Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910612HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 12, 1991 MOTION: Don made chairperson of this carries. the motion to appoint Georgeann Waggaman as meeting; second by Les. Ail favored, motion Meeting was called to order by Georgeann Waggaman with Don Erdman, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Karen Day and Martha Madsen present. Bill Poss and Glenn Rappaport were excused. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the March 27th minutes; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. MOTIONs Les made the motion to approve the April 24th minutes; second by Don. Ail in favor, motion carries. MINOR DEVELOPMENT - INDEPENDENCE BUILDING - DISPLAY CASE Karen and Martha did not vote on old business. Georgeann turned the meeting over to vice-chairman Joe Krabacher. Roxanne: The display case has been reduced to one and the dimensions have changed. It is a quality material and attached to the mortar. All the preservation issues that we were concerned with have basically been met; however, the issue is still whether display cases are appropriate in the historic district. Michael Erneman, architect: We have reduced the case in size so that it complies with the signage code. The current sign code includes display cases as part of its definition of what a sign is. Don: This conforms with the recommendations that I had made. Michael: Historic photographs show applied signs. Whether or not it was a shallow case is another issue. Georgeann: I have no problems with the design and concur with what has been said. Karen Day: I will abstain from voting but feel it is inappropriate. I live right there and see the plain wall and feel this is a detraction from that wall. Michael: One of the advantages from an historic preservation point of view is that you have that control. If you say no then they have 18 sq. ft. remaining in signage. Jake: I have no problems with the design. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant Minor Development Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 12, 1991 approval of the display case on the west wall of the Independence Building at 501 E. Cooper finding that it meets the Development Review Standards; second by Georgeann. Les: Most of the display compliance and should we have in compliance. cases throughout town are not in someone look into why they are not Joe: They are within the square footage of a sign so if you called a display case a sign this one complies. Michael: There is another issue that comes to the surface. The non-compliance comes from the fact that not one sign permit is issued for any of those display cases each time they change their display. The Isis Theatre changes its sign weekly and this is an issue for the legislators. Joe: You may want to have a condition of this approval that if you change your sign that you do not have to come back to HPC to have us review whether or not your new sign is compatible with the building or not. AMENDED MOTIONs of the building contents of the Georgeann. All carries. Roger amended the motion to state that the owner is not required to come before HPC each time the designated display case is changed; second by in favor of motion and amended motion, motion MOTION: HPC requests that Staff send a memo to the zoning officer describing our concerns and dilemma with this particular problem and ask that he enforce rules which are currently legislated and perhaps recommend others so that we are not put into this situation again in the future; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 612 W. MAIN - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: Conceptual was granted with 14 conditions and the Planning office is recommending Final Development with 4 conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant is recommending asphalt shingles and historically we recommend wood shingles. The east bay window needs to be discussed as to whether it is appropriate. This is a new element on the historic cottage and we recommended at conceptual that any new bay window be added to the new addition. Leave the historic cottage as pure as possible. The structure will be relocated on site and that elevation will be visible from the street. Rod Dyre, architect: The applicant wants the asphalt shingles on 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 12~ 1991 the roof because she had lost a house to a fire with cedar shingles. We have talked to the State Historical Society and they recommended adding penetral to the paint as an additive to keep it from drying out totally. Also the discussion of power wash was discussed. As far as the brick chimneys are concerned we propose to rebuild those. We would like to raise the house as high as we can to get the light into the basement. If the Board insists on nine inches we can live with that. The applicant doesn't want a wooden walk due to maintenance problems. Don: If we are to approve an asphalt shingle then it should be an asphalt shingle and not try to look like a wood shingle. I also feel raising the height of the cottage nine inches is more appropriate. Georgeann: It looks like in front of the bay window you have existing lilac bushes on either side of the window and no screening of that window. I would recommend that if the bay window is approved that spruce trees be put across the front to soften the area. Raising the house nine inches is appropriate. I would also recommend keeping the wooden walkway as it is an unique and charming aspect of Aspen. Rod Dyre: We can work out the screening. Les: In saving the scale I feel compromises are appropriate. I can live with the bay window as long as it is screened. The shingles should be either wood shingles or asphalt, no fake material. I also feel it is critical that we keep the house as low as possible, nine inches or lower. The transition of the wooden walkway into the house is an historic statement. Karen Day: I compliment the architect on keeping the scale down. Who ownes the shed? Rod Dyre: Part of the shed is on our property and part on Mrs. Price's and the applicant does want to shore up the shed so it doesn't collapse. I don't know if they will ever want to remodel it or not. They don't want to tear the shed down. Karen: Did it not work with the function of the house to save the little porch on the back. Rod: It doesn't work with the function of the house and it is ready to fall down. Karen: That back door is very important to the alley scape if the cottage infill program should ever get strong. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 12, 1991 Roger: If an asphalt shingle is going to be used it should be asphalt not a fake one. I would also concur that we should maintain the wooden sidewalk. The best way to test the wood would be to wet it with a hose and apply TSP and wash it with a brush and rinse it well. That will clean the wood and then add an oil base primer penetral. Joe: I agree with the asphalt shingles that they not replicate cedar shingles. I also agree that some sort of trees should be planted in front of the bay window to mitigate the visual impact of that bay. I would prefer to see the wood walkway and the preservation of the shed as one of the conditions of approval. I also agree with Roger that the windows should be consistent. Roxanne: The criteria on how the power wash will occur should be included and the project monitor should work with the applicant on those technical issues. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant final development approval for 612 W. Main St. finding that the final development submission meets the conditions imposed at conceptual and meets the development review standards with the following conditions: a) Bond or financial security in a form approved by the City Attorney, prior to the issuance of a building permit. b) Walkway material be wood. c) Roofing material may be imitate the cedar shingles. asphalt provided that it does not d) Foundation/structural information submitted with detailed protection methods for the original structure with the additional recommendation that any rehydrating of the wood be accomplished by doing a test with power wash. e) That the structure be raised no higher than nine inches from existing grade. f) That there be landscaping with the use of spruce trees to mitigate the visual impact of the east bay window. g) That the applicant preserves the shed and that the windows to the extent that they are not required for egress or ingress purposes be as close as possible to match the original existing windows in their scale. h) An exact material sample of the asphalt roof be submitted to Staff and Project Monitor for approval. H~storio Preservation Co~nittee Minutes of ~une ~2~ ~99L Motion second by Georgeann. Roger: On the windows of the south we have three new and four existing. Could the three new match the existing? Rod: The windows are real close. Roxanne: It is important that they do not exactly match as it is a new addition. Don: Perhaps there should be a window section profile. Rod: We can get a sample. AMENDED MOTION: Joe amended his motion to include a window section profile to be submitted to Staff and Project Monitor for approval. All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. Rod: Can the sidewalk be treated wood or do we have to match the wood that is there? Don: Treated wood should be used and it should be on sleepers. Georgeann is the project monitor. 620 W. HALLAM - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: That a bond or other financial security in a form approved by the city Attorney shall be posted with the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. That the original facade window shall remain and be preserved in place. Place shall be revised to clearly indicate this requirement and that the chimney shall match in material and basic style. In addition we are recommending that HPC grant the variation to reduce the required number of parking spaces by two and grant the rear yard setback variation as proposed making the finding of compatibility. Jan Derrington: The front facade will be preserved,intact and the materials that are being removed will be set on shoring. The new foundation will be build and it will be moved back. There is not enough room to store the materials on-site so they will be stored off the site and we will work with the monitor regarding that issue. Regarding the chimney: We like the chimney as we feel it will be less obtrusive and not overpower to the existing cottage. It would blend in with the rest of the mass of the addition than would brick. There are numerous houses with flared chimneys in town. We would be using a wrought iron fence with a double rail on top and a single rail on the bottom with spear shaped ends on 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 12, 1991 the pickets. The location of the original cabin will be shifted over on the site. The garage has been pushed over another two feet to give a generous yard on the side. We feel we have taken into consideration