Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19891025Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 25, 1989 624 E. HOPKINS - DEMOLITION AND CONCEPTUAL 132 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ASIA RESTAURANT 17 QUEEN STREET - DEMOLITION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 801 E. HYMAN - DEMOLITION AND RE-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW . VESTED RIGHTS-PUBLIC HEARING . 127 E. HALLAM-LANDMARK DESIGNATION 127 E. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM)IITTEE MINUTES Second Floor Meeting Room CITY HALL October 25, 1989 Meeting was called to order by vice-chair Georgeann Waggaman with Joe Krabacher, Chris Darakis and Charles Cunniffe present. Don Erdman, Bill Poss, Leslie Holst and Glenn Rappaport were absent. 624 E. HOPKINS - DEMOLITION AND CONCEPTUAL Public hearing opened. MOTION: Joe made the motion to continue the public hearing, Demolition and Conceptual Development of 624 E. Hopkins until November 1, 1989. Chris second. All approved. Steen Gantzel, Aspen resident: I have been inside that property and this property has no historic significance. It is falling apart and I am concerned why this is considered historical. (Tabled due to lack of quorum) Georgeann: The importance in this building is its scale. 132 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ASIA RESTAURANT Public hearing opened. MOTION: Joe made the motion to Continue the public hearing, Conceptual Development of 132 W. Main Street until November 1, 1989. Chris second. All approved. (Tabled due to lack of quorum) 17 QUEEN STREET - DEMOLITION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Public hearing opened. Lennie Oates, attorney requested that 17 Queen Street be tabled until the Nov. 29th meeting. MOTION: Joe made the Demolition and Conceptual the November 29th meeting. motion to table the public hearing, Development of 17 Queen Street until Chris second. All approved. 801 E. HYMAN - DEMOLITION AND RE-DEVELOPMENT I%'VIEW Public hearing opened. Roxanne: The applicant is looking at a new program that includes bringing the employee housing up out of the basement and putting it into an adaptive out building that is existing right now and looking at ways that we can incorporate some of the elements of the original cottage particularly the south elevation into the whole new scheme. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 25, 1989 Stan Mathis, architect: Schematic site plan presented to Board identifying the accessory unit and the amount of the approximate encroachment on Original Street side. The accessory unit would be around 460 sq. ft. with a partial demolition. The new development would be to the east of the ridge line. There would be a proposed fence. The schematic proposed footprint show the porch along the front of the new construction with a roof overhang. If you approve this at the next meeting we will have elevations. We are still trying to locate pictures. Roxanne: From a landmark designation point of view we need to know what is there. Stan: We intend to decrease the overall width and create a one story element. Roxanne: The ridge of the existing roof remains one story and you cross gable into the new construction and a deck off into the south elevation. Stan: We would be dealing with two separate units on the site and keep the massing away from Original Street. I am doing a community park for the Eagles which will be dedicated to Patsy Newbury and on the that land we are proposing to move the structure as a caretaker unit. Joe: My thought is to encourage designation of the parcel. I am also in favor of the concept of providing employee housing. Stan: We want to end up exclusive with an accessory unit 3, 240 sq. ft. as the code allows. The area has to be two story. Georgeann: I think this meets the standards for designation because we have an historical building that is compatible with the other building. What is critical about the main building is its massing and scale. My goals could be achieved by keeping the massing that we have in this building and the massing that we have in the accessory building and open space. Also to allow that building to be moved if we have a good site for it. I also would be inclined to designate the whole parcel in order for HPC to keep control over the whole parcel for review. Charles: I would suggest that we see the proposal for the re- siting of the existing house and that we ask them to come back with a new proposal that shows how this house in massing, character and scale fits this site as compatible with the accessory unit. We would like to see elevations and site plans. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 25, 1989 Roxanne: For the Nov. 8th meeting we would need a total relocation plan based on the standards of the code and all the criteria. A calculation table that talks about all the FAR and setbacks. A landmark designation application. We need a complete revised conceptual development which includes elevations, site plan, roof plans and a preservation plan for the carriage house and discussion on partial demolition. John Elmore: We could bring the massing at the next meeting (Nov. Sth) and make it a worksession. MOTION: Charles made the motion to table the conceptual approval and continue the public hearing until the Nov. 29th meeting and have a worksession on Nov. 8th meeting. Do a massing study and elevations and possibly a rough model. For the conceptual approval we need the above points that Roxanne has stated and a proposal for the re-siting of the existing house. Joe second. All approved. Motion carries. VESTED RIGHTS-PUBLIC HEARING Public hearing opened. Roxanne: The reso protects their final within three years. If the code were to radically change that would effected their final they would be OK. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the HPC Re$o #3, 1989 as presented by Roxanne Eflin for vested rights for 1004 E. Durant Ave, Unit #1, 211 West Main Street and 135 West Main Street. Joe second. All approved. 127 E. HALLAM-LANDMARK DESIGNATION Charles made the motion to recommend landmark designation of 127 E. Hallam. Chris second. All approved. 