Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950809ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 Heeting was called to order by chairman Donnelley Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Linda Smisek, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko and Sven Alstrom present. Excused were Martha Madsen and Jeff McMenimen. Donnelley: Susan was seated at the last meeting so Sven should be seated at this meeting to vote. MOTION: Les moved to approve the minutes of July 12th and July 26th as amended; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carries. Amy: Our guidelines talk about awnings to coincide with windows for shade or shelter and this awning is just a sign. Donnelley: We need to schedule a site visit for 524 E. Cooper, Mountain Chocolate Factory to look at the proposal. Susan: I go by No Problem Joe's house all the time at 930 King Street and there are three or four clapboards missing on the west side. I have noticed vehicles in that lot all the time. Roger: That was part of my comments also. Planet Hollywood has projectiles on the roof that have not been painted out. Roger: I want to discuss a resolution with the Commission. If you have a landmark you have to post notice within three hundred feet if you want to do anything to it. If you have a vacant lot next to your landmark someone can build the biggest piece of junk in the world. Hy feeling is after sitting on the first meeting of the special review of ordinance ~35 that it needs changed. Notification to neighbors is not part of the process of that board. Hy feeling is if the neighbors have a problem so do I. I feel a resolution should be adopted that states within three hundred yards of an historic landmark or historic structure which is classed significant on the inventory any changes within that area of those two structures would have to come before HPC review. I was wondering what the Commission thought. If you own an historic building and add something you have to notify everyone within three hundred feet; therefore, why should you not be protected if someone is going to build something next to you. Hy thought is that we need to send a resolution to council. Jake: How would you word that motion? MOTION: Roger moved to direct staff to write a resolution to city council asking them to pass an ordinance requiring HPC review around any historic landmark and houses that are listed on the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 inventory as significant and that are within three hundred feet of any historic landmark. Sven: I was at the same meeting and had essentially the same reaction. As an example (Jake's project) we are trying to meet neighborhood guidelines on one side of the street and we are letting other things slip on the other side of the same street. This is a good example of being able to pull the projects together. Amy: I wholeheartedly agree with the idea behind it but given the discussions that we have gone through with ord. 30 for an entire year and that the community wanted to abandon the character based review that we were pushing in favor of the numerical system that we have now I feel we need to put a little more faith in ordinance ~30. The Design Appeal Board will see the worst cases. Probably if this goes forward the Planning Staff will not be in great support of it. Sven: That means we have to wait for another disaster. Roger: We should do our job in a proactive way based on the experiences that we have encountered in the past years. This is just another case of something slipping through. Jake: I would like to back it down a little and instead of saying feet use adjacent parcels. Donnelley: That has been our problem all along. The standards would be mass and scale standards. Sven: It would be compatibility with the neighborhood. Les: I feel the entire town should be historically designated. Susan: I feel this is a good idea and a few members of the committee can draft a resolution. MOTION: Roger moved that staff prepare a resolution for City Council to state that HPC requests that City Council require HPC approval to any property adjacent to an historic landmark or any historic property that is listed as significant on the inventory; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. 533 E. MAIN - ST. MARY'S CHURCH 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 Amy: This project is phase three of St. Hary's remodel. There are some interior changes and a few changes that have implications to the outside of the building. There is some mechanical equipment proposed but we need to know the location and sizes. The impact is basically on the alley. There are screen doors proposed for the kitchen. The most impact is the double wooden doors which is the only access to natural light. One proposal would be to remove the doors or replace them or put glass where there is panels now. The firehouse in Redstone glazed the opening area and kept the doors and you can open them as shutters. I thought this could be recommended here and in that way there would not be a major impact to the building. They could be closed when not needed. I do feel we should retain the original doors. Deana Olsen, architect: Our first choice would be to replace the doors with windows to match the existing windows. It would be compatible and would not diminish and would give nice light into the offices. The problem right now with the existing doors is that there had been steps outside the doors and they were removed years ago and landscaping was put in front of them. If we retain the original we should bring back the original steps and moving the landscaping that is currently there. It has already been altered. Donnelley: These are openings 50 and 51 on the diagram. They are located on the east and west sides of the church. Amy: The door wouldn't match the other windows. Helanie: They are also higher. Deana: We do not have windows in a row as we have the elevator interrupting it. Our next proposal was to go in with a new door to match the existing. The door is currently poorly weather proofed and it would be easy to replace the door. We also could use the existing doors and remove the weather stripping and then add glazing to the five panels on each door. Donnelley: The opening is not the same as the existing opening. The head is more depressed. We have a different type of opening. To match existing is not adequate. Staff is making a recommendation to keep the door expression. The condition of the doors we cannot evaluate right now. We would need to see if they can be changed to glazed openings. Deana: Our one concern with the glazing is that we have statues to the front of the church and I am afraid the glazing will detract 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 from the church as it will reflect light differently and will look like a window or display box. The rooms that we are opening the doors into are only eight feet wide before you hit a wall. If you open a three foot door into the eight foot you only have five feet. Amy: I meant for the doors to open out. The glass would be on the inside and the doors would open out and could close like they were shutters. The main reason I suggested that is because the building is eligible for the national register of historic places and things need to be reversible. When the doors are closed no one would ever know that there was a change to it at all. Deana: What about the option of glazing just the window panes? Amy: Then you take away the door. Just because the stairs are gone doesn't mean you have to get rid of the door. Donnelley: If we were to go glazing I do not feel the bottom panel should be glazed. It should be solid to approximately the ceil height. There are five panels. Susan: Why couldn't you keep the doors as is and change the other section of the window to a door. Deana: That area doesn't open into the office. Les: One of the conditions of approval on the front entrance and the elevator was that the curb cut change in the front and that the two parking spaces be taken away and that a greeting area be put out there. I have brought this up four times in the last year and all I have gotten is that the church can't afford it. Before I am willing to go the next step I need to know that the conditions of approval on the prior changes have been met. Deana: I was part of that submittal and I do not know what the findings were. Amy: Les is exactly right and that should be included. Deana: We will get a response from the church on that. Roger: Do you have the drawings of the screen door? Deana: We can get that in a few days and we have not located the position for the mechanical because we haven't gotten into the existing structure yet. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 Jake: On the actual interior of the church will you be keeping anything historical such as panelling? Deana: The interior is being demolished and we will reinforce the structure. Jake: Is there any exterior trim on the windows etc. that will be maintained? Deana: We are trying to bring back more of the original church and the downstairs has been painted over and we will take that off and restore the wood. We will retain any wainscotting in the entry. Jake: Our desire is to restore the interior. Roger: You will be stripping the paint but I also concur with staff that we table the minor development application for several reasons. We do not have a drawing of the door or the sizing of the vents and actual locations for the mechanical. I realize it will all happen. I would concur with staff that the doors be retained and put glazing behind them in some form. It probably should not be just one sheet of glass it should look like there was an historic window behind the historic door. It is a great idea that the doors could be open during the day and closed at night. I also concur with Les that the original application and agreements were not met therefore we need answers to that. Since there is major renovations possible some of the projections on the building that are rather unsightly at this time could be cleaned up. Jake: I do feel this needs to be tabled unless the Commission wants it handled by Staff and monitor. On the door my basic feeling is to keep the doors. I do not have a problem glazing the door as it keeps the basic door. The idea of keeping one door and putting side lights is interesting. Sven: I like Staff's recommendation that the doors swing out like shutters and that the new glazing be kind of historic. Perhaps the new glazing could be the equivalent of two large glass doors with a dutch door function. Deana: Swinging the historic doors out will destroy them through the rain etc. Roger: You can cap the top of the door with flashing and maintain the door with standard painting. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 Les: I feel the old doors should be kept unless they can demonstrate otherwise. Are the screen doors going to be wood? Deana: They could be. Les: I would recommend tabling until we have an onsite visit to check the doors out. Susan: I agree with the other Board members. Donnelley: The consensus is that the doors be retained and if they are not able to be retained, duplicate them and perhaps the upper three panels of the five could be insulated glazed panels so that the doors glazing can be reversed to a solid infill in the future. MOTION: Jake moved to table the minor development application for 533 E. Main, St. Mary's Church to the next regular meeting Aug. 23rd and that the applicant provide information about the doors, mechanical changes, screen doors and additional information regarding the gazing of the doors 50 and 51. Also followup information on the previously approved application of the curb cut; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Les: I would rather see compliance of the previously approved plan. We have been asking for information on why the curb cut was not finished for the past two years. 