Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19971008ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1997 Chair-person Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Roger Moyer, Mark Onorofski, Gilbert Sanchez, Mary Hirsch, Melanie Roschko, Heidi Friedland and Jeffrey Halferty. Susan Dodington was excused. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roger stated that a technical pamphlet on restorations should be created as a reference tool for the public. Mary suggested that HPC sponsor workshops on restorations. The commission discussed letter of credits and fines etc. for off-site relocation' s. The Assistant City Attorney will look into a code revision. Mary suggested a worksession on color, i.e. when is it a requirement etc. 400 E. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy Guthrie relayed to the board that the building is an existing commercial building and the proposal is to close off the entry and make it a weatherized entry area. The building is a modem building. Klm Raymond presented and stated that a glass store front type door would be incorporated into the design to close off the ramp area for an airlock. There would still be enough space for wheel chairs to get into the elevator. The door would match existing features. Heidi was seated. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the minor development for 400 E. Main with the condition that the door match the existing features already existing on the building; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. 114 NEALE AVE. (17 QUEEN) LOT SPLIT AMENDMENT - PH - CONCEPTUAL Exhibit I - affidavit ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1997 Jeffrey seated. Chair-persons Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Amy Guthrie stated that the applicant wishes to change the division of the lot split and make it more equitable. Glenn Rappaport presented for the owner, Joel Ehrenkrantz. Two variances were requested, a side yard variance on the east side for an addition and a side yard variance for a garage. The side yard variance on the east side for an addition is within the setback. The discussion will be a variance on the garage. Essentially the lot line adjustment has to do with creating a lot about 7,000 sq. ft. sectioning offa lot that is 14,161 sq. ft. and the FAR area that would be allowed on the 7,000 sq. ft. lot would be between 2,045 sq. ft. and 2,145 sq. ft. FAR. There is a 100 foot negotiation. The remaining FAR for the new house to be constructed below would be between 3,744 sq. ft. and 3,644 sq. ft. FAR. For clarification Roger stated the request is for an addition with no variances and a garage that would require a variance. Chair-person Suzannah Reid stated that there were no comments from the public, public hearing closed. MOTION: Roger moved to approve an historic landmark lot split for 114 Neale Ave. with the following conditions: 1) The property shall be subdivided into one parcel of 7, 000 sq. fi. with an assigned FAR of 2,145 sq. fi. and an secondparcel of 14,160 sq. fi. with a maximum FAR of 3,644 sq. fi. 2) A subdivision plat as described in Section 26. 88.030(A) (2) (d), must be filed. 3) A subdivision exemption agreement and plat as described in Section 26. 88.030(A) (2) (e) shall be filed. Motion second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Chair-person Suzannah Reid opened the conceptual public hearing. No public comments. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1997 MOTION: Roger moved to table the public hearing and Conceptual Development for 114 Neale Ave. to October 22, 1997; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN MEADOWS TENNIS TOWNHOMES - AMENDMENT TO FINAL Three exhibits. Gilbert stepped down. Jeffrey seated. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the HPC that these are new town homes to be built across from the tennis courts. There are six units which are reminiscent of the lodge institutional buildings at the Aspen Meadows. Staff has some concerns with the windows on the west side of the building, i.e. glazing and the landscape plan. The landscape plan should suite the historic condition at the Meadows. Jan Derrington from Charles Cunniffe's office and Sam Korn, developer presented. Jan explained the vegetation. On the street side there is an earth berm and the existing trees along the street will be preserved. Three to five feet high shrubs will be planted. Anyone walking along or riding along the street will not see much of the buildings at all. Square wire mesh will be used for the top of the railings. An earth-tone color scheme is proposed. The proposed stucco color is straw. The windows will be clad and doors natural wood. The roof fascia and balcony railings would be a weathered copper look. The site plan indicates the grading of the carports. The fence is a code requirement and the shrubs would come up to the top of the fence. For color 1000 narcissus, jonquils and daffodil bulbs will be added. The board was concerned that the landscape elevation does not indicate all the species. Another concern is the vegetation in the area after the bulbs are done blooming. The proposal is a wood mulch. The Board also had a concern with the glazing on the west facade. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1997 Jan Derrington stated that there are not many residents that are close to the units. There will be some sort of shading devices on the units and air conditioning will be installed. A glass coating is proposed for the windows. Amy stated that the color change and cohesiveness should be incorporated in these units to coincide with the Meadows theme. The complex is gray and white and the proposal is taupe and brown. Jan stated that they felt the color change would match with the natural foliage. The white and gray colors are in the campus which is screened from view. In summary, Amy stated that the project has improved immensely but it is not in keeping with the campus as Herbert Bayer's colors were meant to be different with the bright colors and also the landscaping is lined up in orderly rows. The proposal is stepping away from the campus idea. Jan stated the plantings are very simple, aspen and juniper trees. Roger suggested as a compromise that the east side be a different color, gray tone and all the other sides the earth tones. Melanie felt that the landscaping could be simplified to tie in with the existing plantings. Other members felt that this project should not be confused with the Meadows and should be a natural feeling and not structured. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC approve the tennis townhomes as submitted finding that materials' are compatible with the campus and the design of the windows on the west are compatible and the lan&cape plan is acceptable, second by Mary. Discussion: Mary suggested that the applicant look at the color selection with Staff and monitor. Melanie requested a revised detailed landscape plan. Jan Derrington commented that he is willing to look at the color selection and work with Staff and monitor to come to a compromises that will be agreeable to all parties. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1997 234 W. FRANCIS - PUBLIC HEARING Gilbert was seated. Jeffrey did not vote on this item. Amy Guthrie, planner stated that this building is on the national register of historic places plus being a local landmark. The back of the house has a carriage house that is not historic and the applicant desires to change it back to a garage, add some dormers and change windows. Staff has no concern with those changes. There is a wing that runs between the garage toward the back of the house that is partly old construction and partly not. An open breezeway will be constructed in the new part of the wing. On the historic house the proposal is to add an octagonal kitchen on the north east comer. It is one story and does not damage the architectural integrity of the building. It is somewhat of an ornate element and the house is a simple detailed house. There is also a proposal to extend a dormer and Staff is not in support as the dormer is original and visible from the street. It is too much of an alteration. The small lean-to will be returned to its original state, a shed roof. Scott Lindeau, architect for the project remarked that the existing historic dormer is proposed to be extended out five feet which is in the attic space on the least visible side, the north. A dormer proposed is to be added to the guest property. In response to the octagonal kitchen if it was squared off you would loose the views too much. It is also dark and the ceilings are low so the proposal to do the octagonal adds more light to the eating space. The majority of the board had no problems with the proposal. The octagonal kitchen is a fun new element. There were reservations about the stair tower proportions and how it pops out from the building. From the plans it looks like the stair could be moved back so that the dormer could line up. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the proposal for the minor development, partial demolition of 234 W. Francis St. with the condition that 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1997 the applicant look at revising the rear stair dormer so that the wall aligns with the building wall below and that more research be done on the slope of the original roof on the rear addition of the house to be approved by staff and monitor, second by Roger. Discussion: Gilbert recommended that the extension beyond the building wall be eliminated. VOTE: Passed 4 - 3. Yes vote: Gilbert, Roger, Mark, Suzannah. No vote: Mary, Melanie, Heidi. Those members who voted no felt that there were too many changes to this important house. 334 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the board that this house is on the register and a local landmark. Ten years ago the owner, Marta Chaikovska and Frank Peters got an approval for a remodel but the addition was never built. The extensions are now expired. The public notices are not completed so the meeting will be a worksession. Phase I was the remodel of the carriage house that took place a few years ago. Phase II involves additions to the historic house and a garage which faces Third Street. The garage placement is in conflict with ordinance #30, which requires garages to be placed on the alley; however, they have always pulled their cars into the existing space which is a paved uncovered driveway. In order for them to add a garage it would have to be isolated in the comer due to the vegetation on the alley. The garage proposed is a one stall garage. Staff is comfortable with the proposed location. The addition is a glass sunroom or green house that is quite visible from the street. It is a one story element. There is a one story addition to the back of the historic house that was there in 1893 and the old approval allowed them to demolish that addition and allowed them to construct an addition with a second story. Staff is opposed to the demolition of the one story addition. Staff feels the addition on the north elevation should be incorporated in the design to the back of the house. The board needs to give direction regarding the addition. Structurally it might not hold a second floor. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1997 Marta said they would retain the side door and side window so the look will be retained. She also stated that structurally individuals do not want to take on this massive project. The house is hal£ electric and hal£ gas. The board felt that a site visit was necessary. MOTION: Suzannah moved to adjourn, second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7 Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 234 W. FRANCIS - PUBLIC HEARING Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, stated that this building is on the national register of historic places plus being a local landmark. This is a wonderful red and black house on a comer. Numerous important people in Aspen's history have lived in the house. This is a minor application with several items involved. On the alley in back of the house is a carriage house that is not historic. At one time it was a garage and now it is a living unit and the applicant desires to change it back to a garage, add some dormers and change some windows. Staff has no concern with those changes as it was not historic construction. There is a wing that runs between the garage toward the back of the house that is partly old construction and partly not. The part that is not old construction, the applicants plan to open up into breezeway,. They are going to demolish. It is not historic construction, so that use is appropriate. On the historic house the proposal is to add an octagonal kitchen on the northeast comer of the house. This will not be particularly visible to the public. It is one story and does not do any damage the architectural integrity of the building. Ms. Guthrie said this is somewhat of a more ornate element than the rest of the house. There is also a proposal to extend a dormer on the back of the house out about 5 feet to accommodate a stair tower. Ms. Guthrie stated she is not in support of this change as the dormer is original feature of the building and will be visible from the street. It is too much of an alteration. The small lean-to at the back of the house has been modified. Originally it was a shed roof addition. The applicant plans to returned to its original state, a shed roof. Scott Lindeau, architect for the project, told the Commission the existing garage contains a rental unit when was never deed restricted or approved. The applicants would like to return it to a garage with access to the alley and add a dormer to the rear to alleviate snow shedding concerns so the snow is not falling on the garage doors. A small dormer to the south is also proposed to get light into the upper level. Lindeau said adding the octagonal kitchen is disguised from the street elevations on Second and Francis. This will give more light and more square footage to the kitchen. The existing dormer, which staff feels is not totally appropriate, is currently up in the attic space Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 and will add about 5 feet to a stair going to the upper level. This is on the north elevation, the least visible elevation. The applicants want to add one window to the east elevation. Lindeau noted drawing # 15 is the new window to be added. Lindeau said the window trim casing in the additions will be the same as in the existing house to keep those consistent. The breezeway separates the garage from the main house and there is access through there to the streets. Lindeau said they want to add a dormer to a detached guest cottage on the property, to the north elevation, which faces the interior courtyard. Ms. Friedland asked why an octagon. Lindeau said the way the house is situation, the was the landscape works and the courtyard, the octagon gives a lot more view into the interior. If it was squared off you would loose the views too much. Ms. Reid asked why this is a minor review. Ms. Guthrie said this is pushing the definition of minor; minor is defined as less than 250 square feet, which this is. There is a description of cumulative dormer window changes; this is pushing it; however that is the way staff allowed the application to come in. Moyer said page 13, the west elevation of the carriage house which will be transformed into a garage, there is a square window in the middle of the wall, wouldn't it be more appropriate a slender double hung. Ms. Guthrie said she brought this up to the applicant; it is new and that is a way to distinguish it as new construction. Moyer asked if staff had a problem with the dormers on the carriage house, which will become a garage. Ms. Guthrie said she does not; it is not historic construction and is a fine way to use the space. Moyer said there were some concerns about the tower which becomes a kitchen. Ms. Guthrie said the house is extremely simple architecturally and the form would not be consistent with the simplicity; however, it is one-story. Moyer asked why the shape is designed as an octagon. Lindeau said the main level is also dark and the ceilings are low so the proposal to do the octagonal adds more light to the eating space. Ms. Reid said the dormer on the historic house seems to go out farther than it is shown. Lindeau said it could be pulled back a couple of feet for the pitch on the stair. Ms. Guthrie said the dormer that can be seen from the street is an interesting detail but is not so compatible with such a historic buildings. Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 Gilbert Sanchez said he has no problems with most of the proposal; the octagon is a little strange but is a fun new element and because it is in the back it can work. Sanchez said he does have reservations about the stair tower; the proportions seem strange. It is even more of a problem from the side just because it' s a tall blank wall that pops out from the rest of the building. Sanchez said the stair could be moved back so the vaulted ceiling area would be the landing.. Sanchez said it is a good proposal but he would like the stair tower reviewed. Moyer said he would like to see the tower deleted and would make the window in the west side of the garage to be more in keeping with the historic character. Mayer asked what the shed roof is trying to relate to. Ms. Guthrie said the current lean-to addition has a gable roof, a shallow pitch gable roof, which is being changed back to a shed. Ms. Guthrie said she would like to reserve sometime to look at the lean-to to see another picture or the framing. Lindeau said the windows are low on the upper level, 8 inches above finished floor, and they may have to be reglazed to meet energy standards. Ms. Guthrie noted UBC has exemptions for historic buildings. Ms. Guthrie said she would like to reserve final solution until she has more information on the shed. Ms. Reid agreed the tower is a problem. Ms. Reid said she would like to see the tower moved back so that the eave runs through it. Mayer asked if there is a skylight on the carriage house. Lindeau said no. MOTION: Gilbert Sanchez moved to approve the proposal for the minor development, partial demolition of 234 W. Francis St. with the condition that the applicant look at revising the rear stair dormer so that the wall aligns with the building wall below and that more research be done on the slope of the original roof on the rear addition of the house to be approved by staff and monitor, second by Roger Mayer. Sanchez recommended that the extension beyond the building wall be eliminated. Sanchez said he has no problem with a dormer that aligns with a building wall. Ms. Guthrie noted that is a change to an original historic building and it depends on how strictly HPC wants to look at their procedures. Sanchez said it is the north elevation and is not that obvious. The proportion of the proposal is way out of balance. Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 VOTE: Passed 4 - 3. Yes vote: Gilbert, Roger, Mark, Suzannah. No vote: Mary, Melanie, Heidi. Ms. Guthrie asked why those members who voted no were opposed. Ms. Roschko said it is an important house for the changes that are being made. Ms. Guthrie noted part of this is a restoration. Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 234 W. FRANCIS - PUBLIC HEARING Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, stated that this building is on the national register of historic places plus being a local landmark. This is a wonderful red and black house on a corner. Numerous important people in Aspen’s history have lived in the house. This is a minor application with several items involved. On the alley in back of the house is a carriage house that is not historic. At one time it was a garage and now it is a living unit and the applicant desires to change it back to a garage, add some dormers and change some windows. Staff has no concern with those changes as it was not historic construction. There is a wing that runs between the garage toward the back of the house that is partly old construction and partly not. The part that is not old construction, the applicants plan to open up into breezeway,. They are going to demolish. It is not historic construction, so that use is appropriate. On the historic house the proposal is to add an octagonal kitchen on the northeast corner of the house. This will not be particularly visible to the public. It is one story and does not do any damage the architectural integrity of the building. Ms. Guthrie said this is somewhat of a more ornate element than the rest of the house. There is also a proposal to extend a dormer on the back of the house out about 5 feet to accommodate a stair tower. Ms. Guthrie stated she is not in support of this change as the dormer is original feature of the building and will be visible from the street. It is too much of an alteration. The small lean-to at the back of the house has been modified. Originally it was a shed roof addition. The applicant plans to returned to its original state, a shed roof. Scott Lindeau, architect for the project, told the Commission the existing garage contains a rental unit when was never deed restricted or approved. The applicants would like to return it to a garage with access to the alley and add a dormer to the rear to alleviate snow shedding concerns so the snow is not falling on the garage doors. A small dormer to the south is also proposed to get light into the upper level. Lindeau said adding the octagonal kitchen is disguised from the street elevations on Second and Francis. This will give more light and more square footage to the kitchen. The existing dormer, which staff feels is not totally appropriate, is currently up in the attic space 1 Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 and will add about 5 feet to a stair going to the upper level. This is on the north elevation, the least visible elevation. The applicants want to add one window to the east elevation. Lindeau noted drawing #15 is the new window to be added. Lindeau said the window trim casing in the additions will be the same as in the existing house to keep those consistent. The breezeway separates the garage from the main house and there is access through there to the streets. Lindeau said they want to add a dormer to a detached guest cottage on the property, to the north elevation, which faces the interior courtyard. Ms. Friedland asked why an octagon. Lindeau said the way the house is situation, the was the landscape works and the courtyard, the octagon gives a lot more view into the interior. If it was squared off you would loose the views too much. Ms. Reid asked why this is a minor review. Ms. Guthrie said this is pushing the definition of minor; minor is defined as less than 250 square feet, which this is. There is a description of cumulative dormer window changes; this is pushing it; however that is the way staff allowed the application to come in. Moyer said page 13, the west elevation of the carriage house which will be transformed into a garage, there is a square window in the middle of the wall, wouldn’t it be more appropriate a slender double hung. Ms. Guthrie said she brought this up to the applicant; it is new and that is a way to distinguish it as new construction. Moyer asked if staff had a problem with the dormers on the carriage house, which will become a garage. Ms. Guthrie said she does not; it is not historic construction and is a fine way to use the space. Moyer said there were some concerns about the tower which becomes a kitchen. Ms. Guthrie said the house is extremely simple architecturally and the form would not be consistent with the simplicity; however, it is one-story. Moyer asked why the shape is designed as an octagon. Lindeau said the main level is also dark and the ceilings are low so the proposal to do the octagonal adds more light to the eating space. Ms. Reid said the dormer on the historic house seems to go out farther than it is shown. Lindeau said it could be pulled back a couple of feet for the pitch on the stair. Ms. Guthrie said the dormer that can be seen from the street is an interesting detail but is not so compatible with such a historic buildings. 2 Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 Gilbert Sanchez said he has no problems with most of the proposal; the octagon is a little strange but is a fun new element and because it is in the back it can work. Sanchez said he does have reservations about the stair tower; the proportions seem strange. It is even more of a problem from the side just because it’s a tall blank wall that pops out from the rest of the building. Sanchez said the stair could be moved back so the vaulted ceiling area would be the landing.. Sanchez said it is a good proposal but he would like the stair tower reviewed. Moyer said he would like to see the tower deleted and would make the window in the west side of the garage to be more in keeping with the historic character. Moyer asked what the shed roof is trying to relate to. Ms. Guthrie said the current lean-to addition has a gable roof, a shallow pitch gable roof, which is being changed back to a shed. Ms. Guthrie said she would like to reserve sometime to look at the lean-to to see another picture or the framing. Lindeau said the windows are low on the upper level, 8 inches above finished floor, and they may have to be reglazed to meet energy standards. Ms. Guthrie noted UBC has exemptions for historic buildings. Ms. Guthrie said she would like to reserve final solution until she has more information on the shed. Ms. Reid agreed the tower is a problem. Ms. Reid said she would like to see the tower moved back so that the eave runs through it. Moyer asked if there is a skylight on the carriage house. Lindeau said no. MOTION: Gilbert Sanchez moved to approve the proposal for the minor development, partial demolition of 234 W. Francis St. with the condition that the applicant look at revising the rear stair dormer so that the wall aligns with the building wall below and that more research be done on the slope of the original roof on the rear addition of the house to be approved by staff and monitor, second by Roger Moyer. Sanchez recommended that the extension beyond the building wall be eliminated. Sanchez said he has no problem with a dormer that aligns with a building wall. Ms. Guthrie noted that is a change to an original historic building and it depends on how strictly HPC wants to look at their procedures. Sanchez said it is the north elevation and is not that obvious. The proportion of the proposal is way out of balance. 3 Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 VOTE: Passed 4 - 3. Yes vote: Gilbert, Roger, Mark, Suzannah. No vote: Mary, Melanie, Heidi. Ms. Guthrie asked why those members who voted no were opposed. Ms. Roschko said it is an important house for the changes that are being made. Ms. Guthrie noted part of this is a restoration. 4