Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940928HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 610 309 E. 315 E. W. HALL/MM - IGLEHART CONCEPTUAL - PH .... 1 HOPKINS - KATIE REID BLDG. - MIRABELLA 7 HYMAN - SU CASA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ..... 7 RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 Meeting was called to order by first vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman with Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Linda Smisek and Tom Williams present. Excused were Joe Krabacher, Les Holst and Martha Madsen. 610 W. HALLAM - IGLEHART CONCEPTUAL - PH Vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Amy: I find this project to be a compatible addition to the historic structure. There were a couple of issues that I thought we should spend some time addressing. Right now the front is enclosed and that was done a number of years ago and they are continuing to show it that way and I think we should discuss the possibility of opening it back up so it appears to be an open front porch with a balustrade. We still need a little discussion about the change in pitch of the main cross gable in the victorian building. I do believe that would be considered demolition of the building. The size of the new chimney needs to be addressed as it is much larger than what the historic chimney would have been like. Finally the applicant will have to provide us with enough information to prove that the building can withstand relocation and post a bond. I have recommended approval with those conditions. Andy Wisnowski, architect for Bill Poss & Assoc.: We feel we have maintained the integrity of the historic structure. We lifted the resource a couple of feet above grade and put in a new basement to increase its prominence to the street. The lot actually slopes down to the front door and makes an unusual appearance to the entrance of the house. We are proposing lifting the structure with most of our program on this house underneath the existing structure with two additions that occur on either side of the cross gable. The rest of the program would be accommodated on the back side and not visible from the street. The garage was separated to create another break in the mass to keep the scale down. To accommodate the lower basement spaces we created an exterior sunken garden on the front end which would be planted out in the front to screen it from the street and as well creating an exterior sunken garden between these two structures and separated by a glass link and to accommodate egress the stairs will come out along the side of the property. The additions are understated and reminiscent of the details that would have occurred. In terms of the porch we did set back the porch from the original. The original was built out to the front with a gable end and we are removing the gable and creating the shed which probably had existed initially. We are setting back the entrance four to five feet in front with steps going up and a railing. We feel we have created enough depth to accommodate the appearance of a victorian porch and from the tightness of the program within that existing house we felt we HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMRRR 28, 1994 really needed the little entrance vestibule. We tried to accommodate both wishes that the porch be closer to the historic character of the original but also suffices for functional uses as an entrance and home. The chimney will be kept as small as we can. We will not have any detailing in the brick work, it will be simple and as small as we can possibly make it. The gable roof that we are lifting is my contention that I do not think you would ever know that anything had been altered in the roof and what it does for us in terms of the design we get a lot of mileage out of it by lifting it up to create the same pitches within the roof which is not out of character with other carriage houses. Although there are issue about the demolition I feel it gains a lot more than what it detracts from and I do not feel anyone would notice that it was a change from the original. Until we pointed it out to Jim he didn't even notice it and it will be a very subtle thing. Keith Howie, architect: The existing house has a cross gable set at an eight twelve and the front is a twelve twelve. We are suggesting to go to a twelve twelve over the same existing wall framing and create the proper geometry that will allow to make the front prominent. Andy: If we cannot do that technically it makes the shed roof of the back of the house which is fairly low as it is even more difficult to accommodate. Linda: The design looks different. The chimney is not in the same location. Andy: The original design has flipped to the other side. During the process we had some plan issues that came up and required the chimney to move to the other side. CLARIFICATIONS Roger: Do you suppose the original porch went from the front of the building all the way back to the east wing where it protrudes out? Andy: I really do not know. I have seen on other homes in the west end that the porch generally doesn't go all the way back and that is what we are basing our model on. Jake: Can you walk us through the materials you are using? I am concerned about the strategy of the siding. Andy: Some of the siding is in direct contact with the historic structure and we maintained the materials as they were on the original house. We tried to downplay the massing but the materials would be similar. We are using one by sixes. Where we have picked HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 up gable ends we would go back in and put shingles which will not be visible. Jake: The principle roof is shingles and the secondary roofs are metal. Amy: In moving the house slightly over in your new plan have you changed