Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880614HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 MAROLT BARN/RANCHING MUSEUM FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 113 E. HOPKINS AVE. . FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-334 W. HALLAM AVE. FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-212 W. HOPKINS FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-516 E. HYMAN AVE. .3 .3 .5 · 11 · 11 15 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO~ITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall June 14, 1988 2:30 pm Meeting was called to order by Pasquarella, Augie Reno, Charles present. Zoe Compton was absent. Charlie Knight and Joe Krabacher. chairman Bill Poss with Nick Cunniffe and Georgeann Waggaman Excused were Patricia O'Bryan, NOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the minutes of April 26th and May 24, 1988. Charles second. Motion carries. STAFF CO~ENTS Roxanne: We have been receiving a lot of public inquiries from California, New Zealand and New Mexico requesting copies of our guidelines. I am working on developing a bike route through the west end and both the districts. I have reviewed the mechanical equipment on the roof at 520 E. Hyman. There is one shiny aluminum stove pipe that projects only visible from across the street. I talked to the Bldg. Dept. and they never granted a permit. Augie: To clear up the retraction, Madelyn said that the Amato residence was an unanimous vote in favor of the project and I wanted to clarify that there was one person against the project. PUBLIC Mary Martin: I have to make a comment about moving any 4 or 5's out of the historic center. I worked hard for an overlay and one of the reasons was to protect those houses in the City's district. Even though you go by State guidelines, National guidelines they are not mandatory and they cannot be made mandatory to anyone historic preservation citizens group. This is a small town and the historic part of it in which you are to take charge is very precious and it is slowly eroding. That doesn't mean to me that you can move an historic structure 4 and 5 out of its site; it relates to that site to make the whole historic district. You are charged to preserve not just the house but the district. We have seen houses and buildings changed and it is slowly eroding. It is time for us to say no. I would fight for the Berko building moving it up if that helps for the alignment of the street and it helps the builder to realize its potential out of his investment. I feel these big victorians right in the heart of the City are what make Aspen and give it its distinctive flavor vs. any other town in Colorado. I also feel you have fallen back on your tolerance of an addition, of a victorian style addition and I don't think that is fair either and I'll come back and talk with you every time you have a meeting if that is what you are going to do because this Board is over staffed with business people right now and not the people HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 who live in the victorians. I think it should be put in your code that a portion of this Board should be a layman who lives in the historic district or an historic house. I also would like you to put in your demolition standards a strong rule on demolition of 4 and 5's in the historic districts. The houses belong where they were built. You could pass an ordinance that deals with the historic commercial district that would preserve more. Also in the demolition standards the wording needs changed to include the historic district. Bill: Roxanne would you look into that. Bill: The Berko project has not come before us yet. Charles: When we came before HPC there were several suggestions and one of them was to move it. We have not decided what we are going to do. Each situation has to be reviewed uniquely. Mary: You should pass a law that it cannot be moved that it has to remain on its site. Roxanne: DO you specifically mean the commercial core site. Mary: I think Main St. and the commercial core, both districts. Charles: On the Marolt property you were in favor of having the City allow victorian houses to be moved to the Marolt property. Mary: 3. They were the old miners cottages that were given a 2 and Charles: A two and three you can just demolish. Mary: In my opinion no four or five ever should be moved. Nick: I do agree that in the future there should be a non- business person added to the Board. Nick: There is nothing objectionable about Elli's roof as it blends in quite well and the colors look good. Whatever has been added for the restaurant is hardly noticeable. I am signing off as monitor of Elli's as everything is in compliance. Augie: On the Barnett residence I talked to Welton Anderson and he looked at the corner in question. He thought there was a framing there and some cornice trim work below the roof that the carpenters didn't allow for. When you are looking at the HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 building straight from the street you can't notice it. When you are looking from the northwest corner it does curve a little bit. I told Welton the Board would get back with him. Welton would also like to add a window to the east side of the garage, a double hung window. He will be doing a sketch and to me it seems insignificant. MAROLT BARN/I~ANCHING MUSEUM Roxanne: The Historical Society is very interested in obtaining the barn and turning it into a combination ranching/mining museum with a concentration on farm implements. The project is now encompassing the 1.9 acres immediately around the barn. The entire project is open space owned by the City. Our focus is in support of the Historical Society's efforts with regard to the barn structure itself. It is not a designated structure therefore we can't take formal action. I am recommending that we go through a designation process which we can recommend. Mark Fowler, Aspen Historical Society: We met with the interns to see what development had come along with the property. Five options were given. It is open space vs. the employee