Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19970409 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9, 1997 Special meeting was called to order at noon by First Vice-Chairman Roger Moyer with Suzannah Reid, Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty and Mary Hirsch present. Excused were Jake Vickery, Mark Onorofski, Melanie Roschko and Susan Dodington. 303 E. MAIN - KUHN Ted Guy, structural engineer for the project stated they requested several bids from shoring companies. With the house in place the cost of shoring underneath the existing building on site would be over $300,000. Some of the other systems proposed will not work due to the conflicts between the house, it would have to be moved first to the south and then to the north and then back, that is three times. The applicant is requesting to move the house off the site during construction and they would save around $180,000 and the house would only have to be moved twice, once off the site and once back. It would be stored for around eight weeks and the site would be at the old Parlor Car. Amy Amidon, Planner stated that she would have to investigate if the applicant has to go to Board of Adjustment. David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney stated that notice should be given to the neighbors so they are aware of the situation. Ted stated Bill Bailey will be the house mover. Amy stated that a plan should be submitted showing where and how the house will be stored. She also stated a report needs submitted on how the house will be braced and a bond or letter of credit needs issued to ensure the houses relocation. Typically $30,000 is issued for smaller structures. MOTION: Suzannah moved to approve the temporary relocation of the house at 303 E. Main with the following conditions: 1) A site plan submitted showing where and how the house will be stored. 2) A report submitted on how the house will be braced. 3) A bond or letter of credit issued in the amount of S30, 000. 4) Approval from the BofA if required. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9, 1997 second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Regular meeting was called to order by Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Susan Dodington, Suzannah Reid, Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty and Mary Hirsch. Excused were Mark Onorofski and Melanie Roschko. 611 W. MAIN - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Amy stated that the property is in the Main Street Historic District and is not actually a designated landmark but is worthy of being one but it is on the historic inventory. The application is to demolish a shed at the rear of the property. Generally outbuildings should be preserved that are part of the way Aspen used to be. Barns have been retained as garages etc. On this particular property it cannot be established when the building was built as it is not on the Sanborn map from 1904 so it was probably built subsequent to that. The owner feels it was around 1930. The shed is collapsing on itself and Staff is recommending demolition. Dan Levinson, owner stated that he purchased the property from Harry Shaw and the grandson stated that Harry constructed it out of old wood. The house has been propped up several times. Susan stated that she feels sheds should be kept because they are part of the old Aspen even if this is not historic. The alleyscapes are important and they retain the old historic Aspen. She would rather see the shed than a line of parked cars. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the partial demolition application for 611 W. Main to allow the demolition of the existing shed; second by Gilbert. Motion carried 5 -2. defJhey and Susan opposed. 715 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy stated that this is a commercial building on Main Street that is built in a Victorian style and the application is to enclose an open staircase on the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9~ 1997 exterior of the building and to enclose an existing roof deck. At some point they would like to re-roof with a standing seam roof. Staff recommends approval with the condition that staff and monitor review the color of the metal for compatibility Sven Alstrom, architect stated that the building was built in 1981 and Randy Wedum was the original designer. There is an existing exit door that is a solid door with no windows and the proposal is to bring the roof shape out six feet to align up with the existing deck handrail. The proposal is to extend the roof out and put more glass in so daylight gets into the tenant space. There is available FAR. There is an existing deck on the North and it is bad maintenance but it is an exit. They desire to enclose it. Suzannah asked for clarification about the stairs going down into the brick area in the front. Sven stated that the original building had a porch which they enclosed. Material would be fish scale shingles and horizontal siding to match the existing. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minor development application for 715 W. Main as proposed with all new construction to match existing material. The new metal roof maybe approved in a neutral or earth tone color to be approved by staff and monitor; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried, defJhey is the monitor. 