Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20031022ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 'MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 2 WILLIAM'S WAY - CONCEPTUAL - ON-SITE RELOCATION - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................... ~ .......................................................... 1 470 N. SPRING - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 135 E. COOPER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 1 811/819 E. HOPKINS - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - PH -CONCEPTUAL - ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES ............................................................................................................ 6 514 N. THIRD STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 6 WORKSESSION- 1295 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ........................................................................................ 10 NO MINUTES .............................................................................................................................................. 10 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander, Sarah Broughton and Neill Hirst. Michael Hoffman was excused. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Valerie stated that she would recuse herself on 819 E. Hopkins 2 WILLIAM'S WAY- CONCEPTUAL- ON-SITE RELOCATION - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEA~NG MOTION: Derek moved to continue the conceptual development and public hearing on 2 William's Way to December 10, 2003; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. 470 N. SPRING- MAJOR' DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL- VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: Derek moved to continue the conceptual development and public hearing to November 12, 2003; second by tZalerie. All in favor, motion carried. 135 E. COOPER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT The affidavit of posting was entered into the land use record as Exhibit I. Dave Gibson was sworn in. Staff presentation: Amy said on the back of the historic building the owner would like some doorways to access the patio area. It was thought that something historic was on that faqade and it has been determined that there is no evidence of anything historic. The proposal is for French doors or a bay window. The HPC needs to decide if it is appropriate to punch an opening in that facade. There is a doorway that faces east as you walk up from the outside but it is not a direct way to the patio. An opening is not something that would ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22~ 2003 diminish the integrity of the scoring but staff wOuld recommend that it be a single opening or single door because the rest of the house does not have wider openings. At the last meeting HPC said they would not accept more than one skylight on the roof. The proposal is one operable skylight and one fixed triangular window. Staff recommends that the triangular skylight be removed. We typically do not approve skylights on the historic resource, only on additions because it is very different than a solid roof with only minimal penetrations. Mr. Gibson has some UBC issues, which require light to the attic space, and he can address those. Upon reviewing the plans. there were two gas fireplaces in the living room area on the ground floor of the historic house but the elevations did not indicate how those would be vented. The guidelines state that you are not allowed to have direct venting off the side of the histOric house. We typically recommend venting off the roof. On the front of the new addition staff has some concerns with the bay that has been added and the fenestration; it seems to be out of scale with the windows of the historic house. The last issue is the wood fence that runs along the alley at the back of the house. On corner lots with intersecting roads the Engineering Dept. requires fences to be low in height so that drivers can see over them. The applicant needs to follow-up to see if they are within the height restrictions and explain how the w°od fence and existing wrought iron fence are handled. Applicant's presentation: Dave said he would eliminate the part of the wood fence that is too tall. A model was presented that shows exactly what they are proposing. There is a section of fence eight feet long that goes from the corner of the garage to the corner of the alley at which point the historic fence starts. They would prefer not to do the wood fence and do a steel fence in the same detail as the link between the two buildings, which would be transparent steel and would not block the view. David said the gas fireplace vents go up. He has been working with Stephen Kanipe, Building inspector and they could vent the fireplaces 12 inches off the ground and put them in the light well. That would eliminate the Visual impacts. David said he needs to confirm this with the Building Department. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 David said on the front elevation, (north elevation) the proposal is a gabled roof. David presented a hip roof Exhibit I as an option which seems to lower the perceived angularity of the form. The applicant can accept either form. Regarding the triangular skylight they were proposing one on each side of the chimney but one was quite visible from the street. They would really like to have the light but if the board cannot live with that they are willing to go with one skylight. The final issue was to restudy the south elevation of the historic house. The proposal is two French doors and architecturally they are very important for the interior of the room, as it is the connection to the yard. Clarifications: Sarah asked about the chimney. David said they would rebuild it in the exact same size, location, height and brick size but they can't vent through it but will vent through the wall. Each chimney needs a vent. Valerie asked about the windows in the light well. David said they are not operable. Neill asked David if he considered putting the door in the connector rather than the building? David said they have a light well that serves the entire lower level and that idea would require changing the plans. The French door is a nice sequence as far as floor plan flow and light coming in. Amy said the light well kind of hides the hot tub that steps down. Valerie asked about the hot tub location. David said the hot tub is half way between the lower level and the upper level. She al so asked how the basement foundation wall would be finished at the comer. David said concrete with stucco. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Derek pointed out that this is an outstanding project and thanked the apPlicant for cooperating. The only issue is the added skylight and he will not support that triangular skylight. On the front elevation Derek would prefer the gabled roof as opposed to the hip roof on Exhibit I. He also stated he had no problems with the French doors. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 Valerie could accept the skylight because it does not appear to have any effect on the integrity of the structure. She could also approve the French doors on the back of the structure. They are on the least visible side and not sacrificing an historic window. The fence modification is good. Regarding the window on the addition she would have to review the guidelines to see if the original proposal was in compliance. The new sketch is subordinate. Sarah had no problem with the fence modification and chimney venting in the light well. In regards to the guideline 3.3 for French doors the amount of glass negatively affects the integrity of the structure. Historically on this house doors are associated with porches. She would recommend a double hung window that would coincide with the rest of the fenestration on the house. She stated she had no problems with the windows in the vertical element. The triangular skylight is not appropriate but if you could keep it flat and flush with the roof and tuck it behind the shingle she could accept it. Neill agreed that the vents for the new gas fireplaces should be in the light well. Neill said he is opposed to all skylights on the roof for the sake of precedence. HPC needs to be consistent even though this one seems modest. The new windows on the addition of the original plan were too cathedral like in massing. He appreciates David's attempts to modify those. Neill feels there might be another design solution for the front elevation. The fence modification is OK. The French doors are a substantial problem. The doors are right next to an historic porch and impact the historicity of that section of the house. If you really need access possibly do a redesign that comes out of the connector. Jeffrey said the direction that David has taken for final is appropriate. Section 3.3 addresses preserving historic openings. There has been so little disruption on this historic resource and because of that he is opposed to the double-paired fenestration on the south elevation. He also agrees with Staff that the triangUlar skylight should be removed. He would prefer to see no penetration of the roof. If it has to happen he could be swayed but guideline 7.3 regarding minim/zing the visual impacts needs addressed. The venting into the light well is preferable. Referencing Exhibit I, the hipped roof design, he is not sure-that is the best solution and possibly the original gable 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22~ 2003 design works better. On the landscaping, if the foundation wall is going to be exposed we need to come up with a treatment that does not mimic but looks like a product of its time. Staff and monitor should be advised on the detailing. The fence modification is a good transparency for that comer which is addressed in guidelines 1.3. David said in replacement of the French doors he would like to do an oversized window 4x6. Derek commented that preservation means to keep it alive, architecture is a living breathing functional thing. It is a reflection of time, the inhabitants and the society that is occupying it. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution #20, 2003 (major developmenO for 135 E. Cooper Ave. Lots H and I and the easterly 5feet of lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colo. with conditions 1 through 14 and striking #10 and replaCing it with: One triangular skylight is allowed on the roof and for clarification the double French doors are allowed as proposed. Motion second by Valerie. Yes vote: Derek, Valerie No vote: Neill, Sarah, Jeffrey Motion denied 3-2. Amy said as a condition she would like research done regarding the chimney. A chimney like this might have had a corbelled intriguing cap Amy also said that a neighbor said there was an ornamental cresting on the ridge that was in the back yard and if that exists it might be nice to restore it. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #20, 2003 with the following conditions: 1. Steel fence instead of wood on the alley. 2. One skylight in the roof, the flat one, not the triangular one. 3. A window with no projection over it on the back in lieu of the French doors to be approved by Staff and monitor. 4. Restudy of the hot tub in regards to guideline 1.13 which states do not cover grassy areas with graveled rock or paving materials and a restudy as to how to preserve that corner. 5. Vents in the light wells. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OctOber 22, 2003 6. Everything on the addition is fine. Also included in the motion are the conditions recommended by staff l 14 eliminating #10. Motion second by Derek. Yes vote: Valerie, Derek, Sarah, Jeffrey No, Neill Motion carried 4-1. 811/819 E. HOPKINS - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - PH - CONCEPTUAL- ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES Valerie stepped down. Mitch requested continuance to a date certain. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 811/819 E. Hopkins to Dec. 10, 2003; second by Sarah. Motion carried 4-0. Yes: Derek, Neill, Sarah, Jeffrey 514 N. THIRD STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Valerie was seated, John Kelly and Donald Ringsby were sworn in. Amy said the owner of the property installed a fence Without realizing they needed HPC approval for a fence permit. As a result they received a red tag. This property is a Victorian and a Victorian fence from another location has been placed on the site. This could pose a conflict with some of our previous decisions and policies so it is before the HPC. Staff's concern is by bringing an historic fence on the property it alters your perception of the true history of this site. A fence of this type was found more often than not on larger mansion type buildings such as the Court House. We do not know what kind of fence might have been here in the 19th century, if any. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 When we approved a similar fence on the Mryin property we required that certain elements be simpler so it didn't have such a Victorian quality in the design of the fence. We need to distinguish new from old. Staff has concerns about putting wrought iron fences on miner's cottages. Staff does not feel the guidelines are met. John Kelly, attorney for the Rigsby's stated that they voluntarily had their house designated. They are not full time residence and it was totally innocent that they installed the fence. The fence is amish mash. Some of the corner posts are new. The gate is the gate that was on the old property. The old fence was a wood fence. John said he understands the issue of confusing old with new. In my clients view the fence actually helps delineate the historic portion of this building from the non-historic addition on in 1998. The fence runs on 3rd Street and around the corner on North Street and then it runs perpendicular to 3rd right down to where the new was added to the old. If you look at the remaining portion of the white fence in the back it is much more visible. John said he found 39 wrought iron fences of variance degrees of ornateness throughout town and only 12 picket fences. The Ringsby's put the gate perpendicular to Third' St. so the gate isn't a central function from the street. John addressed the guidelines 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that are similar to that of the original. We do not know what the original was. It also states it must be built of wood or wrought iron. This fence is made of wrought iron. It also states that the new fence should be transparent. The white existing fence is less transparent. The fence encloses a small patio area where they have a table and lawn; it was installed to make the property safer. The fence came from a farmhouse in the Dakota's that was built in the 20's or 30's. The gate and corner posts came from different places. John said he feels they are within the range of discretion for approval. Amy said photos were provided by the applicant of the old picket fence and showing the gate. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 Donald Ringsby said two posts are from South Dakota and four are new posts that are replicas of the pineapple design. Mr. Ringsby said his house is more ornate than your typical miner's cottage. There is quite a bit of details. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Sarah said in terms of guideline 1.2 and 1.3 she feels the wrought iron fence is in compliance. Sarah said she has no problem with the fence but her concern is the transition of materials. Amy reminded the board that they couldn't require them to take out the picket fence that is already there. Derek said he is in agreement with Sarah. He said he walked the West End and could not find a reason for a particular fence to be associated with this property. Neill said consistency is very important. This has to be taken very seriously and cannot be summarized in two sentences. We do not know if there was anything around this house originally. Probably if there was a wrought iron fence there it would still be there. In all likelihood this hOuse did not have a wrought iron fence. Neill addressed guideline 1.2, which states that any new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. There is no comparison between the wood fence and very elaborate iron fence. It also states that a wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. Neill said he does not see any compliance in guideline 1.2 or 1.3. The iron fence is too elaborate for this particular context. Valerie said she is sorry to be seeing this after it has been installed. She agreed with staff that the fence is not what you would have traditiOnally seen on the property. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 Jeffrey also agreed with staff on the ornateness of the fence and precedence setting. Our goal is to preserve and not distract. The fence confuses the distinction on this historic miner's cottage. The jog that is in the fence would not historically be there. The existing wood fence is the only thing that we have any relationship to. Jeffrey stated that he does not support the installation of this fence. John Kelly said almost all of the houses in the West End were of a higher quality then houses in the East end. John said there are 39 wrought iron fences to 12 picket fences and someone is approving those iron fences in the West end. The white fence that is there is not an historical fence, it might be 20 or 25 years old. That should be something to keep in mind. If you are going to say people cannot have any fences at all, fine but because there is a non-historic white picket fence there you shouldn't base your decision on that issue. It is speculation to think that a picket fence existed here. We are willing to talk about mitigating things and we have some ideas about that. Neill said he still feels the fence is to elaborate for the context. It fools you from the historical period. John said the visibility of this house from the road is increased by this fence as opposed to what was there before. This fence delineates the historic portion of the building because it is in an L shape. The fence wraps around the corner on North Street to the back yard. We might be able to do something with the corners or paint it to make it look newer. The fence that was approved by HPC on Smuggler certainly has a Victorian look to it. John requested that the application be tabled until a date certain rather than get a denial so he can work with Staff. Valerie said she couldn't find any guideline that says they cannot use this particular fence. Amy said the applicant would like to restudy the fence to simplify it and then come back to the board. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 MOTION: Valerie moved to continue 514 N. Third until Dec. 10, 2003; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: Derek, Neill, Sarah, Valerie, Jeffrey WORKSESSION- 1295 RIVERSIDE DRIVE NO MINUTES MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10