Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940223H~stor~c Preserv&2ion Co~t2ee ~nute$ o~ Febz'uar¥ 23, Z994 107 JUAN STREET - RELOCATION, PUBLIC HEARING HOLDEN-MAROLT MUSEUM - MINOR DEVELOPMENT 130 S. GALENA ( CITY HALL) - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ALLEYS & COMMERCIAL SCAPE · 1 5 8 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESEHVi%TION COMMITTEE Minutes of Februar~ Z3, 1994 Meeting was called to order by Joe Krabacher with Les Holst, Roger Moyer, Karen Day, Scott Samborski, Tom Williams, Martha Madsen and Linda Smisek present. Excused were Donnelley Erdman and Jake Vickery. MOTION~ Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of January 26, 1994; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger: I had a call from a woman in Rifle with regards to restoring a building as Rifle has no preservation committee. They may come to one of our meetings. The Board welcomes our two new members Tom Williams and Scott Samborski. Karen: I would suggest using the Angler Room at the Hotel Jerome for the awards ceremony. It is a very warm room rather than the larger one we used last year. Amy: We need to reassign Bill Poss's projects. Karen: I'll do Saint Mary's church windows. Les: I'll do the elevator for Pitkin County Court house. 107 JUP~N STREET - RELOCATIONt PUBLIC HEARING Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Amy: The applicant is coming back for final approval for the relocation of the historic structure towards the west and I have found that it has met all of the relocation standards and recommend that the HPC approve the application with the conditions that they submit a structural report from a licensed engineer, that a relocation plan be submitted and that they limit the width of the underground garage to one lane and that they not construct a front porch on the historic resource. I brought up the issue of the porch before and since then I have found that it was never on the building and from a pure preservation standpoint you don't want to introduce elements that were never there historically. Dave Tollin: Housing Authority office representative: The site was purchased by the city of Aspen and the housing office a few years ago for affordable permanent resident housing. We are working with a design development team. The proposal is for six units, five new and the existing miners cottage which will be relocated Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 23, 1994 slightly on the site. The two units in the back each are duplexes with a total of four units and will house basically families. They have small but useful yard spaces incorporated within them. In the front will be the single family home. This unit will be rehabilitated and become a two bedroom unit. There will also be common yard space. The parking associated with the project is two spaces per unit in an underground parking structure under the site. We are hoping to price the units as low as $130,000 to $150,000 each. In the last worksession we had talked about the concept of reducing the parking impact entrance. There is a problem with safety and we would not be able to narrow the entrance due to engineering concerns. We can alter the front elements which will soften it. The second issue is the porch on the corner unit. It serves two functions: protects the front entry from ice, snow and rain. The second thing it does is provide a connection between the unit and the street. There are small cottages throughout town with porches like this. From a pure preservation review this had not had a porch but I feel we can design it in such a way that it enhances rather than detracts. The other issue from the site visit is the proposed height. The existing is four feet lower than what we are showing on the elevation. We were asked to leave the building at the present elevation. The reason for the elevation is the position of the transition behind it. To have the building at a lower elevation creates a deep canyon or well in relationship to the retaining wall making the yard space less usable. What is the height of the retaining wall? six feet at the front level and also six feet at the back Roger: David: level. David: I also believe the front porch is within the ten foot setback and that was addressed in the application. David: I would like the HPC to consider a setback variance to give us the opportunity to move the unit forward. We need to look at technical issues. Roger: Can the front porch be added so that it is not as prominent addition to the historic cottage and that it look like an addition rather than part of the addition. Karen: I had a question concerning the stairs as we had to have ours redone because they were so dangerous. David: We have a cost estimate currently for concrete stairs throughout the site. Les: Regarding the entrance I have seen several complexes in Historlo Preservation Committee M~nutes o~ Februa~ 23, ~994 Denver, Park city that have single entrances to underground parking. We can get information on them. David: The standards are loosely defined but 18 feet for a two car access is probably the minimum you would want to go. Roger: You don't need a two car access, have a one car access and then that standard is met. David: You could do that but in terms of safety for a structure of this size that is what they recommend. Roger: The building I