Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940309Historic Preservation committee Hinutes of March 9, 1994 130 S. GALENA - CITY HALL . 1 303 E. MAIN ST. - LANDMARK DESIGNATION PUBLIC HEARING . 5 201 W. FRANCIS ST. - MINOR DEVELOPMENT 5 330 GILLESPIE STREET - PARTIAL DEMOLITION . 11 RESOLUTION 1, 1994 - GUIDELINES 13 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of March 9, 1994 Meeting was called to order by Donnelley Erdman with Joe Krabacher, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Karen Day, Martha Madsen, Linda Smisek, Scott Samborski and Tom William present. Excused were Bill Poss and Les Holst. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jake: I feel we should have a committee to study the issues on Main Street and see if there is something more concrete that we would like to put in place. Amy: Jake is talking about issues that are more in depth than our character guidelines. Jake: We need something predictable and fair, a set of guidelines. Joe: From a legal perspective I feel it will be difficult defending the reduction of someone's FAR based on it compatibility to next door. A good litigator will collect all the cases from the past. There is a Main Street report that the HPC did on file. Jake: We will also need photographs of Main Street and organize a worksession. MOTION: Roger made the motion to hold staff comments until the end of the meeting; second by Donnelley. Ail in favor, motion carries. 130 S. GALENA - CITY HALL Amy: This project was reviewed by HPC and tabled and the applicant was directed to reduce the overall size of the stair case going into the basement. They have reduced 160 square feet. I have recommended approving the project with the conditions that HPC sees exact samples of all materials. That the new windows be aligned with the existing windows and also that no further projects to City Hall be approved beyond this one until the bricks and windows have been repaired and restored. Cris Caruso, engineer: The entryway has been scaled down and we still can have an adequate entrance and get light into the council chambers. We are proposing the use of the exact detailing of the windows in the back. You can see that on the east L. Karen: Do we have an elevation showing what the rail would look like? Cris: We have not put much thought into that. Originally we had asked the monitor to help design it. There are code restrictions now on the type and spacing that we can have. We would like to put a rail in like the Wheeler has. We can work with the HPC on H~stor~c Preserv&t~on Committee ~nutes of ~arch 9~ 1994 the design. Donnelley: You propose to carry the east brick wall down below grade with brick, is there a source of brick that can be the same as the original and how are you going to match the existing. Cris: Originally we had intended to have the concrete face and make it look like a foundation. On the City Shop we had our brick mason tumble the bricks for the new building. Linda: On the stairway plan do you have to remove any of the trees in the park? Cris: No, we will not be removing any trees. There is plenty of room. Linda: What is the foundation made of in this building? Cris: There isn't one, it is a rock wall with old mortar in it. Roger: Why do the bricks have to match? Amy: I am in the middle of the road right now concerning that issue. Maybe it should look like a foundation or something different. The bricks were to be close but not exact. Roger: Why is the stair facing the south and not the north? At the last meeting we discussed the stairs facing the alley and not be a prominent part of the building. Cris: We can still do that. I was not sure we had decided to do that. Jake: I believe we have to go along with adaptive reuse with these older buildings. By utilizing the basement that is better than an addition. Regarding materials I would like to see something in stone. Tom: I would like to know why the window sill in the well is so high and what the relationship is to the room itself on the east elevation? They seem too "grand" for that area. Possibly lower them a little in relationship to the floor. Roger: I also would like to now if there is any other building in town with eyebrows above the windows and is that a precedent. Cris: I do not know as I am not an architect. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 9, 1994 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger: I would suggest that the wall which is below grade would be treated as a foundation wall and historically since most foundations were stone that you use sandstone if that can be worked out. I would also suggest that the stair turn toward the alley so that it is not a dominant feature of the building. A restudy of the windows so that the scale is identical to the uppers and that the eyebrow be removed. I am still against this project till money is spent on the building itself to protect it. I feel that should be done first. I would recommend that the building be done first before the basement. Amy: I have asked for $100,000 from the state to redo this building and if we get it there is a good chance that it will be done this summer. Karen: As far as which way to turn the stair I am still vacillating. To the south addresses the town. Has the furniture