Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010926ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ SEPTEMBER 26~ 2001 135 W. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING 209 S. GALENA - MINOR REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 450 S. GALENA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 409 E. HYMAN AVE. - MINOR - PUBLIC HEARING .......................................................................... 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps, Teresa Melville and Neill Hirst. Melanie Roschko was excused. Chairperson Suzannah Reid welcomed our Glenwood Springs colleagues. Rally suggested, in order to save paper that the legal documents be eliminated from the boards packets. Rally and Teresa volunteered for the DRAC board. David Hoefer handed out the criteria books that will be used at each meeting. Disclosure: Amy will be recusing herself on the Gucci item. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve the April 11, 2001 minutes as amended, second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried 135 W. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING Amy said a site visit was done a week ago and the topic of the discussion was the significance of the out building on the alley. The buildings were measured and compared to the Sanborn maps and the proportions and sizes of the buildings did not match up. Staff is recommending approval. Neill asked if the measurements of the present house match the Sanborn map and Amy replied that she did not make that comparison. Suzannah said in general the board is grappling if there is nothing remaining on the exterior that is historic, does the cabin have enough integrity left to make it worth saving. Lisa and Teresa inquired about the criteria on reviewing miner's cottages. Lisa asked are we looking at exteriors only and not what is underneath? What if you start tearing it down and discover that it is an historic building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 Amy said we will be relying on the evaluation system that will be adopted and there are other areas that you verify the age and status of a building such as does it match the Sanborn maps. If we are not able to look at the framing we have other resources that we can rely on to give us information on whether the building is historic or not. Suzannah said the other concern, is there a way to shift the burden of'the proof to the applicant, it seems like there are ups and downs to that as well. Chairperson Snzannah opened and closed the public hearing. Neill said he is not comfortable that enough research has been done on the history of this building or not. Is it up to the board or the applicant? The criteria should be for the main building and the shed. Amy relayed that two years ago the HPC looked at the house to determine which parts of the house were old. Theresa said she felt there was not a reasonable amoum of evidence to prove that it is historic. Lisa said she feels we do not have the systems in place to provide the board the proper tools to discover whether something is historic or not historic. At a site visit looking at materials does not give us that information. She is opposed to granting conceptual. Rally relayed that he looked at the softer and the flooring but based on the accuracy of the Sanborn map which is highly accurate and then the measurements that were taken of the building, not to mention that a number of the extinguishing characteristics have been removed he feels comfortable that it is not historic and not original to the property. When he looked at the foundation his findings were inconclusive. He feels the shed dates from the 1950's. Gilbert said given our current methods of evaluation and the resource that we have available he is satisfied that the buildings are not historic and not significant and he would support the conceptual proposal. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 Jeffrey relayed that he also confirmed site measurements and review the Sanborn maps and the buildings are definitely 40 plus years old but are not historic to the content and he would support conceptual Suzannah dittoed everyone. The shed has lost its integrity and she could support conceptual. Gretchen Greenwood, architect for the project said several years ago the owners had told her that the property could be torn down so she went over and visited the site and told the owner that she felt not only was the front building historic and has maintained much of its original form except for some windows in the back and that shed trash area. She remembers discussing this with the owner about what they did and she put that · information in the application. The owner said he built those buildings for ski bums. MOTION: Gilbert moved to grant conceptual approval and partial demolition for 135 W. Hopkins Ave. with the following conditions: ]. Study the upper story pIat height on the new addition. 2. Use grates instead of railings on the light wells, consider some other type of railing than the very contemporary metal one shown for the stairs and decks, and possibly lower the height of the hot tub deck to make the addition more sympathetic to the size of the historic resource. 3. Grant the following variances: 3 'front yaM setback variance, 4 '6" rear yard setback, 17'6" combined front and rear setback and 5 '6" west side yard setback. Motion second by Rally. Yes vote: Teresa, Rally, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah No vote: Neill, Lisa Motion carried 5-2. 209 S. GALENA - MINOR REVIEW Chi&Deputy Clerk swore in David Guthrie. Affidavit of posting was presented to the clerk. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 Fred Jarman, planner relayed that the request is to install a 2 x12 clear story window on the south facing wall of the Brand Bldg. for the interior space know as the Gucci store. Staff recommends approval. David Guthrie said the material is polished steel and the total height is 1 ½ inches. The material will go around the sash of the window. The wall is newer brick and doesn't seem historic but that could not be proved. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public heating. MOTION: Rally moved to approve Resolution #41, 2001finding that the review standards have been met with conditions in the staff report 1-9; second by Teresa. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert. Rally, Lisa, Teresa, Neill, Susannah 450 S. GALENA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Chief Deputy Clerk swore in Robin Ferguson. Affidavit of posting was submitted to the clerk. Amy relayed that this is an extension of a project that was approved a few years ago on a condo that is on the comer of Durant and Galena. A watch shop went in and the owner is now taking over the space to the west. This is not an historic building and there are not historic buildings in the immediate area. The entrance to the space is being replaced with a window and staff recommends approval as proposed. Robin Ferguson said they are taking away the entrance that is into the gallery space and making that a window and a window on the side and only one door. Gilbert inquired if the landscaping will remain unaltered and Robin stated that all the landscaping will remain the same. Suzannah asked if all the exits are worked? On the plans there is no rear exit. Robin said an exit doesn't exist now and they do not intent to put one in, 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 26~ 2001 Jeffrey suggested that the applicant discuss the exit situation with the fire marshal as they might be required to have one egress due to the size. MOTION: Rally moved to adopt Resoluiion g42 series of 2OO1J~nding that the review standards have been met with the following conditions: 1. That egress forJ°~re code requirements are veriJ~ed. 2. Should another door be required on the rear it can be reviewed by staff and monitor. Motion second by Teresa, carried 6-1. Yes vote: Neill, Lisa, Rally, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah No vote: Teresa Neill will be the monitor. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue the public hearing and Conceptual review on 330 E. Main, Hotel Jerome until November 14th,' second by Rally. Ail in favor, motion carried. 409 E. HYMAN AVE. - MINOR - PUBLIC HEARING Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in John Randall Wedum. Amy relayed that this is a project to restore the front of the building where New York Pizza is. There is a change to the way you enter the storefronts on the ground floor and a change in the exterior materials and windows on the street side. They also intend to enclose a porch on the back of the building. This ~s not an historic building but is in the historic district. Staff has a number of concerns but encourage the remodel of this building as right now it detracts from the character of the historic district. The proposal does not closely relating to the rest of the district, it is like an anomaly. Several design guidelines are of concern. The first floor storefront does not reflect the kind of symmetry and placement of the storefront right up against the front lot line like we would normally see in an historic building. Staff sited a number of parts of the commercial district guidelines that talk about trying to achieve the balance between not copying but reflecting characteristics of historic buildings and this is certainly a difficult challenge but it is not met by the current design. Staff recommends continuing the hearing with four specific areas for restudy: 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 1. The storefront should include some opaque elements on the ground level, as it is currently all glass from plate to ceil. Entry door should be parallel to the street and the overall composition of the ground floor should have more symmetry. 2. The upper floor windows should be more punched openings with some solid wall between them. The materials and detailing should be simplified. The building as it is drawn seems overly ornate and dissimilar to the surrounding buildings that just have a flat masonry wall with details in specific places like over windows or at the cornice line. This seems to have texture all over the entire building. 3. Metal is proposed for the front wall material and it is not compatible with the district. 4. The awnings have curved corners, which is not the normal style of awnings that are on the buildings in the downtown. Randy Wedum said he is trying to do elements in mass and scale and proportions. The building is a skinny building so he put elements on to get attention to the building. The bottom is more plate glass windows. The existing wall looks like brick was added to it. It is basically a curtain wall with brick added to it and it is an old aluminum brown frame. We are tying to make the interior space more workable. The canopy divides the upper and lower level. The proposal is a false fafade with a cornice. On the drawing he turned the corners like the old Andres bldg. This is an attempt to do something with shapes that happened in Victorian but he is doing them in stainless steel. Randy presented an alternative drawing at the meeting. His intent is to do a contemporary version of a glass storefront on the main level and a contemporary version ora canopy on the fafade. On the upper floor he did a plane version of the fafade and he is reflecting in his cornice the canopy. He simplified it all down to the cornices with the reflection of the canopy with the same materials and detailing. A metal frame and stone are incorporated. Amy addressed the applicant and said generally the board likes more time to study changes that have been brought to the meeting. You may hear concerns about that. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ SEPTEMBER 26~ 2001 Randy said there is an eight-foot ceiling inside which is a major problem. On the inside they are dropping the floor and trying to make it more open in size. Classical storefronts are ten to twelve feet tall so he designed a flat canopy, which allows you to have more ora vertical look on the main floor. With lighting it will read like one glass curtain wall on the front. The signage would actually go in the glass. From the outside it will look like a 12 story front and the canopy comes out and he will use a grill with light shining through it. The walls are 16 feet wide and masonry is face stone. Basically it is a stone-faced building with penetrations in it up above. The building has always been commercial and the glass area is being cut down. The applicant would like approval of the concept then come back with color. The New York Pizza door is set back because it is a second use on the second floor. The angled glass makes the facade a little more opened up. Everything in the building is proportional. The HPC felt tabling with comments is the direction they want to go. MOTION: Rally moved to continue 409 E. Hyman to Oct. 24, 2001; second by Gilbert. Motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Lisa, Teresa, Nell, Suzannah Work session Rally asked about the materials. Randy said the side panels which are basically a foot wide and two feet tall are face stone and on the panels inset will be blocks of stone but they will be a honed flat finish. Jeffrey said he was OK with the improvements on the rear. He questioned the access to the mall and Randy said the building was never handicapped accessible. Jeffrey suggested the applicant check with the Bldg. Dept. Randy said the door is six inches above the pavers outside and he intends to drop the floor on the inside. Amy mentioned a material that would reflect the proportions of a kick plate, not to necessarily use one. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 Rally said the modernist store front system with Victorian accents clash with each other and do not enhance the pedestrian experience down Hyman Ave. mall. He would not support the proposal. Lisa said she would prefer a simplified version that it is too contemporary. Teresa commented on the amount of glass and that it was too much for that section of town. Neill said for him it didn't have to be a flat front requirement and the era of the new design seems to have popped about a 100 years forward away from the original design. Randy said he changed the design due to the guidelines that you want to keep the basic proportions of the building but the architecture needs to be of the time. On the first design he was trying to mimic a Victorian look. Gilbert said what is successful is that it is very clear that this is a modem building with the glass curtain walls and in front a different screen element with the arches. The existing mullions do break up the fagade into proportions that relate to the punched openings that you see in the core area. There is a real challenge here. Maybe it is the curtain wall and the proportions of the flaming of the curtain wall that give the relationship to the historic context. The design is better but not there yet. The glass storefront is appropriate but the design is very sterile, although this design is better than the original design. Breaking up the curtain wall with mullions might be a suggestion. Jeffrey said Gilbert had good points about proportioning the glass and the rhythm of the pedestrian mall. The cornice and overhang detailing is OK. He would not be in favor of an angled wall due to the zero lot line store front. The tile on the upper portion of the window might be too small and that could change somewhat. Suzannah said the building as proposed relates to what the guidelines are trying to get at for the commercial core. The key is the modem interpretation of a Victorian building. Raising the line of the first floor with the use of the canopy is a good idea and it works in this case. She understands where Rally is coming from and she feels some of the character 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 26~ 2001 of the top of the building should come down to the ground and maybe it is just the matter of continuing the heavier vertical elements to the ground and that would bring the character of the building in line with the character of some of the more traditional store fronts. The other concern is the proportions of the upper windows and she agrees with Gilbert that some now the upper stow needs to feel a little more balanced between the glass are and the stone area because the stone area really dominates right now. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Rally. Ail in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9