Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890809Historic Preservation Committee August 9, 1989 minutes 135 W. MAIN STREET - FINAL DEVELOPMENT . 221 E. MAIN STREET - EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS STAFF DID PRESENTATION ON ASPEN~S EARLY SKI DEVELOPMENT 1936-1955 . 405 S. GALENA & 425 E. COOPER - PRE-APPLICATION (GUIDO'S) 132 W. MAIN STREET - ASIA RESTAURANT 1 4 4 5 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES Second Floor Meeting Room August 9, 1989 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Glenn Rappaport, Leslie Holst, Don Erdman, Chris Darakis, Joe Krabacher and Georgeann Waggaman present. Charles Cunniffe was absent. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Joe: I am sponsoring the code amendment that would allow a change of use for a landmark designated property that is a non- conforming lot of record. Right now you can't do changes of use unless you meet the minimum lot size. If the property is landmark designated then they are allowed to apply for a conditional use or whatever uses might be available in the zone district. Roxanne: The educational session is scheduled for Aug. 31, 1989. The architect for the National Parks Service will be at the Sept. 27th meeting. 430 W. Main and 406 W. Smuggler are scheduled for designation at the next City Council meeting. 135 W. MAIN STREET - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: The applicants have met all of the conditions of conceptual approval. They have restudied the verticality features and supports of the east and south elevations. The Board needs to review the west elevation window. There is also an angular window above the entry that needs to be addressed in reference to the fenestration. Staff is recommending that the roof be stained neutral or dark and that the lapsiding be painted and the types of windows to be acknowledged. A side yard set back variation is being requested also. Staff is recommending approval with conditions as stated in memo August 8, 1989. David Melton, owner: We will match the roof to be compatible. We have not gotten a bid for the windows yet and the garage door material will be wood panelled in order to achieve the vertical feeling. The windows of the west elevation are smaller. Roxanne: The windows read as one massive double hung rather then a pair due to the multi panes. Possibly they should be divided with a trim etc. Chris: Normally the center mullions are wide and these are not. Georgeann: On the west elevation the window next to the entry seems too narrow. The proportions are not quite right. The window above the door seems to large in relation to the door itself. Historic Preservation Committee August 9, 1989 minutes Jake Vickery, architect: next to the entry. We can raise the seal on the window Bill: The existing house does not have true divided light. Don: Divided lights break the widows down into a small scale and makes the contrast between the existing and new more defined. Roxanne: Our goal is to allow for an addition that is subordinate to the historic resource and you need to consider or not if there is too much competition going on with the fenestration of the building. Jake: We are not trying to replicate the existing building in the new construction. Les: The catalogue with the windows shows three panes and your drawing shows four. Three panes would look better. Glenn: We are getting a severe competition between the addition and the existing house and if the windows were simplified it would flow and solidify the facade. Joe: If you do double hung windows with divided lights it should be true divided lights. Jake: We could do windows two over two on each side, true divided lights. Les: On the side yard variance of 4 ft. on the east side is that for parking or is the building built into that four feet. Roxanne: The existing historic house encroaches into the setbacks by 8 feet. They are not increasing the non-conformity. David Melton: I was basically doing that after my discussion with Bill Drueding. Les: I could not approve the variance. Georgeann: We also have a rear yard setback. David Melton: We wanted to leave the original building untouched in terms of the historic structure and also the view from Main Street. Les: That makes sense and you aren't up to your maximum FAR. Historic Preservation Committee August 9, 1989 minutes Glenn: Keeping the building and trying working with it is a good approach. Bill: Does the committee feel that the structure on the back detracts from the structure in the front. Georgeann: I wonder if the building wouldn't be more neutral and receive better without the gable above the master bedroom. Joe: We should think carefully about what we grant at conceptual. I think the main problem is the windows and if they were simplified it would be acceptable. The applicants living quarters are a reasonable request. Bill: We do not want to duplicate an addition onto the existing house. Jake has taken a new approach that we have not seen before and put angles on