Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19980408ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Gilbert Sanchez, Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington and Melanie Roschko present. Jeffrey Halferty and Roger Moyer arrived at 5:10 p.m. Heidi Friedland was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Melanie relayed to the board that she voted against the No Problem Joe property because she felt the design did not meet conceptual. She also stated that everyone on the board relayed little changes but basically they need to start all over again. It will not get changed by moving a little here or there. We did not encourage them to do that by approving conceptual. Amy stated just because conceptual is approved doesn't mean final is a given. Final should not be give until the board is fully satisfied, but it does lead the applicant that they are headed into the right direction. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes of February l lth and March 11, 1998; second by defJhey. All in favor, motion carried. WORKSESSION scheduled May 20, 1998 - 5:00 - Council Chambers CLARIFICATION ON LANDMARK DESIGNATION - 920 W. HALLAM ST. Amy Guthrie stated she was the only one present in the room and relayed to the HPC that this is her house. As a clarification and information item HPC recommended Landmark Designation and P&Z recommended Landmark Designation to city council for first reading. There are different applicants than were before you the first time and I wanted to clarify that for you to make sure that doesn't change your recommendation. The attorney's office advised me to let you know. Mary stated she didn't understand what Amy meant. Melanie asked who were the different applicants. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 Amy responded that when it first came in it was David and she and a partnership with Jake Vickery, and now it is David and she and a different partnership. It is a statement so that you understand. You have already made a recommendation based on standards not on who was applying but there are different applicants and the project is going forward to city council. Mary stated she thought when Amy came in the last time that was a worksession. Amy stated they are still coming back to HPC and she is only referring to Landmark Designation and obviously David and she will not participate in it. Mary stated they understood that in the worksession but it wasn't in a regular meeting. Suzannah stated legally the applicants have changed. All members were clear. 240 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - PH - Gilbert stepped down. Three exhibits The following individuals were sworn in: Charles Cunniffe Gray Ringsby Jennifer Cohen Herb Klein Charles Cunniffe presented. The main issue is some objection by the neighbor because of the blockage of the potential effect on some windows next door. There was a site visit today and the HPC needs to decide if this design is a reasonable in order to preserve the integrity of the historic resource and how we added onto the historic resource in a sensitive way. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 Amy Guthrie, planner relayed that there is a protection for Hallam Lake in that no construction can move too close to the top of the bank. It states nothing can be built within 15 feet from the top of the slope. From the top of slope point there is a 445 degree angle that is projected up and you need to stay under that height. There are constraints as to where the addition is placed. Amy also indicated that she did research the adjacent building to see if a variance was ever granted and it was not. The house was built in 1980 and at that time only a five foot variance was required on each side and no combined setback. Now this property has more restringent requirements that are being asked to meet. Charles relayed that the only issue is the windows. There is no other way on this property to reasonably build an area of the house that allows them to have the view of Aspen Mountain. The proposal minimizes the damages to trees. Susan inquired about a letter from Donna Thompson who states that the house will be demolished and it was confirmed by Cunniffe & Associates. Charles relayed that the only portion of the house being taken off is the shed. There is no demolition anticipated. Jennifer restudied the setback issue which was requested at the last meeting and the impacts are minimal. Charles addressed the height of the clerestory windows and they were lowered once. Herbert Bayer more often than not did clerestory windows. A banding has been incorporated on the drawings. The roof will be rebuilt. Amy asked about the divisions of the windows on the stairwell. Jennifer relayed that three different options were given for the HPC to review, (included in packet). The owner is comfortable with any of the diagrams. The most important issue is that it is a glass grid. Herb Klein, attorney represented the Koatsen family stated there are in fact windows that the two story addition on the east side would be right across. It 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 was determined at the site-visit that half the windows are across and half aren't from the large bedroom and there is also a spa right across from the two story element. When a variance is requested several standards have to be met. You have to find that the variation will result in a building that is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. He