Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960131ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 31, 1996 Chairman Jake Vickery called the special meeting to order at 12:45 p.m. with Linda L. E. Smisek, Sven Alstrom and Martha Madsen present. Excused were Roger Moyer, Les Holst, Donnelley Erdman, Susan Dodington and Melanie Roschko. 712 W. FRANCIS - PARTIAL DEMOLITION STAFF PRESENTATION Amidon stated at the last meeting this agenda item was tabled with the following recommendations: Lowering the ridge and plate height of the dormers Study pulling back the wall of the dormers from the first floor wall Differentiation of material treatments and more information regarding structural improvements. Amidon stated that new drawings have been attached and there are floor plans for all elevations. COMMISSIONER CLARIFICATIONS Madsen asked if the floor plan would be changed. Denis Cyrus, architect for the project stated that they are only trying to make habitable space in the second floor. Madsen asked how the committee felt about the west L in regard to the shed dormer. She stated that the stacked look was awkward. Cyrus indicated that it would be their preference to have the dormers flush with the existing wall. Smisek asked what was proposed for the second floor. Cyrus stated that the stairs would be moved and two bedrooms and a bath would be incorporated. The dormers merely raise the height of the roof in order to incorporate habitable space. Presently it is a one bedroom house. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 31~ 1996 Alstrom stated that he would prefer better drawings but since this was a one step review he would approve the project. Madsen stated that she was pleased with the scale of the house and would approve the project as long as other members had no problems with the size of the dormer on the west L. Cyrus stated that it was a minimal volume to create habitable space. Smisek stated that she was in favor of the project and that the plans were historically compatible for the space relations. Vickery commented from a massing point of view if the bedroom could be moved to the middle and centered underneath the ridge as opposed to being pulled to the comer of the house it would be less of an impact. Cyrus stated that there was not enough room to squeeze the bathroom and a small bedroom into the center of the house. Vickery stated if the mass was tucked in under the ridge line there would be less of an impact. Smisek asked if Vickery's idea was to combine the master bedroom with the bathroom. Vickery stated that was one possibility and that he is concerned about the impact to the historical resource. Vickery stated that he thought there were more options that could be looked at for standard one in terms of mitigation to the greatest extent possible i.e. dormer under the ridge. He also stated that the features were original but not significant as it is basically in the roof towards the rear of the building. Vickery stated he still has problems with the fenestration of the shed dormer and the distinction of the lower floor of the house and the new shed dormer. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 31~ 1996 Amidon stated that the windows in the dormers are basically required for egress and the small pair of double hung windows are not big enough to meet that requirement. Alstrom stated that the issue of using casement or double hung windows could be handled by Monitor and Staff. MOTION: Alstrom moved to approve the design as presented with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the revised drawings presented today. 2. Staff and Monitor to review all new dormer windows, type and size for egress. 3. If found, repair/retain original rear porch posts. 4. Provide staff and monitor with plans for the treatment of existing historic materials prior to building permit application. 5. Stabilize shed as described in attached letter form architect, prior to issuance of a building permit for house renovation. 6. Siding material for new shed dormer to match existing and be approved by Staff and Monitor. 7. Demolition plan and elevations to accurately and thoroughly indicate all areas proposed to be demolished to be presented prior to building permit application. 8. Before photographs of all elevations of the house to be submitted with the demolition permit. Motion second by Madsen. DISCUSSION Vickery stated that he would rather see a differentiation regarding condition #6. Amidon stated that possibly a cut shingle could be used, something simple. She also stated that we did not want to diminish the historic significance or the architectural significance of the house. Vickery stated that channel lap or tongue and groove could be used. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 31~ 1996 Cyrus stated that the applicant has chosen clapboard. Smisek asked what kind of shingles will be used on the roof. Cyrus stated that the roof shingles will be a fiberglass shingle similar to city hall. Alstrom stated that possibly we could just change the shed dormer only. Madsen stated that she would be in favor of just the one dormer having a subtle change. Vickery stated that we could pass this on to monitor and staff. Alstrom stated that he would volunteer to be the monitor. Vickery asked Alstrom to amend his motion to include restudy of a subtle differentiation of material for the shed dormer. AMENDED MOTION: Alstrom moved to amend condition #6 to state restudy of a subtle differentiation of material for the shed dormer to be handled by Monitor and Staff; second by Madsen. Alstrom stated for clarification that the other dormers would match existing materials. VOTE: All in favor, motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Smisek moved to adjourn; second by Alstrom. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 4