Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19891220Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 20, 1989 624 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT-PUBLIC HEARING 334 W. HALLAM - FINAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSIONS . RFTA BUS SHELTER - 100 BLOCK E. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT PRE-APPLICATION 127 E. HALLAM - INFORMAL WORKSESSION . 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES Second Floor Meeting Room City Hall December 20, 1989 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Leslie Holst and Glenn Rappaport present. Chris Darakis and Charles Cunniffe were absent. 624 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT-PUBLIC ~ING Public hearing opened. Roxanne: Staff is recommending that we be allowed to try and find someone interested in relocating the cottage. Staff is also recommending conceptual approval subject to conditions attached in records (see memo dated Dec. 20, 1989). Richard Klein, architect: We restudied the plans and the form is derived from historic three story structures in town and has an mansard roof element across the top. We feel the appropriate materials would be brick/sandstone banding. We would like to define an entry gate that would define the building as being a residence. The residence has an urban feel in mass. You would enter under a balcony. Glenn: I would like to see the entry facing the street. Don: On both sides of the building are contemporary or modern structures. This looks like every other town house in Aspen and does not reflect a strong design commitment. I don't feel the entrance has to be on the street given the fact that the historic context has been removed entirely. Georgeann: I need to windows break up etc. the side. see the finished materials; the way the and I don't like the boxed out square on Les: I have concern of the massing on the balcony. front it needs something with warmth. From the Joe: Historical context has been lost and it is difficult to judge how it fits in with the historical context of the neighborhood. I have no problem with the design. Possibly there needs to be something to break up the massing on the east elevation. No problem with round balcony. Don: Any gaps should be eliminated between the two buildings. The masonry of one building should be right up against the next building. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 20, 1989 Bill: We have a difficult time relating because we have no standards and there is no historical context to relate to. I am having trouble with the space on the sides because historically in downtown we do build lot line to lot line and in a residential scheme the architect is trying to get light and ventilation. Georgeann: I do like the verticality of the building. finishing and tiny details and critical. The Glenn: The section and how it relates to the street is critical. I still feel the facade of the building looks like we live in a high crime area where you sneak in the side door to get into your house. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant conceptual redevelopment approval for the 624 E. Hopkins subject to the conditions 1, 3 and 4 of Staffs memo dated Dec. 20, 1989. Staff in conjunction with the Aspen Historic Trust be allowed the opportunity to coordinate a relocation of the existing miner's cottage without expense to or time delay for the current or proposed owner. Georgeann second. Don: This building has references to contemporary buildings that are not on its block. I would recommend consideration of using materials which make reference of what is going on in the block i.e. concrete block used architecturally; stucco. The materials might make reference to what is going on. Georgeann: Perhaps some kind of wood siding, keeping it contemporary which would reflect the houses across the street but keeping a contemporary detailing to help it work with the buildings beside it. AMENDED MOTION: Don made the motion that a restudy of exterior materials be presented at Final. Georgeann All approved. Motion carries. the exact second. 334 W. HATW~/~ - FINAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSIONS Bill Stepped down. Don stepped down to attend Council worksession. Roxanne: 334 W. Hallam received final development last year and final development approvals are good for 18 months. Their 18 months has passed. No other changes are taking place except that they are excavating under the entire historic building instead of just a portion of it therefore I am requiring that the applicant submit a letter of guarantee and engineer's report on the excavation of the basement and a temporary support structure for 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 20, 1989 the building. Since the approval has expired if the Board feels changes are needed it is appropriate. One issue of concern is the side entry and competing bay on the second floor with the facade of the house. This building is eligible for listing on the national register. Staff feels the bay should be eliminated that it be very quiet and that the focus point be on the facade of the building. This is particular difficult as the building is on a corner. Georgeann: One thing we discovered is that the pieces of glass are large in conjunction with the main house. In the future we had determined that carriage houses have smaller windows than the main house. I am concerned about the large piece of glass in the middle of the bay, that could be out of keeping. Joe: Does anybody have concern about the green house. Roxanne: The green house was to be simple and not harm any of the original materials on the carriage house. The base trim was originally to be brick but has been changed to panels. Georgeann: I have no problem with base change. Joe: I have no problem with the base either. The Board has concern about the window. Glenn: The central bay needs relief as it is too large and competes with the main house. Larry McKenzie, architect: I had looked at possible options to different bay shapes. To make the distinction of the simpleness of this side and the addition we felt we had to show the difference between existing and new. Glenn: The issue is that they need something to break the snow coming off the roof but I am in favor of eliminating the bay. Joe: It needs minimized. Georgeann: Possibly the use of three windows. Roxanne: My recommendation would be to eliminate the bay and come up for a more simplified openings on that elevation. Georgeann: Simplify the bay on the west side but not necessarily eliminate it and simplify the whole section. Approve the panels at the base of the greenhouse and I want stringent requirements on the foundation etc. as this is a prime building. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 20, 1989 We recommend a restudy to simplify the west elevation and a restudy to eliminate the bay. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to table the application on 334 W. Hallam Street to give the applicant the opportunity to restudy the west elevation to endeavor to simplify it either by eliminating the bay or simplifying the bay. We want to see both. Also that the applicant bring back letters of guarantee and engineer's report on the basement excavation and temporary support structure of the building. RFTA BUS SHELTER - 100 BLOCK E. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Bill reinstated. Joe stepped down to attend council worksession. Roxanne: The shelter is very contemporary and steel with tempered glass. Since we have no guidelines for public amenities I have recommended approval with two conditions that RFTA complies with Main St. Historic Guidelines (when adopted), should alternatives to the proposed bus shelter design be determined more appropriate in compatibility with the character of the District. That the applicant fully describe the landscape plan. Jerry McCarthy & Kenny Osure architects: Jerry: The structure has not changed but the location has. Roxanne: What about lighting. Jerry: cell. There is a light within the structure that is on a photo Roxanne: There is a shelter similar at Mill and Puppy Smith street. Jerry: This bus shelter will be a little finer detail. Les: The design is not inviting. Georegeann: In this particular site we wanted something unobtrusive due to the clinic and library. Jerry: There will only be one shelter. Bill: We had reviewed this before and the budget was taken into consideration and this design meets all their requirements. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 20, 1989 Glenn: I don't like where it is, too close to the sidewalk going into the library. Jerry: No one wants the shelter in front of their business. Les: I can't approve something like this for the Main Street Historic District. I would go along with this as a temporary structure that would be moved elsewhere if we find something more appropriate. Georgeann: They need a bus shelter now and we had all agreed that this could be a temporary thing. Glenn: Hopefully on the Main Street sub-committee we can discuss those issues. The issue is that we have a fancy resort with people using the buses and I would hate to see them go into a shelter that they can find anywhere in the U.S. and we have overlooked the idea of making something interesting. We should keep it open but in the meantime I am willing to let this go through. Jerry: When the library is sold there the front of the library and when that shelter staying. will be a new study for occurs I don't see this MOTION: Bill made the motion that the HPC grant minor development approval of the RFTA Bus shelter for 100 block E. Main Street subject to the following conditions: RFTA agrees to comply with the Main Street Historic District public improvement guidelines (when adopted ) should alternative to the proposed bus shelter design be determined more appropriate in compatibility with the character of the district. The applicant fully describe the landscape plan when they submit for Building Dept. approval. Glenn second. All approved except Les. Motion carries. PRE-APPLICATION 127 E. HALT2%M - INFORMAL WORKSESSION Bill stepped down. Joe reseated. Roxanne: The entire scale of the building has been reduced. This is a should be very vernacular and simple. cottage infill structure secondary structure that Sven Alstrom, architect: We are trying to develop an image for the building. The applied trellis will stand out away from the material of the lower level. It creates a garden structure. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 20, 1989 Roxanne: The square footage of the structure has been reduced by 120 square feet or so. Sven: The top floor went from 710 sq. ft. to 589 sq. ft. one bedroom dwelling unit and 2 car garage. The central stairway was eliminated and placed on the side. Georgeann: This is a significantly improved plan. This building should be secondary to the principle building in color and detail. Roxanne: This is a precedent setting design and the first new infill cottage design that we are looking at of this type. We were granting a variation of a zero lot line and working with landmark designating this parcel so that a secondary dwelling unit can go on a smaller size lot. Georgeann: It is not overpowering. Roxanne: What about the site. Sven: The City wants us to access off the alley. Les: If designation is not given then no dwelling unit could be placed on the site. Sven: The client went for designation to do a secondary dwelling unit as opposed to adding onto the main house. Glenn: This could be sold off as separate and possibly condominiumized. Roxanne: We are hoping that an employee will occupy it. Joe: The size of the windows are appropriate. Roxanne: At final you will need to ask in writing for the variation of five parking spaces to four. Georgeann: The Board in general feels you are on the right track. Glenn: We need to keep the building to scale. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 6