doesn't see how HPC could possibly find that it is more compatible with the neighborhood but granting the setback. You are going with a two story element within five feet from the property line. If the two story element were slid toward Hallam Lake and cleared the windows we would have less of a problem and it would not impact the neighbor as much. Another standard which says the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and at the last hearing it was pointed out that there aren't any other houses that would be separated by what is proposed here. This proposal is putting the burden on his clients. About retaining the integrity of the historic resource, the historic resource doesn't have a two story element so the integrity of the historic resource doesn't require that they put a two story element anywhere on the building and especially on the east side. There is room on the west side to move the square footage over. If they want to deviate from the code requirements they need to do it in a way that doesn't adversely impact us. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Commissioners stated that the scheme presented is favorable. Possibly to address the neighbors concerns a portion of the two story could shift toward Hallam Lake. The simplified glazing and clear story element are appropriate. Melanie indicated that she would be more concerned with the one story solid element that is going to be in front of the neighbors window rather than the two story. The placement of the one story is appropriate and you cannot see it from the street but it does impact the neighbor. Right now they look at trees and when this is built they will look at the wall. Mary stated that she went to the site twice and she feels the design is sympathetic toward the historic property and enhances it and makes the house livable. The horizontal banding which was requested by HPC enhances the addition. Variances should be granted. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 Roger and the majority of the board liked option C on the stairway which is a simpler design. It is recommended that the applicant look at sliding the addition slightly to Hallam Lake. Suzannah stated that concentrating the addition into one area for the most part on this house is to the benefit of the historic house. In terms of the neighborhood that house is five feet from the property line and this proposal is five feet from the property line and it is consistent with the neighborhood. Moving the volume back on the two story element might benefit both parties and an incremental amount might do the trick. Charles Cunniffe relayed that the stairs are located in the center of the courtyard in order to maximums the openness of the court yard. There is a room on either side of the stair. If you shift the volume you loose one room. Suzannah relayed that the HPC is only talking about one foot. Jennifer relayed to the HPC that even moving it one foot will effect the window placements. Charles stated he will restudy that elevation and tweak the plans and then show HPC the best solution at the next meeting. MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval at 240 Lake Avenue with the following conditions: 1) Grant the following variances: 2feet on the west yard, lO feet on the east yard, 27feet on the required combined side-yard setback, an FAR bonus of 250 sq. fi., a site coverage variance of up to 5% to accommodate the design as proposed, and variances from the "Residential Design Standards" related to volume and garages. 2) Recommend landmark designation to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. 3) HPC will look at stairway options for final. 4) Restudy tweaking the east side two story back toward Hallam Lake. 5) HPC finds that in granting the variances firstly it is a new mass in which the HPC does not want ACES affected and the proposal of the new addition is compatible with the neighborhood and historic resource. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 514 N. THIRD ST. - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Gilbert seated. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the HPC that this project involves making an addition between an existing historic house and an historic carriage house. It basically provides a living room and they are still well under the allowed FAR. Staff has concerns with the treatment of the paving that walks up to the entry of the house and the applicant needs to work with Engineering on the right-of-way. The site coverage has been granted and the volume penalty waived on the windows in the carriage house and partial demolition has been granted. Staff is also concerned about the proportions of the windows and door in the new addition. Gray Ringsby, architect for the project relayed that on the west elevation the windows proposed are similar to the existing windows. On the east there are large windows that look onto a brick fireplace. The windows would not effect the neighbors as they have no windows on the facade facing the proposed elevation. The same siding and color is proposed to blend in with the existing houses. Changing the siding would draw too much attention to the new element. The idea of the design is to blend in and let the details of the existing structure stand on its own. Roger informed the HPC that in the late 60's and early 70's Pat Milligan changed and remodeled numerous Victorians. Porches were closed in and she often combined two Victorians with a link to get more space. In knowing this history the same size siding that is proposed would be acceptable. Gray stated the owners desire to make the house a three bedroom and they will expand the kitchen and make a new living area. Commissioner concerns: Restudy the front door, possibly have it relate to the existing entry door and unify it. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 Susan stated that her concern is the height of the addition and it should not exceed the height of either of the two other buildings. Melanie said the addition does not relate enough to the existing buildings. Jeffrey's concern is that the clear story needs more detail. The concern is the west and north elevation. The scale of the siding on the addition could be a different size and that would differentiate between old and new. Suzannah relayed that the height of the addition was discussed at length at conceptual. She recommended restudying the proportions of the windows and doors as it might lead to tying everything together. The differentiation of material is not critical in this case. Gray responded that he lowered the height of the new addition from the last meeting. Roger relayed if the carriage house had been sensibly restored then the proposal would be disproportional but it is not terribly unfitting in design. Gray indicated that the inside floor to the peak of the ceiling is 19 and at the plate it is 17 feet. If the height is not provided they could not do the upper clerestory. The clerestory adds interest as it is a dormer element that relates to the addition that was put on the carriage house. Suzannah relayed that some commissioners desire a dormer and that there are unresolved issues such as the arrangements of the openings. Gilbert reminded the board that the proposal could be a two story addition. MOTION: Gilbert moved that HPC grant Final Development for 514 N. 3rd Street with the following conditions: 1) Entry doors should be more compatible with the existing building without being Victorian sty&full light entry doors which are shown on the elevation. The alternative design to be approved by staff and monitor. 2) Engineering Department approval is needed for the pavers within the City right-of-way. 3) HPC has granted a site coverage variance as needed for the addition. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 4) HPC has waived the volume standard/FAR penalty for the windows in the carriage house. 5) HPC has granted partial demolition approval. Motion second by Melanie. Motion denied 6-1. Gilbert voted yes. MOTION: deffhey moved to table final development for 514 N. Third Street until April 22, 1998; second by Mary. Motion carried 6-1. Gilbert voted no. Summary of what HPC is requesting. Windows & doors should work together. Study the proportions closely i.e. the arrangement of the shed dormer with the clerestory windows and the window and doors working together. If that were stronger the height issue would be less of a concern. Center doors be reduced in height. Other members wanted the height reduced to the ridge line of the Victorian on the left or even slightly lower. 834 W. HALLAM - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL MOTION: defJhey moved to extend Conceptual approval for 834 W. Hallam Street until April 26, 1999, second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried. 303 E. MAIN ST. Chief Deputy Clerk swore in Mark Brady, Roget Kuhn, Charles Fagan, Jeffrey Klein, Jeffrey Halferty and Valida Jeffrey stepped down. Jeffrey Halferty is a new architect for the mechanical equipment on the roof owned by Matsuhisa. AMY AMIDON 1. On the west side of the building the as built and final drawings indicated a doorway down with steps leading down to the street. During construction the door was eliminated. The applicant stated that it is not practical to replace the doorway at this point because they won't be able to put stairs in as they will 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 be in the city right-of-way. Staff does not feel this is a benefit to have it done now. GILBERT Because it is an historic building could steps be constructed into the city right-of-way? AMY An encroachment license would have to be issued and the situation would be somewhat dangerous. The house was replaced back exactly where it was and whether the stairs were previously in the right-of-way or whether there were no stairs. There was a lilac bush that was blocking the door and you never saw the door. Staff cannot attest that it is an original door or what its roll was in the history of the house. No further comments. AMY 2. On the west side of the house there was a porch and the request was to glaze it. During construction the bead board that was below the window although it is not know if it was original, was replaced and installed badly and part of the original columns are covered over. The applicant proposed to remove the bead board, re-expose the columns and install the beadboard back and then add a trim detail below each window which would be similar to what was there before. A drawing is in the packet. Staff passed around a drawing. Staff feels this proposal is appropriate but the drawing is not enough and more documentation and dimensions are needed before construction actually starts. Roger, Gilbert and Suzannah are the monitors. SUZANNAH For clarity everything that is being approved because of the change has to be submitted in terms of a scaleable drawing that shows the detail of the elements that