been laid out to see which is the best position for the door because that is very important. You do not want to disturb the council as people move around. I would be in favor of the present layout of the stairs. Donnelley: I would like to look at an opposite approach to the stone foundation because first of all the stone foundation also tends to make the building look like the basement entrance was part of the original scheme. Even though concrete architecturally is more expensive than masonry units with a stone facing I wouldn't recommend eliminating it as part of the scheme. It is important that the symmetry below grade be maintained. As it is drawn there are very narrow piers separating wide window bays which is not a very good masonry expression for this. Structural piers should be two to three times larger than you have here. There should be a central window on the facade and a double bay door to have it balanced. Martha: I like the entrance and it is more inviting. The south side allows for more sun and light and is appropriate. If it is to be a council room it should be more inviting. Cris: If it weren't required as an exit by code we wouldn't be here. We would be talking about window wells. Council feels very strongly about making the exit/entrance very inviting for the public. For me it started out as an exit. We are building this so that in the future if we have to expand it can be done. We don't have the money to underpin the entire building right now but if we come up with the money later on we can do so. Histor~o Preservation Committee Minutes of March 9, 1994 Roger: If you couldn't exit from inside the building would you be comfortable in a room with that single door? Cris: I would be much more comfortable with a double door. I personally would like to see a double door. We have three exits. Joe: I would like to see the detail on the railing. I would echo Donnelley's statement that the windows are too close and there should be a double door. I have mixed feelings as to which elevation should open. If it is an exit it should open to the north but if it is an entrance then south. Eliminate the eyebrows. I would also like to see it come back to see the railing detail and new windows. Roger: If the double door is installed is the existing stairway large enough to handle a crowd in an emergency? Cris: Yes. Donnelley: It would be helpful if you cut a section through for the next meeting. You might have a very high concrete wall unless one portion of the planter is cut down. We need more information. Jake: In my mind it is basically an entrance and should be addressed as one. The parking in the alley is not major parking anyway. You might want to incorporate snow melt because there is a potential snow falling problem. Cris: We never intended to put a roof over this and I have anticipated snow melt with drains. Donnelley: It would be less of an impact if it hugged the wall. Cris: We would have to under pin and it is quite costly. Joe: If you orient to the south I would like to see a landscaping plan. Joe: I will summarize and at the next submission I would like to see the detailing on the rail, detailing of the landscaping and the rest of the site plan. The section that Donnelley mentioned and the detailing of materials on the retaining wall, steps etc. Restudy the windows and restudy of the entryway. Tell us whether you are going to do snowmelt or not. Cris: Some kind of guidance on the concrete would help. Scott: Possibly bring a few examples: concrete and brick. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 9,1994 MOTION~ Roger made the motion to table 130 S. Galena Street until March 23; second by Donnelley. Ail in favor, motion carries. 305 E. MAIN ST. - L~NDMARK DESIGNATION PUBLIC HEARING Jake stepped down. Amy: This property is in the Main Street historic district and listed on the natiOnal register of historic places. I am recommending approval because it meets standard B, architectural importance and almost retains it original design. It meets standard E, neighborhood character; it is an important part of the Main Street district and one of a group of three remaining original buildings. Standard F has been met also which is community character. It represents the back bone of the historic resources in Aspen and is a terrific example of victorian architecture. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Karen: Why do you want to landmark this building? Roger Kuhn, owners son: This is an important structure to Aspen. If I have plans to do something on this property it helps being designated with the setbacks. There are advantages to do it. It is on the national register and I heard there was the possibility of getting a $2,000. grant. Chairman Joe Krabacher closed the public hearing. MOTION= Roger made the motion that the HPC recommend approval to landmark designate 303 E. Main Lot A and the west half of lot B City and townsite of Aspen finding that it meets standards B, E and F; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. 