=~PE:,f: 80.21(0/1 (iniicate street adiress, lot & block number, legal descripticn diere appropriate) -A ¥2et:- ·imarq A/5 A 4) Lot Size 5) Applicantis Nana, Akiress & ~cne i 0,4/7/9 72677,>71 200 259/4/,9 ~jAD,OmAJS Ot'££46 2. 1 €b· 9)6/5- . 923 -2/71 6) Representative's Nane, A,kiress & Rxne # ,·6,2;M//9- .72,~ E,·'77>/ JIA·777 € AS A-4.8 0 2- 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): - Conditional Use Conceptual SPA - Conceptual Historic Dev. - Special Review - Final SPA - K Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptual ED Minor Historic Dev. - St=ream Margin - Final RJD - Historic Demlition - nxmtain view Plane Subdivision __ Historic Designaticin C_ 2.--tinil=ization Taxtloap Amendment - GIg Allotment - Iat Split/Iot Line - OUS Exaptian Adjustment 8) Descripticn of Existing Uses (number ani type of existing StruchIres; approximate sq. ft.; nmber of bedrocins; amr previcus approvals granted to the property). 1 rE-5%/ 71,)7-; AL Z~wu-U r\4 4-nA=E Ao (-J 1 5 A-C» rVT- Anrh n 4Uy gbo-u-1 0 a.n ·Gu khf ri ei 9) Description of Develoimnt Applicatian Cb A ME }TE EE_ A-De.67-Con/ OE 13(£) 2 LU NE> Un,<77 P H-19 s £_.23 A €(RefurrE, tz_) AVE -A€ Ak h '1-lm:kle_, 10) ~e&24222U 221&pCL 9, /490 . ResBnse to Attadment 2, Minimm Suinission antents Leesponse to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Besponse to Attadmalt 4, Review Stardards for YaIr Application */0.'ll . October 4, 1990 Roxanne Eflin 130 South Galena V: 5 Aspen, CO 81611 ; Dear Roxanne, Please excuse the informality of this letter. My purpose is to define my request for a phasing for moving the 17 Queen Street " "cottage and subsequently building my home as preliminarily approved by the HPC. Based on the information I have receivgd from Wayne Rudd, I propose the following sch¢#ules: 1. October 8th or 9th the house-mover will lift the "cottage". It will be braced and stabilized according to standard house moving procedures and as stated by an accompanying letter from Rudd Construction. 2. During the next 3 to 4 weeks, Pellecia and Associates will do what is required to apply for just a foundation i.e. basement permit. Included will be the necessary engineering and grading information. 3. The "cottage" will be moved once we have the basement/foundation approval providing the weather conditions required by the mover are acceptable. (This is the reason for starting the process of lifting the "cottage" so that at this later date only two snowless days are needed rather than 3 or 4.) 4. During November & December we will prepare all the necessary information required for final approval of the "cottage" by the HPC and the Building Department. January or into February is for the approval process. 5. It is my hope I can start the construction mid to late February to enable completion by April 1st. At that time a single parent and her 2 children intend to occupy the "cottage" for 6 months to a year. In preparing the land for moving of the "cottage" I would like to disassemble the remaining out-houses saving whatever siding is suitable to be used in the reconstruction of the "cottage". Due to the extensive deterioration of the front porch, it is impossible to move it. I therefore plan to take very accurate pictures to insure that it is rebuilt as close to exactly as is humanly possible. F ·. During (4 ) of my' proposals for the final approval of the "cottage", Pellecia and Associates, having extensive experience in restoration of historic buildings, will determine what part of the "original cottage" can be used. Any request for new exterior materials will be presented to the HPC in an orderly fashion. I recognize that this is an unusual request but hope it is clear that because of weather and the size of the project that I must proceed in a "phasing" procedure to enable me to stabilize and renovate the "cottage" so that it is habl,table. My deepest desire is to start the prg,cess to build Sy residence on the property this spring. Thank you most sincerely for your flexibility and understanding. 7-4taD*-22.T Lana Trettin LT/vl