127 E. H;~T.T,,A.M - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: We believe the main structure has been relocated at one time but is on its original parcel. The plans indicate relocation of the original house on the parcel and in back of the lot a new proposal of a two car garage and a dwelling unit up above. The reason we are allowed to go as high is because it is considered another primary structure. In other words there would be two primary structures on this parcel. The normal height for a rear building would be twelve feet. They are under site coverage, height limit and under their FAR. The whole concept is right in keeping where the Planning office and the Carriage House 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 25, 1989 committee is looking at with allowing some alley life (dwelling units). The plan also indicated two parking spaces. The issue is massing, height, scale, details and materials. The original structure is a one story cottage and we have to be concerned how this competes with it. The landscaping is critical on how it is perceived from the street. There are a lot of things going on with the metal roof. They are requesting designation and rear yard setback variation of five feet. Andy Wisnoski and Sven Alstrom, architects presenting. Andy: The owner needed an additional two car garage on the property and a dwelling unit for a caretaker. He will not designate that as an employee unit. The applicant desires to maintain the historic integrity of the original structure by not doing an addition. We are proposing a primary alley structure. We are proposing to relocate the original structure to maintain the streetscape. The reason the house got to the height that it is it made more sense to compact everything into one position instead of spreading it out over the lot. The intent is to tuck the second story into the roof. The design of the alley structure really has two fronts to address the street and the alley. The skirt roof is an attempt to make the house appear lower by breaking up the over all height of a 1 and 1/2 story bldg. Details will be simple and material will reflect what with the existing house and the roof material is metal which is secondary to a carriage house structure. We have three bedrooms and three parking spaces and an additional for a guest. Roxanne: We are new at carriage house projects and we have tried to keep them subordinate. Charles: One element that does signify a carriage house is that the second floor is smaller than the first floor. I like it generally but as an alley structure it needs to be simpler and the skirt roof and height are my biggest problem. It seems to compete with the main structure. It seems as if it is making too bold of an effort creating an entrance off the alley and off the front. This is a secondary structure to the main house. Joe: Possibly you could bring the structure sub-grade and that would bring the whole structure down. Andy: Our lot is not that deep enough to allow us to put a grade in. Georgeann: That is a large unit above the garage. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 25, 1989 Sven: It was meant for two people. The hall allows access from both sides in the garage. Joe: I would like to see something subordinate to the original. The different pitches on the roof and the skirts are complex for what should be a simple structure, and the height is inappropriate. Chris: The height is a problem but I don't know if we will be able to solve it . Sven: We have the height as low as possible in order to create a livable upstairs space. Charles: If you weren't trying to get so much space up their the roof wouldn't have to come up so high and it would start at a point sooner in on the structure. Sven: We are trying to create a more residential feel on the alley. Georgeann: I have concerns with the height, windows, roofing and width of the hall. I could live with the height. We have a consensus that the roofing is too elaborate, shape and form not the material. I think the structure is too large. You have very few windows in the main house and numerous in the alley structure which creates a conflict. Possibly using single windows to quiet the unit down. Andy: If we took the windows out it would take it back to more of an historic structure and I wanted to guard against that. Georgeann: We are trying to throw out possibilities that would make this a more subordinate house and it has to be scaled down. Roxanne: These are two principle structures instead of a main house with an accessory alley structure. Joe: The client has a big need for the garage space but part of the problem with the bulk, mass and height is that you have a lot of garage space there. Roxanne: We can grant parking variations and why do they have to have two covered garage spaces. Sven: The client wants two covered garage spaces. Charles: Why not have the two parking spaces next too each Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 25, 1989 other and have a stairwell next to that. That would reduce the width significantly and reduce the square footage upstairs. Roxanne: The owner wants to be able to lock off the two separate units. Georgeann: We are saying that it has to be smaller and simpler. If the structure is going to be taller than the principle structure then it has to be smaller and simpler in other ways. I am concerned about the metal roof; it should not get elegant as there are different levels of metal roofs. Georgeann: We are talking about approval of the relocation on site of the main building; partial demolition of two non-original elements (sheds); Conceptual approval with conditions: (1) Restudy of garage structure, to reduce height and massing and competing details in relation to the principal cottage structure. Massing model. Performance guarantee letter regarding on-site relocation. Exact materials and detailed preservation plan for principal cottage. MOTION: Charles made the motion to grant Conceptual Development approval for 127 E. Hallam St. with the following conditions as listed in Roxanne's memo date Oct. 25, 1989 (see records). Restudy garage structure to reduce height and massing and competing details in relation to the principal structure i.e. roof, fenestration, roofing materials, simplification of south elevation. Revised massing model. Performance guarantee letter regarding the on-site relocation and approval of relocation plan. Exact materials and detailed preservation plan for principal cottage. Approval of partial demolition of non original architectural elements on the existing structure. Our intention is that the secondary dwelling be smaller and simpler then the main house. Chris second. All approved. Motion carries. COMMUNICATIONS Roxanne: On the Elisha house they added a fire escape to the west elevation. The third floor is habitable space and they didn't' have a second means of egress. Discussion on washing the alleys. Chris addressed the issues of the alleys/alley paving which doesn't allow for gutters, drywells or any means of keeping trash especially liquid trash from flowing out to the sidewalks. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion that in keeping with the historic accessibility of the alleys, pedestrian access and their Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 25, 1989 effect on the streetscape of the downtown commercial core that the Engineering Department address when alleys are paved and even alleys that have been paved that catch basins and gutters be planned into the alleys to prevent the refuse and smell, liquid flowing out into the streets which affects the historic character/experience of the community's sidewalks. Joe second. All approved. Roxanne: I would also like to say if any more alleys get paved or there is a program for that that they come before the HPC for approval so we can be sure everything is included in their approved program. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to direct Roxanne Eflin to write a letter to the Building and Engineering Departments to ask them to be more aware and to discourage the storage of film material on lots in the historic district because it is not historically appropriate there especially along Main Street. Charles second. All approved. Motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Deputy City Clerk