Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.special.19890524Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 Special Meeting Collins Block CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING COLLINS BLOCK PHASE II AND III PF~SE III, INFILL 5 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES city Council Chambers 1st Floor city Hall May 24, 1989 3:00 p.m. Special Meeting 3:00 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Charlie Knight, Chris Darakis, Don Erdman and Zoe Compton present. Georgeann Waggaman was absent and Charles Cunniffe and Joe Krabacher were excused. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED PUBLIC }[~ARING COLLINS BLOCK PHASE II AND III Chairman opened the continued public hearing. Roxanne Eflin, Planning office presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (memo dated May 24, 1989). Wayne Polson: Model was made to show the garden level addition and the relationship of the roof top parapet. The recessed wall on the east elevation will remain. The projection will remain at 14 "above the parapet. Roxanne: The plans are what were presented to us verbally at the last meeting. Andy Hecht, attorney presented aerial views. Roxanne: The Planning office remains non-supportive of the current revised plans of the projecting 14 inches above the parapet height. If the height could be reduced another 8" it would project 6 inches above the parapet level and would not be visible from the street. Considerations: If roof top access is going to be allowed at all. This committee should consider all the ramifications that go on with paraphernalia on roof tops. The Preservation Planner of the State is not concerned with those items as she finds those reversible. The problem is zoning enforcement of roof tops. If Harley sells the building, what is going to happen on the roof. Is this an opportunity for the Committee to set a precedent in not allowing roof top access or what? Consideration should be taken that materials that reflect or cause glare shall not be allowed on the top of the roof. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Don: 14" or 8" does not make that much of a difference from pedestrian level. If we determine that roof top access by occupants is to be restricted to only maintenance functions then the present plan does not seem to be adequate for me. My primary concern is future use. This present plan allows for full height doors and access to the roof. The model shows clearly that the intent is for the owners to occupy the roof and that is Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 Special Meeting Collins Block impossible to police. I was operating under the assumption that whatever was built to project above the roof plane would be for view access, for viewing the mountain, not for occupancy by the owners. Harley Baldwin: I wo~ld be happy to do a deed restriction saying nothing above the parapet. Chris: What about the mechanical equipment. Harley Baldwin: The equipment will be totally inside and there will be no swamp coolers. The area of concern is a little balcony off the master bedroom. Zoe: The building is 100 years old and we are to be thinking of what is going to happen 50 years from now. The character of this building is the flat roof. There should not be anything on top of this building. We are trying to preserve the future of this building. Roxanne: If any member on the Committee feels the character of this building is being jeopardized they have the right to make a motion to deny the project based on that reason alone. Charlie: In the spirit of preservation there should not be a roof top. Bill: The structure allows access to the roof and I have a problem with that; it compromise the integrity. Roxanne: An option would be to lower it more, no access to the roof top, just a view. Andy: I heard take away the access not lower it. We only have 7'6" headroom. Chris: They are bedroom and you aren't going to have traffic through the bedrooms. Andy: We would take the access off the roof. Bill: Possibly we should take action with the zoning code and say no roof top access. Don: I have a concern of the projected balcony. appear in the drawings we have and it is not opaque suggestion made. It doesn't which was a Roxanne: There is also a roof top access to the infill. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 Special Meeting Collins Block Andy: We will eliminate the access. Charlie: To allow the roof top addition we are going to have to significantly alter the eastern elevation, put a parapet which wasn't there and redo the old wall so that it accommodates a balcony. From the east elevation it will not be invisible at all. Bill: Will the balcony be necessary since we are not going to have access out there and historically the building indents there. Don: The agreement that we had was that the east wall would be rebuilt. Harley Baldwin: We don't need the balcony and will remove it. Chris: The balcony could be raised a little. Don: Then it changes the exterior of the eastern wall. Roxanne: Since there are no doors there, it is not necessary to have a balcony. Bill: You can still have windows and a view. Roxanne: Possibly the windows could replicate the arch. Don: The wall perhaps would incorporate the parapet and this wall would also be the exterior wall of their third floor addition. Therefore, this wall would have to be punctured by windows that are the same character as what exists now. Roxanne: For eastern wall. that recess. final we voted on the exact reconstruction of the The exact window openings would need to remain in Don: Above the reconstruction where they wish the third floor addition, this wall is extended another seven feet vertically and will constitute the exterior east wall of the third level of one of the apartments. Bill: It only goes up two stories. Don: One would be considering extending this masonry wall another seven feet and inserting within it windows of the same character. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 Special Meeting Collins Block Roxanne: The parapet proposed was to be constructed of the same brick that was of the east wall. Roxanne: How many courses of brick would be added to make it level all the way around. Wayne Pulson: parapet. Four feet about the height of the lower existing Don: We would be considering an addition to the existing wall being rebuilt. Roxanne: I don't know what the slope is. Nick: Presently there is no parapet on the east wall and you want to put one there. Zoe: I don't feel comfortable with all the unknowns of this project. MOTION: Zoe made the motion that HPC deny the roof top addition of Phase II, Collins Block Bldg. and move on to the infill structure. Charlie second. Charlie: I feel we are compromising the building and now we are going to alter the back of the building to compromise the roof top addition. Vote: Yes: Zoe, Charlie. No: Don, Chris, Nick, Bill. Motion dies. MOTION: Chris made the motion to approve conceptual as presented based on no pedestrian access to the roof top structure and further restudy of the east elevation. Nick second. Don: We are now tying the proposed addition to the roof directly into the parapet. And now you will really notice any difference in height between the proposed new structure and the parapet because the parapet will return back to the east wall of the penthouse and the penthouse will pop up above that. We really have to make recommendations on that issue before we act on that motion. Are you.willing to drop the proposed addition on the roof to the same or less than the elevation of the parapet because I think it will be very awkward if it pops up above the parapet. Harley Baldwin: I need every inch here. Don: I was just stating the implications. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 Special Meeting Collins Block Chris: I believe we can work with the applicant. Bill: The balcony is qoing to cut into where existing windows are so you will be tearing out existing windows. Chris: Possibly the balcony can be raised up so it doesn't cut into the windows and I think we can work with that. Bill: I don't know, only the applicant can tell if that will work. We want to maintain the openings that were there. Don: I have a problem saying presently the roof height as proposed is OK, that hurdle is over and now we are going to find ways of butting into it. We need to understand the implications which are that it might have to be dropped, and if it can't be dropped where are we. Bill: There are no guarantees, don't come back and say you approved the roof height. Chris: We approved the roof height in the motion as presented. Roxanne: I understand the problem about the built up parapet and it just may not work. Don: This is a very visible element at this time. VOTE ON MOTION: Yes: Don, Chris, Nick and Bill. No: Zoe and Charlie. Motion carries. PHASE III, INFILL Roxanne: Phase III basically has not changed. The street edge storefront remains virtually the same. It is the same plan you reviewed and there are 8 individual store fronts inside that we don't have any real good clarification on. We don't have a site plan that indicates lighting, landscaping, paving or how the space really feels and works. The basic question: Is this appropriate for an infill structure and does it work in the commercial core historic district and is it compatible in that district. Anything that is in the commercial core district is up to us to review. Zoe: Since the old building hasn't been dealt with I don't think we can fairly deal with the addition to the infill because there are compromises that will have to be made. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 Special Meeting Collins Block Chris: They have agreed to take down the recess and put it back as it was. Up to the top of the infill structure we are only talking about the roof addition. We have no seen anything of the interior of the infill structure. Harley Baldwin: I absolutely tried to find someone that wouid run a hardware store and couldn't and got a letter from Alan Richman stating that we needed open space. I found a need for small stores in Aspen. Charlie: I understand it is to be open space and there are doors. Roxanne: The doors are not appropriate. Zoe: It may be a little over scale and I have a problem with the front facade as it seems to replicate the alamo. Don: How does this building relate to the Collins Block in relation to the brick, color of brick, window mullions, trim etc. Wayne Polson: We are using sandstone cornices , dark red brick, sandstone tile panels. The building is intended to bridge between the two buildings. The brick would match the brick on east wall. Small multi pane light around the windows. Zoe: I believe the sandstone was rough cut. distinguish between the new and the old. You need to Don: I would like to see materials. Bill: If the doors go, does the transom go also. Wayne: That infill is glass. Roxanne: I have some problems with the detailing. Charlie: I seems like there is a lot of horizontal rhythm. MOTION: Don made the motion that HPC table conceptual development approval for Phase III until June 14th at which time the applicant will present a rendered line drawing not less than a scale of 3/8 of an inch to the foot showing no less than the eastern five feet of the Collins Block and the western five feet of the adjoining building to the west of the addition and the entire north facade of the proposed Phase III addition. Colors and materials to be presented also. Nick second. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 Special Meeting Collins Block Harley Baldwin: Can you give conceptual now that we know what we have to do. You tell us how to run the brick and we will do it. We need to know where our foundations are going. Chris: We are in favor conceptually of the shops but have problems with the materials. Nick withdrew his second. Motion dies. MOTION: Don made motion to grant conceptual approval of Phase III. Chris second. Don: When I look at this the addition and the existing Collins Block are in the exactly same plane. There should be some change of plane. Roxanne: Do you want elevation of the store fronts. AMENDED MOTION: Don 'amended his motion that the applicant further supply accurate information as to how the existing and the new structure are joined, both the Collins Block and the building to the east. Supply samples of actual materials i.e. sandstone and brick. Also colors of the proposed facade of Phase III. A rendered line drawing of 3/8 of an inch to the foot or larger. Chris amended his second. All favored the motion except Zoe. Motion carries. Bill: Did you say anything about the interior of the store fronts. Don: No. Charlie: I have been on the committee for several years and I have stepped down on one occasion when the Brand Bldg. was brought before us. I think it has been inappropriate that you by innuendo in some accusations have tried to point out that I have a conflict. Andy: We have officially pointed it out and you have disputes with Harley that have gone litigation and we feel uncomfortable. Charlie: You could have requested that I step down. Andy: We have contacted the City Attorney. Roxanne: The City Attorney told me that he felt there was not a conflict and that it is up to the individual member. If you feel you have a conflict for financial interest or that you are unable Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 Special Meeting Collins Block to make an impartial and fair judgment and approval of what is presented then that would be considered a conflict. Charlie: I think it inappropriate that I don't know this and the Board doesn't know this. If I knew that it was officially requested by the applicant then I think I would have to deal with it differently. You will find that the next applicant that comes in with a rooftop I will vote the same way. Meeting Adjourned 5:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Deputy City Clerk