Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19901010HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of October 10, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe, Leslie Holst, Glenn Rappaport, Jake Vickery and Roger Moyer present. Georgeann Waggaman and Joe Krabacher were excused. 501 E. COOPER - INDEPENDENCE BLDG. - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: The applicant is wishing to maintain the existing center storefront on the Cooper Street elevation. It currently is not recessed but was originally and was altered in the mid 60's to be flush. HPC had approved a new storefront on Galena Street elevation and an entire restored Cooper Street elevation. Because of only one tenant they are seeking to have existing conditions remain. I feel. that the restoration of the Cooper Street elevation is very important to this building. Recess is very important and this is our last chance to get that elevation restored. Instead of putting in a door it could just be a window but the recess remain as is. My recommendation is that HPC deny the minor development amendment as proposed and to look at other alternatives. Don: I am the project monitor on the project. Tony Mazza, applicant: I have three tenants in there for the three storefronts on Cooper Street. What happened in negotiating, the GAP wanted all of Cooper Street. We want the middle bay on Cooper Street to remain as is, I just mean flush to the finished level of the building. I was told it was an insubstantial modification and I went away and the lease was signed with the GAP and in the lease with the GAP we stated that there will not be a middle bay on Cooper and then I got Amy Margerum's letter. I was not trying to put the HPC into any kind of situation. To me it was insubstantial because we were leaving it the way it was. I do not believe that this was a trade off. When in fact the GAP leaves I will do as the original plan indicates, bringing it back to the storefront. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Don: We had a renovation/restoration to this building that was as close as possible and that was that the entrance bays were recessed. The applicant now is asking for a situation that I believe is not consistent with the vocabulary that we set up which is to take one bay and not recess it. There are only two alternatives one is recommended by Staff to keep all the bays as they are and I also realize this is an multi-million lease arrangement and you are under pressure from the tenant. Historically it is only correct to do what Roxanne suggests or to pull all bays out that are not the ones that are used for entrances and egress. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 10, 1990. Tony: I asked Roxanne that and she said no way because we are not going to use the other one as a door. Don: One option is to pull them out flush to the facade and the other one is to leave everything as we approved it and make a blind door or glazed situation to show that there is no entrance. The one you propose Tony is inconsistent. Tony: I have a signed lease saying this is a flat bay. Bill: The side bay on Galena is that part of the GAP's or will that stay recessed. Tony: The GAP's space is all of the frontage of Cooper. Don: We are only dealing with the Cooper Street issue but it has to do with the vocabulary of both streets. Roger: The building has been the way that it exists now on Cooper since I have been there "flush" since 1965. Charles: Are you saying just eliminating the setback of the doors. Tony: Just bring it flush. It would be brought up to the level of everything else and would be improved. Roxanne: That is the only original recessed storefront on that building. Roger: We have a building that has decorative molding on all windows and recessed bays and an opening that has been changed over the years and that framework is totally not the same as any other window so we if this comes up in the future and we were to leave it the way it is and not have an entry would we want Tony to reframe that window to look like the other windows or leave it the way it is. Roxanne: The philosophy is that it should be compatible but not match. Be able to tell immediately that there was a change. Charles: At the Epicure when that proposal came to HPC the final result was a door changed to a window but flush. That is the only precedent that I can t6ink of. Charles: I have a suggestion if the storefront is going to be the back of shelves or something it might look better detailed out the way it was proposed to be, columns on either side of the door so that it is similar to the bay but the window be allowed 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 10, 1990 to be put in between the columns with the understanding that if the storefront gets changed in the future it could always become a door again. Bill: That is what Tony is suggesting. Glenn: As far as I can recollect I was not trading anything off and that is not an issue to me. I also like the idea of a larger client in one of the buildings as all the buildings in town are getting chopped up. It seems like the framework of the brick buildings downtown has always in my opinion been separate from the methods of egress and fenestration and the Elks Bldg. had an entry on a corner where Esprit is at one time and now it is gone. Entries of older buildings have changed around town and I question whether if we had a cast iron threshold existing on this building whether or not we would have know that there was an entry there at all. If the threshold has to stay there without a door it doesn't bother me and I also wonder if every restoration has to be a full restoration. Bill: I tend to agree that it would be a partial restoration to leave the columns and keep the same spacing and a flush window there that would be no different than the corner window in detail. I find it odd having recessed entries if they are not going to be used and conform to contemporary uses that are happening as long as they are finished out in a restored compatibility. This does not detract from the integrity of the building at all so I would he in favor of flushing it out as long as it had the same detailing. Les: This is a unique situation and one way to solve it would be what Bill Poss stated. Set up the sequence and tell them you have to leave it there and if it doesn't work we have a design that would work of squaring it off in the front and then write a deed restriction that when a tenant changes, it allows us to review it