Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900808Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 8, 1990 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PARTIAL DEMOLITION 824 E. COOPER AVENUE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - 409 E. HOPKINS AVE. ALPINE BANK 5TH AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS 1 3 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMI~-rw.E Minutes of August 8, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe, Leslie Holst, Glenn Rappaport, Jake Vickery and Roger Moyer present. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS MOTION: Don made the motion to move the partial demolition of 824 E. Cooper Avenue to agenda Item A. under old business. Roger second with all in favor. MOTION: Don made the motion to table the Sportstalker and 610 N. Third St. until Aug. 22, 1990. Les second with all in favor. MOTION: Les made the motion to adopt the Standards. Joe second with all in favor. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the 1990. Second by Les with all in favor. Sec. of Interior's minutes of July 11, OLD BUSINESs CONCE~rUAL DEVELOPMENT - PARTIAL DEMOLITION 824 E. COOPER AVENUE Public Hearing opened. Barbara Long, architect: As the house exists right now it has an original cottage, an addition on the back and three subsequent smaller additions. The first addition was made right after the cottage was built. We have no record on the other additions. There also exists a shed on the back which we are proposing to move in order to have driveway access. It is a very tight lot 30 by 100. We are proposing to stay within all the setbacks and move the cottage within the setback and staying within the FAR. We would like to keep the original cottage as is and bring it up to code as required and remove the additions. We want to put anything new back behind the existing cottage and try and work it in. The stepback would not overshaddow the existing cottage. We will incorporate as many of the existing details into the new structure as possible. On the floor plan we want to keep one story in the front where the existing cottage is and behind that it will step up to the two stories. We are also proposing a basement and garage. We have kept with the same windows and doors. The client would prefer to have casement but we kept them vertical to keep what is going on in the original cottage. The client has also asked about trying to get more flamboyant with the addition. The client would like to add arched windows or triangular windows up above in order to get more light. We are also proposing a roof deck punching into the existing cottage. Roxanne: The fenestration needs to be looked at and the small scale of the cottage needs to be maintained. Their building Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 8, 1990 envelope is by zone code. CLARIFICATIONS Joe: What is the FAR. Barbara: 2400 sq. ft. We have it back 20 ft. from the rear and can have additional parking in the driveway. Les: Have you thought about retaining any of the sheds. Don: Due to the narrow and closely situated neighbors, it is very difficult to do a design. I would like to see something modulate both for the aspects of light and also to make it less harsh on future construction and set a better standard. Glenn: Keep the fenestration patterns relatively simple. I would like an effort to be done to save the shack in the alley. One parking space in the garage and one in the driveway, you don't need four. Joe: You may want to consider landmark designation. I would also like to see someway to separate the old from the new particularly with the overhang. Possibly move the entire building back. Relief needs to be provided between the buildings. The massing needs broken up and the fenestration needs other alternatives that do not accentuate the horizontal feel of it. Not in favor of window treatment. Barbara: We roofs. are sinking the addition to keep the height of the Bill: The rear structure should be separated from the cottage. On Explorer Booksellers, they brought the cross gable over the structure and in this particular case you may be able to bring in a lower cross gable which allows the house to be enlarged a little bit and then a connector with a bigger structure on the back. It would do two things, allow views to come back to the higher structure on the back which would look over the smaller structure. In the past we have given direction to leave the smaller structure alone but in this case it is not designated. Jake: I would like to see more differentiation between the old and new. There are a number of techniques to doing that and one is off setting or changing materials. Roger: The doors should be the same size as the building below and the windows should be to scale. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 8, 1990 Les: The value of the building is in its small scale. The 1/2 circle does not work. Possibly a more gradual transition between the buildings. Possibly restudying the parking. Roxanne: There are a number of issues unresolved and I would recommend tabling. Georgeann: The upper section seems dominant over the lower building. A new building in general should not have windows larger than existing. I would be opposed to enlarging the original cottage. Les: I would like to see preserving the scale of the small building. Glenn: Explorer is as good example. Barbara: What about removing the other additions. Georgeann: It is a fair compromise if the front is kept as they have to build on somewhere. The general direction that the Board is giving is to demolish the back and build up behind the existing building. The separation between the two building needs restudied and the scale and trim also. MOTION: Joe made the motion to continue the table conceptual development review of 824 E. Sept. 12, 1990. Don second with all in favor. public hearing and Cooper Ave. until CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - 409 E. HOPKINS AVE. AT.PINE BANK Public Hearing opened. Bill stepped down and Jake Vickery seated to vote. Mac Cunningham & Kim Weil are the architects. Roxanne: This is a revised plan, a two story version without the third floor. Mac Cunningham: We have simplified the building to make it compatible in a traditional sense with some contemporary elements. There is no residential on the site so it is a true commercial building. We now have an upstairs courtyard which will be a usable element and is 24 ft. wide. The building is brick and sandstone. We were boxed in from three sides and we wanted to create a viable space for the upper floor. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 8, 1990 Kim: We presently are showing a five ft. setback and a series of small steps to create individuality to the store fronts. We are still keeping with the guidelines but at the same time keeping just enough relief so that it doesn't appear as a wall. The lower floor is completely commercial space. We have two dominant historic buildings on either side and want to make sure they stand out. The material is brick and sandstone and some stucco. Georgeann: This building reflects Harley's concerns. Jake: This building is visually pleasing. Don: I don't see a reason for the setback. The building is very strong as it is. Glenn: I was in favor of putting it on the street. Mac: We are dealing with 3 or four feet only regarding the stepbacks. Les: This is a good solution for Harley Baldwin's problem of blocking views. I personally like a little setback. Roger: I would bring it out also on the two ends. Glenn: Stepping the building less and continuing the verticality is appropriate. Jake: I like the experience the pedestrian has along the street front. I also like the setback because it supports the differentiation between the old buildings particularly the Brand Bldg. Charles: The new building could be set back a little bit and give relief. Georgeann: I like the setback and the pedestrian experience. I like to walk underneath the covering. I also like the way the courtyard lines up. We have 4 people on the Board wanting a setback and 3 for no setback and one undetermined. Harley Baldwin: In the Brand Bldg. and the Collins Bldg. you see a big wall of masonry in both cases. In the extent that you pull it back you look down the street and see two large masonry walls and you will not see this building. Pulling it forward makes it more viable for retail and a more viable block. I am optimistic about the entire program. Some differences in the store front Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 8, 1990 would be appropriate. Roger: Any retailer would want the building on the front. Harley: I am convinced that setbacks have been a terrible thing for Aspen. You don't need a wider sidewalk because it already is wide. Georgeann: I would like to have the existing buildings curve around a little bit. Charles: With the little setback on the upper two ends, if you brought the rest flush then that setback is probably enough. The end result is a slightly softer then the two end masses. Charles: We should ask him to study reducing the amount of the setback more in alignment with the street. MOTION: Charles made the motion to grant conceptual development approval for 409 E. Hopkins Ave. and to study reducing the setback to something more in alignment with the street. Jake second. Don: I would amend the motion to say rather than more in alignment, portions of the facade are in alignment. This would mean that the elements of the first story could be in alignment and as presented now, elements of the second story would not be in alignment. Charles: The way it is stated they can come back with alignment if they want or something a little more in alignment or come back with the same. Glenn: Possibly something could be done with the vertical elements to soften the building. AMENDED MOTION: Glenn made the amended motion to also study the general fenestration to look for more variety and also reinforcement of the verticality of the second story. Jake second with all in favor of the motion and amended motion except Georgeann. Motion carries. 5TH AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS Roxanne: The 5th Ave. condos are located at the end of Galena and are not historic or in the historic district. Randy Wedum: They want to do some remodeling and we realize HPC has no review over the condos but we would like your input. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 8, 1990 The existing building was build in the 1966 and is old and built inexpensively. We are trying to improve the insulation and we want to make the building handicapped accessible so we are putting in an elevator. This building is almost six stories tall because we have double stacked units and for some tenants it is difficult to climb. Essentially I am putting elevators on the stairwells so visually you can't tell the difference. There will be one elevator in front and one in back as some of the units open in the front and some in the back. With the two elevators I can accommodate all units except one. The second item is to give it a face lift as when it rains and snows it falls to the lower level. We will waterproof the walkway and redo the railing and tie the building together. Right now it is a very vertical building and looks extremely tall. I would like to get some horizontal elements in there to tie the building. We were looking at using a synthetic plaster system and go over all the building and put the foam on and then the plaster. That gives more insulation and makes it more air tight. The concept is that the whole building becomes one uniform material. We propose to put in grill and pipe railing. We are essentially talking about elevators and replacing the railing. My proposal to the homeowners is to do the finish on the stow more of a sand or earthtone and do the trim in same color, darker shade. I am also proposing removable planter boxes that can clamp onto the grills because there is no landscaping. Charles: The grills bother me. Why not cut a slit for the scuppers and be monolithic. Or have the rail be a solid rail and have the floor of the deck and have the railing stop about 8 inches or 9 above the floor of the deck so you just have a horizontal slit and just a solid rail above that. That would also add a shadow line to the horizontality that you need. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to adjourn, in favor. Motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. second by Les with all Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 6