Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19971124ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 24~ 1997 Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. members present were Roger Moyer, Mark Onorowski, Melanie Roschko, Susan Dodington, Suzannah Reid, Gilbert Sanchez and Mary Hirsch. Jeffrey Halferty was excused. Heidi Friedland was seated at 5:30 p.m. 130 S. GALENA - CITY HALL - GUTTER Amy stated that the skylights were installed and one is near a dormer and a gutter needs installed to take the water away from the dormer so that huge leaking problem does not occur. Heat tape will be used. The gutter will match the existing. Suzannah stated that instead of the water coming to the edge of the dormer it should run back and then down the roof. That would eliminate the water gutter coming down the front end. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the installation of the gutter as drawn and discussed at this meeting; second by Mark. All in favor, motion carried. 420 W. FRANCIS - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES Amy stated that the public notice needs to be redone because this is a different project even though they are asking for the same variances. It becomes conceptual and final. They have revised drawings to deal with height issues. On Dec. 17th conceptual and final will be combined. 114 NEALE AVENUE - GARAGE Jake Vickery could not present because he had to attend a council meeting. Amy informed the board that conceptually a carport was approved in the location that the garage is show on the plan. They have changed to a one car garage that was originally presented with the program. Staff indicated that she was not particularly concerned with the difference between a carport or a garage and this is a compatible solution. The detailing is appropriate to the structure. The location is the only reasonable place. Staff recommends approval as shown. Ordinance #30 would have to be waived which requires ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 24~ 1997 the garage to be ten feet behind the house which was the case with the carport as well. They will need to get a review from the Parks Department over the cottonwood trees which might be impacted. The Engineering Dept. feels if a garage is to be off of Neale they want an exceleration and deceleration lane and the outcome was that the carport was an adequate solution. When the property was built this area was to be a guest property but that is not the situation anymore and the owners feel a one car garage is necessary. Roger stated that he went through the original process and when the project was originally done it was to be the guest house and it was a huge project and a garage was not part of the discussion. Now there is a lot split. If they can build a garage without a variance that is appropriate but not granting variances. Staff felt that a single car garage does not destroy the project. Suzannah stated that there can be a garage on this site without a variance but it will do a lot of damage to the historic structure. Heidi stated when this originally came in a garage was denied and a carport was conceptually approved. Now all of a sudden a garage becomes viable. Gilbert relayed at the last meeting a carport was approved because it better solved the issues of being on the lot line, the mass etc. A concern is where is the snow going to fall off the roof. The neighbors yard is not appropriate. There are questions about the garage that need to be answered and the architect is not here. Suzannah and Melanie agreed that they could not approve the carport as drawn. Roger stated that they came in for a shed and it was denied. Then they came in for a carport and it was approved conceptually and now they want a garage instead of the carport. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 24, 1997 Suzannah stated that conceptually a car port was approved. The flat roof off the back does not interfere with the architecture. The proposed garage is an entirely different animal and does not fit. There are too many questions. There was a lot of work done to get to the carport and that is as far as the Board will go. There was no discussion on the addition because the owners decided not to do anything yet. 234 W. FRANCIS - LIGHTWELL - discussion Arthur Unger stated the owners want to do a full basement. On the Second Street below grade would be a the lightwell and there is an ordinance that states you cannot have lightwells on the front side of the house but that is the most logical place. The second lightwell for egress is in the yard. Amy stated that if the house is being lifted up the HPC needs to review it. A structural report needs submitted. Mary stated it is the HPC's responsibility to protect the house and if it is to be moved all the details need submitted. Arthur inquired about a shed in the back of the lot. It is not historic and the proposal is to build a new one. Roger informed Arthur that even though it is not historic it needs reviewed to determine if it is compatible with the historic structure. It was suggested that Arthur come to the next meeting with a complete packet. 425 E. COOPER- EXPRESSO CART - MINOR HPC approved the placement of the expresso cart from mid Dec. to mid- April, and June-September. I.E. the expresso cart was denied at P&Z. ORDINANCE/430 WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 24~ 1997 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN - RESOLUTION PRESENTED No minutes MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 24~ 1997 130 S. GALENA- CITY HALL - GUTTER .........................................................................................1 420 W. FRANCIS - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ...................................................................... 1 114 NEALE AVENUE - GARAGE ........................................................................................................ 1 234 W. FRANCIS - LIGHTWELL - DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 3 425 E. COOPER- EXPRESSO CART - MINOR ................................................................................ 3 ORDINANCE #30 WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ........................................................................ 3 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN - RESOLUTION PRESENTED ...... 4 5 Historic Preservation Commission November 24~ 1997 234 West Francis - Lightwell Amendment Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, reminded the Commission alteration to the house were reviewed in October. The applicants find they need a lightwell. Arthur told the Commission the owners would like to put a full basement under the house. They would like to put a lightwell on the Second street side, flush with grade. There is an ordinance stating one cannot have a lightwell beyond the front facade of a house. Arthur said the proposed location is the logical place for this lightwell. Arthur said city code requires two lightwells if the proposed basement is larger than 1,000 square feet. The proposed basement is 1100 to 1200. A second lightwell is planned for the private yard side of the house. Arthur said it is difficult to place this lightwell as there has to be a distance between the windows equal to greater than half the diagonal distance of the basement. The proposed lightwell is about the minimal size proposed by code. Besides egress, they also have to have the light requirement which is 10 percent of the floor area of the room being served. Moyer asked if this lightwell would require a setback variance. Ms. Guthrie said one is allowed to have a lightwell project into a setback as long as it is at the minimum size UBC requires. Arthur said the zoning ordinance prohibits a lightwell from being put in the yard between the building and the street. Ms. Guthrie said a lightwell does not need a setback variance if it is the minimum size required by UBC. This proposed lightwell is drawn in the setback and a variance is not needed. The HPC needs to look at this as a historic building and that this request violates the design standards. Ms. Hirsch said requesting a full basement is a much larger discussion than the lightwell discussion. Arthur said the basement does not change the exterior of the house at all. Ms. Guthrie asked if the house is being picked up and if so, how will it be protected. This was not outlined in the original plans and the applicant did not request approval to pick the house up to dig a basement. Mark said they need to resubmit this request. Arthur said he was not present at the earlier meeting and thought the basement was the intent all along. Ms. Hirsch said she has never heard of picking up this house. Moyer asked if the house is being returned to exactly where it was. Arthur said yes. Arthur said they have to put in new foundation walls because old Historic Preservation Commission November 24~ 1997 floor are warped. There is a 3 inch step between two parts of the house. The owners would like to put a radiant slab in the main floor of the house. There will have to be a new exterior foundation wall, and if they do that, why not put in a full basement. Arthur said this will not affect the appearance of the house at all. Ms. Hirsch said it is the responsibility of the HPC to protect the house. If the house is going to be moved, they need to know how it is going to be moved. Arthur said that has all been discussed. The current thinking is to life the house vertically 5 or 6 feet with two large steel beams, which will extend beyond the house. A bulldozer will come and excavate underneath the house. The basement foundation wall will be put in and then set the house back exactly where it is currently positioned. Right now there is not a permanent foundation; it looks like there is metal flashing between the siding and grade. The applicants will insulate on the insider of the foundation walls as opposed to the outside. Ms. Reid said these plans should be brought back to HPC so they can be reviewed and the lightwell can be reviewed at the same time. Ms. Guthrie said for moving a building, the City requires a structural report, information on where it will be moved, a bond for relocation of the building. Ms. Guthrie said this plan was not given to staff for review. The Board would also like to see elevations showing how much foundation is exposed, what material it will be. Ms. Reid said she would also like a detail of how the house is going to sit on the new foundation. Moyer said he would like to see a design showing the actual size of the lightwell, if there is a railing around it; how it is landscaped. Arthur said with regard to railing, it is his understanding from the building department that a railing around the lightwell is not needed and it is a judgment call by the building inspector if the lightwell is near a walking surface, they will require a railing. If there is a grate on the lightwell, a railing is not needed. Arthur asked if the structural report can be done by the house mover; they have an engineer to do the structure on the house as keeping the outside shell while doing all the work on the inside will be quite an exercise. Ms. Guthrie said she will pass on the submission requirements. Moyer said with a new foundation, the structural integrity of the housing will be maintained, which is a positive point. Ms. Reid said getting there is the problem. Mary Hirsch said this move is a surprise to the HPC. Arthur said he did not know the HPC was unaware of the plan. Historic Preservation Commission November 24~ 1997 Arthur asked about the non-conforming structure in the back. The applicants have discussed rotating it in order to put the gable end on the alley side so that it does not convert snow into the alley. Arthur said this move is okay with the zoning enforcement officer and asked if it is all right in terms of historic preservation. This is the apartment carriage house. Arthur said according to zoning, the can demolish that structure and rebuild it as long as they maintain the present configuration. Ms. Guthrie said rotating the building will means there is shed dormer space in the street. Arthur said they may not rotate the building. The problem is they got into looking at the existing structure, which has 2 by 6's for the rafters, which is total minimum. To meet the energy code, they have to companion new rafters onto the existing and in terms of costs, it makes sense to perhaps demolish the building and build it back again. Mark pointed out if the building is changed, it has to be reviewed by HPC to review its compatibility to the historic structure. Arthur said they will resubmit with drawings of the basement, drawings of the little well and the report can be by the house movers. Ms. Guthrie said the report should be by a structural engineer. There is a requirement to tell staff how the building will be braced, which can be done by the house mover. Arthur said he will be back at the December 10th meeting. Arthur asked if the HPC had known about the basement, does it seem feasible they could do the lightwells. Sanchez said there are positions around the house that would satisfy the city ordinances and get a variance. Arthur said the issue is that they have to have a certain distance between egress windows which has to exceed the diagonal of the basement. Arthur said if they put the lightwells on the east side of the house, they cannot get the dimension. Ms. Dodington asked for a floor plan of the basement. Arthur showed the basement floor plan with a recreation room. Arthur pointed out the only place a stair will fit. If the rec room is placed, there will be a tiny lightwell, and showed the lightwell on Second street. Arthur said if they have to put a lightwell, it would be a storage room rather than a rec room. HPC suggested two lightwells on the east side. Arthur said lightwells cost money. Arthur said they cannot move the lightwell because the door above cannot be moved. HPC suggested a smaller lightwell just for light. Arthur said "just for light" has to be 10 percent of the floor area and 10 percent is teeny for a room this big. HPC and Arthur discussed designing the basement and lightwells. Arthur asked what would the objection to a Historic Preservation Commission November 24~ 1997 lightwell on the west side would be. Ms. Reid said that would be an Ordinance 30 variance. Arthur said it is down low on the ground and no one will see it; flowers go around it and it does not affect the appearance of the building. Moyer said several years ago HPC had a lengthy tour of lightwells and developed a philosophy about lightwells. This has not be done recently. Mayer suggested doing this again and developing a general philosophy on lightwells. Mayer said the city is getting a lot of applications for pits and HPC tried to figure out ways to make the pits work into the landscape. Arthur said he could see reasons to do that so as not to have huge excavations from the sidewalk down in. Mayer said the point is to maintain historic structures the way they were, not adding bay windows or doors, particularly landmarks.