Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010627ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 27~ 2001 735 W. BLEEKER - FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................................. 1 629 W. SMUGGLER - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, PUBLIC HEARING2 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 27, 2001 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. In attendance were Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Lisa Markalunas, Susan Dodington, Rally Dupps and Melanie Roschko. Lisa expressed her concern over the split light windows on St. Mary's Church. It looks like 16 lights on the windoWs. What we approved is not what got built. Amy site visited and said the windows are four by four. She signed off on a roof plan modification and the change in the windows were never brought up but they were on the drawings. David said when you had the conversation you were only talking about the roof not the windows so that approval for the windows is not binding. Rally said all the other windows on the historic building are double hung. He never heard about the window change. David suggested that the board members all look at the window change. Suzannah stated that the proportions are more of a problem for her, the squareness. Amy said the size of the window openings have not changed. Lisa said they reframed the entire thing. Amy said we didn't know that they were going to take the frame down and if we knew that, we might have had some discussion on the proportions in order to make the faqade better. Amy was directed to look into the situation with the contractor. 735 W. BLEEKER - FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING Chair-person Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Rally recused himself. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue the final review, public hearing on 735 ~. Bleeker until August 8, 2001; second by Melanie. All in favor, Motion carried 6-0. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 27, 2001 629 W. SMUGGLER - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, PUBLIC HEARING Amy relayed that this is a continued public hearing and the board has seen numerous variations on this and staff's position has not changed over the course of the discussion. There are a number of very positive things about what is happening here. This is a great house that is unaltered except for the aluminum siding. There are no alterations proposed for three sides of the building. The main concern that has not been resolved and has held us up from not going forward is the connection exactly where the addition and the new construction meet. Originally there was no break in the wall plane or roof plan and that wasn't accepted. At some point a six-inch step was added on the east and west side of the building and that is basically the scheme they have now. The board was not in favor of that once before and part of the concern expressed in the memo is that we have not seen a lot of change in some of the different scenarios that were used. We feel it is close but we cannot get to the right solution. In order for approval staff recommends 5 key issues that need addressed. 1. Connection. If the six inches can't be adjust then the upper floor could in some way be modified to utilize the dead space and modify the roof so that on the second floor the connection is narrower and you expose more of a view of the back of the old house. 2. The ,upper floor decks are not functional and we recommend that they be made into meaningful and usable decks or eliminated because they really do not relate to the house. 3. The folding doors that are on the south elevation are drawn differently in plan than in the elevation and we will need clarification. 4. The large chimney stack on the east came up and there are other ways to deal with the venting of the fireplaces either by venting through the house and just having a flue through the roof or using direct vent where possible, it could be on the east wall of the addition. 5. There is a bedroom proposed for the front of the house and there are historic windows and their concern is that they are not large enough to meet egress. Staff feels the Bldg. Dept. will grant an exemption on the historic windows. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 27, 2001 Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathy Strickland sworn in Steven St. Clair, Catchi Martinez and Michael Hoffman. Steve said he reviewed the staff report and they disagree with the comments made in the report. They feel they have gone through the guidelines and complied with those guidelines. At the last meeting they looked at other properties on Hallam, Bleeker and Francis and reviewed their architectural drawings in order to look at massing, setbacks, connections etc. One of the things that we have not been able to do, by direction of the HPC, is having the addition larger than the house. In every site-visit that was done the addition was larger than the house. The roof pitches on all of the examples are.taller than their addition. The garages far exceed the top of their addition. They have working drawings to prove that. The guidelines say we can have a connection like we have and the transition can be treated by a trim board in which we did but the HPC did not like it so we changed it to the connection that is being presented tonight. We have changed the garage height. Steven showed three photos: 134 E. Bleeker 123W. Francis 700 W. Smuggler Catchi Martinez went through what was brought at the last meeting as well as all the changes that have been made per the board's request. The proportions of the windows were wider; the material was different than the original house; the eave was similar and the board wanted a different eave on the fascia. We were connecting the house and garage but HPC asked us to move it back. Revisions: Now the eave is different. The material has been changed to be more similar. The connector has been detached from the one story bedroom. The roof pitch has been altered and they are all the same. The windows are now more vertical. Catchi said whatever fireplace we put in it must be built per code. The client wants a gas fireplace, gas logs and if there is a way to minimize that they will. As far as the recommendation 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 27, 2001 on the window in the memo all we need is 5.3 square feet of egress and a minimum of 24 by 24 dimension. They have plenty of room so item #5 is not an issue. They feel the house goes with the neighborhood and balances with the historic house. Mike Hoffman said Max Marolt, previous owner of the property informed him that the shed might not be that historic and they are bringing it to the attention of the board hoping to get some potential relief from that designation for the historic shed to free up some square footage. Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Max Marolt. Max said his uncle and aunt grew up in this house as well and took ownership of it. Max was born in 1936 and grew up around the property. The shed in question is not historic. Max presented photos to support the year of the shed. The original garage was in the 1937 photograph. The house was renovated and the addition put on in the back in 1938 and the second addition put on in the 1950's. The sheds are less than 50 years old and not part of the original. A new garage was built after 1950 and then the sheds were built in 50, 51, or 52. A photo was exhibited. The aluminum siding was put on in 1953. Amy asked Max if the original siding was behind the aluminum siding and Max said he didn't believe so as the aluminum siding had insulation behind it. Steven said the garage leaks and he would like to replace the roof. Amy said she could sign off on replacing the roof of the garage. The applicant intends to reside the garage but then tear it down. HPC could approve the change in materials on the garage. Steven said the shed is on the neighbor's property as well. Mike Hoffman, applicant's attorney stated that there has always been a plurality of opinion from the board. In his opinion only #5 is an issue and 1-4 can be worked out. Regarding # 1 there is nothing in the design guidelines that requires a one-story connector and the roof has already been lowered to highlight the historic structure. Lowering the roofline 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 27, .2001 further will destroy much of the functionality of the addition. The design guidelines do not require fi.u'ther reductions in rooflines or greater inflections, Questions & Clarifications Melanie asked about the siding and Catchi relayed to her that it is the same-but it Could be another version of horizontal siding if the board decided to go that direction. Amy said the original clapboard had a much narrower profile and if the aluminum siding is coming off historically a narrow profile would go back on and that would make the distinction between the addition and historic house. The board agreed with Amy's suggestion. Lisa asked if there are any landscape proposals and will that be a condition of final. Amy said we would not want the applicant to put trees etc. too close to the building. Steven said the rendering is not indicative to what we would be doing. Lisa also asked if the plate height was changed. Steven said they lowered the plate height by 1 ½ feet. Steven said he doesn't want to be penalized and some other houses have 8 to 9 foot plate heights. Susan said after looking at projects throughout the years the board has become stricter in trying to do a better job for our community of preserving our historic houses. Susan asked if the chimney could be made narrower? Steven said there is a fireplace in the upstairs bedroom and one in the family room. Two flues come up and they will narrow it as much as can occur by code. Susan suggested a two-story room with a flat roof portion, getting rid of the peak. That would make it more distinct. Suzannah showed Catchi a sketch of the idea. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTE S OF, JUNE 27, 2001 Gilbert inquired about the floor to floor height from the first to second and Steven stated it was 9 feet. There is an 8-foot plate on the first floor. There are requests for variances for the garage but are variances required for the east property line? Cachi said no and the addition is seven feet from the property line but currently the fireplace extends into the setback right now but they will not need a variance. Amy said at final they will have to notice for the variance. Lisa asked about the flue running inside of the house and is that an option? Amy said there are many ways to vent that will meet code that can be .addressed and that is one of them. Steven said they want a gas fireplace. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing. COMMENTS Jeffrey commended the applicant for a good presentation and nicely rendered elevations. At the last meeting one of the commissioners suggested that the interior plan be looked at and possibly that could solve some of the problems. Guidelines become an interpretative tool to do numerous things and they are not etched in stone. The guidelines address ways to handle links simply with a comer board or inflection or a horizontal relationship change. He liked Suzannah's suggestion ora transparent thin 1 ½ story to keep the head clearance and that might be just enough. Even some of the examples had glass links. The staff'memo indicated that some how the square footage of the 50's 'addition might be incorporated into a one story link and he might suggest additional variances toward the alley to group the garage unit. A gentle connection might be appropriate to the historic resource. On the south wall, keep some of it as a reference and puncture through it. The simplification in the window design is a strong concession to the addition. Some of the deck relationships look like they are just tacked on and they are a detriment to the historic resource especially when you have very ornate porches and overhangs over the two historic porches both to the west and 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 27, 2001 north. The materials sized down to the historic clapboard is a great idea and leaving the large proportion on the addition. The egress requirement on the northern window is OK but should be checked as it is measured when the window is open. Regarding the out building he would like a little more research. The massing of the fireplace you have double wall pipe and sometimes it can be joined depending on how they are connected and that might help with the design of the massing. Jeffrey had a question on the folding glass doors off to the south and are they really going to be accordion style or stacking. Catchi said they would be stacking/sliding. We are not here to take away square footage we are here to help you move the volume. The fascia dealing of the eave will also help the shadow lines. The one or 1½ story link will work(Suzannah's drawing). Regarding the garage structure i£the link is more pronounced he would be willing to have a little more volume one the garage structure. Gilbert said there are good things about this proposal that he likes a lot. In "plan" the link works. He feels the six-inch recess and change in materials works. In general the roof forms and the fact that the slopes are all similar is successful. There is a nice composition. Window proportions and placements are successful. There is a good relationship to the original house. The separation of the garage is commendable! He has no problem with the chimney as it is in the back. The ridge height over the master bedroom is also fine as it sits far enough back on the house. Gilbert stated that the examples given to the applicant to look at were not great especially since then we developed the guidelines. The perception that you are being singled out is totally incorrect. You are under more scrutiny with a more experienced board and you are subject to the guidelines that were never in place before. You are on the level playing field with everyone that has ever come to us. There are important things in the design that are lacking; some very basic concepts, the notion of proportion being compatible and subordinate to the historic building. In the west elevation the addition is not subordinate at all, the massing is really on par with the existing house. One of the problems is the link and 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 27, 2001 the suggestion Suzannah made is a good one, lowering the ridgeline would help immensely. Gilbert asked about the plate heights and at a previous meeting it was suggested the eave height at the link should be lowered. If you have a 10 foot 8 plate height it seems to me that you have that opportunity to do that and that might also with the addition of doing something fiat bring the scale down. The original form, the original house should be dominating element. The link could be shorter. The garage design is done well and has a much stronger relationship. This building has a very strong comer presence. Gilbert said he was the one who mentioned the interior program and possibly that could be looked at as re-modify the giant bedroom. On the east property line there might be an opportunity to push the mass toward the east with a variance and in that way it would be less dominating over the existing building. He would support a variance. The balconies compete with the existing house the "eye" goes toward the larger element and they should be eliminated if they are not useful as that ornament competes. Rally expressed his deep appreciation in the time spent going through the process and listening to the board and talking with the community and applying the ideas etc to this project. He has two basic things as to why it is not a successful project and essentially it is the connection. Suzannah's drawing indicates it being subordinate to the historic house. The new element is not subordinate to the historic structure. With historic preservation you want the resource to be the prominent and in this plan it is not. Mike said when you say element do you mean the entire addition or just the structure? Rally said what you are adding to the existing. Rally said what you are adding competes with the historic resource and kind of "muddies" composition of historic and new and that is troubling and that is als° why he could not support it. Other little details could be handled such as the circular window, which seems to be of a colonial vocabulary here and might not be appropriate here. The large chimneystack overwhelms on the east elevation peak. The prominence of this house has two primary elevations on 6th Street and Smuggler. This 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 27, 2001 house is part of the west end and that makes it even more special and unique and part of the character of old Aspen that we strive to preserve. Susan said she agrees with a lot of what has been said. The window proportions are great and the separate garage was well thought out. The greatest thing is that you are not putting in a basement and that is commendable and not changing the historic house. She would partially agree about the proportions of the new section and she would not want to see it made wider like Gilbert suggested but she agrees that it is more equal to the historic house and should be diminished somewhat. She supports Suzannah's plan to lower the middle section. If the middle section is lessened and the new portion restudied it will be an exemplary project. It is a corner lot and you do see that section from the corner and it looks more impressive than the historic part of the project. The little balcony should be eliminated because it takes away from the unusual detailing of the historic porch. Whatever you can do with the chimney to make it less would be welcomed. The connector should be lowered. This has the potential for a fantastic project. Melanie stated that she appreciates that the applicant has read the guidelines. The statement was made that the shed square footage might be allotted to the house and her concern is if we approve something and they find out they have more square footage and they come back to make changes after we go through the entire process. She would like clarification of the amount of square footage that they are going to have to work with before we finalize the design. The changes made are appreciated. She has concerns about the connection and would like to see lowered the connecting height. The connecting portion should not go any higher. She also would not like to see the garage attached in anyway. She agreed about the siding dimensions being changed between old and now. She would also like to see the fireplace worked on and the decks taken off. Lisa said she has significant concerns about this project as it relates to the guidelines and having the addition subordinate to the historic house. The mass of the addition on 6~ street West elevation overwhelms the historic house. The inflection of six inches is not significant enough. The original proposal for the addition when we went on the site visit was 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 277 2001 simply to extend the south gable and leave it as is with a good separation between the garage building and the main building and this basically fills in the entire site from that side. She could not support the project. She would offer no support for removal of the shed from the property and it certainly meets the 50-year criteria. She agrees with staff that the West deck detailing should be removed. Suzannah started by saying one of the