stay at in Georgetown is new and has 25 parking spaces, single car garage door and when you pull up there is a light that comes on and it is green and you go through. If cars are coming out it turns red and you wait until they come through. It is real simple. David: The city engineer told us you can only do it under this circumstance. Les: Very interesting, that is one of the reasons we loose these great spaces. The building code has exceptions for historic buildings so that we don't have to meet the standard codes. We could have a worksession and explain the situation that it will work. Joe: Get a subcommittee and meet with the Engineering Dept. David: We are not asked to meet a function standard we are asked to meet an Engineering standard. Roger: Concerning the corner to the left of the parking garage possibly have a landscape person study the area to soften it up. David: At this point we have not had any detailed work done on that area. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Tom: I feel the opening clearance were lowered. would be less of an impact if the David: The ramp will slope down over a foot so it will drop down a little. We are also facing the entire area with stone. Les: I feel the porch is necessary with that roof on the cottage. If there is a way of dropping down the corner unit that would be appropriate. Regarding the opening we need to make sure a van with Historlo Preservation Committee Minutes of February 23, 1994 a ski rack will fit. Karen: Roger: In the motion we door opening. David: P&Z and Council issues. I also agree with Les's comments. should state that they look at a single has the ability to look at these two Amy: I can discuss the opening with the city Engineer. Joe: I would also like to see the parking garage door opening lowered or restudied. I am willing to recommend the front yard setback variance but it might be a planning issue in exchange in bringing the height of the building down. It seems there is no objection to the porch. The stairs into the historic cottage I would personally see those done in wood rather than concrete. I also agree with Roger that landscaping needs looked at on the corner of the parking area. Chairman Joe Krabacher closed the public hearing. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC recommend approval of the relocation of 107 Juan Street with the following conditions: 1) Before applying for a building permit, the applicant will submit a structural report from a licensed engineer, demonstrating the soundness of the structure and describing any structural bracing that will be necessary during the relocation. 2) Before applying for a building permit, the applicant will provide a relocation plan which shows how the receiving site will be prepared and will secure a bond (value to be set by HPC) to insure safe relocation of the building. 3) The applicant should limit the width of the underground garage opening to one lane, if this is found to meet safety standards. 4) Condition four would be to study the lowering of the height of the historic building and deal with the setbacks as need be. 5) Study the softening of the north east corner landscaping; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Historio Preservation Comm%ttee Minutes of February 23, 1994 DISCUSSION Tom: In regards to the opening a regular overhead door is 6x8. Joe: Maybe we should amend the motion that the applicant should limit the width and height of the underground garage to one lane and the appropriate height regarding safety standards. It may stay the way it is presented. Les: A ski rack and windsurfer should fit. I try and watch people at the Little Nell and they cannot get in due to the height problems. MENDED MOTION= Roger amended the motion to limit the width and height of the underground garage to one lane and the appropriate height regarding safety standards; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. HOLDEN-M~ROLT MUSEUM - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: The master plan was reviewed several years ago and the applicants have found that they cannot locate the bathrooms inside the barn and they are proposing to do it on the exterior. They propose setting them under an existing lean-too on the south side of the barn. I recommend approval but they can limit the overall size of the bathroom. Graeme Means, architect: Amy talked to me concerning the recommendation of having the bathrooms detached from the main structure. Our PUD approval states specifically that there be no new construction on the property and one of the main reasons is that this was city purchased for open space. Secondly we talked about this and there is very little visual impact and will work better than putting a new structure on the grounds. We do not like the idea of introducing a new element into this plan. Originally we received approval from the building department to put our bathrooms inside the building but the museum consultant that we are working with stated there would be a circulation problem etc. and suggested the bathroom to be outside of the building. They also felt that the building was small and any exhibit space is precious. It would also alter the character inside. We then looked at the alternative of where to put them either in a new structure or in the salt shed. The salt shed is an original historic building that we are