Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010912ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 12~ 2001 517 E. HOPKINS - MINOR REVIEW ......................... ; ............................ , ................................................ 2 205 S. THIRD - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, PUBLIC HEARING ............................. 2 135 W. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, PUBLIC HEARING, VARIANCES ................................................................................................................................................. 5 WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ........................................................................................................... 10 735 W. BLEEKER....~ .................................................................................................................................. 10 329 LAKE AVENUE ......... ~ ................................................... ; ..................................................................... 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION coMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 Chairperson,Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Teresa Melville, Rally Dupps, Lisa Markalunas, Gilbert Sanchez and Jeffrey Halferty. Neill Hirst and Melanie Roschko were excused. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minutes of Aug, 8th and August 22, 2001; second by Rally: All in favor, motion carried. Rally will be recusing himself on the work session for 735 W. Bleeker. 517 E. HOPKINS - MINOR REVIEW Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Charles Pedersen. Amy said the application is for shop repairs. Currently you enter by going into a common hallway of the building and the applicant would like to have their own exterior entrance. Photographs were presented to show what the new doorway would look like if installed. This is a non-historic building in the historic district. There are no historic structures on that entire half block. Staffhas no issues and recommends approval. Gilbert asked if there was any intention to change out the wall and windows. Charles Pedersen said there was an original master plan and he agrees that it would look better but at this point he couldn't say yes or no. MOTION: Rally moved to adopt Resolution #39, 2001finding that the review standards have been met; second by Lisa. Motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Teresa, Lisa, Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah 205 S. THIRD - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, PUBLIC HEARING Jeffrey was seated. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Steven Danuff Affidavit of posting was presented to the clerk, Exhibit I. Amy relayed that the HPC had a site visit today. This is a modest log cabin and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a local 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 landmark. It is the oldest log cabin left in its original location in Aspen and the date is 1885. It has a couple of additions to the original structure but they are old themselves. A modest size addition is being proposed, 312 square feet with a little basement underneath it. It is tucked into the back of the building and will not be visible to the street. Staff truly appreciates the modesty of the building but has a few concerns about the design and character of the new addition. There are two doorways being punched from the existing doorway to the new addition; however, once we put the addition on we loose control of whether they demolish what is inside or not. HPC needs to be aware of that. The original log structure is not being directly effected by the addition. Staffs concern is the clipped comer on one side of the addition. Possibly some of the comers of the existing building could be revealed. There is some concern about the very long roof line of the shed addition, as it is somewhat out of proportion with the house. Possibly the ' roofing and siding should not be identical to what is on the rest of the building. There needs to be some discussion about the design of the windows. The roofing and siding should not be identical to what is on the rest of the building. The light wells and staircase need discussed. Skylights are also being requested: Staff recommends continuing the application until all the issues are resolved. Amy relayed that the set of drawings labeled add. are the correct ones. Steven presented new drawings that show the new back view and the dormer added for detail, Exhibits II, III, IV. He also changed the material to differentiate between old and new and redesigned the clipped comer. Steven also proposed to put in a skylight to the south end of the gable in the center. The historic cabin itself is sitting on a little concrete pad and the additions are sitting on dirt. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: Jeffrey agreed with staff regarding the complexity of the roof. The change to a straight comer is more compatible. The addition is 320 square feet which is 16x16, a modest addition. A plan needs submitted showing how the new addition carefully fastens to the historic house. That is an important junction. The roofs need simplified. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt SEPTEMBER 12~ 2001 Gilbert suggested that the gable only be over the entry door. The new exhibits are more appropriate. The setback exposes the comer which shows which volume was there first; The siding should be differentiated. The simple shed roof is the way they additions. The stair on the side is OK and a skylight is needed on the new roof he would have no problem with that. Rally stated that he appreciates the small addition made. He dittoed Gilbert regarding the volume of the roof pitches which needs simplified. The project is very close. He suggested that the rear addition step back at least a foot or so from the south side of the building to give a reveal. Lisa dittoed Gilbert. She also stated that she could support the project because the addition is attached to an addition rather than the log house. The door openings are appropriate and she has no problem with the skylight. Teresa appreciated the modesty of the project, the small addition. The skylight and gable over the entry are fine. Suzannah said she would like to see the offset of the south comer at least a foot since it is getting narrow at the top. She also dittoed everyone on the board that the simpler roof form is better. The footprint of the basement stair should be restudied due to snow issues. Steven said the board basically doesn't like the middle dormer because it is cluttering up the roofline and the skylight is OK. The siding should be broken. Amy suggested a reverse bat material. Regarding the snow in the stairwell, that is the reason it is placed in that particular position due to the snow offthat gable. The gable splits the snow flow. The majority of the board likes the addendum roof. MOTION: Rally moved to continue the review to October 10, 2001; second by Teresa. , Yes vote: Rally, Jeffrey No vote: Teresa, Lisa, Suzannah, Gilbert, Motion denied4-2. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 MOTION: Gilbert moved to grant conceptual approval for 205 S. Third St. with the following conditions: 1. Eliminate the angled Wall on the north-west corner of the new construction. 2. The joint between the new construction and old construction on the south elevation shall have a one-foot offset. 3. Roof and siding should be differentiated and shall be reviewed at final regarding materials. 4. All of the windows on the addition should be double hung which is the style that is appropriate to the historic house. 5. All the light wells should have metal grates over them as opposed to railings. 6. The staircase should be re-studied with regard to snow shedding. Z Any skylights on the addition and other features proposed must be clearly shown on the plans. 8. A plan should be submitted showing the footprint of the stairwell and light wells. 9. Appropriate roof plan be submitted. Motion second by Teresa, Yes vote: Lisa, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah No vote: Rally, Motion carried 4-1 135 W. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, PUBLIC HEARING, VARIANCES Affidavit of notice was presented to the clerk, Exhibit I. Chief Deputy Clerk swore in Gretchen Greenwood. Amy Guthrie, planner informed the board that the structure is to be land marked. There is a partial demolition and setback variance request and you are review conceptual development. The staff recommendation is to continue this with just a few areas of concern: In general there have been a number of alternations to the building and we reviewed them two years ago. We appreciate the owners effort to restore the structure. The historic piece is being retained and extended into the new structure. Staff is wondering if there is any way to create a new connecting element or some kind of slot ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ SEPTEMBER 12~ 2001 between the buildings. The project is divided into two clear different masses; however, it is recommended that the plate height on the upper story be restudied because it is significantly taller than the historic house. There are also concerns with the east/west ridge line. Minor issues are possibly using grates instead of railings over the light wells and possibly reduce the height of the hot tub deck which is elevated high off the ground. The other issue is the out building and some of the board members were at the site visit today. There was not much value placed on the outbuildings in the previous discussions. It may be the same building that is showing up on the Sanborn map but more than likely all the exterior materials have been replaced and it has been added onto. We need to put some kind of definition to the significance to the structure to require it to be preserved. Staff recommends to allow demolition of that structure if the addition is really successful. Gretchen Greenwood, architect said coming back into the process for the owner was the result of the FAR changing in April. The owner became exasperated by the process. Most of the problems from the meeting was the addition on the side of he building and also the relocation of a window. There was some concern about the rooftop decks but the owner really wants to have them. The FAR was reduced to what is allowed on the site. All the historic bay windows will remain in their similar location. There is a strong relationship between old and new. The back building is taller because it is a two story building with a 12 x 12 pitch roof. It is about nine feet above the historic building. There is a grade situation and the garage is actually coming in at a higher spot and you have to step down into the building because it is not actually flat. The hot tub mass was reduced. The full basement will be 250 square feet. There needs to be a variance for the alley and the historic building. Gretchen said the previous owner said he built the four sheds for ski bums. Amy said there is nothing in the building permit file and the construction of the eastern most section of the building was in the 50's. Gretchen said the historic house will be lifted and retained in its original location: The plate height of the new building will be 19 feet. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 12~ 2001 Lisa inquired about the light well. Gretchen said it is somewhat large and steps down, a terrace light well. Gilbert asked about the kitchen addition. Gretchen said it is the dining area and inside a roof form will be created inside a roof form so the ceiling will be dropping. It is an open vaulted ceiling. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened the public heating. Chief Deputy Clerk Kathy Strickland swore in Jack Wilkie. Jack relayed that his structure is divided into nine units and seven look out toward the proposed development. He has no objection to the project but his one concern is he doesn't know how they will get out of the proposed garages and it will be tight. Jack said there is random parking right now. Gretchen said the buildings will be moved back seven feet and the garages will work. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Comments: Teresa relayed that the project seems too big and out of proportion for the neighborhood. Lisa said too often we are eliminating out buildings and that is an historic feature of what Aspen's history has always been. She would prefer to see some outbuilding retained in some fashion. She also had some concern about the kitchen design and the overall height of the addition. Rally said he would like to see a scheme where the out building is preserved. He would also like to see a separation of the garage rather than attached to the building. The architecture is quite pleasing. He also agreed that the height could be minimized. There should be more ora differentiation on the materials. Gilbert said overall the project is successful. The new hot tub proposal is much more successful. Regarding the kitchen extension he likes the angled walls but is unsure about the roof form as in some ways it competes with the 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 historic house but in other ways masks what is behind it. Possibly the ridge could be lowered somewhat. Jeffrey said the project is moving in the right direction as far as the historic resource is concerned. He agrees with staff that the extension of the roof needs some kind of differentiation. The two-story addition is a little too high. The ridge height could he scaled down. The railings needs simplified and some of the sized elements of the columns on the east elevation of the new addition. The out buildings have a similar proportion to what is shown on the Sanborn map. Suzannah said she appreciates the change to the dining room piece and the chimneys etc. The plate height is too tall on the second floor of the addition. It look out of proportion with the plate height on the ground level. The addition is self contained and feels like a separate unit. The direction of the project is very good. Gretchen said this lot is undersized and her intent is to get the buildings as separate as possible even though she personally is not in favor of two buildings on this property. She feels taller buildings have a stronger distinction between what is old and what is new. She also said the plate height can be reduced two feet and changed to a ten and twelve pitch. Once this is approved she will go to that level of study. Based on the sight coverage it is not possible to have a separate garage, The direction to keep the footprint as minimal as possible really helps to preserve the house as well as the yard. Suzannah said volume and the issues are at conceptual level and once they are resolved it will be easier to move onto final. MOTION: Gilbert moved to grant conceptual approval for 135 ~ Hopkins with the following conditions: 1. Study the pIate heights of the upper story of the new addition. 2. Use grates instead of railings on the lightwells, consider some other type of railing than the very contemporary metal one shown for the stairs and decks, and possibly lower the height of the hot tub deck to make the addition more sympathetic to size of the historic resource. 3. Conform the age and significance of the integrity of the out building, 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 12~ 2001 4. Setback variance of a 3 foot front yard setback variance which is just maintaining the current location of the house. 4.6 rear yard setback variance. 17.6 combined front and rear setback and a 5.6 west sideyard setback which again, is because of the existing location of the house. Gilbert rescinded his motion due to condition #3. MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue 135 W. Hoplffns with the following conditions: 1. Study the plate heights of the upper story of the new addition. 2. Use grates instead of railings on the lightwelIs, consider some other type of railing than the very contemporary metal one shown for the stairs and decks, and possibly lower the height of the hot tub deck to make the addition more sympathetic to size of the historic resource. 3. Conform the age and significance of the integrity of the out building. Motion second by Rally. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Lisa, No vote: Gilbert, Rally, Teresa, Suzannah Motion denied 4-2. Discussion on the out buildings. Gretchen said the out buildings will have an impact on this project. Gilbert said he understands but new information has been presented. Gretchen said the board needs to represent some kind of integrity to owners. MOTION: Gilbert moved to grant conceptual approval for 135 W. Hopkins with the following conditions: i. Conceptual approval shall be valid upon determination that the outbuildings are not significant and do not have historic integrity. That date of determination is by Sept. 19th 2. Study the plate heights of the upper story of the new addition. 3. Use grates instead of railings on the lightwells, consider some other type of railing than the very contemporary metal one shown for the stairs and decks, and possibly lower the height of the hot tub deck to make the addition more sympathetic to size of the historic resource. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ SEPTEMBER 12~ 2001 4. Setback variance ora 3 foot front yard setback variance which is just maintaining the current location of the hoUSe. 4.6 rear yard setback variance. 17.6 combined front and rear setback and a 5.6 west sideyard setback which again, is because of the existing location of the house. 5. The decision on the out building will be formally made at the Sept. 26th meeting. Note: Anyone can recall a vote at the next meeting as long as you voted in the affirmative at the original meeting. Rally second. Gretchen requested that the meeting be continued. MOTION: Rally moved to continue 135 W. Hopkins until Sept. 26tat the request of the applicant with the following conditions: 1. Conform the age and significance of the integrity of the out building. 2. Study the plate heights of the upper story of the new addition. 3 Use grates instead of railings on the lightwells, consider some other type of railing than the very contemporary metal one shown for the stairs and decks; and possibly lower the height of the hot tub deck to make the addition more sympathetic to size of the historic resource. Motion second by Gilbert. Yes vote: Gilbert, Rally, Lisa, Suzannah, Jeffrey, Teresa Motion carried 6-0. WORK SESSIONS - NO MINUTES 735 W. Bleeker 329 Lake Avenue MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J, Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10