Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19980624ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24 ~ 1998 Chair-person Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Gilbert Sanchez, Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko, Heidi Friedland, Roger Moyer and Jeffrey Halferty. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 1998; second by Gilbert..411 in favor, motion carried. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mary handed out the board a letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Included were America's most endangered historic places two of which are in Colorado; Black Hawk and Central City. Colorado was the only state to have two endangered cities. Julie Ann Woods talked about the variance requested at conceptual for 930 King Street and Julie Maple's concern that it was granted at conceptual as one of the conditions. Suzannah relayed that Julie's concern is that the 250 sq. ft. bonus should not be given unless there are significant advances in the design of the project. 303 E. MAIN Suzannah stated that the landscape plan originally submitted was looked at and it was determined that they could either do plantings at grade level or planter boxes at grade level. It did not show a design of a planter box. When the basement got moved out because the tree died a new design was discussed. Julie Ann Wood, planner relayed that the CO for the apartment is still being held until the outstanding issues are resolved. Suzannah relayed the outstanding issues to the board: The trim pieces on the porch are still an issue. The entryway on the back. The trash and painting the foundation. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24 ~ 1998 The roof top painting. The railing. Light fixtures and planters. Roger suggested that council send the applicant a letter with a list of the violations and to request a date for those items to be completed. His suggested date would be July 3rd and if the work is not done council should close the building. Roger relayed about the painting on Le Chef' s and that the city does not have a system in place to protect the resource to make the owner do it right. Charlie Tarver spoke in favor of the 920 W. Hallam project. The project increases density in town and keeps the structures very similar in size. Heidi stated she will step down on 920 W. Hallam worksession. The majority of the board members brought up the unsightliness of Gracy's with couches etc. out in the public right-of-way. Melanie talked about the 918 E. Cooper/Aspen Custom Builders, John Davis as there is a layer of rock there and a light-well is being dug. 232 E. HALLAM - FINAL DEVELOPMENT - PH - VARIANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, ORD./430 Jeffrey was not seated. Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer stated that the affidavit of notice has been provided and HPC has the jurisdiction to proceed. (Exhibit III). Harry Teague and Matthew Scholl were sworn in. Julie Ann Woods, planner relayed that conceptual was approved on January 28th. At that date a number of issues were brought out by Staff and they continue to hold that position. They do not feel that it meets the criteria 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24 ~ 1998 related to the significant development approval primarily as it relates to being subordinate to the historic resource. Regarding compliance of Ord. #30 they are 8 inches off in the volume standard. The applicant has provided changes per HPC's direction. The design review appeal committee which HPC is sitting as does have to make findings regarding the criteria in terms of yielding greater compliance to the goals of the community plan and more effectively address the issues or problems or more clearly it is necessary for issues of fairness. Staff feels they could comply with the eight inches. Staff is recommending tabling. Harry Teague, architect stated the section in the middle has been lowered and he provided diagrams explaining the proportional relationship of the two. To address Staff' s comment the role that this addition plays to this building is adjunct and adjacent and not necessarily a visible connected addition. That is an important issue. The site of the addition is set back so far from the street and it has vegetation in front. The purpose and nature of the yard is to be an isolated sanctuary and be invisible from the street. If we felt this was distracting or detracting from the historic quality of the structure it would not happen. The historic structure presents a very clear facade to the street and is surrounded and framed by vegetation. An addition of the quality of the original structure would detract from the original. Harry said relating to Ord. #30 they would be happy to make it nine feet. It is 9.8 because it matches the proportions of the original house. Susan asked about the tower. Harry stated the tower provides light into the room. Harry addressed the material selection. Black metal for the windows. Roof top is a gray metal. It is a material called astro zinc and it is weathered, it won't rust. The mansard roof is a mineral paper which was used in Aspen and it is black. The mansard roofs in Paris are made with the astro zinc. Matthew stated the screen doors are proposed and originally they had sliders but they were pushing the financial envelope and changed to screened doors. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24 ~ 1998 Harry stated that the breezeway is glass and transparent. The addition must be subordinate to the house. Harry also provided boards to show the evolution. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing regarding Ord. #30. No comments from the public. Public hearing closed. COMMENTS Jeffrey stated he disagreed with some of staff' s comments as it is set back 44 feet and the vegetation has always been an added issue. Most people do not perceive that this house has an addition. The proposal would be a better replacement. The historic resource is maintained on all three sides, the primary sides. There is no competition between the two. The historic resource sits perched out in front making its presence. Jeffrey had no problem with the Ord. #30 variance as it is stepped back off the hill. The project is a fine example of how to make an historic resource prominent and how that demolition does not effect the historic resource. This is a positive and strong relationship to the historic resource. Heidi stated the addition is simple but grand and agreed with Jeffrey's comments. The east elevation might have too much going on and might outweigh the historic resource. Melanie's concern is the dark metal framed window. The east elevation roof shape needs restudied. She feels the addition doesn't relate. Susan feels the addition does not fit with the historic brick house and the only thing that combines them is the wood. Mary stated the addition is terrific and she recommends loosing the 8 inches to comply with Ord. #30. The materials work fine in the addition and it will be a well done project. Gilbert stated he is excited about opportunities to have modem solutions to these kinds of problems. It is a good solution. The south and east elevation are successful and eloquent. It is a great site for this project. The fenestration is also appropriate. You have three vertical elements that pick up 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24 ~ 1998 the proportions of the windows of the building and the two square windows make it all sit nicely. Gilbert is in favor of the conceptual scheme of the south elevation rather than what is proposed. It all comes back to the notion of verticality. The mass of verticality on the east end is lacking. He feels the south elevation should be looked at one more time. Roger stated Elizabeth Paepcke gave him an book on "vision" and that inspired him to get o HPC after their discussion about this particular house. He concurs with Jeffrey and there are three key issues: 1) it is 44 feet back 2) adjacent and adjunct 3) allows the historic resource to remain on the three sides 4) use of materials is acceptable Suzannah feels the addition really sets off the historic house more strongly than what wood siding would do. Regarding Ord. #30 the 8 inches taken away would detract on that elevation. We are talking about that piece being more vertical than it is. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the final significant development application for 232 E. Hallam Street subject to the following conditions: 1) The materials' proposed for the addition shall be those indicated on the drawings in the application dated 6/24/98 2) That the commission grants' approval of a variance from Ord. ~30 for volume, related to window height between 9' and 12 ', for 9 '8 "for the bay window in the south elevation; 3) All conditions of the January 28, 1998 conceptual approval must be met. 4) That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5) Header and Screens to be resolved by Staff and monitor. The header should disappear and the screens should not cover the stone. Motion second by Heidi. Roger, yes Suzannah, yes 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24 ~ 1998 Mary, yes Heidi, yes SHsan, no Melanie, no Gilbert, no Motion carried 4 to 3. Members who voted no wanted the south elevation fenestration to be restudied. The applicant stated he will look into the south elevation. 920 W. HALLAM - WORKSESSION - No minutes MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24 ~ 1998 303 E. MAIN ............................................................................................................. 1 232 E. HALLAM - FINAL DEVELOPMENT - PH - VARIANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, ORD. #30 ............................................................................................. 2 920 W. HALLAM - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ........................................................ 6 7