reasons we have been hammering on this so much but the applicant does have the potential for a phenomenally successful project and they aren't that far away. From our point of view the few things suggested could make an excellent project. You have kept the addition relatively modest in terms of its form and window openings. In terms of the railing Suzannah agreed with staff. She does not have as much of a concern of the massing and the verticality relative to the historic house, particularly if the link could be more as other members distinctive. One of the examples hada little tiny glass link four feet wide and was do distinctive that it made a clear separation. Regarding the drawing the little step down before you go back up makes for a stronger separation between the two even if the physical separation is only six inches. One of the great things about this house is the cross gable shape and to have that ridgeline come right in and tuck under the existing ridgeline you loose some oft he sense of the cross gable shape and it cominues to look like an extrusion. She has no concern about the chimney and it is interesting that you have chosen to have it sided with wood which is the perfect way to describe a new piece of construction. If we can get it tightened up a little bit, great. She liked.Gilbert's idea of taking some of the space on the East side yard but she has one small reservation about that, there is a distinction made with the distance with the cross gable volume and the length and she would hate to see that dimension become more equal in plan. That would be her only reservation about slipping that piece toward the east. She really appreciates that the applicant has gone back to the steeper roof pitches, taller window proportions and that you have removed the connection to the garage, and these .are all great things. Garage roofing/siding -temporary Suzannah asked if any board members had any problems with the garage temporary solution due to the fact that it will eventually be torn down. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF: JUNE 27~ 2001 Amy said the roof would be asphalt and siding would match what the new proposal is. Applicant Hike Hoffman stated that they would like to get HPC approval and are willing to accommodate the suggestions in a number of ways and Catchi will detail. They would like conceptual approval tonight with conditions. Steven said there are four conditions that they would meet and be amenable to and work out and come back with further drawings: 1. Lower the connection which would require a flat roof at the connector and create intersecting gables and raising the gables slightly to match the historic. 2. Remove the deck on the west elevation. 3. Minimize if possible the massing for the fireplace. 4. The smaller horizontal siding on the historic house and a little bit larger on the new addition. Suzannah stated that she did not mean raising the gables in condition #1. Rally said he is uncomfortable approving this without drawings. Lisa stated when we piece meal we get into a situation that we have to go forward. David Hoefer, city attorney told the applicant that historicallv the board has not gone forward with conceptual without plans simply because in the end it has created problems but as a practical matter the applicant has address the majority of the problems. Mike Hoffman said everytime we come it is expensive. David said if the board approval conceptual they should put a condition that the revisions must come back at some point. They could submit the plans to Amy and the applicants would not have to come back except if there were problems with the plans. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 27, 2001 Melanie said we all agree on the connector but she has heard different comments on the massing of the back building. MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue 629 W. Smuggler for Conceptual Development and Partial Demolition until,4 ugust 8, 2001 with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the connector. 2. Eliminate the West upper floor deck on the addition. Restudy or eliminate the South deck. 3. Clarify the design of the folding doors of the south elevation off the master bedroom. 4.Restudy the chimney stack on the addition. 5. Restudy the volume and massing of the addition includingfloor-to- floor heights to better achieve subordinate rationale. 6. Wood siding on the addition shall be differentiated from the restored siding. 7. Ensure that the historic windows in "Bedroom 2" will not be required to be altered to meet egress. Motion second by Melanie. Discussion: Michael Hoffman said every time we come forward to HPC it is like a piece of lumber going through a buzz saw. I would ask that this motion be drafted in such a way that at the next hearing it doesn't become a buzz saw and it is simply checking the box to see if they accomplished this or that in a satisfactory way. Suzannah said with Gilbert's conditions we have clearly stated the issues that are part of the motion right now and she feels we have narrowed the conditions quite considerably from when we first started talking about this. You will never get the same agreement out of all of us or you may find when you come back it might meet everybody's approval. Mike said he isn't asking that the plan be voted on by everyone, we needs enough direction for the applicant that if he makes these changes he will have addressed Gilbert's concerns, Susan's concerns. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JUNE 27~ 2001 Suzannah said the problem from our side is when you make a change to an architectural design you want to review that change in the totality of the design and it is very difficult to sit here and say take that off or take this off and it will pass because we cannot see what the totality of the design is when you are done with that. Design is a moving target and there is not going to be a formula o£ moves that is going to get this vote or that vote. When you sit down a design you find that this or that can change something else. David Ho&er said we have reached a stage that it appears we are starting to get consensus you are probably going to be able to reach resolution the next time. We can't make any guarantees but based on tonight the board feels the applicant is getting close and could be resolved the next time. Vote: Yes: Gilbert, Melanie, Susan, Suzannah No: Lisa, Rally Motion carried 4-2. INFILL WORKSESSION No minutes Motion: Gilbert moved to adjourn; second by Jeffrey. All in.favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13