Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20040310ASPEN HISTORIC P~SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2004 514 N. THIRD STREET - MINOR REVIEW ............................................................................................ 1 (CONTINUE TO MARCH 24, 2004) ........................................................................................................... 1 135 E. COOPER AVE. - SETBACK VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING ............................................ 1 470 N. SPRING - FAR BONUS CONDITIONS (CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING) ......................... 3 333 W. BLEEKER - WORKSESSION ....................................................................................................... 7 NO MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................... 7 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2004 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander and Sarah Broughton. Michael Hoffman was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, C'hief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Valerie moved to approve the minutes of February 25, 2004; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 514 N. THIRD STREET - MINOR REVIEW (Continue to March 24, 2004) MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and minor review for 514 N. Third Street until March 24, 2004; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 135 E. COOPER AVE. - SETBACK VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: David Gibson The affidavit of posting was entered into the landuse record as Exhibit I. Amy said during the plan review we realized that we overlooked one of the variances that was needed which is the distance required from the back of' the addition and the front of the historic carriage house. Nothing about the project has changed. The building should be five feet apart instead of the required ten feet. Staff recommends approval of this project. Amy relayed that the setback is a zoning requirement not a residential design standard. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10~ 2004 Jeffrey said this is a technicality that was missed during the review and there are no changes to the design. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution #8, 2004for 135 E. Cooper approving an application for a variance on the minimum distance required between buildings; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 4-0. Fence discussion: David said the historic fence is located slightly off the property. David said they have been in conversation with the Engineering Dept. to acquire an encroachment license but the Engineering's thought is that the fence should move back to the property line. It seems that there is some virtue to keeping the historic fence where the historic fence was. Amy asked if that location is where the historic fence was? David said the fence doesn't go back 100 years, it only goes back 30 to 40 years. Amy said there is also a tree imbedded in the fence. David said there is an eight or nine foot difference in the historic location and the property line. The existing location is toward the street. David said if the board feels it is appropriate to keep the fence in its current location he would like that message forwarded to the Engineering Department and if not it would move back eight or ten feet toward the house. Valerie said she would support the fence staying in its current location. Derek's concern.is if the fence gets damaged and it is on City property what are the consequences for the City. Valerie pointed out that the City does not maintain the right-of-way on any other property. Amy pointed out if the fence was in its original location the practice has always been to leave it as is but if it isn't that circumstance they typically want it moved. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2004 Jeffrey said if the fence was there historically he would support keeping it in its existing location. Derek and Sarah also support leaving the fence in its current location. Jeffrey said if there is no further evidence that supports that it has been moved from a different place he feels you have to leave it alone because it appears to have been in that location for some time. Jeffrey suggested David apply for an encroachment license. 470 N. SPRING - FAR BONUS CONDITIONS (CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING) Sworn in: David Warner, Dennis Young Amy said HPC passed Resolution 24, 2003. There is an addition proposed to the relocated historic house which included a request for a 500 square foot FAR bonus and a number of setback variances. One of the conditions of approval was to remove the front bay window and install a large double hung window as shown in the 1968 photo. We know from pictures that the bay window is not an original feature. In some peoples eyes this bay window is a very obvious alteration to the structure and is not authentic to the building. At the hearing it was brought up that possibly this window had been pulled off another historic building and applied to the house and since it was an historic artifact should it not be retained. The board seemed to think that was not a relevant issue to the decision. The owner is back with other research because this is an alteration that they didn't really want to undertake. Of all the restorations to the building this is the most important and obvious. It is kind of an obtrusive feature to the front, which changes the character of the building and makes it more decorative than it really was historically. The bay window is something that happened to the building and is not part of a great trend or great architect so that should not be a justification to keep it. David informed the board that they intend to take all the siding off and reside the building. None of the siding on the building is original. The 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10t 2004 philosophical .difference is the bay window. The windows in the bay are old and the bay has been there at least 36 years. In its own right it has become part of the fabric and in addition very possibly was part of the historic fabric of 100 years ago. There is nothing definitive but what we have done was do a paint analysis of the house. The house was totally stripped but we found a few sections of the house that had eight to nine layers of paint on it. Two of those spots were actually on the bay window. The other sample was from the porch ceiling. This is a coincidence that should be taken into mind to the risk of removing this bay. John Feinburg is the architect of the Collaborative Inc. in Boulder who did the paint samplings. His conclusion was that the bay's window samples are consistent with the original colors of the porch's original historic fabric in a number of layers and color, thus leading to the conclusion that components of the bay window are original to the structure. The Sanborn map of that area indicates another building with a hexagonal bay that is very similar to ours, so they did exist and were part of Aspen 100 years ago. If keeping the bay, when we skin the house we would also like to re-skin the bay with something that is more consistent with the house. David said he would not want to take the chance that this bay was important somewhere/ Dennis said on the Sanborn map it is Block 30 lots A & B. If you go to the 1898, 93, and 90 maps the south west comer.of the house has changed. It is different now than it was pictured in the 1904 map. Had the bay window been part of the house the southwest comer would have been the perfect location because it faces the southwest. Amy pointed out that neither map pointed out a bay window on anv side of the building. Dennis said he was suggesting that there were constant changes to that side and it would be a likely location where a bay would have been put because of its exposure. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Amy reminded the board that HPC has already approved the project and all we are looking at is the bay window. Derek said the standpoint he is taking on this project is one that he cannot guarantee that the bay window is historic or not. He is approaching this 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10t 2004 specific project as an organic, living, breathing thing and it changes over time as it continues to evolve. He is not convinced that the bay window has to go since it has been there for at least 35 years. Derek would support keeping it. Houses evolve for the changing needs of the actual structure itself. Sarah stated that it is important that we deal with adaptive reuse. There was a need to bump out that faCade to make room. Being consistent is important but over the past few months we have been giving people FAR bonuses beyond what this applicant is requesting regarding alterations to the historic building. She would support keeping the bay window. Valerie stated that the commission has high standards for granting FAR bonuses. She did a site visit today and part of the proportions and construction do not look quite right. She doesn't see how this is part of the original intention and it doesn't seem to carry the same character of the rest of the simplicity of the house. Keeping the applicants interest in mind, what if we applied some of our approaches of making it look more of its own time and not try to make it Victorian. This is a primary faCade that has been rotated and it would be an improvement if the bay window was removed. Jeffrey said the project was excellently presented to our board. It is a wonderful preservation effort that the apPlicant is about to undertake. Jeffrey stated he agrees with staff and Valerie that the bay window is misleading to its historical architectural character' on that elevation. There is not enough evidence that it was there or removed and replaced in its current location. Jeffrey reviewed the patterns that we are judging and agreed that the bay window is not associated with an event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution. Jeffrey said he appreciates the level of renovation and restoration that will occur and he has been very supportive of the proposed changes. David asked the board to think about who could have sat in that bay window. It could be a miner or a Paepcke. Whose part of this house was this. Aspen's past could have used that bay for what it is now. It doesn't sound right to destroy it. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10~ 2004 Dennis said from the inside of the houSe it is a very important space. The bay window is virtually the only view that we have and lets light in t° open up our living room space. We really appreciate everything that the HPC has done. The loss of that window would change the Whole nature of the interior space of the main room'. Amy suggested a bay window that would be more toned down. David said there is a reason to keep this bay window because it is part of Aspen's past. Dennis said in 1970 the entire house was stripped and it was a thorough job. Amy. said the bay window is obviously different because you have pieces of it with lots of layers of paint and some that 'do not. Dennis said the layers of paint were associated with the window stops as opposed to the window framing. The framing was stripped. The windows moved to the site with their stops. Amy said the other possibility with all new constTuction, the only thing that was salvaged from the historic building was the window and that is why they have all the layers of paint. Dennis said he can't argue that fact but it is coincidental that the number of layers in the ceiling and the complementary colors are real. Valerie inquired about the age of the bay window being 36 years old. David said they are assuming it was put on when the house was re-built in 1968. Dennis said the bay window may have existed in a previous location on the house. David said it was a good suggestion to strip down the trim detailing. MOTION: Sarah made the motion that we amend Resolution #24, 2004 and that we delete the removal of the bay front window. The trim detailing should be stripped down to a simple detailing; second by Derek. Motion denied 2-2. Yes vote: No vote: Derek Valerie 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2004 Sarah Jeffrey Motion failed 2 - 2. Amy asked the board and applicant if they wanted to consider a bay that doesn't have that same shape. Derek said when the house is stripped down of all the other elements it might benefit the project if it becomes a product of its own time because the geometry of the original 1968 photograPh are more modernist in portion and scale. When the house gets up another four feet what is this going to do to the physical fa¢ade. David said there is a concern what this window will look like on that flat wall. The house would benefit with something that steps down in that location. MOTION.. Derek made the motion that the applicant look at other potentials of a bay window that are more supportive o fits own time period as per guideline 10. 3; second by Sarah. Motion denied 3-1. Yes vote: No vote: Derek Sarah l/alerie Jeffre~v valerie said she can not support the motion because it does not comply with guideline 10.8 which talks about additions that are placed to the rear of the building, not on primary, facades and allowing the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition to the front is inappropriate. 333 W. BLEEKER- WORKSESSION No minutes MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn, second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. 7