Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19991117ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 17~ 1999 Chair-person Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Member in attendance were Roger Moyer, Mary Hirsch, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Lisa Markalunas and Christie Kienast. Heidi Friedland was excused. Staff in attendance was Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer and Historic Preservation Officer Amy Guthrie. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes of October 27, 1999; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. 400 W. SMUGGLER Sworn in were Steve Weaver and Ernie Delto. Amy informed the board that a stop work order was issued on the project because the dormers that were approved were not what was being constructed. Emie explained that they were provided as built drawings from the client but the drawings actually showed the main floor level of the carriage house to be two feet three inches wider than what it really is. He had three different drawings and they all actually showed the same thing. He was asked not to spend excessive amounts of time producing drawings so he used the drawings as they were provided to him. The fact that the building is 6 feet wide not 18"3 lowers the existing roof by about 13 or 14 inches. In addition to that in order to get a permit they had to present some kind of drawings to HPC and to the Building Dept. In order to do that they had to make some assumptions regarding rafter depth because they could not do demolition without permit to determine what the real rafter depth is. He made the assumption that it was 2x8 and it is not, it is 2x4. That lowers the existing roof ridge another six inches. They lost a foot seven in the actual height of the roof over what was the original as built drawings indicated. In order to accomplish the head height they had to flatten out the shed roof dormers on the 3 x 12 to a little less than 1 x12. In order to maintain the head height they had to forgo the 3 by 12 pitch. That has a dramatic impact on what the building looks like. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 17~ 1999 The proposed scheme shows the dormer walls being pulled back 12 inches on either side which gives the same relationship as what was originally submitted but it still doesn't gain them anything in head height. Roger asked if it was the architects responsibility to verify existing conditions for drawing plans and Suzannah clarified generally yes but it also depends on the relationship to the client. Jeffrey said even at a minimal you would want to check your spans on width and height and verify it. That is a typical process for architects. Emie said the owner was given the drawings by a previous owner that were done by a previous architect. Jeffrey asked for clarification if all the windows had to be rated for egress? Only one needs rated for egress. Emie relayed that the head height as is does not meet the building code and they are aware of that. Even if it was at the lower pitch that was approved it would not work. You have less than six feet head height. Mary reminded the board that this proposal wasn't a possibility to begin with. This is an historic structure on a comer and the design does not work. Lisa said visually from the street it is not pleasing. The flatness of the roof and lack of pitch on the dormer are not appropriate. The shed dormer on the south elevation is extremely heavy. Jeffrey relayed that measuring is essential. Roughly 450 feet should have been measured to verify some dimensions. Design changes should not be happening while you are framing. Code issues about clearances, egress should have been addressed. The visual impact on the historic structure is great, essentially you are taking the gabled structure and creating a square flat box. Susan's concern is that the addition is not compatible with the historic structure and it diminishes the historic look of the structure. If it was not workable in the beginning it should not have started. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 17~ 1999 Roger and Suzannah suggested that they go back and look at the original historic house and start the design over. The revised plan presented is not compatible. Emie said he is not clear what a reasonable solution is and is not sure there is one. He will have to discuss the situation with the owners, the Dodges. Suggestions: Jeffrey's suggestion was to eliminate one of the dormers to make the design work. MOTION: Mary made the motion that the application for 400 W. Smuggler cannot go forward with the current or the revised plan; second by Susan. YES FOTE: Roger, Mary, Suzannah, Susan, Jeffhey, Lisa. Passes 6-0. Mary and Susan are monitors. 419 E. HYMAN AVE. PARAGON BLDG. - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Sworn in were Holly Hamilton, Dennis Wedlick and Jack Wheeler. Amy relayed that the application entails alternations to the sides and back of the building. The upper floors are being converted to larger condominiums. Staff' s concern is distinguishing old from new. On the west faCade where the mural is located the mechanical chases will be removed and toward the back of the building a pair of double hung windows are proposed. Staff is proposing that the new windows be broken apart and that they have arches or some detailing that is slighting different than the historic windows. On the east faCade toward the front of the building there are small windows with an arch over them and they appear to be the original openings. Currently they have double hung windows which are not historic and the application is to replace those with new casement windows. Staff suggested that casements not be used. The existing type windows should be used. Paired double hung windows are also being proposed on the facade and staff has the same concern of changing the pattern. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 17~ 1999 On the alley side of the building the proposal is to add new double hung windows and add an arch to each pair. Staff is proposing that the new windows be spaced in between the existing windows. Staff has no problem with the garage door but should be treated similar to the existing door. Dennis stated that they are comfortable with taking the recommendations on the best way to add windows and preserve the original building. Changing to double hung windows where staff proposed is also acceptable. Dennis suggested that the arch be flat but still have the brick pattern. The only facade that they request flexibility on is the side with the corrugated metal. They need some flexibility with the windows in regard to light issues. Staff commended the architect for removing the extrusions to the back of the building. The board inquired about the mechanical equipment and Jack Wheeler indicated that there will be as little impact to the outside as possible. Two flues are currently going on the outside of the building in the east bay between the neighboring building. Some equipment will be on the roof. There is significant "cleansing" of the exterior of the building. COMMENTS East elevation metal should be kept. Drawings should indicate any mechanical equipment on the wall. The window pattern should be replicated, single window, double window. Identify any equipment that will be on the roof. Keep the arch flat as opposed to curved. West elevation windows should be separated. The restoration should be specifically identified such as mortar and what bricks are being removed etc. The restoration plan needs walked through with staff and monitor. South side windows should be spaced as recommended by monitor. Retaining as many of the historic rough openings is preferred. Differenciation in the arched detail of the header is appropriate to distinguish new from old. Lisa felt that the single windows on the south elevation have an historic look and would be lost if they were doubled. The amount of additional glass from 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 17~ 1999 the double hung windows changes the historic nature of that significant building in the commercial core. Restoration of the mural is commendable. Christie stated the spacing of the windows on the east, west and south sides should be left as is because it is the signature of that building. Suzannah stated that she agreed with Lisa on the south side that it will be very difficult to add double hung windows in between those existing double hungs and have a significant amount of wall left. Susan stated that she also agrees with Suzannah and Lisa regarding the south wall. Roger informed the applicant that the HPC needs to see how the parapet wall will be preserved. MOTION: Roger moved to continue 419 E. Hyman Ave. to December 15, 1999; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. 735 W. BLEEKER STREET Randall Bone was sworn in. Amy informed the board that a change order came in that altered the approved plans and they had already been started. A stop work order was issued. Randall said the changes were not what was built. He took the permit set and walked around in order to determine what was different from the permit set. 1. On the street elevation the window is shown with a mullion to give it a double hung effect. The mullion came in but it was very thin and made wrong. He requested a new one. 2. The knee braces in the set of plans that are subsequent all show this as a post. 3. On the chimney it is set back eight inches on the inside of the eave and this is a change in the plans. The chimney was set back as a structural need. The fire box was built as planned but the chimney is set back. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 17~ 1999 4. On the north elevation, Bleeker Street the window was eliminated because it looked into the bathroom window of the other house which is only eight feet away. The siding which was drawn vertically was actually put in horizontally. 5. On the alley side horizontal siding was installed and the plans indicate vertical. 6. Where the side lights are both windows are double wide which expanded the gable and it is not drawn the way it was built. The plan shows siding as opposed to shingles. The intention was to do a great project but the plans contradict what was done and the owner desires to work with the board to accomplish what is needed to make the project work. Amy explained to the board that a number of the items indicated would not necessarily require a change order from the Building Dept. but they do need HPC approval. Mary inquired about the green trim around the window which was installed and is not what was approved. The plans indicated a cap and the trim installed is not compatible. Consensus: Roger relayed his only concern was the type of bay window and the thickness of the trim which ruins the entire facade. The bay window is the most visible part of the house. Susan also agreed that the bay window needs addressed. Jeffrey relayed his concern was the overhang off the northern side of the new house. Lisa had no objection to most of the changes but would like the bay window represented as a double hung window and agreed with Roger that the trim needs addressed. Christie also agreed with Lisa's comment on the bay window with double hung window and trim. Suzannah stated the changes have made the house simpler which is better in the long run and her recommendation would be that the two double hung 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 17~ 1999 windows on the alley side should have crown molding. With the window getting shorter on the east side the vertical siding becomes more important and that should go back on with a little cap detail. It would make that piece look a little more grounded. She also suggested adding to the guidelines that imitation of a double hung window has to be a true divided light, it cannot be a snap on mullion. It is done because it is inexpensive. MOTION: Roger moved to approve and accept the bztilding as is today with the following conditions: 1. That the two double hung windows in the kitchen on the alley side need crown molding. 2. ,4 return piece on the vertical siding near the bathroom nee& a trim piece added to the top. 3. Something be done to address the ceil under the bay window. 4. The back doors have to be half lights and the side lights' should have some kind of mzdlion. 5. The trim would apply to any of the larger double hung windows that do not have it. 6. Crown molding to be added to the double hung windows on the alley. Motion second by Christie. YES FOTE: Lisa, Christie, Jeffkey, Susan, Mary, Roger, Sztzannah. Motion carried 7-0. Roger relayed that the problem with the bay window is the mass. Moldling should be applied. A recommendation was made to change the green trim and Randall agreed. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Mary. ,411 in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 400 W. SMUGGLER .................................................................................................. 1 419 E. HYMAN AVE. PARAGON BLDG. - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ................................. 3 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 17~ 1999 735 W. BLEEKER STREET ......................................................................................... 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 17, 1999 Chair-person Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Member in attendance were Roger Moyer, Mary Mirsch, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Lisa Markalunas and Christie Kienast. Heidi Friedland was excused. Staff in attendance was Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer and Historic Preservation Officer Amy Guthrie. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes of October 27, 1999; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. 400 W. SMUGGLER Sworn in were Steve Weaver and Ernie Delto. Amy informed the board that a stop work order was issued on the project because the dormers that were approved were not what was being constructed. Ernie explained that they were provided as built drawings from the client but the drawings actually showed the main floor level of the carriage house to be two feet three inches wider than what it really is. He had three different drawings and they all actually showed the same thing. He was asked not to spend excessive amounts of time producing as builts so he used the drawings as they were provided to him. The fact that the building is 6 feet wide not 18”3 lowers the existing roof by about 13 or 14 inches. In addition to that in order to get a permit they had to present some kind of drawings to HPC and to the Building Dept. In order to do that they had to make some assumptions regarding rafter depth because they could not do demolition without permit to determine what the real rafter depth is. He made the assumption that it was 2x8 and it is not, it is 2x4. That lowers the existing roof ridge another six inches. They lost a foot seven in the actual height of the roof over what was the original as built drawings indicated. In order to accomplish the head height they had to flatten out the shed roof dormers on the 3 x 12 to a little less than 1 x12. In order to maintain the head height they had to forgo the 3 by 12 pitch. That has a dramatic impact on what the building looks like. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 17, 1999 The proposed scheme shows the dormer walls being pulled back 12 inches on either side which gives the same relationship as what was originally submitted but it still doesn’t gain them anything in head height. Roger asked if it was the architects responsibility to verify existing conditions for drawing plans and Suzannah clarified generally yes but it also depends on the relationship to the client. Jeffrey said even at a minimal you would want to check your spans on width and height and verify it. That is a typical process for architects. Ernie said the owner was given the drawings by a previous owner that were done by a previous architect. Jeffrey asked for clarification if all the windows had to be rated for egress? Only one needs rated for egress. Ernie relayed that the head height as is does not meet the building code and they are aware of that. Even if it was at the lower pitch that was approved it would not work. You have less than six feet head height. Mary reminded the board that this proposal wasn’t a possibility to begin with. This is an historic structure on a corner and the design does not work. Lisa said visually from the street it is not pleasing. The flatness of the roof and lack of pitch on the dormer are not appropriate. The shed dormer on the south elevation is extremely heavy. Jeffrey relayed that measuring is essential. Design changes should not be happening while you are framing. 2