Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890510HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 FINAL DEVELOPMENT 204 S. MILL - COLLINS BLOCK PHASE I CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - COLLINS BLOCK PHASE II III RATING OF 1004 E. DURANT 1004 E. DURANT - LANDMARK DESIGNATION 514 N. THIRD STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION MINOR DEVELOPMENT - 134 W. HOPKINS - FENCE MINOR DEVELOPMENT - 500 WEST MAIN. MESA STORE BANNER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - 630 W. MAIN - MOUNTAIN RESCUE 601 W. HALLAM - HPC RECOMMENDATION TO BLDG. DEPT. 1 3 6 6 7 7 8 8 10 12 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall May 10, 1989 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Charlie Knight, Joe Krabacher, Chris Darakis, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe and Zoe Compton present. Nick Pasquarella was excused. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to approve the minutes of April 26, 1989. Second by Georgeann. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne introduced Bob Throm who is the liaison between the Aspen Historical Society and the HPC. FINAL DEVELOPMENT 204 S. MILL - COLLINS BLOCK PHASE I Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (memo May 10, 1989). Roxanne: HPC granted conceptual approval subject to conditions. All conditions have been met. The Planning Office recommends that HPC grant final development approval on phase I and that includes the demolition of the non-historic sheds in the rear of the lot, subject to the following three conditions. Approval by Staff of the written guarantee that has been submitted addressing structural damage due to proposed foundation repair, prior to the issuance of a building permit. That the original arched transom glass panes are to remain. Mortar shall be re-pointed in exact duplication to existing. Roxanne: A portion of the recessed east wall is in poor condition and has suffered a lot of water damage over the years. It is bowing considerably and needs repointing. It also needs structural stabilization and new foundation. The six inch sandstone that it is sitting on is deteriorating. There is the possibility of using steel lentils inside to stabilize it and then re-point the wall. Possibly rebuilding some kind of internal structure. The applicant has suggested disassembling the wall and reusing as much of the brick as they can. Disassembling would be a loss of about 50% of the brick. I talked with Chris Pfaff and in her opinion this is not a facade wall. It is the east elevation and if an infill project goes in right next to it the first level of that will not be visible anyway and there is the possibility of reusing some of that brick. Dick Arnold: The wall is a 12 inch brick wall sitting on a shelf of 6 inch sandstone shimmed to a rock foundation that is 30 inches deep. It is very unstable. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 Roxanne: We want to see the wall preserved as much as we can, possibly a structural system in place. Disassembling will be the last effort. Don: Does the brick have any bearing capabilities at all if it were saved. Dick: At the present time I don't feel that it does. would be enough brick to use as facing material. There Charlie: To excavate under the existing proposing to dig out the infill lot, support then excavate under the rest of the building. building you are the back wall, and Dick: We are proposing that as opposed to under pinning. Georgeann: For clarification we are talking about digging out the infill lot, taking down the east wall brick by brick, digging out underneath the hardware store building, applying a basement then building a new wall and applying the brick to the face of it. Georgeann: We are going to have a building next to it on the first floor at least and that area of the wall will not be seen. Bill: I would suggest that we take a subcommittee of Chris, Charles and myself to site visit the area. Don, Roxanne: It is appropriate to give final subject to the sub- committees approval. Charlie: Regarding the guarantee there is a back wall that is not stable and two outside walls that need repaired and there is the possibility of loosing the building. Perhaps the City Attorney should look at the guarantee and give approval or make modifications. Georgeann: This was discussed at the last meeting but what Charlie is bringing up is very valid and it makes excellent sense to give it to the City Attorney and have him say this is sufficient or not. Zoe: It is a concern that if the building falls down what is going to be constructed.' Joe: My feeling is a guarantee is as good as a bond. 