the variances that you are requesting? Andy: The variance we are requesting is to the back so we are just sliding it along the lot. We have created a little more open space between the two properties. We maintain a parking space but we still have our three and we are requesting a variance of two as we are required to have five spaces. Donnelley: The amount of clapboard siding that is to weather will be just the same as it is right now? Andy: That is correct. Donnelley: This is basically diagrammatic as the horizontal lines on the drawing are about twice the scale of actual siding. Have you made a dimensions as to the nature of the chimney. I trust that the flue is approximately three feet above the top of the ridge as that is good practice and is there going to be a cap or will the determination be slightly reduced due to the complexity. Andy: We are not intending to do anything too frilly but there maybe a corbel at the top of the chimney but it would be very simplified. Donnelley: As it is show now it looks like a six inch break out. Andy: That is 1/8th inch drawing. Donnelley: Any other comments on the revised drawings? Roger: I see no problem with the gable and no problem with the chimney provided it is the minimum allowed by code. I also see no problem with enclosing the porch. Most of the victorians the porch roof is not a shed roof it is a fat roof under the eave and what are your feelings on that. Jim Iglehart, owner: What is on the plan is what is there now and if the pitch is a concern changing it would be changing something that isn't original. If you want it flat I do not have a problem with that. Roger: So the design was drawn to what was probably there. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 Jim Iglehart: Yes. Keith Howie, architect: We looked at a lot of victorians and one roof went underneath the eaves and then there were other roofs that actually went above the roof like this one. There are both conditions in the west end. Roger: If the committee accepts the porch as drawn that there be a second post split up against the house to show a little more historic significance and yet allowing the owner the opportunity to close it for practical means which one could have done during the course of time. Vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. Amy: I would like to have a little more discussion on the roof pitch. I understand why you want to do it but it is demolition. You are changing the original building to what it was and that is not preservation to me. We went through a review and barely allowed them to take an addition off and now you are talking about taking the original roof off on part of the building. Jake: The reason you want to raise the pitch up is because of its relationship to the shed roof that comes off of it. Andy: The more we can raise it up the resource becomes prominent. It also appears that we will have to restructure the roof and a major repair to it and we felt from the visual aspect of what we are doing no one will ever notice it. It helps us on a technical end. Jake: It is eight and twelve now. Donnelley: What happens if you retreat to eight and twelve? Do you loose adequate headroom or what is the problem? Andy: That is partially the problem and also the concern of flattening more of the roof creates odd conditions. Donnelley: Are we saying you cannot maintain the integrity of keeping the original roof cross gable well defined plus the projections that you are creating east and west. Andy: It is my intention that it doesn't do it as well and it creates other particular issues. Donnelley: What are we giving up by allowing that to be a twelve and twelve verses and eight or nine and twelve. Jake: We are giving up authenticity. ~ISTORIC PRESERVATION COM~ITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 Donnelley: What is being given up programmatically? Keith Howie: You are giving up the plate height so that you are going to have to restructure the roof making it thicker so that as you bring the pitch down you lower the head height next to the wall so you are essentially lowering the plate height of the wall and that decreases the livable space in the house. Jake: As you increase the ridge height and as you move the roof more to the vertical plane it increases it prominence in relationship to the scale of the forward gable edge. Flat drawings don't work well showing what is happening to the perspective. Andy: We tried different pitched and we were not happy with them. Donnelley: This seems to be the only issue and maybe we can do a straw poll. Tom: I have a minor comment and I feel the issue is immaterial in this situation. What they have done is a very modestly resolved architectural solution and I think it goes back to my argument that it looks as though it was always there and looks like it was meant to be from the very first in the 1800's. Donnelley: I feel we all agree with that. Amy: It wasn't built that way. What is the problem with using metal on the shed as it is not visible from the street. Keith: We didn't want to look like too much of a slide and we would rather that roof hold as much as snow as possible. We didn't want anybody walking underneath it. We can put snow guards on it. Roger: Actually you would want the snow to slide off because if it built up you would have a major liability. Andy: We do not want the snow to slide all at once as it does in a metal roof. Tom: Another comment about purity. If we are being pure why are we allowing the addition on the back. Amy: You preserve what you had and then you add on from there. Andy: We are going to rebuild that roof anyway. Donnelley: From a preservation standpoint one has to say why do you have to change the pitch in this particular situation. I don't HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 fully understand what the problems are. Andy: We want to maintain that existing ridge line. Donnelley: It would have been clearer if we had a diagrammatic drawing of what it was. Vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. MOTION: Tom made the motion that we approve as submitted 610 W. Hallam Street Lot P, Q, less 7,5 ' of Lot P Block 22, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that it meets the development review standards. Approval of the reduction of two parking spaces and a 2.5' sideyard setback, a 9' variance on the combined front/back setback and that these variances allow the flexibility to configure the new mass in a way that has the least impact on the historic resource. A condition for final that they provide a structural engineer's report on any bracing or other techniques necessary to protect the structure during relocation, provide a bond for the relocation and a storage plan for the structure until it is replaced onto a foundation; second by Roger. All in f~vor, motion carries. DISCUSSION Amy: On the third parking space that is outside the garage what is that going to be paved with? Andy: We talked about grass-crete. Jake: This is an excellent project and I would like to state a few things that I would like you to think about as you go into final. On the SL, the master bedroom doorway seems a little out of scale with the historic resource. It seems square and big. Possibly that could be reduced in terms of width or height. The authenticity of the roof pitch is interesting and my preference would be to keep it authentic but if that ended up sacrificing some functional situations that you have as well as the playfulness of the roof line and the breaking down of the volume to historical size modules then I think I could support the new roof pitch. Some of it is created by the axis of the cross gable with the secondary elements and there might be some possibilities of off-setting that. I also find that the proportion of the roof line on the east is a long wall surface and is awkward in terms of the rest of the historical resource, it seems a little big for a secondary form coming off. I really like the alley/garage building. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 315 E. HYMAN - SU CASA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Donnelley: This is an elevator that is required for handicapped use. Amy: There used to be an elevator inside the building and it was removed at some point and now they have to replace it for ADA compliance. The only option is to put it in the courtyard that is popular and well used public space. I did recommend approval and that it match in materials and character of the rest of the building and does not extend above the height of the building and that it not create impact from the street way. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minor development for 315 E. Hyman Lots E, F and G, Block 82, City and Townsite of Aspen to the applicant Wheeler Square Assoc.; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries. Donnelley; I have a question about the railings that are proposed to the face on the street level of the elevator landing. They should be consistent with those that are existing. The mortar and brick should be the same size also. Rod Dyer, architect: The third floor tenants want the elevator to come up to the third floor also, if that occurs I will come back to you. That will raise the roof of the shaft another 40 inches. Amy: In addition to the elevator shaft they are building a new staircase next to it. 309 E. HOPKINS - KATIE REID BLDG. MIRABELLA Amy: This is for an airlock and I know a few years ago the board had a lot of discussion about airlocks. I do feel we should adopt the standards that were proposed. Donnelley: The airlock looks like a nomadic tent. Amy: Yes it is to look like an arabian tent. Tom: Is this temporary and when will it be removed? Amy: November 1st until the end of March. Linda: The railing and trim color are different colors. Roger: This awning needs to be squared off and simplified and no drawstrings or curtain tent look. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 Donnelley; We would then say remove the scallops. Roger: As it projects out what is on the sides? Amy: It was to be covered with canvas and simplified. the top needs Donnelley: There is a consensus of the Board that the notion of an airlock is fine and it will be a temporary lock as agreed but it should be simplified because of the simple nature of the building. Janet Lightfoot: one color. In simplification not use two-tone fabric just Donnelley: Do not make it appear as a tent. Janet: A rectilinear shape. I have to slope it because the soffit doesn't extend that far and I need support. There is also a 3.0 door and the soffit area is the only area to brace it. Donnelley: A sunbrella material is appropriate. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the airlock outside of Mirabella restaurant from November 1st to the end of ski season as modified by Donnelley to be simplified and lineal with all structures enclosed inside the canvas and the door to be clear and the color to be one shade selected by the applicant. To be monitored by Staff; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries. Amy: When you get your revised design I should see it before you get your building permit. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Roger: I talked with one of the applicants on the inventory for over an hour and I feel we need a better dialogue. Linda: I have been noticing signs on historic buildings and Elli's is one that has a sign saying Kenneth Cole, New York. Amy: I will contact them. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion to adjourn; Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. second by Roger. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk