Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20000126ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JANUARY 26~ 2000 Vice-chair Mary Hirsch called the meeting to order at 5~00 p.m. Members in attendance were Susan Dodington, Gilbert Sanchez, Heidi Friedland, Lisa Markalunas and Christie Kienast. Jeffrey was seated at 5:05 p.m. Suzannah Reid was excused. Staff in attendance were Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie and Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathleen Strickland. 117 N. SIXTH STREET - SKYLIGHT DISCUSSION Gilbert recused himself. Scott Lindeneau was sworn in. Amy presented the background. There was a skylight that was approved by the full board and in Scott's presentation it was noted that the skylight would be flush with the roof and that is not the way it has been built. Scott relayed that the original proposal had the skylight glass all the way to the ridge on Sixth St. There was concern about too much light at night so it was pushed back 14 feet and now it sticks up six to eight inches above the ridge. The supplier will not warrant anything flush to the surface due to the construction of the flashing and how it works. The skylight is flush with the drywall inside and it cannot be lowered or compressed. Jeffrey relayed that manufactures recommend a certain curve of the skylight if and when the skylight holds snow. Jeffrey felt that the skylight could be flush but the warranty would not be honored. Amy relayed that a less transparent material was recommended. If a different system was chosen could it be flush with the roof. Scott said typically operable skylights stick up a foot and if they are fixed you can usually get them down to six inches. Mary inquired if the board had a general consensus regarding the skylight. The board accepted the modification of the skylight but indicated in the future when skylights are proposed the exact proportions need to be submitted for HPC review. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 26, 2000 Heidi said generally skylights blend in but in this case it is a separate element. Scott said being on the ridge the skylight had to be supported in another way. Mary informed the board that the beam supports the skylight within. Jeffrey asked for clarification of the finished product as it is exposed. Scott relayed 2 ½ feet and the profile off the roof is 6 ½ inches. Amy informed the board that the skylight is not on the historic house. The main issue is the contact between the applicant and board in order for the board to be aware of what is happening on the property. Mary relayed to the applicant and board that the project was controversial with a 4-3 vote and the fair and respectful thing would have been to make a phone call to the monitor or preservation officer. HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES - PH Vice-chair Mary Hirsch opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: deffhey moved to continue the public hearing on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines to February 23rd; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried. 312 SOUTH GALENA STREET - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING - RESO/44, 2000 John Davis 346 Lewis Lane Tom Schutz 520 S. Original St. Amy relayed that the front faCade would return back to the original storefront on the building. Windows that were bricked up would be opened up and the paint would be removed from the masonry on the building. The building was previously called the Jewett grocery store. The main obstacle in the restoration is the staircase that is required to get up to the original floor level. Staff recommends that the entry doors come forward to the front of the building. Another approach would be to move the stairs into the sidewalk. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JANUARY 26~ 2000 In 1994 the HPC allowed the windows to be bricked in. Staff is in favor of opening up the original windows. Studies will have to be done regarding the removal of the paint. Proof of notice was submitted to the Clerk's office as Exhibit I. Applicants presentation: Tom Schutz, architectural firm, Philos International, represented the owners. The primary objection is to return to a central entrance, Exhibit II. The columns and brickwork on the front have been kept the same. At some point the main floor level was raised. Instead of six inches off the sidewalk it is now 30 inches. The over-ride for the elevator might project on the roof. There is a proposed central entrance, set back off the sidewalk to a landing and doors at 45 degrees entering into proposed lease spaces with an elevator centrally located. The elevator is critical in the renovation and reuse of the building. It will service the basement and primarily the second floor. The idea of moving the steps out to the faCade is a great idea because that helps alleviate the sense of the entrance being pushed into the building. The intent of the elevator is to utilize glass panels for the doors and sides giving a translucent feel but the framework for the elevator door, side panels will be period details similar to the doors entering into the leased spaces. Victorian base and jams and wainscoting will be incorporated. The details on either side would wrap around in front of the elevator. On the alley elevation, which is the north, the four existing bricked in windows would be restored to operable windows. There are two other windows, which were original to the building, and those would be opened back up for light. The south elevation also has an original opening which is proposed to be opened back up for additional lighting. John Davis indicated that staff' s memo referred to reducing the vestibule in size and the reason the building sits empty is because it was a building that had one tenant and it doesn't work with one tenant. They are trying to create the possibility of multiple tenants. Clarifications and questions. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JANUARY 26~ 2000 Lisa inquired about the alley as an access and the applicant explained due to the truck traffic and the fact that the building is built to the property line it would not be feasible. Heidi inquired about the stone and when it was added. Amy stated that she feels the stoop was removed and the floor level was changed. Some of the stone might be original and some isn't due to the way the front of the building was altered. Heidi suggested a common airlock. Tom relayed that the difficulty in doing that is the way the doors swing and there is the landing condition at the top of the stairs. Susan asked about the possibility of lowering the first floor to the street level. Tom informed the board that the height of the basement would then be below 5'6" and not a functional space. Susan also agreed that the window panes in the front should be returned to as close to the original as possible. John Davis said six panes on each side existed on the original photo. Tom relayed that the awnings are at the top of the transom window. Gilbert clarified that the elevator serves three stops. The building has an entrance at sidewalk level. Would there be the possibility of taking that sidewalk elevation and getting inside and going up a few stairs as opposed to changing the entire floor level. Internal stairs could occur within the stores in addition to the use of the elevator. The elevator is not intended to serve the first level. That would preserve most of the basement space. Amy felt that the disturbing part of the facade is not having the door level relating to the floor level. Tom researched and the majority of retail stores that are located in historic buildings on Galena Street step up into a vestibule area. Jeffrey asked if the applicant did an inspection to see where the foundation meets with the historic framing, which would be rough sawn. The applicant relayed that no walls were exposed. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JANUARY 26~ 2000 Amy presented a photo from 1980 indicating the change in the entrance. Lisa and Christie agreed with staff comments in the memo regarding the windows and also agreed that the central entrance is appropriate. Lisa reserved judgement on the elevator until further information is obtained. Vice-chair Mary Hirsch opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing. Comments The board was encouraged about the direction of the project and the restoration of the front faCade and building. Restoration of the original openings is commendable, i.e. north. Some sort of step up starting outside of the building is preferable. There was concern about the modem elevator and further study is recommended. HPC prefers a faCade similar to the Jewett grocery and they feel that is a compromise. If the elevator comes closer to the front it would be an impact to the over run on top. The elevator needs restudied in its design, i.e. screened from the street and some kind of setback off the street. A meeting with the Engineering Dept. regarding the steps will be scheduled. Generally the board supported staff's recommendation. This building is a landmark in the commercial historic core and steps going out into the street are an historical element of Aspen. Applicant' s comments: John Davis said if we are to do vestibule doors that open out, a three-foot landing is code. Amy said that her interpretation is that the Building Dept. wants a landing that is wide as the door swings. If the stairs go into the sidewalk a handrail will be required. John said the second floor ceiling is at the level at where the elevator is going to come up which is around 16 feet tall. Hopefully the mechanicals will not project. John also informed the board that they have communicated with the Building Dept. regarding removal of the interior of the building, which will 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JANUARY 26~ 2000 occur Friday after the purchase of the building. Regarding the solution it will all be determined on how far the city will let us go out into the sidewalk. The best case scenario is that two stairs out would be permissible and then go three feet in. Staff will schedule a meeting with the Engineering Dept. Tom relayed that numerous scenarios were looked at with the elevator stairs etc. One of the factual pieces of safety in architecture is the most dangerous number of stairs in any flight of stairs is one. It is because you really don't see one step in front of you. The elevator photograph is misleading. The elevator doors will match the doors on either side and have the same jam and ceil detail. MOTION: Heidi moved to continue the public hearing and minor review on 312 S. Galena Street until February 23rd with the following condition: 1) Restudy of the entry. 2) Restudy of the storefront so that it more closely replicates the historic store front. Motion second by Susan. Yes Vote: deffhey, Gilbert, Mary, Susan, Christie, Heidi, Lisa. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Heidi moved to adjourn; second by Christie. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JANUARY 26~ 2000 117 N. SIXTH STREET - SKYLIGHT DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES - PH ............................................................. 2 312 SOUTH GALENA STREET - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING - RESO #4, 2000 ....... 2 7