Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910410HISTORIC pRESERV&TION COI~IITTEE H~nutes oE ~pril ~0, 2991 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe, Glenn Rappaport, Jake Vickery and Roger Moyer present. MOTION: Don made the motion to add St. Mary's Church (request for comments on an outside elevator) to the agenda after final development of 534 E. Hyman; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. FINAL DEVELOPMENT 824 E. COOPER Roxanne: There were a number of conditions from conceptual which are outlined in the memo. Staff had concern whether all of the conditions have been met such as: 1) Trim Board under the roof. 2) Materials to be presented at the meeting. 3) The plans do not indicate that the historic cottage is actually the historic cottage. It appears to the Bldg. and Zoning Dept. that the entire project is new. It should be clearly indicated as to what is to be preserved and what is original and what is historic. Roxanne: We are recommending approval with conditions. Barbara Long: During the design process sloped driveways were still allowed even though they are not allowed now. We are asking the Board to allow us to have a continued sloped driveway since we have been dealing with it from the start. We have done some alternative plans in case we do not get a variance and do not have a sloped driveway and do not have a garage anymore. Don: Will the driveway be heated? Barbara: Yes. Roxanne: The only hardship that I could see that would apply to this is that we are saving a portion of the historic element and therefore the new development is pushed toward the rear. Barbara Long: The roof will be asphalt shingles and there would be a brick veneer on the chimney. There would be a wood window with a metal clad. siding color would be beige. Bill: Possibly fill out a spec sheet listing all the materials etc. which will be required for final. Georgeann: The asphalt shingles on a house this small are Historic Preservation committee Minutes of April 10, 1991 appropriate. Applicant: If we are going to raise the cottage a foot and lowering the house a foot, how do I raise that house up, take the floor joyce, roof off completely and keep the walls intact. Roxanne: You are looking at a full demolition. Applicant: I was thinking of cutting the walls in sections and laying in the wear house and then putting the walls back. Also removing the siding that was bad and bringing the old siding from the back of the house we are tearing down completely and try to utilize that. Roxanne: We want the original cottage preserved and restored as best as you can. Bill: The object here is to preserve the cottage and you have to come up with a plan to not take it apart and rebuild it. You need a construction sequence and keep the cottage intact. That all needs to be completed before we grant final. Don: I have a concern about the river rock, the face should be fairly smooth and not a bubble. MOTION: Charles made the motion to grant final approval for 824 E. Cooper Ave. subject to some conditions and finding that the Development Review Standards and Partial Demolition Standards have been met. Conditions: 1) Corrections of the final plan to clearly indicate the historic cottage, with precise directions on its preservation and protection during construction, excavation and on-site relocation. Construction sequence and protection for demolition work. 2) Complete removal of the historic exterior siding to confirm stud wall conditions shall not occur. This shall be accomplished through interior investigation. 3) Rubble sandstone foundation material be used instead of river rock. 4) Specification list of materials and a written preservation plan to be presented to Staff and monitor for review. 5) Reconsider the choice of brick material on the exterior of the chimney to be historic red tumbled brick as opposed to the proposed Historic Preservation committee Minutes of April 10, 1991 brown brick. Joe second the motion. Ail in favor, motion carries. Driveway discussion Georgeann: The best we can do is that they have tried to work with the HPC to preserve the historic cottage in every way and have Roxanne send the recommendation that we allowed the driveway. Bill: We also requested that they keep the house lower. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to request Staff to send a letter of recommendation to the Board of Adjustment recommending that the sloping driveway be allowed on this building as it is more compatible to the originally historic cottage since the building has been kept lowered in the back than it otherwise would be done. Roger second. All in favor, motion carries. Glenn: The steepness of the driveway as presented on the plan is partially the result of HPC's ruling that the building is more compatible being lower. AMENDED MOTION: Georgeann amended the motion to state that the steepness of the driveway as presented on the plan is partially the result of HPC's ruling that the building is more compatible being lower; second by Roger. Ail in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. FINAL