Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880809EISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall August 9, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Charles Cunniffe, Augie Reno and Joe Krabacher present. Charlie Knight and Zoe Compton were excused. MOTION~ Augie made the motion to approve the minutes of July 26, 1988. Nick second. All approved. Motion carries. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: Michelle Anthony, Planning Technician from Manitou Springs will be observing the HPC meeting today and has been observing the preservation activities throughout the City in the last couple of days. Roxanne: The Pitkin County courthouse will be presenting an application to HPC for cleaning the metal work and maintenance. Nick: Gary Bucher's tree is still slanted and nothing has been done to the side yard since Roxanne wrote the letters. Roxanne: I have received a letter from Midland Landscape which states that they had put a guywire turnbuckle method on the tree and over a period of two years the tree will substantially straighten without causing damage to the root system. Roxanne: The Aspen Historic Trust had their first meeting and we are enthused about bridging the gap between the Historical Society and the HPC and our role within the City and County. The next meeting will be Aug. 11, 1988 3:00 p.m. at Charles Cunniffe's office. Roxanne: I adapted the information created in 1986 when the update was going on with the inventory and basically made it into a rating form. The rating will be done numerically, 0-5. Roxanne: Chris Pfaff and Jay Yanz were very enlightened of what Aspen is all about. They had taken a variety of pictures and will be using them in their presentations. Roxanne: Our CLG Grant for 1988-89 was approved 100% and as of Jan. 1st we will have a full time preservation planner. Augie: We have a number of historic structures that have been designated by us and have some potential for National recognition but we run into the problem of the zoning vs the economics of buying that particular parcel and refurbishing it to benefit the City vs what a developer can do. HPC has to come up HPC.MINUTES August 9, 1988 with some kind of recommendation to Council that would grant more variance then we are allowed to grant. Because of the economics based on the zoning it doesn't pay back. Roxanne: The Planning Office will be presenting code revisions to Council and in it should include all of the HPC minor code amendments. Bill: Lets research how we make code amendments and discuss it at the next meeting. Georgeann: Mary Hayes called me concerning the parking behind the Hotel Jerome. Since the Hotel, Sardy House and Community Church have redone their properties the parking has become a problem. There is parking for their clients but that doesn't include the people who come to weddings etc. every Saturday. She was concerned as a new building is going in next to Gracy's. If all of Main St. becomes commercial it will impact that neighborhood right behind it. I told her to get together with the neighbors and talk to P&Z about it. That is something that may need to be addressed by code. I also talked to her about that area being an historic district and she is very interested. Nick: At the Little Nell I am talking to 70 visitors a day. The Little Nell hotel is a 90 room hotel, 200,000 sq. ft. with 70 thousand sq. ft. for parking about 180 cars. During the winter the plan is to use it as valet parking to get the cars off the street and get people skiing as quickly as we can. The rooms will have two king size beds, two bathrooms and a gas burning log type fireplace. There will be shops and a restaurant. It will be a stucco building and some red wood siding. The hip roof, gables will be stained cedar shingles and ready for occupancy Oct. 1989. MONITORING PROJECTS Joe: 334 W. Hallam, the carriage house siding doesn't look too good, all the exterior clapboard siding is off and they put 1/2 inch plywood around and framed up the inside to support the ceiling joists. Next Monday they will raise it up off the ground and certainly the interior looks like it will be strong enough to survive. MINOR DEVEI.~OPMENT 222 E. HALLAM Charles stepped down. Roxanne: Richard Klein will be presentinq. The applicant is requesting approval of modifications of the previously approve plan to increase the FAR by 6' and primarily focus on the roof HPC.MINUTES August 9, 1988 outline change near the rear portion of the house due to a slight change in the interior floor plan due to a closet that they added and fenestration is also changing. The modification in staffs opinion present no significant change to the overall visual character of the structure. A closet is being added into the second floor west bedroom and that also creates a hip roof. Changes are proposed in the window locations and larger undivided windows on either side of the fireplace are being presented. Fenestration changes occurring on the east elevation include a shape change in the transom windows above the dining room doors from rectangular to "eyebrow". Reduced kitchen bay no longer extends to the ground and is receiving a lesser pitched roof and the outline of another window in the master bedroom next to the turret is going to be added. In the south elevation the windows at the door to the roof deck have changed slightly in size. Staff brings to your attention the west elevation fenestration which is extremely varied in style, placement and shape. Staff recommends a more uniform approach to fenestration to visually blend this elevation into the remaining elevations. Seven different window sizes and styles are proposed and we feel that the degree of difference is extreme and recommend that the applicant further study fenestration of this west elevation. We recommend that HPC grant minor development approval to amend the previously approved redevelopment plans with the exception of the west elevation fenestration, which requires further study for design uniformity. Richard Klein: We previously had planned smaller windows on each side of the fireplace on the west elevation. Charlie Knight has located two windows for Mr. Amato which are larger. We had a closet added on the second floor which changed the footprint slightly which meant that we went to a hip roof shape. The arched transom windows are changed slightly on the east elevation. We ended up with a slightly larger basement and decided to put in some basement windows which are in the well and won't be seen. We added a window in the master bedroom. The pitch has changed slightly at the kitchen bay and we chose not to bring the bay down to the ground. On the south elevation the size of the arched windows tightened up so that they are more of a square window rather than long. The west elevation responds to the placement of rooms. Georgeann: I'm not so concerned with the west elevation, possibly the staggered windows will make it just as easy to design without looking into other peoples windows. Augie: I agree with Georgeann that the changes they have made have not changed the character. ~ HPC.MINUTES August 9, 1988 Joe: I agree that the west elevation is not the most important and have no objection. Bill: My only concern is that the proportions follow our guidelines for new construction in an historic district. Roxanne: They are very close. MOTION: Joe made the motion development modification for 222 All approved. Motion carries. to grant approval to the minor E. Hallam. Georgeann second. 200 E. F~IN CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENt, PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: This is in the office zone of the Main St. Historic District. The entire 3-lot parcel was designated historic in 1976 which includes the Gracy's buildings lots L & M. This particular building is going on lot K. The request is for conceptual development approval to build a two story office building. Total square footage for the proposed building is 2,250 sq. ft. Consideration for development for the entire parcel is required in addition to the required commercial GMP approval. The applicant is also requesting that HPC grant variations for both the side yard setback to the west and for the minimum distance between the buildings to the east based upon design compatibility with adjacent landmarks. If you would note in the comparison chart it was requested at pre-application that the FAR calculations be done for the entire parcel and they have been. The FAR for the total parcel is 5,674 sq. ft. and allowed by code is 6,750 sq. ft. The proposed building maximum height is 28 ft. with a median height of 23 ft. The project as presented to me is 25 ft. Side yard setback is 5 ft. and they are complying with that except for the encroachment for their particular bay and the minimum distance between buildings allowed by code is 10 ft. and they are 6' apart but the average came out to be 9' 3". I got a referral comment from the fire marshall with regard to that and he had stated if they were to sprinkle the entire building that he would not have a problem with that. On July 12th we reviewed the preliminary plans which reflected a long narrow two story building with a front-facing gable end and minimum architectural detailing. At that meeting direction was given to the applicant to study the setback alignment with Gracy's, the height, setback variations, fenestration materials, front entrance and site planning including sidewalks. The applicants new proposal has taken into consideration all these issues except the sidewalks and landscaping. The existing historic buildings of Gracy's are excellent examples of miner's cottages typical in scale, roof pitch and detailing and the new proposed development reflects this. The design considerations discussed deal with the applicant's ability to encroach into the 4 ~ HPC.MINUTES August 9, 1988 side yard setback to vary the extreme (in the architect's words) "pullman car" appearance of the west elevation. As the applicant states "the design prevents it from being the dominant element in the neighborhood" and staff concurs with the statement, however, agrees with previous HPC comments that the overall height should be reduced to prevent any dwarfing of its historic neighbors. Our main concerns are in height and fenestration and especially due to the close proximity to Gracy's we are recommending reduction of height to soften that looming effect. It is both the applicant's and HPC's goal to enhance the adjacent historic resources and a considerably taller next door heighbor may not achieve that goal. The proposed fenestration in staffs opinion takes away from the positive design elements of style and scale. The west elevation, in particular, fenestration appears overwhelming and inconsistent with neighborhood character. The undivided, squarer second story windows are not compatible with the first floor's longer, more narrow divided windows. The south elevation has a less percentage of glazing, and its window treatments as design elements appear appropriate in comparison. There are seven round port hole windows that appear in the gable peaks and it may be excessive and we recommend that the applicant seek another alternative to bring attention to the gables; simply reducing the number may achieve this. The entryway is very basic and primarily unadorned. The two substantial columns with massive supports, slightly more detail may be appropriate there as the central focus of the main facade. In the west elevation the second story shed dormer appears to be approximately 7' in length and contains four windows. This dormer and window treatment appears unbalanced and out of proportion with the remainder of the building particularly in the west elevation. We recommend that further study of this element be considered either by breaking up the one long dormer into two, designing them as gables, or centering the dormer. In addressing standard #2 there are three important areas to be considered in approving the new development and are stated in the memo. The Main Street Historic district is one of the areas greatest historic importances and visibility in the City. The characteristics that have been established can be respected while at the same time developing new and creative building designs. In all new commercial construction, compatibility to adjacent building types should be considered. In our opinion the proposed development generally meets the criteria that was established in the guidelines and in general its massing, siting and scale appear appropriate for the immediate block. In addressing standard #3 regarding cultural value we feel that it does not detract from the cultural value of adjacent landmarks, however, landscaping is an important consideration and as the guidelines are specific with regard to landscaping. We would like to see a more fully developed landscape plan at final development review. Regarding its architectural integrity the proposed new building height is the 5 HPC.MINUTES August 9, 1988 concern and may diminish the adjacent building's integrity. I have recommended a variety of alternatives that HPC may take in the memo and we recommend alternative ~2, that HPC grant conceptual development approval for the proposal subject to the conditions as stated in the memo and we also recommend that HPC approval include granting variations for the setbacks and the distance between the buildings. Bruce Sutherland, architect: We made three revisions: We lowered the building approximately 2 1/2 ft. We feel there is a very good balance between the buildings. There were comments about the stucco/wood so we decided to use the wood siding and keep a cement or stucco type base. We have readdressed the windows on the west elevation by adding a different type of window. We have reduced some of the circles in the gables and instead of 7 there are 4. Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Public hearing closed. No comment from the public. Nick: Their first presentation was harsh and the building was a very narrow building on a long skinny lot and they have come back with a presentable building. From what I see they are going to use a small lot and make it look like something really presentable on that corner. Joe: I looked at the original plans and haven't had a chance to digest the changes but had some of the same concerns that staff had. My initial reaction was that it was very tall in relation to the other two buildings on the lot and very massive particularly the west elevation. On the south elevation, east side, second floor, is that a window or a skylight. Bruce: That is a dormer window partially set into the roof line. Joe: I had hoped to see something that would give us the relative scale, the streetscape. I was curious of the height of the Gracy's building, and the other two buildings. I don't really like the columns on the entry way. My concerns were the height and massing of the west elevation. Charles: I think they have made some steps in terms of the west elevation. I don't have that much problem with the mass of the building because that front element comes through. The columns in the base of the building concern me as they don't seem victorian, they seem cumbersome and make the building look more massive. HPC.MINUTES August 9, 1988 Georgeann: In reality the walls are pretty flat and I am concerned that they will get awfully massive especially the main central section. It is a very flat surface in reality. I'm concerned that it will be too much, too flat even with trying to break it up cosmetically with changes in the textures. Possibly you could move a wall in or out a little bit. I am not comfortable with the resolution on the back section where you have a flat roof coming out and then the windows coming down from it, it doesn't seem to fit the rhythm of the rest of the building. I am also concerned with the little "hole" in the front where you are looking down into the windows below, trying to get light in there. I can see the problem but with the character you are trying to create with this building that element doesn't seem in keeping. That seems like a very modern and contemporary element. Augie: The rear dormer on the west elevation seems too massive, also I actually prefer the initial materials that you presented in our packet. The material you have presented today approaches too much of a repetition of what was there and becomes too similar to the rest of the building. Because it is a public walkway I agree with Georgeann that the window well is not appropriate on that building. Bill: On your FAR calculations I read that there is only 900 sq. ft. available for future development on the other two parcels, so most of the development will be taken up by this new building so that the other buildings wouldn't be made any larger. We can assume that they would remain their approximate scale. Joe Wells: There is a bonus provision available with on-site employee housing but that is a special review situation. Bill: Do you plan on using that lower level as office space. Bruce: We will be using it for employee housing and we need the well for light for the bedrooms and code escape. We can landscape very heavily in front of that and driving by you won't see it. Augie: Is that the only well. Bruce: The wells are on the west elevation and there would be three. One well would be on the east elevation. Bill: I also am concerned about the wells and I find that the height is not that much bigger than on Gracy's and it would be compatible with the other two buildings. We want the building to be different and we don't want this building to replicate another small victorian. I feel they are attempting to keep the rhythm HPC.MINUTES August 9, 1988 of the smaller victorians by the element that comes out on Main St. We want the building to appear residential in character even though we know it will be used for an office building. Bill Drueding: When you do your landscaping plan be careful as that is a corner lot and you can't have any landscaping more than 42" high for around 30 ft. at the corner of Main St. and the other street. Bruce: 30 ft. both ways. Bill Drueding: required. Yes 30 ft. both ways. Also parking will be Bruce: Is that 30 ft. from the curb or from the property line. Bill Drueding: 30 ft. from the property line. Bruce: Then we couldn't put any trees on our front. Bill Drueding: traffic. The reason is the view plane for automobiles and Georgeann: I would like to make a request for next time, although I am not unhappy with the heights I would like to see a simple front view that would show the three buildings we are talking about in relationship to each other, just the outline. I also would like to see a simple model of the massing, there would be no need to indicate windows. Signing is not under the purview of HPC but in order to keep this in residential character possibly it should be addressed at this level as it could change the whole character of this building. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to grant conceptual development review on 200 E. Main as presented with the suggestions noted in our minutes to be considered. We want the massing model, eighth scale elevation, consider signage, keep in mind the low landscaping codes, plan to include sidewalks; study of light wells and a parking layout. Charles second. All approved. Motion carries. Public: If I wanted to replicate the Mesa Store Bldg. on this site does this committee have the right to differentiate between historical architecture. Bill: What we are looking for is compatibility with the structures that are adjacent and so we are looking at the small miners cabins which are typical cross gable roofs where the Mesa Store is more of a vertical building with a flat roof and so I ~ HPC.MINUTES August 9, 1988 think we would find that it is incompatible in this particular area. MAROLT ~OUSE USE Roxanne: At the Council meeting I presented the Marolt House and the barns rating. They had specifically asked that HPC let them know what use we see for the Marolt house. We had talked about it being used as a house for a Parks Dept. manager, office; caretaker who could maintain the open space site; Nick: There is something about having the house lived in, it helps keep its character and keep it physically proper. Augie: I think housing is fine but what about child care. Roxanne: There is an vehicular access issue. Bill: Lets give a list of uses: if access would be worked out. employee housing, child care, Georgeann: It definitely should be used and not left empty. If the plans go through to put up the Marolt Barn into a farming museum it would be wisdom to have someone living out there. Possibly divide it into two units. Bill: I think it should be related to the site. Augie: The City owns that building and they have every right to take care of it. Joe: It should be used for some public purpose. Charles: Possibly a curator/caretaker of that property. Roxanne: It was the original office for the mining and also was the Marolt's home. Georgeann: That would be my idea also, office, display. Roxanne: Hal Clark has discussed using it also as a community center for meetings. Georgeann: It is a wonderful site and more people should be able to experience that space. Bill: What about an information center for the ARA. Roxanne: That problem would still be vehicular. HPC.MINUTES August 9, 1988 Roxanne: It should be used and occupied in a very sensitive way and relate to the site. Georgeann: Possibly upper level employee housing. Roxanne: The general consensus is that it should be occupied. Also that it should have some type of a caretaker situation and also oriented to something public. Charles: Should be closely related to the Lixiviation project, caretaker/office. Charles: Possibly a Parks office until the project is ready. Roxanne: The north elevation of the house has been added on. Georgeann: It could be renovated back to what would simply be more appropriate, better siding, roofing etc. Adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk '~ HPC.MINUTES August 9, 1988 200 E. MINOR DEVELOPMENT 222 E. HALLAM . MAIN CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC HEARING MAROLT HOUSE USE . .2 .4 .8 11