Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20030514 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14~ 2003 331 W. BLEEKER - FINAL REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 2 311 S. FIRST STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 6 432 W. FRANCIS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 8 202 S. GARMISCH - REQUEST TO DE-LIST ....................................................................................... 10 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14~ 2003 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Teresa Melville, Valerie Alexander, Michael Hoffman and Nell1 Hirst. Staffpresem: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Intern, Katie Ertmer MOTION: Neill made the motion to approve the minutes of April 9. 2003; second by Jeffrey. Motion carried 5-0. Derek abstained. Disclosure: Valerie recused herself from the meeting. She just returned from vacation and is not adequately prepared to discuss the items. 635 W. Bleeker - Monitoring issue - solar panels to be installed for the hot water system. Katie went over guideline 7.3 which states one must mimmize the visual impacts of skylights. Solar panels on the front view plane are not allowed. Solar panels should not interrupt the plane of the historic roof and should be positioned below the ridgeline. David Hoefer informed the board that they cannot prevent a solar panel under state law. The board basically needs to deal with the location. Jeffrey said the proposal is to place the skylights at the highest point of the roofline. David said the board does not have to approve the skylight at the maximum point, anywhere on the roof is acceptable. That is the board's ability to control it and minimize the impacts to the historic house. David requested that the board continue the item until he can provide clearer information as to what options HPC has at the next meeting. Teresa inquired why the HPC did not see the skylights during the regular presentation. The applicant said originally he thought he could put the skylights flat on the roof but the company said the skylights need to be at a 45% angle. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14~ 2003 428 E. Hyman -Monitoring - Amy said the approval for this project was to paint the storefront The applicant would like the window frames and door painted and leave the rest in a stained condition as they are now. The second issue is that they have no window ceils; it is just brick at the base of the windows. Staffdoes not know if that was the historic condition. The owners would like to add a thin stone ceil. Staff's concern is when stone is used on historic buildings it is adding a feature that might not have even existed. Possibly a wood ceil should be used. Jeffrey said he is the monitor and vertical joints exist at the base of the double hung windows, which is never a great condition for the water infiltration and seepage. They are afraid the water will flow down to the unexposed ceil and go down to the newly created historic storefront. A hard surface would be practical in this application but originally it was covered by a hug~ store sign. Jeffrey also Suggested some type of epoxy. Derek said the water-dripping situation will only get worse. Teresa asked what other solutions are available. Amy said wood or a thick piece of stone. Teresa suggested that the applicant contact the National Historical Society regarding what solutions have been used in the past on historical buildings. Neill also suggested that the National Parks Service be contacted. Amy said she would bring back the request after further information is provided. MOTION: Teresa moved to approve the painting of the window frames and door as presented: second by Derek. Motion carried 3-2. Teresa, no; Neill, no Michael, yes; Derek. yes; Jeffrey, yes Katie said a Certificate of no negative effect was issued to Valley fine arts for a display case. A certificate was also issued to the Aspen Historical Society to change a double hung window out to a casement window. 331 W. BLEEKER - FINAL REVIEW Affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit I. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2003 Photos were entered as Exhibit II. Sworn in: Chris Berry, Mitch Haas, David Brown Katie said conceptual approval occurred April 9, 2003 There was one condition from conceptual and that was to restudy the width of the pathway. They have made it a straight line and reduced the width of the pathway. There is a privacy fence and staff has no problems with that. The lighting plan is also appropriate. Staff has some concerns with the material palate. The proposed materials are more of a commercial image than what was typical in the West end and the neighboring historic building, which is wood siding. The rear portion material palate is acceptable. Staff recommends further study of the material palate. Amy said she met with the applicant to discuss the materials issue. There is a difference of opinion. The masonry is not appropriate and guideline 11.8 discusses using materials that are similar in scale and those used historically On the site. The finish is a major issue. The historic building is on the National register and all of the siding and trim is painted and that is not the case with the proposed front, which is sandstone and brick. This is an historic lot split and an important benefit that the city has created. The trade off is for the HPC to review the buildings and come up with the best possible results. Mitch reminded the HPC that we are not adding onto an historic building and that it is a vacant lot. David Brown said the existing building is a highly ornate Queen Ann. They feel they have made the building subordinate to the historic resource by stepping it back and making the scale of the elements smaller than the existing building. No one would confuse the building with the historic structure. David presented pictures of historic houses in town that have masonry on the front faqade specifically the Katie Reid building. There is a significant amount of shingles on the proposed house. The banding echoes banding that you might find on historic structures. St. Mary's rectory has a high wasted base up to the Window ceil. The sandstone and masonry is a nice collage with the horizontal and shingled siding proposed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2003 Mitch said when we are dealing with a vacant lot not every single guidelines has to be uniformly met. They feel all o£the guidelines have been met. The only guideline in question is 11.8. Chapter 11 deals with new buildings on landmark properties and historic lot splits. The guidelines say you don't want to imitate the historic style. The new design should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the historic resource. The design is a traditional palate with a modem interpretation. The fagade is broken up by the use of horizontal banding. The building is large and iS visible on two sides because it is on the comer of the block. We are not asking for a FAR bonus. David said his client likes the use of brick. Mitch said if you used a horizontal siding or clapboard it would start to mimic and confuse the context of the building. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Brandon Marion, owner of the Queen Ann Victorian next door. When I reviewed the model I was relieved and the project look really good. There are other houses in the West End with brick. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Derek said regarding guideline 11.8 the material itself does not create scale. It is how the architect uses that material palate. Derek said he is in favor of the architects design. In this specific condition the material palate works. The houses are adjacent and not combined. Neill said the architecture is suitable for the neighborhood. There is a lack of exciting new architecture in this town and he doesn't want to stifle a brand new building as long as it doesn't overwhelm the nearby historic resource. The broader banding brings down the overall perception of the height. Michael said the difference between the historic structure and the new structure should be different enough that you recognize the new structure as a product of its time. The new structure should compliment the historic structure. He also agreed with staff that the material palate is somewhat 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2003 abruptly different. Michael said he is trying to think through how the materials used in this project differ in scope from the Teague project on 513 West Smuggler with respect to our guidelines. Teresa said the project is sensitive in mass and scale to the historic building. The banding is appropriate around the bottom; however, she supports staff regarding the masonry. On an historic lot split next to a beautiful large ornate building she cannot vote for the masonry. She would prefer to "highlight" the large ornate old building. Using a high style material is unacceptable. Jeffrey stated that he also agrees with staff concerning the material palate for the front portion. The applicants have done a nice job with the massing etc. This is an historic lot split and the new house is still part of that lot although it is not attached. The style begins to confuse and is conflicting compared ~o the Queen Ann Style. The buildings will read as two separate buildings. Amy said the determination needs to be made as to how to achieve a balance between the QUeen Ann and new construction. This particular use of masonry is almost abrupt and so different that we are uncomfortable with it. Neill said to be so picky about this brick when we allowed the addition to the Teague project seems to be inconsistent. He does not see the brick as a violation. Michael said the brick is one of the things we are to consider and this is not a black and white deal. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution (411, 2003; second by Derek. Motion carried 3-1. Yes vote: Michael, Neill, Derek No vote: Teresa Jeffrey abstained. Derek is the monitor. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2003 311 S. FIRST STREET :- MINOR DEVELOPMENT Affidavit of posting entered as Exhibit I. Sworn in: Elaine Sandler, Raul Gawrys Katie said the property contains an historic structure that was attached to a new structure by a basement and small connector piece. That addition was built in 1980. The original building was constructed in 1887~ The applicant desires to remove the non-historic connector piece between the two buildings and do some maintenance on the historic house; re-roofing, painting and repair the wall where the connector piece currently is. On the 1980 structure they ~vould like to construct a one-car garage and do some faqade changes. The guidelines encourage removal of later additions that detract from the historic character so staff supports the removal of the connector. Staffalso finds the addition of the one car garage in the non- historic building to be appropriate. The garage doors are on the opposite side of the structure from the historic resource. There are concerns with the residential design standards. The proposal is for half moon shaped windows and the standards do not allow for more than one non-orthogonal window on a fagade. There is also concern with the removal of whatever existed on the front porch and the standards require the use of a front porch. The materials selected are more complimentary to the historic structure than what exists. Staff recommends continuation for further study. The applicant said they would change the windows and create a front porch. Raul said if they could split this into twO different lots they wouldn't have to be here. This house has been in the P&Z and HPC process for over a year and they desire to "get it off the books". Amy said this addition was done in 1980 with no HPC approval and our goal should be to do everything possible to pull it together. The changes are modest to the house. Raul said the building permit would probably take place next year. They do not have complete drawings yet. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14~ 2003 Katie said the issues that can be approve are the elimination of the connector piece, the faCade changes of the structures and window changes. She would also put in a condition about the porch. Elaine Sandler said she bought the houses and they were connected and the HPC prefers that they not be connected. She is also required to pay $125,000 for employee housing and she is willing to do that. She wants leeway with regard to the design of the other house. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Neill said this is the type of project that should not have been on our agenda. The multiple ~ssues such as the non-orthogonal and porch are issues that the entire board should approve not just staff and monitor. Amy relayed to the applicant that HPC approves any changes to the exterior of a landmark property. Once the connector goes away the HPC may want to review the architecture on the newer house. Michael said this applicant has gone through numerous procedures and we need to get them out of that situation. For that reason he is comfortable approving the application with clear indicatiOn to staff and monitor that adherence to the guidelines will be required, specifically the porch and window. Derek agyeed with Michael's position. Teresa also agrees with Michael. Jeffrey said in order to approve faqade changes the board typically likes to see elevations, cross-sections etc. We are trying to eliminate the long drawn out procedure. We need to keep to our standards of not approving piece meal applications. Amy asked the board if there were any issues with the material palate presented. No one had issues with the materials. Amy explained to the architect and owner what would be needed for the next meeting, as they were not clear that they needed elevations. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14~ 2003 MOTION: Teresa moved to continue the public hearing and minor development of 3! 1 S. First St. until May 28th, 2003; second by Neill. Motion carried 5-0 Yes vote: Teresa, Michael, Neill, Jeffrey, Derek David Hoefer said his experience through eight years of doing meetings the later it gets the less professional decisions become. As a group we need to do a much better job filling the agendas because we end up at the end doing something in ten minutes that really requires an hour or long to get a fair decision. 432 W. FRANCIS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Bill Poss, architect was sworn in. Affidavit of posing entered into the record as Exhibit I. Katie summarized the proposal which is to add an roof deck to the garage which is non-historic at the rear of the property and to add a dormer to the historic carriage house. The deck addition entails adding a railing and a staircase to a flat roof garage on the alley. Staff had some concerns with the proposed metal material which are somewhat out of character with the historic building. Staff finds that a railing made of wood would be more appropriate for the deck railing and staircase. There are also concerns with the addition of the second dormer on the carriage house. The proposed dormer is on a facade that is visible from 4th Street and the proposal is built to the ricigeline of the roof. Staff's concern is that the dormer is not subordinate to the roof The dormer is quite large and goes to the ridgeline and is quite visible to the street. A dormer smaller and lower in profile would be more appropriate. Staff could support the project if the materials were changed for the railing and deck. Bill said his staff chose metal thinking it would be lighter in appearance. He is willing to work out the materials with staff and monitor. The upper portion of the addition to the carriage house has low head height. He feels it is subordinate to the house. If we were to lower the dormer off the ridge there would have to be such a shallow pitch that they would not be able to keep the same materials which is asphalt shingle. It is the intent to be 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14~ 2003 consistent with the dormer on the opposite side and not make it confusing. The new dormer would be used as an art studio and we want to get as much north light in as possible. Nell1 asked if there was a spiral staircase in the proposal and Bill said it was in the courtyard and located on the north elevation. It is on the new part of the structure. Bill said a new garage and kitchen were added ten to 12 years ago. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Derek said he agreed with the architect regarding the ridgeline. To change the material of the roof is not appropriate. Derek relayed that the project is a nice conscientious addition. Teresa relayed that she opposed dormers on historic properties. In the past she voted for them because they enlarged the living space that could otherwise be put into another building or addition on an historic house but that is not the case here. She supports staff's recommendation of reducing the size of the dormer. Michael said he would like to see this Work but the structure has an awful lot of floor area and adding a dormer will give it a greater sense of mass and bulk. Michael endorsed staff's recommendation to make the dormer. smaller. Neill pointed out that we are about to review a de-listing and part of the rationally of the applicant is that there have been so many changes to the house that it can no longer be recognized as an historic structure and therefore it should be de-listed. If we keep going with things like dormers, spiral staircases and roof decks we are going to end up eventually !n the same situation down the road. He also stated he is against the dormer as it does not en-grace the building whatsoever. This is a very important house and has already been expanded. The proposed dormer changes the character of the historic property. He is also opposed to any spiral staircase on any historic property. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14~ 2003 Jeffrey said he also agrees with staff regarding the dormer size. The s~ze and width is onerous compared to the historic part of the existing carriage house. He persOnally would like to see a pitched roof gable which would be more sympathetic. Regarding the treatment on top of the garage, the thinner the better. A wood element might be too much. The wall size of the shed dormer us too great. Bill requested tabling to take HPC's comments and studying them. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and minor development until May 28. 2003: second by Teresa. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Teresa moved to continue the public hearing and minor development of the Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Unit 2 until May 28, 2003. second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 202 S. GARMISCH - REQUEST TO DE-LIST Sworn in: John Ke.lly, attorney Lisa Purdy, Gary, Bishop, Pearl Bishop Affidavit of posting entered into the record as Exhibit I. Amy informed the board that the first inventory of historic structures was done in Aspen in 1980 and re-visited in 1986. By the early 90's when it was revised again there are ordinances that document how the property officially became listed on the inventory. The applicant did appear to not have the property included on the inventory. This is the second de-listing since the new system has gone into effect. There are only two criteria, one that the property has to be at least 100 years old and it needs to possess the all-important characteristic of integrity. The house is a 19th century miner's error building. It does not have large additions as other cottages have that destroy the structure. However, when you examine the alterations that have been made it did not add up to the 50 points that are required on the scoring system. The changes that have been 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2003 made have taken away a lot of the features that were important to the character of the building originally. Staff walked the applicant and board through the scoring which was distributed in the packet. Michael pointed out that the scoring sheet is a tool that we use and it is not code and not part of our regulations. Neill said the board should have done a formal site-visit with this application and done the sconng process. John Kelly, attorney entered Lisa Purdy's qualifications into the record. Pearl Bishop, present owner knew what the house looked like in the 20's, "the quiet years" as she used to walk by the house as a child on the way to school. Once integrity is lost it is lost. When the new ordinance was being written the city hired Debbie Able, an outside consultant. She stated that once something is lost it is lost. John went over what integrity is, based on the Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines of 2000. John said they believe that the house has been so changed that it no longer has integrity. The house appeared on the radar screen in 1980. In 1986 a moratorium was placed on properties that were scored a zero or one and then property was rated a one. Then Phase I occurred and this property was not on the list and on Phase II it was included. Jack Miller, architect wrote a letter of support regarding Lisa Purdy's scoring, Exhibit III. Lisa Purdy did the research on this house and agrees with staffthat the house does not deserve to be designated anymore. The form is a guide to help make these determinations. The footprint has been enlarged about 30 or 40%. On the front there was a wrap around porch that was very significant and was removed. There was a similar porch on the side of the house that faced what is now the alley and that also was removed. When the side porch was taken off it was enclosed to make a vestibule and the roof over it was changed to accommodate the vestibule. There was a large shed addition on the east side of the house and in order to do that they had to tear down the house next door. A bedroom addition was put on the back 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14~ 2003 and there were two exterior closet additions built. The large barn behind the house was removed. Lisa also went over the different roof fo~ns and window that were changed. John pointed out the house has a Garmisch address instead of a Hopkins address. Where the door was is now a picture window. Pearl Bishop said she would walk to school and always loved the wrap around porch. The trees were all cottonwoods and were replaced pines. The house is a lot large because of several, additions. She also said there is only one entrance on Garmisch Street. Gary Bishop said his parents bought the house in 1945 and most of the additions had already been made. The only addition his parent put on was the enlargement of the closet on the north side of the house. The picture windows were added in the early 50's. The trim was also changed on the house. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public heanng. Chuck Tower said he didn't understand why HPC was listening to the presentation with both applicant and staff agreed to de-list. Jeffrey said the board would not be a quasi-judicial board if they constantly agreed with staff. Neill said the historical context of the house is more important to him than the scoring or assessment. Jeffrey thanked the Bishops and the excellent presentations. He is of the opinion that all buildings are retrievable if you believe in archeology. A building 200 years old should have some integrity but that is not what we base our de-listing on. The major part of this resource has been removed or altered. John thanked staff for their research done on the house. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14~ 2003 MOT[ON: Derek moved to approve Resolution #12, 2003; recommending to City Council that 202 S. Garmisch Street, The Bishop Residence be de~ listed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; second by Neill. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Neill, Teresa. Michael. Derek. Jeffrey MOT[ON: Jeffrey moved to adjourn: second by Michael. All in ~favor. motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13