Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960124ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24, 1996 Chairman Donnelley Erdman called the meeting to order at 5:05 with Sven Alstrom, Linda L. E. Smisek, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko and Jake Vickery present. Excused was Les Holst. Dodington stepped down. MOTION: Smisek moved to approve the January 2nd minutes; second by Dodington. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Madsen moved to approve the minutes of January 10th; second by Dodington. All in favor, motion carried. COMMISSIONER and STAFF COMMENTS Alstrom stated that he is working on a GMQS application and he feels a multiple overlay zoning should be looked at in the future. There is a situation where the new building is full and the genesis of the project is empty all the time. Amy Amidon, City Planner remarked that this is something that should be addressed to the Planning Staff, i.e. spot zoning. Amidon stated that Council is asking for representatives from HPC to serve on a new committee that will address downtown enhancements. Alstrom, Vickery and Moyer stated that they would be interested in serving on the new committee. Erdman stated he wanted to discuss John Bennetts idea that he is pushing for the EIS. He stated that his personal feeling was that HPC endorsed the routing but not the train. MOTION: Vickery moved to add ElS to the agenda; second by Erdman. All in favor, motion carried. ElS - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 Amidon stated that HPC endorced the idea but there were other issues to be resolved and needed addressed. Erdman stated that our bus system is one of the best in the nation and flexible and would possibly work better than a train. There could be an HOV lane and a bus lane. I know John Bennett is pushing the train. Madsen commented that the Board was OK with everything except Main Street. Erdman stated that he did not want HPC to have a carte blanche approval of the plan. There is concern in the community that rail is not the way to go. Moyer inquired about the trolleys and if they were being considered there would be another object with wires etc. going through town. Alstrom stated that Jon Busch is looking at trolleys from Lisban which have the same gauge as light rail so that the cars could run on the same track. Amidon stated that she would find out the answer and report at the next meeting. Smisek stated that she received a phone call regarding the EIS project. Vickery stated that HPC passed two motions regarding the EIS and that HPC really endorsed the light rail. Moyer stated that he thought it was an endorcement of the concept. Erdman stated that was true but the reso. incorporated the concept. Alstrom responded that he was a member of the Railroad Association and he also through it was a movement in the direction of light rail. Moyer stated that the HPC could make an additional motion. MOTION: Erdman moved that the endorcement of Alternative H does not preclude the investigation into using buses and multiple passenger 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24, 1996 automobiles and an HOV lane in lieu of the light rail system; second by Moyer. DISCUSSION Madsen stated that the HPC did approve the concept of the light rail coming through town. Erdman stated that he would like other alternatives to be considered. Madsen stated that she recalled HPC approving the reso because without it we could not get the routing. VOTE: Passed 5 to 2. Smisek and Alstrom voted no. 918 E. COOPER AVE. FINAL Vickery stepped down. Dodington seated. Amidon stated this was a final review and she was recommending approval wit conditions. There are four lots two of which are not normally part of our review M & N but it was discovered they were listed on the historic inventory. At conceptual review it was recommended that mandatory mass and scale review occur on the new duplex and subsequent to that they will be removed from the historic inventory. Plans of the duplex have been given to you and it also has to comply with Ord. #30. The large window on the east and west facade does not comply with Ord. #30. This is a mass and scale discussion. Amidon stated that condition #2 is standard. Once the siding is off the historic resource Staff and Monitor need to be informed if there are details there and it should be talked about at the site. Amidon stated condition #3, which is the canopy element that was approved was too heavy and that the arched element was heavy in comparision to other dimensions of trim on the building. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 Amidon stated that condition #4 states that there are three out buildings. One out building is the barn which will become the garage. One is of no interest and is not historic and it was approved for demolition and the third one was one that HPC had expressed interest in on the site but at conceptual HPC did not have that much interest in keeping it on the site. If that is the case then approving it for removal is appropriate. We could ask the applicant to put an ad in the paper to see if anyone out there wants to take it away at their expense. If not, it could be photographed and salvaged. Amidon stated that condition #5 states that the applicant must secure a bond or letter of credit before submitting for a building permit and HPC needs to set the amount of that bond. Amidon stated that a monitor needs to be appointed for the project. Amidon stated in the documents it indicates that 3.6% demolition is occuring but that is not correct and the documents need amended. Amidon stated that the barn which is being retained has a chimney stack butting up against it. Possibly if the bricks are old they can be salvaged for another project. Mark Ward, architect for the project stated that Amy indicated the canopy element was too strong of an element for the structure and he agreed to lighten it up. Ward stated that he included M & N units mass and scale for the HPC to review. Mark also stated he would place an add in the paper for the shed to be removed off site. He also indicated that he will secure a bond. Dodington asked why the original house was moved instead of keeping it closer to the existing lot. Ward responded that both the historic structures should be on one side. The house and barn are going to lot P. The thought was to put the historic house out at the comer by itself. John Davis, contractor for the project stated that the historic house would have to be moved regardless due to the lot split. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 Moyer asked if condition #3 regarding the canopy couldn't be dealt with by the monitor and staff. Amidon replied that it would be appropriate for the monitor and staff to deal with the canopy issue. Moyer asked if the dimensional requirement couldn't be dealt with by Staff. Amidon stated that the applicant was prepared to answer the question. Ward stated that he feelt that the figure was a typo but he will calculate the square footage. Amidon stated that the relocation plan has to clearly indicate the percentage to be demolished. Vickery stated that a street composite drawing would be helpful. Smisek asked what was the total amount of demolition. Ward stated that he would supply the documentation and reply to staff. Roschko asked if there were any guidelines regarding the duplex. Amidon stated that HPC has no standards written but felt that the neighborhood character guidelines could apply. General issues should be commented on that are related to the fact that there maybe a smaller structure next to it. There is a duplex to the west and the proposal presented tonight is to the east. Roschko inquired about the materials and what siding would be used. Ward stated that on the duplex it would be stucco and stone. I would say that 50% of the building is stone. Davis indicated that there is a stone arch in front. Erdman indicated that there is an ordinance #30 problem with the gable ends. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 Davis indicated that he addressed that issue. Dodington asked the applicant to explain what left and right meant. Ward indicated that left was west elevation and right was the east elevation. Erdman stated that comments should be made on the historic portion first and then discuss the duplex second. Lots O & P will be dealt with first. Moyer and Smisek stated that they were in agreement with Staff' s commets regarding Lots P & O. Dodington asked what the change would be to the canopy in front of the house. Ward stated he would change the fascia of the arch and make it an eight inch width. Dodington asked how far the canopy projected out from the house. Ward stated that it was 30 inches. Alstrom stated the only adverse issue was the square footage bonus requested. He felt it should not be used unless there was a compelling reason. The bonus was intended for single family residences. Amidon stated that the applicant is restricted to a single family FAR even though this is a duplex. Alstrom stated that the bonus was for a single family parcel and he would not approve it for this project. Amidon stated in the code it is written for any residential development. Vickery asked what kind of siding was on the garage and the house. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 Ward stated that he was not sure but when it was determined he would contact Staff and monitor and they all would do a site visit to verify what is underneath. Vickery asked what the differentiation would be in details and materials between the old and new forms. Ward stated by pulling them apart that would be enough. He also stated in some cases different stain and siding is used. He stated that they proposed to use lap siding. Erdman stated Vickery was looking for something more than color regarding the differentiation between the old and new forms. Alstrom stated that a different size in lap siding is sometimes used. Madsen stated that she is concerned about the entire block and indicated that it will be massive when all the development is done. Roschko indicated that she would like to see a differentiation between old and new as Vickery had stated besides just a color change. She indicated that she had a problem with the metal canopy and that it didn't fit with the house. Erdman stated that he would summarize all the issues. Erdman stated there should be differentiation between the new and existing building. Typically historic buildings would have less material to weather three to four inches of weathering. The new clapboard might have five inches. Erdman stated secondly in terms of the thickness of the eaves the eaves in the existing structure are thinner and should remain so, and that difference should be in the final work. Third, the comer boards are not as wide in the historic resource and the drawings indicate that, which is what the Board wants. Differentiation can also be obtained by how the windows are trimed out on the exterior. Erdman stated that the monitor should make note of the summary. He also commented that the all metal detailing of the canopy was too heavy. Erdman 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 stated that the canopy could be accomplished by 3/4 bar stock. The canopy should be light. Dodington indicated that she is still concerned about the shed and she felt it should be incorporated somewhere on the four lots. Davis stated that they explored options with the Boad but they were not acceptible to the Board. He also indicated that in the motion it was mentioned to look at storing it off the site. MOTION: Moyer moved to grant final approval for 918 E. Cooper Lots O & P with the following conditions: 1. Mandatory mass and scale reviw for lots M & N, after which these lots will be removed from the historic inventory. Confirm that this project meets Ordinance #30 by submitting a complete application. 2. Keep Staff and Monitor updated and the condition of materials exposed underneath the aluminum siding. Staff and Monitor will work with the applicant to determine what can be salvaged. 3. Reduce the dimension of the arched element in the entry canopy. To be reviewd with monitor and staff and I suggest that one monitor be an architect. 4. The applicant shall place an ad in the newspaper offering the shed to be removed by anyone who would like to preserve it. If no one is found, the shed can be photographed and dismantled for use elsewhere or for salvage. 5. Secure a bond to ensure the relocation of the structure (amount to be set by HPC at final) prior to submitting for a building permit. 6. An HPC monitor must be assigned to the project. 7. Staff and Monitor to correct the representation of the amount of demolition proposed. 8. Chimney and barn to be examined and saved for future use. 9. Details to be determine to differentiate between historic and new forms specifically addressed after 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 examination of original structure. Monitor and Staff to specifically address the space of the lap siding used; eaves, corner boards, window trim to be addressed with Staff and Monitor. Alstrom stated that window information needs to be documented. Staff and Monitor would require some sort of repair of the front windows and an interior and exterior storm window. Work on salvaging any historic materials. AMENDED MOTION: Moyer amended his motion to add #10. 10. If windows and architectural elements are historic they should be salvaged if at all possible. Motion second by Roschko. Motion passed 5 to 2. Alstrom and Dodington voted no. Vickery commented that he would like boiler plate language in the future. David Hoefer, the Assistant City Attorney stated that he is in the process of doing form resolutions that will include all basic statitory and ordinance material that needs to be in resolutions in order for them to be legally correct. Erdman stated that the review of M & N is for mass and scale. Amidon stated that the Board should look at standard one; that the project is compatible in mass and scale with the surrounding structures. Materials are not to be disussed unless it has direct correlation to the scale of the project. Vickery commented that he could not do the review without the streetscape. Roschko commented that the drawings somewhat indicated that no trees would be left on the site. Ward stated that three large trees exist on the site; two are being moved on the site and one off the site pending coordination with the Parks Department. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 Roschko indicated that she would like the duplex to read as two buildings. The stone covering makes it read as one house and she feels it is out of scale with the small houses next door. Moyer requested a streetscape and model for the next meeting. Davis agreed that a model would be helpful for the Board. Dodington agreed that the use of stone makes the house look heavy. Erdman stated that the choice of material is not within the purview of the HPC but the scale of the material is. The stone on the drawing may not be the same stone used and the drawing is somewhat inadequate. Davis stated if the Board looked at the side elevation it would look different. Alstrom indicated when a heavy material is continued from the first floor to the second floor it does get into mass and scale. He also stated that the project should conform in terms of height. Davis said the next door duplex has stone and the streetscape plan and model will solve many of the issues. Alstrom indicated that he feels second floors should have lower plate heights, 6'8' or 7' as it pulls the scale of the building down. Historic buildings usually have eight foot plate heights. Davis indicated that the second floor plate height was ten feet. Amidon stated that the review should include ordinance #30 requirements etc. Madsen stated she is concerned that the project will dwarf the historic project. She also stated that a model will help her see visually what is happening on the lots. Moyer stated that he was in agreement with a separation and the differentiation was good. He also stated that the concern is the overall mass and dropping the plate heights would address that concern. He also agreed 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 with Roschko that a residentail flavor should be retained or incorporated if possible. Erdman summarized that the Board felt there should be some articulation between the two halves of the duplex. That there be a reduction in the plate height. Erdman stated that the stucco gabled ends facing the street have a scale problem and it is the relationship between solid and void. There should be a scale consistency within the building itself. Erdman stated that there is a need for surface redesign rather than interior. Alstrom stated that he likes a duplex to look like a duplex. MOTION: Moyer moved to table the review of Lots M & N, mass and scale of 918 E. Cooper until further information can be provided by the applicant to February 14th; second by Smisek. All in favor, motion carried. 712 W. FRANCIS - -PARTIAL DEMOLITION Amidon stated that the shed issue is at a standstill right now. The Board made a condition of approval that the shed be stabilized. There is an existing porch on the rear of the house that is enclosed which is not original. They are planning to reopen that area up and turn it back into a real porch. HPC needs to make conditions about the materials that can be salvaged. Any new posts added should be simple. Amidon stated that the applicants are proposing to put on several dormers; three of which are gable dormers and one that will be a shed dormer. There are no other additions proposed to the building at this time. The dormers are a simple request to make use of the upper space. The shed dormers is a little out of character but it is also blocked from view. Amidon thought it important to lower the ridge line of the dormers because they are almost even with the main ridge and it obscures the original frame of 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 the house. She also stated that the applicants are proposing a few changes to the windows. On the existing building they will be changing out windows to a pair of fixed windows for egress. Amidon stated that the applicant should salvage as much of the existing materials as possible. She also stated that the owner, Mr. Orbe, has worked with historic buildings before and he is aware of historic issues. Denis Cyrus, architect for the project stated that he had no problem with lowering the ridge of the dormers a foot or so which would escentially lower the plate height of the dormers. Vickery stated that partial demolition deals with the rear porch and portions of the roof which are necessary to put in the dormers. He also stated that the Board has review over the new dormers. Amidon commented that HPC is allowing demolition and part of the review is what is replacing it. Vickery stated that he needed an existing floor plan in order to review the project. Cyrus stated that the upper floor is just open space. Amidon reminded the Board that they did a site visit and walked up to the second floor. Vickery stated that there was no real plan on what the dormer is; only elevation documentation was presented. Dodington asked if the applicant was incorporating the porch. Cyrus stated that the siding of the porch would be removed and an open porch with columns would be constructed. Dodington asked if the porch was going to be demolished. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 Cyrus stated that the siding and framing would be replaced by columns and that is partial demolition to the porch. Cyrus indicated that a new foundation would be constructed. Madsen stated that the shed seemed to be in worse condition. Orbe stated that it had not moved and there was structural framing on the inside holding it in place Amidon stated that the rear of the house was a hipped roof and the applicants are proposing to extend the gabled roof. She stated that they were trying to make the best use of the upper story. The detailing is important but it is not visible from the street. Amidon stated the conditions: 1. Lower the ridge line of the dormers. 2. Extend the roof in the back but detail it differently than the other gable end of the house i.e. don't use the same fish scale shingles. 3. Let Staff and Monitorr know what materials are going to salvaged. 4. If new posts need added don't detail them so that they appear to be victorian or overly ornate. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Alstrom stated that he agreed with staff' s recommendations but added that the applicant has responded favorably on the project. He stated that the plate heights of the shed dormers should be lowered to seven feet and the gable dormers lowered to six feet eight inches along the ridge lines. The shed dormer should not hit the ridge of the roof. Cyrus asked if the Board wanted the pitch changed. Alstrom stated that the pitch should remain the same. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24, 1996 Vickery stated he had a problem with the dormers coming all the way out to the main wall line and suggested a restudy. Moyer stated that his comments were similar and he concured with the plate heights. Because the dormers come out, it adds a larger mass to the structure which perhaps is too imposing on the historic resource. Regarding the new porch there should be a differenciation between old and new. Smisek stated she was in favor of bringing the dormers in and down a little. Erdman stated that there was not enough design information to vote. APPLILCANT COMMENTS Lawrence Orbe, owner stated that the house next door is a sister house and they were built in the exact month. The architect has tried to make the roof line look as close to the adjacent house. He stated that the comments on the dormer size were well taken. He stated if a lot of changes occur it will make the house look strange next to the house next door. The dormers are a carbon copy of the ones next door. He proposes to change the windows back to the historic windows. Orbe stated that he would prefer not to have it tabled as he is making mortgage payments and I needs a place to live. Amidon stated that she pulled the plans for the building next door and that was part of why she asked that the ridge line be pulled down. She stated that tahe Belina house is a twin house and perhaps the Board should look at that house. Cyrus stated that the dormers do come out to the the same distance as the Belina house. He also stated that there were structural problems in the roof and even if there were no dormers the roof would still have to be redone. Orbe stated that someone hit the roof with a blade saw and it is shored up to protect it. It will have to be rebuilt as it is not safe. Vickery indicated that the roof information should be in the application. Orbe stated that he was aware of that. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24~ 1996 Motion: Vickery moved to table to a date certain, January 31st Noon with the comments that have been made addressing the various design issues; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carried. Erdman stated that it would only take two hours to change the drawings and the Board could deal with the drawings after the site visit. Vickery stated that he did not know how you can approve demolition not knowing what it is that you are replacing it with. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Amidon stated that the Board needed to elect a new chairman. MOTION: Erdman moved to nominate Vickery as the new chairman and Hoist and Moyer be first and second vice-chairman; second byAlstrom. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 15