the concerns of the neighbors. Jake: When this went through conceptual, where did we stand on granting the variances? Roxanne: During the public hearings the next door neighbor came to every single meeting and was concerned whether or not the finding can be made of character compatibility of this addition and whether or not it is appropriate to make that variation. At Conceptual the basic massing was approved. The most important requirement is compatibility to the historic resource. Jake: What is the material of the chimneys. Roxanne: be. The Board needs to decide on what that material should Les: In order to get the break on the side that variation needed to occur. It is the best compromise that we can get on that building and it also preserves the front yard. Roger: I feel everything was handled from conceptual and my main concern is the chimneys. I feel they work within the guidelines regarding mass and scale. Don: I would like to see a wood chimney because it makes it different from the historic resource; however, if you want to make it different do not flare the chimney. Possibly do a metal cap or something that makes a statement. I feel the termination of the chimney should be restudied in metal. Flared wood is not a natural thing to do. Les: I agree also that the chimney is unnatural, the flare. I would rather see brick but could live with wood and a metal cap would be interesting. Georgeann: I like the chimney in wood because it becomes a new element in a new part of the building. I don't want to call too much attention to the chimneys, possibly go up straight with a simple metal cap. This project has come a long way and I am not concerned about the scale in the back as Jan has done an appropriate job with it. Karen Day: In accommodating the neighbor Jan has done a good job. I cannot comment on the chimney has I have not studied them. Historic Preserv&t~on Committee N~nu~es of ~une 22, 2992 Jake: I am in favor of the wood chimney. Jan: I agree with Georgeann that we do not want to call attention to the chimneys. We do not want them to stand out. Jake: How wide is the chimney? Jan: Two feet by two feet four inches and it will have a flu cap on it. Roger: Materials are important but we do not want to design the chimney. Roger: Restudy the chimney and work with the monitor. Roxanne: The Board needs to carefully review the partial demolition. Basically we are ending up with a porch. The project monitor and Staff need to work together with the applicant to see what the appropriate amount of a bond would be so that we are protected if something happens to the project. Joe: Are you concerned about the amount of the bond or the materials being stored off the site? Roxanne: Both. I feel the materials should be stored on site. Georgeann: Possibly we should approve where they store it. Roxanne: They have stated in their application that they would let us know where the storage would occur once they determine that. Jan: We were going to use something like a mini storage to keep the materials safe and dry. We are afraid storing the materials on site they would be vulnerable to damage by construction vehicles, weather etc. We are in favor of the monitor working with us for the proper storage. Roger: The question is when he removes all the materials from the addition do we want him to put them in a shed somewhere, on site or what. Roxanne: Ail that we will see is a wall left. Jan: The walls and roof will remain. We can put plywood around to brace it for the move. Roger: Is there enough room on the site for a trailer? Jan: No and it would be an eye sore for the neighbors. That is why 7 Historio Preservation Committee Minutes of June 12, 1991 we decided to move the materials off the site. Georgeann: I feel Jan has put some thought to the situation, my only concern is the low amount of the bond. Joe: What we want if the project fails is the original cottage back on the site the way it would be if the project was completed. $6,000 will not rebuilt this particular structure. My feeling is we get at the issue through a bond that could be worked out with Staff and the monitor. Jan: The owner has indicated he is willing to negotiate on a fair amount of the bond. The original cottage in its present state has just living room space, very little electrical etc. Are we preserving that or are we preserving a bedroom, bathroom, entry etc.? Joe: I am not saying you have to do the interior but we do want a building with four sides and a roof. Jan: Our intention is to shore it up, move it over and restore the cottage. Roger: Possibly in the future proof of secured financing should be provided. Les: You can't do anything for less than $50 a square foot for remodeling. Jake: You also have administrative costs and overhead. Possibly $24,000. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant final development with the following conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1) A bond or other financial security in a form approved by the City Attorney shall be posted with the City prior to the issuance of a building permit to mitigate any loss in relocation and partial demolition. A minimum amount of $50 a square foot to be included into final approval. 2) The original facade window shall remain and be preserved in place. The plans shall be revised to clearly indicate this requirement. 3) Chimneys shall be in wood and a restudy by the architect and project monitor and Staff. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 12, 1991 4) The developer/owner find some type of protective storage for the salvage material to be approved by the project monitor and Staff. 5) HPC recommends approval of a variation to reduce the required number of parking spaces by two and grant the rear yard setback variation as proposed finding that such variations are more compatible in character than would be in accord with dimensional requirements. Second by Jake; all in favor, motion carries. 325 E. MAIN - LEGENDS OF ASPEN RESTAURANT - OUTDOOR SEATING Don stepped down. Joe stepped down. MOTIONs Les made the motion to appoint Georgeann Waggaman to chair this portion of the meeting; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting approval from the HPC within the commercial core historic district to have outdoor seating. They are required by the State Liquor Enforcement Div. to fence off the area. The proposed fence is a wood picket. The Planning office finds that the application is appropriate except for the fence design. Open wrought iron fences are more appropriate and compatible. Wood picket fences are appropriate on residential buildings. Craig Glendenning, owner: We thought the picket fence was appropriate with the building and we could do it ourselves but I would be happy to do the wrought iron, whatever the HPC sees fit. The owner of the building told me there used to be a picket fence. The fence would be portable to be removed in the winter. Roger: As I recall there was a picket fence around Guido's restaurant so there is a precedent for picket fences around town. Les: Also Gracy's had a picket fence. Roger: Les made a comment on safety and that is why I asked if the height could be higher than three feet. Jake: Elli's is a wood building and the use of a wood fence relates to the wood trim above the windows. The picket would also offer more screening for the people inside and keep the dust down. Karen Day: I agree with Jake that the white picket ties into the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 12, 1991 window transom. Georgeann: What doesn't work is the picket on top, it is too busy. Cut the tops off and let it be vertical. Les: I think there needs to be a little more visibility between the pickets. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant Minor Development approval for 325 W. Main for the installation of a non-permanent fence as designed without the pickets tops between the posts. Not to exceed 42 inches in height which is the maximum height allowed by the CCLC and to include a free swinging entry and exit gate; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 330 E. MAIN, HOTEL JEROME. TOTEM POLE IN PLAZA Roxanne: After much consideration I feel the HPC could find as many reasons to deny this as you could find reasons to applaud this effort. Its main issue is the cultural association with Aspen and its association with our heritage. Is this so discordant as a new element that it doesn't fit or whether it is so different that in fact it does fit. John Doyle, architect: The pole will go back 120 feet back between the court yard and the pool and surrounded by shrubs. It will be made of carved wood engleman spruce and painted. There will be a metal pipe inside. I will drill down into the top of the pole 6 feet and put another steel rod inside. Roger: Why is this considered a structure? Roxanne: Because it is over six feet high and is on a foundation. Roger: I feel this is art and whether you like it as art is not for me to say. I don't feel this is a structure. I talked with Glenn Rappaport and he considers this to be a structure. Jake: This seems to be a kind of imported art form. I do not feel I have the criteria to evaluate something like this as it is so different. On the other hand the Jerome is a special building and the courtyard as open space supports that structure so part of me says this is a little intrusive. This is very difficult to evaluate. Karen Day: I think the art is beautiful and there is a lot of diversity in the design but I do not feel it is relevant to our town which is a victorian town. I do not feel this has anything to do with the motif of the victorian hotel or the courtyard or our 10 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of June 12, 1991 Main Street. It definitely is a detraction and nothing is enhanced by it. Les: I spent time in the Hotel Jerome and have evaluated the guidelines. With the historical compatibility guidelines that I have I could not approve this as a structure. It is not historically relevant to an national historic site. I could not approve this because it does not meet the guidelines. Roger: It is like the display case. Roxanne: We could allow this to be installed on a public basis and get input. Possibly it is its location. Roger: Art whether you like it or not is art and people should be allowed to express it. If the community rejects it they will get rid of it. MOTION: Roger made the motion that we grant minor development approval to 330 E. Main St, Hotel Jerome Totem Pole structure/art piece to be installed in the court yard of the Hotel Jerome as a temporary structure as proposed; second by Georgeann. Vote: Yes, Roger, Georgeann, Jake No, Karen and Les. Motion carries 3-2 MOTION: Roger made the motion that we ask Staff to communicate with city Zoning to differentiate in the future between structures and art so that we are not put in this position again. A work session with the Zoning office should occur; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; second by Georgeann. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk