Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19901114Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 17 QUEEN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION 210 LAKE AVENUE - FINAL DEVELOPMENT . 824 E. COOPER - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION 90-3 - STATE REHAB TAX CREDIT HARD ROCK CAFE - WINDOW LOGO - ELKS BUILDING . 801 E. HYMAN AVENUE - REVISED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT . 212 LAKE AVENUE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT . MEADOWS SPA, REFERRAL COMMENT . . 1 2 3 5 5 6 10 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of November 14, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Georgeann Waggaman, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe, Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport, Jake Vickery and Roger Moyer present. Georgeann and Roger refrained from voting (full Board). MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minutes of September 26, 1990 as amended; Bill second. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Jake made the motion to approve the minutes of October 10, 1990; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Bill made the motion to approve the minutes of October 24, 1990 as amended; secqnd by Don. All in favor, motion carries. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: The cottage infill program was adopted by Council. Roxanne: I have an application for a Rock Cafe located in the Elks Building. be added to the agenda. sign permit for the Hard I am requesting that it MOTION: Joe made the motion to add the Hard Rock Cafe to the end of the agenda under New Business; second by Les. All in favor of motion, motion carries. 17 QUEEN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the project as attached in the records (see memo dated Nov. 14, 1990). The applicant is requesting an extension for 12 months. I am recommending that we be consistent and recommend only 6 months. In granting an extension it will give them more time to relocate the cottage on site. Bill: I would like the applicant to be here before we take action. Roxanne: You can table until the next meeting. Don: I feel an extension is in order as long as the existing structures are not being jeopardized. MOTION: 17 Queen 6 months carries. Don made the motion that the conceptual development for Street be put in place from the period from Nov. 29 for from that date; Charles second. All in favor, motion Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 ~ 210 LAKE AVENUE - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: We have found that the applicant has met all of the conditions that were put upon the conceptual development application that was previously granted. We are recommending that HPC approve the application which shall be met and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: Restudy use of metal roofing with the goal of re- roofing with wood shingle, stained dark. Submit a basic preservation plan for remaining original elements and materials of the historic cottage. Bracken Raleigh, architect: We propose to take off the sunroom area and extend the porch out. In further study of the roof there is a ten inch differential that was found and I reapplied the back of the building to what was the front of the building so that is indicated on the different elevations throughout the house. The rest of the ~lan is the same and I modified the windows in the back to allow for interior centering of windows and to allow a transition around the corner in the back. There are two new windows since the Board last looked at the plans. The sloped area has now been leveled off and the deck extended. We plan to match the existing roofing and I will study a wood roof but the existing building is 2 by 6's that are awfully old to be thinking about having four feet of snow sitting on top of them. The roof was put on as it was leaking. Les: The only neighborhood comments were about the deck. Bracken: At conceptual we did agree to make it a solid railing around the deck if that was deemed necessary by the Board with a baluster look. That will create privacy between Nicholson and Nancy. Roger: I am fine with the proposal. Don: On the south you show deck that has a solid railing? Bracken: That is not solid and will not be altered at all. MOTION: Les made the motio~ that the HPC grant final development approval for 210 Lake Avenue subject to the following condition which shall be met and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: A basic preservation plan shall be submitted for remaining original elements and materials of the historic Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 cottage; second by Charles. Ail in favor of motion, motion carries. 824 E. COOPER - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Barbara Long & Ken Moore are the architects for the project. Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (see memo dated October 24, 1990).' We are recommending that HPC grant conceptual approval subject to the following condition to be met at final: A representation of major building materials shall be presented at the meeting, with a complete narrative included in the Final Development application. Ail original lap siding shall be preserved where possible on the original portion of the cottage. Only those sections that have deteriorated significantly shall be replaced with duplicate siding material. Barbara: We flipped the building around and moved the bay window into the front and the forty fives onto the back. The cross gable is now in the back. We included the chimney on the east side and I kept the corner on the west side. Ken: We also brought the 6ottage up one foot and the addition down one foot which is represented on the model. Barbara: It was suggested that we add our transom window back in but we would prefer diagram 3A; larger windows which really make the addition different from the cottage. CLARIFICATIONS AND COMMITTEE COMMENTS Charles: It seems like the roof is too thin in terms of an actual roof material. Will the roof material be closer to where the windows are. Barbara: The inside would but we wanted to keep the outside a thinner fascia. A thin fascia coming out past the wall to kind of replicate what was on the cottage. Charles: I personally feel #3 is a little less fussy. Georgeann: I think the thin fascia works on the original building but I find it uncomfortable thought with the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 contemporary breakup of the front upper plane. Maybe it needs a trim b6ard against the siding to give it a quality of separation. Charles: That might help a lot, at the wall plane. Barbara: Yes it should. Glenn: Ail the vertical lines that go up in the upper floor possibly need minimumized. I would prefer the brick chimney. Barbara: We would prefer wood. There would fence but we haven't chosen the detail yet. Les: I would prefer option #3 as it states and breaks up the verticality. it also be an iron is a new addition Barbara: We also pulled the building back another 18 inches. Jake: Did you do any studies on the corners. Ken: We had a clipped corner but someone suggested that it be changed. Roger: If I were walking down the street I would prefer three to three A because there is something about the long lines that bothers me. I also would prefer a brick chimney. MOTION: Charles made the motion to grant conceptual approval of the addition to 824 E. Cooper with the following conditions. 1. That we go with elevation alternate #3 with the addition of a trim board under the roof. 2. That a representation of all major building materials shall be presented at the meeting, with a complete narrative included in the Final Development application. 3. Ail original lap siding shall be preserved where possible. Only those sections that have deteriorated significantly shall be replaced with duplicate siding material. Don second with all in favor of motion, motion carries. Glenn: I personally would like to see a metal flue. AMENDED MOTION: of the chimney carries. Charles amended his motion to treatment; second by Don. Ail include a restudy in favor, motion Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 Charles: What about the restudy of the alley structure? Barbara: We need 35% open space throughout the whole lot. Roxanne: This is not a designated have the ability to grant a variance. an alley building. parcel so the HPC does not I think we will be loosing MOTION: Charles made the motion to move item V.B. up on the agenda; second by Don. All favor, motion carries. RESOLUTION 90-3 - STATE REHAB TAX CREDIT Roxanne: Ail 9 certified local governments in the State are required by state law to adopt a resolution to become or not to become a reviewing entity under this program this year. This is the first time in the country that certified local governments, at a grass roots local level are going to be able to directly involve themselves with a state tax credit like this. Colo. is the fourth state to have something like this. Along with this is a requirement to have a segregated preservation fund. That money will be put aside for local levels. It is a good incentive for preserving structures. I have gone over the resolution with the city Attorney and Lane Ittelson, State Preservation Planner and we established all the legal language. MOTION: Charles made the motion that HPC adopt Resolution 90-3, recommending that the city of Aspen act as reviewing entity for purposes of the Colorado Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. HARD ROCK CAFE - WINDOW LOGO - ELKS BUILDING MOTION: Bill made the motion to move the Hard Rock Cafe up on the agenda; second by Charles. All in favor, motion carries. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting a sign in every window of the Elks Building, first floor. Flags were also part of the application. I am recommending that they do not put the logo in every window and that the flag poles not look like the railing and not be attached to the brick. Don: One option would be t6 only have a sign on the two windows that flank the entrance. When walking along the street there is no need to have every window with signage. Roger: Your recommendation is that they do not drill holes in the brick but in the mortar. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 Roxanne: poles. Charles: You could be very specific in reference to There is a flag pole already on the building. the flag Georgeann: Several years ago someone wanted to put up a huge flag in front of a store on Main Street and we decided that it was not a patriotic gesture but advertising and was not appropriate. Bill: The signs are painted on glass. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the signage on the two windows adjacent to the entryway only at the Hard Rock Cafe and that we not approve the proposed additions of flag poles; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. 801 E. HYMAN AVENUE - REVISED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne presented the overrview of the project as attached in records ( see memo dated Nov. 14, 1990). The applicant is requesting Final Development but he cannot request final as it requires that he has met all of the conditions of conceptual. The last revised conceptual approval had nine conditions which have not been met in this final application because the applicant has changed the program. I discussed this with our city Attorney and if there were no conditions on this Revised Conceptual tonight that HPC could go directly into a Final Development Approval and grant both at the same time. The Planning office's recommendation that HPC grant approval of this revised conceptual, since HPC did grant conceptual approval for the demolition of that structure with conditions and that the applicant did act in good faith. Stan Mathis, architect: Stan presented the amended footprint which pulls the building back from the front of Hyman Street and away from Original Street. The primary way this has changed is on the east elevation, there are two additional dormers. On the alley where we had two gables it is combined into one gable with a fireplace. Where we used to have 2 fireplaces on the Original Street both have moved and that reduces the mass of the building. On the East elevation no /ubstantial change. We do have to address ordinance one. John Elmore, owner went through all the minutes relating to the project: August 23, 1989, Sept. 27, 1989, Nov. 8, 1989, April 25, 1990. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 John: Ail the conditions of approval pertained to the out building and not the main structure. We have reduced the mass and scale. Stan: If you recall we needed 200 additional square feet. On the East elevation two small dormers were added. Hyman Street elevation, no change. The Original Street elevation the roof pitch is changed. Glenn: This is 3240 sq. ft. Stan: Maximum ridge height is 26 feet. Don: If you are granted conceptual and final on this project what guarantees do we have that the site would not be cleared and then sold. John: There are none and they would have to build what you approve. The approval goes with the land. Don: How long does that last if they do not vest. Roxanne: It is 18 months and vesting is three years. Don: After 18 months they would have to go through the process again. Georgeann: Is there any reason why it should be demolished, why we should not have that small scale building on the site until the time comes to build. You could rent or whatever. John: It is uninhabitable. Georgeann: What about not tearing down the main building as well. Possibly there should be a City ordinance prohibiting tearing down the buildings until construction. Stan: We have done everything that we have been asked to do. John: The motions that were made were that HPC had given us conceptual approval for the main structure, that is in the minutes. A year has been a long time to deal with this when it was rated a one to begin with and in a multi family zone. Jake: You have changed your strategy. John: To preserve that out building it would cost more then building a new one. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 Don: If one wishes to combine final meeting you would have to present more intent at this time. and conceptual at one documentation of your Charles: This is a revision of conceptual approval. Roxanne: They have submitted a final but a condition of final is that all the conditions of conceptual have to be met, they haven't because they have changed their program. They are saying now that we are not going to be addressing these conditions of conceptual because we are not going to preserve the building anymore, therefore they fees they can go directly to Final. Stan: We need to adhere by what we were told at our meetings and on August 23, we were told that floor plans and detailed materials did not have to be provided. It says in the minutes primarily scale and mass. John: In the April meeting conceptual approval was given and none of the conditions related to the main structure, they related to the out building which is not even on the HPC list. Jake: Lets divide this down into two issues. Bill: We will deal with the revised conceptual first. Les: My feeling is that conceptual approval was given based on the fact that the small building was going to be saved. It is not going to be saved and I don't believe conceptual was given in my mind. Stan: We said we would take a look at it and that is what we did. The approval was to allow the demolition of both buildings. Les: We can see how devastating an inappropriate building is by looking at the one next to it. Glenn: The HPC needs to decide if we are going to have any ability to save any of these structures. They are within their rights in what they are trying to do. I feel they were running us through the process only to end up, by negotiating down, to a building that is at maximum FAR. I don't see us having a way to make them save it or reconstruct it. We need to decide if that is an important urban issue for us. Georgeann: If I looked at this not being involved in HPC and thought of this as being two buildings of a certain shape and size I would prefer not to have that little building because it could be used for planting and open space. There would be less 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 mass on site and that might make for a better opening in the residential area. Charles: You have to figure how the streets work on Cooper and Original which is going to direct traffic by this site a lot more than is now. They will cut off traffic's ability to continue on past city market. All the traffic from independence is going to be routed by here. A little open space might not hurt. Roger: There are two issues: one that it is on the corner, which is acceptable to me and it is more acceptable without the little building on it as it is right now. Roxanne: There also has not been a delay in the process. Joe: This house was rated a one and when we were reviewing it we looked at the issue of does the demolition meet the standards and we found that it met the standards. # Charles: The direction was given to the applicant to come back with something that was compatible in massing and scale and the demolition was allowed. They have done that and then we asked if there was a way to save the out building. They have also tried to do that. Jake: I supported this because of the attempt to save the out building. I have no problem with a revised conceptual but I do not feel the information is detailed enough to give a final approval. Glenn: My concern was a scale issue. Bill: We want to deal with the revised conceptual that has been presented and if the Board feels that the revised conceptual still meets the standards then we can go on and make conditions. Standard one is that the proposed demolition is not structurally sound despite the evidence of the owners efforts to properly maintain the structure, we all agree on that. Standard #2 the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused onsite to provide any reason for beneficial use of the property. They have represented that. The structure cannot ~e practically moved to another site. They have advertized and house movers have stated that it cannot be moved to another site. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical the following: A. That any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. We have all concluded that it has no historical significance. B. Any impact on historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel or adjacent parcels. Any impact to the 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel or adjacent parcels. Have they demonstrated that this has not be mitigated. MOTION: Charles made the motion to grant the revised conceptual development approval for the new structure and demolition approval of both existing structures as proposed finding that both the development review and demolition standards have been met with two conditions: 1) That the final development application shall include detailed elevations and a site plan of the new structure and a revised massing model. 2) That we would continue to encourage the relocation of the alley out building structure and or the main house; second by Joe. All favor except Les, motion carries. Roxanne: Ordinance #17 says that HPC shall review for demolition, everything on the inventory. Joe: This is an unique project because we felt that the only issues we needed to look at ~ere massing and scale. Charles: The conditions lead us to a better understanding of massing and scale. 212 LAKE AVENUE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: This is a Welton Anderson redo. No changes area taking place to the historic cottage in the front. They are all taking place to the addition to the rear; fenestration changes with dormers added. I am recommending approval as submitted and it meets the standards and does not alter the character significantly. Welton Anderson, architect: The owner would like to change the shapes of several of the windows. At the back of the house there is an eight foot sliding glass door that goes into a pocket. Instead of the cottage type window we have more of a palladium type treatment. Don: I like the cottage treatment. Welton: It is all 120 feet from the street and is invisible the street. The porch got ~implified from the fret work. from Charles: We need to make sure Staff has had adequate time to review this. Roxanne: The changes are not to the historic portion of the building. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 Charles: I feel there are extensive changes. MOTION: Jake made the motion to approve the minor development application as revised at this meet for 212 Lake Avenue; second by Joe. All approved except Charles, motion carries. MEADOWS SPA, REFERRAL COMMENT Roxanne: Don Erdman is the liaison from the HPC for the Meadows Project and will give you his review. The goal of an HPC review is for the preservation of the international and the bauhaus style architecture for thp context that defines the entire Meadows. We need to look at the relationship of these buildings to the land and each other. Herbert Bayer has designed a number of the buildings and your primary concern should be in the preservation of these buildings, compatibility of the new architecture and expanded additions that are going on. The entire area is zoned conservation with an SPA overlay. There has never been any under lying zoning on this entire parcel. There is a rezoning of the entire area in place. The recommendation will be deed restricted open space that will include the race track, sage meadow, tent meadow and the anderson park. It will be site specific and use specific for the entire parcel. The SPA is a four step process, P&Z, City Council, P&Z and back to City Council. Under the landuse code a full conceptual application under the HPC regulations will be required. The HPC is interested in the trustee houses, health club, tent and rehearsal building, all the academic buildings. The applicant is proposing that our comments on the four single family home sites and the chalet buildings would be advisory only. There is a proposal for a 90 space parking structure under the tennis courts. David Finholm and I have talked about the vocabulary of the townhomes. The new houses should not try and replicate the trustee house~. They are smaller in proportion and there are no terraces. I would like to see a palate of materials be developed and agreed upon between everybody. Don Erdman presented copies of his review to the Board. Don: As monitor, I was asked to review the conceptual SPA development plan from the standpoint of how the HPC would interface with that plan. It is unclear to me as to what is classified under the academic buildings. I was concerned if the constraints of the R-15 zoning district applied to these parcels. It is important that variety in roof heights be looked at carefully so that we get a broken profile against the sky. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 Changes to the tent should be consistent. Preliminary, David Finholms architecture seems to be appropriate. Perry Harvey: At the master plan it was decided that the single family and the chalets would be advisory only by the HPC. The academic and trustee houses would be subject to the full review by HPC. Paepcke, seminars, boetcher, tent, rehearsal facility comprise the academic buildings and would be subject to review. Of those building there maybe some roof work and upgrading. At this time only the rehearsal facility and the tent are being proposed. Involving the chalets we have agreed at conceptual level that they would maintain the same massing as the existing building. A lot of what goes on is depending on the amount of money that can be raised. The most important thing on this property is how the campus relationship works, the walk through Anderson Park and the relationship of the academic to the chalet buildings. We have tried to keep construction on paved surfaces or where there are existing buildings so that there is minimum impact. We would like some suggestions from the HPC that we can incorporate in order to address conceptual. Roxanne: Any direction the Board wishes to give I will put into a referral memo for P&Z. Don: In the discussion of the palate Fritz Benedict will be working with the committee. Bill: When Don and I walked around to review the buildings we felt that the chalet buildings were more historic and needed review. Perry: We disagree with that, before it was advisory now it is not. Bill: A sub-committee will ~elp expedite their approval process. Don: We would like to have some guarantee that our professional input is valid with you. Georgeann: When they came to us we made suggestions and said this is what we wanted incorporated and now we say we want more. We can't change the rules. Bill: We can allow them to go ahead and if we don't agree we can lobby later on, to Staff and Council. Bill: I feel the sub-committee can be a resource to the applicant in preserving this historic resource. 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 COMMUNICATIONS Roxanne: The meetings for Dec. will be the 12th and the 19th. Roxanne: I have tentatively scheduled a worksession on the 19th to discuss with Jed, committee requirements, legal issues etc. MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk