Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880823HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO[~IITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall August 23, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Charles Cunniffe, and Joe Krabacher present. Excused were Zoe Compton, Augie Reno, Georgeann Waggaman and Charlie Knight. MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the minutes of Aug. 9, 1988. Charles second. All approved. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Joe: In the New York Time, August 7th, there was an article about Aspen and they specifically mentioned "recent restorations of vintage homes, hotels and the Wheeler Opera House pointing out the victorian charm that lends yet another dimension to the resort and the architecture dates to the 1880's when Aspen was a booming mining town. A lot of the new homes echo the original two story victorian design with pointed roofs and scrolled woodwork. My only point is that maybe it does make a difference in terms of the community and the image of the community to be trying to preserve these houses. Bill: I went before City Council last night to request direction from Council on expanding our incentives for designated structures and restorations and they are requesting Alan Richman to get back with me the first week in September so we should be thinking of things that we want added as incentives. I would specifically request that maybe the City Council could waive the park dedication fee for restorations which is in the area of $2,500 and up depending on the number of bedrooms that you have. Roxanne: The first draft of the modifications for the landuse code will be in the works in December. Joe: Presently there is no really great incentive. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bill: We will not have a quorum for the Berko Bldg. at 309 E. Hopkins so at this time I can take comments from the public for the record and I will re-read them on Thursday. Ann Altemus: I live on Third St. and I have lived here for 28 years and I am definitely opposed to tearing down or moving the Berko building. I don't mind a lot of things that go on in town but I do mind doing away with a small handsome structure. Margaret Johnson: I have lived here since 1960 and we own property across the street from this and I feel that the downtown HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 is loosing sO much of its original victorian character and I would hate to see it modified even to the extent that visually it has lost its character. Relocating it is pointless. Leslie Holst: I live at Waters and would like to read a petition to you. We the undersigned are in opposition to any alteration or moving of the old Berko bldg. at 309 E. Hopkins in Aspen, Colo. We feel that this building does have redeeming architectural value and is an important link in Aspen's past. I have almost 100 signatures and by Thursday I should have 300 or 400 signatures all Aspen residents. All these people are strongly aware of the problem and a lot are afraid to come here. When I was going door to door one lady said they have ruined my neighborhood and I am afraid to come out at night as I get frightened. Things are happening and nobody is paying any attention. The overall picture is being ignored on individual projects. I am a proponent of the book "A pattern language" and I will read: "People cannot maintain their spiritual roots and their connections to the past if the physical role they live in does not also sustain these roots. Whether the sacred sites are large or small, whether they are in the center of towns, neighborhoods or in the deepest countryside established ordinances will protect them absolutely so that are roots in the visible surroundings cannot be violated." It looks like every month there is a battle loss. Aspen used to work and it still barely works and if we loose more of these little buildings the town will literally stop working. John Moore: I live at 12 Salvation Circle in the County not the City. I agree totally with what has been said here and the building should be preserved where it is and try to retain some of the character of the core of Aspen. The way the public seems to be feeling it is time to draw the line and say "Hay we have a perfect example of a remarkable building here. Leslie Holst: It has been my experience in Denver that moving a 100 year old brick building is a very tedious proposition. The day you jack that building up and start moving it around anything can happen to it and I don't think this building can be moved. If you give somebody permission to do it they should put up an enormous amount of money to rebuild it from scratch if it doesn't get there or something that is punitive if they are leading us to believe that this can be done because I don't think it can be done. Kathryn Thalberg: When a building is moved out of the central core it no longer serves the purpose of what we all would like to see. A couple of buildings have been moved from Hopkins and you don't see them and one had been totally remodeled and is not recognizable. I don't think that HPC has the duty to worry about 2 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 the economic interest of property owners. I don't think that is HPC's concern. I think a lot of buildings have been let go because people said this is not economically feasible but that is not your concern. At a certain point HPC will have to say no and I definitely think that people who have these should be rewarded in some way: Tax rebate, utility rebates etc. that would give real incentives. HPC is here to protect the interest and character of the town. Frank Berko: I agree and this should have happened long ago trying to preserve houses. From the beginning we had said it would be nice to leave the front and you have the whole back to build within the limits and with a little ingenuity that could occur. I also agree with the tax incentive and that would make it easier for them. Victoria Fuller: I have lived her for 15 years and I'm seeing all the cottages being knocked down and the character of the town is being lost. I do not think this house should be moved and perhaps you could expand it in a way where it would still look like a victorian and still keep the character of the building. To move it is a terrible mistake. I also was against the moving of the houses on Hopkins. Margaret Johnson: I would like to emphasize what Kathryn had said about the function of this board that it should be firstly to preserve the character of the town. MO?ION: Bill: At this time I will entertain a motion to reschedule a special meeting to review 309 E. Hopkins, the Berko Bldg. relocation, restoration and redevelopment. Meeting will be held Aug. 25, 1988 at 2:30 p.m. Nick: I so move. Joe second. Ail approved. Motion carries. MO~ION: Bill: I will also entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to Thursday, Aug. 25th at 2:30. Nick: I so move. Joe second. Ail approved. Motion carries. Joe: I would like to address what Victoria said, those buildings on E. Hopkins we had no control over because they weren't designated and you can demolish them if they don't have a high enough rating. A lot of the people are concerned about issues coming up and maybe if we had broader authority it would certainly help our ability to do what you want us to do. Victoria Fuller: Any kind of building that has victorian character shouldn't be torn down. HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 Bill: Last year we tried to expand our districts and that issue was defeated. Joe: At the schools we have no district right now and we have no control over that area. Victoria Fuller: How does one get a district. Joe: Through Council. Victoria Fuller: Why can't each individual house be designated. Roxanne: It is voluntary and we are encouraging everyone who has an historic home or site to voluntarily designate. Right now we have about 60%. Joe: People are not going to designate because it is not in their economic interest to do so. Victoria Fuller: Is Frank's designated. Bill: Frank Berko's house is not designated and is rated a #4. Nick: You people here are making a very strong plea to save this house just as dramatically when we tried to evaluate houses about two or three years ago when there were people saying don't tell me what I can do with my house. There are two big issues here that we have to face the economics and the preservation. Public: Who makes the decision on the area of the schools. Roxanne: It goes before P&Z right now. HPC has no purview because it is not an district but it is something that we would like to do. The community needs to let the Council know that you are interested in some type of district. 515 E. HYMAN-MASON AND MORSE BLDG. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting HPC's minor development approval for the entrance plaza renovation of the Mason & Morse Building. The east wing brick wall is to be removed as well as the two street trees, which will be replaced with maples to match the trees for the proposed adjacent building at 516 E. Hyman which we have recently reviewed. The plaza area will be replaced with a new raised plaza the same height accessed by 45 degree angle stairs on both sides and be constructed of brick. Planters are going to be incorporated into the design and the applicant's goal is to enhance the plaza area as an invited focal point for the facade. Staff finds that the proposed development is compatible with the adjacent structures as well as the building 4 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 that it is in front of. It is a contemporary design and is compatible in character to that particular building. This particular building is very strong in angular character and the plaza further strengthens the character by its graphic design yet it is softened by low scale plantings and trees. Staff's one main concern regards the sign base particularly as the applicant's goal is to create a "pedestrian oriented space". The proposed sign and sign base appear to be very large in relation to the elements of the plaza. A smaller scale sign surface is recommended. The applicant should also refer to the guidelines under new construction of commercial buildings regarding signs under section G. Signs should be designed so that they do not dominate the building that they are trying to identify and they should be carefully located. Staff recommends that the plaza reconstruction coordinate time wise with the final facade and the sidewalk renovation project of its next door neighbor. Currently the two trees that exist, one a crabapple and one a pine, exist in the right-of-way and they are going to be replaced with the two large maples. Staff has informed the applicant to contact Bill Ness of the Parks Dept. to discuss the Parks Dept. criteria for tree replacement. We recommend that HPC approve the minor development proposal subject to the reduction in height of the sign base recommending that the applicant re-design an effective, smaller scale sign more in keeping with the pedestrian oriented elements of the entrance plaza. Roxanne: Verbally what is happening with the next door property so that you know how it fits in with the flow of the streetscape they had presented a planter which they are removing so that the space is very open and it flows better. The open space integrates with the two projects. Bruce: I am not sure what you mean about the sign base scale, are we talking about the brick portion below or the sign above the brick portion. The sign base to us seems to be in scale with the planters. Roxanne: The sign base begins at 3/1/2 ft. and goes up to almost 7 feet high. Bill: Bruce is asking are you questioning the planter or the monolith that the sign is mounted on. Roxanne: Because this is integrated into the entire plaza area it seems to me when looking at our guidelines for plaza development that this is quite large. If the base were shorter possibly the sign could be the same size to provide them the space that they need or you could reduce the sign. I am sure they know the zoning code for signage for space. The whole thing as it works together is large. 5 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 Bruce: We don't agree. The purpose is because we are over an existing basement so we need to come up in order to get the planters. The base is in proportion with the planters on either side and is meant to tie the design. If we go down or deeper it gets difficult inside the building. The basement comes clear out to the lot line. We are taking the basement out to do what we are doing there already. Roxanne: It is the whole thing, we have a sign that is seven feet high and projects way out. Owner: I am under no obligation to do this and I don't agree that it is an imposition into the public right-of-way. I don't have to change it and I am under duress anyway. Nick: What are you doing away with in the basement. Bruce: When we extend the sidewalk right up to right now that is basement space so we are going down the existing basement structure. our new design to have to cut Charles: I don't think it is an unreasonable design and it will help the rest of the block. Joe: I think they are making a lot of concessions to drop this down and open it up and I don't have any particular concern about the sign. There is a large sign there now. Bill: I also think it is an improvement to that street and everybody will benefit from it. I think the planter adds and the sign doesn't really bother me. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the design for the new plaza at 514 E. Hyman. Nick second. All approved. Motion carries. 200 E. MAIN-FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: The applicant is requesting HPC's final approval for the construction of a new 2,250 sq. ft. two story office building and is requesting HPC grant variations on sideyard setback and minimum distance between the buildings, finding that such variation is more compatible in character. The proposed office building will also include a basement, employee housing units, two of those totalling 1,100 sq. ft. On July 12th HPC reviewed preliminary plans at a pre-application conference and direction was given to the applicant to guide conceptual development design. They returned to HPC on Aug. 9th with their conceptual development plans which HPC agreed were greatly improved in the areas of massing, scale and compatibility, HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 generally meeting criteria specified in both the Development Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standard for Rehabilitation. At that particular meeting the applicant had brought in revised plans that reduce the height by 2 1/2 feet of the east/west cross gable; showed us alternate materials to be used and had moved the east/west shed dormer slightly to the north and centered it and some of the round port hole windows were eliminated. At that particular meeting HPC granted conceptual approval based upon the revised plans with the following conditions: That a simple massing problem be presented at final; that consideration of building signage be presented; that a landscape plan include sidewalks be presented; that a study of the light wells and parking be presented and to give direction to the applicant to study the minutes of the Aug. 9th meeting for direction on additional concerns and suggestions from the committee that included the front entry, the columns and bases. The applicant has met those conditions, with the exception of the positioning for building signage. Accurate materials are being presented that eliminate the use of stucco as a major building material and the general consensus at that meeting was that the use of narrow horizontal overlap siding be used and was a more compatible building material. The applicant has presented that the gable faces be clad in squared wood shingles and that roofing materials will also be wood shingles stained black. The only stucco proposed to be used is at the base of the building. The elevation revisions: Staff finds that the changes proposed do not adversely affect the character of the structure as approved at HPC conceptual. The changes are mostly subtle dealing with fenestration and the gables. The west elevation particular, has received most of the changes. They have removed a second story upper gable and the fenestration appears to be slightly more balanced. The shed dormer has been relocated and is positioned off center yet it does contain an improved window treatment: Two pairs of divided windows. The perspective drawing indicates a round window which is indicated in the west elevation but the elevations do not so there needs to be some clarification in that. On the north elevation there is a pair of narrow double hung windows. They were presented originally at conceptual and now they are eliminated and staff feels that this elevation is particularly important as viewed from the Community Church and that something in that elevation would help because it appears very flat. On the east elevation at the rear there has been a small gable added. On the light wells the applicant has taken into consideration HPC's concerns regarding the visibility and the safety. Five light wells are proposed, two are very large and low level landscaping surrounds the structure. That was a real concern at conceptual. Staff's concern regarding irrigating this vegetation which may cause possible foundation failure in the future if improper drainage methods are not utilized. Bill Drueding looked at the light 7 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 wells and questioned the need for such large wells and he wondered if there was going to be a sunken patio. The landscaping shows a raised planter and when I took the plans to the Eng. Dept., Elyse Elliott stated that this was not acceptable because it was built into the right-of-way. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the landscape issues and design a plan that complies with City code. The required 5' wide sidewalk is indicated with an adjacent grass strip which is very nice and the eight 3" caliper trees proposed were indicated on the landscape plan. I personally feel that the trees will soften that whole west elevation from appearing so new. Three on-site parking spaces are indicated and approximately eight are going to be required and the applicant will be applying for a special review for parking reduction at the time of the GMP application submittal. Our recommendation is that HPC grant final development approval with the conditions for the proposal at 200 E. Main and grant variations for both the sideyard setback and the minimum distance between the building making the finding in the recommendation with the following conditions: The north elevation main level windows be re-included as approved at conceptual development review. That the raised planter be redesigned to not encroach into the right-of-way and that the round gable peak window be eliminated entirely from the west elevation main level gabled projection. Bruce: I have no problem with the windows on the north elevation being put back in and I would agree to that. I am confused about the comments of irrigation along the area ways and the sites are irrigated and we will take care of that. It is important that we landscape along the base of the building and generally speaking we have methods of taking care of foundation water that occurs in buildings and it would be no more then what you would get from a spring runoff. As far as the raised planter going out, we will just not have a raised planter. I have no problem with eliminating the round window from the west elevation. On the three recommendations all those are agreeable. Joe: There is a setback from the corner and you can't have anything there. Bill: He can have a planter on his own property. Don Fleisher: If we get a variance from the City does HPC have a problem if we put it there. Roxanne: It is up to HPC and does it fit in with the plans. Bill: I don't think the committee has a problem with it. 8 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 Joe: My only concern is the east elevation and the wall that is created between Gracy's, the monolithic look. I have no concern about the planter or light wells. Is there going to be stairs outside. Bruce: On the west side there are no original drawing we had steps. Access to through the inside of the building. outside stairs. On the the employee housing is Charles: That is my only criticism also. That space between the building has an awful lot of wall. Bruce: I have a comment to that and for sure we can put some windows in there and I think we would want to. Bill: My comments are not part of the conditions that were made before so you can take them as they are. It was discussed earlier. I find that the entrance porch is not in keeping with the types of entry porches that are seen in this district or in the town. I also find the skirting of the raised portion along the base to not be in keeping in character with this district. The skirt board that runs from that balcony along the west facade troubles me. The overall impression of the building from these renderings is more of a shingle style. Don Fleisher: It is confusing to know if this should be more or less contemporary or should it have more of a style of its own. Bill: We want it to be different. Charles: I think that the elimination of the skirt board would make the elevations read more like a compatible structure with Gracy's. Don Fleisher: I want to end up with a good building. Roxanne: Georgeann made the following comments and I will verbalize them: She likes the general scale of the building but is not comfortable with the west elevation in that the gabled projection of the main level is the only relief of that entire west elevation. She is concerned that then entry doesn't quite work. Bill: time. Bruce: We would be glad of the gables I don't have to right to impose any restrictions at this have no objection to eliminating the skirting and we to do that. We would like to hang to our concept and we will study them. The gables are picking up 9 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 what happens next door. At this time we will say yes we will eliminate the stucco and restudy the gable ends. Bill: It is a fine line between finding something that stands on its own identity and does not replicate. It is tough for this board to make those decisions. MOTION: Joe made the motion that we grant final development approval for 200 E. Main subject to restudy of the fenestration on the first 1/3 of the east elevation and elimination of the base course. Charles second. All approved. Motion carries. Roxanne: In the motion you have to grant the variations for the sideyard setbacks and the distance between the buildings. MOTION: Bill: I'll entertain a motion to grant variations for both sideyard setback and minimum distance between buildings, finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmarks, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Nick: I so move. Joe second. Ail approved. Motion carries. 715 W. SMUGGLER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: The applicant is requesting HPC's final development approval to construct a two story 837 sq. ft. addition and to demolish three non-original 8' x 10' walls. To renovate the front porch and add a one car alley-accessed carport to the rear of the site and to remove the two multiple-trunk 8" caliper trees in the back and replace them with two other trees and the applicant has discussed this with the Parks Dept. Historic preservation considerations of this development proposal are strong and the applicant and owner are to be commended for their interest in renovating this historic miner's cottage. The front porch, the main facade focal point, will be mostly restored and the entire structure will receive a new roof and a maintenance face lift. No demolition action is proposed to the original structure and the owner wishes to even help protect the historic outbuildings which encroach into her east rear yard. The proposal reflects an expanded living area to meet contemporary needs yet retains and renovates the historic elements of the cottage. The cottage was moved about 20 years ago from the 600 block of East Hopkins and the front porch was enclosed and a small addition was added to the rear. When it was set on its new foundation a basement was excavated and currently serves as a dwelling unit. The plans are to convert this space into storage to bring the space into conformity. The code requires that a total of 15' combined side yard setbacks be maintained. The plan reflects a total of 11 ft. in setbacks due to the proposed 10 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 location of the carport which is 5' in from the east property boundary. The alternatives are either move the carport to the west about four feet; HPC to grant a side yard setback variation finding that the proposed development is more compatible. Staff recommends that HPC grant a variation with the recommendations. On July 12th HPC granted conceptual development approval with 8 of the conditions that are noted on page #2 of the memo and the applicant has studied all of those and is presenting them in the plans accordingly. #1 was the front porch and the gable has been added. The applicant has shown us that there are a variety of gables throughout the west end mostly on two story buildings. ~2 was the height of the addition. HPC requested that the applicant restudy the height and the applicant has now presented revised plans showing that the maximum height is 9 inches lower at the roof ridge. The median height is approximately 21.8 ft. The applicant has furthered studied the height considerations and has reduced the additions height as much as possible without sacrificing too much interior space and head room at the dormer level and the applicant states that the seven foot difference between the old and new is not extreme enough to diminish the historic integrity of the original cottage. Staff brings to HPC's attention a variety of alternatives which may help reduce the height of the addition: 1. Basing the rear addition at the current grade which is approximately 2.5 ft. lower than the main floor level. Could bring the addition further to the north approximately 3' but that would require much more extensive demolition including partial demo of the original structure. 3. Reduce the overall ceiling height of the second story and make the addition smaller. It should be noted that the new addition setback is 29 ft. from the front facade nearly 70 ft. from the Smuggler St. asphalt line and that all these items, as well as the existing trees lessen the visible impact of the addition to the original home in Staff's opinion. Although Staff would prefer a smaller addition for compatibility reasons the overall height concerns have been adequately addressed by the applicant in our opinion. Accurate building materials are represented. The structural response letter is included in the packet and appears to be in order. HPC asks that the turret be restudied. The final development application reflects that the turret height is increased and the reason for that is to add more of a verticality element to it. A lot of times turrets did have a steeper pitched roof and the applicant feels that it gives more balance to the turret. The addition is definitely Queen Ann in style and very different from the smaller scale of the cottage, however, eclectic architectural styles in Aspen dictate this additions design in our opinion. We feel that there are pros and cons and I stated what those are but I think importantly the turret alone does not diminish the historic integrity of the original structure. The owner really wants a turret and feels it will maker her living space very nice and I think that the design 11 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 has been done well to hide the turret as much as possible from the front facade. The applicant has presented more readable plans. The elevations to include the garage as it is a carport and is shown in the "Massing Study". The neighborhood context has also been presented by the applicant. The trees are going to be removed, the elms that are in the back and be replaced at a location on the site plan south east corner of the site. Further design considerations that Staff wants to bring to your consideration at this time is the chimney which appears dominant in the elevation drawings. Its height appears to be within code requirements. You might want to give direction to restudy as an option. Also the deck and the railing system around the back yard is quite extensive in that area and goes 100 linear feet. I have stated alternatives that you may choose. The Planning Office recommends that HPC grant final development approval for the proposal granting that the side yard setback variation and subject to a restudy of the chimney massing which revision may be approved by Staff as an Insubstantial Modification of the previously approved plan. Jennie Lang, architect: In order to re-orient the sidewalk to the front of the house we had scaled down the gable. I did a study on front porches with gables and there are several in the west end and we need it due to the snow. In respect to the turret it allows the mass of the house to be broken up a little bit. On the balusters we simplified them in order to keep the gingerbread off the house and simplify it. We also have taken the gable off the carport and the wood brackets. Charles: The design is looking very good. Joe: On the front porch, without knowing what it was originally like, I don't really have a problem with having that little gable. I'm glad the applicant is going to restore the porch even though it will be transparent. On the north elevation I would like to see it a little smaller and Roxanne has some proposals. On materials, rather than trying to replicate the siding I would like to see something different so you can differentiate the new addition from the old. I would be in favor of the sideyard setback variance for the carport. Bill: I agree with the gable over the porch and due to the weather conditions here I have no problem with the air-lock entry and you have done a good job making it transparent on the porch. I don't think the turret is that visible as it is on the back of the house. I also feel the addition is too close to the same materials as the cottage and I would have hoped to see a little more identity left on the miners cottage. 12 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 Jennie: The stairwell on the west elevation helps delineate the old miners cottage from the newer portion. Roxanne: The materials are very simple. Nick: Roxanne what was your concern on the chimney. Roxanne: It appears large to me. MO?ION: Charles made the motion to approve the final development approval and granting the sideyard setback variation finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and not subject to the restudy of the chimney massing. Nick second. All approved. Motion carries. adjourned 4:35 Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 13 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 515 E. HYMAN-MASON AND MORSE BLDG. 200 E. MAIN-FINAL DEVELOPMENT 715 W. SMUGGLER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT . .4 .6 10 14