Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19981028ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ OCTOBER 28~ 1998 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Roger Moyer, Heidi Friedland, Suzannah Reid, Mary Hirsch, Christie Kienast, Maureen MacDonald, Susan Dodington and Jeffrey Halferty. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the minutes of Sept. 23, 1998; second by Heidi. ,411 in favor, motion carried. 520 E. Durant - D&D Snowboards Amy Guthrie, planner indicated to the board that the building is not historic but it is located in the historic district. They propose to change some entry doors and window changes and staff recommends approval. Sworn in was Mark Turkin. Mark relayed that there are three store fronts and the new occupants want to put in a new double glass door in the center space and update the other doors and windows to improve the space. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the new entry doors and window changes to 520 E. Durant Street D&E Snowboard shop as proposed; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Christie voted and Maureen did not. 514 N. THIRD - Continued public hearing from Oct. 14th Amy Guthrie, planner informed the board that the agenda item is in regards to a shed that was built without a permit on the carriage house. A site visit occurred and at the last meeting the Board suggested a change to the shed so that it doesn't dump snow into the neighbors property. Gray Ringsby, the architect for the project worked out the design with the neighbors. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Sworn in were Gray Ringsby and Martin Block. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ OCTOBER 28~ 1998 Gray relayed that the shed is now a foot from the fence and it doesn't have the split pitch. The roof is fairly flat. Martin Block stated that he and his wife are in favor of the arrangement and that the Ringsby's also agreed to remove the gas pipe and remake it. He also stated that if the setback of one foot isn't sufficient that he will modify or make sufficient adjustments. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. MOTION: Mary moved that the HPC grant a lO foot rear yard setback variance and a 21 1/2foot combined front and rearyard setback variance and an east side yard setback variance of j'~bur feet for a storage shed as represented in Exhibit II for 514 N. Third St.; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Roger, Heidi, Suzannah, Susan, Mary, deffhey, Maureen. 421 W. HALLAM ST. - Minor Development Sworn in were Jennine Hough, owner and Sven Alstrom, architect. Amy relayed that there is an historic house that has been modified quite a bit and does not have its original character and the addition was built in the 50's. The building is now a tri-plex and the units are condominiumized. They are proposing to change the pitch over the main part of Jennine's unit into a 12xl 2, a more traditional Victorian roof pitch. Some of the details of the front porch and wall are proposed to be changed. Staff recommends the change of the roof pitch. It is an awkward situation, the relationship between the two buildings and ideally they should be detached from each other and that was mentioned to the owner. The roof change does not diminish the importance of the historic house as it still remains a one story and it distinguishes the two parts from each other. Staff is very concerned with the proposed detailing, as it is very Victorian. Fish scale shingles in the gable end; the sunburst design and a bay window with Victorian trim. Already the historic house does not have the prominence that it should because it has been changed. To ~Victorianize" the 50's 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ OCTOBER 28~ 1998 addition really muddles what is old and what is new on this site. There is nothing to gain by confusing people about our history and Staff feels the changes are inappropriate. Staff recommends that the detailing be revised so that it is simple as we do in all our projects. Jennine stated that the enlargement of the bay window is because she owns a baby grand piano and she needs the extra floor space. The bay window is proposed to be moved about a foot and keeping the same shape which is two front windows and two side windows. She does not want to detract from the historic house but desires to make her side of the duplex more elegant. She is willing to change the fish scale shingles and the sunburst but would like to keep some form of a bay window. Sven stated that the owner is faced with some roof problems on the non- historic portion of the duplex. In terms of contextual design the proposal is good. Unfortunately the adjacent structure was worked over before HPC review and lost its original porch and entrance. The building does not read as a duplex from the street. The owner desires to make the building more contextual and more traditional. They are willing to reduce the Victorian quality of the detailing. The application on the roof is more of a maintenance repair of the building. The functional needs are the bay window which would be enlarged slightly to accommodate a piano. The room orientation internally are fixed by a fireplace and access to a kitchen on two sides. A new chimney is proposed with zinc metal flashing. The chimney has to be tall due to the configuration. They are actually over framing over the existing roof only and nothing inside is changing. Sven stated that the Victorian elements are the sunburst and the fish scale shingles. Bay windows occur a lot on gable ends of buildings. It is not necessarily related to Victorian architecture but is a functional thing. He volunteered to work with Staff and Monitor regarding the shingles and changing the sunburst. He feels the second standard is met and that the design reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The existing design is somewhat traditional. Horizontal siding could replace the fish scales. They would like the bay window to remain as proposed. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ OCTOBER 28~ 1998 Staff is not opposed to some form of a way window. It is the paneled detailing and kind of a mansard that looks so Victorian. The suggestion of beveled siding should be explored as there are other opportunities that would be more compatible. Members inquired about the gable over the center of the existing porch. The applicant explained that there is a drainage problem. He also stated that the hexagonal vent is to ventilate the ceiling. The hexagonal vent was chosen as opposed to a round vent because it picks up the hexagonal window on the back new addition and ties the building together. Roger informed the board that he has no problem with the demolition, bay window and no problem with little roof over the front but felt something was missing in the design. The existing historic house has been muddled and HPC is only dealing with the addition. The new roof creates a very Victorian look and is that appropriate. The design on the roof of the bay window is very Victorian and needs changed. The existing porch is not appropriate on the house. Since the historic house has been muddled it is difficult to approve a design that is compatible. He feels this is a puzzle and is relying on other members comments. Member in general felt that functionally they agreed with some kind of bay window to get the extra floor space and solve the drainage problem. The peaked roof could be approved. This is a unique situation where a second house has been added onto an historic house. Some members felt that it should be treated as an addition although it is a second dwelling and is real confusing. There is no control over the other house. The majority of the members had design concerns and how the historic house is tied together with the addition. The materials need identified as presently it is confusing in determining the old house from the duplex. Peaking the roof is a way to stop the roof from leaking and it is more economical. Some members felt the design should be treated as an out building instead of a Victorian addition. All the members needed more information on the replacement door. Jeffrey stated that the HPC has approved in the past 12x12 pitched roofs that are adjacent to an historic miners cabin. Clap siding has also been approved 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ OCTOBER 28~ 1998 as long as it is altered proportionally. Material changes are encouraged. Because of Ord. #30 it forces designs such as pseudo Victorian multi gabled pitched houses. He is in favor of part of the proposal such as the bay window. He stated that the board has seen too many bay windows that are a single pane of glass with applied muttons that have 80 square feet of glazing that is exposed with no detailing. That somehow gets accepted in the west end. This proposal is thought out and we need to differentiate old from new. There is a very vague ambiguity that doesn't give the designer or homeowner a lot of direction. He encourages proportions. He also felt that the design enhances the project and it is no longer a ~doublewide". He would vote in favor, with conditions. There are not a lot of options. There will be many more of these applications coming in and HPC needs to set concrete standards to help mitigate an addition. Some members relayed that the problem is the existing porch as it does not go with either side. The proposal is a great improvement. It is clearly Victorian detailing and in this case not necessarily appropriate. Sven commented that this is a non-historic portion and is a minor project. In response to the Staff' s memo the applicant is willing to change the sunburst and fish scales. He felt the design reflected the character of the neighborhood. Bringing in designs from a new building being imported to a very minor building alteration is not apropriate. How it is painted out is important. It is not a huge change. The design is appropriate to the building typology. Sven also requested feedback as he feels the design is close. The porch was no addressed because this is a very minor project. MOTION: Susan made the motion to approve the roof changes including partial demolition to 421 W. Hallam as presented October 28th. All other detailing changes, fish scale shingles, sunburst design and new window Fictorian detail (meaning the shed roof and panels at the bottom on the North elevation to be revised to be very simple and not strongly Fictorian in character) to be approved by Staff and Monitor. Motion second by Heidi. No vote: Roger, Heidi, Suzannah andMary. Yes vote: Jeffhey, Christie and Susan. Motion dies 4 to 3. Roger and other members felt that the application was not a minor review. Members felt that the building was not an addition but its own entity, it is a building. It is a separate house that happens to be attached. Members felt 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ OCTOBER 28~ 1998 that standard two has not been met. Members also felt that the project could be great with just a few alternations. MOTION: Mary moved to continue the minor review and partial demolition as represented tonight on 421 W. Hallam Street to a date certain November 11, 1998; second by [¥eidi. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Amy reiterated that the project is a minor review and does not meet the definition of significant review. Suzannah stated for the applicant that the HPC has been dealing with the issue of partial approvals with conditions for some time and the board prefers to approve projects as a whole, a completed design. 117 N. 6th St. - Worksession - no minutes 330 Lake Avenue - Worksession - no minutes MOTION: Suzannah moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:35. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ OCTOBER 28~ 1998 520 E. DURANCE - D&D SNOWBOARDS .......................................................................................... 1 514 N. THIRD - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM OCT. 14TH .......................................... 1 421 W. HALLAM ST. - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 2 117 N. 6TH ST. - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ........................................................................... 6 330 LAKE AVENUE - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES .................................................................. 6 7