Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20050824ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24~ 2005 710 N. THIRD - CONCEPTUAL, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING .................. 1 701 W. MAIN STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING .......... 3 310 PARK AVENUE - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) - PUBLIC HEARING 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Jason Lasser, Sarah Broughton, Michael Hoffman and Alison Agley. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the minutes of June 22, 2005; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Jeffrey will recuse himself on 710 N. Third 710 N. THIRD - CONCEPTUAL, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Michael chaired. Amy said HPC did a thorough conceptual review and the two main concerns were the location of the detached single stall garage that is proposed and the other was delineation of the different phases of construction on the back of the house. Staff feels the first issue has been addressed sufficiently. The garage is more complicated. Staff and HPC at the last meeting felt that there needed to be a greater setback of the garage from the historic house. There was discussion of aligning the garage with the mud room. The plans submitted reflect that the garage is still in front of the house. A front yard setback variance is being requested. There are supposed to be two on-site parking spaces and this plan allows for one. HPC will need to waive one parking space. The parking issue has triggered an issue with parking that is being used in the city right-of-way. The Community Development Director recommends that the two parking spaces be eliminated and those spaces planted with grass or shrubs by the City. Rally Dupps, architect: Rally pointed out that staff has show a great deal of flexibility especially with the Gillespie parking. The two spaces for unit A are one in the shed and one in the driveway or on the street. Rally said they can move the garage flush with the face of the historic building which would be another three feet. Anymore than that, the owner would elect to delete the garage because she does not want to loose yard space. Moving the garage back another three feet puts it at 11 feet from the property line. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2005 Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Cynthia Milling thanked staff for coming to the site and discussing the parking issue. Cynthia lives in Unit B. She confirmed with Engineering that a parking space is 8 ½ feet wide. Mary Martin used to live in her house and verified that there were two spots for unit B and two spots for unit A. Cynthia said she does not know how to go about saving her two spots. Engineering said she has to file a new encroachment agreement once everything is approved. Cynthia pointed out that in the condo decks it points out that the neighbor owns 2/3rds rights and Cynthia ownsl/3rd. She requested that the board make a recommendation in their resolution that two spots belong to unit B. Bruce Berger, resident of 314 Gillespie. Bruce said he is across the street from the owners of the two units. He has lived there since 1985. His recollection is that there are four parking spaces. He pointed out that Gillespie is already a terrible parking situation. The elimination of a parking space will put more cars on the street. The street is quite crowded already. The Vice-chair closed the public hearing. Comments: Michael referred to condition #5 and recommended that language be added that the remaining two spaces are to be used for Unit B. The garage proposal to be pulled back three feet to the face of the historic house will work. Derek said at the first meeting he suggested aligning the garage flush with the house. The additional three feet satisfies his concern. From a scale and mass form, the garage is successful. Derek also echoed that language needs to be in the resolution to insure that two parking spots are for Unit B. Sarah said with the three foot flush face of the garage to the historic resource she is will to move forward with the residential design guideline variance. The driveway will be able to handle another car it need be. Jason also agreed that the garage being flush with the historic house will work and it will provide an additional space in front of the garage. If the back yard is an issue why build a garage at all. He also agreed that language should be included in the resolution that two spaces are dedicated for Unit B. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24~ 2005 MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #32 as stated in staff's memo with the following'changes: #5 condition amended to state that two spaces will be removed on Gillespie occupied currently by Unit A and the two remaining parking spaces are to be used by Unit B. The variance setback from the residential design standards will be 4feet. Motion second by Derek. Roll call vote; Derek, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jason, yes. Motion approved 4-0. 701 W. MAIN STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Jeffrey was seated. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I New drawings - Exhibit II Background information - Exhibit III Amy said this project received approval for a lot split, a carriage house along the alley and the relocation of the cabin. We need to discuss what improvements will occur to the cabin itself. We need to stay as close to the authenticity as we can and maintain the integrity of the cabin. Staff is not in support of replacing any of the existing historic units. The building was built in a couple of phases. The building has tar paper on it and underneath sheathing that has never been exposed to weather. The central portion is the oldest. A decade later an addition was made to the front and the back and at that time staff feels the building was wrapped in tar paper. Possibly rolled siding could be used. On the east elevation which is a street facing elevation, the applicant proposes to remove a window in the front portion of the house. Staff is opposed to the removal of any windows. Leaving the feature on the outside is more appropriate and do drywall on the inside. The existing doors do not appear to be historical and they could be replaced, possibly a half lighted glass door. The existing roof is staying. The south elevation is the back of the cabin. The applicant is proposing to eliminate three existing windows and staff feels they should stay. They are also proposing to add a pair of double doors for the kiln and access to move 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24~ 2005 in and out of the building and that seems appropriate because it is the back of the house and this is an adaptive reuse. On the west elevation they are proposing to eliminate the only existing window and install four new ones along with three skylights on the roof. Our guidelines discourage skylights on historic structures although this is an art studio. Possibly larger windows could be allowed on the west elevation to get light in because it is interior to the lot. The entry door is being moved from the east to the west. HPC has always had concerns of abandoning an original entry. A basement is also being proposed which is fine with staff. The landscape plan suggests some aspen trees in front and around the cabin and staff has concerns that there are too many and they are too close to the front of the cabin screening it from view from Main