again. Charles: Are there any other issues as it is mentioned about stained glass. Roxanne: If original glass because there are internal efficiency. is there we require that it be left systems that they can go for energy DISCUSSION OF TONY'S LETTER Roxanne: You mention replicated trim and thermopane glass. Tony: The same detail that is on all the other bays. The level Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 10, 1990 of finish would be exactly the same. I misused the work thermopane as we are not allowed to use it. Bill: The original conditions stated that any glass replacement that is done within the existing exterior framework all new glass used shall be clear and not tinted. MOTION: Charles made the motion to permit the applicant to amend his approval on the Independence Square Building to allow the elimination of the door on the second bay from the east end of the building on the Cooper Street side and to replace it with a proportionately correct storefront window. All other details shall be accomplished as previously approved and there would be a covenant assuring the City of Aspen that this amended element of their previous approval will return to as previously approved and they should work with Staff and City Attorney to come up with the proper language. Covenant: If in the future there is a tenant change of the premises the middle bay shall be restored to the doorway as originally approved. Roger second with all in favor. Motion carries. Roxanne: We are not eliminating the bay and it should be flush. Don: Changing the bay from an recessed entrance to a flushed. Charles: To substitute the recessed entry door with a flushed storefront window. We are just changing a door to a window with all the original approvals the same, no other changes. Tony: If you want it on the deed I will do what ever you want. Roxanne: I feel the motion should direct Staff to work with the City Attorney to come up with the correct format in which the covenant should be drawn up in. Jake: You are saying if the GAP/Banana Republic moves out the applicant will restore the bay to the original design. Glenn: In the restoration of that bay, we leave the cast iron base plate. Roxanne: I agree also. Roger: I agree also. CF,~RT~S RESTATED MOTION: The first part of the motion changes the entry door to a flush storefront window and all details will be accomplished as previously approved. The applicant shall provide a covenant to the satisfaction of the City Attorney 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 10, 1990 providing that if in the future there is a tenant changes, the entry door will be restored as in the previous approval. AMENDED MOTION: Charles made the amended motion that if future tenant requirements change to demand an entrance door in this bay, the entrance door shall be as per the original approval. The cast iron threshold plate shall remain. Roger second with all in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carries. 17 QUEEN STREET - AMENDMENT TO CONCEPTUAL MOTION: Don made the motion that item B under old business, amendment to conceptual development 17 Queen Street be moved to the end of the agenda and if the applicant is not here by then it be tabled until the next available slot, Charles second. All in favor of motion with one opposed (Les) motion carries. 700 W. FRANCIS - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Roxanne: This is almost museum quality and the condition of the house is exceptional. There is an attorney that is handling the estate and it is on the market right now. It is not in the historic district and it is not a landmark, there is no protection for this building. It is eligible for the National Register and I would like to see landmark designation to begin on the property so HPC has review over any alternations. This is unusual in that it is Staff recommending that HPC consider to get landmark designation rolling. It has to go to P&Z at a public hearing and has to go to City Council for first and second reading. Landmark Designation would allow them 20% tax credit on any kind of rehab work as of January 1st. Charles: If someone were to buy that property and come before us what would you let them do if it is that significant. Roxanne: We encourage them to restore as is. There is an out building which could be converted into a dwelling unit and part of the cottage-infill program. It encroaches and will also need variations. Charles: Because of the asking price the person purchasing will want an extensive renovation program. Roxanne: Possibly but we are faced with that all over Aspen. Bill: I would like to remind the HPC that this is a designation without an application and should be handled legally. Don: The property could be bought in one lump sum or there are 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 10, 1990 two parcels. One is three lots that is the other half of the block that have sheds on them and the other is the little gem on a a 60 by 100 ft piece. That could be purchased separately. I would definitely recommend landmark designation and it is reasonable that a future buyer could work within that and produce a modest house that would be more appropriate for the neighborhood. The house would be user oriented. Jake: Would it be possible or is there a way to tie the two parcels together and would there be an advantage in terms of allowing them to do more 'development on the other three lot parcel as a trade off for the restoration of the older building. Roxanne: You are talking about a transfer of development rights and we do not have the ability to do that. It is certainly an interesting concept. Les: Can we get this recommended and passed against the owners wishes. Roxanne: Yes. Les: If we write them a letter now thinking that we are doing this if I was the attorney for the estate I would come to Aspen and file for a demolition permit. Roxanne: We review everything on the inventory and if they applied for demolition we would review it. This is on our inventory. This cannot slip through the cracks in the way of demolition. What I am saying I want to be pro-active and protect the integrity of this house. Bill: I think a memo needs prepared and a and this should be checked out by the city brought back to the Board. motion to recommend Attorney first and MOTION: Bill entertained a motion that HPC direct Staff to prepare the necessary documents for landmark designation recommendation from this Committee and that they contact the City Attorney and that the motion be done in a proper legal form for 700 W. Francis. The site requirements to be the two lots that the structures presently sit on. Don second with all in favor of motion, motion carries. DISCUSSION Les: Would it be best due to the time constraints to recommend it now. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 10, 1990 Roxanne: I will bring you a memo with a recommendation in writing for the next meeting. Bill: This needs to be done properly. COMMUNICATIONS Bill: Sportstalker: The sub-committee did grant him conceptual approval with the condition that the applicant restudy several items for final. Jake: Conditions were the bottom of the awning would be higher and the height of the awning less and they may run continuous or be opened specific awnings. We talked about the clipped corners verses being filled in and the consensus was that they would be acceptable if they were left in. We liked the rear elevation and talked about the balcony over the entry door on the west side, to be restudied. There was discussion on the breakup and division of the lights on the upper windows. The peaks are modified on the corners. Bill: We also asked them to bring back more detailing on the cornice. Charles: I would like to make a comment on how this entire project was handled so that we do not make the same mistake in the future. I don't think we should ever let ourselves get into the situation on a building or house where we are designing it for the architect. It is a shame that the sub-committee had to be formed and if we had felt uncomfortable with the building we should have denied it and never say OK just to help a guy out to get conceptual approval. Once they get conceptual approval they have their foot in the door and it is harder and harder to make them cooperative. In a case like this we are seeing that happen. Don: When we are dealing with a professional we expect a presentation of a higher caliber and we aren't getting it all the time. If the architect in this case does not present clearly the intent it is difficult for us. Charles: Can we raise our standards for Staff review. Roxanne: We have done code amendments. Charles: Staff might be a little more stringent on what is required or adequate like "this is a sketch but doesn't clearly show the intent clearly." Bill: You cannot always be assured that you are going to get a 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 10, 1990 building that you are proud of because a person could give you everything you requested bu~ it doesn't assure you that it will be a building that you are proud of. It is a taste level issue. Roxanne: For conceptual the code says sketch. Charles: We could say a sketch adequate to convey the design proposal. Bill: It is the applicant's obligation to show you as much as possible and to sell himself to the Board. Charles: We also have the responsibility to the public to make sure that we are responsible as we can be about it. As a responsibility to this community we have to make up at final what we didn't do at conceptual. Roxanne: That is hard to do also. 215 W. HALLAM REPORT Roxanne: I contacted the Bldg. Dept. and we found $ landuse and UBC code violations on this property right now and the attorney is aware of the situation. It is demolition by neglect and they far past their approval. Les: They lost their construction loan and some of the demolition I do not feel that they exceeded as it is disappearing at a rapid rate. I looked at the plans and there is more left on the plans then was allowed to be cut out. Because the skin is removed it is startling but it needs to be pulled square and the plywood needs to go on the west side. GUIDO'S BUILDING Charles: The opening and bays seem to be all in the right place. It looks good. They are hoping to open by XMAS. Bill: It will have a steel construction to hold it up with stucco over it. 430 W. MAIN (BECK HOUSE) Bill: There is progress and they are replacing the roof and trying to save as much as possible. GAZEBO Roxanne: The Parks Dept. stated that the entire gazebo needs Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 10, 1990 replaced. I talked with George Robinson and Bill Efting and went over all the minutes from the meeting and approvals and they can proceed and will not have to come back to the board for approval. It will be moved 8 feet to the north east. ELKS Don: On the east wall which faces Mason & Morse there was large opening that was patched with inconsistent brick and approved the tiles in which the color is not appropriate. a we Roger: On the east wall that could be cleaned and painted with an acrylic to blend with the original as we did that with the Hotel Jerome. 17 QUEEN STREET Glenn project monitor for 17 Queen Street. Roxanne: Lanna wants the sheds removed because of neighbor complaints and relocate the main structure to the corner where it was approved. We had talked about phasing final as there is nothing in the code. There are two ways: one to get a final development approval which is what the code says or you might be able to go for an amendment of conceptual development approval for just the portion of the property that was landmark designated, the piece where the cottage is going to go up to and then forever give up the ability to review the other part of the parcel where the new development is going. I feel we need to recommend that she adhere to the minimum requirement for maintenance in the landuse code and stabilize it for the winter. Keep it onsite until she is 'ready to go. Bill: If she did not stabilize it and it fell down under the minimum maintenance would the land be sterilized. Roxanne: It would be demolition by neglect. Charles: Possibly we should photograph documentation. everything for Roger: Should we require a bond. Roxanne: on. Bonding is only in a development activity that is going Les: Our primary concern is to save the building. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 10, 1990 Les: If we go through it again with a new applicant and she bows out and sells it it will be the same problems, define building site etc. Charles: The new applicant might find it differently. Bill: I'm in favor of keeping it where it is. Les: I feel it should be on a foundation. Don: This would have been one of our best projects but it doesn't look like it is going to happen. Don: We want to keep it on site and protect it, that is our direction. MOTION: Charles made the motion to adjourn, second by Don. Motion carries. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 10