going to turn into a shop to restore old equipment and display materials and this would be part of the museum for people to watch and see how things are done. Introducing the bathrooms in the salt shed would take away valuable space so we decided to 5 Historic Preservation Committee ~inutes of FebruaL-~ 23, 1994 propose that they be put underneath the overhang. It is a more recent addition but is historic. The front wall of the bathrooms is ten feet back from the eave of the overhang so they are really set well back in. We also could display materials in front of them to screen them. The overhang will be used to display materials. Our original approval was for two toilet facilities one for handicapped and one not. We were allowed to do that by the building department based upon the fact that this is a very crowded area. When we moved the bathrooms to the outside we felt that there would be room for the two handicapped and two regular. Amy is suggesting that we go back to the original proposal so that we can take about three feet off the width of the bathroom. Now that we have a little more room I am not sure that the building department will not require the four stalls. Amy: I spoke to the building department and they will allow just the handicapped bathroom and the one regular. Graeme: We would like to provide two handicapped bathrooms as it services everyone better and the one regular. We also feel they are located far under the overhang. The other issue is the work sinks. They are for a number of projects, food done outside to help feed different groups of people. We feel that the work sinks being out in the open would be a lot more accessible. We intend to get old historic work sinks or else put in something that looks like a rancher put it in. We would be happy to work with a monitor to get their approval. The configuration that it is in now has less impact visually and would work a lot better for us. Roger: There are two buildings, the barn and the salt shed. Do you have a long range plan for that building. Graeme: Short range and we are going to do the construction this spring and turn it into a work shop/ display year round. Roger: Are the bathrooms meant to be year round? Graeme: No they are not and will only be open in the summer. Roger: If you have a year round workshop you won't have a bathroom. Graeme: We have one small bathroom located in the salt shed. Roger: Is there enough room in the salt shed for the bathrooms? Graeme: No, it would take up too much of a chunk of space. Joe: Is it possible to get by with one sink rather than two? 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 23, 1994 Graeme: Martha: Graeme: urinal. Graeme: Yes, I think so. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Linda: For the outside view into this could their be a partition along the sink so that they are not showing to the outside? We could consider that. What is the configuration of the bathrooms? They are a little unequal as we are required to put in a Les: I an live with an old tub outside smaller bathroom. It is such a wonderful have no problem with unisex bathrooms. and would approve the looking building and I Scott: I would approve the smaller bathrooms also for the same reasons that Les has and also the one sink. Martha: Will there be a maintenance problem with that sink since it will be in the open and exposed? Graeme: It is way underneath the overhang so it is protected. Roger: I would suggest on the size of the bathroom that you not exceed three to four inches from the trim of the window and that may give you a little more room. You won't have a true sink, it will be more of a horse troft that could be divided into two parts. Karen: Graeme: shed. Karen: Where will your cleaning compounds be kept? We will store a lot of the mops and stuff in the salt I am in favor of having it attached from the wall. Tom: Would it be possible to make the bathrooms flush? Graeme: I could do either but I would prefer to have it broken up. Amy: What kind of signs will be on the door to show the unisex bathroom? Graema: I don't know exactly what that will be. Amy: A fiberglass blue handicapped sign would not be appropriate. 7 Historic Preservation Conittee l~inutes of Februa~ 23, 1994 Graeme: We will try to be as sensitive as we can. Joe: I would agree with Roger about bringing the bathroom back so that it is a few inches away from the trim of the window and the sink should be something old in a ranch style and should not be shielded. Any signage I would like to see it similar to the materials that are existing. Les: What is the framing of this going to be? Graeme: Two by four. MO?IOH: Roger made the motion to approve the Holden-Marolt Museum bathroom with the following condition: That the bathroom dimension be reduced so as to not cover the bathroom windows. Details and dimensions to be worked out with Staff and monitor; second by Martha. Discussion: .~ ..... Amy: The new construction should not attach to the historic building. MENDED HOTION~ Roger added that the new addition not permanently attach to the existing historic structure; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. DISCUSSION Graeme: Would the roof of the overhang apply to that statement. Amy: You have the post going down into the ground to give it stability. Graeme: We need to put a ceiling on the bathrooms. We could put it one inch away from the old. Amy: It is historic and that is what I am recommending. I don't feel it less important than the barn. Graeme: We love this building and we can work with that. Les: Roger and I are the monitors. 130 S. GALENA ( CITY ~ALL) - MINOR DEV~LOPME~F~ Amy: We looked at this in a worksession at the last meeting and because of office space construction a second egress will be 8 Historic Preserv&t~on Committee Minutes of Februar~ 2S, 1994 req]/ired and the applicant has presented to me that it is not possible to do that on the interior of the building so they are proposing to construct a staircase on the east side of the building and I have recommended that we table the application asking the applicant to reduce the size of the staircase and the lightwells and that we will need to samples of building materials. Cris, Engineering Department: Raul Gawry will be the architect on this project. We originally had a large scale entry setup partially requested by council. Since then we have scaled back a portion of that to try and make less of an impact to the historic structure itself. Raul Gawry, architect for Gibson & Reno: We are looking for direction from the HPC on how the park should be utilized. We need egress on opposite sides in the basement and that is a building code due to the size of the occupancy. We will have an internal staircase buy the present information station. We wanted to achieve another internal staircase but due to structural problems it would not become feasible to connect it. We could do the minimal four foot light stairwell at the back of the building but I do not feel that is what we want. One plan would be a physical doorway parallel to the building that would be integrated with a planter box. We need to discuss the railing also. QUESTIONS: Karen: What is the history of the park? RaUl: We have saved every tree and the bench would have to be moved. Nothing has ever been in the park. Karen: If that is the case the park would be historical and that would give us a reason historically why we should be able to open up the stairway. Roger: Why can't the city council stay where it is? Raul: They can. Cris: Having the council chambers moved will be more space and it will be laid out with a lot of light. Either way we will need egress out of the basement and have to put a stairway in out of the basement. The north east corner has numerous complications due to pointing, the rise and run of the design and snow. There is also a clearance problem. We are trying to comply with the master plan. Council is in agreement having the council chambers downstairs. Joe: You are proposing colored concrete for the retaining walls. 9 Historic Preservation Co~$ttee Minutes of February 23, 1994 Raul: We will need to put steel columns underneath five feet on center and double hung windows at a later date. Our goal is to get a lot of light. Joe: If we go with an entrance I need to see the detailing of what is happening. Raul: The light well will extend four feet from the building. Les: I would like the minimum stairway going down in there. Raul: You want to make it as simple as possible. Karen: I totally disagree with Les and we have encouraged people to terrace light wells that go into houses so that it enhances the quality of life of someone living in a basement. It is below grade. Tom: I would like to see more of a celebration of a hole. Martha: We have come full circle on this and we started feeling very firm about not altering the historic building. I personally like the idea of incorporating the park with the addition. I do not think we want to go too far with that concept. Roger: The real issue is that we have a landmark building and our job is to not mess with the building period. If the Board feels that is not our job then we have a lot to discuss. The entire situation of this building doesn't make sense. The public voted it down because they wouldn't allow the monies to renovate the entire building at one time. The point is that it is costing the taxpayers five times as much and it is totally absurd. I totally concur with Les and I cannot approve the addition to a landmark. I also feel the city did not plan this out when they took it to the vote. Scott: I agree with Roger and if this is to be approved it should be minimal. Roger: You can add onto and that is allowed. Tom: You have to have egress and I feel this should be landscaped and should be much bigger than it is. Les: In seven years I have not seen that park used. There are patterns here that we are trying to break and it isn't going to happen. 