HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20011024ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
OCTOBER 24, 2001
Chairperson, Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Board members in attendance were: Teresa Melville, Neill Hirst, Rally
Dupps, Lisa Markalunas, Jeffrey Halferty and Gilbert Sanchez
Staff in attendance: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Fred Jarman, Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Lisa inquired about the Schelling case and Amy relayed that thc owners
have been in a law suite with the next-door neighbor and as she understands
it that has been settled and shortly we should expect to see an application.
Lisa also asked about Ernie Fyrwald's plaque that is to be moved to the
historic house. Amy said she would follow through.
Disclosure:
Rally will step down on 735 W. Bleeker.
Gilbert and Jeffrey will step down on 935 E. Cooper.
Lisa disclosed that she works with clients of Reese Henry that are involved
on both sides of the Christmas Inn.
935 E. COOPER - AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED DESIGN
Jeffrey and Gilbert recused themselves.
Jerome Hatem stated that they feel the back bed and bath dormer need
increased 1 foot 4 inches in height. Most of the buildings around are 12 feet
higher. Drawings were presented to indicate the change in height. Some of
the windows were lessened to help out the energy calculations.
MOTION: Rally moved to approve the changes as submitted on Exhibit I
for 935 E. Cooper; second by Lisa. All in favor, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue 735 ~. Bleeker, public hearing until
November 28, 2001; second by Neill. Ali in favor, motion carried 6-0.
Yes vote: Lisa, Teresa, Neill, Gilbert, Suzannah, Jeffrey.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
OCTOBER 24, 2001
409 E. HYMAN AVE. - MINOR REVIEW
Chief Deputy Clerk swore in John Wedum.
Amy said at the last meeting specific direction was given on the project for
amendments of the design. Staff review found that a number of those
recommendations were not sufficiently addressed and they are concerned
about giving minor approval although they would like to see the project go
through. The concerns mostly deal with the upper story and nothing has
been done to break up the glass on the storefront. The upper floor has
issues with the solid void relationship not being what it is on a typical
historical building. There is a lot of blank wall between the top of the
windows and the top of the building and perhaps the cornice element could
be lowered so the top of it is the same as the top of the building. Possibly
the columns should be carried all the way through to the ground. The
applicant has revisions to present to the board.
John Wedum: The existing parapet is high and that is to do the request of
the owner that someday they want to remodel the upstairs and a lot of the
older buildings have high parapets. It could also be used for signage. The
major issues seem to be the windows themselves. The window had no
panes and is made into three panes. The reason we didn't go smaller is
because this building is a small building and inside it is only 14 ½ feet wide.
Years ago the space was Mesa StOre Bakery. If they take out more windows
it would become very dark. Right now the windows come from the ceiling
to the floor. They have taken out 25% of the windows already. The tenant is
a good tenm~t and we do not want to take away from his space. The space
has always been a restaurant and light is necessary. The reason we are
doing the faCade is to make it more appealing from the outside, right now it
is a flat curtain wall and the brick arch breaks up the faCade and by opening
them up and making a nice canopy element and giving them vertical height
it will enhance the building. This is not a display window. The owner
would still like to do the angled wall, which opens up the entire front.
Chief Deputy Clerk swore iff Walter Perk. Coming in at an angle gives a
clean opening and people can get out of the weather as they come in.
2
P~SPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt
OCTOBER 24~ 2001
Rally inquired about bringing the wall up to the street level as opposed to
the angled wall? John Weden said it is only 3 ½ feet back in scale. By
opening it up one can look into the window and get out of the traffic pattern.
Gilbert asked what was the basis of selecting stucco/plaster. John said
plaster is a material that is a lot lighter to apply. It is a small little building
and to start another material would be less busy. Plaster/stone reads as one
material. It would also be a lot lighter looking.
Neill inquired about the ventilation and is it adequate? John said the same
or more ventilation will be added with the new windows.
Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing.
COMMENTS:
Jeffrey relayed that the building has character and he agrees with staff
regarding the walls vs. windows rhythm. It needs to be restudied.
Jeffrey also has concerns with the stucco. The lot line to lot line entry is a
better relationship with the public as the entrance. He is in favor of the
architectural treatments of the cornice and overhangs.
Gilbert said this proposal is not much improved from the last discussion.
He also agrees with the issues that staffhas identified in the memo. He
personally does not have a problem with option A and the diagonal if the
rest of the building were so strong in its contextual relationship but that is
not the case here. The upper floor windows are problematic. In general
window openings are punched out and masonry. The stucco material is also
problematic as it has no relationship to other materials that are in the
downtown core in these kinds of buildings. Carrying the columns to the
ground might give it architectural character. Right now the proposal is very
sterile and bleak. Gilbert said there is not much here he could support.
Rally said he supports ideas that help with retail spaces given the
competitive retail climate in the core. Scheme B is more in keeping for the
entrance. He also has a problem with the stucco.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
OCTOBER 24~ 2001
Neill said he gets the feeling, and he has heard it before that this
commission is designing and getting into details and telling the architects or
applicants what to do and he doesn't agree with that approach. We need to
make it clear what the concept is. He feels it is indefensible to require a flat
faced on the street when right across you have a t-shirt store and a fur store
and both have angled entries. Regarding the material he would prefer brick.
He would also not like to see the windows punched as the space is very
small.
Teresa said any business so close to the Wheeler Opera house should strive
for excellence on their facades. She feels the fafade should be simple but
maximize the light. She would prefer smooth cut stone rather than plaster.
The angled wall doesn't bother her but the absence of the kick plate does.
Lisa said she would prefer scheme B for the entry as it is more traditional.
It is a difficult scenario and the building is contemporary. In terms of
specifics she agrees with staff about the cornice. She is not disturbed about
the upstairs windows as the rest of the board is.
Suzannah said the key sentence in the guidelines for the commercial core is
that the infill should be a balance of new and old design. The strength of
the scheme is the three-part fafade. If the vertical elements came through to
the ground and the two doorways defined then the fafade would want to be
parallel to the street. The display window could be framed by the two
vertical elements. The upper windows is the real challenge, stucco is
probably not the right material. She feels the relationship should be made to
the street, option B.
John Wedum said they have no problem with the brick and the board has
mixed feelings about the windows. The option of the flat storefront is
acceptable to the owner and they can take the four-inch mullion all the way
down to frame the glass panel. They request approval with the above
revisions. John also said he would provide revised drawings.
Gilbert said this needs to be a thought out process and it has to relate to the
guidelines and all the comments shared here tonight.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
OCTOBER 24~ 2001
MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue the minor development application
for 409 E. Hyman with the directions identified by staff1-6 until November
28, 200; second by Rally. Motion carried 6-1.
Yes vote: Lisa, Rally, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Teresa, Suzannah
No vote: Neill,
Walter Perk said he has an engineering background and he appreciates the
comments but he feels life demands balance and scale and this is a small
project and there is no real direction. He would like direction if they come
in with vertical elements etc. and the changes does it fit with what the board
wants. Right now they arc walking away with no idea.
John said they looked at all o£the different scenarios before. He also said
he read the guidelines. He said the board has consensus on the brick but not
on the windows. They want to stick with the windows the way they are.
Suzannah said the board needs to see a drawing with the brick and details in
order to determine its appropriateness. As Gilbert pointed out the vertical
elements are all part of the design. She heard from the board that there were
issues that were not resolved yet.
Gilbert said if the six items are successfully addressed he feels it could be a
strong enough proposal that some of the other things would be acceptable.
718 W. HALLAM STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING
Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Larry Rather.
Amy said this is an appeal from one of the residential design standards that
says for any residential property that fence at all points of the house can be
no taller than 42 inches and thc applicant is requesting to go to 48 inches
across the front and at some point to increase to 72 inches. Staff is
recommending denial because it is an important issue to have a low fence in
front of residential properties instead of stockade fences that have been
allowed in the past, which deteriorates the pedestrian character of our
neighborhoods.
5
ASPEN HISTOR/C PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
OCTOBER 24~ 2001
Lan~ said there are 15 to 20 houses in their block and close to them that
have tall fences across the front. They are trying to keep the dogs in and the
bears out. They did decided to go to a wider space on the pickets so that the
house is still quite visible from the street. The taller fence starts at Hallam
and runs along the apartment complex.
Amy said at that point you would be six feet tall and you are only allowed
42 inches. The 42 inches needs to continue back to the front of the house
before you can increase.
Rally said it has to be 42 inches to the street face and then to the plane it can
go up to six feet. If the house is on a corner the two sides would have to be
at 42 inches and the alley and side yard could be six feet.
Amy said this guideline is not just for historic houses.
Neill asked about all the other exceptions throughout town?
Suzannah said the 42 inches only came into effect two years ago.
Neill said the HPC approved a six-foot fence at 232 E. Hallam, Pace
residence.
Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing.
Bert Myrin said the land that was given to the city belonged to me and my
neighbor was offering it to the city for her getting a six-foot fence. In the
past year you offered to pay for the fence and the survey and you wonder
why other landowners come to you requesting the same thing. It needs to be
kept consistent.
Lisa said the 42 or 48 inch fence would have to go back to the front faqade
of the building on the west side. In general concept, she would rather see a
lower fence with more visibility.
Amy said at least one of the standards has to be met. The Pace fence was
granted over the basis that there were unusual site circumstances because
there is a trail running across the property.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
OCTOBER 24, 2001
Gilbert said the public trail was an impact on the privacy of their property.
Teresa said the HPC should stick with the 42 inches.
Neill said the public trail is much further away from the Pace house than
most sidewalks are from the front taller windows of Victorians, it is not a
viable excuse.
Rally said none of the standards are met and there is no hardship. He stands
firm at 42 inches.
Gilbert said he could agree if the owner put in a wrought iron fence, which
has very minimal elements and is transparent.
Suzannah said she agreed that the standards have not been met.
MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution #50, 2001approving a
variances from the residential design standards to allow for a fence to be
constructed in the front yard setback to a height of 48 inches above natural
grade at 718 W. Hallam; second by Rally. Motion denied 7-0.
Yes vote:
No vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Neill, Teresa, Lisa, Suzannah
232 W. MAIN - MINOR & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT -
PUBLIC HEARING
Fred Jarman, planner stated that the minor review will be Phase I and
conceptual review will be Phase II. The proposal is a two-phase expansion
for the Christmas Inn. The Inn is a non-designated building within the Main
Street Historic District. The tmderlying zoning is office. The current and
proposed use is lodge. The minor review is essentially a face-lift for the
current structure. Belvederes are proposed for the Main Street and the 3rd
story addition to the rear. Staff recommends approval with the exception of
the belvederes. Staff finds that the material changes are consistent with
what is there now and it doesn't affect scale, massing or site plan.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
OCTOBER 24, 2001
Phase II, conceptual review involves enclosing the covered car port off
Main Street and eliminating the curb cut and adding an entry vestibule
which would further define the front entrance to the Christmas Inn. Staffhas
no concerns except the stone material to the columns of the vestibule.
The second portion would be the demolition and replacement of the rear
portion of the current one story structure. Tl~e request is to demolish that
and replace it with two, three story elements to accommodate the lodge
expansion. There would be 8 new lodge rooms and 3 affordable housing
units. The setback issues will be discussed at the PUD process. The main
issue Was the scale and mass on Main Street. The third story wall is 85 feet
back from the Main Street corridor. The third story does not detract from
the predominant front faCade, Main Street or the Second Street. Last year
the building was being considered on the Inventory.
Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Augie Reno, Stan Clauson,
Paul Taddune and Ted Guy.
Start Clauson said this is a 28 room lodge and has considerable use over the
years and some portions are not very well constructed. The rear section is a
one-story element and the oldest. Due to the age of the rear section it was
determined that area would be the expansion. From a historic perspective
the lodge will be remain as is and its presence will not changed. The
improvements proposed will enhance the lodge. They are proposing to
eliminate the drive-in which will add to pedestrian safety. There is a notch
in the second story element which was specifically done in accommodation
to the family behind the lodge, the DeWolf's residence.
Augie Reno addressed Phase I revisions of windows and materials. The
existing Christmas Inn has a stone planter and the proposal is to extend that
to the furore addition. All the existing evergreen growth is staying. There
is one belvedere in town and that is on the F, lisha House on Main St. The
entire upper level of the building will be resided with a one by tongue and
groove material. Synthetic stucco will be used at the base of the building.
All the windows will be replaced and for the most part they will be in the
same location that they are today and same configuration. The only
difference is that there will be some divided light changes. The new
fenestration changes are two new doors and two new windows. Regarding
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
OCTOBER 24, 2001
the belvederes, we felt that the horizontal line is too strong and belvederes
were added to break it up on the Main St. side. On the Second Street side
the horizontal siding will be replaced with vertical tongue and groove and
new synthetic stucco on the lower. It is basically a "skin" replacement on
the building.
Gilbert asked if the belvederes were functional? Augie said right now thc
roof is not a ventilated roof and the belvederes could be used as that option.
Augic said on Phase II the entry vestibule porch area and the enclosure of
the carport are proposed and additional FAR will be needed. The lobby will
bc expanded under thc existing carport that exists today. They put story
polls up for thc DeWolf's and to accommodate their view an additional
room was added on Second Street. On the alley side the verticality is being
broken up by the use of materials and the sloped roof. Additional trees will
be added to the site. There will be additional spaces off the alley to help
with the parking situation. The parking on Second Street has been changed
by thc city and you can no longer use those spots for privam parking for a
particular entity.
Neill asked if there were any comments from the neighbor to the east and
Augie said to his knowledge, no.
Chairperson, Suzanah Reid opened the public hearing.
Paul Taddune, attorney for Nick and Maggie DeWolf. Mr. Taddune
participated in a meeting with the neighbors and applicants and there was a
real appreciation of the sensitivity of the project by Nick and Maggie. The
DeWolf's are in support of the project and a letter was entered into the
record as an exhibit.
Ted Guy said he is the manager of the King Louis LLC which is at 210 W.
Main, two doors to the east. Basically this is the first he has seen the plans
and model. Ted asked about the parking. Augie said there are four parking
spaces and the building will be built at the zero lot line then steps back four
feet. Ted said the ice/alley situation is a concern due to people backing out
too fast.
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
OCTOBER 24~ 2001
Chairperson, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing.
COMMENTS:
Jeffrey said the exterior and window improvements are OK as it adds
character to what is there. It is a terrific little building that doesn't exactly
know what it is trying to be on Main Street. The new fenestration on
Second St. and Main St. works well. On the W L the proposal is acceptable.
Gilbert had no problems with phase I except the belvederes. He also could
accept a ridge vent for the roof because that is in character with what is
there now.
Rally said the belvederes break up the ridge and he has no problem with
them.
Neill said he had no further comments.
Teresa said she likes the belvederes and they are appropriate with the face-
lift.
Lisa said Phase I adds definite improvements to the property. It is nice that
the tower element and railing details are being retained. She could go either
way with the belvederes.
Suzannah said there are great details on the siding and they are proposed to
be replaces and that is unfortunate. On the west side the vertical siding that
tums to horizontal and comes around the front is a strong architectural move
and taking that away is going to diminish the qualities of the volumes and
balance of the volumes on the front of that faqade. She also has no concerns
with the changes to the window openings. Her concerns are with the (fake)
half timbering being removed and the change to the characater of the ground
floor of that metal piece. The belvederes seem to add another layer of
confusion.
Augie said the "father time" clock will be restored.
I0
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
OCTOBER 24, 2001
MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve resolution #51, approwng the minor
review of Phase I of the Christmas Inn expansion with the 6 conditions as
stated in the resolution; second by Neill. Motion carried 6-1
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Neill, Teresa. Lisa
No vote: Suzannah
Monitors Teresa and Rally
Phase II Comments
Jeffrey said the proposal seems OK. The north elevation coming form the
alley is the more difficult one because of the mass and allowable size.
Breaking it up with creating a view corridor helps the design. Possibly
there could be some additional articulation that can help break the three-
stow/four stow wall. West elevation is OK and some mitigation of the
parking has been thought out. The fascia board on the east elevation should
be accentuated to break up the three stow mass. Jeffrey also said he was in
favor of retaining the lodges and can accept the proposed mass in order to
do so.
Gilbert dittoed Jeffrey and agreed that there is some room for adjustments
that Jeffrey mentioned regarding articulation of walls etc. Instead of gable
ends possibly do hip roofs to relate to what is there now and reduce the
mass of the third stow. On the entry vestibule the trust detailing doesn't
seem to have any relationship to the building and that could be simplified.
Rally said Aspen is suffering from decreased tourism and beds. The small
lodge preservation initiative ~s very important and he supports the project.
He feels the entry is appropriate and acts as a vocal point and becomes the
formal entry. Rally commended the applicant and neighbors to working
together to create a solution.
Neill agreed with Jeffrey's and Gilbert's comments. This is truly a
remarkable partnership that the applicant and neighbors have agreed on.
The slot adds to the quirkiness of the building.
Teresa relayed that she has no problems with the project and it is very
attractive. The rock around the front adds to the project,
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
OCTOBER 24, 2001
Lisa said she has some concern over the height and massing of the third
story in particular by allowing the slot feature and then the mass pushes up
the sides and in particular it comes too close to the tower element on thc
east elevation. On Second Street she would like to see something done to
break up the three story massing.
Suzalmah said when applicants and neighbors work together it makes our
job easier. She fully supports the expansion of the lodges to keep them
viable. She suggested that a shed dormer shape might be better than a
peaked dormer. The vocabulary of the addition should be more in line with
the existing building. Her concern is the entry and the way the infill is
being handled on the front. The existing pattern should be reinforced
instead of broken down.
Augie said he feels the design is more transparent more vertical and they are
trying to somewhat maintain that yet break up the fenestration of the
window themselves. There is also a courtyard behind.
MOTION: Rally moved to approve resolution #52, 200, Christmas Inn for
conceptual development for Phase Il with the 8 conditions stated in the
resolution; second by Teresa.
Yes vote: Rally, Teresa
No vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Neill, Lisa, Suzannah
Motion denied 5-2
Discussion: Gilbert suggested that the motion be amended to restudy the
massing of the roof forms and the articulation of the three story walls. Also
some of Suzannah's concerns that the architecture be consistent with the
existing building.
MOTION: Rally moved to approve Resolution #52, 2001, Christmas Inn for
conceptual development of Phase II with the 8 conditions stated in the
resolution plus
#9 Restudy of the massing of the roof forms
#10 Restudy the articulation of the three story walls
Motion second by Teresa. Motion carried 6-1.
Yes vote: Teresa, Neill, Rally, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
OCTOBER 24, 2001
No vote: No
WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES
REVISED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Rally. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
OCTOBER 24~ 2001
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ........ ; ...................................................................................................... 1
935 E. COOPER - AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED DESIGN .................................... ~ ........................ 1
409 E. HYMAN AVE. - MINOR REVIEW ................. ~ .............................................................................. 2
718 W. I-IALLA3/I STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING ....................................................... 5
232 W. MAIN - MINOR & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING ....................... 7
WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ........................................................................................................... 13
REVISED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ....................................................................... 13
14