Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910529Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 29, 1991 FINAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS REVIEW SPORTSTALKER PIONEER PARK LOT 1 WEAVER SUBDIVISION 422 W. BLEEKER ST. FINAL DEVELOPMENT 1 4 11 HISTORIC PRSERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 29, 1991 Special Meeting Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Roger Moyer, Jake Vickery, Glenn Rappaport, Don Erdman, Joe Krabacher and Georgeann Waggaman present. Les Holst and Charles Cunniffe were excused. FINAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS REVIEW SPORTSTALKER Roxanne: The applicant is here to meet the final conditions. Welton Anderson, architect: Starting at the bottom and working up the building there is a 4 by 4 inch concrete curb at the base that will follow the foot print of the building. There will be a pair of steel panels side by side and the material behind will be a heavy gauge sheet metal. The panel above and below the window is painted plywood with a molding, a half round with a batton. The doors are wood, thermoplane, temper glass, standard store doors pre hung in a frame. The bases and capitals of the columns are made out of angled sections that would be cut at 45% and mitered. The spandrel bean which runs around the entire building is composed of two elements, the top and bottom are steel chanels and the middle section is the heavy gauge sheet metal. The handrail is a standard steel two inch diameter pipe rail. Regarding the body of the building you wanted to see something other than a standard bevel siding such as what there is right now. The profile has a bevel at the top and an arch at the bottom that gives a different shadow line, a different profile than siding would. A special knife was made for this board as it is not manufactured. I do not know the color yet and intent to hire a colorist. You have already been presented with window sections at previous meetings. The windows are Marvin custom windows. Roger: Do the windows come any smaller? type pane since there are so many? More of a victorian Welton: They come in 4 inch incriments for height and the windows meet egress requirements. Georgeann: While the windows have vertical proportion they are still different than the typical victorian and it is a good way to make a statement that this is a contemporary building. Glenn: The only concern I have is the spandrel detail at the top of the window. On the model it looks a little applied. Possibly the upper 2 floors moved out to the fact of the spandrel. Welton: The problem is that there is an existing building with steel beams and steel columns. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 29, 1991 Don: You have about a six inch ledge with flashing. There is a six inch difference right now between face of wood siding and outside of steel detailing. It is a strong break between the two. I agree with Glenn that it looks like an aplique. Sven: The storefornt is recessed so it will not appear as that direct of a break. Welton: The existing building was built without the benefit of a surveyor and there are current encroachments on the property; brick wainscoating and the canopy. We do not want to increase those encroachments to service the building. The spandrel juts out 14 feet in the air and whether it juts out five or three doesn't matter, it has to jut out in order to make the shadow line. Georgeann: corners. 14 feet up you will only be aware of it at the Glenn: I feel you will be aware of it. It will look like the entire building is sitting behind the facade. Don: The higher you are the more the siding is shielded from your view when you are on the sidewalk because you have a five or six inch plane there. From the sidewalk you will not see the sills from the second floor windows. Glenn: I see the problem but some form of an encroachment would be more historically compatible. Welton: The City Council can grant encroachments over the right- of-way. Possibly do a separate motion that recommends to city Council to grant an encorachment license to allow that but leave the motion to approve the project simple enough to allow us some flexibility. When we open up the walls we will find out exactly where the steel columns are. Glenn: If they are going to use this steel the building should look as though it is sitting on that structure. Georgeann: A second motion could be left open. Roxanne: That the projection be as small as possible and that the HPC supports an application for an encroachment license to be able to solve this design issue. Jake: I would like to hear comments from the Board on the areas where the doors are 45% angled in and where the corner is Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 29, 1991 muttonless, just a glass corner. Sven: We will have mullions at the corners. Roger: Why is it at a 45% angle. Welton: Doing a 90 degree turn made the doorways too tight of a recess and it would not be a gracious entry to the store. Jake: Another concern I have was the top beam, it seems like an industrial application. Welton: There needs to be something to terminate the pilasters. Jake: The upper transom had a wide detailing and the kickplates have narrow detailing. Welton: It is a matter of scale due to the widths of the panels. Roger: I have no problem but since the upper panel is heavier than the lower suppose you insert another panel which would take away from the top heaviness. Welton: The whole storefront elevation is to be painted one color. It will read a detail and will not read as inconsistent. Jake: What size of wood does the Board prefer, six or 8 inch. Roxanne: Eight inches is very wide. Georgeann: I feel 1 by 8 would appear startingly wide. Glenn: The eight inch is in scale and relates to the steel columns etc. Possibly leave it open and restudy it. Sven: If the siding is narrow it would be in proportion with the window trim. Welton: With the larger board there is a chance of it warping. The elevation is drawn at six inches and it cast less shadow. Gerogeann: We have two things to consider in the motion, the narrow capitals, metal band. Also supporting the encroachment. Roxanne: I will reiterate: That the projection be as small as physically possible no less than approximately 2 inches. That the HPC supports an encroachment request to pull the second and third floor out if necessary. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 29, 1991 MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant final development approval for the Sportstalker Building with the conditions that the capitals be narrowed slightly to closely reflect the representation in the model that was presented and that the applicant work to the extent possible to move the top two floors forward or to move the spandrel and channels back so that we minimumize the difference and attempt to approximate no less than two inches difference between the second and third floor chanel and spandrel. We strongly recommend to city Council that if necessary an encroachment license be granted to accomplish these goals; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. PIONEER PARK LOT 1WEAVER SUBDIVISION 422 W. BLEEKER ST. FINAL DEVELOPMENT Joe and Georgeann stepped down. Roxanne: The applicant addressed all 26 conditions from conceptual approval. The Planning Office has concern with the following: Storm window, lintel design above the windows on the addition to the main house, the basement level windows, brick wall around the pool area, the bond or financial security and a preservation plan concerning the brick cleaning. We do find the demolition of the non-historic detached garage on the out parcel north of the alley does meet the criteria for exemption of the demolition standards. We are recommending that HPC make that finding. Our recommendation is that you approve final development and the variations. If final is granted it should include that the development review and partial demolition standards have been met. That the demolition of the non-historic building meets exemption criteria. That the side yard, rear yard FAR variations are more comaptible. We recommend that the following conditions be part of your motion: A bond or other financial security shall be approved by the City Attorney in an amount sufficient to warrant repair or replacement of this structure (or part thereof) due to failure or damage caused by excavation and foundation work. That the applicant clarify for HPC approval the brick cleaning and replacement technique. Restudy of internal brick wall around the pool. Restudy and reduce the number and size of the garden level windows that we find incompatible with this building and we are very concerned about the number. Bill: The applicant will address the concerns outlined in Staff's memo. Bruce Sutherland, architect: The original windows had storm windows and all of the storm windows were located and the screens. We intent to use those again and right now only a few 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 29, 1991 are up. On the new windows we would like to do the same thing so that consistency is maintained. Roxanne: We had concern about keeping as much original glass as possible and the shadow lines were of concern. Possibly use the storm windows on the inside instead. Les Kaplan, applicant: Of the existing storm windows only five can be used again. Some of the windows on the house have had panes replaced and I did a report. We would like to retain the storm windows. Bill: I think we are in agreement if you keep the storm windows and replace the glass, that would be appropriate. Bruce: We feel that the arched window is the best way to go. Glenn: What is the arch made out of? Brick of a different color. We will wrap it down the It is intended to match the existing lintel design of the Bruce: side. original house. Roger: If you are going to do a renovation keep it the same. Bruce: There are three sets of basement level windows, one in the courtyard, one on the north side of the building behind a six foot fence and the other one is on the east side of the property. We are required to have windows for light and ventilation according to the building code. All the windows are covered with plantings and we feel they are not objectionable. Roger: You don't see the windows and they need them for what they are doing. I don't have a problem with what they are attempting to do. Is there a metal railing that goes in front of the light Jake: wells? Bruce: If we do a railing it will be a wood railing. There and pros and cons, if we have enough planting screen we might not have to do the rail. We think we will have to have a rail on the north side but not on the east side or west side. Glenn: If we are going to reinforce the livability of basement levels then we should allow windows. Once you are in the property you will percieve this as a new addition. Bill: You are allowing them to use the basements and the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 29, 1991 applicants will want to add the square footage above if you prohibit it. Keeping the historic scale and size of the structure is more important and this is a compromise to allow that to happen. Roxanne: This is a priority building and something that we allow on cottages may not be allowed on this building. There is a different level of review for this building. They are already over their FAR. Les Kaplan: One of the things that is allowing us to do this building is the increase in living space. Roxanne: The use of the basement space is forcing those windows to occur. There is other use for that space that would not require that kind of egress. Les: When you look at the floor plan without those windows it would be very dark in that area. Roger: You have two rooms, a game room and a meeting room. Could one of the rooms have less windows? Bill: Our concern is the windows on the west side. Roger: There are two issues: Preserving the structure as it should be preserved. The second, if you are going to allow someone to have living space that space should be livable. If there were a street going along 15 feet away where it was more visible I would be ademantly opposed. Roxanne: According to the State this is an historic building and should not be changed. Glenn: The windows can be reversible. Roxanne: Except that original materials