Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890328HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall March 28, 1989 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Joe Krabacher, Charles Cunniffe and Zoe Compton present. Charlie Knight, Chris Darakis and Don Erdman were absent. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the minutes of March 14, 1989. Second by Georgeann, all approved. Discussion on interpretation of brick work approved on Bank of Aspen. Charles Cunniffee will talk to contractor, Gary Moore. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC HEARING, 201 W. FRANCIS ST. CARRIAGE HOUSE- GEORGE VICENZI Chairman opened public hearing. Roxanne presented the over-view of project as attached in records (memo dated March 28, 1989). Roxanne: There are concerns that Bill Drueding brought up concerning an abandoned unit in the brick carriage house structure. This unit will need to be brought up to code or eliminated when the building permit (certificate of occupancy) is given for the carriage house. Ord. #47 states any abandoned units can be brought in and legalized with no fees, they waive every fee which is quite an incentive to legalize the units as long as they are deed restricted. Bill Drueding, Zoning officer also looked at the plans for the dormer and in the R-6 zone district it requires that any accessory building, that the maximum height can be 12 feet. In other words you cannot increase a non-conformity in height. Therefore, Bill Drueding is reading the plans that the dormer is not allowed by code. Charles: At our worksession we need to discuss the allow variations if it is conducive to the proper compatible with a structure. ability to use and is Bill: This board has to deal with the way the laws are written and if the applicant has a disagreement with the interpretation he can discuss it with the zoning officer. Roxanne: I had a public inquiry from Mr. Berrell Erickson. He would rather see the carriage house demolished and start over or left as is. He also was'concerned about the garage being able to accept cars pulling in and out. He was concerned that the cars would be driving onto his property. The Eng. Dept. evaluated the radius etc. and had no problems. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989 Roxanne: The applicant is recommending four flat roof skylights and Staff finds this excessive and recommends only two. Changes on the south include overlap siding, operable sliding glass doors to replace the upper hayloft doors and two new garage doors on lower level. One of the garage doors will have multiple panes and the other would be wood in a diagonal pattern. The proposed entryway has cottage like windows which Staff finds appropriate. The west elevation is receiving a number of alterations. The cow shed will be demolished and a new gabled entry added which will have the interior stairway in it. The height to the ridge is 17 ft. and width 17 ft. The entry is recessed approximately 2 ft. on either side. A variation is also required even though you are demolishing a non-conformity, the applicant wants to replace into the setback a new structure, (the addition). There is a triangle gable peak window, flat roof skylight and double hung windows on either side of the door. Staff is recommending that the gable peak window be eliminated and that the dormer be eliminated. The east elevation contains two flat roof skylights which staff recommends to be eliminated and a lower level entrance door and bathroom window. The north elevation will retain its lower level barn door and the window openings and another triangle gable peak window is proposed. Staff finds the total number of changes to be significant and are concerned that it will loose its character as an historic structure and more study needs to be done. We are recommending that cond%tional approval be granted with the provisions on page 5 of memo dated March 28, 1989. APPLICANT RESPONSE George: This is a house that has been lived in since it was built. At one time this was a dairy operation. There have been many changed on the main structure and carriage house as needed. The roof of the main house and the brick garage were tin roofs originally. In the 40's the roofs were changed to wood shingles. The wood structure to the carriage house was added. I need light to make the project work and be functional. We need to come to a compromise. No one will put money into a building unless they can use it. I have tried to preserve the original openings. One garage door was added after the other as it is bigger. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Zoe: Take out skylight on south elevation. The garage doors be diagonal above and below the windows to match adjacent garage door. Eliminate the east elevation skylights. The triangle gable peak window should be eliminated on west elevation. The roofing material should be further studied and there has to be something that is reminiscent of what sheds had originally. The carriage house is very visible everywhere. The west elevation 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 28, 1989 two double hung windows should be made narrower similar to the south elevation double hung window. Georgeann: No problem with metal roof but keep it one color. On south elevation I agree with the diagonal siding but have no definite solution. On the sliding glass doors, instead of a thin slider do 4 or 5 inch thick wood around the sides. Possibly use a divider across the center. Skylight acceptable as it is on the south side and not seen a lot and he has a need for light. The west elevation double hung windows need to be thinner. I have no problem with the skylight on west elevation as it is the least noticeable side of the b~ilding. The dormer needs to be smaller in every direction and possibly a little more vertical. No problem with north elevation. On the east elevation only approve of one small skylight and it should match the roofing. Charles: Metal roof acceptable but would prefer roof to match main house. Sliding glass doors on south elevation be divided light as picture presented. It breaks down the scale of the doors. On the garage doors possibly they could match, both doors having angles and windows. No problem with triangle gable windows. I also agree that the dormer should be smaller. On the east the skylights are OK if smaller. Joe: The dormer is appropriate but could be smaller as the other members have described. Minimize the skylights on the south and east elevation. Garage doors and sliding glass doors are appropriate. Nick: No change should occur to the massing of the building and that eliminates the dormer. All the doors should match and I don't think skylights are part of a carriage house. We are gaining something interior at the expense of the exterior. The sliding doors are uncharacteristic to anything that resembles a carriage house. Bill: I'm concerned with the garage doors but do not have a solution. More study needs to be done. We should address skylights as the guidelines state and if there is a problem with light we should address whether the guidelines need to be changed or not. Roxanne: Skylight are acceptable as long as they are not on a principle facade. Bill: I am opposed to the dormer also, any changes to the roof change the significance shapes of the structure as they were historically designed and used. On the west elevation I agree that the windows should be more vertical in appearance and if 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 28, 1989 there is not enough space they should be more square similar to the south elevation. On the sliding glass doors we need to retain the opening but I am not sure of the solution. I am also opposed to the windows in the gable ends. MOTION: Charles: Motion was taken from Roxanne's memo dated March 28, 1989 with some modifications. 