201 W. FRANCIS ST. - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: This house is on the national register and is in the west end and the proposal involves constructing an addition on the west side of the building that will come out three feet from the building. It has french doors and up above that there is a balcony with french doors. Similar additions have already been placed on this structure and I think that they were appropriate but that we don't want to necessarily alter all sides of the building. I have recommended that HPC only approve the set of french doors or a single door that will be flush with the building. George Vicenzi, owner: I want to do this because the west side of the wall is on my dining room side and is very dark and my main Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 9, 1994 goal is to get light into the diningroom. I brought it out three feet so that I can have one window double hung facing south. The french doors would let in western light and would allow me to have a nice access to the side yard which is under utilized. A very important factor to c onsider is that I have these large ivy vines on the existing northern elevation and there are two lilac bushes. My feeling is that this addition will be barely visible. I feel this is in scale and bulk with the building and a very minor addition. Anyone who owns a house is constantly changing it depending on the desires and needs of the owner. I think this addition will enhance its function ability and the only person to see this is myself. I understand and agree with preserving historical structures; however, I feel the house has to be allowed to evolve as to the needs of the owner. This is not a museum it is a house that people live in. In Amy's memo she states that the balcony is compatible and that is important when you are dealing with an historic house. There is a crack between the upper and lower window and as part of this renovation I would like to shore up the walls and make them stronger. CLARIFICATIONS Tom: What is the material on the side? George: Wood painted red similar to the other detailing I have done on other additions to the house. Donnelley: Are the double hungs the same as the west L, on the second floor? George: They are double hung but the scale is different. The ones on the west side are wider. Donnelley: Have you thought of a shed roof over the gable end? George: I was trying to keep it as simple as possible as it is not important to have light on that southern portion. I would like to discuss the option of spindles on this balcony as it is a little lighter. Roger: On the lower window is that a single window and you are recommending the single window be a single door? George: Yes, single double hung which would become a door. Donnelley: Regarding the spindles I would think twice about that because this house is a large house with large scaled details that Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 9, 1994 can be read from a distance, spindles are delicate and of a finer scale. As a comment I tend to agree with you that this will make the diningroom a much more usable space. The single window on the north side does tend to restrict light and by expanding the diningroom that way I don~t think you are really compromising the nature of the house. I am basically in favor of this. The only detailing you are talking about that has to be studied is the panel between the lower floor and the balcony and the railing. I am sure the french door will be chosen with the same kind of weight. George: By the nature of the size they have to be bulky doors. Karen: I have no problem with this. Roger: I would concur with Staff and not allow the balcony and keep the single door on the lower level. There are far too great of changes to the structure. Our job is to preserve landmark buildings. Joe: Do you intend to demolish the brick wall behind where this addition is being put on, the brick between the upper story and lower story windows? George: Yes, it is basically the wall between the two windows. That wall has a crack and this is an opportunity to stem from that. Joe: Are you enlarging the existing opening on the second floor where the french door would go? George: It would be in the enlarged about six inches or enlarged about three feet. same opening and might have to be so. The bottom would have to be Jake: I concur with Roger and Staff. Karen: As far as the width of the addition does the Board feel it is in proportion with the wall. Donnelley: It doesn't appear to overwhelm the wall. There is a concern about change in the existing opening. If it were on a more prominent facade I would feel differently about it. Martha: I basically like the idea and one of the standards is that projects be rehabilitated in a reasonable manner and I think this is reasonable. I like the idea of making the diningroom more usable. I think that I would not be in favor of another balcony, aesthetically I like the idea but it does alter the building quite a bit more than I would be in favor of. 7 H~storic Prese~v&tlon Con~n~ttee ~nutes of H&rch 9, Z994 Joe: What about the windows vs. french doors in the second floor? Martha: floor. I would be more in favor of the windows on the second Donnelley: We do not know the plan of the interior and the projection is seven feet wide, therefore what is it doing for you vs. the opening without a projection. George: The room is constricted as it has a closet along the back wall that was built in and there is not that much room but the feeling of room coming out the three feet. Donnelley: It is mostly psychological. George: This is a private residence and not a museum. It is really not visible at all and I would like to enhance the area. Amy: The addition on the other side is compatible but I do not feel this is compatible on this side of the building and we just put city hall through the wringer because it is on the national register and this building is on the national register because it is a pure example of an ornate victorian building. If you look at the site plan we have already had alterations on one elevation and the whole back is additions. While this is not the primary side of the building little by little we have chipped away this building. To blow out three windows and part of a wall is not appropriate. Roger: On the balcony which was approved last year, that is easily reversible, this is not easily reversible. Amy: I feel this is compromising the historical significance of this building. George: When I volunteered to be on the national register they said there would be no extra review process or higher standards to do things. Now it seems there are higher standards. I would like to get off the national register but it is impossible. I would hope that this committee would be reasonable and approve elements that would make the house more livable. Given the amount of vegetation in front of this it will not be visible. This is not a municipal building and I understand that city hall is more important because it is used by the public. Joe: It is a difficult question and I have an historic house and understand the problems associated with it. I would prefer to see the second floor remain a window or do the doors and no balcony. I would be in favor of the first floor doors on the entryway. I Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 9, 1994 am uncomfortable just taking out the entire section of the wall. Karen: What is the room upstairs? George: It is my daughters bedroom and faces west. The french doors make it a neat element. I have a question on reversibility and it makes things tough on an alteration especially when you are dealing with a brick building. I can keep the bricks and double hung window so that it could be put back in. In reality it seem odd that someone would want to change it back after it was done. Joe: One of the national historical register preservation guidelines is that it has to be reversible. George: Anything is reversible given enough time and money. Jake: With these minor developments the information that the applicant presents has to be detailed, especially in a one step situation. Materials and detailing are critical in order for me to give a one step decision. Karen: I am arguing for this for the same reason I argued for the wider stairwell on city Hall. I always have a hard time when someone wants to bring more light into a structure because it is critical for your well being. It is our obligation to preserve hut it is also our responsibility to our own town for people to be comfortable in their own houses. Linda: I am torn because the more you alter an historic structure the less historic it becomes. If there could be a design made to bring light in but not make it look "cute". I don't feel comfortable with this. Roger: When did you buy the house? George: I bought it in the early 80's and rented it and lived in the cottage and then my daughter came to live with me and we moved into the big house. The house faces north and has no light. Roger: If you were to put in a single door in the ground floor or a double door which would best maintain the integrity of the structure? George: That is a judgment call and it is a minor change. We are bickering over bricks, how many is a major change vs. a minor change. I would like to take out the entire wall and do a sun room but that would not work. Donnelley: The English add iron and glass conservatories to old Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 9, 1994 buildings all the time. MOTIONs Martha made the motion that the HPC approve the minor development to 201 W. Francis St. with changing the first story window into a door, preferably a single door and that the second floor window remain. Also the elimination of the application for the balcony; second by Joe. Roger: I would like added that all bricks be retained and that the mortar mix and repair of the step cracking be approved by the Historic Preservation officer. The applicant must submit information about the doors to be installed for approval by Staff and the project monitor. AMENDED MOTIONs Martha amended the motion to include Roger's recommendations; second by Joe. Motion and amended motion failed 4 -3. Donnelley: Replacing a window with a door without allowing it to project does not accomplish anything. I would recommend that we allow the projected bay with the double french doors on the west side and the flanking windows on the north and south still eliminating the railing above. Now we have to discuss what the roof will look like. If we give George part of the motion there is nothing to define what it will look like. Joe: I would suggest tabling with the recommendation that he come back with a detailed program. Donnelley: We should take a straw poll on how the Board feels on allowing the projection and retaining the brick. The projection would be seven feet side by 3 feet deep or whatever it is and no railing detailing above and with no changes to the double hung on the second story. Jake: Possibly do a hip roof. Joe: From the poll the Board would not approve your proposal and the committee would like to see something different on the second floor. The general is consensus of the first floor bay and not approve the second floor. I would like to see more detail on the windows. Donnelley: I see the french doors with 15 lights in each and we need more details. Is that appropriate. George: The doors on the east have 15 panes each. I can do less panes. 