Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880524HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 MINOR DEVELOPMENT-SCULPTURE GARDEN 411 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 212 W. HOPKINS . CONCEPTUAL & FINAL-513 W. BLEEKER FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-300 W. MAIN MINOR DEVELOPMENT-220 W. MAIN MINOR DEVELOPMENT-ROARING FORK BLDG.415 E. HYMAN EXPLORE BOOKSTORE-AWNING . .4 .6 .8 12 14 15 18 20 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall May 24, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Charles Cunniffe, Charlie Knight, Augie Reno, Zoe Compton and Joe Krabacher present. Patricia O'Bryan was excused. COMMITTEE MSMBERAI~) STAFF COMMENTS Bill Poss made the motion to approve the minutes of May 10, 1988 with corrections. All approved. Joe: I would suggest that everybody reads what they said at the particular meeting and possibly somebody could be delegated to read the critical information which is the motions or resolutions. Augie: If you weren't in attendance at the next meeting, if you were only checking what you said personally that means that those items could be left uncorrected. Nick: My feeling is that Kathy puts the minutes together and when we come back to the next meeting and we approve the minutes those minutes then stand. Up until they are approved then that is the time to make corrections or an argument. If you don't make a meeting when the minutes are approved that is passe. Georgeann: I find it difficult to just read what I've said. You've got to at least glance at the whole thing in order to get a sense of it. Joe: I'm concerned about the conditions of approval such as McDonalds and the Amato project. Bill: We need to get a format down. We will all continue to read the minutes and give comments or corrections. If we all read the minutes that will lessen the chance of something being left out. Augie: I question whether we need the warranty deed, title commitments etc. in our packets. Bill: Roxanne will you please edit the packets. Bill: We have eight members present. We need seven and one of the alternates is welcome to stay but only seven can vote. One of the alternates will not be able to vote. Augie: I have a 3:30 potential meeting. HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Bill: We will seat Joe as the seventh member to vote. Charles: In the last issue of the Aspen Times a comment was made on the Amato house. It was quoted that it was an HPC comment but it was a comment by the Planning Staff. Roxanne: I talked to Madelyn and I am not sure what action the Times will take, possibly a follow up story. Madelyn: Richard from Charles Cunniffe's office tried to convince me that this was completely untrue that the Planning Office had tried to stop demolition and the HPC never wanted to see that demolished which I know isn't true because I sat through these meetings for three years. The misunderstanding came from an old memo that said the HPC had though that it was out of scale for the neighborhood and obviously at the last meeting it was decided that the new design looked better. Madelyn: Shouldn't Charles have left the room when that was discussed. Bill: In the ordinance it is a conflict of interest and says specifically that you have to leave the room. Madelyn: Guss Wilmerding will take my place while I am on vacation. PUBLIC COI~ENT Gary Reed, Aspen Awning Co.: I would agenda regarding the design proposal Explorer Bookseller if at all possible. like to be put on the of an awning for the MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to add Gary Reed to the end of the agenda if time. Nick second. All approved except Charlie Knight. Motion carries. MONITORING PROJECTS Augie: Porch is up at the Barnett House. The roof line goes up at the end and is probably a matter of miscalculations and construction of it. As I remember the discussions by Welton to ask for the additional porch the reason they wanted to do that was to carry the line of the roof and in order to carry that line out they had to push the building out to the west. They pushed the building out to the west but it is not a straight line and kind of goes up and around the corner. It is a poor job in my opinion and is probably worth looking at. HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Bill: The person monitoring contractor or architect and have to us. the project should notify the them come back and demonstrate Nick: Ail the new equipment is up on the roof of Elli's and in my opinion it does not exceed what is already there and it is acceptable. Nick: On your building, Bill, next to the bank, 520 E. Hyman there are two pieces of equipment on the roof and I don't know if they got approval or not. Bill Drueding: Mechanical equipment on the roof will come through without requiring your 91 building permit. If I don't get a chance to review it, it just gets a mechanical permit so some things get by me that go on roofs. Bill: Roxanne will you direct Staff to write a letter to the owners of the building that the mechanical equipment did not come up for approval at 520 E. Hyman before the HPC. I don't think they were aware that they had to come before us for review. Nick: I thought it was offensive at least looking to the north. Bill Drueding: Is that a restaurant mechanical equipment. Bill: Yes. Bill Drueding: When a building is designed we don't know for sure what use is going to go in that building; a restaurant is completed and the building is final then the mechanical contractor comes in and pulls a mechanical permit to put a piece of mechanical equipment on the roof and this is not reviewed by me as part of the zoning approval. It is just a mechanical permit so those things do slip by. Roxanne: O'Leary's is a good example as they had an application. Bill: Staff would handle that as a minor development review. Roxanne: You might contact Jim Wilson and let him know that anything in the zone needs to be approved through the Planning Office. Roxanne: I am concerned about the tree leaning on the Bucher residence on 113 E. Hopkins. Charles: Who do I talk to about that tree. 3 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Roxanne: After the meeting we need to review that issue and he hasn't come before us for Final yet. Bill Drueding: He moved the tree without a building permit. Georgeann: He moved it on his own property. Bill: I will monitor 222 E. Hallam. Joe: I'll take 334 W. Hallam. MINOR DEVeLOPMENT-SCULPTURE GARDEN 411 E. HOPKINS Roxanne: The applicant is requesting approval of modifications to the previously approved sculpture garden specifically the dining terrace: To extend the length of the awning to cover the entire new terrace area. On Feb. 9th HPC reviewed an approved the sculpture garden and then on March 22 Bill came back with an amendment to the plan which was also approved which in that plan included a small curved stucco wait station. Bill has come back to us to amend the wait station and it has become more of a permanent type of structure. Regarding the awning they prefer to use white on the new section to allow light in the area. Currently exists green. The total new length of the awning will be 49 feet; it projects out about 9 1/2 feet from the building and covers approximately 230 sq. ft. The new wait station has evolved from this small curved stucco structure into a very permanent bar storage station with a back wall, however, in verbally talking they have now changed the plan. Instead of it being a 12 ft. high wall and 20 feet long the wall it is now going to be just the height of the door which is 7'2", the rest of the height of the wall will be filled in with canvas. The proposal called for 8" log siding which staff is concerned about but it has been changed to a bead board to match the bar front which I personally feel may be a better way to go. Our other concern was the visual aspect of the bar area in the winter without the awning. Bill says they apparently are going to try to leave the awning up in the winter, that the awning manufacturer has basically said it will probably be OK. Staff is directing the question of standard C to you: Does this proposed development negatively impact the esthetics and cultural concept of the sculpture garden that you previously approved. On the other hand the very activity of outdoor dining is kind of fun and may bring attention to the sculpture garden. We are recommending approval of the minor development application subject to HPC's approval. I have on here visual acceptable winter coverage for the bar area. With the awning being up that may not be applicable. 4 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Georgeann: In the winter time this bar will be closed down and will the snow be dropping on top of it, drooping the awning. Bill Lipsey: They will be able to strengthen the holes. There is a panel of canvas that comes down and snaps underneath the bar all the way around the U shaped area that will form an enclosure and will keep the equipment that is in there protected from moisture and weather. Georgeann: awnings at well. When Gary from Aspen Awning put up the winter time the Prospector those were reinforced and stayed fairly Joe: Where is it located in relationship to the wall of the Brand Bldg. Bill Lipsey: There is a hallway that goes into the kitchen and there is a low back part on the Brand Bldg. The bar sits right in front of the low part. By extending the awning the same height and the same plane as the existing awning that it will unify the wall. Bill: To the upper left of the bar where you have a circular paved area for dining how high is the terrace. Bill Lipsey: About six inches above the level of the pea gravel and there is a railing all the way around it. Bill Lipsey: We asked at our first approval that HPC look at the concrete because it is tinted in the wall and we feel you will find it acceptable. The color is somewhat of a sand color. Georgeann: I will monitor the sculpture garden. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the changes to the bar in the sculpture garden at 411 E. Hopkins and any awning is acceptable. Charles second the motion. Zoe: You mentioned acrylic on the awning and we went through this on Maestros and the material was shiny. Bill Lipsey: Either the acrylic or cotton is a matt finish not a plastic. The cotton is not a year round material. Roxanne: The existing green awning will exist and the white awning will be on the new instead of all being one. Bill Lipsey: After the present awning wears out we would probably be replacing it with a similar white awning. 5 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Georgeann: I certainly can see the point of having extra light. Bill Lipsey: We can get a few more seasons use out of it. Bill: Does the committee have a preference to have the awning all one color. Charles: What they are applying for is to have the green awning stand and have the white awning added to it. They are suggesting that they would come back later when it is time to replace the green awning and ask if it should be white. I find it acceptable. Zoe: I think it should be all one color. Aesthetically looking it would be better all one color. Nick: I would back that comment as we have pink concrete, colored gravel, white awning and two or three different colors of wood on the building. Joe: Do we have the authority to regulate color. Georgeann: While I see that one color would be preferable I see they have a valid reason for it and as long as they stay with those color schemes even in two years when they need to change it I don't see any reason why they need to come back if they change it to one of those colors. Bill Lipsey: You are reviewing material not color. Bill: We have a motion on the floor. Ail approved of the motion. Motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPHEN'~ REVIEW 212 W. BOPKINS Charles stepped down. Roxanne: On May 10th HPC reviewed and tabled conceptual development approval based on your concerns that the height of the new addition was too high compared to the relation to the existing structure and the applicant has submitted revised plans specifically relating to that. The revised proposal reflects a height reduction of three feet over the original plans. The original historic structure is 14 ft. high; the 1970's addition directly behind that is 18.5' feet high and the height of the new addition is 21.5' high so these come down three feet. One of the Planning Offices recommendation was fenestration, to include simple divided lights in the south elevation upper floor. The revised plans as presented show a great transparency in the south and the west elevation of the upper floor and we are 6 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 recommending that some of these lights be divided to act as a transition between the historic home and the new addition. One alternative may be to just divide the side light windows because the glass doors coming out over the balcony may stay that way and also to divide the lights that are on the east elevation as well. The applicant does intend to restore the entire front porch not to go half way and make it transparent but a complete restoration. We recommend conceptual development approval of 212 W. Hopkins finding that the setback variation is more compatible and subject to incorporating divided light on both the east and south elevations. Jan Derrington: We have measured the house to the west that is shown from the alley side that has a two story addition on the back part of the property and a smaller historic building in the front. The relationship of that two story building to the existing house and the proposed addition as close as we can tell the ridge of the proposed addition comes approximately level with the medium of the pitched roof of that historic building existing to the west at the alley. We don't particularly see any great advantage to adding a division in the windows on the south or on the east. The idea behind that is to make them look like double hung windows. What we had envisioned are casement windows. We could call for a window that had a divider bar in the middle. Bill Drueding: At final we would need a large site plan. Bill: On the revised north elevation above the garage doors are those windows double hung. Jan: These are called a stack and strip type window not double hung. Charlie: The reduced height is more appropriate and I disagree a little over the style of windows on the addition. I think it has a nice roof line and if the applicant wants that type of window it is acceptable. I think it distinguishes between the old and new building. Zoe: I was concerned about the porch and they are restoring it and I also was concerned about the height and they lowered it. I don't have a problem with the windows. Roxanne: Mr. Chairman it is important that the motion also have a finding in it regarding the encroachment into the setback. Charlie: The existing setback to the west. Roxanne: It encroaches to the rear yard and side yard setback HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 and by doing that we have to find that the setback is more compatible. MOTION: Georgeann made the development approval to 212 W. variation to be more compatible. Motion carries. motion to give conceptual Hopkins finding the setback Charlie second. All favored. Bill: Roxanne, on issues that you feel we should keep memos you might recommend that the memo should be kept for future reference. Roxanne: Anything that is tabled it is automatic that you hang onto it also on the agenda it says to bring your packet. Bill: That was a public hearing: I will open the public hearing on 212 W. Hopkins. Sally & Sall Barnett: We were concerned about the height and our addition was somewhat lower then theirs would have been. I think they now come out about the same. Bill: I'll close the public hearing. Augie was excused at 3:30pm. CONCEPTUAL & FINAL-513 W. BLEEKER Welton Anderson: As I understand it the area of most concern was the pitch of the roof. There are three reasons why we chose to use a shallower pitch on the roof: One was to tie visually to the porch, by keeping the pitch low (a four and twelve pitch) it can tie in with the roof and read like it is one. I felt that a higher pitch would clash with the shapes and low quiet porch. The second reason was blocked views: A steeper pitched roof would have blocked the entire view of Aspen Mtn. and in addition it also allows winter sun to come in to this back yard and a high pitch roof would not allow. The third reason, the code for accessory buildings limits in return for allowing for only a five foot setback in the rear yard, it limits the height to 12 feet. Although you can vary the code if you think it is aesthetically more pleasing the applicant doesn't want to vary the code due to light, view and keep it subdued. If you went up five or ten feet it would be more of a dominant element on the property. Basically it is a hipped roof on the west, north and east. On the south side is a gable to keep snow from dumping down in front of the garage doors. I also understand that you had a problem with the full glass overhead garage doors. As long as we can have one row (second from top) of glass windows I have no problem. Because of the south exposure I thought it would make HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 the thing work as a solar element but it really is not that important. Roxanne: The allowable FAR is 3,660 and the existing is 3,306 add to that 486 feet for the garage and the storage unit but it is exempt. Charlie: Does that include the existing carriage house. Roxanne: From what I understand that does and calculations were done by Charles Cunniffe before when he architect working on the project. those was the Welton: I did not check the calculations. Whether the carriage house was included it is about 150 to 200 sq. ft. below the FAR. The structure is allowed to bump up another 500 sq. ft. above with the allowable FAR, the Mary Martin Bathroom rule. The actual FAR is 4,160 and the carriage house is 240 sq. ft. Bill: The 500 sq. ft. increase is only allowed if we find it to be more compatible. Welton: That predates all the historic preservation ordinances and the code (1982 or so) and in any case we are under what we would be allowed. Georgeann: We wouldn't approve it unless it was something we liked anyway. Bill Drueding: I have one problem between the accessory building and the main building. The code does require that there be a setback separation. HPC would have to vary that as it does require a separation. It is supposed to be open up to the sky. Welton: Between the breakfast room and the garage I thought visually it would be better to tie the two together and connect them with a three foot wide, four foot long section of extension of the roof of the porch and extension of the roof of the garage. Roxanne: I talked with Bill Drueding prior to mtg. and that did not come up in our conversation that we had to find that a variation to that would be more compatible. Based on Bill Drueding's direction we could take action or I could research. Bill Drueding: HPC's ability to vary setbacks and things was the purpose of it. If you found this was acceptable and you liked it then you could grant a variance. There is a requirement for a separation between principle building and accessory building. This covering is encroaching that separation. HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Charlie: What about the connection between the two. Bill Drueding: If it is a connection that is a proper connection then it is not an accessory building, it is part of the building and therefore the setback changes. It is not an accessory building anymore if it is connected properly. Bill: Welton did you check with the zoning code as you are asking for final review. Welton: You can encroach with overhangs and setbacks. Bill Drueding: 18 inches or 1/3 of the distance of the setback but no more than four feet. Welton: It depends on what you call the building if the porch is the building then they are two close together and connecting them makes them all one building. The code will allow if it is all one building a one story garage to only have a 5 ft. setback from the alley. Bill Drueding: I have to maintain my integrity as far as setbacks but this is the purpose of what this committee has the power to do and I would go along with the approval of this as is. Welton: The shingles will match the shingles and the siding will match the siding. Bill: I will open the public hearing for the conceptual and final development review. No comments from the public. I will close the public hearing. Zoe: What are the garage doors made out of. Welton: I have no problem with going with one strip of glass to get natural lighting. Zoe: The way it is draw shows glass and wood. I am opposed to all glass doors since it faces the alley but I understand the light factor. Georgeann: I would recommend having glass just a single strip across the garage doors. I feel comfortable with the rest of the materials. Nick: For historical preservation whether the doors are all glass or wood I do not find it historically involved what-so- ever. If the owner of the building would like to have everybody look at his car through his glass windows that is his prerogative. 10 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Charlie: I disagree as this is an historic building on our records. I think it is well within our right to direct the scale and the style of the garage because it is a victorian style house. We have proliferated this house from one end to the other with porches and now we are being told the reason there is an encroachment between the house and the garage and that the reason the applicant needs a low profile garage is because the back porch and dining room is now way back on the lot and that the garage will now interfere with their viewplane and their light. Philosophically it is a matter of how we treat buildings like this that have an existing carriage house that are secondary dwellings. My feeling is that it should stay more on the victorian character. I don't have a comment on glass doors or wood doors once we leave the victorian element of the design. Nick: We have overhead doors and nothing related with historical background, not part of the carriage house, its a garage and we are somewhat dictating how much glass he should or shouldn't have. Bill: Originally I thought it should be more of a victorian character and I also believe the applicant created the problem of view lines etc. In light of where it is located on the site and the visibility from the street I tend to change my approach to it and would be in favor of this application but I also would like to see it be more victorian in character rather than southwestern. Bill: In the motion it should be noted that the variations are more compatible to the historic structure. Someone needs to add that in the motion. setback Bill: I might add Welton there is some discrepancy on the roof slope of the porch, northwestern corner. Welton: I will check that out. Bill: Augie will be sending you a letter. MOTIONs Georgeann made the motion to approve conceptual and final development of 513 W. Bleeker St. as show in the drawings presented by the architect today allowing for the setback variation as it is more compatible to the existing building with the materials to match the existing building materials. Nick second. AMENDED MO~IO~ Georgeann amended her motion to add that the garage doors be no more than one strip of glass at the eye level. Nick second. All favored amendment. Motion carries. 11 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Bill: Ail in favor of the motion as amended. Ail approved except Charlie Knight. Motion carries. FINAL DEVELOPMEN'~ REVIEW-300 W. MAIN Roxanne: On May 10th HPC approved the resolution 88-3 which granted conceptual development approval subject to the following conditions: That the applicant shall address in their Final Development Review simplified south elevation upper floor dormer window and door fenestration. Detailed plans for the size of panes in the true divided lights. Further study of the east dormer mass and scale and accurate building materials and representation and a structural analysis. They have provided all of those things. The south elevation the applicant has proposed a triangular window as opposed to the original squared window. A sample of the Marvin windows is in your packet. The window trim will be very simple and narrow. The east dormer the applicant has furthered studied and has included sketched drawings. Basically they continue to prefer the shed dormer which was originally presented. Augie wanted the applicant to present two shed dormers which would break up the large expanse. I now have received a detail of that particular floor area which discussed using the two dormers and how it not practical to do so. The applicant felt that the gable end was not going to satisfy their needs. The possibility of having one dormer over the bedroom and none for the bath, that also isn't going to work for the applicant as no natural light is coming into the bathroom. Reducing the shed dormer even more was discussed. They will also be presenting their materials which they have. They also have submitted a structural analysis that was reviewed by Stan Stevens of the Bldg. Dept. My concern was the placement of the skylights and size of the skylights. Scott: They are 3'by 3'. They are about six inches tall. Roxanne: Staff found their application to be complete as they have presented placement of the skylights. HPC may approve the development with conditions, no conditions or table action. The Planning Office recommends approval of final development subject to the applicant incorporating consideration $4 which is a further reduction of the shed dormer and for HPC approving the skylights and their roof placement. Scott: We may or may not use all the skylights. Charlie: You intend to use the Marvin window. Scott: If not the Marvin window it would be one like it and would be all solid wood and double hung true divided light. 12 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Joe: Do the applicants have any comment to the Planning Office's recommendation that we approve final subject to consideration #4. Caroline: We are in three feet from the eaves and our problem is the interior. Zoe: You have two skylights proposed. Caroline: roof. One that shows and the other one would be on the flat Roxanne: One on the south elevation and on the flat there are three. Zoe: The roofline is good and what is the material of the garage door. Scott: Resawn plywood. Zoe: I'm sure the applicant and Welton have tried to work #4 out and I am satisfied. When the motion is made I would like the material to be spelled out specifically. Georgeann: What they have done shows a tremendous improvement and I have no problem with the shed dormer. They have showed to make it any smaller would be too significant of a hardship and I recommend that we approve it. Charlie Knight: I agree on the shed dormer and it fits into the bldg. very nicely. In the motion we should condition that the skylights not be visible from the pedestrian walkway of Main St. Joe: I don't have a problem with the shed dormer as they reduced it the last time and again they have shown that they are not going to be able to work with the other alternatives and still have the floor plan that they need. Charlie: How is the parking going. Roxanne: P&Z approved the parking but because of the tree consideration and the roots so close to the surface the applicants are requesting instead of diagonal parking a parallel parking which will probably eliminate one space. They will be meeting with Planning and Engineering. Right now there is no problem. Scott: I talked to them and we are proposing one more space 13 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 on the alley which would make it six but it would be encroaching into the right-of-way. Bill: I was one of the ones that wanted you to look at the shed dormer and in light of the information provided I agree that it would be too much of a hardship. I would like to compliment you on your willingness to look at the constant changes that we have asked you to look at and it is a good job. MOTION: for 300 W. called out other than second. Zoe made the motion to approve the final development Main St. subject to materials being specifically and that no skylights are showing from the Main St. the one that was in the original drawing. Georgeann Caroline: Should our encroachment in the back be included. Roxanne: We approved that in conceptual and feel it is OK to include that in the final as well. Joe: We recommend or make a finding that it is more compatible. AMENDED MOTIONs Joe moved to amend the motion accordingly to provide that we grant the variance on the rear yard setback. Bill second. All favored. Motion carries. Bill: Ail in favor of the motion presented by Zoe. Ail approved. Motion carries. MINOR DEVELOPMENt-220 W. MAIN Roxanne: The applicant is presenting minor development approval involving the attachment of two awnings to the facade of 220 W. Main. They will appear as one continuous awning down into the store front. We have gone through the standards including comments out of the guidelines. We recommend approval for the awning finding that the proposed development is in keeping with the guidelines and compatible with the standards for development in the Historic Overlay District. Gary Reed: is plain. We are trying to add something to the building as it Georgeann: I have no problem with this. Charlie: Is there black trim across the front. Gary: I would like to see the stripes continue down the valance and there would be no signage. 14 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Bill: Are we voting on the stripes. Gary: Vote on the stripes continuing down the valance. Zoe: I would do an all striped awning. NOTION~ Charlie made the motion that we approve the proposed awning design at 220 E. Main provided however that the valance is a continuation of the black and silver striping that is on the upper portion of the awning on the drawing presented. Joe second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. NINOR DEVELOPMENT-ROARING FORK BLDG.415 E. ~ Rod Dyer, architect: I represent International Lace which is one of the owners of the building. Roxanne: This is a minor development review and is an excellent presentation. The first floor store front is the primary focus. They want to remove the aluminum store front system including the doorway, replacing it with oak and glass and adding window boxes to all of the windows which are the width of the windows and including some brass lighting. The existing spot lights for signage illumination will also be eliminated. The net interior area will be reduced by 18.75 ft. The multi level entry way which is really outside of our area of review is also going to be remodeled. We are pleased with the project and recommend approval provided that the stucco course which is just above the garden level windows be restored and repainted or replaced with compatible wood and that a minimum number of posts be included in the oak railing within the two most westerly archways to add visual continuity. Rod: We are going for a plain oak not molded in any way. We want to take out the aluminum railing that is not really in keeping with the building and replace that with an oak frame. In doing we also will be reducing the interior opening of the building by 18 sq. ft. As the tenants move out we will remove the signage lighting and possibly change the signs so that they are less obtrusive. The whole floor is restaurant and we would like to change the front two units to retail sales and there would be two back units that would be office space. In doing so we would move the bathrooms back to where they were. We are changing the existing rod iron railings to oak. The band will be replaced with wood panelling system that would be framed on each segment. There will be flower boxes on 1st, 2nd, 3rd floors. The fourth floor is not owned by International Lace. Roxanne: Originally we had discussed a singular oak railing 15 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 that would be across the other two arches that would not have spindles in them. They do not reflect on this however. Bill: Will they be there or not. Rod: We would like direction and we are willing to put them in but our feeling is that it looks better without them. We would like to move the entrance over to the column. Georgeann: I would like to ask about moving the door as it aligns up with the windows above. Joe: I'm not sure if you are really going to see it that much as it is set back far enough. Owner: I wanted the door moved because we are selling victorian gowns and it is more important to show your displays than a door. It gives more character to the building to have two windows with the "theme" which is victorian. Bill: I tend to agree with Joe that in reality you won't make that alignment and would allow the applicant to have more window display space as it would solve a functional problem. Rod: In the case of fire and people exiting it would be better if that door were a little farther away from the other one. Zoe: The building was built in 1971 and they did a good representation of something that blends in with the mall. The oak railing is a representation of a colonial style and I feel that is not in keeping with the mining town. That needs to be changed. Replacing the storefront in oak etc. is excellent. The four light fixtures that are there are not appropriate but the shiny brass is not appropriate either and I would prefer it to be in iron or something that is not so "stand-outish". Brass is out of character for the mining era. Joe: I like the design and it is a 1971 building and I am not so sure it is appropriate for us to require them to have a mining look to it. They are comfortable with those lights and I am comfortable with them. It is hard to tell how the oak railing will stand out but I don't have a problem with that either. The applicant put together an outstanding package and it is very helpful having the photographs as you can visualize what is happening. Georgeann: I wonder if the stain of the railing will determine if it looks colonial or victorian thinking of the wood rails inside the Jerome Hotel. The darker oak would look more in keeping what Zoe has in mind. 16 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Zoe: The turning part of the oak rail is what is colonial. If it were square. Roxanne: The feel of the spindles reflects the owners business. Georgeann: Possibly the applicant could look around at the Wheeler etc. and see what we have around town. Bill: I think your comments are correct Zoe and this building was probably approved earlier to be compatible with the Paragon building. If you upgrade to wood you have to balance it with a tone and I would also like to see the brass lights toned town. Rod: What if we put the lights up and take a look at them and if you don't like them we will replace them. Zoe: I know exactly what they look like. The colonial applications on this building are out of character. Charlie: My concern as a retailer you may want to carry a small bit of window trim around those two large windows so they draw all the oak work together. Rod: I understand Charlie's concern about the wood and from a practical point of view it's more complicated especially with the way the brick columns are shaped. It is more complicated to set a frame into those brick columns then it is to put the frame behind. There are a lot of flashing problems involved in that plus you have to cut the brick. Charlie: I don't have any problem with what they intend to do. Bill: I agree with Zoe that the metal across all three is a cleaner look and keeps a horizontal line. Charlie: As high as it is I know if it were my storefront I wouldn't want a security guard type fence up there because you have to realize it is almost 4 ft. off the ground so at eye level you would be looking primarily at the fence and they will really be dramatic show case type windows for whatever tenant is in there. Roxanne: Do you call out the changes in the stucco fascia board on the plans. You say repair and repainting existing fascia. Rod: We'll stipulate that we'll do that and cover it in wood. MO~ION~ Joe made the motion to grant minor development approval for the Roaring Fork Building at 415 E. Hyman. Rod had said he is 17 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 going to do the wood and it is reflected in the plans. Georgeann second the motion. Zoe: I think if we let this pass without a little bit of study on it then I think we should let a lot of things pass. If we are going to let a colonial railing go up on the mall and brass light fixtures.. We have given so many people grief over minor things and this is the mall of Aspen, Colo. and we're going to let a Williamsburg railing go up I totally disagree. I don't want to vote or pass a motion. Roxanne: You could amend the motion to include that the applicant return to staff with a less delicate colonial type spindles and with a less shiny finished carriage lamp. Zoe: I would be happy to give guidance with choosing the right spindle and light. A~ENDED ROTION~ Joe moved to amend the motion to provide that the applicant will study the railing and attempt to produce a less delicate railing of a victorian styling and that the applicant reconsider the lighting fixtures and provide ones that are not as shiny and delicate and that staff can approve and sign off on the railing and lights and staff will do an FYI memo to HPC to inform them what has happened and staff will consult with Zoe. Bill second. All favored the amended motion. Motion carries. Bill: We have a motion on the floor that has been amended. Ail favored the motion. Motion carries. EXPLORE BOOKSTORE-AWNING Gary Reed: The Explorer Bookstore has a breakfast/lunch area on the back of the building facing the alley. The area gets a lot of sun and the owner wants to put in a retractable system. She will eventually be expanding the deck area. We will be making an oversized awning utilizing four legs on the deck area itself. It is a rectangular shape and is 16' x 14" and will be painted an offwhite to match the existing railing. The awning will be an acrylic fabric. The frame will be painted off white to match the existing railing. The awning will roll off an air crafted cable which is not visible because the fabric is on the bottom part of it. It is not designed to hold a snow load or to be used in rain. It accordions up completely out of site up on the roof itself. Georgeann: Who will be able to see this. 18 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Gary: The people directly in back of the house and they would have to look up to see it. It is below the existing roof line. Roxanne: The owner will have to come to us for the deck approval. MOTIONs Joe made the motion to grant a minor development approval for 221 E. Main for the proposed awning to cover the deck at the back of the building. Georgeann second. All approved. Motion carries. Meeting Adjourned Kathleen J. Strickland 19