Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20140312 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2014 Jim DeFrancia called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, Willis Pember, John Whipple and Patrick Sagal. Nora Berko was absent. Willis and Jay were seated at 5:20 p.m. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk John made the motion to approve the minutes of February 26th; second by Patrick with the following amendment. I commented that the building was not in the palate and commented that I found it was now perceived to me as a glass building with brick trim rather than a brick building with glass. All in favor, motion carried. Summary of Colorado Preservation Conference Jim said there was a program on local incentives and another on historic preservation commissions and there non-regulatory capacity. There was also another one on how to judge applications that need to be sympathetic to historic buildings. All the programs were well done and organized. They were meaningful and educational. In the Ski Towns presentation they focused on the need of connections between new and historic and that the connections be sympathetic. There was also a lot of discussion about the impacts of additions and inappropriate increases in scale and the need to retain the dominance of the historic structure. The addition should help preserve the historic building and too many concessions will ultimately destroy the historic character. The object of additions is to extend the life of it historically and its usefulness. Compatibility of additions should focus on roofs and mass. The incentive program talked about encouraging rehabilitation and property maintenance with a public policy clearly defining the requirements and expectations when it comes to receiving incentives. The focus should be on the primary and secondary facades. Some communities were offering design assistance to individual owners of historic property that they want to keep. There are also grant programs available. We here in Aspen are way ahead of most everyone in the state. There was also a discussion about preservation techniques. Amy presented a power point of the projects that went through HPC. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2014 534 E. Cooper— Final Major Development and Commercial Design Review— Public Hearing Debbie said the public notices are in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I. Amy said this is final review for a second floor expansion and construction of a third floor. This building is right at the edge of the historic district. The Bowman block is across the street and that is historic. This building was built in the 80's. At conceptual you accepted the form and location and it went onto P&Z for growth management and affordable housing mitigation and it went to City Council for subdivision to create a free market unit on the site. Final is consistent as to what was proposed at conceptual. At conceptual HPC said the chimney added too much mass so that has been removed. You also requested that the elevator shaft materials be restudied so that it is broken down in scale and not just a three story tall wall and that has been achieved. The applicant at conceptual had asked to go to 42 feet and that was not approved and it has been reduced to 38 feet in the design tonight. Staff has recommended approval with the condition that we see actual samples of the materials to ensure reflectivity etc. is addressed. They are using painted metal. There was an architectural feature along the roof with spikes but that has been removed. They are also requesting the standard three years vested rights. Kim Weil, Poss architects Kim said in the member it discussed 10'6" floor heights and those numbers are ceiling heights not floor heights. Amy said the guidelines say no upper floor should be taller than the first floor. Kim said all the floors will be around 10'6". The basement mechanical will be rebuilt. On the main level there is a change with the addition of the elevator and re-working of the stairway on the first floor. On the second floor there is the addition of commercial space and elimination of the existing tent. The third level is the new pent house. The existing skylight will be cut in half. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2014 Kim said on the roof plan there are 5 major pieces and two minor pieces. The chimney has been removed. One of the new codes that we have to deal with is that the mechanical equipment on a roof needs to be secured by guard rails. The materials are brick and metal will be used on the recessed areas. Patrick mentioned guideline 6.44 where it says highly reflected or dark tinted glass is inappropriate. Kim said we will be using clear glass. The guard rails for the mechanical will be back 30 inches from the parapet. The roof needs protected. John mentioned the vertical metal wall louvers. Kim said they taper from 4 inches to 10 inches. The guardrails need to be 42 inches high. Jay mentioned that the guard rails create more mass. If we wanted them to build a screen can we ask them to do that instead of the guardrails. Amy said conceptual is probably too early. Even at final those issues are sometimes not resolved. You can regulate to do something that screens. Kim said we are not opposed to screens or rails. We can do either. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Issues: Staff raised the issue of no material samples. Screen as opposed to guard rails around the mechanical. Spikes or vertical metal seams have been removed but they have been removed by the applicant. Sallie said she likes the guardrails rather than the screens because the screen adds mass. The rails look industrial and go with the mechanics. John said he would side on the screen side instead of railings because no condensing units are attractive. This building is high enough up and the same scale as the Tomb Thumb bldg. so from very few angles would you catch the mechanical which is back 30 inches. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2014 Patrick said he could accept the screening or railings. Jay said he prefers the screen as it is prominent and it is one block from the gondola and is prominent on the gondola line. It will be very visible. Kim said the screen would have to be louvered to allow air flow. Sallie said from the gondola it will look like a fence is around it and the guard rail will blend in with the mechanical. What kind of architecture design are you doing for the screen. Jim said all mechanical is unattractive and looking at a screen is less obtrusive. John said he would rather hide the mechanical. The screening should be consistent all the way around. Jim said maybe the contractor can put up a section with the screen and a section with the railing. Willis said he would encourage the monitor to apply whatever they are going to apply to the four units to have it apply to the fifth. Booth enclosures should be consistent. MOTION: John moved to approve resolution #9 with the condition that staff and monitor review the continuity and application of guardrail vs fence; second by Jim. Condition #2 would be eliminated. All in favor, motion carried. Amy said the new drawings would be Exhibit A to be attached to the resolution. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; John, yes; Willis, yes; Sallie, yes; Jim, yes; Jay, yes. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. eeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Kathleen trickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 4