are going to be added or changed. AMY 3. On the rear of the tower, there are only two windows built on the second floor where there were to be three. This is something that doesn't directly effect the historic building and is not particularly practical at this point. Staff recommends HPC forgo 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 that putting more emphasis on some of the other areas that are more critical. No further comments. AMY 4. This is a critical issue. A picture was presented showing the back of the house and right now there is an entry but not the primary entry into Matsuhisa and the primary entry into Bacchus. The approved and as built drawings show a wall that closed the vestibule off, it was not open. The wall was removed or not rebuilt according to plans so we now have a space that is open to view. HPC never reviewed the doors because they were an interior element and now they are becoming an exterior element. Staff' s recommendation is that the door that was meant to be there should be rebuilt so that the area is not exposed. The doors were very expensive and rather than replace two doors we should install one door and that seems somewhat logical. That would finish off the appearance of the building and not have something that was not characteristic architecture in view. There are issues between the tenant and the owner and we cannot deal with that and HPC needs to look at it from a compatibility point of view and what would be the appearance of this wall. SUZANNAH Her main concern was that HPC went to all the effort to do windows on the screened porch and to have this essentially become outdoor space we kind of got something that we wouldn't have wanted originally, in terms of those windows and closing in the screened porch. AMY It was to be a vestibule and only now is it becoming open. SUZANNAH We now have the worst of both worlds. GILBERT Are the doors and openings new? AMY They are new openings. MARK There was a screen door with wood around it. So far we all are on the same page but this issues is more difficult. He stated that 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 Stephen Kanipe was brought over as they were concerned with handicapped access and his opinion was that a door would not be appropriate at that location for several reasons, handicapped ramp and the other doors that are there he just did not feel it was appropriate. That was his opinion, whether he was relying strictly on the building code or just his own personal preference I could not tell you. Based upon that and the way it exist originally the applicant prefers to leave it open. Unfortunately, we also concur with the HPC that we don't want the doors exposed. I am sure the HPC wouldn't want it left where the doors that exist now, more modem doors exposed in the fashion it is. This is not an HPC problem as it is a landlord/tenant and the way we have hoped to dispose of it is to require the tenants to replace the doors with appropriate Victorian doors. The modem doors were never approved by the landlord. We prefer to leave it open. If the door is decided to be placed back they still intend to proceed against the tenant to have Victorian doors and replace the doors they placed there in which we feel are out of character. We will look for direction and are not circumventing and from our position was unapproved by the tenant. MARY I don't understand why it is a quagmire, they did something that they weren't supposed to do. AMY To clarify, she was not present when they spoke to Stephen Kanipe but the building permit plans showed a door there and it passed to the plan check review so there cannot be something in the UBC that is not permitting. Stephen may feel that it is less awkward but it is permitted. SUSAN Is that the only handicapped access to both restaurants? ROGET To Bacchus, but the other has an elevator that takes you down. Stephen Kanipe also preferred to have a platform when you actually come in rather than a slope. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 MARY I would like to have it restored to the way it was supposed to be originally, what we approved. MELANIE We approved the glazing of it but the glazing has changed the whole look if you look at the picture. There were screens and these windows are very modem and the face frames are very big and when you look at it now all you see are windows. She feels the door should be put back on and the doors on the inside because they are so visible through the glazing that they have to be changed too. We never approved doors inside there. AMY HPC did not have to approve the interior doors because they were part of the interior floor plan. If the door is restored on the outside the doors in question then become interior doors and we would not have had review over them. ROGER Requested another item be added. Finding that the foundation around the building in the way that it is constructed and shape of the stone is incompatible with what the original historic building was. Obviously he is not asking that the rock be removed. If it were painted as it was painted in 1965 he finds that it would be much less detractive from the historic resource. He is offering a compromise in dealing with the porch or rather suggestions; however, in doing so he would demand that the foundation of the house be painted. The compromise: A detailed drawing showing the porch as it basically looked with the screen. We agreed to put glass in; however, the manner in which this was