the house but kept the rhythm and proportions of the gable on the original house. I am not bothered by the larger mass. Bill: Is everyone comfortable with the massing. Georgeann: It seems that the only problem is the windows. Joe: Possibly a sub-committee could be appointed to review the windows with Staff and we could grant conceptual. Chris: They have the opening sizes and the only decision would be to change the panes of the true divided lights to two, four or six. Bill: Leslie, Glenn, and Chris were appointed to a sub- committee. VARIANCE Bill: We need to discuss the variance. Roxanne: The code requires a minimum of 15 ft. for principle building setback off the rear and this building encroaches severely in that 15 ft. setback. Jake: We need five feet from the property line to the garage and 10 ft. from property line to the wall. Georgeann: We would be granting a variance to relieve the front and I am in favor of the variance. 3 Historic Preservation Committee August 9, 1989 minutes Glenn: Anything that brings life to an alleyway even decks, porches is acceptable. Roxanne: They have a basement that they could go down into and is it appropriate to give a variance of this size based on that issue. Jake: The trade off here is to keep the existing building and landscaping as is. Joe: We are trying to separate the new from the old and if we force them to build in compliance with the dimensional requirements then they will have to push it all forward and take the space that gives it relief between the two buildings. Georgeann: I am comfortable with the variation. Don: If the variation were an exception from the norm on that block then it would be worth discussing but it is not. Joe: Part of the reason for the variation is access for fire and separation between the buildings. Bill: The Board has to decide whether the variance allows the building to keep its integrity and whether you can find it more compatible. It is on a case by case. All favored the variance except Leslie. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant final development approval for 135 W. Main St. subject to conditions: The roofing materials to be stained neutral or dark to match. The siding and trim to be painted. The sub-committee and Staff will be able to sign off on the window. The garage door will be wood. Rear yard and parking variation be granted finding that the variations are more compatible. Chris second. Yes vote: Bill Poss, Glenn Rappaport, Don Erdman, Chris Darakis, Joe Krabacher, Georgeann Waggaman. No vote: Leslie Holst 221 E. MAIN STREET - EXPLORE BOOKSErJ~RS Roxanne: The applicant did not do a public notice. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to table 221 E. Explore Booksellers addition to Sept. 13, 1989. All approved. Main Street Don second. STAFF DID PRESENTATION ON ASPEN'S EARLY SKI DEVELOPMENT 1936-1955 Chairman opened public hearing. Historic Preservation Committee August 9, 1989 minutes Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner, did the presentation as attached in records, (memo dated August 8, 1989). Roxanne: There are a number of older lodges that are associated with Aspen's early ski history that are being changed/demolished and completely eradicated from Aspen's history soon if we don't start doing something with them. We need to discuss how we are going to review mountain chalets. We are heading to protect historic resources of all of Aspen's development. Public hearing closed. 405 S. GATmNA & 425 E. COOPER - PRE-APPLICATION (GUIDO'S) Roxanne: We have a 1951 mountain chalet style structure that is in our guidelines. The parcel is one with two structures owned by Guido Meyer. The applicant wants to put a third floor on the structure for dwelling and bridge between the two buildings. They need an access egress between both the structure so they will bridge the two. They are in the Wheeler view plane and the Wagner view plane. They are adding onto the second floor of Guidos covering over the deck that currently exists. We need to consider a few issues, treatment between the two buildings, the addition to the rear and what are the intrinsic characteristics of this structure and if the third floor is appropriate or not and how to redo the entire facade. Should it be victorian flavor, contemporary or swiss chalet. Kim Weil, architect: The building was originally built in 1951, one story concrete block building. Three years later the second floor was added. Both buildings have egress problems and we are proposing that they egress through the connection. We are preserving the open space around 403 S. Galena. Planning would like us to preserve the parking that exists behind the building. We are in two view planes: the Wagner Park view pane which is why the building is at an angle. The Wheeler view plane is blocked by the buildings that happen in front of us. We intend to do interior stairs to meet the code. The two buildings are separated by 15 ft. Roxanne: Story poles are critical and possibly they should be put up so the Board has