Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890524HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall May 24, 1989 5:00 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Charlie Knight, Chris Darakis, Don Erdman and Zoe Compton present. Joe Krabacher, Charles Cunniffe and Nick Pasquarella were excused. MOTION: Chris made the.motion to approve the minutes of May 10, 1989. Don second. All approved. 200 E. MAIN ST. MODIFICATIONS TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT (approved, Fall of 1988) Roxanne Eflin, Planning office presented the over-view of the project (memo dated May 24, 1989). Proposed changes in windows on west and north elevation. Bill Drueding: We have a problem with FAR. Bruce Sutherland, architect: Our lower level we are calling a basement so that it doesn't count in our FAR. We are trying to create a good environment for the units. We want to extend the area ways lower so when individuals are in their units they get more light. The developer feels it is important to create a good environment. There is a requirement from the city that says only 10% of the wall area can be with area ways. In order to meet the city requirements we are going to have to raise the earth up and close down our window area ways because we have gone over on the window size and height. That is possible but it files up the units. HPC can grant us an exemption on these conditions of the FAR as it relates to the 'basement. Roxanne: that the reasons. This Board can grant a variance up to 500 if we find reason we are making the variance is for compatibility Bill: Isn't that only on the land. Roxanne: It has to be a landmark structure. The parcel is designated and this is not an historic building. That is why they were allowed to build a detached unit on a non-conforming lot because it was historic. Bruce: We would like to have bigger windows and the units need to be called a basement or we cannot do it. The area ways require handrails and we mentioned pipe railing that will be painted. Roxanne: This is a way for them to make affordable housing units but I don't believe we can grant a variation. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 Bruce: Our building slopes down two feet in the back and the front starts at grade. Roxanne: Why not take some of the FAR out of a second floor. Bruce: It will be impossible to work if we do that. Georgeann: the house it. You are so it will saying you don't want to drop the level of be more compatible with the building beside Roxanne: The applicant is proposing to move windows, adding north window and railings. I had recommended wood as a railing. I will discuss the FAR situation with the Planning Director. Discussion on railing, wood or metal. a Zoe: This is the first building being built on Main St. and if we use metal railing we are setting a precedent. Donald Fleisher: The fence doesn't need to be end of summer and we can be thinking about wood will be coming back to the Board. done until the or metal as we Charlie: This is a prominent corner and needs softened. Bruce: We have not intended to change the natural grade because that is what works for this building. Roxanne: On the west elevation the shed windows have been changed from double hung to fixed "picture" windows. On the north elevation a window has been added to the lower level on the east side. Georgeann: You are proposing to take out the divided sections of the windows. The upper left hand corner window on west elevation has changed significantly and the upper right hand corner window is now a Iarge pane of glass which was originally divided into two. You are also proposing to take out the divisions on the upper part of the windows. Zoe: I prefer the old windows and the top pieces of the windows(above the transoms) are very attractive. Georgeann: I also feel they are a unique character. Don: The building has a fine scale and has changed Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 significantly by having .any kind of large window. beneficial in the long run to divide the glass. It would be MOTION: Bill made the motion to grant approval for the minor modification to the final development plans at 200 E. Main St. with the following conditions: That the fixed pane window modifications as presented be denied and that the divided windows as approved at conceptual remain. The dormer and window on the west elevation, second floor be approved as presented. Charlie second. All approved. The choice of wood or metal railings will be discussed at the next meeting, issue tabled per applicant and Board. LANDMARK DESIGNATION 430 W. MAIN ST. Roxanne: Staff finds this structure very appropriate for designation and the standards have been met. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to recommend landmark designation for 430 W. Main St. Don second. All approved. LANDMARK DESIGNATION 406 W. SMUGGLER ST. Roxanne: The structure meets standard E and F in neighborhood and community character and recommend designation. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to recommend landmark designation for 406 W. Smuggler St. Don second. All approved. MINOR DEVELOPMENT 134 W. HOPKINS AVE., LOT L Bill: This building is half of the Wyckoff/Carley Condominiums. Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (memo dated May 24, 1989). Roxanne: The siding is in need of repair and possibly some replacement only when necessary. Judy Billings, applicant wants to replace the damaged clapboard, replace the east elevation non original window with two new bevelled hung windows to match the south elevation windows and to add cut fish scale shingles to the south elevation gable peak and decorative trim to the vergeboard and add a picket and wrought iron fence around the perimeter of the lot. Without any historic documentation we can't recommend that fish scale shingle§ be added. Possibly some very simple drapery or some tracery could be added on the vergeboard if the Board feels that is appropriate. On small shot gun cottages picket fences were appropriate and possibly an iron gate could be Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 incorporated. The only decorative element on cottages were the brackets on the porch. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Charlie: The windows are appropriate and the south elevation should stay the same and fence should be wood. Georgeann: I like the idea of a wood fence/metal gate. I have no problems with the window. The gable end trim is inappropriate. The fish scales are a minor change and could have been done at that time. Zoe: The fence should be picket and I have no objections to the iron gate. I feel the fret trim is out of character for a working class house. No problem with adding the fish scales but they should be painted the same color as the house. Chris agreed with Zoe. Don: Staff's comments are appropriate. scales are in order. I don't think the fish Zoe: Simple brackets could be placed in the corner of the gable ends. MOTION: Don made the motion that minor development approval be granted for the applicant at 134 W. Hopkins Lot L subject to the following conditions: Decorative shingles shall be added to the gable end in the form of,fish scale and painted the same color of the house. Clapboard deteriorated past the point of repair shall be replaced to match existing. Window replacement similar to existing double hung shall be approved. Painted picket fence shall be approved with a wrought iron or wood gate. Georgeann second. All approved. Motion carries. Charlie: Possibly you would want to leave some of the clapboard siding on and enjoy the weathered look. Once they are gone the oldness and charm of the house is gone. Georgeann is monitor of project. 1004 E. DURANT UNIT I CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING Charlie Knight stepped down. Chairman opened the public hearing. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner presented the over- view of the project as attached in records (memo dated May 24, 1989). Roxanne: The proposal is to raise the lower level addition 30 inches. We do find the application of rock faced cinder block as exposed foundation material too heavy and historically inappropriate. We recommend the use of wood lattice, either diamond or square to cover the most visible portion of the foundation under the porch. We are recommending that HPC grant conceptual approval subject to the six conditions in the memo. Jane Kessleo, neighbor and owns property to the west. What does side yard setback variation mean. Welton: If we were to do anything to the house we would have to make it conform to the setbacks which is five feet in on each side. We want to raise the entire house upward 30 inches. It will not encroach any more or less. Jane: I have no problems if the building is raised as we are higher and the building on the other side is also. Chairman closed the public hearing. Chris: Possibly it should be a combination of lattice work and something else such as stone. Welton: Possibly the use of all brick. landscaping heavily. I have also talked about moving the curb out. The applicant will be with the Eng. Dept. MOTION: Bill made the motion to grant conceptual approval for the proposal at 1004 E. Durant with the conditions outlined in the memo by Staff excluding item one. (memo dated May 24, 1989). Don second. All approved. Bill: The proposal is 6andstone around the foundation. RIEDE'S CITY BAKERY - 413 E. HY~k%N AVE. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT-PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner presented the over- view of the project as attached in records (memo May 24, 1989). Chairman opened the public hearing. Roxanne: The concerns of this building are how visible is it and what impacts will it have on the historic resource. A wood 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 structure was constructed to indicate maximum height which was for the lower level only and did not include the step back. The addition is on the rear of the non-historic portion of the building. The unit is for a dwelling unit for the building owner. I feel we will need significant reduction in height and setback and hope this can be a tax credit project. The applicant is going to restore the original facade. We are recommending that the original trim be removed and replacement pieces be made to exactly match. The applicant is asking for a partial demolition and we do not support any demolition of historic fabric. We are recommending tabling until June 14th and that the applicant revise the plan and revisions must be submitted by Friday June 2nd, 5:00 p.m. to include height reduction, stepback of addition and that the partial demolition shall not include any original portions; that we have detailed drawings of roof top elements; the south elevation details and a significant elimination of glare elements and reflection. Clarification of major building materials and foundation and structural information. APPLICANT RESPONSE Welton: I have met some of the conditions and there are some conditions that cannot be met. It is not visible from directly across the mall particularly if we lower it a foot. We would lower the front by one foot and back by two feet. You can see it from the Popcorn Wagon. We do have a problem with stepping it back further. We have .two alternatives regarding the partial demolition: One alternative is to preserve and restore the front 21 feet to its original glory. From the mid portion where the ceiling drops back we could do a demolition, do new foundations, do new structure and carry it all the way back but preserve basically the portion that has always faced the City of Aspen. No one has seen the side walls of that building since 1968 when the building beside it went up (Roaring Fork Bldg. ) The alternative is to preserve the side walls as is and come in with columns etc. and build a structure above the existing structure and basically have it on stilts which still will involve some demolition because underneath the flat roof is a gable roof and in order to tuck the second floor into that space we will have to demolish part of the gable roof and part of the flat roof above it. There is going to be some demolition if we are going to minimize this impact to the mall anyway. It seems to me there is no good valid public service being served. It will make the construction process that more complicated for something that has not been seen and has not been an important part of the landscaping of Aspen for a generation. We would like to do a preservation job on the portion that has 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 the high ceiling now but let us have some flexibility to do a straight forward structural solution where you can't see it. Detail drawings can be provided. I have talked with a company that can bronze glaze the windows to eliminate glare and we have changed the windows and added an overhang. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Don: If you build a monitor window that is vertical with a little over hang it will eliminate the glare and you will have a better end result. Georgeann: I am not happy with the one foot reduction and I think it will be seen more. From the front the addition should be lower. We need to consider the second floor views. Roxanne: We are looking at the perception of the scale of the building. This building is on the National Register because it is a one story building. Are we going to diminish its character with a second floor. Bill: It is not a second floor, it is a larger structure in back of the building. You are retaining the original structure. Leslie Holst: You have to deal with this building as an individual, National Register building and it has to be a minimal impact on the building. Any visual impact has to be considered. Zoe: A model is appropriate. Georgeann: Couldn't you cut a little bit of the back into the dead space and let the window well etc. be in the dead space. Welton: Create a snow catcher/big gutter, window well. That would entail cutting into an additional area of the roof but could be done. Zoe: In terms of this building there needs to be a height reduction. I feel it is too broad and should be moved toward the back. I also would suggest tabling this until we hear some recommendations from the Park's Service. Chris: Why do you have to hide the addition. Roxanne: The addition should not impact the perception of the small scale of the structure. Don: The building to the west is not an historic building and additions are going to be made to that. If the first step and 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 the second step cannot be read from across the street I feel we will have achieved our goal. To the east there is a four story. Bill: The addition doesn't bother me in this case because it will be hidden by future buildings and will not be that visible. We are not changing the front structure and it is clearly an addition on the back. Welton: I have lowered it a foot from what was presented and perhaps with Georgsann's suggestions we can lower it some dimension more. I can do an accurate cross section of the mall. We will adjust the story poles to what the drawings show and do a second horizontal line to what we are going to propose at final if you approve this at conceptual. Don: It is set back 21.ft. from the street and all compromising activity is taking place after that 21 ft. point. Welton: From directly across the mall at an elevation of 5 or 6 above the pavement that it be totally invisible. We have no problem with that at all. Roxanne: The site line should not be taken from directly across the street. We need to look at it from the Wheeler and it is visible. We need to look at how to mitigate those impacts. Don: The original building was only 21 ft. deep and this is really an addition on the back of an original building. MOTION: Don made the motion that the HPC grant conceptual development for the proposal at 413 E. Hyman Avenue as presented with the following conditions: That the height of the two-two stage addition be reduced at least 12 inches on the first stage and at least 24 inches on the second stage so that neither can be seen from a point directly opposite at the north edge of the mall with a view point 5'6" from mall surface. Partial demolition shall include as little destruction of original portion of the structure as physically possible. The glare producing aspect of the south elevation glazing shall be mitigated by changing the angle to vertical. Building materials used in surfacing the addition shall be "quiet" and non-matching with the historic structure. The material should be compatible but non-duplicate and be different in appearance to the original structure. Foundation/structural information submitted detailed protection methods for the original structure, with a Performance Guarantee letter to be approved by Staff Attorney Fred Gannett. Story poles both parallel to and perpendicular to the facade shall be erected on or before May 30, 1989. Horizontal definition of the entire proposed addition. Georgeann second. All approved. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 Welton: We have a problem with condition #2 where there are two walls that have not been seen and as a condition we are preserving. They create a construction difficulty and we hope that you would modify that condition. Roxanne: I would like the Board to wait on modifying #2 until I can respond. It sounds reasonable. COTTONWOOD PARK - 700 E. MAIN Roxanne: This project is just outside the commercial core district and is going before P&Z and Council. P&Z and Council have asked that HPC review the project. This project is on the corner at original curve where we moved the little shot gun cottage. Stan Mathis, architect: We are proposing 12 units, three deed restricted employee units and five accessory units. All parking underground. We are proposing five units on the river and heavily landscaping Original Curve. Every other block starting with the Sardy House is a major brick and stone building. I looked at this as being the anchor. We wanted to make an ending to Main st. that we don't have now. Zoe: The project is developing continuity for Main St. Georgeann: The buildings are 30 ft. high to the ridge. wide are they. How Stan: On Main St. they are 28 feet wide and they are 32 ft. back from the curb. Above grade they are 3,000 sq. ft. each. Zoe: They are 20 ft. lower then the concept 600 which is a four story structure. Don: My feeling is it reads as one long building when it really is a series of townhouses. Possibly something could be done to break it down. Chris: I like the pool off to the side to provide for open space. And I also like the idea of the porches. Stan: We took the decks off the public side and put them to the interior of the court. Meeting adjourned 8:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk