Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19790814RECORD OF PROGEEDING$ Historical Preservation Committee, Regular Meeting, August 14, 1979, City Council Chambers, 1:00 The Aspen Historical Preservation Committee held a regular meeting on August 14, 1979, at 1:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Gaard Moses, Lary Groen, Norm Burns, and Jan Wirth. APPROVAL OF MINTUES: On the July 31, 1979 minutes, on the Epicure case, in the first sentence, it should read, "The Epicure partners are proposing a new building located on Lots B&C, Block 87". Burns moved to correct the minutes. Groen seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. ADDITION TO AGENDA: Groen asked to place on the agenda the Brand Building. Moses seconded. All in favor. EPICURE: Tom Wells, representing the applicant, was present to discuss the Epicure case. This is really an important space, Lots B&C,f in terms of preserving the facade and the 3 dimensional aspect of this building. The FAR dictates their gross and in the zoning there is a bonus for employee housing. With that employee housing goes a bonus for commercial space. The upper level has been designated for employee housing. The bonus of the balance for commercial went into the basement. Wells stated thati~they chose not to bring out the residential facades out in line with the front of the building, but ra~her have a~stepping. From a distance, they tend to reduce the scale of the building. The building would face the north, which would allow as much sunlight into the patio area as possible. There is a 45° angle on the existing building, and they chose to pick that up as an angular format. What they are trying to do is to design this building in terms of how the City might utilize some of its more dormant spaces at this point. This would still be a contemporary building but would recognize some of the things that are mentioned in the HPC's format. It would be a masonry b~il~ing with more verticle windows. There will be stone around the parapets. This would not imitate the existing building. The material would be brick which would probably be a salmon colort~hat~wQ~ld~beccQ_~a~b~e~i~h~a~he~$tane. The brick would not be identicle but close to the existing building. When the time comes, they will bring in some samples to the committee. The brick should be on the same scale as the existing building. It would be a low-bearing building. The employee housing would have an outdoor deck area that they could utilize in the front and the back. Along the outer edge, theyi~would build a planter area. On the lower floor, they would like to have an awning, What they have done is have taken some of the commercial space that was allocated in the basement and went past the alloted area that they seek for employee housing. There are 3 employee units. They allow an 8'6" ceiling, a foot for roof construction, and the code requires 30" for a parapet. The elevation of the building is not how it would be perceived. Adjacent to the parapet, there will be a horizontal barrier. This would consist of planters. The patio restaurant are would still be located in the same place. What they would like to do is to treat it with a sideWalk Caf~ approach. Groen asked if the Epicure anticipated on getting a liquor license. Wells stated that they would probably apply sometime. Groen then asked about the access to the building if it would be through the restaurant and dining area. Wells stated that they might have a portable fence. ASPEN LEAF: Groen asked about the material of the awings. Wells stated that it would probalby be a canvess or a fabric type of material. Groen suggested that they get a removable fence. In this way, they could create a more inviting atmosphere into the building. Wells stated that they were thinking about a snow fence so that the Epicure could dine outside earlier. The glass would be bronze facing the north. The materials would be brick as a paving material or a flagstone. But they do not want to use the color red. What they would like to do is to use a buff color stepping stones. That would make a nicer contrast instead of all those reds coming together. What they are after is an informal entrance. Groen stated that he did not want to see the brick used as a paving. Moses stated that their public hearing has been set for the 28th of this month. Burns stated that he would like to see the treatment of the dining area. Moses asked if it was possible to make the parapet 40 inches so it would hide more. Wells stated that it was possible to do that and the more that you increase it, the less impact that the building would have. Moses would like to see the third floor some how compressed so that it sits down lower both visually and architecturally. Wirth felt that the building would be an opticle illusion because the building was pushed back. Tom Dusterberg, representing the Aspen Leaf, stated that at the last meeting the committee requested more detail. What they are proposing to do is to make an addition with the same materials. Moses stated that he had a problem with the windows. It seemed to him that when you walk around the Aspen Leaf Building, there seems to be an old country store feeling. He always liked that feeling. But, the upper part of the building is that "god awful 50ish style". Groen stated that the Aspen Leaf Building has no style and no period. He would be much happier to see something that woul~ be more sympathic to the lower floor. He would like Dusterberg to create some type of break there in some matter. The committees general concensus is that Dusterberg should make a dramatic change from the building next door. Dusterberg stated that all he could do is to make more sketches to see how that would look. Groen suggested that they try to maintain the uniqueness of the wooden walkway and try to emphasis that. Moses suggested to take away the bad parts of the 50's and retain the good parts of the 50's. Wirth stated that the nice part of the building is the bottom part and it is an expansion of the not so nice part. She suggested to Dusterberg to approach his client with a new and exciting building. Moses stated that their recommendation is that there is not to be any stucco and to use other materials. Also to give the new building a more of a country barn look to it. There will be a special meeting next Tuesday at 1:30 to further discuss this case. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Historical Preservation Committee, Regular Meeting, August 14, 1979, City Council Chambers, page 2 HISTORIC DESIGNATION: Gideon Kaufman, representing the owners of the buildings, was present to discuss the historic designation of 627 and 633 Main Street. Kaufman stated that he had slight histories on the two buildings along with pictures. These buildings are located between 5th and 6th Streets and were built in 1894. Moses asked Kaufman if the buildings were worth more if they were designated historic. Kaufman stated that the reason that his clients wanted the houses to be disignated historic is that you can get conditional uses that you can not ordinarily get, and they would be a tremendous tax benefit. Burns made a motion that they have instructed Reents to write a Resolution to be forwarded to the City Council recommending that Lots A&B of Block 25 be designated historic. Moses seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. DEMOLITION PERMIT: Groen stated that they have denied demolition to that once before, on Lots D and F, Block 94. Burns added by saying that it was requested On April 2, 1976. At that time, the Planning Office recommended demolition of both buildings on April 13, 1976. Preapplication approval was given for demolition on the 13th. On May llth, the whole thing was turned around and the Planning Office withdrew their recommendation. The Planning Office at that point recommended that they not be allowed to demolish either of the buildings. The motion was approved May llth, that they disapproved at that time do to the lack of any proposed plans to do anything with that property. The discussion from that meeting was that they more or less felt that the wooden buildings could go, but ~uld-:hot allow the brick building to be demolished. This application only requests that the wooden buildings be demolished. Groen stated that he would prefer to see those buildings removed, reason being that they are an eyesore, and a fire hazard. Groen felt~that removing those structures would be a first step in stimulating interest in those properties. Groen made a motion that they grant approval for demolition of the two wooden structures on Lot D, and the one wooden structure on LOt F, and specifically exempting the building on Lot E. Moses seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. BRAND BUILDING: Groen asked Moses what was the intent of rePain~ing the sign. Moses stated that 3 or 4 years ago, the owner was ~sked to replace the sign. The condition of the wall is in such bad repair. The sign needed to be painted, either historically or an updated version. They asked him tg put together a bid on putting the whole thing together in an updated version. There are 7 old signs in the Aspen area that need to be redone. Moses stated that there were 6 topics on the original sign, which related to an old bookstore that dates back to 1910-1920. It needed to be painted out, if for no reason, to keep the wall in shape. The proposal was to er&d~date four of the original titles and replace them with very general catagories. The catagories are what's to be found in the Brand Building now; for instance, Tea and Spice, or a restaurant. The expense would be taken care of by the owner of the building. Groen asked if there were a design or a pictur~ of the proposed sign. Moses said that he had one. Groen asked if it was compared with the original sign. Moses stated that the lettering and the layout was exactly the came, only the words have changed. Groen stated that he has a philisophical disagreement with taking something that is historic and modifying it. The whole intent of preserving a sign is to preserve an era that is gone. Groen stated that he would like to point out that at a special meeting only items that are on the agenda can be voted on. No official business can be transacted that is not on the agenda which means that other items may be discussed, but not voted on. So that action that was taken by the HPC on the Brand Building, is not legal. Groen stated that he would like to make a motion at this time denying the change that was requested for that sign. Moses stated that he could not vote either way considering that he did not vote the last time. That leaves them without a quorum. Moses stated that the sign has run into a snag with the Building Department considering the Building Inspector did not pass the sign. Right now it is a dead issue. Burns stated that on June 13, 1975 a man named Coolidge who was representing Stephen Coolidge and the Brand Building, gave the committee his word that the sign would be~ restored sometime this summer. Groen asked Moses how the paint would hold the wall together. Moses stated that it holds the mortar in. Groen would like to propose that he approach the owner of the building and ask him to restore the sign like they were told in 1975 to its' original wording and advertising items. Then prehaps to further protect the wall of the building, maybe they would like to entertain the idea of doing additional signage not connected with the sign. Groen moved to adjourn. Bunrs seconded. '. adjo_~u~n~ed~ at 3:30 R~. -~ Pam Realmuto, ~--~ Ci[~ C~erk Ail in favor. The meeting