Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910424HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 24, 1991 Meeting was called to order by Second Vice-chairman Joe Krabacher with Don Erdman, Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport and Jake Vickery present. Georgeann Waggaman, Charles Cunniffe, Roger Moyer and Bill Poss excused. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 716~. FRANCIS Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (see memo April 24, 1991). The Planning Office recommends approval with conditions: Compliance with partial Demolition Standards. Engineers report and bonding is required prior to issuance of a building permit for excavation and demolition work. Compliance with Demolition Standards. Detailed preservation plan. Detailed site and landscape plan. Massing model. Material representation. Clarification of east side yard setback due to lightwell. Foundation information. Cinderella Norris, architect: It was recommended that we pull back the entrance of the garage 5 feet from the property which we have done. Also we pulled back the ADU from the property line which I have attempted to do. Also pull back the face of the second story l0 feet from the property line so that it doesn't jam everything up on the alley which was a neighbor's concern. In order to do this we had to relocate the guest bedroom into the basement and provide egress from that as well as provide natural light for an exercise room which is also in the basement. We requested variance before that we no longer need but the light well encroaches into the setback so we are requesting a variance for that. Roxanne: If it is the minimum size for egress that is permitted. But if it is larger than the permitted then a variation is required from the HPC. Cinderella: I broke the roof line so that it is evident where the original structure was and the new additions. I appreciated what the Board requested because it enhances the entire project. I went to the archives and there was no information there but on the tax card the building was built in 1890 and that an addition Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 24, 1991 was added in 1967. The grade of the existing house when a new foundation is put under would be the same or as close as we can get. The existing foundation material is a brick facing which we could reiterate and the chimneys would also be brick. Materials would match what is there now (lap clapboard) and the roofs would be cedar shakes. The railing around the lightwell is wrought iron and the railing on the roof could be the same material. Joe Krabacher opened the continued public hearing. Ann Miller, 716 W. Smuggler: I appreciate the applicant taking into considerations our needs and it is a lovely project. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Glenn: I would like to thank the applicant for doing a complete presentation. I have no problem with the side yard variance if we do in fact have to give one. Don: I believe all of the standards for partial demolition have been met and this presentation is so clear and a positive improvement in every way. Regarding the balcony railing that is a design issue. The shingles should be different than fish scale. Joe: I would entertain a motion to approve the revised conceptual application for 716 W. Francis finding that the east side yard setback variation is more compatible with the historic resource than would be developed in accord with dimensional requirements and requiring that the conditions outlined in Roxanne's memo items A through H be met. In addition asking the applicant to restudy the balcony roof railing and the treatment of the shingles on the gable end for the ADU. MOTION: Glenn: carries. I so move; second by Don. Ail in favor, motion RUBY PARK TRANSIT CE~'I'~K - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: The applicant has requested that the north elevation windows be slightly elongated over the previous conceptually approved windows. I find that the change is compatible. The Planning office is recommending final development with no conditions. Joe: I'll entertain a motion. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to grant final development approval for Ruby Park Transit Center subject to no conditions; Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 24, 1991 second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Don made the motion to move item C of New Business up on the agenda; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. DRAFT REVIEW: REVISED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ET.~NTOF THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Identify pattern language. Insure that the policies on growth and development are communities heritage. Involve the HPC as a resource in all aspects of community planning and design review when related to preservation. Maintain a high level of design review expertise on the HPC. Revise and republish the design guidelines and add the following sections; Post war architecture etc. Continue to revise and update the inventory. Identify our architectural and natural historic places that give our community its special character and that can aid in its future wellbeing. Expand inventory to include all structures related to Aspen's early ski history. Expand HPC review authority (west end district). Encourage and advocate more funding. Annual and long range capital improvement program. Expand the preservation incentive program. Restudy underlying zoning regulations that negatively impact historic resources. Encourage adaptive use of structures. Jake: I would design review on major public buildings. Expand HPC authority to include significant interiors. 501 E. COOPER- INDEPENDENCE BUILDING DISPLAY CASES - MINOR DEV. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting approval for three exterior wall mounted display cases on the west wall of the Independence 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 24, 1991 building, just above the basement stairs. We are recommending denial for the following reasons: It was unclear as to whether display cases were allowed in the commercial core zone district and in fact they are not. The zoning officer has made it very clear that he would not approve this because he does not consider this to be a sign. It actually doesn't meet the requirements for either. The three display cases do not meet the criteria for a sign in materials and size. Possibly if one was being proposed it would have to have a permanent fixed display in it and would meet the size criteria of the sign code. The problem with display cases from a zoning officer's point of view every time that it is changed it needs a new sign permit. So there are inherent problems. It doesn't meet the store front applicable guidelines or the development standards. There are many displays cases up, some put in prior to the sign code or they put them up and it is an enforcement issue. The post office and a bank were in this building and it was never meant to be all retail. Is this compatible to the historic district and does this meet the guideline and development review standards. The Planning office feels they don't. Michael Erneman, architect: I took several pictures of display cases down town. The owners were having difficulty leasing the lower space and wanted an applique to the facade to make the space viable. The idea is that a merchant can display and change the display periodically. The issue: Is this a sign or what is it? There is nothing in the code that deals with that issue. There would be a one inch long steel spacer with an expansion bolt that goes into the masonry sitting on a steel angle. We would overlay that frame with a mahogany detail. We wouldn't want to exceed five or six inches in depth. Jake: What is the reason for three display cases? Michael: That evolved from the shape and size of the two windows on the side of the building and is responsive to the windows above. Roxanne: The issue of an encroachment came up also if the building is on the property line. Bill Drueding: If it is to be considered a sign, the measurements include the entire building and the case would have to conform with the rules. Presently it would not conform, too large. Roxanne: It also does not meet the standards for a remodel. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 24, 1991 Glenn: Is it a sign or part of the facade? that before I review it. If reversibility say it meets that condition. I would have to know is an issue I would Don: I would have to look at this as an architectural element to the facade of the historic structure. I have a problem with the number of the objects and do not feel it meets the development standards because of the amount of the facade it impacts. Too strong of an element. Jake: To define current uses for old building is important. Use of the lower floor adds to its viability. I like the detachment of it and the reversibility. It is non-competitive with the store front. I would entertain reducing the number of cases. Les: I would agree with Staff that the guidelines have not been met. Joe: I echo Don's concerns and feel it is an architectural feature that changes the facade and a restudy is in order. Michael: I have a new single design since you are reviewing it as an architectural element. It would have the same profile and it is more quieter. Most below grade businesses are food and beverage. Joe: Is the Board looking at denial, tabling or approval? Glenn: One thing historic about the building is the large blank surface. Maybe one window would still retain that character. Don: I am in favor of the applicant coming back with even a smaller proposal that qualifies under the sign provisions of the code. A large element on this wall does not meet our standards. Jake: I am in favor of tabling. Les: The architectural feature does not meet standard #4. Detracts and table this issue. Joe: I like the one window better but am still concerned. Michael: I need some direction. The Board feels a smaller window is better. Don: If it were treated as a sign, the size would be controlled and then you have to decide if this is the right approach. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 24, 1991 Glenn: What about a sign that went from a 90 degree angle off the building and was a flat painted sign. Michael: That would be appropriate but it doesn't allow for display of merchandise. MOTION: Les made the motion to deny the minor development proposal for 501 E. Cooper, Independence Building finding that the application does not meet the development review standards; second by Don. Yes vote: Les, Don Joe. No vote: Glenn, Jake Motion carries. 3-2. CLARIFICATION OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT MOTION FOR SPORTSTALKER Les stepped down. Roxanne: The applicant would like to amend the portion of the motion that required a mockup details. The applicant wishes to provide more detailed drawings. The applicant wishes to seek clarification of the roof top and coloring intensity. Joe: The first issue is whether the drawings have to be mock up or modify the approval to provide detailed drawings. Kathy: That issue is #4 of the motion of April 10, 1991. Don: I was called by Welton Anderson. The details have to be rendered in sufficient information to be totally clear as to the objectives. All materials and colors of those materials should be represented. If you have break form steel or aluminum on a continuous horizontal band we want to see samples and also see samples how joints would be accomplished. Full scale mockups was a suggestion made by Sven not us, however we are not going to be less stringent of this applicant then we would be with any other applicant with a project of this scope. Glenn: I was also called by Welton Anderson. I responded in the way Donnelley did. I would add due to the applicants statement that this project is taking too much time, I am willing to sit here another year in order to get a good project at my own expense. We are here at our expense and time as well as you. Detailing should clearly he represented in the drawings. A mockup is not necessary but clear drawings, details etc. are. Jake: I agree but the applicant should present a convincing argument. Joe: If we have detailed drawings we don't need a mockup. Detailed drawings should indicate the storefronts, columns, bases Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 24, 1991 and materials. Roxanne: There are people on the Board that might need to take a look at a mockup of a particular detail. Don: Regarding the long horizontal band, understand everything thoroughly if successful. it is important that we this is going to be Joe: The direction is detailed drawings calling out everything to meet final and possibly require a mockup depending on how we review the detailed drawings. Sven: The applicant didn't want the exact mockup language that was in the last meeting. MOTION: Don made the motion to amend item #4 in the motion of April 10, 1991 with respect to the mockup to change it to read large scale details of third floor windows, siding and trim as well as material and construction samples of the all areas that cannot be explained adequately with such details; Glenn second, Don: It is up to the applicant to be very clear in the drawings. Sven: From the last meeting concerns were wood siding, storefront details and arched windows. I will focus on those. Joe: I remember the storefront, columns, windows, window trim, siding, keystone, kickplates, the entire storefront section. AMENDED MOTION: Don amended the motion to read large scale details of third floor, storefront, storefront window, siding and trim, material samples, construction samples in the storefront area as that is the place that we are concerned with; second by Glenn. All in favor of motion and amended motion. Joe: Personal paraphernalia restriction portion for the roof top. MOTION: Joe made to the motion to add condition #5 to clarify the approval of April 10, 1991 to provide with respect to the roof that occupancy be limited to those areas designated as roof decks; Jake second. Discussion: Glenn: I will not vote for this due to the restrictions of personal belongings on roof tops. Historic Preservation CoH~ttee Minutes of April 24, 1991 AMENDED MOTION: Joe amended the motion to read that all architectural fixed or permanent features shall not project above the parapet except as required by code; second by Jake. Joe: My only concern is having projections that you can see from the ground. Jake: How would you argue the enforcement on an historical basis? Joe: Historically people didn't live on top of their buildings. Jake: It is an non-historical use. Glenn: ago. Flat roofs did not exist as a viable solution 100 years Ail favored the motion and amended motion except Joe. to one. Passes 4 Joe: Lets deal with color intensity. Sven: Personally I believe you have review over color intensity in terms of compatibility within the district. Welton disagrees with that. Glenn: I suggested that the shaded rendering would show what the different planes were doing. Joe: The final issue is the model. Sven: We would propose that the storefront and third window bay detail which is of a large scale, take those two sheets and make a large partial model rather than modifying the whole existing model to show the typical relief. Glenn: We suggested at the last meeting that they build a one bay so we could see the relief. I also have to say that we just saw a 2700 sq. ft. house come in with a model that was three dimensional and now we are approving a major down town building based on elevations. I feel it is worth seeing a model with the planes represented on it. Don: I would like to see a 1/4 or 3/8 or 1/2 inch scale, the kind of detail that can be show without getting involved. Jake: I would want to see the smaller model presented in the correct way because that scale of model deals with massing and surface and some of the larger issues. I would also like to see Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 24, 1991 a larger scale model that deals with detail. Both scales of models. Les: We approved the massing the last time dealing with details which need to be presented can be incorporated. and we are now in detail which Sven: For final I think 1/2 scale as Don suggested model of the typical bay up to the cornice line should help the committee. AMENDED MOTION: Don amended the amended motion that a model without color of at least 1/4 inch scale of a section of a vertical section through the entire building of the exterior wall be prepared as part of the final development approval as a condition. That model include at least one full structural bay of said exterior wall of the building (north west corner of the building that would indicate the recess on the third floor plus the windows; second by Glenn. Les: That would show a cross section showing a storefront and columns. Roxanne: I though we were talking about two models. Is he still revising his 8th scale model or redoing the entire 8th scale model so that it reads correctly and then also a 1/4 scale model. Clarification: Don: Quarter scale or larger section model. Glenn: My question was what was going on with the kickplate and if that piece could include both conditions possibly one half of each hay. There are two different issues going on here. Don: You have a particular kind of condition at the corner and then you go on the general facade on Galena Street and have a typical bay. Sven: You need a typical third floor window. Don: Half way between the structural line 4 and 5 and 5 and 6 that are indicated on the plans presented at the meeting. AMENDED AMENDED MOTION: Don amended the motion that the structural model should include the view from the western elevation the section midway between gridlock and vertical grid line 4 and 5 to extend to the mid point between the vertical grid lines 5 & 6; second by Glenn. All in favor of motions and amended motions. 9 Historic PreSerVation Committee Minutes of April 24, 1991 MINOR D~LOpMENT GUIDO'S RESTAURANT - 403 S. GALF. NA Roxanne: The applicant is proposing a retractable awning over the south balcony seating area of the restaurant building (second floor). Glenn: The Color matches the brick and it is on the alley side. MOTION: Glenn made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for the awning.application at 403 S. Galena with the color of the awning presented .at this meeting being accepted. Also to mount the awning casing integrally with the horizontal trim and that the awning casing shall be painted to blend in with the trim. Conditions to be signed off by monitor; second by Don. All in favor', motion carries. MOTION:' Glenn made the motion to adjourn, second by Joe. Ail in favor, motioh carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 10