are going to be removed. Bill: What bothers me is the effect of six vertical windows, a window that you would normally see in the upper level of a house used in the basement. Possibly a different design to the windows. If they were grouped together and had more of an appearance of a basement window as opposed to residential windows it would be more palitable to me as a window opening that was used in that era. If you restudy them you could find a compatible solution. Don: You could have the same amount of glazed area even though I feel it is excessive and a smaller light well. Possibly one bay Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 29, 1991 could have two windows and one three. There is nothing programatic that says you have to have equal sets of windows. Bill: Two light wells as opposed to one would decrease the moat effect. These are options for you to study as an architect. Les: That is a good idea of getting away from one continuous light well and have two smaller ones but not reduce the glazed area. Do some variation of the windows. Bill: Condition 18 was the brick wall around the pool area. Bruce: The masonry wall would match the existing house and would be painted to match the house. I believe a different material would make it look like an added on masonry fence. Roger: Does the fence have to attach itself to the carriage house and the main house? Bruce: There is a gap and a gate. Roger: In order to show that this is in fact a new element could not the attachment be metal so that it indicates a different element. Bruce: That is a legitimate point and we can move the fence. The fence brick would be a little different but indicate that it is different. Don: I have a problem with the height and am in favor of reducing the height as low as possible. The height is inconsistent to the way Aspen was. A five foot high wall is almost total privacy. Les: On this particular fence you are only 4'9" inches from the outside looking in. Don: It is 5'9". Bruce: The inside is 5'9" and the outside is 4'9". There is no sidewalk on the west side, only the south side. Jake: I cannot support the fence at all. An historical building should have a visual access to contribute to the neighborhood and the overall visual environment. If there is a fence, a lower one and open and possibly not so long and straight. Bill: Historically in Aspen the landscapes were not closed off Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 29, 1991 but in the interest of having a pool which I find to be a nice feature a wall with privacy is needed and a good request. Possibly if you had a masonry wall but broken up a little like the gate with metal features in the middle that could go up higher and in the summertime have roses or vines you would get the privacy in the summertime and the transparency and in the winter you would definately get the transparency. Bruce: We like the idea of the privacy and wanted to keep it simple. Bill: I would be in favor of final approval if it related to a garden element and less of a building. Les: I will contact the city Attorney regarding the bond issue and work it out. Bill: Does the applicant have a procedure worked out for cleaning the brick and replacing the mortar? brick and Les: In the application we will be power washing the we are sensitive to the issue also. Roxanne: They will have to do a test patch with the monitor. Roger: As long as the brick is the same size I would recommend using modern up to date brick. Bill: I think the design alone shows that it is an addition. Don: Old brick is generally not the same size as new brick. There will be enough variation just trying to make it work. Les: We are trying to eliminate the variation. We think that if you do a variation you will have a bad brick job, bad addition. The variation derives by continuing the fascia board around and dropping the addition from the main house. We are not touching the mansard roof so there should be no question that it is an addition. Glenn: Historically this house had a wooden walkway and I was wondering whether the Board felt that it should be put back? Les: We have attempted to address the Sec. of Interior's Standards and one of the standards states about not doing anything historically on the house unless you can photographically represent it. Do you have a picture of the Boardwalk in front of this house that we can see to justify that it was there? Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 29, 1991 Bill: Possibly include the request as a suggestion. MOTION: Bill entertained a motion granting Final Development Approval and Variations for Pioneer Park at 442 W. Bleeker St. (Lot 1, Weaver Sub.) with the following findings: 1) The Development Review and Partial Demolition standards have been met. 2) The demolition of the non-historic detached garage meets the criteria for "Exemption" from the demolition standards. 3) The side yard and rear yard setback variations as proposed are more comaptible with the hsitoric landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Also the following coniditions be made as part of the Final Development approval to be approved by Staff and the Project Monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1) The bond or other financial security shall be in a form approved by the city Attorney in an amount sufficient to warrant repair or replacement of the structure ( or part thereof) due to failure or damage caused by excavation and foundation work. 2) Clarification and HPC approval of brick cleaning (PSI), replacement and mortar repair. 3) Restudy of garden brick wall design around the pool. 4) Restudy the treatment of all the basement (garden level) windows to reduce the mote effect and to be different than the treatment of the upper level windows. Glenn: I so move; second by Roger. Ail in favor, except Jake, motion carries. Jake: I am opposed to this motion because I feel having the fence is precedent setting. I feel the fence should be brought back to the entire committee not just the monitor. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; second by Glenn. in favor, motion carries. Ail Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 29, 1991