Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950823 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 23, 1995 Heeting was called to order by chairman Donnelley Erdman with Les Holst, Linda Smisek, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko, Jake Vickery, Sven Alstrom and Roger Moyer present. Excused was Jeff McMennimen. Les and Sven not seated to vote. 620 W. HALLAM - AMENDMENT TO FINAL Amy: There is an existing wood fence on the rear of the property and they intend to use a wrought iron fence across the front of the property. We already have an approval for a fence but Mark would like to change it and he desires to extend the existing privacy fence all the way to the front lot line stepping it down slighting and have the wrought iron fence just across the front. I am recommending against that particular design because we usually look for an open fence in front of the property of no more than 3 1/2 feet high. I am recommending that the privacy fence not be allowed to come any further than the front of the house and at that point drop to a 3.6 foot open fence. Hark's primary concern is how they butt up to each other but I feel it could be done better further back on the lot than having the wood and iron butt right up at the corner. Mark Savage, owner: It currently is a six foot fence and I am worried about going from a six foot to 3 1/2 in one hit. Hy idea was to start at the six and have two steps which would bring it to 4 1/2 and when it connects with the wrought iron it would only be a foot difference. We are planning on doing quite a bit of landscaping so it will get covered up. It is only eight feet that we are talking about from the front of the house to the property boundary. Helanie: Can't you step the wrought iron down one panel. Hark: To do anymore stepdowns I need approval to build some more wood as there is an existing fence. Sven: What would you rate this house? Amy: It is an historic landmark. Susan: On the east side they are constructing another house and there are huge trees along the property line and it is open to the neighbors. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Donnelley: We have a recommendation from staff that 9 feet of it be on the west continuous along the street frontage and a nine foot return along the east. Jake: Historically speaking I would rather see the fence extended further back than nine feet. Donnelley: Your suggestion of the more than nine feet is well taken but I am not sure it needs lined up to something on either side of the house. Helanie: I would object to the six foot fence coming anywhere past the house. I do not like the precedence of walling in gardens and that is what is happening in so many areas. I do not have a problem of it lining up somewhere with the house as long as the whole frame is left open. Susan: I agree that it should not come any further than the front of the house. Martha: I would go along with Susan's statement. Sven: I feel on this particular site the proposal doesn't bother me but I do feel this is an element of the neighborhood design reviews. I would say that it should be six feet in front of the house. Roger: I have a problem with the fence coming out to the corner. Donnelley: There is consensus about not extended the solid wood fence beyond the front line of the house; however Jake and I feel one should extend the transparent iron fence further back on each side and Jake was suggesting 16 feet. Hark: Are you saying knock down the existing fence as I do not want to do that. Jake: I was saying coming back to the existing fence on the west side which would be nine feet plus an additional seven feet which would be 16 feet. Donnelley: The return of the iron fence should be greater than nine feet. Typically in the west end we have iron fences extending back further than nine feet. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Susan: When I looked at this property it seems that the existing fence ends at the neighbors house line where the bushes are and that looks proper. Hark: That would be right. Susan: It is nice to have the view of their lawn and yours. Hark: Six feet drop to 3 1/2 feet is a big drop with two different materials and your proposal would be a problem on the east side. Donnelley: On the east side you have room to step down if you go back 16 feet then you have 20 feet in which to make a wooden transition. The applicant can make the decision on the transition treatment. Hark: I will do what you are suggesting and the west side dictates. I will go straight from the six foot to the 3 1/2 foot on the west side for the entire length of the west side which is what you are asking for and on the other side I will do the same thing and extend the wood fence six feet and go straight to the 3 1/2 and plant a bush there. MOTION: Jake moved that HPC approve a new fence that is no more than 3.6 feet tall that run across the front of the property and 16 feet back on east and west property lines from the front. There would be an open wrought iron fence in the front that the applicant as presented. A additional solid fence on the Iglehart side for approximately 20 feet and then you will meet with the other fence; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHOCOLATE FACTORY Jake stepped down. Sven seated. Amy: They want an awning and proposed a skirt on the second floor and I recommend we not approve that as it is not a functional awning. Donnelley: They want a one foot projection wrap around. Amy: This is specifically for signage. Susan: It projects only a foot off the building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Donnelley: It tends to tie ground floor elements together. Hartha: I seems like we are getting a complex of awnings. Amy: We have always gone with the style and color of the awnings but not the printing. Donnelley: The awning is on the front and turns the corner. Amy: I agree that this is sort of a trim element but I do not want to start approving that sort of thing on buildings that is not functional. We do not need to approve more signage. Donnelley: They could use a wood board for signage. Susan: I would think he would want a traditional awning. MOTION: Sven moved that HPC approve the awning for the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory; one foot skirt awning with materials and paint to match; second by Roger. DISCUSSION Helanie: That means he will have lettering on the street side and the courtyard side. I feel this is too much lettering. Sven: I also agree with Helanie that it is an impact. Amy: We usually say one style per building. AMENDED MOTION: Sven amended the motion to approve the submission with the requirement that the signage only be on one projected face of the skirt awning and that the color and lettering style needs to be the same as the other awnings; second by Roger. Passes 4 to 3. Martha, Susan and Linda voted no. Sven, Melanie, Don and Roger voted yes. 406 E. HOPKINS - ISIS - LANDMARK, CONCEPTUAL, PH Amy: I have listed on the board the conditions that I propose for approval. We have eliminated two units on the roof and there are story polls up. I feel we still need discussion about architecture on the roof top elements. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Charles Cunniffe, architect: The main concerns seem to be the second story addition, the ground floor and facade were OK and everyone as comfortable with that. The second story architecture in terms of massing we were directed to look at something more contemporary in contract with the existing building. Something that would complement the existing building. The S elevation has a less profile than it had before. The two critical places of public view are in front of the Gap and in front of Eddie Bauers. The renderings show the impact. We feel it is subtle yet it is obvious it is not part of the original building and it is a little cleaner. The curved roofs were generated by the view plane issue from the Hotel Jerome. We were able to hold that back by the closet and lowering the plate height. We also raised the front plate height of the units and lowered the back plate heights so the units would get the view toward the mountain. Regarding materials we are probably using a manufactured stone that would be a sandstone product in panels as a way to carry on the stone and the panels would be slightly darker in coloration. Different but subtle. We are retaining the Isis sign and we are saving the metal material in the rear. Sunny Vann: We met with the planner and the housing office and it was clear from Dave Tollin, housing head that this could be handled from a staff level because the number of employees generated falls within the purview of the staff. We were able to ascertain that two three bedroom units on top of this project would more than meet the requirement imposed under us on the growth management. We feel the P&Z will recommend the same. This is all still subject to review and approval by the P&Z and from a formal referral from the Housing office. With respect to the theatres we are continuing to evaluate the layout of the theatres with a theatre consultant and it is possible that the seating will change. We heard what you said about wanting a large theatre. This one is less because we do not carry the seats right up to the foot of the stage and we do not have three or four rows of seats that are questionable from a movie point of view but are functional from an auditorium point of view. We will continue to look at those issues. At the last meeting I heard the roof was just too busy. Too muck walkways and too much roof going on. This allows us to pull the two affordable housings units back to the rear of the building. We have cleaned up the court yards and the space between them. We have pulled back part of the free market unit so that it is all uniform 18 to 20 feet from the front of the facade which will make the east side of the free market unit disappear to the same extent that the west side does. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Amy: At the last meeting we supported landmark designation, and HPC approved the parking waivers and the open space reduction. CLARIFICATIONS: Roger: What is the recommended material for the third story south, east and west sides. Charles: Hanufactured stone in panels and we can make them any size we want. Donnelley: The storage is down below and that makes for the two theatres up above. Previously the free market had a fire place and is there a fire place now? John Wheeler: If there would be a fireplace it would be a gas appliance but currently we are not showing one at all. Jake: One of my big issues is demolition. John Wheeler: We talked with Bill Drueding on how the city views demolition and if it is over 50% they consider it total demolition, only as a code issue. If you demolish half or more of the structure then you have to go through full mitigation. He has acknowledged that it isn't total demolition but it is more than 50% and that is where it was left at. Amy: It doesn't have further ramifications for them and that was what was my concern. Jake: When I looked at the numbers I saw that what you were adding was more than what the existing building was. How is demolition measured? Amy: FAR is the unit of measure but the only time it matters is a residential demolition. With ord. ~1 they are worried about 50% demolition. Jake: How much of the existing FAR are you demolishing? John Wheeler: The exterior wall is what is being retained. Jake: As I look at it I see the retainage of the west wall, north wall and a portion of the east wall. The building itself is being demolished. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Charles Cunniffe: It is done all over the country. In order to get theatres downstairs we have to get access to the whole body with machinery to get down and dig it out. In order to do that we have to get rid of the building that is there. We also have to underpin the building. Sunny Vann: Maybe I can clarify the regulatory side of it. When the Gap was reconstructed a full basement and roof was constructed and it was a substantial demolition on the building. The current code as far as the growth management is concerned is if we retain a portion of the building and it is not complete demolition and we raised the site we only have to mitigate the additional stuff for net leasable square footage that is added to the building. From a commercial point of view the only issues in terms of impact are the net leasable square footage, FAR has nothing to do with what we are going to be required to provide in the way of mitigation for our growth management application. In terms of the regulatory side of this we are in compliance. In terms of whether you think there is more demolition that is a separate issue that is not governed by specific regulations in the code. That is a call on your part Jake. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Harley Baldwin: I own the building across the street and if any of you remember in restoring the Collins Block there were very strict rules and that was that if there were any additions to the top it could not be seen anywhere through town, not from across the street not from La Cocina not from the Hotel Jerome and that was the rule and I feel we should abide by that rule here. I had to set my addition back 15 feet and push it down ten feet from where I wanted it to be. This building is extremely apparent from the Collins Block, Eddie Bauer and from in front of the Brand Building and half of historic Aspen. It looks like the new building is eating the historic building. I feel it is much too high and in fact I found I could create a wonderful space on top keeping it out of site. I feel the idea of restoring the theatre is a terrific one. I do not feel there is any reason to have a setback on the side. I feel setbacks on Aspen are terrible and they are not historic and not helpful. If he needs FAR let him put it there. I have noticed that the number of bathrooms here is ridiculous. It is way too high. The code requires way too many bathrooms. It looks like the new building has teeth on it and it is consuming the historic building, munching its way halfway through the building. You cannot see what we put on the roof from anywhere in town and that should be the standard, Thank you. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Donnelley: We are in conceptual and we can take Harley's consideration. The Collins Block did have certain advantages with the parapet. Charles Cunniffe: I do not think we can make the addition go away but we have reduced it and that is due to the fact that each side has lower buildings to it and it will always be visible just by the nature of what goes around it. I would like to see this building taken on its own merit. Sven: I feel this is a much improved design particularly in materials and summation of massing. The building sections on A.4.1 would seem to indicate that perhaps another structure look, the structure that holds up the housing unit floor, it looks like there is plenty of ceiling height in the lobby that could be handled differently. I am wondering if he could compress the roof structure of the theatres and possibly reconsider the ceiling heights of the theatres to further depress the housing units. This is in response to Harley's comments which were valid. Charles: The space there is indicated for mechanical duct work. We are trying to preserve a view. Harley: The standard that it cannot be seen should stay. Les: You building was historically designated and that is the difference here. Harley: It should be designated. Les: We are getting designated with a design control. Amy: Harley's property is on the national register and we do have complete design review over this because it is in the commercial core. In terms of the historic landmark they are getting GHQS exemptions out of it. There should not be a big difference here in the review. Donnelley: We need to take into consideration that the ultimate building is going to change the perception of the block. Charles: There were numerous comments but not a consensus so what we did was take those comments that would work and tried to work with all the comments in some way such as moving it in a little. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Susan: There is a lot of tenant storage and could not some of that space be used to reduce the height. Charles: We need air exchange and the air exchange has to occur up high. Susan: You couldn't use the basement? Charles: The owners wanted storage as well. We are trying to keep the housing impact off the building as much as we can. Roger: Could the duct work be exposed for theatres A and B? Charles: There would be sound problems and vibration transfers. The exposed duct work would have to have insulation worked around it to such an extent that it might not be attractive. We can look at that. Jake: You have created an area in the middle of the roof that is a depressed area and by doing that you pushed the housing to the outside. It seems to me that you would want to concentrate your square footage in the corner and leave areas for setbacks for a more visible size of the structure. I am still concerned about demolition and it seems that you are retaining only 200 sqft. of the historic structure. We aren't saving much of the building. John Wheeler: We are keeping 70% of the exterior fabric of the building and yes the interior of the fabric is being renegotiated. We cannot dispute the interior fabric. I feel you have to look at the exterior of the fabric and what is being preserved to the outside. Charles: We feel the exterior fabric and the theatre use are the most important. Jake: If maintaining the theatre use destroys the building then I am perfectly willing to get rid of the theatre. I would rather have the building then the theatre use. What good is it to put in a use that destroys an historical building from an historical preservation point. I feel all possible options for renovation of the structure in its basic form should be explored before we leave that area. Would it be possible to invert the floor plans and in that way you would utilize more of the existing structure than in your present proposal. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Charles: This building has an immense egress and to put more people down stairs would require more impact on the building. We feel the main theatre is more historic where it is. There is no way to renovate this structure without demolishing the floor structures. The use that is there now was not the original use. We made the entrance to the building back to where it was historically. It is a ground floor entrance like all the other buildings in town. Sunny Vann: We need to see if more of the fabric of this building needs to be preserved. Amy: I understand what you are saying Jake but every commercial building in town is gutted just like this one is being gutted. We do not deal with interiors. I am not sure this is a significant interior. Sven: I feel this is close to compatibility requirements. This doesn't have the character of Harley's block but I also feel this should go through a stringent view committee. Having the housing a low impact is better. Harley Baldwin: This is one of the top ten buildings in down town and the theatre use is fabulous. I feel the theatres will add life to the downtown. Their parapets are just as tall as mine are. Peter Kuntz, I have worked for the New York City Landmarks Preservation Committee for several years in setting up guidelines for Greenwich Village and one of the things that maintains historic character at a point when it wouldn't last any longer is that when you do a structure on the roof like this the shape, fenestration those elements announce that it was not part of the original structure. Haintaining the original material, brick or whatever the volume was of the actual building stone, maintained and did not swallow the building. The other thing that we found of vital importance was not breaking up the city scape itself. In this case it wouldn't matter if the addition were a glass and steel structure again in proportions that were compatible to the building next door itself but it is bringing it out to the street or only having a minor setback that maintained both the historic character of the building because it is part of the urban environment. You do not want to create dark gloomy spaces on the street. I do not know if pulling the addition building forward would allow more space on the roof. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Charles: We wanted to take a little bit of the corner and have just enough gesture to make the addition read as a separate entity. We did not want the entrance precieved as an entrance to a commercial business as it is the entrance to the housing. There is a little planting/plaza there to set it back from the facade and it becomes a stage set for the theatre. Peter Kuntz: That was what we found was wrong. By making it a stage set you destroy the point of the stage set to begin with because you have lost the urban experience. It wasn't the corner of the building it was the overall feel. The city itself is an historic preservation feeling and is maintained by the character and quality of the street itself. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Les: I wish we had different zoning requirements when we did the Collins Block Bldg. I feel we have learned a lot since we have done your building. We are not loosing any of the original building and we are getting the facade back to as close to the original as we can get. I feel there is community support for some compromise here and retaining the theatre is great. I would like to see a further restudy of the ducting if possible. The Fire Dept. will be gone and probably another huge building will be put in. Conceptual works for me. If you bring the parapets up then you loose the historical facade on the original building. Susan: Is it possible to put the stairway vestibule between the two units on either side? Charles: We wouldn't have the square footage. Susan: Possibly if they were narrower stairs. Charles: I believe this is the best solution. Roger: The demolition plan has been submitted and if it is an acceptable plan to staff then it is acceptable to me. The concept of demolition that you are proposing on the building since we do not deal with interiors and use of interiors is certainly acceptable. The contemporary history of the building is a theatre and if we were strict preservationists and we dealt with the interior that would be tossed out in the community. We would say that you have to restore the building to what it was originally and 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 if you can squeeze a theatre in fine. That is not what I want to see happen. I probably can not vote for conceptual as I feel we need a continued study of the roof top placement but I feel we are close. If we view this from the street the south west corner is the most dominant. The portion on the other corner due to the addition is not as conflicting to me; however, I feel the mass on the roof can be moved around. I would like more study of materials and I am not sure stone is an appropriate material on the third floor. I myself would prefer brick, a new brick and a different color and sheen. Even a rusted metal could have been used because that was what was on the back of the building. Continuing on with materials the new addition to the right which is inset has some sandstone lines on it which are trying to pick up those of the original building, I prefer that those be removed and that the new addition be simplified more and that if in fact those lines are necessary that they be done in brick not another element to pull out the historic structure. Retain the Isis sign is a great idea. Hetal on the rear needs to be studied and keeping the back simple is appropriate. Submit specks for masonry repair is very important particularly on the corner where the piece is going back. Waive Ord. ~30 and we have dealt with the issues of housing. In relations to Harley's comments the building to the west could be built out and raised higher and that might happen and the fire station could be sold and maxed out and that might happen. If that were to happen I would demand that an entrance be in the little patio which would then create a sense of messy vitality and would be terrific. Donnelley: As Roger said the new addition rather the tower portion has not been restudied since the last time and there were recommendations made and they were not taken into consideration. I have a great deal of trouble with the roof configuration. The south east corner of the free market unit virtually will never be hidden and will always encroach visually. I would recommend even if we give conceptual approval that the free market unit be turned 90 degrees and somehow pulled back a significant amount in the neighborhood of eight to ten feet in both east and west corners. The AH component is as far enough back so that it will never be effected by the site lines but the free market unit will effect the site lines tremendously for a long period of time and I do not find it acceptable in that southeast corner. That is the main issue for me. I am recommending a restudy in plan of the southeast corner. I also find the tower watered down historism and it has crept into the city very heavily and I would like to discourage that. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Charles: We did look at leaving the bands off but it left something to be desired. Sunny: If we go forward with conceptual that is to our benefit even if it is with conditions. Donnelley: I would suggest that a motion be made with a number of stringent condition and then the applicant can proceed and also deal with these conditions. John Wheeler: The story polls are placed at three points and you cannot see them from across the street. Chairman Donnelley Erdman entertained a motion. MOTION: Les moved that HPC approve conceptual for 406 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1) A study session to address roof top materials, setback on the free market unit and the attempt the additionally lower the roof top units through interior ducting. Hotion dies for lack of second. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant conceptual 406 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1 A complete restudy of the roof elements as to mass, scale and height and materials. 2 A complete restudy of the tower and new addition as to materials, detailing and being more simplified. 3 A complete package of demolition plans and how the demolition will be carried out. 4 A complete plan of materials to the north alley; second by Melanie. Discussion: Roger: Rooftop means mass scale and height. Jake: I am against the motion because this is a significant building and there is no reason to rush through this. The conditions that are proposed as part of the conceptual are huge and they are the kinds of conditions that need to be dealt with at conceptual prior to moving forward to final. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Les: I feel we are very close to being there. Amy: We need the waiver of Ordinance ~30. Donnelley: I find asking a restudy of the roof is vague. We need to be explicit. Hy suggestion was that the free market unit be relocated and reconfigure so that it offers a significant setback on three sides, south, east and west. I personally do not have a problem with the employee units other than perhaps in detail, possibly a stronger break in plane between new and old. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion to scratch complete restudy and add restudy the free market units particularly dealing with the south, east and west elevation and the placement and orientation of the freemarket units. Also to add the waiver of Ordinance ~30; second by Melanie. Sven: What about story polls. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended that the story polls be retained or replaced until the board has an opportunity to see them; second by Melanie. Sunny: What about materials. Donnelley: I was talking about using brick and I was talking about using brick specifically on the tower which comes to the ground. Sunny: We are looking for more clarity of whether the materials should be emulation of the original materials or a contemporary material for the solution. Donnelley: That needs to be clarified how the applicant responds to the request to physically move the walls of the free market units back. If they are moved back there is a definite break in plane and it would be less visible then it may be appropriate to continue with a brick expression. Sven: The side theatre and tower at a conceptual level I am approving it in volume and stuff but I am still wavering how appropriate that style is. It is not just a question of materials for me. Depending on how the roof is solved I feel that should integrate into how the stair and housing unit is solved and those two should be visually linked and I would include that in conceptual review. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Donnelley: The suggestion is that a revision to the massing and location of roof elements may indicate the need to tie the fabric of the roof more closely with the fabric of the tower. Sven: We can't evaluate that until we see the roof solution. Donnelley: Now we have three different things, the old brick of the historic resource, the new of the tower that comes to the ground and a third dealing with the roof. It maybe appropriate to reduce that to two expressions. Roger: I think that is clear to the applicant and does not have to be included in the motion. You might use a brick that is different than the historic brick but close. Donnelley: I agree with Sven that in addition to just a material study of the tower that it may be wise to incorporate the material of the tower or all new additions into one kind of fabric for all of the additions to the building. Sven: I want this as part of the checkoff list. Les and Sven didn't vote. VOTE ON MOTION: All in favor of motion and amended motion. Passes 6 to 1. Jake opposed. 525 W. HALLAM - WYCKOFF - FINAL Amy: I am recommending final approval with the recommendations that they get a letter from the structural engineer stating that the shed can be moved. This appears to be feasible. We need to know how and where the shed will be temporarily stored. The applicant needs to post a bond and I am recommending $3,000. or whatever the cost is to move the shed. They want to make this work and get moving. They also do not have their landmark approval yet and the condition would be that if they do not get landmark that the city would use that money to put the shed back. Work with staff and monitor on restoration of historic materials, remove the cresting on the porch of the new addition and finally assign an HPC member to be a monitor. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Glenn Rappaport, architect: We lowered the garage into the ground a foot to deal with the height problem. We took Jake's comment about dropping the roof at the point of the new addition on the north L so it would be a better differentiation. The little metal detail on the roof we don't have a problem with that. The reason we put that there is that we believe there will be a snow problem with the way the snow comes off the main roof. We thought that it would end up breaking the snow and go over the side instead of over the front. The intent would be to make something a little more abstract and we would like to work that out with the monitor as we do think there might be a problem. We have the letter from Hr. Cole the engineer regarding the shed. Regarding the shed there is an overlap of about 1 1/2 feet from the old position and the new position. We would like to dig under there and form the foundation and slide the building over onto the new foundation. That assures us that if we don't get landmark designation we haven't moved the building. Julie would like to discuss the bond amount. CLARIFICATIONS: Roger: The picture that you passed around on the porch roof wouldn't that be a more appropriate roof to attach to the existing changed roof from the original historic building. Glenn: We need to address the snow issue and we really didn't like that roof. Glenn: Since this was submitted we made one change to the south L and instead of recessing the porch we just made it project and it projects five feet. The elevation is essentially the same. Donnelley: It is not visible from the historic resource. Amy: The bond is a basic requirement anytime that you pick something historic up we ask for a bond so that the shed lands in the next location the same way it originally was. I suggested $3,000 but it might not need to be that much. Donnelley: The structure is 10 by 24. Julie: It will cost $1,200. without the foundation to move it. Amy: The bond is the cost to rebuild the shed. Julie: I am going to have to build a structure inside the shed and then move it. It is going to cost me a lot of money to build this 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 structure and what I am asking is can you have me have less money in an account that isn't doing me any good when I am spending a lot of money for me to move this. Donnelley: You don't pay them till after it is moved so that money can be put into the bond account for the city as you aren't paying until after it is moved. Julie: As soon as it is moved I can get the bond money back. Amy: It can happen as soon as it is done. Julie: Can it be less than $3,000. Donnelley: It is a small structure and can be $2,000. Glenn: Right now we have the existing metal roof that is questionable as far as leakage etc. We would like to have the option of either keeping the existing metal roof or if she gets going substitute it with asphalt shingles for the roofing material. Donnelley: Hake the new and the old roof the same material. Julie: Absolutely. Glenn: We might also differentiate the old from the new with a different color. Julie: The old metal has a character to it that I would like to keep but it is leaking badly. I am not sure until I get up in there and see what is exactly going on. I do not feel a new metal roof would duplicate the character. I am asking if I can have a single roof instead. Amy: On the city shop they had a metal roof and they built a new metal roof and they just laid the old stuff over it. Julie: Then the addition would be approved with asphalt shingles. Glenn: If we get inside the old house and find out we want to go with singles we might come back with a stronger argument and samples. Donnelley: That could be staff and monitor. Jake: How old is the roof. 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Glenn: Thirties or forties. Chairman Donnelley Erdman entertained a motion. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant final approval to 525 W. Hallam with the following conditions: 1) The applicant post a bond for $2,000. 2) Work with staff and monitor and restoration of any historic materials. 3) Hodify the cresting on the porch addition and that will be worked out with staff and monitor. Hotion second by Hartha. Ail in favor, motion carries. Hartha is the monitor. 426 E. MAIN - GALENA PLAZA - FINAL Bill Poss, architect: This is the annex next to the Central Bank. The only changes we have made is lower the roof on the back to hide mechanical equipment. In conceptual we didn't know what our structure would be. Richard Decampo, associate with Poss & Associates: The area of equipment on the roof will have a parapet and I do have a roof plan. The equipment will be kept away from the Hain Street side. Ail of the condensing units are lower than the parapet itself. Amy: This project received conceptual in 1993 and we have extended it twice. They are back for final and I recommend approval with four conditions: 1 As they determine where the mechanical needs placed it will need to be approved by Staff and it should be placed so that it is not visible from the street. It will also need to be painted out. 2 We will need a monitor. 3 We should say that all the awnings are approved as indicated at this point so we do not have to do them individually. 4 There are light fixtures shown and we need to see more information on those when they are ready. Sven: What is the material below the light fixtures. 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Richard: Sandstone. Jake: What is happening on the left hand roof. Richard: A sunscreened trellis that shades some of the glass. Bill Poss: We aren't sure if it will be wood painted or steel or metal. Bill Poss: There is not a restaurant proposed at this time and if there is we will come back with their exhausts etc. Amy: You won't have to come back to HPC. Chairman Donnelley Erdman entertained a motion. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant final approval for 426 E. Main east 1/2 of Lot L and all of Lots M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S Block 86. The motion include all awnings on the building to be approved as submitted today per the drawing. The applicant shall provide information on the proposed light fixtures with staff and monitor and any mechanical equipment proposed in the future to be reviewed by staff and placed where it is not visible from the street and not obtrusive when viewed from above. Ail mechanical equipment to be painted out in a dark color; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. RESOLUTION ROUND III "INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Roger: I have read everything and agree. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC adopt Resolution 95-2 round III of the inventory of historic sites and structures. 437 W. Smuggler is deleted and 325 N. Third is delete d and Aspen Institute is significant and Ute Cemetery is brought from supporting to contributing and CO Hidland Shadow Hountain is significant; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Donnelley moved to adjourn the meeting; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Heeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. 19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 2O ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 620 W. HALLAM - AMENDMENT TO FINAL ........................ ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHOCOLATE FACTORY ......................... 3 406 E. HOPKINS - ISIS - LANDMARK, CONCEPTUAL, PH ............... 4 525 W. HALLAM - WYCKOFF - FINAL ........................... 14 426 E. MAIN - GALENA PLAZA - FINAL ............... 16 RESOLUTION ROUND III "INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 17 21