DEVELOPMENT - 204 S. GALENA - SPORTSTALKER Roxanne: The first floor is now divided into five retail spaces with affordable housing. Discussion of the first floor material needs to take place at this meeting and also what material was behind the columns. There is a wide unbroken horizontal band that appears above the transom line above the first floor which serves to clearly delineate between the store front level and the upper two. We find that this is a very strong feature and this needs to be discussed, also the color. We are also unclear about the paired pilasters. There needs to be restudy of the kickplate. The south west and north east corner panels of the first floor need to be restudied. Exact materials need to be called out. We also had discussion about the arched windows of the third floor and the detail of the keystone needs discussed. We are concerned about the thickness. We are recommending final approval with conditions. Sven: The applicant is recommending that several of the conditions 3 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of April 10, 1991 to be monitored by the project monitor during construction. Roxanne's conditions 3,4,5,6,7,11 all relate to store front detail. Conditions 8, 9, relate to wood siding and conditions 1, 2, 10 and 14 have been met. Condition #12 is being met through more samples and brochures. Sven: At the time of construction we would apply the siding and have the project monitor review it. Don: The continuous horizontal ornamental band is not articulated in any way. Where it breaks etc. is important because it is a strong visual element as people are walking parallel to it. Sven: We will break them at the structural bays. Roger: What color would the band be? Sven: It would be similar to the Hotel Jerome. tube steel. It will be specified. The columns are Charles: We need to see how that is handled. Sven: It is detailed and specified. Charles: A true representation is needed. Sven: I didn't bring a metal sample with me and I knows what structural steel is. feel everyone Don: Aluminum is called out. Sven: There is an aluminum panel a non-conformity. inside. We are not increasing Roger: What will the surface be behind the columns. Sven: OneR rating wood sheathing on steel studs. We are still proposing beveled siding with a seven exposure. We are willing to mock up bevelled vs. the other and have the project monitor make the decision. Don: Bevelled produces a stronger shadow. Sven: We are trying to develop a transparent storefront with historical illusions and we wanted little wood on the first floor. A wood clad building over detailed metal store front. Roger: On the upper arched window is the dimension meant to be larger? 4 Historic preservation Committee Minutes of ~pril L0, ~991 Sven: Larger to accent and it is also on the third floor. Georgeann: I am concerned with the cornice line. Bill: Lets discuss the conditions outlined in Roxanne's memo dated April 10, 1991. The applicant and HPC agreed on condition one and two. Condition 3 and 4 have to do with the storefront detailing regard to the metal panel pilasters and the metal fascia Bill: Bill: with across the top. Don: I do not feel comfortable with the level of detailed information provided in the drawings. Bill: What additional information do you want? Don: I would like larger scale sections and elevations. Sven: The applicant feels these drawings provide detail that sufficient. is Don: If mockups are provided it would have to be before a building permit is issued so that they can be reviewed by staff and monitor. Joe: If the committee is uncomfortable a sub-committee and the monitor should work with the applicant. Bill: The mockups would be a condition of final. Sven: We submitted a metal door. Roger: The other doors are wood painted. mechanical on the roof. I'm concerned about A condition of could not be used except for the What about the keystones as they Roger: Is there a landscape plan for the decks. approval would be that the roof decks. Jake: Trim to be more narrower. are masonry. Joe: How many parking spaces. Sven: Seven parking spaces. 5 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of April 10t 1991 MOTIONs Jake made the motion that HPC approve the final development, for 204 S. Galena, the Sportstalker with the following conditions: 1) Additional detailing for storefront section including profile and materials be called out specifically, like on a working drawing level of detail (shaded) be submitted to project monitor and Staff prior to applying for a Building Permit. (wood glazing and wood doors) 2) Ail mechanical equipment and other objects on the roof and the deck be kept below the level of the parapet. 3) Reduction of the width of the trim line of the circular windows on the third floor as well as the associated elements. 