10 Historic Preservation corm%tree Minutes of February 23, 1994 Raul: The relationship to the exiting park and the council chambers is very uninviting as you basically have a solid wall and no perception of visual contact between the two. If you introduce a visual contact it will be better conditions than you have now. Joe: Typically when a project goes through HPC we get a consensus and it doesn't seem like we have one on this project today. My view of it is that the property is on the national register which is the highest level of an historic structure that you can have. There are a lot of Aspen landmarks that could never make it on the national register. I feel we should preserve the building as it is (an historic structure). If you put this on the back side of the building east L it will change the character of the building especially in the way you have the stair coming down at an angle. It seems like a large feature that you are introducing into the building. I would prefer to utilize the existing exit that we have available and rethink the program in terms as to whether you want to put the council chambers downstairs. I would rather see them on the first floor but that is personal. If it were used for offices you wouldn't need a grand entrance. As for the lightwell in the sister city room I would encourage keeping the opening as small as possible. If the committee decides to go with an entrance on the back I would like to see the materials that are proposed. We have a master plan that plans out the next seven or eight years as to what we are going to do for improvements to this building to get it back in shape. There are structural improvements and a new roof. As far as where the window wells go I would not want to work in the basement without light. I am trying to get as much light as I can. Our design hinges on the HPC and I would encourage everyone to think this out and get the best design possible. Amy: I don't have a problem with a stairway going into the back of this building. This building has to be used. I heard comments about people having lunch on the steps. Those steps will be wide open and I wouldn't want to eat on the steps. This is a minimal stairway. Roger: Could an annex be proposed for the park area? Amy: That was proposed several years ago and never got approved due to neighboring property owners. Les: Light wells are good. Joe: The Board feels light wells are appropriate. As for the exit entryway this proposal or something that is minimal as possible would be appropriate, how does the Board feel about that. (no comments except Martha who favored the east) 11 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of February 23, 1994 Cris: Without clear direction this is costing us time and money. Roger: You have a five year plan and I would suggest that the City look at the long term of where the city is going. Cris: Hopefully the grant that Amy has applied for will help us along. The 250 thousand is for the basement and the 100,000 is for the roof. Cris: I guess we can come up with another plan or a few. If the Board says do a window well and a small stairway I can go with that. If I have some direction I can come back with further plans. Cris: Would a window well be acceptable on the outside of the building on the park side (EL) , as big as the proposal? Les: My answer is no and I would not like to see one long window well. Broken up is better. Joe: I would rather see them broken up with some historic content. We don't want to see competition between where is the front and where is the back entrance. Smaller lighwells and egress and the exit out to the parking. Roger: My preference is stairway inside if all possible and minimal on the outside. Cris: We can come back March 9th with a revision. MOTION: Roger made the motion to table 130 S. Galena to the March 9, 1994 meeting; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. ALLEYS & COMMERCIAL SCAPE Amy: We are looking at ways to enhance the commercial and residential alley scape. I met with the engineering department and they see numerous encroachments such as trash, utilities lines and things piled up in the alleys that make it difficult to navigate. From our point of view they could be improved and I have taken photographs. We might want to consider in the future design projects that include alcove buildings. Planet Hollywood has filled the alley with garbage. I need to know what your vision is in what you would want the alleys to look like. Les: I have mentioned alley cafe's where you walk up a few steps. Amy: The Sardy House has a little bridge which is also an encroachment into the air space and it would have to be up high 12 H~stor~c Preservation Comm~t2ee ~nutes o£ Fe~ruar~ 23~ 2994 enough so that a truck could get underneath. Scott: I was on the Commercial Core & Lodging Commission and at one point we addressed the alleys because they were loaded with trash enclosures, delivery problems. All the businesses and truck owners came to the meeting and I can talk with Jon Busch as to what was resolved. Roger: Most buildings have basements and why couldn't you come out into the alley and you could have a steel door and raise the trash up. Amy: Aspen Drug has the same design for their deliveries but the trash could be incorporated. Amy: The CCLC has talked about a central large compactor for each area but the mechanical equipment would be very large and it does not resolve recycling. Scott: There are other problems that need to be resolved before doing the infill of the alleys. Roger: A lot of the huge walls could be painted and you could walk down the alley that would create a great visual impact. Les: In New York they have restorations that have high visibility in the front and toward the back it is cheaper. Amy: The City is considering revising the entire quota system and as one of our incentives for preservation we have a lot of ways that landmarked buildings can get exemptions. Next week they are going to discuss historic landmarks as to what can and can not be exempted. I need a few members to come to that meeting. Les volunteered. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13