Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950726ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Heeting was called to order by chairman Donnelley Erdman with Jake Vickery, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko and Sven Alstrom present. Excused were Roger Moyer, Linda Smisek, Les Holst and Jeff McMenimen. MOTION: Martha moved to approve the minutes of June 28, 1995; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. 214 W. BLEEKER - LINDA MCCARTHY Amy: This house was approved I believe in 1991 and they had vested rights and they are expired. They did not build the entire project. They are selling the property and they want to be able to tell the buyer what they can and cannot do. Everything has complied with our new character guidelines but the only questions I have are on the new dormers that were added to the historic house. Our guidelines have changed slightly. Jake: So the vested rights have expired. Amy: If vested rights have expired they are subject to new rules and I do not know if this needs debated. I am sure you all discussed this and they needed additional light in the living area and it was acceptable at that time. Jake: Technically they would have to come back. Amy: The vested rights go away not the approval. Hartha: If they modified anything they would have to come back. Donnelley: Do the revisions to the landuse code affect the project? Amy: We have check everything and they are in compliance. Sven: I feel we should schedule a worksession to look at it. Amy: I brought it to you to find out if you had any changes to the historical building such as the dormers which were previously approved. Donnelley: I can't remember as it has been over a year ago. Jake: Hy understanding is that the approval is only good for 18 months and then you can get it vested for three years and you can get the vested right extended. I am not legally sure what the deal is. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Hartha: If that were the case somebody's plans could sit through code changes. 520 E. DURANT - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: The proposal is to change an existing set of double doors that only have a half pane of glass to a full pane of glass and to install new awnings. I recommend approval. I mentioned in the memo that building is starting to have numerous changes and there is sort of a mish-mash there. It is something to keep in mind as I feel the building needs some unity. Donnelley: It is consistent to what exists. MOTION: Martha moved to approve the minor development for 520 E. Durant with an awning change to match the existing and changing a door of half glass to full glass; second by Melanie. Ail in favor, motion carries. Hartha: The awning would be the same color as the existing awnings which is blue and gold printing. Hartha: Does the glass have to be tempered for safety. Donnelley: I believe that is a code requirement. 205 S. MILL - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - CHANIN'S Amy: Hechanical equipment is usually a staff signoff but I am bringing it to you because it was done without a permit. It is a new vent for the Elizabeth Lock Shop. It goes up the side and out on the roof. It blends with the Chanin's building but when it turns out onto the roof it is right at the edge and is silver. Tom Marshall was the contractor on the contract and I asked him to come in and explain why it has to be in that location if it does and suggest ideas on how to screen it. Tom Harshall: I did apply for a permit and it was at the time building inspectors were changing hands. I did not know it had to go to the HPC. The permit was submitted and they came over to inspect and said by the way it has to go before HPC. Let me give you the history. The Lock Shop was to get air conditioning but Chanin's decided to use the deck and Tony Haza runs the building 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 and asked me if we could run the duct on the outside of the building. I said you can't. The duct comes out of Locks and goes along the deck and is painted out and goes into the attic space and curved roof. I could not put the cooler on the curved roof so we put it behind the parapet and ran the duct across. It was the least obtrusive. We had already started and Steve Kanipe said he didn't see any problem mechanically. Donnelley: The real problem is on the roof deck level. It is too big to paint out and it is visible as it is close to the roof's edge. Tom Harshall: We can paint and are willing to do anything to disguise it. There are three different color schemes there. You can barely see the duct that goes up the wall. Sven: I do not feel painting it out is a good solution. Tom Harshall: We could use a screen wall and paint it out. Sven: I would like to point out the extreme walls on the Katie Reid building. Donnelley: What does Hagman Yaw say about it. Amy: He hasn't been contacted. Tom Marshall: Tony Maza runs the building. Donnelley: I feel Hagman Yaw should come and present as he was rhe architect on the project. MOTION: Sven moved that the architect for the Elizabeth Lock building addition study an architectural solution to either design the duct work or screen the duct work that is more compatible. Painting the existing duct work our is not an adequate solution to the problem; second by Jake. DISCUSSION: Jake: We need to make a finding. Donnelley: It should be found not to be compatible. Susan: It is in such a weird location. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Sven: I was leaving it open for a design solution. Susan: Can't the duct work be re-routed farther back? Tom Harshall: It can't be re-routed due to fire wall commitments inside the attic space. Jake: A fan coyle should have been used. Tom Marshall: It is a swamp cooler that goes through Chanin's bathroom and the duct work comes out the attic space and goes down through the deck of Chanin's to the Elizabeth Lock space. Sven: If the top of the duct work lined up with the top of the roof it would start looking like anther intermediate roof. Tom Marshall: It is necessary for cooling the Elizabeth Lock space and only runs in the summer. Amy: Maybe we should remove Hagman Yaw and state that it is only a recommendation as opposed to a requirement to use them. AMENDED MOTION: Sven moved that the owner of the project, (The Elizabeth Lock building) present an additional study or architectural solution to either design the duct work or screen the duct work that is more compatible. Painting the existing duct work out is not an adequate solution to the problem; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. Sven: We are considering it part of the Elizabeth Lock addition. Tom Harshall: Tony Haza runs the building and he will have to deal with it. Tom Marshall: Will that letter be sent to Tony Mazza? Donnelley: Yes it will. 323 W. HALLAM - LONG - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Amy: This house is listed on the historical inventory and it was built in 1888 and it is fairly unaltered except for the rear of the structure. The front facade is intact. It appears to have been 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 constructed in two phases but very close together. The west wing followed by the east wing. The applicants desire to expand in the east wing area for their kitchen space and other living space and some space on the second floor. The first proposal was to close part of the existing front porch and I indicated to them that I thought that wasn't appropriate because of its original feature and it has a lot of character on the streetscape and we are encouraging porches. I do not have any issues with their construction of the rear of the property or enclosing the garage area. They came back a second time with a slightly different expansion. They are proposing to tear down the entire east wing of the house and rebuild it to look similar but of different dimensions. I am bringing it before you and found that they should restudy the added space so that the east wing remains clearly identifiable as an historic structure. That there be some break between additions and original construction and that they not tear down that wing. Barbara Long, designer presented the cases for the applicants Jim and Anneadare Denkins. The was noted to be a notable structure but its not noted especially for its architecture. It is noted more for the family and home environment and life style of the era. The historic addition, the east wing when that was added on they were very careful to line up the porch lines and the eaves lines and plate heights and that was more important to them then lining up the floor heights. There are changes in the floor heights between the addition and the original house. Our solution is to keep the scope of the project small and have to stay in the proportion to the original house. It was real important to keep the scale and mass to a minimum. We have only added an addition of six feet to the east. The setback line is 21 feet and we have minimumized that. We wanted to keep the eave lines and the plate heights the same in order to keep the scale and massing low. We want to keep the porch but pull it forward four feet. One of the reasons we are only going to go to six feet to the east is to keep the open space. There are quite a few trees there and we do not want to encroach on the trees, garden or open space. Right now you can see through the lot. We felt if we did add onto the east it would be a greater impact to the community and basically we have 1,111 sqft. that we could push out that way and we didn't want to do that. We are maximumizing the FAR. We are only building a house that fits their living standards. The house as it is right now with the plate heights and everything that we are working with we are already giving up about 147 sqft. in the upper level. In the upper level there are parts lower than 7.6 feet in height. The owners are concerned about energy efficiency and do not want a bigger house. The gardens visibility from the street are real important. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Donnelley: It is difficult to deal with this and this is an instance where a model would be helpful. You do not have a set of drawings with existing conditions. Barbara: We have pictures that will help. Melanie: I have lived in this house. You mentioned that the garage space would require a variance. Is it moving because it is a car port right now. Barbara: There is a wall on the west side and we want to make that solid. Amy: It is already encroaching. Barbara: There is a storage area underneath the car port. Jake: Are you going to the Board of Adjustment? Barbara: Yes, and we would like HPC's recommendation. Melanie: You mentioned a problem with the drainage. Amy: The demolition standards state that it must be required for renovation and restoration or rehab of the structure and that the applicant has mitigated impacts on the historic significance of the structures and impacts on the architectural character of the structure. They are OK on all of the checklist standards. Amy: The main gable and cross gable were existing. Donnelley: The main issue is the eastern development. Amy: They are extending to the rear of the building but that has already been changed. Jake: Do we have any kind of existing drawing of the east elevation? Barbara: The east elevation is essentially the same gable end. Melanie: The fireplace dominates that side. If we ask them to restudy do they have to come back again? ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Amy: Yes, but you need to be real specific on what your concerns are. Jim Denkins, owner: We like the smallness and character of the victorian. We did not want an addition totally out of character of the house. We are doing the least we possibly can do. We do have some mechanical problems that we have to correct. There are problems with the roof functionally. Anneadare Denkins, owner: I am very much into gardening, flowers and yard and trees. This plan leaves an open space and has the least impact on the neighbors. It almost has a park like appearance. This maximumizes the character and the open space at the same time. Jim Denkins, owner: The original house was built right on the first lot line. Later on the kitchen wing was built on and onto the second lot. That was extensively remodeled about 20 years ago. We think we have a slab under the entire home. This proposal keeps the easterly lot almost totally empty. Barbara: We did look at leaving the porch as it is but it didn't look to scale with the character of the building. There is lots of room on the east if you want it but we do not and we want to preserve the open space. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jake: You are basically demolishing the kitchen wing and taking the porch that is there now and moving it toward the front of the property and adding a new section of porch to the east of the existing porch that hips around. Jake: I appreciate your point of view and your values and working with a victorian and keeping the scale small. Unfortunately we had a situation recently where an historical part of the house was totally demolished and a new part added on. Hy preference would be to try and maintain the actual materials and side line of the old house inside and keep the porch in the configuration that it is. That being the primary facade facing the street we are concerned about the real material. The family room and kitchen are totally wrapping around that footprint. I would be more comfortable if that front north wall were maintained. Susan: I feel it is our purpose to save these old buildings and this is almost a 100 year old addition. I feel demolishing three ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 walls of it is an awful lot. I would maybe give into demolishing one wall at the back or possibly the east but the front should be preserved with a porch the way it is. I think the three dormers do make it look massive. They overpower the little windows in the original house. Two dormers would be more in character with the mass of the house. I have no problem with the back at all. Melanie: I do feel that I would like to see that front wall maintained and the house go back. I have no problem with the easement on the back part. I love the idea that you are keeping the garden as it could be a wonderful garden. I realize the inside needs a lot of work. I would recommend restudy of the drainage problem, the roof line and come up with a different solution. Sven: I agree with Amy's recommendations in her evaluation of the two standards. At the present time I would not vote to deny the application but I would support a restudy. I feel we need to keep the front elevation. The site plan is great. I am familiar with the second floor height problems but we are reviewing historic demolition. I would like to see a solution that keeps the existing structure both on the north and the east wall and just add on behind it. To evaluate that we will have to have drawings of the east elevation of the existing and a little clearer site plan perhaps. I also agree with Jake that the site plan clearly shows the new construction wrapping in front of the existing house. In this case demolishing the historic wing and I cannot support that. Donnelley: Everyone is in agreement that the north facade is sacred as an historic element and some effort should be made to garner the metal space one needs in the interior but perhaps finding a way to move further to the east by making a definite break with the historic but an addition to it would make a much more manipulated structure on the east side because there would probably be a break not only in materials and aesthetics but the plane of the existing north wall. The commissions feels that the north and much as possible of the east elevation of that portion of the building are very important to retain as historic elements. MOTION: Melanie moved to table the application of 332 W. Hallam for partial demolition and direct them to restudy and maintain the front elevation of the house and study an addition possibly to the east and to the south; second by Susan. Amy: On the east it is the east wing that you are to hold as the sacred element and work around it. Expanding to the east and south ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 is appropriate but it is the roof pitch and the form of the wing not just one wall that we want maintained. AMENDED MOTION: Melanie amended her motion to add for clarity that the north and east elevations be retained and that the roof pitch and form of the wing be retained; second by Susan. Ail in favor of motion and amended motion. DISCUSSION Jake: I feel that the three dormers are too dominant for the house. Sven: To clarify Jake's point if revisions are made to the historic east wing we need to find that the dormers are more compatible with the building. Jake: The shed dormer on the east wing looks to be historic. If in fact it is historical it has value. I would try and encourage you to develop options from the south side to get the interior space that you need. Amy: There is a car port and they are asking to enclose it to a garage and that means extending the encroachment into a wall. Donnelley: Two sections of wall one 2.3 by 7.0 and one 2.3 by 5.6. Jake: If you don't get the variance what will you do? Barbara: There is a substantial tree that would have to be cut down. Barbara: We are requesting a variance only for the first level. The second level is within the setback. Sven: It might be to the advantage to wait on the variance recommendation until after the restudy. Donnelley: Maybe the B. of A. will ask if we are OK with the plan as is and we are not. Sven: I am saying you might get more support from this committee after the restudy. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Amy: If there is no issue with this then we should do the recommendation. Helanie: I have no problem with the variance as it is already there. MOTION: Martha recommends that HPC approve the increased encroachment as show on drawing ~1 first level floor 323 W. Hallam. The setback variance on the west elevation is 2.5 feet. The variance is for a carport to a garage first level floor only, not the second floor; second by Melanie. Ail in favor, motion carries. 406 E. HOPKINS - ISIS WORKSESSION Donnelley: This presentation has to do with the remodel and addition to the ISIS. John Wheeler, architect: The two smaller theatres will be subgrade. Upper level is the larger two theatres, circulation and lobby. We have made changes from your comments from the first worksession. We have incorporated an open courtyard. The main purpose of the project is to restore and maintain the historic facade that is there. The roof height has been brought down to the height that we can get the two screens in. The free market unit is the lower level unit. Susan: Is there a division between all the windows above the theatre part. John Wheeler: The unit is set back 20 feet and the windows are the free market units. Sven: What is this rating? Amy: Significant. Susan: We are not supposed to see roof top activity. Helanie: If that is a patio who ever buys the unit will have to know that potted trees are not allowed. Jake: On the east side what is the material. John Wheeler: It is indicated as concrete block but we can go with an number of different materials. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Jan Deerington: We have pondered a darker color brick or stucco, some sort of differentiation of material. Donnelley: What is the site light from across the street at Caribou. Do you see any roof top. John Wheeler: The sight line just skips and we might have one area. The intent is as you look up this facade it is in line. Susan: Where is the old brick going? John Wheeler: We will use part of it on the east side and west side where Fox photo is. Jake: When do you think this building was built? John Wheeler 1882. Hartha: The Conners owned the building before the Jenkins and they are still in the area. Sven: I would rather see the roof integrated rather than a new element. Hartha: I do not see mechanical equipment. John Wheeler: It is tucked back in on the alley side and on the lower back roof. Jake: I am interested in seeing the pent house something different than brick. Donnelley: A combination of a few inches and a different material that would wrap around for consistency would work. Jake: Some transparency into the lobby would be nice. Jake: I like the metal idea on the alley side. Hy eye is drawn to the chimney. John Wheeler: It can be the same height. We don't have real fireplaces anyway. Sven: Do you intend to have skylights? 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 John Wheeler: Not at the present. Sven: I like Jake's suggestion to preserve the line on the west wall and I do not feel it has to be brick. I would like to see a more modern brick except where the two come together. I would also recommend looking at colored mortar. Donnelley: There should be an articulation and break of materials between the old and the new both on vertical and horizontal planes. 525 W. HALLAM - WORKSESSION Sven stepped down. Glenn Rapport: I brought drawings of the east portion of the addition and that basically is all we are dealing with today. The first option is what we presented the last time and the only change being horizontal siding all the way around instead of vertical. Alternative A is 30 degree pitched roof. We are reworking the size of the porch. Glenn Rappaport: On the last option we reduced the height to 22 feet and it is smaller than the existing house. It is 1 1/2 foot lower on the floor level. If the direction is B alternate we will pursue that. We will use a gabled piece connection on the roof. Susan: Is the new one the same height of the roof? Glenn: It is lower. The new plan works well with the old house. Jake: The direction of alternate B is much more compatible with the historical resource. I would like to mention a few things. I feel the end element, now that you have a hip on it, can afford to be higher. That would be your call. I like the idea of utilizing the angle of the hip roof on the big house with the angle of the hip roof on the addition. It relates more directly. I like the gable idea also. Susan: I am in favor of it being lower because it doesn't detract from the original house. Donnelley: The link between the vertical element and the house is quiet. I personally prefer it to the shed aesthetic. Glenn: I wouldn't mind having the room to play with the height a little to see where the connector piece hits the second floor. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Donnelley: Everyone is pleased with the new design and you can proceed with final. Amy: There is really no discussion tonight about the garage but is it resolved with the neighbor? Glenn: We have been working on this and we are staking the corners of the addition and I will go to the Sweeney's and see where the line is. We will work with them. Jake: On condition #7 that the applicant must restudy the design of the roof form on the east addition and return to HPC in a worksession format; does the board feel that has been accomplished. MOTION: Jake moved that the HPC finds that condition ~7 has been met from conceptual and that alternate B satisfies that condition for 525 W. Hallam; second by Susan. Ail in favor, motion carries. Hr. Sweeney: I had a nice meeting with Julie this morning and I showed her the bedroom that we just put on the second floor and a garage under it and we are only 22 feet high. On the model the garage is considerably higher looking at it. Glenn: This is a garage with an eight foot ceiling and a one foot floor system and right now this is a five foot plate height. It is not as if we are creating something huge. MAROON CREEK BRIDGE Amy: Back in February 8th we had a public hearing to review a proposal to either add a bike path underneath the existing Haroon Creek bridge or detached and adjacent to it. The unanimous decision of the commission was to vote in favor of a detached structure. Since that time various people from the City and County have been working together to try and refine details. We have been stalled a few times by lack of funding and trying to get all of the decision makers to agree and now we are under the gun for an Oct. 1st construction date. This is already a million dollar bridge. There was concern about the aesthetics of it but it is an engineered structure and that was not the direction we were able to go. We also need to discuss the color. Hartha: The old bridge is green and it should be similar. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Jake: Is this still envisioned to be a temporary bridge? Tom Newland, County Engineer: We plan it to be the non vehicle access across the Maroon Creek canyon until such time the Dept. of Transportation builds a new vehicle bridge in which case the old structure would become the non-vehicle bridge. That is the way the Dept. of Transportation has given it. CDOT will be the ones to remove it. We could conceivably use the bridge for three trail bridges when it is done. Jake: I am not a fan for the design of this bridge but understand the necessity. I am concerned about the proximity of the two bridges and the snow plowing in the winter going over onto this bridge. Tom Newland: We had approached Mr. Zoline on an easement and he refused so we were forced to put the bridge in the right-of-way or going through right-of-way acquisition with Hr. Zoline which would push the project until next year. There is a 12 foot tall beam and we will probably put some kind of screening similar to plastic fencing that they use to prevent the snow from falling on the bridge. We did want to bring it down but on the other side is the bike trail. When the new vehicular bridge is built it will be to the down side. There is a 200 foot span and it requires the 12 foot beams to carry the load. Jake: The bridge sticks up 12 feet higher than the old bridge and is there any possibility of lowering it down? Tom: We discussed that and if we kept it at the same level we have a better chance of the spray going down and not hitting it. Jake: Do the parks people have the ability to use a different kind of snow plow? Tom: We could ask CDOT about that. Hartha: They could plow straight ahead until they get to the end. Susan: What are all the supports for. Tom: The supports keep it up and it is a structural truss. Susan: Why doesn't the Marolt bridge have trusses? 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Tom: It costs about three times more and it was meant to be a permanent bridge. We are hoping to use this for ten years and then reuse the parts and its ultimate replacement will be the bridge that is there now. Jake: Will it be paved? Tom: It will be cement concrete and ground for drainage. It will be poured. It calls for railings seven inches apart that follow along. It will be a steel and we have colored chips. We could go with natural or an painted surface. Jake: This is basically made out of angles? Tom: Tubing I believe. It is a steel pre-manufactured bridge. Hartha: Where did the funding come from? Tom: We got $500,000 from the county use tax and $150,000 from the City of Aspen and $150,00 from the open space. We are estimating an $850,000 cost and comfortable with a million dollar budget. Jake: Will they drive the snow cats across for the nordic trails? Tom: We could not make the bridge accessible to nordic traffic primarily to the snow loads. There is an alternate through the Helm bridge and I am working with the nordic council on that. Hartha: Possibly the color should be hunter green with the trees. Don: Self rusting steel makes a big mess of the concrete surface. Cortin will blow your budget. Tom: I can send a memo to Amy when the fabric comes in. Jake: Some members of the commission will want to look at the color chips when they come in. Tom: That is no problem. Jake: I am interesting in seeing what this plastic stuff does that will be the screening. Tom: We are also, it is a plastic that looks like chick wire similar to what they use for the lower part of cattle fencing. The plastic wire is much thicker. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Jake: We realize the necessity of this bridge and how dangerous the existing one is. The commission also likes the idea that it is temporary and the parts will be used for future trail bridges. We will look at the color chips when they come in. MOTION: Jake moved to adjourn; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carries. Heeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 214 W. BLEEKER - LINDA MCCARTHY ........................... 520 E DURANT - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ......................... 2 205 S MILL - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ................... - CHANIN'S 2 323 W. HALLAM - LONG - PARTIAL DEMOLITION ................. 4 406 E HOPKINS - ISIS WORKSESSION ......................... 9 525 W. HALLAM - WORKSESSION 11 MAt%OON CREEK BRIDGE 12 17