Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910828HISTORIC PRESERVATION COI,~fITTEE Hinutas of Aug'ust 28, ~99L Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport, Roger Moyer, Jake Vickery, Joe Krabacker, Karen Day and Martha Madsen present. Don Erdman was absent. MOTION: Roger made the motion approve the minutes of July 10, 1991 as amended; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of August 14, 1991; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. COE~iISSIONER COI,~'.~NTS Roger: I represented the HPC at the CCLC meeting. The only thing that pertains to us at the moment is the problem of display signs on buildings around the mall area, those that are not attached to the building. The Commission requested that Bill Drueding evaluate those and have it brought up at the next meeting. Joe and Bill stepped down. Karen and Martha seated. MOTION: Bill made the motion to appoint Les and interim chairperson; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: I do some work with Bill Poss but I am not working on this project and feel I do not have a conflict. 409 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOP)lENT EXTENSION Roxanne: Normally for conceptual development we allow no more than six months. The applicant is requesting a 12 month extension. Actually it is a 10 month extension because he already received two months. That would take them up to July 24, 1992. The landuse code does not specify how long we can extend conceptual approval for, nor how many times you can extend. The Board in the past has dealt with six months. It is important that you stay with what was done in the past because we are going through the Master Plan process right now and there may be some new policy that will come up with regard to protection of pocket parks and open space. I am recommending six months from today which would take them up to February 28th. Karen: Will the park remain in the interim? It is important for the town to keep the park as long as we can. David Rybak, architect for Poss & Associates: Yes. This project will be a commercial building, offices on the second floor and retail commercial on first floor. The second floor has a plaza. The reason we want the 12 month extension is that we do not intend to start construction until the spring and during that time it will Historic Preservation committee Minutes of August 28, 1991 take us that long to get the process going for final development. We look for the 12 month extension so that we do not have to come back in February and request it at that time. Roxanne: They are not recommending any changes from what was approved conceptually. Roger: We granted conceptual with conditions and it was a good project. Would the end of May be sufficient time? David: I believe so. Glenn: Going through the project with you I thought we ended up with a good project and it is a project appropriate for the downtown commercial core. I would be in favor of the extension. Jake: I concur with Glenn and have no problem granting an extension. Martha: I have no problem but want to be aware of "consistency" as it is very important. If it is not going to create a problem I would be in favor of the extension. Roger: A lot of input went into the project. There is a consideration with the granting of a twelve month extension. I asked if the end of May would be enough time on a seasonal basis. A lot of things work seasonally and then we are not establishing the 12 month precedent. Les: If we can cut it down to the end of May it makes sense. MOTION: Roger made the motion to grant extension for 409 E. Hopkins until June 1, All in favor, motion carries. conceptual development 1992; second by Karen. VESTED RIGHTS RESOLUTION 10t 1991 442 W. BLEEKER PIONEER Pi~RK LOT i Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing; no comments from the public. Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adopt Resolution 10, 1991 granting a three year vested rights approval for 442 W. Bleeker, Lot 1 Weaver Subdivision also know as Pioneer Park; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Joe seated. His2or~c P~eseL'va~on Com~ttee ~nutes of ~uqus~ 28, L99L PROJECT HONXTOR~NG ~SPEN HE~.DOWS - CHALET BU~LDXN~S Fred Smith: I need to talk about the chalets at the Aspen Meadows. Everything that was indicated by the Board was added to the chalet buildings. There are three window panes. We had to go back and make them into four windows due to the calculation of the buildings energy efficiency against the Colo. Model Code. It indicated that we were not able to have as much glazing as the model has shown. We needed to produce some solid surfaces so we split the windows into four and added an insulated panel. After that was done Glenn looked at it and it caused some visual problems. We also have another alternative. Where the lower fourth window is along the bottom we could eliminate that bottom line and make it a wall section and the window section would be on top of it. I didn't feel that was appropriate without the Boards direction. Glenn: The division of four windows greatly impacts the building and encumbers the facade. Fred: We believe that the four pane glass looked better in keeping with what the architect would have done. Roger: There are two companies in the country, one out of Boulder and one in the mid-west that make window glazing that have a high R factor. The one in Boulder is Rocky Mountain Solar. That should be researched and possibly you would not have to go to the four pane window. Fred: It is busier and adds another line in that building. want to minimize as much as we can the insulated panel. We Glenn: Also all the windows are smaller. Roger: Possibly when you come back after you have researched, do a drawing over the side showing whatever solution you came up with. Glenn: Both elevations would be picking up the panel not just one. The Board needs to see the drawings and give their views. Roger: I think the glass Fred: We will research keeping the window wall. is the answer. and come back. We liked the idea of Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 28, 1991 PITKIN COUNTY COURT HOUSE LIGHTING Roxanne: Pitkin County has requested lighting for the tower which is being donated. Les: I think lighting is appropriate as long as it doesn't detract from the building and it would have to be well done to compliment the building and the pedestrian flow. Roger: I would recommend that they consult Rocky Mountain Institute and that the lighting be totally energy efficient and simple. CITY SHOP Roxanne: The public works director wants to paint the city shop which is the old Castle Creek Power Plant. There is a cinder block addition. I have no objection with the cinder block being painted by the brick would need to have some kind of surface treatment. Roger is project monitor and they would have to return to the Board for minor development. 17 QUEEN Glenn: The house at 17 Queen has been moved and Rudd Construction has been very accommodating. 214 W. BLEEKEH - MCCARTHY HOUSE - WINDOW DEMO Roger: I went to the McCarthy's house on Bleeker and the windows have all been destroyed. I found out that the contractor had a supervisor and on the weekend the contractor's children and Linda's children came in a demoed the place to save money and broke the windows. This brings up a scenario: What do we do when this happens? Possibly a letter should be sent to the architect and they should come before the Board and discuss it so that it doesn't happen in the future. A letter should also go to the contractor and on-site supervisor and possibly the children and owner should appear before the Board. We will have a great opportunity to educate young people as to what we are doing and why. Jake: This is similar to the gazebo. We need a clear and consistent way to handle these issues. Glenn: Possibly we should set up a track record for architects and developers, contractors etc. similar to a traffic ticket and you would have a record of proceedings. H'lstorlo Preservat'lon Comm~.ttee Hinutes of ~.ug'us~. 28~ 1.991. Les: We need to educate the town and have a learning process. Jake: It is important to have a preservation plan and a bond. Possibly the use of some kind of stickers. Bill: Our approval is part of their building permit and when you get their review you can red line which windows get saved and when the inspector goes out there he can call the contractor. If they do not adhere to it a letter is extremely important and it should go into the builders file. A copy should also go to the architect. Les: They have to come back now because the approval is different. Roxanne: This is clearly a zoning violation. Inventory - Worksession scheduled for Sept. 18, 1991 Noon City Hall MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; second by Les. favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Ail in Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 5