Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890426HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 26, 1989 525 N. 201 W. FRANCIS-VICENZI CARRIAGE HOUSE SECOND STREET - SHILLING-LAMB HOUSE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 204 S. MILL ST. ASPEN HARDWARE (COLLINS BLOCK 432 W. FRANCIS-CARRIAGE HOUSE DORMER . 221 E. MAIN, EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS . 204 S. GALENA-SPORTSTALKER BUILDING CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PRE-APPLICATION 413 E. HYMAN, RIEDE'S CITY BAKERY 1 3 12 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall April 26, 1989 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Charlie Knight, Joe Krabacher, Chris Darakis and Zoe Compton present. Nick Pasquarella, Don Erdman and Charles Cunniffe were excused. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the minutes of April 11, 1989 as amended. Chris second. All approved. MOTION: Bill made motion to add 17 Queen street to the agenda. No second. Motion dies. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: National Historic Preservation through the 20th. The preservation forum is Hotel Jerome May 17 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. week is May 14th scheduled for the PUBLIC COMMENT Kim Green presented the Committee with signatures for the records opposing the third floor addition. a petition of 250 Aspen Hardware Store 201 W. FRANCIS-VICENZI CARRIAGE HOUSE Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (memo dated April 26, 1989). Roxanne: George has addressed all of the conditions and made a number of changes and we are recommending that HPC grant final development approval with the six conditions from the April 26, 1989 memo. APPLICANT RESPONSE George Vicenzi: 1. I have eliminated the roof dormer. 2. I would like to have an option on the roof. Wood shingle stained natural or gray metal due to drainage problems. 3. Keep the triangle windows. 4. The skylights on the eastern elevation have been reduced by 50%. 5. Maximum height at the median pitch of the new entrance way gable shall not exceed 12'. 6. Grant rear yard setback variance. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 26, 1989 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Charlie: Possibly the metal roof would be adequate. Allow the triangular window in the new addition for light on the stairwell. It is inappropriate in the old building. Georgeann: No problem with roofing material or triangular windows and allow the east elevation skylights as they are small and it is set back quite far from the street. Zoe: No problem with the skylights as they do not detract from the main character of the house. Concessions have been made. Triangular window inappropriate above hayloft doors. Joe: Elimination of roof dormer appreciated. Chris: No comments. Bill: Approve of triangular window on new addition but not on the barn. Willing to discuss roofing material as long as the identity is kept. Smaller skylights are appropriate. George: In order to .keep a triangular window on the south elevation there is a way I can keep it flat so that it doesn't read as indicated in the elevations. Applicant presented a photo for the records. Georgeann: On the 12 foot entrance way gable, can we give him a variance on that. Roxanne: HPC cannot grant variance on height and we are working with the Bldg. Dept. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to grant Final Development approval for the proposal at 201 W. Francis including approval of the rear yard setback variation, finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark. The roof dormer will be eliminated. The roofing materials can be wood shingles stained natural or gray metal which should be approved by the monitor or HPC as directed by Roxanne Eflin, Planning office. The triangular gable peak windows on the west and north elevations can be as shown and the triangular window on the south elevation can be approved as presented in photo at this meeting by applicant. The east elevation roof skylights are approved. The maximum 'height at the median pitch of the new entrance way gable shall not exceed 12 feet. Joe second. Yes vote: Georgeann, Joe, Chris, Zoe, Bill. 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 26, 1989 No vote: Charlie. Motion carries. Bill Poss is monitor of project. 525 N. SECOND STREET - SHILr~NG-LAMB HOUSE Roxanne: The project was approved conceptually at the last meeting with conditions that the landscape alterations and the fence renovation be apprmved by HPC. In order to construct the new addition the cottonwood tree at the rear elevation has to be removed and it will be replaced with "three", 3" calliper trees. We need clarification on the placement of those three trees. Plans have been sent to the State and I have not heard anything negative. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to grant Final Development approval for the Shilling-Lamb house located at 525 N. 2nd St. as recommended in Roxanne's memo dated April 26, 1989. Tree placement be indicated on site plan; grant side yard set back and FAR variations and the condition that the fence is restored. Zoe second. All approved. Charlie is monitor of project. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 204 $. MILL ST. ASPEN HARDWARE (COLLINS BLOCK) Chairman opened public hearing. Roxanne presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (memo April 26, %989). Roxanns: Since the last meeting the required story poles have gone up and the applicant has lowered the maximum height of the third floor by 18 inches. The revised plans include a mini mall approach with 8 small store fronts that are accessed by a corridor that is open to the sky. This is a very complex project and it is a tax credit project. Stages: Phase One: Collins Block Restoration Phase Two: Third Floor proposal Phase Three: Infill plaza Phase Four: Affordable Housing development proposed) in non-contiguous lot. (yet to be completely Staff is recommending denial of Phase Two and Three. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 26, 1989 Tom Sardy presented photos of the building when he owned it. The canopy was added on it 1963 due to snow and ice hazards. Collette Penne, Planning Consultant presented pictures of the downtown commercial core indicating that the building adaptively fits the neighborhood and that historic buildings in the cc zone have been altered. The standards were also reviewed. Collette: Our historic district is not pristine but something that we can be proud of. In reviewing the third floor addition we need to consider the view plane criteria. There are whimsical features on buildings throughout town which are Aspen's nature. I don't think there is another building that hasn't been adaptively added to in the same way. The third floor has significantly been pulled back, lowered and reduced in size. I would prefer to call it a cap that is 42 by 44 and is set back 9 feet from Mill St. and set back 16 ft. from Hopkins. Roxanne: Every historic structure is reviewed in conjunction with the guidelines/standards. Wayne Polson: In the Historic Guidelines it states that roof top additions should be set back from the edge, not prohibited. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Joe: No one that I conversed with in town was in favor of the third floor addition. I could see the story poles from my office and the addition will be visible. I am concerned about the impact from other buildings. I feel there is a compromise to move the density over to the infill lot and allow that building to be a two story. Georgeann: The points I find critical for viewing this are the intersection beyond La Cocina, intersection where the front door of Elli's building is; intersection by the chocolate building. I looked at the story poles and it might be possible to have a third floor addition on here. From those points of view the structure is too high, about a foot. If all you saw from those points was the receding gray roof the building would be unobtrusive. On the west side where it is nine feet away from the parapet it should be 5 feet further. It needs to be lower and pulled back. Also no planting and outdoor accessories be higher then the parapet. Philosophically I can also see where a third floor addition would be inappropriate on a building this classical and I would prefer to see the penthouse on the building next door. 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 26, 1989 Charlie: This is one of our best buildings in town and it is important that we go with the exact restoration. I don't think an addition, a roof top residence is an attractive addition to this building or a necessary addition. I would like to see the building have the covered walkway removed. Zoe: I am in agreement that Harley does extensive restorations. The addition is on the wrong corner and on the wrong building. I agree with the National Parks Service letter that the character of the building is defined by the flat roof. Harley: with me. I will give up the tax credits and I need you to work Chris: I looked at the story poles and I stood on the roof of this building and viewed the rooftops of other buildings. Right now I am undecided. Bill: The photos show it a lot lower then I perceived it when I saw the height poles. I voted to allow the roof top structures on the Brand bldg. because I didn't think they would be that visible and they are a lot more visible. It is one of the last buildings and when it co~es to historic preservation you only get one shot at it. Wayne Polson: We made this proposal because we think it is the least impacting on the view plane. INFILL STRUCTURE Collette: This area is space that is a change Harley would have to go that open space. has to stay open. If there to P&Z for the reduction in Roxanne: We are dealing with the design and whether or not this plaza design is appropriate in the commercial core district and on this site as opposed to an infill structure. Harley can sponsor a code amendment if the open space cash in lieu is not appropriate. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Georgeann: I don't think the mini mall works and it is too long and narrow. The details on the front facade are too massive. Charlie: I like the ~lignment between the wall and the old jewelry store and the red stone block. It is a little strong but the building has possibilities. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 26, 1989 Bill: I think the fro~t facade is appropriate but have a problems with the eagle and flag pole, decorative nature. few MOTION: Bill made the motion to approve Phase I of the restoration of the Collins Block building with the condition that a detail description of all repair and restoration activity be submitted for final review. Table for further discussion Phase II and III to the May 10th meeting and continue the public hearing. Georgeann second. Charlie: We should still the building and bringing Also a bond should be done. consider taking the covered porch off it back to its original condition. Harley Baldwin: I have proven I can take a masonry building and restore it completely without a bond. In terms of the sidewalk canopy I feel people in Aspen think it is part of the landmark and it was constructed due to ice and snow problems. Roxanne: If they study the possibility of removing the canopy they could bring that back to final. Harley: I will study the possibility for the final development. Harley: You can stipulate that if anything happened I would reproduce what was there absolutely. AMENDED MOTION: I will add to the motion to restudy and discuss at final the removal of the covered walkway and the guarantee. Georgeann second. All favored the motion and amended motion. Georgeann: He owns the land and if the building fell in we would tell him he has to replicate it. CLARIFICATION OF MOTION Georgeann: We are approving the renovation with the conditions labeled on page 7. Tabling part 2 and 3. Discussing at final on Phase I removal of the covered walkway and also to guarantee that the structural investigation. 432 W. FRANCIS-CARRIAGE HOUSE DORMER Letter was entered into the records from the Hernandez family. Roxanne: The motion at the last meeting was applicant a restudy of the dormer (smaller narrow flat windows to provide for light. to either allow the dormer) or to allow Richard Klein presented photographs of carriage houses throughout town that had been altered. 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 26, 1989 Richard: You can't see the dormer as it is hidden. I would petition the board to reconsider. Charlie: Having reviewed all the alternatives I feel the dormer is the most aesthetic application. Chris: Ail along I have approved of the dormer as it will provide headroom. Joe: I am still opposed to the dormer and the roof line should be maintained. All the carriage houses in town are becoming second residences. The adaptive reuse doesn't work because they are not tall enough to put two floors in them and every time applicants say they need light and ventilation. Zoe: I don't think the carriage house needs the dormer and I am in favor of the flat windows. The dormer augments the idea of the carriage house. We have made too many mistakes on carriage houses. Bill: I have looked at this dormer and I have never been pleased with the skylights. The dormer is a more pleasing addition to the house. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to approve the shed dormer as presented with three windows A3.3. The dormer that goes to the ridge. Georgeann second. Yes vote: Chris, Bill, Charlie, Georgeann. No vote: Zo~ and Joe. Motion carries. 221 E. MAIN, EXPLORE BOOKSETWmRS Roxanne: Phase I is to enlarge the storage space at the rear of the structure and to extend the deck area around the back to provide for seating. Phase II is the possible expansion of the kitchen onto the deck area. The changes are minor and to the rear of the structure. The building has substantially been altered and therefore I find that the changes do not effect the character of the building and they meet the development guidelines. Randy Wedum: The original building was done by Bill Lipsy and then remodelled by Michael Gassman. I am basically adding a 100 ft. to the back of the building. Minor construction, one story. MOTION: I move that we grant minor development approval for this project. Georgeann second. All approved. Georgeann: I am opposed to more changes on this building. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 26, 1989 204 S. GALRNA-SPORTSTAI~fER BUILDING CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Chairman opened public hearing. Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (memo dated April 26, 1989). Roxanne: Applicant is requesting approval of a second floor to the Sportstalker building. The plan includes 4 deed restricted units and one free market unit. The applicant is proposing to continue the rectangular box shape of the existing foot print and to carry on the line. We find this to be appropriate with the standards. I have concerns with the roof as there is a glassed in structure to allow light for the free market unit. We are recommending approval subject to conditions to be met at Final. Welton Anderson, architect: There would be a roof on the north side and glazing on the south side. The roof is down 3 1/2 feet from the parapet. The roofing materials will be similar on the front and back. The addition does not compete with the victorians. The south elevation we can carry the wood siding all the way around over the masonry block. Material on the outside stairway will be iron. Windows are plain and simple. Georgeann: The glass skylight needs to be made smaller. I would like to look at the treatments and materials more closely. I think we are making too big of an element to the stairway. Zoe: I think the stairs should be straight. Welton: They will be m~de out of light iron. Charlie: I think the skylight is too large and out of scale. It seems too dominant. Possibly the railing on the back should be covered for privacy. Georgeann: We could give him conceptual approval and ask him to restudy the glass skylights and perhaps make it lower; restudy the balcony and stairs showing more details in material and perhaps showing a solid balcony railing and showing the stairs going straight or angled. Joe: We would like to see a roof plan. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to grant Conceptual approval to the Sportstalker second floor addition with the requirements that Welton restudy the glass skylights on the roof in an effort 8 HISTORIC PI~ESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 26, 1989 to make them minimal as possible and present a roof plan. Restudy the balcony and ~tairs on the east elevation showing more detailing and materials and in particular studying shielding, the balcony rail or having a solid rail and presenting some possibilities of angled or straight stairs. Give detailed information on all materials. Joe second. All approved. PRE-APPLICATION 413 E. HYMAN, RIEDEtS CITY BAKERY Roxanne presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (memo April 26, 1989). Roxanne: Structure is on National Register. It is one of two remaining original wood commercial structures in the downtown district. They want to restore the first 21 feet of the front and from there modify the entire interior adding a loft inside on the second floor and adding a roof top addition which would be the owners dwelling unit. APPLICANT RESPONSE Welton Anderson, architect: Original structure was a bakery. The original roof went behind the false front. We want to take the original building and restore it and take the two additions and remove them and sink into the roof a bedroom, bath, bedroom. The bedroom facing the mall would be set back 21 feet and only be six feet above the roof of the building. Then the roof would step up a little bit more for the livingroom/dining room. Access would be completely off the alley. I will provide photographs at conceptual so you can exactly see what is visible. We want this project plain and simple. At conceptual and final we are going to request that we be allowed to use the area that we discovered inside the roof as part of your ability to provide a variation in FAR. Joe: Will this be habitable space on three floors. Welton: The owner is considering using this as an art studio for her own use in conjunction with the apartment. Her directive to me was to design it so that it could work either with the retail or with her apartment. Zoe: I would like to see the massing. Georgeann: It seems that it has a lot of potential. Bill: I also would like to see the story poles with a solid look to them before I make a decision because of the concern of third stories. 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 26, 1989 Joe: We don't want to set a bad precedence on roof top additions. INFORMATION Worksession set for May 3 from 5:00 to 7:00. PROJECT MONITORING Chris: There are problems with the Elisha carriage house beyond what we had talked about with this Committee. Roxanne: We are looking at an entire reconstruction of the Elisha carriage house which I am not in favor of. The rock wall that currently encroaches onto the McDonald property is bowing out and Welton is recommending that it be disassembled and that cement foundation walls be constructed underneath the carriage house. Lift the carriage house up and completely replace everything including all of the clapboard, 90% on south. We need to get feedback from the Parks service before we approve what is going on. Welton: We would like to build a new foundation that would drain water away from the structure. Put in a new concrete foundation wall etc. Joe: Could you put the clapboard from the north side onto the south side. Welton: On one side of the carriage house it is water damaged and on the other sun damaged. Georgeann: Our choice is to do nothing and it will fall down in 50 years or rebuild it. We should get guarantees as we do with other buildings. Charlie: If you let 90% of the wood go off that building other buildings will be doing the same thing. Chris: I would like to see something in writing on the order that things will be done. Bill: This is significant and should be brought back to us May 10th. Georgeann: McDonald's house. In general it looks good. We were concerned about the mullions not being put in the upstairs windows or the french doors. When they went to price them they 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 26, 1989 were too expensive and Scott said he would build them if required. I was not disturbed by the windows. On the color of the building the McDonalds bought expensive spruce wood extra thick specially planed so that it would weather well and would not need to be treated. In time it will weather down as the main building. Possibly iron sulfate could be tried. Chris: There is a latex stain out and possibly they can use that. Georgeann: I will take all the information back to the McDonalds. Meeting Adjourned 9:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy city Clerk 11