4) Mock up of third floor window, siding and trim done prior to building permit application to be approved by Staff and monitor. Joe second the motion. Charles: There are too many things in this motion that are vague to make a final and I would recommend tabling. The floor plan does not reflect what the details show. The columns do not show on the floor plans. It is not fair because this application is not complete. Glenn: I feel manipulated by this presentation. I would like to see a shaded rendering so I could get a sense of the solidity of the building in general. Charles: Have a completed set of drawings. B/(ENDED MOTION: Jake amended the motion to state that the applicant must return to the full committee and demonstrate that he is meeting the conditions that he previously stated. Joe second. AMENDED MOTIONs Jake amended the motion to include a rendering of a typical storefront bay but going up all three floors and showing elements. Provide additional details such as columns etc. Model should include recess bay on first floor and also colors. Joe second. Ail in favor of motion and amended motions, motion carries. Glenn: A quarter inch scale of a section of the vertical system. Sven: That is no problem. 6 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of ~pril 10, 1991 Charles: Consider simplicity of the base of the columns. Joe: If a mockup is deemed appropriate I would support that and also if the committee supports detailed plans I would go along with that. Sven: By offering a mockup the project will be better. Jake: If you grant final with conditions they don't get final until they meet the conditions. Charles: But they don't necessarily come before the committee again. Jake: If you want them to return to the entire committee that is appropriate. FINAL DEVELOPMENT - 534 E. HYM~Nv PITKIN COUNTY BANK Roxanne: The applicant has met all of the conditions of conceptual and we are recommending final approval. David Gibson: Existing materials will be matched such as the brick and the will be aluminum windows. There will be benches in the pocket park/open space. The berm will remain keeping people from cutting across the grass and creating muddy areas. The awning will be 100% acrylic and color will be worked out in the near future. There will also be cornice banding. There was discussion of restudying the south west stair and elevation tower and trying to create a separation of the plain in the tower area. There was discussion on the west wall fenestration. The horizontal mullions on the upper level will match the existing. The mortar color we will match as close as possible. The mechanical equipment on the roof with be on the existing roof on the west side behind the screened area. Glenn: This is a concise clear presentation. with the benches without backs. I have a problem MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant final development and assign a project monitor who will be responsible for working on the selection of the awning (either color) we discussed and working with the open space and the possibility of benches with backs. Don second. Ail in favor, motion carries. Charles will be monitor of project. ST. MARYfS CHURCH - MAIN STREET Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 10, 1991 Ted Guy: This is pre-conceptual on an elevator. St. Mary's would like to have an exterior elevator placed on the exterior of the building to get handicapped access to the second level. The upper level is a choir and two stairwells. The church was remodeled with a radian heat system and due to cost etc. it would not be feasible to put the elevator inside. We looked at four locations and the front has less impact on the service in progress. We looked at options on the east which would have impacts on the streetscape. We would like to break ground on the 100th anniversary of the church. The church is bursting at the seams. They have two options to underpin and do a basement or do an underground development and bring the lawn back in. An elevator in the lawn area is closer to the rectory and would serve the new development if that happens in the future. Charles: Possibly play it down with a flat roof. Roxanne: There needs to be a break between the old and new and be simple. Ted: We don't want this obtrusive and to mimic the steeple and to blend c olorwise and materialwise. Roxanne: I am concerned that it is that close to the facade. PIONEER PARK, LOT 2 - Project Monitoring Bill: At the worksession we did review the design and the committee members commented to retaining the trees on the site and create a park-like setting. Most of the commission thought the Queen Ann style was inappropriate adjacent to and not compatible with the second empire style of Pioneer Park existing structure. Some members had problems with the scale and massing. Jake: Lower the intensity of the detail. Bill: The applicant said he would take our comments to heart. Roger: If we had full review of this we could say that this does not meet the standards as it is too large and not compatible. Bill: Some people thought it appeared too large, I did not. Jake: During that meeting Les Kaplan asked us to vote but we held off as we it was just an advisory session. MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 10, 1991 Kathy Strickland, Deputy city Clerk 9