10 His2oric Preserv&tion CommSttee M~nu2es of March 9, 1994 Jake: Everything else has no panes. Donnelley: I cannot support this at this stage because I do not know enough about it. Joe: Give us a detailed drawing and justification why it works. MOTION~ Joe made the motion to table the application for the direction that the applicant restudy the second floor to retain the existing opening and to eliminate the balcony and potentially eliminating the railing. That the applicant simplify the door treatment on the first floor; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. 330 GILLESPIE STREET - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Roger: For the public our job is to preserve the landmark and not change it. We are trying to be proactive. Amy: HPC made a site visit to this property in January and the building has been vacant for a couple of years and is in somewhat deteriorating condition. The applicant is proposing to demolish the back wing of the building which is not original and build a new addition. They are also asking to change the existing pitched roof on the garage which is a contributing structure into a gabled roof. I have recommended approval of the demolition on the historic structure but not to approve the demolition of the roof on the garage because I feel it would make a significant change in the character of the structure. Scott Lindenau, architect: We will leave the garage as is and will restore the roof to its original quality. Amy: We are reviewing this as to whether it impacts the character of the building, the demolition. We are not here to discuss the size of the windows on the addition. This building is on the inventory and not a landmark. We are looking at whether the partial demolition is appropriate. Scott: The back of the building has been added onto and is non- functional and we propose taking that off. We propose to keep the existing house, porch and adding a rear addition with a courtyard bringing light into the interior. The large trees make it dark. We will keep the old garage. We are keeping it consistent with the neighborhood of the west end. The house is 2,200 square feet and when completed it will be 2,900. We are allowed 3,400. CLARIFICATIONS 11 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 9, 1994 Jake: Will you tell us about the piece of roof. Scott: Right now we are keeping that section so that we don't go over the 50% demolition problem and the only thing we will be doing is lowering the floor of the interior to nine feet to get the upper level workable. The plate in the second floor is only three feet nine. Amy: From the maps there was an original gable off the back and then a one story wing. Roger: We are either approving or not approving a partial demolition. Amy: We can make comments but we have no review authority. But we do have some control for example they are adding a gable and chimney and there will be some demolition and if the Board thought that inappropriate you could say no don't demolish that part of the roof. That is how you can direct what would be an appropriate addition to the house. Joe: I thought approving a partial demolition included review of a redevelopment plan. Amy: Demolition requires a redevelopment plan and so does relocation. If partial demolition was more than 50% then we would review redevelopment. Roger: Historically was there a gable that came out to the east side? Amy: No, but right now there is a gable. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Karen: Dropping the floor on the second story is appropriate. Donnelley: This is a wonderful design and the addition to the east is quite defendable and the detailing has been so conscientious to create a fabric that you cannot tell where the old and new are. You can do that because we have no purview over it. It would be kind of fun to get some twist to give people an indication that you have done a rather extensive addition to an historic structure. The entire fabric is integrated so well that you have a hard time indicating between the old and new. On the garage roof form I am in favor it being remaining as is. Roger: For reference new additions should be distinct so that you can tell the older building from new building and that the new 12 Historic Preservation CommSttee Minutes of March 9, 1994 addition does not over power the existing structure and in so doing that we will be asking that people step the addition back connected by a hallway or breaking it up into two smaller buildings rather than one large mass. On the east side you have the historical building and you have created a courtyard which is much more appealing instead of having a long plane wall. Jake: Yes, our goals are to preserve the historic structure and hyphenate into the new addition. Then you preserve the integrity. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the partial demolition as requested for 330 Gillespie Street with the understanding that the roof on the outbuilding will remain as is; second by Donnelley. Joe: I have been through this house and it is really in bad shape and I would like to see a condition relatively strict in preserving the historic house and reusing all of the materials that are there, i.e. lattice work. Amy: I have a new condition of approval that we could incorporate in this project. The paint contractor for this project came in and visited me and wanted information on how to do the project right and I felt that was terrific. On this project and future projects the monitor could meet onsite with the contractors and discuss specifically how to preserve the wood, windows etc. Joe: In the past we have had projects where the siding has been torn off and they end up replacing it. Roger: The shutters are not original and the porch is not original and the siding is not original. There is very little on the house that is original expect perhaps the windows. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to include all historic parts to be retained and if there are questions it should be dealt with Staff and monitor; second by Donnelley. Ail in favor of the motion and amended motion; motion carries unaminously. RESOLUTION 1~ 1994 - GUIDELINES Joe: We have a resolution adopting our development guidelines for roof top equipment. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that HPC approve Resolution 1, 1994; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: As a requirement for an application I would like to see that there be a roof plan submitted showing roof top equipment. 13 Historlo Preservation COmmittee Minutes of March 9, 1994 Amy: I do have that as a packet requirement but did not put it in the resolution. COMMISSIONER ~ STAFF COMMENTS Amy: I feel it would be to our advantage to indicate on the condition of approval that before issuance of a building permit that the project monitors meet onsite with the contractors. We keep saying they are not doing things the way we want but how would they know unless we walk to them. Also before and after photographs should be incorporated. These will be indicated as requirements from now on. Amy: We need to have a meeting on the character guidelines and I need your neighborhood description. Photographs should be taken of each neighborhood by the end of the month. We are pulling the Main Street and Commercial Core out and including them as districts. Roger: Regarding any demolition I feel the Board should review it. Donnelley: Bill and I were doing the west end and Bill is gone. Tom: I will take photographs of the west end. Amy: Council is enthusiastic about the neighborhood guidelines and there is much support. Council has asked us to look at each neighborhood at the issues or things that we like but do not fit the guidelines. They are also concerned about height and FAR. Amy: Are there any questions on the partial demolition that we just did? Roger: Any demolition needs reviewed. Joe: I think it is a loophole that we are not looking at a redevelopment plan. Amy: If we start reviewing additions to the inventory then there is no difference being on the inventory or landmarked. As far as calculating the amount of demolition Bill Drueding did this one by calculating the FAR but he could also have calculated by how much of the existing walls were demolished. I do not feel we should measure by the existing wall because it might go over 50% of the building if you did existing walls. 50% is the border between partial demolition and total demolition. Roger: If someone comes in with 49.9% we do not review it. I thought we were getting this changed. 14 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 9, 1994 Joe: On partial redevelopment plan. a redevelopment. demolition you do not get to look at the More than 50% demolition you get to look at Jake: We get to review the redevelopment plan on any inventoried structure regardless of partial or full? Joe: No, only landmarked parcels. Amy: If it is a landmark we review anything. If it is on the inventory in the past few years you hadn't looked at it at all. Now we are looking at it but we are not looking at what they want to replace it with. I also agree that is not ideal. Joe: We need to look at tightening up our partial demolition rules. Amy: Preservation week is May Sth till the 15th. a historic house photo contest. Possibly have Joe: I would suggest when someone comes in for renovation of an historic house if there were previous alternations that photographs be included in the packet so that the Board knows what alterations occurred. Roger: My feeling is that a landmark building should not be messed with, our job is to preserve the integrity of the building. MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn; favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. second by Roger. Ail in Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk