Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20030625 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2003 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Teresa Melville, Michael Ho£frnan and Valerie Alexander. Excused was Neill Hirst and Derek Skalko Staffpresem: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Intern, Katie Ertmer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Amy relayed that the National Historical Society recommended metal flashing on the window sills of the Colby building. Certificates of no Negative Effect issued: L'Auberge and Hotel Jerome - air conditioning; 7th & Main, satellite dishes MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing on 311 $. First St to July 9, 2003; second by Valerie. Ali in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Valerie moved to continue the public hearing on 470 N. Spring St. until July 9, 2003; second by Teresa. All in favor, motion carried. 432 W. FRANCIS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Sworn in: Bill Poss Bill said the owner has decided not to proceed with the roof deck and spiral stairs. This is a new owner and they have done a complete interior remodel of the house and restored it more toward its historical nature. This house started as a log cabin and went through serious remodels since 1892. The carriage house is approximately 1300 square feet. When you go up the stairs the roof is very low. It is only 6'10 ½" inches to the underside of the ridge beam. The attempt is to create an art studio and make as much use of the room as possible. The interior walls are only 11 feet wide. In chapter 10 of the guidelines it states that many historic buildings in Aspen and secondary structures experience additions over time as space is needed. Il also says that the addition should preserve the historic character of the original structure. The evolution of the building needs to be understood ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2003 with regards to additions. Dormers were added to create more head room in thc attic. Typically it had vertical emphasis and usually placed as a single element. A dormer did not dominate the roof and it was subordinate in scale to the primary roof. At the last meeting Jeffrey mentioned adding a gable dormer but when we looked at that because this building is so small in order to get any kind of usable width on any of the studies it would have to go higher then the ridge line. It would have to be so small we would only get three or four feet and that did not solve our design problems. If it did get bigger it would be in competition with the other dormer. We presented a dormer that would g~ve us 8 ½ feet of width and another one that would give us 12 feet in width. We can do some water penetration to retain using the same shingles on the roof, which makes the dormer, which is visible, much smaller. After the study both dormers are quiet in nature and both represent the horizontal character of the building. The applicant would like the longer dormer that is subordinate to the roof, alternative 1. Katie relayed that alternative 2 is less obtrusive on the roof and is lower ~n the ridgeline. The windows are also not as modem. Valerie asked how far the dormers were from the ridgeline and Bill relayed that they vary on each alternative but could make it 12 inches from the ridgeline. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: Valerie said the guidelines state that additions are encouraged to be on the backside of the house and there already is an existing dormer on the back. The design seems compliant with the guidelines and due to its low visibility sl~e would go with alternative 1 so that there is consistency between the two dormers and the dormer is still subordinate to the ridge line. She would also encourage the 12-inch dimension that is recommended in the guidelines from the ridge to the dormer. She also recommends that the vent be relocated. Teresa relayed that she supports staff's recommendation of alternative #2. It is a smaller protrusion into the historic roof. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 20.03 Michael said this is a small area that we are talking about. He would support alternate 1 and it meets guideline 7.7, 8.1 and 10.12. He also agrees that the vent should be removed off the dormer and supports Valerie's recommendation of the 12 inch differential. Jeffrey said after reviewing the study the shed dormer is a better option than a series of small gabled dormers. He supports staff's recommendation of alternative 2 and relocating the vent off to the side and retaining the 12-inch differential. Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer said there are possibly three additional conditions: Relocating the vent, use the :12-inch dimensions from the dormer to the ridgeline and possibly addressing the roofing material. MOTION: Michael moved to approve alternative 1 as requested with the conditions listed by staff and the following additional conditions: I. Vent relocated off the dormer. 2. 12-inch differential between the existing roof and the roof on the dormer. 3. Roofing materials for the dormer be the same as existing roofing materials. Valerie second the motion. Discussion: Valerie requested that the pitch not be changed because the dormer was lowered 12 inches. She does not want the roof flatter. Bill said it might have to change to obtain the head height. The technical problem is to keep enough material to run along the ridge and possibly we might have to use a little flashing underneath and the shingles over it. Yes vote: Valerie, Michael, Jeffrey No VOte: Teresa Motion carried 3-1. Jeffrey will be the monitor. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS - HPC DISCUSSION 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25~ 2003 MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 4