Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19911113HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of November 13, 1991 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Karen Day and Martha Madsen present. Karen and Martha refrained from voting but entered into the discussions. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minutes of October 23, 1991 as amended; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. 17 QUEEN STREET MINOR DEVELOPMENT - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT Roxanne: There is no one here to present the project and the applicant knew that the item was scheduled. MOTION: Don made the motion to table 17 Queen to new business item D; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Les: I have a statement. The trees that they told us they would be cutting down for the driveway are not on their land. I feel this should be tabled. 533 E. COOPERt MINOR DEVELOPMENT - WINDOW MODIFICATION Roxanne: This is a minor development for window modifications on the south and east elevation of the national registered Bowman Block. Staff is recommending approval with the condition that the applicant revise the drawings to indicate that the large east elevation replacement window design be compatible with the vertical proportion of the historic windows. Vinnie Partika, contractor of project: After I received the comments from Roxanne I did some additional drawings. I scaled the window on the east elevation down to line up with the mullion down below. Alternate #1 is a large pane of glass and alternate #2 would be divided with a mullion. The window will not open. Dividing it up would give a more vertical appearance to match what is on the existing structure. On the south side, the alley side I tried to match the windows on the side which were long and tall. I ended up putting in two operable casement windows. The one on the left has to provide egress. Roger: Staff had no problems with these windows. addition put on? When was the Vinnie: Probably sometime in the late 50'so Karen: Is there a reason why you wouldn't do a victorian style on the addition to match the existing? Vinnie: You are referring to the double hung. I tried to make the changes minimal to what was already existing. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 Karen: On the south side, the alley side of the building the end of almost every apartment was glass. What prompted you to make those windows smaller? Vinnie: For aesthetic reasons. The pattern in the glass did not fit with anything in the interior and exterior of the building. The windows right now run from floor to ceiling single pane glass and there is an energy efficiecy to consideration. There is also a safety consideration. This was an apartment and office space and it is being turned into two apartments. Jake: I would like to make the comment of possibly raising the head of the window on the existing brick portion of the building, east elevation. Also setting up a window motif on the east side and taking it around to the back side trying to keep a rhythm going. Glenn: I would also support raising the head of the window up as Jake suggested. Donnelley: I tend to agree. Raising the head so that it is consistent with the head of the windows around the corner and also that would make the whole window bay vertical rather than horizontal. Roger: In this case I do not think the windows need to be more vertical because it is an addition and was not meant to copy. And if you walk in the alley the apartment on the right has windows that do not match. Karen: Is this our opportunity to start making this building better on the back side and the east side just because it is an important building and one of the few remaining victorians downtown? Jake: I think it is and it is easy to make the finding that the existing addition is very much a detraction from the historical resource. There is the owners opportunity to create something that is more thoughtful and more organized visually. Making it visually quieter and have its own identity and not replicate. Karen: The worst part about the addition is the windows. The windows suggested detract from the architecture of the building. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for 533 E. Cooper Street based on submitted drawings alternate #1 and alternate #3. Alternate #1 shows the east window single fixed pane of glass to extend up to the head height of the original victorian windows. Both drawings must be submitted to Historic Preservation committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 Staff prior to the issuance of a Building permit; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Glenn: We should advise Vinnie that he has a choice on the east window regarding the mullion. Glenn will be monitor. 201 E. MAIN STREET - MAIN STREET BAKERY - FRONT ENTRY AIR LOCK Roxanne: Main Street Bakery is loosing heat and the owners do not wish to go another winter. People line up and keep the door open. They need some kind of airlock system. Two proposals have been presented for consideration: one is a clear vinyl and fabric system and the other is wood and glass. This is the only terrace style structure found in Aspen. Staff is concerned that the more permanent solution does not respect necessarily the architecture and that the architecture cannot read through the transparency. If it is blocked off it is changing the visual character that the building projects to the street. The Planning office ended up recommending either the vinyl and fabric airlock proposal due to its reversibility or a fully transparent glass enclosure. Both must be utilized only in the winter months. Bill Dinsmore and Sally Barnett, owners: We also added another design which is the wainscot and glazing which would be temporary in the winter as well. Roxanne: Glenn an I talked with Bill and the thought was brought up of relocating the front entrance in the winter months to the east door. The applicant decided that wouldn't be conducive. The porch encroaches into the public right away. Bill Dinsmore: The Bldg. Dept. had a problem with the door opening onto a step. An air lock only works properly if you can close the one door before opening the next. Roger: They would loose the space where the cookies are displayed. Jake: What about utilizing a fixed door. Roxanne: The Main Street bakery contributes vitality to the street edge and moving the entrance doesn't really work and it takes away from the front entrance and would also look like the bakery was closed. According to the guidelines if you are going to do a porch enclosure it has to be transparent. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for 201 E. Main in accordance with the recommendation in Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 the memo for the vinyl and fabric airlock or fully transparent glass enclosure. Either must be fully reversible and utilized only during the winter months. Revised plans to be submitted to Staff and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit; second by Roger. Sally Barnett: That means to me no wainscotting in the front and I feel we should talk about that because I feel nervous about the safety if it is glass floor to ceiling. Roxanne: Could it be tempered glass above and plexie glass below. Jake: The entire thing could be tempered. Roger: Has Staff checked with the Bldg. Dept. to see if this is allowed and if the wainscotting is removable? Roxanne: The Bldg. Dept. has not responded yet and the wainscotting is removable. Glenn: It would be to their benefit to take it down when the weather gets better. I find that the wainscotting is compatible with the building. I would vote for it even if it was permanent due to the necessity. If the scale of the wainscotting is kept to a couple of feet the doors would be visible and you would know what is going on. Bill: I think the wainscotting is a stronger solution and would be in favor of the motion if it included the wainscotting and a definition of the winter months November through April. AMENDED MOTION: Joe amended his motion to allow for the wainscotting as presented on the sketch A2 and that the winter months would be defined as November through April or less; second by Roger. AMENDED MOTION: Bill: I would also be in favor of relocating the door to a north south orientation that would swing back against the fixed door that is there now so that it is not seen. It would be in alignment with the last mullion and open against the back and would have the flow that is necessary for egress. Joe amended his motion; second by Roger. All in favor except Jake. Motion carries. Roxanne: No new door is visible from the street edge. Bill: That is correct. Bill Dinsmore: What about another door of canvas floppy where the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 door is shown down just in case the Bldg. Dept has a problem with the door. I am not going to be able to put a door there because it doesn't come onto a landing but they may consider a fabric. Bill: Even if that is so I feel it should be aligned and not visible from the street. That would give a more transparent look to it. Roxanne: sheet. He is saying in addition to that have a clear vinyl Glenn: They make a light weight metal frame with a clear plastic window. I would be willing to allow flexibility to work out with the monitor. Jake: I felt that historical resource. it is a hardship. the work on the porch detracted from the I do not support enclosing of porches unless 533 E. MAIN - ST. MARY'S CHURCH - ELEVATOR TOWER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Roxanne: Certificate of mailing was received. A site visit was held today at 4:00 in which most of the members of HPC were present. The first design standard deals with character compatibility and Staff's concern is the location of the elevator tower, it is highly visual. It is in a prominent elevation of St. Mary's church which is eligible for the state register of historic places. The only reason it is not eligible for the national register is due to the 1966 front porch addition which is considered to be incompatible architecture. A massing model is to be presented. The tower is large and detailing somewhat elaborate to be considered compatible in character to the landmark. We feel that the proposal has not met the first development standard. The second standard deals with the proposed development reflection on the character of the neighborhood. We considered the neighborhood to be the commercial core historic district and we have looked at elevator towers in the past on the Elks bldg. and the Wheeler opera house. Both those towers are smaller and they are not as elaborate. The third standard deals with the cultural value. It is our opinion that this particular proposal does not enhance the cultural value due to visual impacts and change in character. The final standard deals with the architectural integrity and we feel the proposal does not meet this standard due to the issues regarding standard #1, its size and the competing architectural detail to the rest of the structure. We feel it should be much more sympathetic and quieter to the landmark. Partial demolition 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 standards need to be met at final. We are recommending tabling to a date certain and continue the public hearing to allow the applicant time to restudy all issues that Staff has