132 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy stated that the applicant is asking to make window and door alternations to the building on the west and north sides. On the west there was a door. They are also proposing a change on the street facade. It is very difficult to recognize what the two original houses looked like. They have been combined into one and remodeled significantly. The McCluskey's would like to rework the entryway into the east house. They want to move the door but Staff feels the door should not be eliminated completely. There needs to be some identification that it was a house and there was an entryway to it. She also encourages restoration work on the house. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9~ 1997 Ran Robertson, architect for the tenant, McCluskey stated that they want to return to the more historic floor plan which allows them to keep the porch on the outside and move the windows. The door would be moved by a 1 1/2 feet to the outside wall in response to the information from Amy. Susan asked if the glass would be flush. Ran stated yes. His intent is to just move the door to the outside wall which is the historic original location and it was set back. Amy stated that the porch had been extended before and she feels the entry should remain. Ran stated that he is also proposing two 4 by 4 skylights on the flat roof that would be impossible to see from any side of the building. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the minor development application for 132 144. Main St. in terms of the proposed modification to the west and north facades. Exhibit ~4 B & C indicate the modification to the soztth facade. Two non-showing skylights' are also being approved with graphic information to be presented to Staff and monitor; second by Roger..411 in favor, motion carried. 514 E. HYMAN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Jim Colombo represented the applicant Mason and Morse. Amy stated that a site visit was previously done and the recommendation was that a redesign be done to simplify the building. Jim stated that they tried to look at the symmetry and character of the existing building. There are three elements of symmetry and they are represented by the front facade, store front windows, balcony with recessed current entry; and the recessed store front windows that run two stories. Jim stated that they are proposing a honed sandstone surface. They will be in 24 by 24 blocks. They will apply the sandstone over the existing brick and it will be very contemporary in style. It will be accented with slate medallions. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9~ 1997 There will also be a thin banding of sandstone. The windows are proposed to be wood clad. An awning would be applied at the higher level. There will be a stucco application of the soffet area and three recessed can to lighten the entry. There will be tube lighting above the sign. Jake asked if the pediment or gable going to be sandstone. Jim stated yes. Roger stated that as a suggestion the railing and pediment top should be flashed due to stone being added for maintenance reasons. Effervescence occurs and it doesn't go away. Gilbert stated that he felt a cap flashing would be appropriate aesthetically. Jim stated that he does not want that in the motion and he will research the effervescence problem. Jim stated that the medallions will be flush with the sandstone. As recommended the pitch has been lowered. Susan stated that she likes the design. Gilbert stated that the response to the concerns that HPC is well received, i.e. massing, front facade etc. The changes adapt well. He mentioned the planters remaining stone. Jim stated that he could tie the planters in with a smaller medallion on the front. Suzannah stated that her concern is the large awning over the space and it detract from the other elements that are being proposed. Jim stated that it will be a retractable awning. Jeffrey asked how the termination of the sandstone will be done at the side of the building. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9~ 1997 Jim stated that a bullnose will run to the comer and butting into the brick. Nothing else can be done because it would then be encroaching. MOTION: Roger moved to approve minor development for 514 E. Hyman as show on the submitted drawing exhibit VII -1 to include the application of san&tone medallions to the planters as proposed by the applicant; second by Gilbert. Motion carried 6 - 1. Suzannah voted no. Gilbert will be the monitor. Amy asked if the medallions could be held off until last to see how the building flows. 218 N. MONARCH - HALF HOUSE - FINAL Gilbert stepped down. Mitch Haas, staff planner stated that the applicant is requesting final approval to relocate the landmark structure onsite, demolish a small portion on the back of the building and to make an addition to the existing building. They are also requesting the FAR bonus and a waiver from one of the residential design standards. Conceptual was granted March 12 with conditions. There are a few changes. The ADU has been eliminated and they moved the garage three feet further back from the street which eliminates the need for a front yard setback variance. The deck on the rear has also been reduced in size to eliminate the need for a rear yard setback variance. There is a recess proposed to the east elevation which creates usable deck space and breaks up the mass of the east elevation side. The front porch will be left in its original condition. At conceptual it was proposed that the house be moved ten feet and since then a compromise has been established with the Water Dept. regarding an easement and the house will only have to be moved 3 1/2 feet south which results in a 14 foot side yard setback which is the same as the house next door. In general Staff feels the proposed addition is compatible. There are three concerns: Roofing material on the addition which is standing seam metal. The existing house is wood single and the transition might not be compatible. Staff feels that the architecture is enough distinction. Another concern is the relocation of two windows on the south elevation. The third area is the Residential Design Standard that deals with the proposed garage 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9~ 1997 not being recessed ten feet behind the front facade. Staff feels due to sight constraints a waiver should be made. Since conceptual there are windows that do not conform to the volume standard. Staff feels that the windows on the north and south are OK but the east (back side) contains quite a bit of glazing. This might be incompatible due to the amount of light spillage that would be visible. Staff would prefer to see some glazing reduced. Katalin Domoszlay, architect stated that the siding is aluminum on the south side and will be replaced with wood siding. The moving of the windows will still retain the same distance between them. The windows also do not align with anything. In order for the interior stair to function the windows need to be moved. Katalin also stated that the proposed metal roof creates a low profile. The roof is shallow and in order for the snow to fall off the roof metal is proposed. She felt it was a positive response from the Board that it is a clear separation from the existing building. The design of the roof was driven by the material and form. The roof would match in color and proportions. Katalin stated that the east side is more modem. Visually you do not see the glazing. The proposal might be to go with channel lap siding. Jan Derrington stated that a possibility would be to do partial metal, partial wood on the addition as opposed to all metal. They would like to use clad windows on the new addition part. CLARIFICATIONS Roger stated that the windows on the south side are proposed to be moved due to the interior workings. Suzannah asked for clarifications of the siding proposed for the historic structure. Katalin stated that the simplest way to go would be the clapboard siding to exactly match what is there. COMMENTS 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9~ 1997 Jeffrey stated that his only concern is with the east elevation. The surface amount of glazing vs. the volume of the historic structure. The other issue is the shed roof on the porch and possibly cedar shake would be more appropriate there. On the east elevation is the glazing necessary for the client's needs and do the numerous windows cause a lit up effect. Susan asked for clarification if all the new roofing materials are proposed to be metal. Katalin stated yes but she will look at the garage roof being shingles because it is 25 feet away. Amy stated that she feels shingles on the garage and entry element are a good compromise. HPC is only concerned about the west elevation. The distinction between old and new is to be very subtle. It does not have to be extreme that it detracts from the historic house. The Commission discussed Staff' s recommendations. Roger added that the siding on the south side exactly match the historic siding. Suzannah added that she would want to see the west existing siding remain and a slight difference in the siding on the new structure. Jeffrey stated his only problem was with the east elevation. Susan stated that she would prefer to see the garage roof shingled as a compromise and to use whatever siding is left to redo the south side and north side. Mary stated she would prefer the shakes also on the entry area. Jake stated that he has problems with the repeated glazing on the east side. There is very little wall surface there and he doubts that it would get through the energy code. He also stated that he would like in the motion that the conditions of conceptual have been met. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9~ 1997 MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant final approval of the Landmark Designated structure located at 218 N. Monarch referred to as the Half House finding that conditions of conceptual have been met. The general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan of this Significant Development, as proposed by the applicant, including the following waiver and conditions: 1. A variance from the "volume "standard (Section 26.58.040([)(12) of the Residential Design Standards' is granted for the windows proposed on the north and south sides of the structure and the east side subject to restudy of the east and approved by Staff and monitor. (Restudy of all the glazing). 2) A detailed plan for the preservation of existing exterior materials' and for structural improvements' necessary for the historic structure shall be submitted to staff and the HPC monitor for review and approval prior to building perm it issuance. 3) A waiver from the requirements' of Section 26. 58.040 (F) (4) (c), Garages, carports' and storage areas, of the Municipal Code. 4) As required by code, all structural features and/or support columns will remain within the required setbacks'. 5) New siding profile to be different than historic. 6) The original siding on the west side be maintained and the original siding on the north side be restored. second by Suzannah. Mary stated she has a concern about the roofing materials and possibly the shingle garage and the portion of the roof over the front being shingles would make for a better look. Katalin stated that she is open to the restudy. Amended Motion: Roger amended the motion to add that the roofing of the garage addition and front entrance porch area to be restudied in shingles and approved by Staff and Monitor; second by Suzannah. All in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carried unanimously. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9, 1997 1008 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL David Rybeck presented drawings. The landscaping has changed and the model has been revised. The window at the addition has been changed to give the facade more proportion with the historic structure. The plate has been dropped to 10 foot five. At the last meeting it was requested that we look at the historic structure in its relationship to the road vertically. Roger stated that the distance from the lot line on the east of the historic structure will be five feet and the new addition will be seven feet and that changes a little with the shed. Public stated that Mr. Bellis has done everything to make this a good descent project. Chairman Jake Vickery closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger stated that he found the original design to be compatible with the historic structure. Because of the fact that the slope backed down the original design was not that impacting from the street. If we are asking them to create more verticality it is against our goals. They did the study on moving the house over but it doesn't work. Suzannah stated that she likes the new elevation better. Gilbert stated that the original proposal had a better relationship and lowering the plate height making a taller presence is not a good situation. He also stated that he likes the shadow line that has been created as it has a good relationship to the window on the existing building. He stated because of the constraints keeping the building five feet from the property line is acceptable and it has been looked at satisfactorily. He also stated that the little historic building suffers because the scale is smaller than what is around it. Jeffrey stated that the site plan really shows how the house is set back and he feels will be an improvement to the site. He stated it was a well studied 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9~ 1997 project. He also stated he like the pitch of the roof of the first design but with the overall massing it wouldn't make a difference to the eye. Susan stated that she is concerned about the addition being too massing. Mary asked which design the owner preferred? David Rybeck stated that he and the applicants preferred the new design because of the massing and the final result of the gable. They feel the pop out of the bay and the addition of the shed roof breaks down the massing even more as well as give it more relationship to the front gable of the historic structure. It also reduces the heights of the windows. He also stated that it will be difficult to pick up the difference in the pitch. Jake stated his thought was a smaller element that stepped down to the cottage. He likes the 9 foot plate and the 12 x 12 roof. The intention was to bring things down to the cottage and not to emphasize vertical height. The cottage needs prominence to the street. David Rybeck stated if he raises the historic house it forces him to raise the plate height of the upper floor which then forces him to raise the height of the building. Roger stated when the building next door is torn down it can never come anymore forward than what the applicant is at this time unless the setbacks change. Bill Poss stated with the little structure sometimes it is better to have it a little depressed to call attention to it. It adds vitality. The mere fact that it has been moved forward will call attention to it and it is unique in the neighborhood. The applicant wants the view but he wants daylight also. Mary stated that she is comfortable with the plan as is and being 2 1/2 feet higher is not an issue for her. Susan stated that she would like it higher. Jeffrey stated that he is comfortable with the plan as presented. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9~ 1997 Gilbert stated that the applicant is satisfying all the requirements and he is OK with the plan as presented. MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval to 1008 E. Hopkins; supporting landmark designation finding standards' B & E have been met. That a restudy be done of the roof pitch being brought back to the original design 12 x 12 with the placement of the current window design into that original roof pitch (restudy of the south fenestration of the addition). Also that partial demolition be approved as requested and on-site relocation as requested. Also supporting a five yard west setback variance and a 13feet combined side yard setback variance. HPC supports' the 500 sq. fi. FAR bonus and allowing a variance for Ord. ~30 to be met at final depending upon the restudy of the south elevation, second by Mary. Motion carried 5- 2. Susan and dake opposed. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by defJhey. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p. m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9, 1997 303 E. MAIN - KUHN ................................................................................................. 1 611 W. MAIN - PARTIAL DEMOLITION ....................................................................... 2 715 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 2 132 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 3 514 E. HYMAN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 4 218 N. MONARCH - HALF HOUSE - FINAL ................................................................... 6 1008 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL ............................................................................. 10 13