Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960313ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 Chairman Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington Sven Alstrom and Melanie Roschko present. Excused was Les Holst. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Amidon stated that the Meadows trustee townhomes were reviewed by HPC. On the rear L of the buildings which is on the edge of the slope they would like to make some changes to the windows. Not every unit wants to have the exact same window. Donnelley was the monitor. Alstrom asked if all the windows would be changed at onces. Amidon stated that she thought building permits would come in one at a time. A very simple modular Herbert Bayer window was approved and she feels that type of window should be retained as opposed to an arch window. Madsen asked if the homeowners had enough guidelines that a monitor could handle the change. Amidon stated that the HPC could make a statement that says the windows can be changed but the HPC wants them to match other windows on the building in style and general dimension and let the monitor and Staff handle it. Madsen stated that would be acceptible as long as the guidelines are clear that the HPC does not want arched windows. MOTION: Alstram moved to nominate Roger Mayer as first vice-chair and Martha Madsen as second vice-chair; second by Jake Vickery. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Mayer moved to approve the minutes of Feb. 28, 1996; second by Alstrom. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 316 E. HOPKINS - HOWLING WOLF Alstrom stepped down. Amidon stated that the proposal is to the expand the kitchen area toward the alley and excavate a basement and create an outdoor patio and to alter the front entrance to allow handicapped access. There is a fence proposed for the rear of the property eight feet high but zoning allows only 6 feet maximum and 42" high as you look at it down the side of the building due to open space requirements. You need to be able to look into the patio area. The applicant will return to HPC for a waiver of parking. The trash enclosure does not meet the code requirements. Amidon stated that the new addition has two parallel ridge lines one of which meets the existing ridge and one that intersects an existing ridge and a condition has been recommended that they minimumize demolition where the two intersect. The North L has been provided. A clarification that the new addition shall match the existing addition materials, that means board and batten siding. A section drawing of the court yard has been provided. Staff has recommended that they maintain the handicapped access that is along the side of the building. The applicant proposes to bring the access to the front of the building and that requires a concrete ramp and probably replacing an existing porch deck to bring it up to meet the door thresh hold. Most importantly it means that the 2 1/2 fl. wide historic door would need replaced with a three foot wide door. Warren Ryan, President of the Corporation that owns the building stated that the door is a fire hazard and that is why it should be three feet. As far as retaining the side area as handicapped a wheel chair will not fit because the adjoining property owner has a curve that is two feet deep. He is recommending that the access be in the front. Paul Levine, owner: As the door exists today handicapped people enter through the front door and we never had anyone come through the back. The alley area for handicapped is narrower than the front door. Madsen asked if the handicapped area in back was the designated area. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 Amidon stated it was represented on their previous building permit as their handicapped entrance and the Bldg. Dept. did accept it. No one is arguing that it is physically difficult. Madsen asked what the law read. Amidon stated that everyone should enter from the front but there are exceptions for historical places. Levine stated that the fence has been lowered but it might be more attractive if the fence is highter. Amidon stated that the six foot maximum deals with the falling of the fence and will it hit the house next door. A variance would have to be presented to the Board of Adjustment. Moyer stated that the front door is historic and the Board would like to retain that. The Board might ask the Building Dept. to retain the front door as handicap accessibility. Amidon stated the front door might be retained but add wood to it so the character is not destroyed. Moyer stated that three inches would be needed on either side and that might be possible without destroying the character of the door and would solve the landlord's safety problem. CLARIFICATIONS Vickery stated that he was unclear on the roof drawings. Levine stated that the roof is changing over the kitchen to utilize the space. Alstrom stated that the angled roof is partly the new kitchen addition and partly re-roofing the old roof and it slopes from the gabled roof to the east property line. Dodington stated she would rather see the door stay as close to the original as possible if it has to be changed at all. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 Mayer stated that he would approve the proposal but would encourage a rear formal ADU access and leave the front alone. He would encourage a letter regarding the raising of the fence to 8 feet. MOTION: Moyer moved that HPC approve the minor development application for 316 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1. Public Hearing with regards to waiving four parking spaces. 2. Minimize demolition of the historic structure where the new ridgeline intersects with the historic cross gable. 3. The new addition shall match the existing addition in materials. 4. Provide a section of the courtyard, showing the bar and staircase area. 5. Letter allowing the fence to be eight feet high with a break in the south east corner which might be a gate etc. or cast iron to comply with the legalities of serving alcohol. 6. Letter encouraging the ADA access at the rear and maintaining the historic integrity of the front knowing that the wheel chair people can get in and out. Second by Dodington. DISCUSSION Madsen stated that she felt the motion should include the preference of adapting the front door to make it wheel chair accessible and code approved rather than sending a letter. She wants the possibility of adapting the front left open in the motion. Mayer stated that the front just isn't the door, a ramp would have to be canstruted and the porch changed. Vickery stated that the side ADA entrance would not meet the ADA requirement. He suggested that the applicant persue options with the Bldg. Dept. which might allow them to accept access through the front. The second amendment would be that Staff and monitor be authorized to make whatever changes to the front necessary to make it conform to the Bldg. Depts. requirements, as minimally as possible. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 Amidon stated from the conversation that she had with the Bldg. Dept. they will not allow the use of the side. Moyer stated that he recommended the rear. Amidon stated that the rear entrance can not be used as ADA, they need to use the front. Levine stated that he would talk to a few handicapped individuals and see if the entrance is acceptible to them and then write to the Bldg. Dept. Moyer stated that he would amend the motion. Moyer amended the motion to include Jakes recommendation: That the applicant persue options with the Bldg. Dept. which might allow them to accept access through the front. The second amendment would be that Staff and monitor be authorized to make whatever changes to the front necessary to make it conform to the Bldg. Depts. requirements, as minimally as possible, second by Dodington. All in favor or motion and amended motion. Motion carried. 520 WALNUT - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL Melanie Roschko seated. Alstrom stepped down. Amidon stated that HPC is required to extend conceputal and the applicant intends to come forward this summer and Staff is recommending extension until March 27, 1997. Dodington stated that she was unclear as to what the building is in relationship to the little house after she site visited it. Amidon stated that the cabin has been relocated and restored and it is the property owners architectural office. Behind the restoration there is a big green house which will be demolished and a new building will be constructed. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13, 1996 MOTION: Madsen moved to extend conceputal approval for 521 Walnut Street to March 27, 1997; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. 616 W. MAIN STREET - PH CONTINUED LANDMARK AND ON-SITE RELOCATION Alstrom seated. Vickery stepped down. First Vice-chairman Moyer opened the public hearing. Amidon stated at the Feb. 14th meeting the project was tabled as it involved lifting the building and HPC rejected it. The applicant is asking for historic landmark designation finding that it meets standards B & E; architectural character and community character. Several concerns need addressed: 1. On the North side of the building that faces Main St. Staff is recommending that the windows be more vertical in proportion to match the historic window on the west facade and that has been revised. 2. Provide a revised elevation of the east facade showing proposed window configeration overhangs and that has been provided. 3. An overhanging roof is proposed that shields the staircase that goes to the basement. 4. A new canopy has been added. 5. There are now a pair of windows and they will try to retain the existing doors. 6. Provide a revised elevation of the south facade showing clapboard siding and proposed windows. 7. There is a lightwell in front of the barn toward Main Street which is required egress. 8. Several variances are being requested. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 9. Information needed on preservation of materials. 10. Existing metal roof will be matched for the siding on the popup to get the head height. 11. Structural plan be presented to Staff and monitor representing the exact nature of alternations to the existing framing. Staff believes this plan involves less modifications to the existing structure. 12. Submit a relocation plan and a letter of credit or bond for $2,000 to ensure that the building is raised. 13. Waive aspects of ordinance #30. 14. Restudy of a more traditional window if possible but she is not sure that can be done without raising the popup even higher which is something we do not want. 15. Staff is recommending approval. Deana Olson represented the architect Jake Vickery. Olson responded to the recommendations. Existing materials will be retained as much as possible on the roof and the existing siding will be retained or reused wherever possible. Old siding will be power washed and then stained to match the existing. New siding will be stained to match the existing and will have a similar profile. The corrugated galvanzied metal at the upper level will be acid washed to match the roof material. Windows will be a natural finish with annodized aluminum or a gray annodized. All materials would be approved by monitor and staff. CLARIFICATIONS Alstrom stated that he was pleased to see the building closer to the ground plane than the prior proposal. The building will be moved on-site and new basement foundation walls will be supported. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 Roschko stated that she was uncomfortable with the addition as it feels or looks like it will fall off the side. Possibly there would be another way to match the roof line. Amidon stated the reason the roof is done in that fashion is due to the spiral staircase and the head height was needed to get up. Olson stated that it is fairly back on the building and would not be visible from the front of the building. Madsen stated that she was a member that preferred the building to be raised and go underground. She asked what the height would be because if it is going to be designated there are an awful lot of alternations and she would not be in favor of the designation with all the numerous alterations. Olson stated it was 2 1/2 to three feet above the existing ridge which is about 18 feet. Amidon reminded the commission that no changes are proposed to the historic house and they only want to adapt the building into livable space. Moyer asked what the condition was on the existing shed. Olson stated that it was natural. Moyer stated that power wash would cause more damage and he recommended the use of a stiff nylon brush and the use of an air hose will prepare the wood for a wood conditioner and then a stain. Power wash might work up under the eaves and on the north side. Alstrom asked if a metal roof would be used on the entire roof and metal siding on the popup part. Olson stated that was the intent. She also stated that the height of the main structure has been reduced and the front has been eliminated. The existing front door has been reused. The existing side door has been left in place. A shed room has been added over the stairwell and porch area. Resided the lower rear of the building. Preserved the existing windows to the west of the building. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 Amidon stated that some red pigment remained up in the gable and possibly the HPC would allow highlighting some of the trim but preserve the original integrity as the owner wanted some paint on the building. Moyer asked what does "paint" mean; a paint material that totally changes the character or does paint mean a clear or natural color on the body of the building but protects and preserves it. Original miners buildings were not painted but as they attained more wealth additions were done and paints were applied. As a condition the body of the building shall remain unpainted with any opaque color. That still allows them to do a clear stain. Dodington thought the HPC had no control over color. Amidon stated that is correct unless the building had never been painted. COMMENTS Alstrom stated that this unit is an ADU and is below the height perameters. Regarding the materials the building is almost gothic on the gable end. He also stated that he did not agree with the metal siding on the walls on the popup and using all wood siding and a metal roof would be preferable. Madsen stated that she felt the project was a good compromise but she also feels there are an awful lot of changes to this building that she wasn't prepared for. Dodington stated that she felt like Martha but she understands why everything needs to be where it is. The east elevation seems to have lost its original look. The natural color will help it to remain looking like a barn. Moyer stated that Les Hoist would find that the roof would be amusing and a fun concept and does not take away from the historical integrity of the building. He also stated that he understood Alstroms comment. He also stated that he had no problem with the metal roof. The body of the building shall remain unpainted without any opaque color applied. That allows them to put a natural wood tone stain on; use a bleeching agent and chemical to turn it gray like existing buildings. Over that you can apply transparent colors that blend in without painting it a color. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 Alstrom stated that if the Board goes in the direction of metal siding on the upper part he wants all metal so that the fascias are not wood and the eaves wrapped in flashing in order for it to blend in. Olson stated that might be high-tech but the architect is willing to restudy it. MOTION: Madsen moved that HPC grant minor development for the application of 616 W. Main as presented on March 13, 1996 with the following conditions: 1. The following variances are approved: a 5' west sideyard variance, a 3' rear setback variance. 2. Provide information regaradiang preservatiaon of existing materials and proposed new materials. Retain the existing metal roof, along with salvageable exterior siding. No opaque paint to the body of the historic structure. Color on trim is acceptable but must be approved by Staff and monitor. 3. A structural plan must be submitted for Staff and monitor aproval, representing the exact nature of all alterations to the existing framing. Any variation from the agreed upon structural plan must be approved by Staff and monitor prior to undertaking anay work. 4. Submit a relocation plan, indicatiang how and where the barn will be temporarily stored during excavation, prior to submitting for building permit. 5. Submit a bond or letter of credit prior to application for buildilng permit. Staff recommends the valule be set at $2,000. 6. HPC waives the Ordinance #30 review standards relating to building orientation, building elements, build-to lines, primary mass and lightwells. 7. HPC recommends approval of landmark designation of Lot N, Block 24, Citiy and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B (architectural character) and E (community character) are met. 8. Restudy the windows in the pop-up to be more compatible with the other windows on the structue. 9. Drawing showing chimney or flu location if required. 10.Preparation of wood: power wash only with supervision of monitor on-site. 11.Drawing of fascia, softer and flashing conditions of the roof top 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 addition. Motion second by Madsen. All in favor, motion carried. Passed 5 - 0. First Vice-chairman Moyer closed the public hearing. 820 E. COOPER-FINAL Amidon stated that she is recommending final approval with several conditions: 1. Waive the Ordinance #30 standard which disallows lightwells in front of the building now that we have agreed to approve the shallow lightwells in front. 2. Ask them to submit a full schedule of exterior materials and they have done that. 3. At permit time we need a relocation plan and a bond in the amount of $30,000. to insure that the building can be lifted for excavation. 4. Landscape plan. 5. The brick chimney shall be retained at the ridge, even though it will not be functional. Amidon stated that when she passed the house the chimney was missing and there was a hole and a blue metal standing seam roof had appeared without a building permit and is completely inappropriate. The roof is proposed as a metal standing seam and HPC needs to discuss that. 6. Provide clear structural plans showing how the existing structure will be retained while adding improvements to meet code. Any required changes in this plan must be brougoht to the immediate attention of staff. Amidon stated that all the variances were granted and a monitor needs appointed. The owner has committed to rebuilding the chimney. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 Olson stated that the chimney will be restored to its original location. She would like the bond reduced to $10,000 because this is a simple box structure. A landscape plan will be submitted. The owner still wants to retain the possibility of an airlock in the future. Amidon stated at 700 sqfl. with a cost of $50. a sqfl. equals $35,000. She also stated that in actuality the building cannot be built at $50. a sqfl. She felt $30,000 reasonable and consistent with other buildings. Amidon stated that the airlock was denied two times and the applicant can appeal to City Council. Vickery stated that the minutes left it clearly open for reconsideration. Alstrom stated that he was not in favor of the metal roof on the front building. He would be in support of reviewing the airlock if the building had an asphalt or wood shingled roof. He also stated concern about the look of the chimney. He also stated that he approves of the vertical siding but his main concern is the metal roof. Moyer asked Staff if the owners are required to get a building permit for the roof. Amidon stated yes. Vickery stated that all he could find out was that the accountant said the roof was purchased some time ago. Moyer stated that he is against the airlock and he is concerned about the violation of the roof and feels that the blue roof should come off before a building permit is issued. As far as the project, he is favorable. Moyer asked staff about the amount of the bond. Amidon stated that the HPC needs to cover themselves. If a contractor is careless and demolishes the building the money needs to be available. Amidon stated that a property management company was watching the house. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 Roschko stated that a property management company should know the rules of the city. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that the owner is still contractually responsible. Alstrom stated that the issue of whether a property manager is responsible should not change the bond requirements. When you look at the project they are investing more than $30,000 and that is a minor requirement. Roschko stated that any contractor should know that a roof permit is required. Alstrom stated that brings back the issue of contractor penalties. Dodington also stated that she would never vote for an airlock. She would approve the little porch but not an airlock. Roschko stated that she also would never vote for an airlock and she is opposed to the metal roofs and she is concerned with the chimneys and they should be restudied. They look like they are stuck on and she finds them very disturbing. She definately feels that the bond should remain at $30,000. Olson stated that they would be willing to restudy the chimneys. Moyer stated that he had no problem with the chimneys. Straw poll: two / two/Alstrom stated he would approve with monitor and staff working closely together. Olson stated that there is a two foot minimum requirement above the roof and the chimneys are three foot six. They are willing to restudy lowering the chimneys. Olson stated they would like the bond to be $20,000 and a relocation bond only. Amidon stated that bonds are always on-site relocations. Olson stated that standing seam roofs are used all over town in this context. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 Moyer stated that everyone has commented that the roof must go before a building permit is issued. The airlock is not represented today. MOTION: Alstrom moved that HPC grant final approval for 820 E. Copper with the following condition: 1. Waive the Ordinance #30 standard which disallows lightwells in front of the frontmost portion of the main facade. 2. Submit a full schedule of exterior materials for final review. 3. Submit a relocation plan showing how the house will be stored during construction, a report from a structural engineer detailing any necessary bracing, and a bond to insure safe relocation of the building. Staff recommends that the bond amount be $30,000. 4. Submit a landscape plan. 5. The brick chimney shall be retained at the ridge, even though it will not be functional. 6. Provide clear structural plans showing how the existing structure will be retained while adding improvements to meet code. Any required changes in this plan must be brought to theo immediate attention of staff. 7. The following variances were granted through the conceptual review public hearings. 0.5 feet on the west sideyard and 0.1 on the east sideyard for the existing structure 3' on the east sideyard for the kitchen addition 3' on the east sideyard for the garage 2' on the west sideyard for the garage Waive Ordinance #30 standard dealing with "principal window" Combined front and rearyard variance of 18" (30' is required, 12' is provided) 8' rear yard setback variance (10' is required, 2' is being provided) 5' on each sideyard for the lightwells (5' is the minimum required) 10' combined sideyard setback variance (10' is the minimum required) An FAR bonus of 500 sqft. Waiver of one parking space 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13, 1996 8. AN HPC monitor must be assigned to the project. 9. That the metal roof not be approved on the porch and the original structure. 10. That the chimneys for the entire project be re-studied and reviewed by Staff and monitor. Motion second by Roschko. DISCUSSION Amidon stated she is still concerned that we will see a bright colored roof on the new part of the building and she does not feel that color is a natural roofing color material and may not be compatible with the historic house. Alstrom stated that compatibility is an issue and if it relates to color it needs addressed. AMENDED MOTION: Alstrom amended #9. That the metal roofing as proposed by the applicant would be acceptable for the addition with review by Staff and monitor for compatibility; second by Roschko. MOTION AND AMENDED MOTION passed 4 - 1. Roschko opposed. MOTION: Roger moved to add the Isis to the agenda; second by Roschko. All in favor, motion carried. ISIS - CONDITION ON FINAL - MATERIALS Charles Cunniffe, architect stated that they are matching the small brick size with the iron spot color, greenish. They will use a very dark green window in order for the brick to breathe. On the existing building the upper windows are wood below white paint and they will return them to wood and behind the wood and facade there is a canopy that is covering an iron horizontal piece below the windows. They will pick up the natural wood windows and iron and run the storefront across with the dark green. The upper level is slate and the link between and a metal roof will be constructed. The overall concept is to make everything but the original facade receed, so the original facade 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 stands out. On-site the colors look good. The HPC mentioned that they wanted to see a matching morter. There will be a mockup at the site when the building is being built. Cunniffe stated that all the brick is really representational until you have the physical batch of brick and morter installed. Roschko stated that the brick is not going to look like the rendering. Cunniffe stated that they are trying to get a lighter brick. Dodington asked for clarification that the newer portion would be kept darker. Cunniffee stated yes but not as contrasting. Roschko stated that the brick was more maroon color and the color of the historic building once it is cleaned up will be different. Cunniffe stated that at the work session people preferred the modular brick. Alstrom stated that the slate on the employee housing is in an ashlar stone running bond pattern. Cunniffee stated that it was in a one by two running grid. Alstrom stated that above the entrance to the addition that the slate is changing as opposed to being the same as the employee housing. Cunniffe stated that it didn't need to change but there are different functions as one is a wall surface and the other is a railing. Alstrom stated that he does not like the 8 by 8 pattern as it will look like tile. Roschko stated that she agreed that it looked like tile. Amidon stated that if it was a rail it should be an open rail. Cunniffe stated that they had a open rail and it didn't look right and needed something more solid. Open would encourage activity. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 Moyer stated that the move from historical to that size of slate on the addition is too severe and disturbs the compatibility. Cunniffe stated that the size can be adjusted. Dodington asked how the slates would be joined. Cunniffe stated that they would be butted and glued. Madsen stated that the color was appropriate. Alstrom asked that all the spouts be internal. MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the materials as presented with revision as discussed to be handled by Staff and monitor. Mock up of brick to be done at the site, second by Madsen. All in favor, motion carried. Cunniffe stated that a speck sheet will be supplied to Staff and monitor. Roschko stated that she would volunteer to be the color monitor. MOTION: Vickery moved to adjournl; second by Alstrom. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 13~ 1996 316 E. HOPKINS - HOWLING WOLF 2 520 WALNUT - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL 5 616 W. MAIN STREET - PH CONTINUED 6 LANDMARK AND ON-SITE RELOCATION 6 820 E. COOPER -FINAL 11 ISIS - CONDITION ON FINAL - MATERIALS 15 18