Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19970312ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 Meeting was called to order at 5:20 with Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Susan Dodington, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski, Gilbert Sanchez, Melanie Roschko, and Jeffrey Halferty present. Mary Hirsch was excused. 514 E. HYMAN - MASON MORSE BLDG. Amy stated that this is a proposal to change the materials on the existing building and there is no square footage being added. The building is within the Commercial Core Historic District and was built in 1980. It is a simple contemporary masonry building. The applicant proposes to make some changes, mainly to add sandstone details. Wrap the existing metal mullions with wood; replace the front door and there is to be a pressed tin in the soffit area. Amy stated in general HPC does not support replication or very close imitations of detailing of historic structures as it detracts from the true historic buildings; therefore, Staff recommends not approving the application. Jim Columbo presented and stated the design of the building is not an imitation but gave the opportunity to infill into the neighborhood and put together a cohesive blend in the neighborhood. It utilizes historical elements in a noveau-victorian style. There is a progression of contemporary buildings with two very extreme noveau-victorian buildings to a building now that will bridge that gap in the community and make the transition over to the Elks Bldg. along that street line. Sandstone elements have been used all over town as banding and kick plates and bottom borders. Wood corbels are proposed to carry the upper sandstone ledger. Pediments have been used throughout town and it is being proposed. The materials proposed have been used considerably for the past 20 years in Aspen. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Gilbert stated that the applicant mentioned that the proposal was not imitating a Victorian building because of the setbacks that are in the facade of the building. He asked the applicant to comment how the noveau-victorian detailing that is proposed reconciles itself with the setbacks. Jim stated several buildings have done that; i.e. Footloose, Hillis Furs, Caribou Alley all have very similar setbacks going on and cantilevering going on over the existing face of the building. Those have worked by carrying ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 historic elements along the facade to get past the contemporary feel. They propose to use a fluted column to carry the cantilever to balance the building out. Jake inquired about the sandstone and how it is proposed. Jim stated the existing brick face will be removed and sandstone put on and around where the planters are. The central element of the pediment will be stucco and sandstone capping. Roger asked if the applicant had a drawing of the post supporting the balcony and the proposed light above the entry. Jim stated that he could provide cut sheets. The same fluted post is at Footloose. He also stated that they propose to clad the existing windows in wood. Gilbert stated that the building will read as a strong contemporary message and there is concern about confusing historical buildings with new buildings. Suzannah also stated that she agreed with Gilbert. The other buildings that were used as examples are very asymmetrical and have very scripture detailing. This building has a very strong asymmetrical feeling and she feels you can't go and add asymmetrical qualities of other buildings over it. Susan stated that the pediment seems like it is imitating a Victorian but the other details are acceptable. Roger stated one of the primary functions of the HPC is to maintain the distinction between an historical structure and a new structure. The corbels and posts are confusing. The panels are OK but when you add things to the panels it becomes confusing. He also stated that he would like to see the proposed lighting plan. Bob George, owner of the building stated you are talking about four elements: corbels, pediments, columns and the bottom of the kick plates. He feels those elements are compatible. He also feels the building is symmetrical. Suzannah stated that the large void space on the left has such deep shadows and the windows reflection gives the sense that the building is not balanced. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 Balanced would be two windows on either side of a main entrance. The pediment, brackets, kick plates and sandstone are very symmetrical. The four elements chosen are extremely recognizable for everyone who looks at Aspen's historic elements including the tin roof and you will never get away from those things being associated with a Victorian building. When you attach them to a modem building you are saying I know this building is not Victorian but I would still like to have on a 'Victorian dress'. She feels the applicant could work with the building with some less recognizable elements to soften the feeling of the building. Jake stated it is clear that this building is not an historical building even as presented with the proposed elements. The elements chosen are playful. Bob Stardoj stated that the facade needs changed to blend it with the buildings along the block. He stated that he was confused about historical and nuevo- historical and he is confused when he looks at other buildings on that block. He stated that he wants materials that blend. Jim Columbo presented new drawings. Melanie asked if the column would remain. Jim stated that the column would not change and it is a tongue and cheek element because you have an extremely neo-victorian style and bringing in a classic fluted column plays quite well. Amy stated that there is no doubt that this building is not old, the issue is the problem of applying historic detailing as such in a contemporary structure. Roger stated that HPC does not want to design and possibly a worksession with the applicant would be appropriate. Jim Columbo stated he does not want a design by committee. He felt HPC's concerns were taken into account with the new drawings. Gilbert stated he wanted to clarify what the essential conflict is. Any application of historical detail of whatever period on a very modem building. The building has a very strong asymmetrical presence. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 Sabra VanDolsen, public stated she has lived here off and on since 1963 and is familiar with the changes taken place architecturally. She is struck by the opinions of HPC having a blind commitment to the period of this modem building. It is like HPC is trying to preserve an idea instead of addressing the building. The applicant is trying to soften the building with playful elements. Jim Columbo stated that details have been added to soften and make the building acceptable to receive these types of articulating elements and they are the build up of snapped edge sandstone along the balconies. Sandstone along the cornice and snapped edge sandstone along the vertical elements along the caps of all the planters. Those elements make the transition from a modem type of building to receive the applications we are proposing. He does not feel sandstone, corbels and tin are a conflict of the standards. Jim stated that he was dropping the first proposal and presenting #3. Jake stated efforts made to soften the impacts on the Elks Building has logic. The alternative design moves the detailing into a more neutral nature as opposed to a strong hinting of Victorian. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC table 514 E. Hyman to a date certain, March 19th 5:O0 p.m. for the following reasons: 1) There are conflicts within what HPC's job is to do within the confines of preservation and in dealing with a building that is difficult and changes are being requested. The application is not complete, drawings are missing. There is no drawing of the column supporting the balcony. An example of the light fixture should be presented at the next meeting and a more detail of the signage, second by Gilbert. Motion carried 5-1. ~lake voted no. ~lefjhey and Mark were not seated for this item. Discussion: Roger stated that he is trying to keep the process going and be proactive. 17 QUEEN STREET - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Jake stepped down. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 Jeffrey and Mark were seated. Roger moved to continue 17 Queen Street, Conceptual Development and Public Hearing to March 26, 1997; second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried 7-1. 218 N. MONARCH - CONCEPTUAL - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Gilbert stepped down. Katalin Domoszlay, architect for the project stated that she would like to stake the area after the snow melts for the commissioners to site-visit. Katalin went through the list of concerns. The garage will be moved back and lowered and the ADU will be eliminated as it is not required. In order to save the maple tree they will eliminate the full basement underneath part of the house. She has ask the water department to reduce the easement on the side of the water line to ten feet and that will allow the entire project to move five feet towards the North. At some point she will stake the addition to make sure that will work aesthetically and for the client. They have 21.6 feet between the two houses. The existing Victorian would be moved ten feet which would means the easement is eight feet and the neighbors house is 13 feet from the easement so they have a total of 21 between the buildings. She addressed the FAR calculation: Total site is 7,215 sq. ft. and 26.5% is excluded which gives 2372.4 sq. ft. available FAR. They are applying for 480 sq. ft. bonus. Partial demolition is for the lean-to addition and they are not touching the Victorian. She also stated that they would rather not keep the porch open. She stated basically the nature of Victorian houses is to close in the porch as the family unit grows. The porch would be left transparent but closed in. Amy stated that there has been a linkage change between the house and the addition. COMMENTS Chairman Jake Vickery opened the continued public hearing. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 Suzannah stated that the changes have been a big improvement and she would still like the applicant to keep investigating not moving the house as much. Suzannah was excused at 6:35 PM. Phil and Pat Hodgson, neighbor stated that they like some of the changes that have been made. Letters have been entered into the record from neighbors. Pat stated that one of the directives was to get as much history of the house as possible. Bob Marsh owned the house from 1957 to 1979. The house has never been moved. It was on the cover of the early day Aspen book and designated an historic landmark. Phil stated that Hallam St. was vacated and John Worcester stated you couldn't build on that street. The question is why can you build on it now? Robert G. Marsh stated that their house and the half house at some point were owned by the same individual. The half house was occupied and owned by Van Holdenberg, Frost and the Jacobies. The house was put on cinder blocks in 1962 at which time it was on a railroad tie base. The maps indicate that the house is still in its original position. He feels the house should not be moved. He also stated whatever happens to the porch you should not break up the line. He presented letters from the Lights, Janet Elder and the Berko's who are present to voice their concerns about not moving the house. If you move the house the history is changed. He also stated he was not clear on the 500 sq. ft. bonus. Pat stated that the addition was put on in the early 80' s. All out buildings were behind historic homes. Pat stated that she is concerned about the life expectancy of the tree. The photo submitted shows the drip line which extends to 218 N. Monarch. It is indicative to the root system. The root system is extensive. The tree is 30 to 35 years old. Gussie Anderson who owned Pat's house planted it between 1962 and 1965. She stated that she contacted her daughter who is a biologist, Tom Cardomen etc. With silver maples they are very prone to disease if they do not get oxygen. With a construction site environment and the piling on of dirt two feet above the root system is crucial for oxygen. She stated that she appreciates the owner stating they would not do the basement in that particular area but there will still be excavation and we are still looking at 20 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 to 30 % loss of the root system which would be a demise of this tree that is 35 to 40 feet tall. In the tree ordinance it would cost $16,000 for replacement. Keeping the tree enhances the project. You need to fence off five feet beyond the drip line but that puts it in the middle of the project. The old house should remain as is and if there is anyway to lessen the footage either with the garage of gain some footage by the water easement it would be advantageous. The tree will not make it if it looses 30% of its root structure. Amy stated ideally HPC would not like to see buildings moved but sometimes it allows less demolition of an historic structure when additions are being made and it might be appropriate on this house. Melanie asked what the cost would be to replace the tree. Pat stated with a 20 inch caliper and 35 feet high it would cost $16,000 to replace it. Melanie stated that a tree that size would not be available. Katalin stated that she is grateful to work with a client that would allow the addition to be put in the back. Public stated that the house is nicely designed and fits on the site. Phil Hodgeson stated that the job of the HPC is to preserve the history of Aspen. He feels the numbers could be reduced in order to leave the house where it is. Charles Cunniffe stated that his client would loose too much square footage in order to live there if the house wasn't moved. Karen Day inquired about the porch issue. Charles stated that the water line easement can only be reduced a little due to the depth of the water line and they need a certain angle to access the water line. The Water Dept. is dictating the water line easement. Amy stated that they will be eight feet from the property line which is more than the minimum setback required. They are not asking for a variance. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 There is a combined sideyard setback variance because the stair width around the back of the building on the north cannot be in a setback so they need a setback variance of four feet. Pat Hodgeson stated that she would like the commission to approve the project with the condition that the tree not be moved and not move the house. Chairman Jake Vickery closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer stated that the structure is a conforming structure on a non-conforming lot size. Jake stated that the existing FAR is 1870.5 and the allowable is 2370.24. Katelin stated that they are asked for the 500 sq.fl, bonus also. Amy stated in section 26.104-030 non conforming structures, historic landmark structures maybe enlarge to the maximum FAR plus the square footage. Jeffrey commended the architects on working with the HPC and the request to break down the massing and staying within the HPC confines of what the commission predicates HPC on. He agrees with the resolution of the garage as a minimal element. He agrees with bringing back the historic porch. The tree is an issue. If the house cannot be moved, possibly look at the north east comer of the existing structure and relocate the two baths. Susan stated that she commends bringing back the porch and would not like to see the house moved but five feet would be better than ten feet. Melanie stated she likes the interior space that was created between the structures. She would not like the house moved but considering other projects that were approved there is still more distance between these two houses than so many other projects that were approved. She is against variances on five foot setbacks. She would like the tree saved but that might not happen. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 Mark stated that the project looks good and moving the house ten feet needs more thought into it. Roger stated that the chimney needs restudied and he is in favor of keeping the front porch. He also encourages the applicant to continue to work with the Water Dept. to reduce the moving of the house the full ten feet. Jake stated that he cannot find compelling reasons to move the house. There is the problem with the maple tree and the reduction of the setback. He feels that the garage could be closer to the house or the livingroom smaller. He cannot support moving the house if that purpose is to accommodate the 500 sq. fl. bonus. It is generally his position not to grant bonuses on properties less than 9,000 sq. fl. The site is restricted due to the slope and water lines that make it difficult to resolve. The courtyard could be narrower. Roger stated that the FAR bonus does not have to be given and if it is he would like to see that the board gets something in return. He would also like to discuss moving of the house. Susan stated that the south facade is important with the little porches that moving it closer to the neighbors house will restrict visibility, and no one will see the porches. It is important to keep the house where it is. Katalin stated she would like to ask the board about Jake's comment of no compelling reason to give the 500 sq. fl. bonus to people who basically are 100% preserving and elevating the house on a site where they could have 65% more square footage if it wasn't a special site? Jake stated that the site is sloped in the back and that forces the architect to do certain things in the design. From a preservation perspective it is pushing it all over toward the south side. As a result of the site the usable flat portion of the site is reduced; therefore, it is reasonable to think that the building that could go on that is a smaller building. Katelin also address Roger's comment about the bonus and getting something in return in the design. She stated that she felt like she should have come to the meeting with a messy addition upfront taking the maximum out of the site and playing some kind of give and take game. She stated that she came to the 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 meeting with 100% integrity intentions. She also stated that the last meeting her statements were cut off by the board members. Katalin also stated if the building were left alone it would still have to be lifted up and moved in order to build the new foundation to preserve the existing building. Amy stated that Staff was recommending that the bonus be granted. There are slopes that are restricting development on the property and you don't see that square footage built. Visually their property is large and they are asking to build onto that area and the bonus would be placed on the vacated section of the street. Visually the site can accommodate this amount of square footage. With relocation of the house HPC struggles with this on every project. HPC is getting a one story addition which faces the street which is better than so many other proposals that come before HPC. She also stated that she is sure they could accommodate an addition in some other way but it wouldn't have the courtyard shape that gives the break from the historic building that HPC is looking for. Charles stated that three things are going on: 1. There is 21 feet between houses which is an unusually large distance, the usual is 10 feet. 2. The applicant is building a much more expensive foundation to accommodate the Water Departments needs and concerns. 3. The way the addition is handled is much more complex and costly to build in order to break down the massing so that the integrity of the house can be maintained. Katalin stated that originally the Water Dept. wanted 15 feet but she spent 20 hours to persuade them to reduce it to 10 feet. Jake stated that he wanted to make sure Katalin was completely heard by the board and that all issues were addressed. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant conceptual approval for 218 N. Monarch Street with the following conditions: 1. The on-site relocation of the existing Landmark Designated structure, subject to the following conditions: 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 a. The applicant must submit a structural report for final review or prior to applying for a building permit. b. The applicant must submit a relocation plan and bond prior to final review or prior to applying for a building permit. c. If it is found that the structure is not capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation and re-siting, or the proposed relocation will not work for any reason, the applicant will have to bring the proposal back to the HPC for conceptual review. 2. The partial demolition of the Landmark designation structure as proposed by the applicant. 3. The general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan of this Significant Development, as proposed by the applicant, including the following waivers, variances, and conditions: a. A waiver from the requirements of Section 26. 58.040(F)(4)(c), garages, carports and storage areas of the Municipal Code. b. A combined sideyard setback variances of 4 feet. e. As required by code, all structural features and/or support columns will remain within the required setbacks, or within the limits of variances granted from required setbacks. 4. Afire hundred (500) square foot floor area bonus for the proposed addition to the nonconforming duplex structure, pursuant to Section 26.104.030, Nonconforming Structures, of the Municipal Code. 5. All approvals granted to this application may be rendered invalid if the easement vacation and other issues related to the water line that crosses the northerly portion of the subject lot are not resolved in a manner compatible with said approvals. If final resolution of these issues in any way, precludes development of the proposal as approved, the applicant will be required to resubmit his/her application for conceptual review by the HPC. Prior to proceeding with Final review, the applicant shall submit legal documentation detailing the resolution of all issues related to said water line, including a signed letter from a qualified representative of the affected water utility company. 6. Front porch to remain. 7. Restudy chimney in height and width. 8. Continue to work with the Water Department to reduce the 10' south easement. Motion second by defJhey. Motion carried 5-1. dake opposed. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 dake, Roger, Mark, Susan, defJhey, Melanie ISIS THEATRE - 406 E. HOPKINS - FINAL Melanie was excused at 7:45 PM. Gilbert stepped down. Amy stated that Staff is recommending Final approval with ten conditions as stated in the memo. Conceptual was done in 1995 and numerous worksessions were scheduled and no one submitted for final. She also stated that the project is quite visible and that a story board or display should be created while the restoration is being completed. MOTION: Roger moved to approve Final Development for 406 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide samples of all materials for approval by the HPC and label all materials' on the permit set. 2. The applicant shall retain the existing masonry wall on the south facade and those portions of the west facade which are currently visible. The applicant shall reconstruct the exposed portions of the east wall to match the west wall, using salvaged bricks' and matching the coursing and mortar characteristics. A sample panel shall be created for the approval of staff and monitor. 3. Physical evidence uncovered during demolition which provides more accurate information about the original appearance of the south facade shall be incorporated into the restoration of that facade, with the approval of staff and monitor. 4. The applicant shall retain the existing "Isis" sign and reinstall in its' current position. 5. The applicant shall submit specifications for repair of historic materials', including cleaning and repointing of masonry, for approval by staff and monitor. 6. The applicant shall remove the awning from the west side of the existing structure. 7. The applicant shall repair and reuse all historic fabric on the south facade of the building, including the windows, cornice, and building plaque. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12, 1997 8. Any changes which affect the exterior appearance of the building shall immediately be brought to the attention of staff Jbr approval by staff and monitor. 9. The applicant shall create a story board describing the project to the public and place it near the project. 10. Eliminate the vaulted roof of the elevator tower. Motion second by Mark. DISCUSSION Amy indicated that on the smaller set of prints which indicate conceptual approval 1995, the tower had a fiat roof structure. What is being presented today on the full size set of plans is a vaulted roof that matches the new addition. She stated that the elevator tower should be more compatible with the historic building and recommended eliminating the vaulted roof. Charles stated that the roof proposed enhances the building and allows them to bring the elevator equipment up to its maximum height. He stated that it ties the roof together. The new element separates the old by the gesture of shape. Susan stated that she was opposed to taking down the east wall. She would like to ensure that the wall will remain old if the bricks are to be cleaned. Amended motion. Roger moved to eliminate condition ~10, second by Mark. All in favor of motion and amended motion except Susan who voted against the motion. Motion carried 4-1. Voting were dake, Roger, Mark Susan and defJhey. 1008 E. HOPKINS - WORKSESSION NO MINUTES MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by dake. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 12~ 1997 514 E. HYMAN - MASON MORSE BLDG .......................................................................................... 1 17 QUEEN STREET - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................... 4 218 N. MONARCH - CONCEPTUAL - PARTIAL DEMOLITION .................................................. 5 ISIS THEATRE - 406 E. HOPKINS - FINAL ..................................................................................... 12 1008 E. HOPKINS - WORKSESSION ................................................................................................ 13 14