something to look at before the next meeting. Kim Weil: The street scape is horizontal and I thought brick would be appropriate. Don: We have to be very careful about brick and red sandstone. Every building is being done in brick and red sandstone and this Historic Preservation Committee August 9, 1989 minutes is a north facing facade and the color of the present building is appropriate as it provides light in a shady area which is always in the shade. Glenn: My major concern is how the buildings come together. Chris: The addition on the back of Guido's is appropriate but it will be very difficult to bridge between the two buildings. Les: I'm in favor of the addition in back of the restaurant but have a serious problems with the site lines on the third floor. The bridge will also be a problem and joining them makes the mass heavy. The egress problems could be solved in the interior. Kim: The elevator is needed for both buildings. Georgeann: Possibly you could use a narrow walkway. My comments are similar to the other members on the Board. Possibly use stucco and Boarding. Joe: Some kind of separation should be maintained and it should minimized. No problem with the third floor addition. I don't want 425 to overshadow Guido's. Georgeann: Possibly clipping some of the front surfaces back so the third floor doesn't dominate as much although straight up facades are typical. That would eliminate the massive front facade. Keep in mind any roof mechanical equipment because that would be dominant. Kim: Maximum height is 36 feet and the zone is 40 feet. Glenn: Regarding the bridge it would be appropriate to keep the opening between the two buildings. Kim: The owner has had trouble with security between the two buildings and they want to be able to control it better. 132 W. MAIN STREET - ASIA RESTAURANT Roxanne: They have a 15,500 sq. ft. and only a portion of the parcel is designated so they have to compete for the development that is going on on the un-designated lot which is a patio right now. In this zone district Georgeann: I thought the agreement was that they would not put anything on the lot next to it. The original building was moved and the requirement was to make the space as neutral as possible and plant it densely. 6 Historic Preservation Committee August 9, 1989 minutes Glenn: At one time it was the Ski Company's headquarters. Charles Schwab, independent contractor: We are intending to add a 3200 sq. ft. office building, a complete separate building. We want the building to have a separate entity. On the bottom we have 1400 sq. ft. which will be employee housing for nine employees, basement. The intent is to separate the main office entry from the restaurant. We would like to have an oriental garden. The windows and fenestration I am not quite happy with yet. There is a balcony. The employee housing area would be split level to make it more interesting. It was a metal roof and now we are looking at shingles. The proposed east elevation intent is to not open it up too much due to the Hotel Aspen location and respect their privacy. Joe: Do you intend to have window wells. Charles: I would prefer not to go into the setback and I am still working on the square footage. Roxanne: They have to have ten feet and at the window well location they don't have it. Charles: My intent is to eliminate the hodgepodge. Roxanne: The goal is to make it compatible in character but not replicate. Georgeann: Since his rendering is not clear we should just give hi an indication of some of our concerns that are critical: Do we want victorian, modern etc. Do we want this to emphasize the residential? Bill: A metal roof wouldn't make it look so victorian. Don: Don't try to replicate. Glenn: You are proposing some open space which is appropriate and you are proposing a mass. Joe: I would like to see a massing model in relationship to the two buildings on either side because it is an infill project. I need to see how the streetscape works. I would also prefer to see the building simplified. Les: I see that this doesn't work and you have an opportunity to really get creative and unique. 7 Historic Preservation Committee August 9, 1989 minutes Georgeann: You have two very elaborate buildings on the left, very stark contemporary building on the right. I feel it is too victorian. Pulling it back from the street is appropriate but this should be a very neutral building and it is not. Bill: We frown on another victorian replication. Charles: We are fond of setting the building back. PROJECT MONITORING Chris: The Mathis bldg. on Main Street. I looked at two skylights that they want to add on the back on the alley side. I did a walk through. The fascia is heavy and sticks out. Don: We had drawings and they reduced the depth of the fascia boards. Chris: The Elisha House, the main house handicapped ramp is plyboard which was required by the Building Department. The second floor of the carriage house is totally gone. Reasigment of projects. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 8