1. The treatment of the three large south elevation openings should be further studied. We are talking about the two garage doors and the sliding glass window. 2. The repair rather than replacement of significant percentages of exterior siding be accomplished. 3. The two east elevation skylight be eliminated or reduced. 4. The roof dormer be reduced or eliminated. 5. Remove recommendatio~ five of memo. 6. The west elevation main floor entry double hung windows be narrower, possibly divided into two-over-two. 7. The roofing material be wood shingle or metal/asphalt. 8. The Final Development application include a complete description of the partial demolition activity to be performed and the sequence. 9. The repointing of the attached brick carriage house be accomplished at the time the frame carriage house is being renovated. 10. A variation be granted for the rear yard setback. 11. The dormer is subject to the zoning officer's approval. Georgeann second, all approved. Chairman closed the public hearing. CONCEP~N3AL DEVELOPMENT, 204 S. MILL, ASPEN HARDWARE Roxanne presented the over-view of project as attached in records (memo dated March 28, 1989). Roxanne: The applicants first issue is the restoration of the Collins Block of the facade, storefronts etc. A third floor 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989 addition is also proposed and to construct an infill. The 1904 Sanborn map indicated a very strong street edge and strong streetscape along this particular block. At one time there was a one story structure that was existing in the lot where the infill structure is going to go. At the pre-application Feb. 14th Staff contended that any addition would be visible and that the historic integrity of the Collins Block would be gravely diminished. At that meeting most of the members thought that it was a possibility to have a third floor. Following that meeting members of the Board had called and stated that a third floor addition was not appropriate. We are highly pleased with the restoration activity proposed for the storefronts. In support of the third floor it does appear that the contemporary design does not destroy any significant historic elements of the structure, however, we find that the third floor is incompatible with the established character of the property and we maintain that the historic character of the two story Collins Block would be diminished dramatically with the addition. It is visible throughout the commercial core. The infill proposal incorporates very traditional "victorian" storefront design which we find appropriate in scale and alignment. One of the arguments that the applicant continues to make is that the third floor addition to the Collins Block of 2,000 sq. ft. is reversible. It could be argued that anything is reversible, however, I find that difficult to support due to the 2,000 sq. ft. size and cost of that addition. The sidewalk covering is proposed to remain. We recommend that the applicant consider transferring the density from the third floor of the Collins Block onto the infill structure. We find that the third floor clearly detracts from the cultural value of this National Register structure. Staff recommends that every a~tempt be made to maintain the Collins Block in its current form. We find that the proposal for the new wrap cornice does not meet the guidelines or the Secretary standards which state that alternations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. Staff is recommending a full engineering report and detailed information on the excavation and shoring up (or replacement) of the foundation be included at the final development. Recommendation on page 7 of memo dated March 28, 1989. Chairman opened public hearing. John Beety, Aspen Hardware: The committee should not assume that the infill will be used as a hardware store. Nick: If the third floor is approved that the appropriate arrangements be made to get people off the third floor without going through the interior part of the building. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989 Wayne Paulson, architect: Arrangement would be made. The greatest portion of ou~ investment would be in restoring and repairing the existing building. The infill structure will be one level with a full basement. Harvey Baldwin: There is the possibility of doing a hardware store/ dry goods store in the infill structure. Wayne: The architecture of the infill storefront is 19th century Main St. storefront. Georgeann: At the site visit we talked about concentrating the FAR of the third floor on the infill building. That space was designed to have a two or three story building originally. Another possibility would be to push the third floor addition back further to the south and further to the east. Harvey also talked about lowering the bathrooms. Flag poles on the roof were suggested so that we could get a visual sense of what would be seen. Nick was dismissed. Wayne: The design of the storefront was to respect some of the directives in the guidelines: recessing doorways, windows, use of materials. The concern about the third level to be non- visible from principle street view. The structure as drawn will not be visible from street view until such a point or distance away as the building itself becomes part of the general street scene and therefore it is not an obtrusive issue. By the time you see the third floor structure you are already seeing the general street view and therefore it is much diminished in its effect. Roxanne's second point was she found the third floor to be much more than "minimal". It is hard to say what a minimal alteration is. We think because of the minimal visual effect that it will have to people passing by that it is in that sense a minimal alteration. We will have to demolish and rebuild both existing floors and the roof and in the process restructure vertically with steel the interior of the building. After that is done the little third floor structure can certainly be removed at anytime without actually affecting what goes on the other two floors. We feel it is clearly reversible. Harvey: You are not going to see the addition, we have done everything we could to hide it. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 28, 1989 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Zoe: I read the letter from the National Park Service in Denver who have done extensive work on this and I feel the third floor addition should not be visible. I also feel the infill building should be set back and not line up with the old building. Possibly a second/third floor could be worked out on the infill building. Georgeann: If we are to consider a third story on the hardware building at all I would like to see that made "significantly less there". I would also like to see the height of the whole addition come down four feet. On the western side it should be pushed back significantly. I want to know what you see from La Cocina. Our main problem between the applicant and this Board is at what point in distance does this building become only part of the townscape, at what pqint is the addition significant. On the eastern side I think we have to build the parapet up and it should be kept as simple as possible because there was no parapet there before. I don't think the balcony that comes out over the inset is appropriate. If you had something there the shape should follow the shape of the inset. I don't have a problem with the sandstone cap depending on size. Charles: The third level smaller and perhaps pushing it to the south and possibly the east would be helpful. If possible, I would like to see the height reduction. The more appropriate place for additional space would be the infill location. I am also concerned about the view from across town because that is where the building is most impressive for view and you see the principle facade of the building and seeing something come up over the top will look a little disturbing and disturb the character and serenity of the original building. Wayne: The Park Service is responding to the elevation that they were sent. One of the major elements of our presentation is that the roof top construction would not be seen from anyway so near that one could distinguish the historic quality of that building. The addition itself is below the height of the adjacent buildings. Bill: I am concerned about a third story structure compromising the integrity of the original design and am opposed to it. The job of the chairman is to come to compromise and keep the process flowing. If you want to put up height poles that might satisfy concerns of view angles. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 28, 1989 Charles: We are all here to try and make something work. If the cornice is approved it should be kept simple so that your eye isn't drawn to it. Wayne: There are many things that I can do architecturally to mitigate the issue. Zoe: Our job on this commission is to think about the historical character of this old building. To put a brand new building on top of an existing 100 year old two story building is not what we are here for. Bill: In the interest to help the Committee make a decision the poles should be put up and we can all look at it. Georgeann: I would like to see a study of what could happen if you put a building on the back of the infill building. Possibly you could find something even better. Wayne: This building is a working building and when renovation is done it will last another 200 years. Harvey: We don't know if we can put anything on the infill. If we put the massing on the infill I wouldn't have enough FAR from the 2,000 sq. ft. of the addition. If we were to redirect the massing I think we would have to take away half the mass of the hardware store. MOTION: Charles made the motion to move to continue the public hearing until April 26, 1989 and give the applicant time to erect poles on top of the building and that the parapet height should be indicated and further study their submission. Georgeann second. All approved. Zoe: The design is appropriate on the infill building and I only have one comment that the entrance portion of it is overpowering and over powers the working class building of the Collins Block. Georgeann: I agree with Zoe that the entrance is a little massive and the eagle and flag and too large but generally it looks nice. Charles: I waiver between the two. I like it and think it is fun to have that right to make something fun but on the other hand it is not understated enough. I'm between the two. Bill: You show it in the rendering but technically the elevations don't show the horizontal line over the windows of the infill project. 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MA~CH 28, 1989 PRE-APPLICATION 204 S. GALENA ST. THE SPORT STAI~KER Welton Anderson, architect: This is the only one story building on the block. In the guidelines it states that second floors should be a rectangular mass with vertical openings spaced regularly. Zoe: It looks top heavy with all the windows on second floor. Georgeann: Will it be boarding on the second floor. Welton: Yes, the same as below. Georgeann: Somehow the windows on the second floor have to relate to the windows on the first floor. Welton: The heavy awning breaks it in the middle. Bill: You have the determine the potential historic significance of the existing building, if it does exist. You might find that the existing building does not have any potential historic significance and allows you to add a second story being a product of its time otherwise you are going to be contradictory. Roxanne: Does this one story building have any integrity and if it does what are those character defining features and what needs to be brought forward on the second floor. Georgeann: Its horizontality is a contrast to the verticality of the old building. Bill: This building is only a year old. Roxanne: The goal is 4 deed restricted affordable housing units and one free market unit. I think a bolder statement for the second floor might do this structure well and might be a nice infill on a critical block. Georgeann: I like the mass and bulk and the use of the wood. I have a problem with the relationships of the windows and the curvilinear shapes are not carried upstairs. The building is becoming too victorian. 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 28, 1989 Bill: In the guidelines you tend to imitate rather than interpret. The building is very western and should not be imitated of a victorian element. Welton: We are going through GMP. I will be willing to come back and do some modifications on the windows. You can approve this with conditions. Roxanne: The concept is good. Meeting adjourned 6:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 10