Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19870825 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall August 25, 1987 2:30 p.m. Meeting was brought to order by Bill Poss with Patricia O'Bryan, Zoe Compton, Charles Cunniffe and Charlie Knight present. Nick Pasquarella and Georgeann Waggaman had excused absence. NOTION: Charlie made the motion to approve the minutes of July 28, 1987. Charles second the motion. All approved. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMEI~TS Steve: The incentives are still in the works and September 8, 1987 at 5:00 is the next City Council worksession on the incen- tives. PUBLIC COMMENTS Wayne Stryker and Rick Buesch thanked the Committee for their support of the Viet Nam memorial project and for the approval of the design concept. A special thanks to Pat O'Bryan who was a commission member. MINOR DEVELOPMBNT I~VI~W BIDWELL'S FLAGPOLE Bert Bidwell: I just want to put up a flagpole directly in front of Sabbatini's in the courtyard. It will be a 39' fiber- glass black flagpole. A 7" brass ball will be on top of the pole. The flag will be an American flag 8'x5'. Seven feet of the pole will be underground which makes the visible pole 32'. I think it will be very attractive in the courtyard. The flag is a 48 star flag and the pole will come to the top of the building. The black color is woven or processed into the pole. Charlie: The scale of the flag itself is 5'x8'. Is that scale an appropriate size for that pole. Bert: Yes it is. The flag is my own flag. Steve: In the application the applicant is asked to address its compatibility in the historic district. Generally you feel the esthetics enhance the neighborhood. Do you think there is any historic precedence for large flagpoles and large flags in the historic district. Bert: I wasn't here in 1900 but after talking to some of the older people flying a flag was quite a big thing in those days. It brings back some of era. Steve: Were they on public buildings. Bert: Yes they were on public buildings, post offices, and city buildings. Steve: That is my concern. I am not convinced that it is appropriate for just a regular commercial building to have a large flagpole and that the flag is a kind of visual aspect that could actually detract at people looking at the building. Bert: I think the flagpole in front of a building like this one adds to the esthetics of the neighborhood. Bill: Is there anything in the municipal code about flagpoles? Bill Drueding: You need a building permit for a flag pole. You can put a flagpole up on a private building. Steve: In 1985 the Jerome requested to put up a flag and HPC denied it. Bert: There wasn't a flagpole there for a lot of years then in recent years when the building was purchased they decided to put up a flag. Bill Drueding: The Courthouse, City Hall, Elks, all have flagpoles. Charlie: Would you light the pole with any ground lighting? Bert: No because the flag would come down everyday. Bill: My only comment is not the American flag but other flags. Flags are getting to be used as advertisements. Bert: We would only use other flags on special occasions such as if a lot of Italian skiers were here or something like that. Bill: Doesn't the sign code only allow flags as a temporary display? Bill Drueding: As far as I know there flying an American flag anywhere you want. in violation of the sign code. is no restriction on Subordinate flags are Charlie: I hope the scale of the flag would be appropriate if approval is given. That it is not so dramatically large that it has a tendency to be an advertisement for the building. There are a lot of place you go and see an oversized flag. Bert: The 5x8 flag that I have is a military flag with 48 stars and is accepted even today as a standard size. Bill: You could put a contingency on the size of the flag. Charlie: If the flag is too large it would look offensive to the building and its appropriate use. Bill: The pole is 39' with 7' in the ground which makes it 32 feet high. Charles: Is there enough room around the courtyard for the flag to fly freely. Bert: There area is approximately 15' x 15' which is 225 sq. ft. and the pole is 7 inches in diameter. Charlie: Would you have the potential problem of people from the second floor reaching the flag. Bert: No. Bill: Before we make a motion our concerns our the size of the flag and the lighting. Charlie: Bert said there would be no lighting. MOTION: Patricia made the motion to accept the flagpole and 8'x5' flag in the Mountain Plaza Building courtyard. Charles second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. PRE-APPLICATION 309 AND 311 E. MAIN STREET Tim Hagman, architect: We would like your comments and thoughts on this project. We will be coming back Sept. 8, 1987 for conceptual approval. The two buildings are west of the Miners Building on Main Street. They are miners cottages from the victorian era. We want to do a restoration of the existing buildings and an addition. One of the buildings is used for residential and the other is empty. Our proposal involves changing the use of the buildings to retail and adding some basement space for storage and parking on the alley side. We are looking at preserving as much as we can of the original structure in appearance and what is there. There will be an entry built between the two buildings using that space. We intend to keep the third floor as low as possible and the entry will be set back between the two building as far back as possible. The net effect will be to retain the feel of the cottages as you see them now. We have a 25% open space requirement which we meet leaving the buildings exactly as they are at their present location. The entry would come 40 feet back from the front of the buildings. The third level is lower and has a flatter roof to reduce the mass. From Main St. the appearance of the building will not be dramatically changed. The idea is to preserve and retain what we have. A mature 20 foot spruce tree will be retained. We will be doing some planting around the entry. We are looking at adding a second floor and a third floor at the back. The uses would be three offices and a retail in front. To reduce the sizing from the view at Monarch Street we would break down the area with dormer like projections which reduce the massiveness. Patricia: Is there only one entrance or do you have one on the alley side? Tim: There is parking on the alley and an entrance. We are required to have parking. We have room for six spaces and a trash area. With the set back entrance you would be accessible to either retail store. Whenever possible we would keep the existing materials what are there and after uncovering the roof etc. if we decided there was something different there originally we would go with what was originally there. Zoe: What is on the roof? Tim: Asphalt is on it now and probably was wood shingled. We want to preserve as much as we can. Charlie: How far back are the dormers that are east and west now, where do you think they are starting in the proximity to the end of the existing building? Tim: About a third of the way. Bill: Early presentations anticipated that the buildings would be moved off the site and brought back but in this one you say it might be moved a few inches. Are you taking them off the site? Gideon Kaufman: There are no foundations, there is just dirt and rock right now. If we move them it would be to raise them to build a foundation. Bill Drueding: If that is the Jerome View plane I would like you to go over it with the Building Department because there has been some discrepancies. Also your FAR calculations should also be discussed with the Building Department. Tim: We have our information from a surveyor and will go over it with you Bill. Steve: I would like to remind the Committee the nature of this meeting. This is an informal chance for the Committee to meet with the applicant and discuss the project and get a sense of where the application is going. I think there are a lot of positive aspects to the project. It looks like there will be restoration. Because this is an historic preservation project I assume there will be a request for exemption from GMP. It is very important as to what degree of restoration is taking place and that it should be authentic. I think the way the massing is to the rear of the structure suits the project well because generally it is not going to have much visual impact from Main Street or Monarch by putting the bulk of the new addition back there. I am concerned about the bulk as it's perceived from the alley and from the west although this is a new improvement from what was originally submitted in the packet. By retaining the one roof line further you are somewhat reducing that sense of bulk. One thing that I noticed on the site was because of the trees near the ARA there is a fair amount of vegetation screening going on right now, however I don't think it is fair to always depend on the trees that are there to screen the structure. I think it would be appropriate for this structure to be set back some from the west to have some vegetation on it own. The entrance of the new building which is through the center between the two structures has changed a great deal from what was in the packet. I think by bringing the height down does make it less of a strong element. By making it the primary entrance it does retain a certain importance that it is too bad that it disturbs the sense of the row single family houses. I would prefer that it be a very unobtrusive kind of a separate joining of the two structures and that there be more landscaping that makes that separation even less visible. Right now there is fence and some vegetation and it would be good to leave that character as it is. I'm also concerned about the one hipped roof on 309, the house on the west and how that would change with the dormers and with the connection. It might alter the sense of the hipped roof. I'd like to see more detail on the that. If the building was decreased a little in height it would make its visual impact even less and there might be better utilization of the basement space of the structure and I would encourage the applicant to do that. Zoe: I feel this is a positive step and I would like to encourage this project because we have had a couple of chances in the past and did not express our encouragement and therefore the project fell through. I like the whole concept of what you are doing and the character of Main St. is something that we all are concerned about. This is the first positive step on Main Street to restore any small working place building. We should be very sensitive to the architects and the developers not to discourage them to put this project down. I like the way the two buildings are connected and it is very pleasant. I would suggest that it might be a little shorter and not quite so tall. I would like a little more of a commitment in knowing that the cottages will go back to the way they were after being torn down. If you could give us some sort of a schedule as to the reconstruction. This is someone's artistic presentation which is very tasteful. Patricia: I like the recessed entry and am happy I'm generally pleased about the project so far. retaining the trees in the front. to see that. I also like Charlie: In your application I do appreciate the fact that you 5 will keep HPC informed of the level of replacement of materials and will communicate with us on stages of the project. disagree with Zoe and there is the possibility of leaving them dilapidated and look like old houses and maybe they might not have to be disassembled. My one concern about the building is the east/west gable the one closest to Main Street. It is the first continuity between the old building and the new building and it really begins to bring the character of the new building into the old rather than have the old building go to the chara- cter of the new building and I'm a little indecisive without seeing a little more of a different view. From the front view it appears that it doesn't show on your current frontal view. If in fact there are four of them sticking out one on each side of the building I'm afraid if they are too far forward they will begin to appear that they were part of the original buildings. You have effectively kept the essence of the old buildings and those first dormers may be encroaching to the point where they begin to steal from the street line of the old buildings. Maybe they are essential, I don't know but that is my comment. Gideon: There is a big distinction between the exterior and the interior structure. We aren't going to preserve any of the structural interior but we can preserve the exterior. Charles: I think they are doing a great job and this is a good precedence for the way some of these historic cottages can be saved. Tim is being more than cooperative coming in and showing us what he would like to do before actually asking for conceptual approval. It is a good example of a cooperative arrangement. Bill: This is a good project. The transition between the new and the old is important to me and how we keep the identity of the older buildings. How that transition occurs is up to you. I agree with Steve since we are setting up a theme of the streets your two buildings and the ARA building on the corner we actually will have to go out and see how that rear massing will be affected from Monarch Street or from the alley. I don't have a good feeling yet without seeing a little more detail. Maybe some planting that softens it or maybe you could do it through an architectural relief to the building itself. This is a great opportunity for us on the HPC to set up an example of what we would like to see happen with these little miner cabins and structures on Main Street and we have three of them here on a very prominent corner. I would like to make note for the Committees benefit that we had passed resolution 985-2 which accepted the Department of Interiors standards for rehabilitation and in that one of the ten standards is that deteriorating architectures shall be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible. The new materials should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color and texture. So I feel we are covered if we allow the architect to have some leeway and the architect said he is willing to work with us. Gideon: Are you referring to the repair rather the replace the exterior aspects? For example structural beams, there are an awful lot of the beams rotted. Bill: If you read all ten of them it allows us to make every reasonable effort to provide an compatible use for the property and allow you to rebuild the building. In this particular case it would be the exterior. Charlie: The interior of the Jerome went to the bare walls and then it was recreated. Steve: Is there any possibility that it could be a national register project with the tax credit and did you consider that at all? Tim: I don't recall much discussion about it. Gideon: We'll take a look at it, it's that the structural aspect of these buildings is so far gone that I don't know interior wise if it would be worth it. Zoe: The national register won't look at the interior of these buildings. Nick Kuhn: Owner of the ARA was present at the meeting also. Charlie: Nick Kuhn what are your feelings toward the project? Nick Kuhn: Anything is better than what is there now and the project looks good. My questions are what are the setbacks going to be like. The little shack towards my property which has been encroaching through the years. It is into my property. Tim: The shack would be taken out. Gideon: We would meet the setbacks. His concern is right now we are encroaching on his property and if we take something out that is nonconforming we can't put it back nonconforming. Tim: The exterior walls on the east and west side would be a straight continuation of what exists. We would have a setback of about three feet. Nick Kuhn: One foot or so would encroach on my property. Gideon: We would have to get an actual survey and build within that survey. Bill Drueding: In that zone there aren't any setbacks. Charlie: In what they are designing it would be nice to have a 7 green belt in there. Steve: As Bill Poss and I suggested you might have a vegetation strip that allows for trees etc. Maybe you could look at stepping back the addition. Bill: In closing we are almost taking on the role of the P&Z board and for the next presentation I would recommend that staff prepare a memo so that we can take into account some of the issues that have to be addressed because this is a new process and more applications will be submitted to get around the GMP and we should be protecting the other boards. Gideon: Could you add one request that the memo be prepared a few days in advance so we can have time to review it. Steve: Yes and there will also be a public hearing. TO summarize the presentation the concerns are the height of the buildings and concern on the gables. Gideon: The Commissions concerns are the gables, height, restoration and repair. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE BRAND BUILDING, FIRE ESCAPE ENCLOSURE Charlie stepped down. Welton Anderson, architect: In essence what we want to do is take down and rebuild the fire escape that is currently exiting the second floor of the Smuggler Mine Company Restaurant and residential units on the second floor and provide a fire proof enclosure around it. The reason being currently the present stairs have riser heights varied from 81/2" to 12" which is not code. Primarily over the years there has been a history of people using the back fire escape to get onto the roof without authorization and breaking in. There has been a considerable amount of roof damage. By providing the enclosure around the stairs which will remain essentially in the same location we will be able to have a door that locks from the outside going in but not from the inside going out so that people from the Smuggler and the apartments will have direct access and can get out into the public right-of-way to the alley. The west wall of the annex used to be the dining area for the Primivera. It was build in the 1930's. The west wall is 4 feet from the property line which prohibits openings. We will take out one of the doorways that exists and completely glass brick that in. The property next door which is only four feet away was just purchased but we can be sure there will be a building put on it. Presently it is used as outside dining by the Smuggler. When the lot next door gets built on there will be a minimal visual impact to the back of the building. We're going to take off the old roof and restructure the roof to meet code and lower it slightly. Steve: I feel it has a minimal visual impact on the structure and I can see basically a cleanup of that alley. From an historic preservation point of view I have no problem with it. Because this building is on the national register this applicant has to coordinate this addition with the state historical society. Welton: I contacted Chris Pfaff of Denver and sent blue prints. Steve: There is an increase in FAR that is exempt from GMP by this building being a landmark structure. Bill: Is it just the stair or is there an expansion because it states that it has to be minor. Steve: Because it is an historic structure that section is not the applicable GMP exemption. The applicable GMP exemption is just because it is an historic landmark. Bill Drueding: As long as it isn't over its FAR. Welton: In researching it with Steve the code simply says exit stairways: when the primary function of the building is non- residential those stairs count in FAR. The current fire escape counts as FAR but we are actually reducing the width of it by about six inches so it is a reduction in counted FAR. A stairway even if it doesn't have a roof over it, if the primary building is non-residential does count in FAR. Bill Drueding: You're adding another ceiling over the stairway and adding this bulk and I don't necessarily agree with you. Zoe: I don't think it effects the historical concept at all. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the stair covering and glass block work for the Brand Building provided the FAR issue is worked out with the Building Department. Zoe second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. MINOR DEVELOPMENT SHAFROTH HOUSE ROOF Steve Prudden, contractor: We are going to discuss the roofing material of the entire structure today and we are withdrawing the balcony enclosure. The roof has some metal roofing and some asphalt roofing which is in terrible condition. A roofing expert R.C. Mason suggested that the entire roof be stripped off. The current thought is to put a green mat flat colored standard seam metal roof over the entire structure. A lot of the historic structures had metal roofs. On the current asphalt roof they have had problems with ice and they have put a galvanized slip 9 sheet back two feet on all the eaves. Charlie: What are the guidelines historically? Steve Burstein: The guidelines do not specifically address metal roofs. There is a general statement about materials to replace the original materials as best you can. In the case of roofs I'm not sure it is appropriate for the Committee to say they can have a cedar roof or they should replace the shingles that are there now. My impression is that roofing doesn't have a major effect on the character of the structure. Charles: In Aspen tin roofs were historic and I have no problems with a green mat metal roof. Steve Prudden: The house across the street has a galvanized metal roof and it has been black for years and has been painted at least once. I know that there has been complaints about galvanized roofs being a "flash" point when the sun is shining. Zoe: I think you need pictures of the house and material samples. The type of roofing selected for a house definitely affects the character of the house and I can't make a decision without pictures and materials. Steve Prudden: I agree that a photograph would probably be better but I also feel people on this Committee know what a metal roof looks like. Zoe: You can have a galvanized metal roof, battenboard metal roof, corrugated roof, all available in different colors. Steve Prudden: It is forest green, standing seam similar to the Wheeler. My personal feeling is that roofing material somewhat falls into the paint category, yes it does alter the character of a house. I deliberately did not bring samples for that very reason as I wanted to see how you people felt about the roofing. Charlie: I don't have an problem with the metal roof either but was wondering what rating number the house was given. Steve: It was designated prior to being were three categories, notable, exceptional probably was in the category of excellent. evaluated and there and excellent. This Charlie: I think it is the state of the art material that is acceptable with historic standards. Bill: I think the metal roof is appropriate also. Steve Prudden: I have a color chart showing the forest green color selection but did not bring samples. 10 MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the roofing material on the Shafroth house. Patricia second the motion. All approv- ed except Zoe who abstained. Motion carries. Steve: I made the decision that this particular house roofing material should come to the Committee as a minor development activity and I did determine that I could sign off to say that it was simply a replacement of the part with no effect of the historical character. Does the Committee want to have roofs and materials come before them? Bill: I think so. FINAL REVII~q STOREHOUSE BUILDING Bruce Sutherland: On the alley side of the building there is a space on the second floor and we would like to put a second floor addition which would be set back. It will have a break in elevation. This addition will give us a better balance of the building. It is about 350 square feet. It would be a second floor addition on the east facing elevation alley side. Perry Harvey: There are no changes from what you saw originally just this little addition to balance the building. Steve: I think the addition of 350 sq. feet doesn't significan- tly change the character and it still maintains a good feel and I would recommend approval. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to approve the second review of the Storehouse Building plans as presented. Charles second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. SPECIAL PROJECTS MOTION: Charlie made the to be presented to Council the motion. All approved. motion that we adopt on the guidelines. Motion carries. Resolution 87-2 Patricia second 4:30 Meeting Adjourned Kathleen J. Strickland Deputy City Clerk 11