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 Andy Hecht, attorney: be acceptable. Whatever your attorney submits to us will Georgeann: Possibly we want to consider going back to written guarantees as opposed to bonds. Charlie: We got into a bad predicament with Elli's and we are "gun shy". MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant final development approval for Phase I of 204 S. Mill Street with the conditions set forth in Roxanne Eflin's memo dated May 10, 1989 with the exception of those conditions that were already addressed in the applicants materials and the additional condition that the east wall will be handled by a committee of a minimum of three HPC members. The guarantee will be submitted to the City Attorney for his review and approval modification amendment prior to the issuance of a building permit. Bill second. All favored. Georgeann: Roxanne. site. The Committee will be Bill, Don, Chris, Charles and They will meet Thursday May 11, 1989 at 12:15 P.M. on CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - COTJ.TNS BLOCK PHASE II & III Georgeann opened the continued public hearing. Andy Hecht: Board a new concerns. We would like to withdraw the proposal and show the proposal .that we think will meet everybody's Georgeann: Since the applicants are here we will look at the proposal but Staff has not yet had a chance to review it. We clearly have the opportunity to table this. Andy: We do not have a third floor and it is invisible street. If you opened the second floor windows of the you would see something on the roof. from the Wheeler Wayne Polson: We are proposing to raise the roof of the lower units. Our allowable height is 14 inches above the parapet and 16 feet back. We determined that from view points: City Hall, Jerome, La Cacina and intersection of Monarch and Hopkins. Zoe: What do you see from the second floor of the Wheeler. Dick Arnold: Something that is below the vent pipe, approximately 7 or $ inches of the flat roof. 3 HISTORIC P~ESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 Don: What you have done is raised the roof planes up to almost the level of the top of the parapet. Gsorgeann: You are trying to achieve higher level ceilings on the second level. Zoe: Any plantings etc. would not be higher than the roof that you see. Andy: We will stipulate to that. Bill: The parapet on the back will be the same height as the one on the front. Dick Arnold: If the parapet is allowed to extend on the east wall it will be the same as the south side. Roxanne: It is appropriate to extend a parapet on the east side as long as there is not a cornice, as long as it is the exact duplicate of the brick. Leslie Holst, public: My group has observed this building and when you go by at 5:30 all you can see off the top of the Brand Building is glass and the sun hits it and you are blinded. You can't see the mountains or anything. No one has presented what happens when the sun sets. Other ramifications have to be dealt with. It is unacceptable to deviate on the top of this building. Don: The east elevation is contemplating as receiving a parapet which is the same elevation as all the other facades. At present a sloping skylight can be seen. You have to be above street level if any glass were to effect your view from here if a new parapet was installed. The new parapet would decrease ones visibility of the Wheeler from where we are now. The issue is: Is it historically acceptable to place a parapet on the east side at the same elevation a~ the parapet that is on the north and west sides. If it is it does reduce your visibility of the Wheeler. The issue of reflection is a "moo~" point. Georgeann: I find that the terrace with a balcony extending out beyond the plane of the building inappropriate. MOTION: Joe made the motion to deny conceptual approval of the third floor addition. Zoe second. Vote: Yes; Don, Joe, Zoe, Charlie. No; Chris, Bill, Charles Georgeann. Motion defeated. Joe: The motion was to deny the conceptual approval of all third floors on the Collins Block. 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 Andy: I would like comments from those who voted yes to find out the areas of concern. Don: I am responding to the recommendations made by the State Historic Architect and the recommendation made by the Planning Office. This is an important structure historically and no alteration should be permitted. Joe: This is an important building and we should not alter the roof shape. It is a major part of the building. I feel we are altering the building in a way that is not compatible with its historic character. Zoe: We have made major mistakes on roof tops. When you put the extra few inches on the top it destroys the visual flat roof. It is an 100 year old building, neo-classical and characteristic of a neo-classical structure. Charlie: It is a great old building and you will notice significantly the east elevation being rebuilt, the parapet. In the spirit of preservation it should be preserved. Joe: For clarification there are seven members for voting and eight members are here. Who is seated to vote. Charles: The vote you took was whether or not to deny the third floor and there has not been a vote to table it and there hasn't been a vote to consider the alternative. We were doing this basically on a conceptual basis allowing them to come in with something that we were not prepared for so I feel it would be premature to deny it. Roxanne: It is appropriate to make a motion to table it and at the same time I am recommending that Phase III be tabled with the recommendations stated in the memo. Bill: I am concerned about issues we don't see on the drawings but they have come a long way in reducing it. MOTION: Charles made the motion to table Phase II and III of the Collins block until June 14th in order that the applicant can present his application to staff. The applicant needs to make sure that the drawings ate clear and consistent in order to avoid being tabled again. Charlie second. Vote: Yes; Charles, Bill, Charlie and Georgeann. No; Don, Chris, Joe and Zoe. Motion defeated. MOTION: Don made the motion to add the Collins Block Phase II and III to the May 24th agenda at 3:00 p.m. The application must 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 be presented to Roxanne by 5:00 P.M. May 17, 1989. chris second. All approved except Joe who was opposed. Motion carries. RATING OF 1004 E. DURANT Bill opened the public hearing. Roxanne: Staff is rating 1004 E. Durant a #4 finding that it meets the criterion. Along with that we are looking at a landmark designation of that structure. Bill closed the public hearing. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to give the building at 1004 E. Durant (Unit #1) a rating of #4. Joe second. All approved. Motion carries. 1004 E. DURANT - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Roxanne presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (memo May 10, 1989). Roxanne: Staff is in favor of the landmark designation and this would become our 94th. The applicant is requesting landmark designation in order to receive HPC variation approval for the sideyard setback non-conformity due to the proposed renovation/lower level addition. APPLICANT RESPONSE Welton Anderson, architect: The proposal is to raise the house as minimal as possible in order to create living space (30") above its current level. This would create two additional bedrooms. The lot is 30 feet wide and the house encroaches on setbacks on both sides and without the HPC variation in setback the house cannot be raised up. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Charlie: Can you landscape from the front and light and ventilate from the west. Welton: west due RMF. I don't believe we will be able to get windows into the to the proximity of the property line. The zoning is Georgeann: I had one suggestion that would minimize the basement. When you come off the curb I would suggest that you bring your steps down and straight across and that would let the 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 planting and basement seem lower. that walkway level with the street. I would think we would want MOTION: Charles made the motion to recommend approval of landmark designation for 1004 E. Durant. Don second. All approved. Motion carries. 514 N. THIRD STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Roxanne: The applicant presented plans for changes on the attic mostly internal; a couple of dormers and do minor exterior changes. This application is for landmark designation only because they need to become a landmark in order to obtain the flexibility of the UBC code to adequately adapt their attic space. It is a two bedroom cottage now. CLARIFICATIONS: Georgeann: What is the purple room. Karen Rinbgsby: Parlor. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the landmark designation for 514 N. 3rd St. Don second. All approved. MINOR DEVELOI~IENT - 134 W. HOPKINS - FENCE Chris stepped down. Roxanne: Staff is recommending approval as stated in memo dated May 10, 1989. Charlie: The fence is going on the west, north and coming down the property line between the building? Julie: There will be no fence on the west due to the other condominium, you have the wall of the other building there. Georgeann: inward. How are you going to get cars in when the doors roll Julie: There would be a way to shut the doors if you pulled the car up all the way to the house. Charles: Possibly use a double out swinging gate. Julie: They can swing anyway you want them to. Julie: Make six little gates. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 Charles: Have them swing out toward the alley so you can pull the car in and close the gate. Georgeann: If you have to keep them open the whole time because you can't shut them when the car is in there and you have plants that is a different visual problem for us then if they shut. Julie: That is fine to have the six gates, it is a good idea. MOTION: approval as approved. Charles made the motion to grant minor development proposed at 134 W. Hopkins Street. Don second. All MINOR DEVELOPMENT - 500 WEST MAIN. MESA STORE BANNER Charlie stepped down. Chris seated. Roxanne: To celebrate their 100th birthday of the Mesa store, they have received an approval from City Council to temporary place the banner/bunting for the lower facade of the store. The Planning office feels this is festive and recommend approval on a temporary basis. MOTION: Zoe made the motion to grant minor development approval for the temporary banner at the Mesa Store building, 500 W. Main St. Chris second. All approved. Eve: Next door to the building is an empty lot and we want to have a picnic there on the fourth of July after the parade and it will be open to the public and a benefit to the Wheeler and we will sell beer for a .05 cents and hot dogs and we want to put up two signs that day only. (signs presented at meeting) Roxanne: You will have to contact Bill Drueding in regards to the signage code. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the two signs as presented at this meeting that are 2 feet by 10 feet that address the Mesa store picnic July 4, 1989 and that they will be in place for one day. Charles second. All approved. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPM~.NT - 630 W. MAIN - MOUNTAIN RESCUE Joe stepped down, possible conflict. Chris seated. Bill opened the public hearing. 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 Roxanne: Currently there exists a 1960's panaboat structure and Mountain Rescue needs more space. We are recommending approva]. subject to the condition that a restudy of the "tower" element in its affect to the character of the Main Street Historic District. Also a restudy of the second floor fenestration, south and west elevations. Approval by the City of Aspen for the development activity. Exact material representation and all conceptual conditions met for final approval. There are two structures on the site, the garage that is detached and the main structure. They are the smallest scale buildings in the entire Main St. Historic District. The second floor addition is pushed back from the main structure and bridges the gap between the two. The "tower design" provides for additional head room. I feel the materials are compatible and the guidelines are met. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Zoe: Possibly the addition should be panaboat with an all metal roof to match the present structure instead of changing the fabric. Jane Ellen Hamilton: We can't insulate with panaboat and it doesn't conform to UBC. Bear in mind that we are a non-profit organization and we have received a generous donation of $65,000 and that is our total to cover all expenses. Don: It would not be appropriate to use panaboat because if you look at the west elevation there are so many breaks in the panaboat logs. Zoe: Then it should be something compatible with texture and not so flat. Charles: It could be tongue/groove horizontal siding. Charles: What about giving them a choice of clapboard or tongue and groove siding as long as it is done in the same or similar scale of the panaboat. In either case the addition is set back from the street and you will read the horizontalilty of the siding rather than clapboard or tongue and groove siding or panaboat siding. Bill: Possibly the addition should be more compatible with the other structures that are there in the event that you ever wanted to change the panaboat in the future. I wouldn't tie it too closely to the panaboat in case you tear it down in the event you got another grant or you decided to move to another location. Also that it is more residential in "flavor". 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 Georgeann: I have no problems with the tower on this building. I found the trunkcaded ends of the fascia awkward to me. Possibly do a detail that would create more horizontality on the upper floors. Zoe: In terms of esthetics this building is located at the entrance to Aspen and it is important how compatible it looks. Charles: The existing panaboat that is there probably doesn't meet code and if they do an addition the main structure will have to be brought up to code. If in doing that it will be difficult to make what Georgeann is saying work because the thickness of the roof of the panaboat allows a different fascia treatment. It is thinner than allowed today. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve conceptual development for 630 W. Main with the request that the applicant further study the detail of the eaves (edge of roof). Also that approval by the City of Aspen for the development activity. Don second. All approved. Motion carries. 601 W. I4_ATWJkM - HPC RECOMMENDATION TO BLDG. DEPT. Roxanne: This is the blue cottage located on the corner by the Wheeler Stallard house. .George Vicenzi has received a demolition permit for that structure and he doesn't want to demolish it but he wants to protect his rights so he wouldn't have to come before this committee to receive a demolition approval when he discovered that ord #17 was underway. The structure is currently rated a #2. We need to buy some time. With a demolition permit you have 120 days in which to react to it and at that time you can receive an extension at that time. You cannot apply for an extension prior to your 120th day and then you can have an extension from the Building official for an 6 month extension. That would take George up to some time in February and then he would have to either demolish or go through the HPC for approval. We are trying to work out something such as a trade situation or find a way to relocate the structure onto another site so George can still have his building site. Any action that HPC takes is good for 12 months and within that time possibly we could find something to do with this structure one way or another. George Vicenzi: My permit expires in July and I am willing to work with the people who want to save this structure. Charles: There maybe a way to work with people and save this building on site and do a land trade. 10 HISTORIC P~ESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 MOTION: Joe made motion that we recommend to the Building Department to grant a six month extension on the demolition permit for 601 W. Hallam. This motion was made in the spirit of historic preservation and in the spirit of preserving this building and in order to have additional time to do alternatives to demolition. Charles second. All approved. COMMUNICATIONS Joe: The Trust itself has been formed and we are now looking at different alternatives such as easement program, raising funds etc. Roxanne: After preservation week we will start working on the PR brochure again. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen Strickland, Deput~ City Clerk 11