Street. The applicant mentioned planting flowers in the ditch but flowers in ditches are not historic at all. It is city property and really isn't appropriate. Marshall Olsen, owner. Resolved issues: Marshall said he agreed with the recommendation on the landscaping stipulation. Marshall also stated he is in agreement with the windows on the rear of the cabin, south elevation. The same applies to the window on the east side. We are attempting to make an art gallery with two studios behind it that will be rented to artists. On the west side there is an existing window and that window would be right in the wall that divides the two artist's studios. We would like to remove that window and add some additional windows. On the space next to the west side of the cabin we intend to build a single family home and those windows won't bring in light because the new home will be five to seven feet away. From an artist's point of view the skylights are preferable. The door on the east side will be replaced with some kind of lighted door that matches the window pane. The door that goes into the gallery will be ADA compliant. Materials: Marshall said the only issue he has is the siding. The property was homesteaded in 1907 and has gone through three alterations. The assessor records indicated that a family purchased the property by the name of Peterson and they resided there in 1910 and again in 1920. It is believed in 1948 the additions were added onto and the siding was added at that time by Herman Nelson who bought the property back from the City for back taxes. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24~ 2005 We could not find a single house in the West End of Aspen that has asphalt siding and we can't find anyone who makes it anymore. Asphalt siding was not available before 1932 and reached its high point after WWII. The siding that was common was vertical board and battens as well as clapboard siding. We could accept any type of alternate wood covering rather than asphalt. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Comments: Jason said he is opposed to the skylights. Light can be accommodated in the studio by the existing door on the east elevation and the 2 windows on the east elevation for studio 2. On the west elevation, as a suggested maybe the new windows could reflect more of a band configuration like the south and north elevation windows. The window on the west should stay and the other window should be figured around that one. Jason said he can't imagine that asphalt siding was there originally. Wood siding would be acceptable and the resource would be better preserved in wood. Derek thanked the applicant for his restoration efforts on the cabin. He would support cedar shake and horizontal wood siding on the cabin. Derek said he is a big advocate for adaptive reuse and as far as the west elevation he can support the window changes. The skylights are not appropriate because they change the context of the roof. Derek said he can support all the other recommendations made by the applicant. Sarah said she cannot support the cedar shakes in the gable, they are way too decorative. A simple clapboard would be more acceptable. She can support the window changes on the west and the double door on the south side because this is an adaptive reuse. She also is not in favor of the skylights and feels the windows in the west wall will provide enough light. She encouraged the applicant to not drywall up windows if possible. It would be best to try and use the existing openings in the plans. Michael said until we can prove that asphalt siding existed originally, he will support the applicants proposal. He also said he is not in favor of the skylights. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24~ 2005 Jeffrey echoed staff's recommendations and is in favor of adaptive reuse. The structure is on the comer and will be very visible. He remembers asphalt as a product of the 30's and 40's and we are assuming that the cabin was early 19 hundreds and there would probably have been a second siding alternate to tie everything together. He could approve a horizontal clapboard siding. Guideline 7.3 addresses skylights and these are quite present and will have a raised edge to them. We are trying to restore the historic record which is the roof of the resource. The entry stairs are somewhat abrupt and possibly there is another solution. Jeffrey thanked the owner for his diligent research which was very extensive and impressive. Jason stated that he is not in favor of using drywall on the inside to cover the windows. As a suggestion maybe a horizontal treatment could be used on the railing. The historic house should not mimic the back house. Marshall said the only comment he had was on the suggestion of three windows. That makes it hard to work with the floor plan of the two studios. That is why we had proposed four on the west side. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #33 as stated in staff's memo with the following amendments. 1. The applicant may replace the existing asphalt siding with clapboard wood siding taken all the way up to the gable. The detailing of the clapboard is to be distinctly different from the new house proposed on the back of the lot and in keeping with historic profiles from the turn of the century. The siding is to be approved by staff and monitor. 2. The windows are to remain. Add to condition #2 to try and minimize the amount of drywall being used on the inside. 3. Condition #3 remain; to review the cut sheets of the doors. 4. Eliminate condition #4. 5. On condition #7 the skylights are not approved. The windows on the west side are to remain the size indicated on Exhibit II. 6. Eliminate condition #6. 7. Condition #16- The railing going down to the basement-finished color to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Derek. Roll call vote; Derek yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jason, yes; Jeffrey, no. Motion approved 4-1. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24~ 2005 Jeffrey commented that he is not in agreement with the windows on the west elevation. 310 PARK AVENUE - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) - PUBLIC HEARING A1 Beyer, architect Amy gave an overview of the project. This is a good lot split and the restoration of the historic cabin should be under construction relatively soon. A modest size addition was allowed on the historic structure in favor of putting more square footage into the detached new building. The guidelines have been met and the project is appropriate in scale and mass and staff recommends approval. A1 Beyer said there are a few minor window changes that are not significant. We tried to make windows match in sizes. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Michael pointed out that the plans are spectacular and comply with our guidelines. A1 Beyer said working with the HPC in work sessions made the process successful. There is stone along the base that will be a sandstone red that will be laid in very thin layers. The stain of the house will be a dark gray. The window cladding is dark with a little brown. The roof will be a metal zinc. MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution #34for 310 Park Avenue as proposed; second by Michael. Roll call vote; Derek, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael yes; Jason, yes; Jeffrey, yes. MOTION: Derek moved to adjourn the meeting, second by Michael All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjoumed at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7