Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880426HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall April 26, 1988 2:30 p.m. MOTION: Augie made the motion to elect Charles as chairman in the absence of Bill Poss. Charlie second. Motion carries. Meeting was called to order by Charles Cunniffe with Charlie Knight, Augie Reno, Joe Krabacher present. Bill Poss, Zoe Compton, Patricia O'Bryan, Nick Pasquarella and Georgeann Waggaman were excused. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public: I thought the HPC manual was going to be a working manual in addition to what it is so that a person could pick it up and find out if they had a historic zoned piece of ground and how the numbering system works etc. Rather than having a numbering system a better way would be to say that the particular structure has to be reviewed or it doesn't have to be reviewed. If you think a structure is remotely historical that structure should come before you. Trying to decide what number it is at the early stage has pitfalls in it. The pitfalls are very obvious as in the case of Amato's. It seems to me that the determination of whether a structure is historical or not should come down to two very significant things: one is the fact that architecturally an architect should determine whether or not this house architecturally is a significant structure. The building should be looked at by another group of professionals (engineers) or people who go into the building and really look at the building meticulously and determine whether or not it is a sound structure. Charles: The intention at the time was to not create situations like you are talking about but rather to look at structures to see if they did indeed qualify in that scoring approach; if they had quality architecture; if they contributed to the neighborhood etc. Steve: we had the inventory from 1980 that identified all the historic structures out there and the evaluation system created the 1-5 scoring. That was a way to try and figure out what is the relative merit of the inventory and City Council made a compromise to say lets only go to the high scores that would be subject to demolition review. Charlie: The board has discussed whether we should address the west end as another district then it would fall into a review. HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Charles: Under new business I'll open the public hearing on 212 w. Hopkins and 222 E. Hallam and table them to the May 10th meeting. MOTION: Joe made the motion to continue the public hearing until the May 10, 1988 meeting on 212 W. Hopkins and 222 E. Hallam. Charlie second. Motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 300 W. NAIN Charles: This is a conceptual development review public hearing for 300 W. Main St. Scott and Caroline McDonald and Welton Anderson will present. Welton: Plan A featured an elevation on the south similar to this and there was also Plan C that had a full two story with a high roof. There was discussion as to whether plan A or C was the better. All the members didn't think the flat roof was appropriate on the alley side. I met with the McDonalds and we came up with something between A and C. A was a two story with a flat roof and C was a two story with a pitched roof. I suggested that we go with 1 3/4 story structure. We have a gable that comes up about 2 1/2 feet higher than the existing roof but it is a tight gable. That allows for an eave line that goes around the west side of the building where it is up against the carriage house and along the alley side where the roof starts to slope in from the wall at about 5 ft. and with dormers set into that roof that are actually bedrooms. The west elevation does feature a low eave line and a pitched roof. The treatment with the larger dormer or eave coming out of a sloping roof is my preference. My reason for that is it keeps some separation of this space away from the existing structure so that the roof of the addition is set back several feet behind the plane of this roof and thus reinforces that this is not as important as it is stepped back. The light requirement for the bathroom would be accommodated by the sky light. I think you will agree that the applicant has done a remarkable amount of work. Charlie: I noticed that some of the details have changed in terms of the window treatments and I assume the McDonalds have a certain window in mind. Are they double hung or fixed. Scott: Double hung on the two side by sides on the west elevation and double hung on the south elevation. On the south elevation there would be one door in the center and double hung window on each side. Welton: My role in this is to get the mass of the addition established and improved and get input as far as fenestration detail etc. 2 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Roxanne: On March 8th HPC passed a motion to extend the period during which the applicant could meet the conditions of conceptual approval by one month to April 12 with direction to the applicant to study and present revised plans on six different issues: fenestration, pitched roof types, breaking up the massing, eliminate the west elevation staircase, shake or shingle roof and to restudy the southwest corner in particular the second story porch and massing. The applicant returned on April 12th at our last meeting with three alternative plans with the fourth plan brought to the meeting which was very similar to alternative A. After extensive review of the three plans that were submitted at that time the Planning Office recommended to the HPC that they withdraw and deny conceptual approval for the reason that the applicant did not meet the conditions of conceptual and extension approvals. At that meeting of April 12th HPC voted to extend the period of time for conceptual approval by two weeks to today. The applicant has presented some new plans addressing most of the Committees concerns with major changes that we need to point out. The footprint has been extended 6.5 feet east due to the accommodation of the two car garage, that is new. Scott: I think it is 4.5 feet. Roxanne: The height of the proposed pitched roof has increased by 1 ft. 9 inches. Welton said 2 1/2 ft. which is most visible on the west and north elevations. This new plan attempts to address the flat vs. pitched roof issue that HPC has had with the project. Staff feels that the plan as presented offers a good transition between the original log structure and the Elisha Carriage house. The minimal height increase has allowed the use of gabled dormers along the alleyside. Very minor changes are presented for the southwest corner which HPC has stressed as an area of concern. The little cut and paste second floor change is specifically different but the other plan that was presented is very much the same as we have always seen. The further study of this elevation has not, in our opinion produced the desired results the Committee is seeking. Staff feels the "shed dormer" is, in fact, more of a sloped roof covered balcony, and feels further study should be required from the applicant on that elevation. The expanse of this covered balcony is not in keeping with the style of the original log house or with the character of the Main Street Historic District. As the applicant continues to point out, this elevation of the addition is considerably recessed from both the street and the original log cabin and they feel the negative impact of the shed roof/balcony approach is minimal. The footprint of this elevation has not been moved back to the north, a desired result as previously discussed by HPC. In staff's memo of 4-12-88 concerns were discussed regarding the width of the shed dormers on both the south and the east elevations and the applicant has not presented amended plans 3 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 reflecting a shrinking of these, however, Scott did balance out the windows on one elevation so that they were more symmetrical. Fenestration has been continually discussed by HPC and staff feels that the applicant has only addressed some of the concerns. I think the question still lies: are the windows "true divided", are they compatible with the original log cabin. Staff calls this to HPC's attention with recommendation that if window trim is deemed appropriate, that it be narrow and extremely simplified. Window trim is presented on the additions. The north elevation dormers: The 2nd story north elevation consists of small peaked cross dormers protruding from the pitched roof. Staff feels the applicant has presented a good plan with the exception of the zig-zag approach to the gabled dormers. Further study should be made of how the dormers may better fit in relation to the upper floor. We suggest that the form of dormers on other historic residential houses in Aspen be studied to arrive at a dormer detailing more appropriate in scale and roofline effect. Roofing materials: In staff's opinion roofing materials are a very important issue of this project primarily due to the fact that the entire new roof will call attention to the new addition, especially now that a pitch and dormers are proposed. HPC's request was for the applicant to consider shingle or shake roofing materials, and Staff feels this direction is even more critical now. The applicant continues to present pro-panel metal roof. Siding materials: The applicant prefers to use 5/4" custom milled channel lap of native timber. Staff feels very strongly that due to the design of the addition and its effects on the original log cabin, that half logs or full logs may be a better approach. Actual material representation should be made at Final. The south elevation second floor "Option A", that is the cut and paste addition reflects a gable end with many windows and a door opening onto the balcony. It is "busy" and does not, in staff's opinion, adequately address the option of the gable end at this elevation. If the shed roof dormer/balcony were modified as suggested in previous HPC meetings, staff could support the design for that elevation. The second egress and handicapped access: The building and fire codes may require a second means of egress and handicap access to the restaurant, necessitating exterior changes. Requirements have not yet been finalized and any alternatives will be presented at final development review. The recommendation from the Planning Office is this: We are very encouraged with the plans that have been presented and we feel the areas of concern are being met for the most part. We recommend that HPC table conceptual approval to the next meeting of May 10th and direct the applicant to further study the issues of fenestration, shed dormers on both the east and south elevations, gabled dormers on the north elevation and roofing and siding materials. We recommend that HPC give staff direction to prepare a resolution granting conceptual development approval for your consideration 4 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 at the May 10, 1988 meeting. In that resolution we will incorporate the concerns that you will be discussing today and must be addressed at final development review. Charles: I'll open the public hearing. Augie: I'd prefer the dormer scheme but I think there is too much going on within the dormer itself. I think we need to look at fenestration but conceptually I don't have any problem with where you have located windows and the overall proportions of the windows don't bother me and we need to look at the windows to see if they are true divided lights. I don't have a problem with the siding as long as the profile of the siding is the same as the existing timbers as far as dimension and height. I don't have a problem with the metal roof but would like to see the material before approving it. We haven't seen a floor plan so we can't respond to the handicapped access. The lift up dormer on the east side bothers me, the proportions seem a little too big. Welton: We looked at taking south elevation and running that the same motif. that gable that you see on the ridge to the alley and repeating Joe: I agree with Augie also in reference to the gable. We should study the windows. The skylight would depend on what kind of roof we have and if it could blend in. I have no problem with the north elevation. The location of the windows is fine but we should look at the detail as it seems a little too busy. I would also like to see the roofing materials and siding materials so that it is consistent with the log cabin. Half or whole logs are appropriate as long as the look is similar to the cabin. Charles: It is important for us to see properly access what we are looking at. we are approving is workable. floor plans in order to We need to know if what Welton: I drew up floor plans. Charles: I'm not sure if pro-panel is an appropriate metal roof for that situation on Main St. I like the design of option A with the dormer on the southwest corner as it is a vast improvement over what we have seen before. It is very important that the windows be true divided windows so that they are compatible with the existing building. The scale of the window particularly on the dormer may want to be reduced a little bit. Floor plans and elevations that relate to the floor plans would be important in order to grant conceptual approval. Charlie: Can you give us information on the access and egress of the ramp. 5 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Scott: Caroline talked to the fire marshal and we have to have an exit with a 20 ft. ramp. The ramp would come out of the house. Charlie: So we would see it on the north and east elevation. Will the restaurant equipment be hidden. Scott: Yes, all of it will be hidden in the attic space above the kitchen. Welton: Basically it is a mechanical pit which is a full 1/2 story. Charlie: The native material is not a log but siding. Scott: It is almost timber and is very thick and will be milled so that it has the same spacing as the logs. It is channel lap. Charlie: The whole presentation has vastly been improved. The north elevation is fine and I like the south elevation with the dormer and the window treatment with the small trim and the smaller divided lights and the idea of a triangular window. I don't see a problem with the true divided light double hung on the first floor that we see in the west and south elevations. It is nice to have differentiation to the new building over the old. I still have a problem with the french doors dividing in half. Metal roofs have been on log cabins and I don't feel that is inappropriate. Depending on the color it would be appropriate setting among the pine trees. The skylight is a contemporary feature but is hidden behind the trees and I don't think it will become objective. There is the necessity to have as much light in the living area as possible. Could the handicap ramp be on the addition. Scott: The fire marshal won't allow us to go and even if there was the possibility of garage the code won't allow it. through the kitchen going through the Roxanne: In summary the Committee mentioned that the metal roof would be acceptable depending on the material and color. It appears that the consensus is that the south elevation is vastly improved and that the dormer approach is more appropriate but needs further study particularly the "busy" fenestration. The siding materials are acceptable as long as they are close to the depth of the logs. Further study needs to be made fenestration wise with regard to true divided light, possibly adding more mullions or a blend between the old and new. The Committees consensus is that the dormer on the east is still too wide and should be shortened possibly less centered but not carried through the whole width of that particular elevation. 6 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Charles: A motion might be entertained here to continue this until the following meeting. Steve: You could table actual action but to get things rolling so it doesn't take two more meetings have a resolution with direction. Welton: We can accommodate all the comments that were made and actually come up with one set of elevations with a floor plan. I would ask that you take stronger action then just tabling it perhaps approve the plans as presented with the conditions as outlined in the minutes. The major point architecturally I think is how to treat the east and south portions of the addition whether it is the shed dormer or the gable dormer. Charles: We already have a consensus that the gable end dormer is preferred over the shed dormer, option A. Welton: Other members said that the shed dormer wasn't so bad if it was reduced and didn't go the full width. Joe: I don't have a problem with the shed dormer given the fact that it is recessed back. Augie: On the siding what is important is the height of the siding and the joint size is equal or close to being equal to the existing structure. Scott: I'll take the average and divide it up. Charles: We can make progress by moving this to the meeting of May 10th and add the summary and the recommendations that were made today to be presented as one package. Scott: Until I get conceptual I can"t do the drawings to submit for building. Charlie: I would agree with that as there are at least three elevations that we are talking about changing. MOTION= Augie made the motion that HPC table conceptual approval to the next meeting May 10, 1988 and direct the applicant to further study the issues with option A with the dormers on the south and either the dormer or a reduced shed dormer on the east looking at the following items: window and door fenestration, siding is OK as presented but the height of the siding and the joint should come close to matching the 7 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 existing, the roofing as presented in the metal roof is OK but before approval is given we need to look at the actual material. The new window trim needs to be studied and along with this the chosen complete submission package including a floor plan, site plan, roof plan and exterior elevations. The roof plan can be the site plan as long as they show both. We want to see the complete package of what is going to happen. I also recommend that HPC give the staff direction to prepare a resolution granting conceptual development for consideration of the May 10, 1988 meeting. In that resolution you include everything that is in my motion. The siding, roofing and window trim are to be studied at Final. Charlie second the motion. Joe: I think we also should look at the general fenestration. Roxanne: That is in the motion. Steve: My opinion is that when you get into selection of materials it is really a Final Development Review detail and it is best to let that ride. Roxanne: You can add that at the end of motion. Charlie: Having not had seen this before on the site plan we are now dealing with parking and redefining of the streetscape and that is not in our packet for consideration. I think it should be made as part of this. You have parking along the side and back. Charles: As part of the submittal package the site plan that you are representing should be part of that conceptual approval. Welton: The Eng. Dept. doesn't allow for curb cuts that go the entire length of the block. The McDonalds were showing that in case somebody in the City wanted it. All the required parking with P&Z reduction etc. is accommodated on the alley accessed entirely from the alley so that there will be a streetscape and not parking. Caroline: The Eng. Dept. is recommending to put the curb parking in. Charlie: The HPC will probably say %1. we don't want to alter the trees or alter the effect the streetscape has to an historic building. This is something I would think would have to be approved by us. Caroline: P&Z has parking. 8 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Charles: In the interest of has to understand the concerns them. keeping this going the applicant here and this would be one of Steve: There is a little overlapping authority here. P&Z is reviewing the conditional use impacts. You may be interested in site design issues. I think it is good to defer as much as is appropriate because P&Z is also sensitive to the trees. Charles: I'll close the public hearing. MOTION= Ail those in favor of the motion. Ail approved. Motion carries. ASPEN FIRE DISTRICT OFFICE EXTERIOR Steve: The primary concern is the brick being painted. Bob Walker: The addition between the fire house and the thrift shop is the office. The only item that was left up to discussion was the color of the block. The district from the beginning wanted the block the same color as the thrift shop which is painted gray. The Fire Dept. has no intention of repainting the fire barn. My original intention was to keep the same detailing as the Thrift Shop and the HPC did not want to do that because they were trying to show visually that the Fire Dept. addition and the Thrift Shop were not connected. I suggested a compromise: we tried to look at getting an intricate colored block but due to the small order we couldn't do it and it was expensive. It wasn't a great idea of putting a third color on another facade. I would like to paint the concrete block the same color as the thrift block and on the window detail to use two colors, a deep burgundy and a darker red, satin enamel. The reds would pick up a little color of the Fire barn and a little bit of the red in the building next door. The Fire District would like to go along with this also. Charles: This sounds like a fine approach. MOTION~ Joe made the motion to approve the treatment and materials that are presented for the Fire District Office. Augie second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ASPEN COMMUNITY CHURCH Graeme Means: Our intention is to restore the building not change it in any way. We want to restore similar materials to the old. The shingles on the roof of the bell tower and the side walls of the bell tower we intend to remove and replace with new cedar shingles. The louvers are deteriorating and we will have 9 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 to replace them. The area around the roof and the curved dormer and flat sections have always leaked. Our intention is to put new copper on this section. Some of the shingles are in good shape and we intend to leave those. The soffit will be repainted red and the louvers will be repainted the same color. The roof we would like to add color to the shingles to make it more historically accurate and also the shingles would last longer. My preference is charcoal color. The shingles that are there are the original shingles and over 100 years old. Charlie: If you are going to change the shingles I would think you would change all the lower shingles on the wall of the tower. Graeme: That's what we intended to do. We also have a new little entry way on the west side that has a cedar shingled roof and we would like to paint that so it would fit in with everything. Roxanne: The shingles will be dipped so to cover both sides. If they shrink the underside will be the same color. Charlie: The side addition has beautiful lines to it and I want to compliment you on the job and good workmanship. Roxanne: I had to talked to Graeme as to how much of the original fabric can be restored. Can you actually restore and integrate in with the new particularly because this is a national registered building. Because of the economics and the continual hardship of the maintenance and since it is a church probably this is the recommended way to go. Augie: I think you have done a nice job with the building not only on the outside but on the inside also. Since the roof is going to be the black and since the main portion of the roof is in the gray etc. have you looked into microzinc or other metal roofs that might tend to blend a little better or is that not a concern. Roxanne: Your concern is the copper. Augie: Yes, as the copper will weather to a dirty dull brown. Graeme: If we ever get the money we are going to redo the main roof. Also most of the copper is not visible. Charles: The copper will be reflective for awhile. Augie: You could put a chemical on the copper. 10 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Roxanne: I talked that we not do that as and it is not visible. to the state architect and he recommended it will patina in about a year on its own Charles: This is on the south side and the sun will hit it. You may want to consider a lead zinc alloy. Charles: We could approve the way it looks now with a recommendation that lead zinc alloy be looked into. Graeme: I will look into it. MOTIONs Charlie made the motion to approve the plans for reroofing and residing the upper portion of the bell tower at the Aspen Community Church along with reroofing the south gable in copper or an appropriate metal material and allow it to weather naturally. Joe second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. PRESERVATION AWARDS Roxanne: Last night Council approved $250 for the plaques. Nominated are 131 E. Hallam, 332 W. Main F. M. Taylor, The Wheeler Stallard House, Aspen Community Church, Wheeler Opera House, Hotel Jerome, Pitkin County Court House. MOTIONs Charles made the motion to accept all seven nominations for the historic preservation awards. Charlie second the motion. Motion carries. Adjourned Kathleen J. Strickland 11 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 300 W. MAIN ASPEN FIRE DISTRICT OFFICE EXTERIOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ASPEN COMMUNITY CHURCH PRESERVATION AWARDS .2 .9 .9 · 11 12