brought up. Bracken Raleigh - representing Ted Guy and Associates for St. Mary's Church: We feel the design as presented is compatible, it has a flat roof and following the character of the building. In relationship to the other buildings with towers I measured the Elk's tower and it is 16 x 21 and this tower is 14 x 22. The Wheeler Opera House is smaller in size but taller. The church feels that they need handicapped access and a way to get coffins up to the upper level. They also have a donor. Due to the view planes, the north east and south east side of the building were felt to be inappropriate for the tower, it would also impede onto the sidewalk. The alter is in the back of the church with the sacristy. The detailing is proposed to be the same detailing in the corbaling of the window brick relief as the existing building. Ted Guy: We did investigate alternate locations inside the building before we came to the conclusion that there was no place in the structure that would allow this size of an elevator. The roof is flat and there was concern whether the tower should be more subdued than is proposed at the pre-application meeting. Bracken: Elevators, in order to meet UBC have to have 12 feet minimum inside clear dimension of the shaft of a two hour noncombustible material. Donnelley: Why does the vestibule have to be so big? Ted Guy: The vestibule on the upper level has to be the same size as the vestibule on the lower level. You could come straight out of the elevator on the upper level but it can't be done on the lower. We do not know the cost of a custom elevator but could check prices. We picked the standard size. Les: Massing is my concern. Church representative: The elevator cannot go to the back of the building on the alley because the sacristy is there. You can't have someone go out onto the altar. Roger: On the new structure added to the church are you proposing to use the same bricks that are currently there or a different brick to show that the structure was built at a different time? Ted Guy: At this time our intent is to use the same brick or get as close as we can to it. It is our feeling that it should not be a different color or different material. Look like it belongs with Historic Preservation committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 the church. Roger: There is a philosophy that an addition to an historic structure should indicate that it is an addition. Ted Guy: I feel it is important that the addition should look like it is part of the structure and compatible. Roger: The detail seems a little too involved as the church is not. Ted: We only used the detailing that is found elsewhere in the church. If the feeling is that there is too much we can subdue it. Donnelley: The tower is four square and with the reduction it might be rectangular and slightly reduced in one dimension to reduce the impact of the element. I can think of numerous ways in which the brick and same mortar can be used but perhaps use blind windows that are rectangular and do not replicate in any way the detailing of the existing building. That might be very important. Replication of the window bays and detailing is definitely the wrong way to go. Les: I can accept this location but I also feel very strongly that the brick should be the same or as close to the original as possible. My problem is the verticality and massing. It is too strong. Possibly soften it up a little. Glenn: There are ways to subtly manipulate the details. You could change the elements to wood although I realize I would be in the minority regarding that issue. Regarding the vestibule if there was a front to back door opening situation so that possibly you could enter on the west side. There needs to be some break between the two structures. Joe: I am concerned at this point with the massing as opposed to the detailing. The location is a given by default. Maybe there is a more profile elevator. In terms of the vestibule that is what the church needs, handicapped access and the ability to bring the coffins up. I would like to see it a little smaller but if not I would find that that standard has been met. Consistent with character of neighborhood I would find has been met but the final detailing would determine that. I also feel it does not detract from the cultural value, it doesn't enhance it but on the other hand we are helping the church stay there as a church. Regarding the architecture integrity it doesn't diminish or detract. Glenn: The ideal would be to have the entry off of the north Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 elevation. Jake: The location seems to be where it needs to be. I don't have trouble with the size due to the size of the existing church. The architecture needs to be quieter and simpler and possibly smaller openings. The walls might work better as a connecting link if they were brought in narrower so that there is a recess between the tower. Roger: The front entry meets the standards. I don't have a problem with the size of the elevator tower but also agree that it needs simplified. Bill: I agree this is the correct location for the function that the church has. Possibly the connector would look better if it didn't have the upper level window. I have a different approach to this, the thought that it should be a little larger than smaller. If it had more presence on the side by moving it another bay along the west face it would take on the character of being an addition to the building instead of being a small addition. I would prefer the brick also and detailing should be more simplified and not attempt to replicate the arches. A blind window motif or detailing of the brick would be much more compatible and simplify the corbaling. If you landscape around with trees it would soften it up. Jake: One option would be to move the elevator against the existing church. That would reduce the intrusion on the open space. Ted: The negative to the two bays is that you loose the natural light coming in the windows. There is a consistency that the location is right and the use of similar brick is preferred but the details should be simplified. Donnelley: One concern is that there is much more detailing in this addition than in the church. It makes it look busier than the original building and therefore is not subservant to it. Ted: Does everyone feel that the structure needs a flat roof or the use of possibly a sloping roof to calm it down a little. You would end up with a simple form. Bracken: The reason why the door is on the south side was for security and visibility from the rectory. Also if people used the elevator they would come out onto the court yard and be a part of the activities. Glenn: I would support a different roof shape to indicate that it 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 is an addition. Roxanne: There has been a lot of discussion about massing and the size of the vestibule. That needs to be addressed in the motion for restudy. Bill: I like the front entry cover and it is compatible. Roxanne: It is an encroachment to the public right-of-way so they would have to apply for an encroachment license. Jake: I am uncomfortable for the entrance. tough design problem. It is the main entrance should be a statement. I realize it is a to the church and Ted: We need the gables to get people under swiftly due to the snow. We have two choices, gabled or flat. Donnelley: There needs to be a correlation between the front and the addition to indicate they are new. Ted: It would be nice if the front entry would cover the sidewalk and if HPC would support that we would request that of the City. Bill: It is a dangerous corner with those trees and cars. I would be in support of the safety factor but also without the cars parked there it would improve the entrance visually to this prominent building. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that HPC table action on the elevator and entry addition as well as the revised front entrance to a date certain and continue the public hearing to allow the applicant time to restudy the proposal and meet the development review standards with particular emphasis on simplification of the elevator and vestibule element keeping in mind the materials both brick and other materials used in the original church but not necessarily having to follow the strict historical detail that is exemplified in the building. Also exploring the possibility of making the front entrance to the church a more significant element with the possibility of actually increasing the encroachment and providing a stronger entrance than it is right now. Revised application must be submitted to the Planning office no later than two weeks prior to the continued public hearing date, December 11, 1991; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. DISCUSSION: Glenn: If the Board would find support in pulling the whole sidewalk out whatever that is. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 Roger: The question would be involving the State Highway and City Council. Glenn: That sidewalk is what is squeezing the entire front of the church. Roxanne: The Pedestrian Plan has looked at neckdowns. Ted: When we did the neckdowns in Basalt the State did a compromise to allow it to happen but the city had to take over the plowing. 17 QUEEN STREET MOTION: Bill: Since the applicant is not present I would entertain a motion to remove Item a from old business. All in favor, motion Roger: I so move; second by Donnelley. carries. 210 S. GALENAt ELKS BUILDING, TEMPORARY BUNTING INSTALLATION Bill: Everyone has read the memo relating to this. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant approval of the temporary bunting for 210 S. Galena; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. SIGNS ATTACHED TO LAMP POSTS, INQUIRY BY PARKS ASSOCIATION Roxanne: The Parks Association is concerned about the extensive use of signs on the lamp posts in the city. They wanted to know if the city had any guidelines regarding placement etc. There is no real policy and the reason signs are attached to the lamps posts is to reduce the clutter of posts. The CCLC has looked at this and has photos of designs they have chosen. Joe: The signs have to go somewhere. Roger: The solution is simplification...eliminate the number of posts. Bill: I like the idea of having them uniform on the posts and no having additional posts. As you come down the street it is cluttered. Having frames around the signs would at least make it neat. 10 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 Donnelley: How many people have complained, he has never bothered me. Martha: Now that I see it, it bothers me. There should be a limit as to what and how much goes on the lamp poles. Glenn: I would suggest doing the street signs first because if you start doing every little thing it will look like overkill. I would recommend street signs only. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to give direction to the CCLC to encourage the street signs only to be framed in the manner presented and that the other signs roam free. Kathy to relay the message back to CCLC; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. PROJECT MONITORING Bill: I would like to recommend that all our meetings be out by 8:00 p.m. Don: The utilities work is going on at the Meadows. MOTION: Bill made the motion to adjourn; second by Don. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11