housing vs. a City park vs. the barn. We didn't think there would be so many other interests. One of the biggest concerns is that Tom Baker does not feels if we want 1.9 acres that we will get 1.9 acres and it would have to go back to the vote of the people. If we want to restore the barn fine but as far as anything else it is questionable. With the acreage people could actually see the machines. We are looking at $40,000 for restoration of the barn. Another concern was access parking. Another issue was moving the bike path as it exists to avoid the congestion that is there right now. These are ideas that we would like to see. The barn would have to be moved if the alternative highway straight shot is taken. We do not want to see the barn moved. Roxanne: This was the barn that was connected with the Lixiviation Project that closed down in 1893. It is my recommendation as preservationist that the barn not be moved and maintained on site and preserved. I would like to get a support letter from HPC of what you would like to see happen on that particular site for next weeks meeting. Nick: I'm a past vice-president of the Aspen Historical Society and will attend the meeting Friday also. FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 113 E. HOPKINS AVE. Roxanne: On March 22nd HPC reviewed and approved the conceptual development plan which included a partial demolition of the 1972 addition plus a plan for the two story addition, a demolition of HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 the rear shed off the alley and its replacement of a new one car garage. The motion passed granting conceptual development with the following conditions that the applicant provide alternative design studies in respect to the dormers, porch and windows of the front elevation and that the applicant come back with detailed samples of materials which he has. Also a letter of structural integrity which is in the packet. Gary will explain the change and new location of the one story garage. It is moved slightly to the west and with access off the alley. Staff finds that this is not a major change and is acceptable. He will present new garage elevations. Dormers: HPC has required that he restudy the front elevation dormers. He has presented a second story dormer that is reduced in size which nearly matches the adjacent dormer. We find that the reduction is more in scale with the remaining fenestration. The front elevation porch was discussed at conceptual and HPC found it to be more of a "mirror image" of the original historic porch possibly as a conflict. The applicant restudied that entire front facade going so far as to remove the porch entirely which they found complete unacceptable. He prefers the porch design to remain as submitted. That particular addition does step back about 20 ft. from the facade of the main house. It is screened by a lot of trees and vegetation and staff agrees in part with HPC's opinion about the new porch being too much of a replication however in restudying we feel that a certain balance in detailing is necessary. One alternative you may want to do is ask the applicant to submit a detailed drawing on simplified details such as the brackets, turned columns. The material structural analysis letter is included. We find that the application meets all the criteria of HPC's conceptual development approval and we would recommend approval along with partial demolition. Bill Drueding: Are you reducing any bedrooms in the existing house. Gary Bucher, owner: No, there are three bedrooms in the house. Bill D: What parking did you have there before. Gary: There is a shed behind and we want to put the car in the garage rather than let it sit in the alley. Roxanne: You had no on-site parking. Gary: There is a head in one parking space on the property. Gary: We are trying to keep the garage a low profile for view of the mountain. I brought a sample of the metal roof with stainless steel in the center and the turned coating on the outside. We are going to use the rabbited siding to curtail any 4 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 possible curling. The other concern was shifting the garage over where it might possibly be seen from the E. Hopkins side of the street. I took pictures and you probably wouldn't see the garage at all just the tree on the side of it. Roxanne: bedrooms. You are demolishing the back addition that has two Gary: Yes. Bill: You are demolishing the shed entirely. Gary: Yes. Nick: On a on site view you can see the definition between the new building and the addition. Gary: The addition is masked by the two maple trees in front as well as the pine tree. Bill: We have certain issues that need to be looked at: the front porch, the garage which is being relocated, materials and the second story dormer on the front facade. Augie: On the front porch is there any access. Gary: On the side. MOTION: Bill made the motion to approve the application that meets the criterior in the HPC's conceptual development approval and recommends approval of the partial demolition and final development application for 113 E. Hopkins Avenue. Nick second. All approved. Motion carries. Georgeann didn't vote. FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-334 W. HALLA~ AVE. Bill stepped down. Roxanne: 334 W. Hallam is before us for final development review for the partial demolition, the alterations, the addition and the carriage house renovation. On March 8th HPC passed the conceptual development approval and on April 6th the applicant returned requesting an amendment to the original plan which HPC approved. It went last night before City Council and has received its final designation on second reading and the $2,000 incentive grant was awarded since the property was rated #5. Primarily the issues we are dealing with are the carriage house. It becomes very close to being a demolition however in reviewing it with the state historic preservation officer she agrees that it is a partial demolition and a reconstruction. The plans HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 remain very similar to those that were already approved. It is a two bedroom dwelling with a four ft. expansion to the east. It does have a small west elevation porch, very simple; however, it does encroach slightly into the setback and that does require HPC to grant a variation in the motion that such encroachment is more compatible with the historic structure. The gable peak height remains identical to the existing height. The lines of the four foot extension are exactly identical to the carriage house. They intend to keep the structural members in place and remove all the exterior fabric and replace. It was my original recommendation that they try to incorporate as much as they could into the new. I am not sure they can do that at all as it is in sad shape. The materials will match what is there. With regard to parking it is required in code that for each new bedroom that is created that one new parking space must be provided on site. The current site contains two spaces that have served the existing four bedroom home, those are fine. We need to make sure two additional spaces are provided for the two new parking spaces. The applicant submitted a revised site plan option B in your packet which shows the two spaces are encroaching into the City's right-of-way. This is a touchy issue with regard to the Engineering Dept. in that they are not OK with just signing off on that even finding that the preservation issues connected with the carriage house make it OK for that to happen and 3rd street is sited for sidewalk and gutter because it is a major route into the music tent area. Therefore any development that goes on along 3rd street is required to have that upgrade going on. There are several site issues that the applicant is dealing with separate from us and they are going to be taking it through an encroachment license through Council and that is recommended through the Eng. Dept. That is not in our preview to review. The alignment of the carriage house does not change and neither does the garage that connects the two. It is a matter of whether they go before P&Z, pay a fee and go through an application and request a reduction in parking or whether they provide the parking which is certainly our recommendation on site but encroach into the right-of-way. They are dealing with that right now. The main structure and the addition, no changes from the conceptual development approval and the amendment have been proposed. The main house restoration facades are considered phase #2. The owners plan to occupy the carriage house while the renovation of the new structure is taking place which includes a basement which they will be excavating under the new addition, the demolition of the 1960's addition and then adding on. We have received the structural letter that states that the main building is very sound and that in their opinion there will be no undermining of the structures stability with regard to the addition. The allowable floor area is another issue. The calculations of the entire project have been recalculated by the applicant. It shows that it is exactly 500 sq. ft. over the HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 allowed limit of FAR which HPC may approve a variation finding that the FAR is more compatible with the historic structure due to the renovation of the carriage house into a dwelling unit. We are trying to preserve carriage houses as much as we possibly can and therefore by increasing the square footage it throws us over the FAR. That needs to be included in the motion. They have a Phase II restoration. We strongly recommend that every effort be made to preserve and carefully restore those details that make this property a true historic Aspen landmark. The materials will match the new siding and will be painted. The existing siding is in very good shape and will be repaired and painted as suggested. The wood windows will also be repaired and repainted. The roofing materials will be roof shingles on both the carriage house and the main structure. The windows are wood casement and double hung. We recommend approval granting the following variations: the encroachment of the new porch of the carriage house into the required setback has been found to be more compatible to the historic structure and that the FAR limit has been exceeded by 500 sq. ft. due to the adapted renovation of the carriage house which HPC finds to be more compatible with the historic structure. We also recommend that the carriage house not be lifted up for foundation repair or replacement purposes but remain situated on the site. There was a possibility of that going on. We are concerned that it will not withstand any kind of major lifting. Trish Harris: With regards to the foundation we have talked with the owners today and they are saying they would prefer that there be a basement under the carriage house. As long as they were going to pour a four foot foundation wall they felt they should just go ahead and do a basement. In order to do that we would have to move the house and the structural engineer said it could withstand some movement. You could keep this separate from the final approvement if you find that necessary. Roxanne: You are already up to the limit on FAR; how many more square feet would you be adding. Trish: A lot of the additional square footage was in the sun space are and we would try to trim that down that area and put some storage in there but it would be underground so I don't think we have to count that as it would be totally subterranean. Bill D.: The basement would be exempt from floor area ratio as it is 100% below grade. It adds to the impact and must be used for storage. The entrance would have to be through an inside stairway. Trish: We are adding a basement under the main house. HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 Georgeann: Roxanne is concerned about the moving of the carriage house. Trish: As far as moving it the structural engineer thinks it should be moved anyway. We are digging a four foot trench to put in the wall and he feels it should be moved because it would be very hard to dig under the house even the four feet and to pour the cement. We thought of moving it to the rear yard. Bill D.: If you can move this house and put in a new foundation then why shouldn't it be moved out of the setbacks. The reason for allowing setbacks is because things cannot be moved. Roxanne: I would have a problem with HPC approving something like this without a clear site plan and how it works. Georgeann: The historic designation is on the whole parcel. Charles: We discussed before adding 4 feet to the carriage house and HPC approved that. Looking at the site plan I thought the sun space was to be moved back further. Roxanne: The applicant argued that the sun space had to be that way and we approved it. Charles: Before the sun space was not flexible and now it is? If it is a trade off between the sunspace and the carriage space as I understand it, the sun space is flexible so that the carriage space can work. If they are willing to do that then we should consider that the sun space is not a dead issue. Georgeann: We would be more inclined to give them the basement if they would keep the sun space small. The client said originally that it would be a major hardship for them without the sun space. Trish: I got this dropped on me before the meeting and I do agree that the sun space is very important to them. I have not discussed this with the clients. The sun space and the 4 ft. were already approved. Georgeann: This issue now is final and the basement under the carriage house. The concern of Roxanne's is moving the carriage house. Roxanne: If we are resetting the carriage house all the issues change and perhaps we should table this until we know what the clients want. Trish: I would rather you not table it. HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 Roxanne: Final means stamped approval. Georgeann: Then she would have to come back to us completely for the new basement if they want it. Roxanne: If in fact they are going to move this structure that is considered demolition and that goes through a public hearing process. Bill D.: They are going for variances because they say this is where things have to be because they can't be moved. Now they are saying they can move it. How many considerations should they get. Should we deal with the fact that it can be moved. Nick: You are going to move it to put the foundation in then move it back. Charles: That was the idea. Bill D.: The point is if they are going to move it off then they could put it back somewhere else behind the setbacks. Georgeann: If you have to put a foundation under a wood building I have seen them in a lot of cases jack the building up and pour a foundation beneath. Is that more or less hard on the building then it would be to move it. Jacking it up has to be hard on the building also. Charles: You have to jack it up to move it horizontally. Georgeann: So the shock to the building is 70% to jack it up and 30% moving it over. Augie: You could under pin it. Trish: There is under pining and much more costly but is feasible to to pour the four foot wall. that is a possibility. It is under pin one side at a time Charles: They could take the siding off and jack up the frame. Trish: We presented it to you before that it was going to be a skeleton. Nick: The vertical 2 by 4's can be saved but the siding is in bad shape. Augie: If what I hear happens we are going to maybe have a skeleton, move it, allow them to change the length of the 9 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 building, change it by adding dormers etc. so do we really have a structure that is historically renovated or do we have some new building? Roxanne: It is reconstruction. Georgeann: This sounds like the ramifications are complicated. Roxanne: If it is moved it is considered demolition. Georgeann: Possibly we should approve the plans as presented from conceptual and if they want to alter the carriage house for whatever reason then they would have to come back to us. Roxanne: You could approve it as is and if anything is altered they couldn't get a building permit anyway. Georgeann: In Roxanne's memo why are we giving then an encroachment on the new porch. Trish: Because there is a different entrance, it is an entrance porch. The way it is now is on the south side next to the existing car port. Georgeann: If she didn't extend out beyond the existing building line why would she need more of an encroachment. Why wouldn't it be just grandfathered in. Bill D.: There is a five ft. setback minimum and is probably 7 on this lot. The house is already encroaching into the setbacks, the carriage house by a couple of feet. You cannot increase an encroachment without a variance. Georgeann: We decided that it was more compatible. Georgeann: We are inclined to give them approval as is without moving the carriage house. We would also need a motion that would incorporate the encroachment of the new porch into the required setback and eliminate the FAR. ~OTIO~: Augie made the motion that HPC approve the partial demolition and final development of 334 W. Hallam St. granting the following variations: 1. The encroachment of the new porch of the carriage house into the required setback is found to be more compatible to the historic structure. 2. The applicant meets the required parking requirements and should be reviewed by the Eng. Dept. 10 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 3. That the carriage house not be lifted up for foundation repair or replacement purposes and remain situated on site and if it is moved or lifted up then the applicant is required to come back for further approval. Nick second the motion. Ail favored. Motion carries. FINAL D~v~LOPNENT IIE'VIE#-212 #. HOPKINS Charles stepped down. Roxanne: No changes have been presented from the revised conceptual. He did reduce the height of the building and it came up 5 3/4 inches almost to 22 ft. It is still lower and staff finds that the additional inches are not a negative. Jan Derrington: The shingles are charcoal gray and match the shingles that are there. They will be using Marvin windows with a factory baked on white finish. Windows will be single glazed with storm panel on the inside. All the others that don't have true divided lights are 3/4 inch insulating glass. Bill: I have no problems with anything. Bill: Roxanne is the application in order and do you feel comfortable that you have all the back up material. Roxanne: Yes. Bill: I will entertain a motion that recommends final development approval of 212 W. Hopkins finding the setback variation to be more compatible. MOTION: Nick, I so move. carries. Georgeann second the motion. Motion FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-516 E. HY~h%N AVE. Bill stepped down. Roxanne: This is for the final development review of 516 E. Hyman, the mouse house bldg. phase I and phase II. This includes the entire demolition of the building and includes the redevelopment of a commercial building, a one story of 2,250 sq. ft. for the first floor which is considered phase I and Phase II which is subject to GMP allocation is 2250 sq. ft. It is my recommendation that if a motion be made that it include an approval for Phase I and an approval for Phase II which includes ll HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 Phase I so that the applicant does not have to come back before HPC after they go through competition. Georgeann: In other words so they can either build the whole thing or build half of it either way. Roxanne: At conceptual there were a few concerns: that detailed representation of materials be made which they have done. That the second floor central window be studied as to how the window spacing may better relate to the historic upper story window pattern and how these windows may give a stronger sense of verticality. The windows originally presented were more contemporary and were trying to read as a separate structure but the revised fenestration shows picking up more of a design in staffs opinion of the Pitkin Center Building and does address in our opinion HPC's concern. It is an improved fenestration. Also further study of how all the materials relate as to whether it was picking up too much of the adjacent building or that it wasn't reading enough of a separate structure. Also how the steps and the railing go up to the Mason Morse bldg. which is next door. I would like to deal with the triangular parapet issue. Kim Weil: The building is 15 ft. back from the property line and I brought a model for the Board to review. The code says it would have to sit 5 ft. behind Mason and Morse. Under the final landuse code we do not have to conform to the open space rules. We are able to reconstruct up to where the old building was which was a 3 ft. setback. We need a 15 ft. setback. It is just ahead of Mason Morse building but behind Pitkin Center. we would start construction late July and early August. Sept. 15th we submit for GMP. Roxanne: As a one story structure it reads as OK. Staffs concern regarding the parapet is yes they are found throughout and they are used in new commercial structures to replicate some victorian detailing. Just as an option maybe it is a little dominant and needs softened. The parapet above the center floor window I personally feel is a nice design. You will notice that there are a double set of doors at the Main entrance into the center area. The molding was square and rectangular which reads more historic. The transom windows will be operable above the doors. Kim Weil: We will have an awning down below. We had thought about using two different bricks so it appears that the center mass comes through another mass. All four of the buildings are relatively new. We want to keep it brick because it is in-fill and it is only 60 ft. from Hyman and Galena St. Brick and sandstone is important in the historic area. There would be 12 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 sandstone and brick banding. The back area one color and part that sticks out a complimentary color. Our thought is make it an understatement but stately. Roxanne: The tile has been eliminated from the plan. the to Nick: How will the wall look at Mason and Morse. Kim: They have a real narrow stairway and we had to put the wall up as we don't know if the tenants will be compatible. We will do a planting area to soften the corner of the wall. We would do a post type of sign in the planting area rather than attaching something to the building. They have not seen the design yet (Bob George). Somebody told me when he built the wall it was to hide the building that was there. They did say they would take it down when the development happened but I have not been able to get a copy of their GMP. The side of Pitkin Center is a finished wall. Georgeann: I don't mind the parapets but I find the top of the windows unfinished as most windows are capped. Kim: I was trying to make it pseudo victorian with a serious victorian, the double hung windows. Georgeann: Which would be the light brick and which the darker. Kim: I go back and forth but the darker brick is in the center. Charles: We didn't get into the paving but that is part of the recommendation. Kim: I am going to do something to break up the concrete other than just score it. The tinted concrete is not acceptable to CCLC. We will do gray concrete with divided strips, possibly turning the brick on edge. Augie: Since the plaza area is contiguous, the Pitkin Center, I think that yours should be the same and I would think the CCLC would be in favor of that. To switch to another material would be out of place. Charles: The building would have more strength if the paving blends in with the surrounding sidewalk. Nick: Do you plan on snow melt. Kim: Yes. MOTION: Charles made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition and final development at 516 E. Hyman Ave. for Phase I 13 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 and also recommend approval of final development for Phase II which is subject to GMP allocation with the condition that the applicant further study the plaza area paving issue with modifications to the approved development plan being submitted for staff review and approval. Augie second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Adjourned 5:05 Kathleen J. Strickland 14