132 W. MAIN Amy: About a year ago HPC granted approval for light wells on either side of the entryway. At the time it was stated that the elements do not go beyond 30 inches below grade so one did not need a variance. How it turns out that it does need a setback variance. The public hearing will not be until our next meeting. We are bringing it up tonight to see how you feel about it. The applicant also wants to install a metal spiral staircase between the old building and the new office building. It would be entered at grade so I assume it would be visible from the street. I am recommending not approving the stairway as there are other ways to access the basement of the new building. I am not sure wanting light is enough reason to give a setback variance but on the other hand it is not a big variance being requested. Dennis Green, Attorney: I represent the applicants along with ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 Brian Busch. The lightwell could be placed in the sunken patio and therefore would not have to go toward Hain Street for the setback. Brian Busch: We could go with a straight shot staircase but it would come closer to Main Street that way. Dennis Green: The only access presently is off the alley and that is inconvenient for those parking in the front as they would have to walk around the back. There is access through the restaurant. Brian Busch: I had to give the restaurant the exclusive entrance so now the only way I can enter the office is from the alley and in trying to lease the office it is difficult. We would like to combine the two offices and end up with 1400 feet of leasable space. Ail the interested tenants want to enter off Main Street. Donnelley: I need to see the basement plan as we have no references. Helanie: Do you have offices in the basement? Brian Busch: There is one occupied and one vacant. Helanie: You are trying to connect the two buildings for what reason? Brian Busch: When I leased the restaurant we lost the interior space to enter these offices. Helanie: Why can't you use the staircase at the alley for the entrance? Brian: I can but it is an alley entrance. Donnelley: This is a difficult presentation to understand. Amy: I feel we should do a site visit again before the public hearing. Les: When we were working on the project next to this building one of the conditions of the joining of the two old buildings and historic designation was that this parcel be left as a park. We went back through the records and a series of records got lost. I was assured that one of the conditions of approval was that nothing should be built on the existing parcel. We couldn't prove it and it was built. What is happening is that this is getting out of ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 hand. A metal staircase is not acceptable. The building is too big and shadows over the historical building. Dennis Green: It only goes down and has no visual impact. Sven: If it is only going down and a site visit would do it. MOTION: Jake moved to table the minor development for 132 W. Main requiring that the applicant provide a basement floor plan in order to provide the use of the below grade space and the subsidy of the variance for the lightwell. I further recommend a site visit be set up prior to the public hearing. Regarding the stair I recommend tabling pending a site visit; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. Roger: I see this as messy vitality and I do not have a problem with it between buildings. I was over there and you are going down into something. Amy: The public hearing is scheduled for Sept. 13th. 406 E. HOPKINS - LANDMARK - CONCEPTUAL PH Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Amy: I am recommending landmark designation finding that standards A, B, D and E are met. Under conceptual we have looked at this twice in a worksession. As far as the roof top development I hope the Board members had a chance to site visit it as the story polls are up. There was a request that the units be pulled in as much as possible and that the chimney mass be eliminated and that the new upper residential units possibly be of a different material. That there not be outdoor furniture or plantings near the edge of the roof. The arcade element be eliminated. There were comments in favor of keeping the metal siding in the alley. The applicant was to provide more information about the appearance of the facade and they have found one more photograph. I had brought up about the alignment of the fenestration between the new and old building and they have dealt with that. The biggest issue to me was the extent of demolition. They are proposing to keep the entire west wall, the front facade and part of the switch back. They will demolish the back wall which is not masonry anyhow and part of the east wall where they have expanded the building. They are going to talk to us about parking waivers. The open space is not our issue but we will discuss it and make a recommendation to P&Z. I feel the Isis ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 sign should be retained. We need to be concerned about the upper floor development and its visibility from up above. The residential design check list does apply to the project but the standards are not sensible for this. I feel we should waive them. John Wheeler, representing the applicant from Charles Cunniffe Architects: Structurally we are keeping 60 to 70% of the shell. We found a photograph dated from 1910 which showed the building before the theatre was there. We are going to pursue restoring the building back to its original state. We have revised the entry elevations. The glass facade is in keeping with what we see around town. The four brick columns on one side are not symmetrical to what is happening on the other side. We have gone in and measured and a few of the bays had not had stone columns. We will recreate the columns. The roof top addition as we went into the structural studies we will underpin and the new structure supports the new wall which is then set in to the inside of the brick. Jake: What is the upper surface material? John Wheeler: Stucco but we could talk about different materials. It is on the property line and needs to be a 2HR rated wall with stucco on block. We have also introduced some tile elements. We have eliminated the chimney mass. The intent was to pick a different colored brick that stands off against the original facade. This is a similar treatment that you would find on the elks building. The other portion of this was to look at the window fenestration and we picked up the kick plates that could be done in a victorian motif. We have carried the original treatment into the new addition which may or may not be appropriate. It blends in with the existing and is a subtle transition. The difference in the three elevations is very subtle, one study is the entry door with a single entry and not accentuated. One shows corner particulations and one shows a double window similar to the ones that are on the upper level of the Isis. Jake: What is the addition, stucco? John Wheeler: The addition is brick and on the upper levels we have gone into the stucco. The utilitarian brick is on the side and there is face brick on the front. We will bring the building back as best we can and we will clean the mortar joints. As it wraps around the building it will give a good delineation. With the colors we are showing sandstone that could be a precast. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 John Wheeler: On the front facade of the existing building the two end windows will be display windows due to an elevator behind them. There will be two sets of windows open to the lobby. John Wheeler: The side elevation from the fire station would have red brick introduced and possibly the tile with stucco introduced to the back. In the back we have metal siding which is a copper applied shingle. Helanie: In the plans it indicates a setback for the addition and what is the amount of footage for that setback? John Wheeler: I had a short setback but we can do what the Board wants. Sven: I would suggest at least two feet. John Wheeler: I appears that the building was only in its original condition for a short period of time. Roger: The new addition seems rather busy and how would you simplify that? John Wheeler: I like the double windows because they are in keeping with what is on the original building and I like the non accentuated columns. I also feel the complexity is in the material selection. Amy: On the alley side of the building I was talking about retaining the existing metal as a veneer. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Donnelley: A month ago Sunny introduced the project and a statement was made that the largest of the four theatres would be the approximate side of the existing Isis and fulfill some of the functions that the existing Isis does. The Isis is 380 seats and this is 250 seats. It would not fulfill that questions. Was the 250 seats arrived at programmatically or was it arrived at because it worked better in the plan? Sunny Vann: The intent is to keep a large theatre in the Isis that could provide some of the same functions of the Isis. The screen in the largest theatre is as large or larger than the screen that 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 is currently in the Isis. There is a reduction in seats in theatre A but the intent is to make the theatre available for functions that have occurred in the past. There are discussions about filmfests continued use right now and possibly an initial opening as a benefit for filmfest to help fund them. Donnelley: 380 seats is not a large capacity and what we have here is another Stage three situation. The community needs a large theatre and I was wondering if it is possible to have a larger theatre. Sunny Vann: The reality of why it is changed is because of the movie business today. You cannot take a large theatre and get a major run picture and keep it open in a community like this. The theatres have to work in todays theatre market. The ability here is to draw major first run productions and book them in the main theatre and as attendance drops off you will be able to move it into a smaller theatre. You have to keep the movie for a period of time. You could also double run the movie. In this particular configuration you could not have one large theatre. You can still accommodate the same number of people but not necessarily all together. Donnelley: My thought was to up A to 300 and reduce B to 160 to have one large, two midsize and one small. Sunny Vann: If this goes through individuals will be drawn in who are involved in the theatre business to fine tune the nature of the operation. Roger: I feel the six points have been addressed. On the alley I would retain the existing metal without cleaning it and would urge that the electrical heaters and conduit be cleaned up and put some other place. In regards to the redesign of the front I feel you are going in the right direction. I would encourage that the columns should be brought back. John Wheeler: I feel they are cast iron and fluted. Roger: With regards to the new structure on the east and south facing I would encourage that only one material be used. Keep it contemporary and clean and extremely simple. It should not compete with the historic resource. I am not sure about the fenestration on top. In regards to the apartments I would suggest you use colored stucco and liven it up. I would also approve landmark designation. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 Les: I agree with designation and the front and open space are OK. We need to write a letter on the parking waiver. The metal should be retained in the alley. You might mention to the new owners that the physical experience of a large theatre there should not be underestimated in this community. If there is a chance to add a few seats and move around a little that is much more important than the view site. Linda: The little odd things on the west elevation by Fox photo does that have to stay on the historical building? Amy: It is connected to the historical building. I am sure we cannot force them to take it away. Linda: I am having trouble with the shedish flat style roof tops. It looks so boxy and I feel they need to be different but tie into the historic building. The mass of the flat roofs seems way too massive. There is so much mass right on top. Susan: The only thing I would change is the opening in the front like an arcade. It goes along with the old facade. Sven: After you changed from post modern to the new photos I much prefer the new ones. To resolve the corner of the two buildings you could almost do a whimsical tower to tie into the fire station. You can see where that could actually be designed that way. I would like to see more work on the alley stair. Hy most concern is the east elevation and the residential roof framing. On the model it looks ok but on the drawings it looks like an area of concern to me. As you look through the opening from the pedestrian level you see a wall and I feel the east elevation need changed. On the housing level you were showing a painted wood cornice above brick. I am afraid the quasi historic detail up there will not look appropriate due to the way the roofs and units are arranged. I am not sure that we need more complexity on the roof when they look like apartment flats. Something more contemporary. I am also not fond of the stucco and would prefer vertical wood siding. The last issue gets back to Linda's comments and I am wondering if there is a way of solving the roof structures to tie them all together so that you can read the structure and it doesn't look like you put a roof only where you needed a roof. Right now there are several things and I would rather see them integrated into one. Possibly trellis connectors. The comment that I am sharing with Linda is that I would like to see something that cohesively ties the roofs together. Ail this is related to the east elevation. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 Donnelley: Or doesn't show roofs at all. Jake: First of all I have a technical problem with the landmark and the Lots K, L, and M block 87. On the map where the plumbing lot was it is called lot N. It is amazing that you can have an 8,000 sqft. FAR and propose 17,800 which is almost 125% more FAR on this historical building. It appears that lot N is not part of the legal description of the landmark. Sunny Vann: The application is requesting designation of the three lots that the theatre sits on which are K,L and M. Amy: I see Jake's point and we should be land marking the entire parcel which includes N. Sunny Vann: N is the corner lot which we do not own. Amy: Does K, L and M include the open lot? Sunny Vann: Yes. N is not our property and it is not part of this application. Amy: Jake is looking at this and K, L and M take up the entire property. Sven: Fox photo is on Lot J. Sunny Vann: The west side is lot K which is 3,000 sqft. L is 3,000 sqft. and M is 3,000 sqft. The theatre sits on K and L. M is vacant. There was a small structure sitting on the vacant lot at one time. Jan Darrington: Something is off on the survey as it states L, M and N. Amy: K should be the corner lot. I see the problem this map is labeling the bays of the buildings as lots which isn't right. Jake: I am still having trouble with an 8,000 sqft. landmark on to which we are adding 9,000 sqft. additional FAR. How do you do that and still have an historical resource. If they are taking advantage of all the parking and mitigation then the restoration effort should be very loyal. John Wheeler: It is on the exterior. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 Jake: Yes, you have done a great job on that. When I think about filling up 95% of the lot coverage and only 5% left. Ail the parking is waived and I think of the impact on that corner. Sven: I think that is why I wanted the roof simplified. Donnelley: I have a greater problem and it is with everything except the historical restoration. I find the roof footprint of the housing compliment to be building and not architecture. This is what really distresses me as we are saving an important piece of architecture and overlaying it with a very insignificant building project. Even by looking at the plan it is a very confusing and there is no way to grasp what is going on up there. The flat roof is added like a hat in a very pedestrian manner. What happens up there should be elegant and understated. If the brick you use in the addition is indeed going to be brick then there should be something really inspired about it, maybe a specialty brick that is very smooth and hard fired almost like tile with curved corners. If the windows are going to retain the same expression as the historic then the way the windows are dealt with has to do with the way the entire exterior is dealt with. It is a wonderful opportunity not to come up with the usual Aspen solution which is string courses of Colo. red sandstone and face brick. Right now I find it very pedestrian. At the turn of century Sullivan used some wonderful brick that had curved special profiles for corners and was very hard fired and smooth. Haybe use even a different size as you abut to the historic resource. I feel it needs a lot of study. The location of windows and fenestration etc. in the addition to the east, the first two stories are fine. The development of that could be magnificent. John Wheeler: What happens on the upper level is the project and I hope we can do that with materials and possibly consolidate the space. Sven: It is the roof cohesion of all the roofs and not using a quasi historic fascia. Donnelley: I agree with Jake that the historic facade will be superb. Development standard ~3 is something that I am concerned with now. Sven: The theatre operation design if fine. Amy: I agree that the Commission has good comments. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 Donnelley: Is it clear John? John Wheeler: Absolutely, we have the historic down but we need to turn our sites on the addition and go back and do a design charette. Amy: I have a question about the affordable housing on the roof and my impression is that you are providing more than you really need to and I wonder if any of the commission feels like you would like to see some of that mass not there. Sunny Vann: Let me clarify that as we have to go through P&Z and get an exemption from the growth management ordinance and as part of that we must mitigate a percentage of our affordable housing. They use an absolute standard for how many employees are generated based on the square footage. If we use the standard generation factor then we have enough housing up there to meet the requirements under the code. We know however that we have more housing because it is a theatre and we intend to try and make an argument that we have more than enough housing but we do not know whether the P&Z or Housing will go along with the argument. So at this point if we were to take the housing off and they do not go along with the generation factors that we are going to use and they hold us to some general standard of the community then we will be deficient. If the P&Z and Housing authority state that we do not need all this housing then it is something we can address subsequent to that review. Amy: It is possible that we could get a referral comment from housing to get a general view. We can also recommend to P&Z that we are uncomfortable with the housing addition. Sven: The housing looks too much like flats. Les: I would hate to see this particular project go away and retaining a community use is wonderful. Sunny: I do not think your request to restudy the upper level is unreasonable. If you look at the story polls the visibility of the rooftop is primarily from the east elevation. Jake: I am a real proponent of eliminating employee housing from landmarks. I feel that requirement here and on Main Street destroys the landmark because it puts so much impact of volume of 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 new space on the landmark. I would support waiving employee housing or paying cash in lieu. Amy: I feel we will have to pull the Housing Authority into this and see what their opinion is. Jake: As far as I know demolition is measured by FAR. Amy: You may have an issue with that. Demolition is when you get rid of the roof and you might want to check with Bill Drueding and if you are taking the roof away he might call the building demolished. Sven: You have two choices a compatible back drop to the historic building which is the case of the Googenheim addition or what I was searching for is the expression of a nice roof solution that would woos us into approving this. John Wheeler: Am I hearing that you are directing us to look at the massing on top of the roof. Donnelley: As well as how architecturally the surface treatment is done. We all would like to see the reduction of the amount of bulk form. Donnelley: We can take a straw vote as to whether HPC would like to see the bulk form on the roof reduced. Straw poll taken and all voted for reduction of bulk. Donnelley: Basically you have a set floor plan John and will the foot print stay the same or are you going to be able to explore. John Wheeler: This is an independent entity above the theatres and we can design this area in a number of different scenarios. We are still going to put 6,000 sqft. up there and that is where it has to go. 4,000 sqft. is employee and 2,000 replaces the existing residential and the rest goes below grade. Amy: I will get a meeting as soon as possible. John Wheeler: If we can get some reliance that is the way we can go. The employee housing is not a sale factor here. Amy: We can table with positive thoughts. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 Sven: It is the conceptual development of the roof top housing that the Commission is having trouble with. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC recommend landmark designation for 406 E. Hopkins Lots L,M and N Block 87 City and Townsite of Aspen finding that standards A, B, D, and E are met; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger moved to table conceptual review and continue the public hearing for 406 E. Hopkins to August 23rd. for the following reasons: Study with the housing department to address concerns of over building on a parcel with an historic building; second by Melanie. Les: They need to know before they leave today that we are in agreement on the parking waiver and in agreement on the open space reduction. AMENDED SECOND MOTION: Roger amended his motion that HPC approves the parking waiver and the open space reduction; second by Melanie. Question was called by Chairman Donnelley Erdman on the second motion and amended motion, passed 5 - 2. Opposed were Sven and Jake. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant partial demolition to 406 E. Hopkins and that partial demolition is to be part of the east wall and the entire alley wall. During the demolition the tin should be saved for reuse; second by Les. DISCUSSION Amy: We will need to discuss the roof with Bill Drueding and it is important that we discuss how the demolition is handled from a public relations standpoint. I do not want to have a shell or rather a couple of walls that the public will look at. Donnelley: I think it is premature to grant partial demolition until we have a conceptual plan. Amy: I agree. Jake: We need demolition drawings that indicate what is to be demolished. The demolition percentage needs to be verified by Bill Drueding and a demolition strategy. 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 John Wheeler: The only place to access the site is off the open lot. Roger withdrew his motion. John Wheeler: I hope we can reduce the employee housing requirement. MOTION: Les moved to adjourn; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995 533 E. MAIN - ST. MARY'S CHURCH ........................... 2 132 W. MAIN 6 406 E. HOPKINS - LANDMAt%K - CONCEPTUAL PH ................. 7 19