constructed and I know it was done quickly and rather shoddy can easily be corrected with restoring the wall the way it looked with the screens, putting a window in with trim that is minimal, therefore the window in fact becomes a screen. We can live with that. Since he was here in Aspen there was not a door at the end of the porch, however it had a screened frame which gave it the appearance of a door. My compromise would be that we install another post against the wall which give it the feeling of being framed in along with the existing Victorian post. This may not be acceptable to HPC. We still have the two doors 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 inside which should be replaced with old Victorian doors but they do not need painted. SUZANNAH Asked Roger to clarify his suggestion on the windows. ROGER The manner in which the entire thing was constructed the windows become the primary portion of the wall. We want to retain the wall the way it was. The stop holding the windows in should be minimal allowing them to be there but not detract from the original historic porch. SUZANNAH The frame is clad. ROGER That all has to go away. The windows were to be a single pane of glass with a minimal wooden stop; therefore it would be like a screen with a minimal wooden stop. You trash the windows and put in a single pane of glass. We can't decide on that until we have a real drawing showing dimensions etc. and we paint out the stone around the base of the house. Another issue that a lot of time was spent on by HPC was the front landscaping. We talked about permanent or removable planters to go out in front to break it up and as of now that has not happened. It is shoddy construction. SUSAN Roget, was a screen door ever installed? ROGET A screened door was added. AMY The vestibule was never to be open to the air like it is. SUZANNAH How does the HPC feel about Roger's suggestion on the windows? Susan and Melanie agreed. No comments from the other members. MELANIE The frame is appropriate and it should look like the picture. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 AMY Does the board understand what is being proposed? You are now requiring two doors to be replaced and it is still left open to the air. GILBERT For clarification, wasn't the porch screened in? AMY After final but prior to construction they came in and asked for it to be glassed in entirely and we approved that but these windows were installed to match the other windows that were installed and I agree that they are not sympathetic or appropriate but to verify the final drawings need to be looked at. ROGET Reminded Roger that they were in no way required to keep the foundation. The rocks are historical naturally and it is kind of unfair to want us to paint them when everything else is natural now in Aspen. MARK We were not prepared to address the foundation or taking out windows. We would have to refer back to the plans as the windows are one unit that would literally be trashed if it were to be done as Roger said. CHARLES Represented Matsuhisa and reviewed the plans and it was always drawn on the plans that a door would be there. We were told that they were going to come in a glass it in and when they did that our door became the interior door. We did go through a plan change on an interior door to show that we were putting this expensive Japanese door in what was an interior space. We very much want that door to be there that was approved in the plans, as it was represented to us. The vestibule acts as an airlock in the winter and we think it would actually improve the handicapped access. Someone coming into the restaurant would be able to get into an area, have the door shut behind them and be out of bad weather. We want to see the door put back as was on the plans. MARK I have to object having the tenant telling us what he is going to do. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 SUZANNAH We are listening to everyone equally and lets let everyone go in turn. VALIDA Bacchus is owned by Valida and he signed a lease with the outside door existing and one of the good reasons they took the space is because the building is very small and from part of the Main St. they couldn't open because they didn't have the airlock to operate the business how they were supposed it. They said great they have two doors on front and get the little warm area from door to door and that was one of the reasons they took the space. The reason they put the glass door there they understand that Matsuhisa would use the entrance also and when you come in you could decide. There is a handicapped slope there and a slight incline and the door would look nice there. MARK For clarification the HPC is requesting the removal of the windows. We propose to put detailing on the windows to match what was existing with a piece of wood trim. It did not include the proposal to remove the windows and if that is the recommendation I would have to review the plans to see if their is a basis to remove those windows as approved by HPC. AMY I would like to set the window issue aside. MARY For re-affirmation the door has to be reinstalled the way it was drawn on the plans. The wall is to be rebuilt the way it was drawn in the plans. AMY 5. As you know wood columns were approved that would set on top of the brick and also hand rails that had different character than what is up. The other issue is the beam that is on top of the columns. A drawing has been provided showing the proposal and Staff feels this is the right direction but a scaled detail drawing need to be submitted in order to understand what detailing is proposed. Staff is still concerned with the handrail. SUSAN The end of the fire wall was to have wood posts also. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 AMY Amy thought there were more code and construction issues with the end wall and that would need resolved. SUZANNAH The finish on the beams needs to be compatible with the columns and some kind of trim that finishes it out. Where the beam meets the soffet now there is a little piece of one by that is too short and that needs to be replaced and installed with a real piece of trim. There also needs to be a detailed proposal on what the columns will be, shape and finish. MARK You want a judgment call on compatibility on what we are doing with the columns based upon trimming it out or painted or whatever and you are looking for scaled drawings the same as number #2. MELANIE Requested a side view under the beam as to how they are attached. She said the proportions are not consistent to what was approved in the original sketch. The entire brick is higher. AMY It actually it is not that dissimilar to the last drawing approved. When the entry was changed we approved something different. Unfortunately it was a poor drawing but this proposal is closer to what the drawing was. MELANIE There is also some finish issues on the brick as it is just kind of plastered over where the stucco met the brick where it could have been faced with brick. The veneer was sloppy. GILBERT One of the comments in the memo is that the brick be lowered as much as possible and at the site visit it seemed to be higher than the UBC. ROGET Bricks come in a certain size and if we take one off we will not meet code. There is a finishing layer there. SUZANNAH The use of wood trim would bring you back to the proper height. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 MELANIE Requested a detailed drawing of the handrail and the railing going down the stairs inside. She also mentioned that the brick wall should come down. She wants to see what was approved. SUZANNAH In general there is a problem with the consistency of the materials and the way they are detailed. AMY Relayed that a brick wall existed and she needs to confirm the height of the brick wall between the columns. MARK Stated that he was not sure if this is a code issue of 42 inches. SUZANNAH All the issues need incorporated into one design and it should be brought back to us even if it was approved. The entire package is needed, everything shown and how it relates to the original approval and what they are proposing to do now to correct the situation. CHARLES Our concern is the same of how it looks. The handrail should be more consistent with the historical resource. That it fit in with the Victorian building. JEFF KLEIN More consistent with the front and it should be consistent all the way around. AMY Relayed to the applicant that if HPC seems harsh that HPC did forgive about five other issues in consideration of this issue being fixed appropriately. MARK We are trying to get in all your comments and then go back to the table. AMY 6. The double hung window has been installed in the bay on the front, north elevation. AMY 7. Windows and doors on the tower were to have brick arches over them. This is not correctable at this point and it is not 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 directly tied to the historic building and staff is not recommending any corrections. AMY 8. The canopy that enters into the tower on the west side was not constructed as approved, it is more heavy handed than what was presented and it has two by fours instead of metal brackets that connect it to the wall. Staff is recommending that they install the metal bracket and the applicant would like to raise them in height slightly to allow a little more clearance to get to the doorway. As approved some trim detailing was there and it appears that it was open to the air. A can lighting fixture has been installed with a soffet. They will add the trim. There is a two foot overhang rather than a three foot overhang that was shown but Staff doesn't feel that needs changed. All the fascia materials need removed and it must be detailed as was approved. MARK The brackets need raised primarily for the safety as it is a restaurant entrance. AMY 9. The mechanical equipment/boxes which have been installed across the back of the historic shed must be either painted to match the wall or must be enclosed with a wood "cabinet", the design of which must be approved in advance by HPC. A drawing was received today which indicates it would be sided with clapboard and would have roof shingles to match the roof and it would have doors that would open to allow access to the material inside. A few inch encroachment is in the process with the Engineering Dept. SUZANNAH A drawing needs to be submitted for review, architectural detailed drawing. AMY 10. The door into the shed has been widened and replaced. Staff is recommending forgoing this. AMY 11. Roof top mechanical equipment with the condition that the equipment be painted in a dark color (in warmer weather) and that a design for a parapet wall be submitted to HPC for approval. The proposal is wood siding and it is meant to be 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 screened not necessarily to hide the equipment and the roof top equipment should be painted out. MARK One of the problems is the communication between landlord and tenant. We haven't seen the drawing and unable to comment on the drawing. SUZANNAH The drawing needs to be accurate and indicate the outline of the mechanical equipment relative to the parapet. GILBERT The front elevation and rear elevation need to be included with the drawings. ROGER As a suggestion, maybe the material could be some other thin element, metal because basically it is a screen. JEFFREY HALFERTY The mechanical equipment is only visible from across the street and he has been waiting for HPC comments to see how the parapet should be treated. There is a roofing issue also regarding drainage and weight of the parapet etc. SUZANNAH The design has to be substantial and real framing. We need to be direct in our recommendations as I-tPC does not want this drawn out for the next year. SUZANNAH The design needs worked out and a detailed drawing presented. The equipment needs pained out. Suzannah also feels that a wall cannot be built big enough to hide all the equipment. MARK We will work with Jeff Halferty and possibly the top of the exhaust gets painted and the rest of the wall will be left shorter rather than making the jag in the wall. CHARLES If we could work with Staff and monitors on the color it could be painted out relatively quickly to get the process started. 19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 SUZANNAH Equipment can be painted out now and color to be determined by Staff and monitors. Detailed drawing of the screening of equipment to be submitted. AMY 12. Light fixtures on the building have never been approved, but are being installed. All exterior light fixtures must receive HPC approval. A cut sheet of the fixtures needs submitted as these fixtures are popping up all over and they are an element of the exterior of the building. AMY 13. All signs to be installed on the outside of the building require sign permits. The signs approved are Beaches, Mastitis illuminated sign, Rote's sign on his house. There is also a sign on the tower that has no sign permit as does Beaches. There is also a sign on the third story balcony, a for rent sign. Signs are staff approval. MARK The for rent sign will be taken down. Unfortunately we have to try and get the tenants to cooperate with the owners all at the same time. AMY 14. This item is about painting. While HPC does not review color they do get involved into the finishing of different surfaces. It was represented that the building would be painted and to match the cabin and it has not been painted. Staff realizes this is due to the weather. Staff is recommending paint not stain as paint was on the historic cottage. SUZANNAH HPC agrees that the house should be painted. MARY Who are the contractors. ROGER Elk & Overall who are general contractors. SUZANNAH There are a lot of repair issues on the historic porch, trim and siding should be addressed. 20 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 VALID Inquired about the Victorian blue painting and if that is the required color. He also stated that there are numerous layers of paint that need stripped off before an effective paint job can Occur. AMY It was represented that the building would all be painted to match itself. The surfaces of the new would be painted not stained. ROGER Do we have enforcement that would require adequate craftsmanship? AMY Staff will discuss this with the Assistant City Attorney. ROGER The craftsmanship should meet at least minimum standards in the industry. ROGER Asked HPC to address the foundation painting. AMY The foundation was to be built exactly as it was which was an random ashlar pattern foundation and this is more rubble. It is not the same character. Some of that has to do with the fact that the original foundation was painted. It has not be rebuilt the same and we are probably justified in requiring that it be painted. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC demand that the applicant for 303 E. Main craftsmanship meet at least the minimum standards for the industry and that the foundation wall be painted as a compromise as the wall was not built to replicate what was originally there, color to be determined by applicant, staff and monitor; second by Mary. Motion carried 6-0. MARK We will talk to the Assistant City Attorney. MARY A landscape plan should be submitted. JEFFREY KLEIN Stated he will work with Roget and submit a plan. 21 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 ROGER Told Jeffrey Klein if he wanted he could request a worksession. AMY Planter boxes were approved. MARY Relayed to the applicant that the HPC would like everything like it was originally approved. MOTION: Mary moved to adjourn; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 22 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8, 1998 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ................................................................................... 1 CLARIFICATION ON LANDMARK DESIGNATION - 920 W. HALLAM ST. - ....................... 1 240 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - PH .................................................................... 2 514 N. THIRD ST. - FINAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 6 834 W. HALLAM - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL ........................................................ 8 303 E. MAIN ST. - ...................................................................................................... 8