Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890124HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall January 24, 1989 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by vice-chairman Nick Pasquarella with Charles Cunniffe, Charlie Knight, Zoe Compton, Joe Krabacher, Donnelley Erdman and Chris Darakis present. Georgeann Waggaman and Bill Poss were absent. Charlie made the motion to approve the minutes of Dec. 20, 1988, Jan 3, 1989 and Jan 10, 1989. Charles second, all approved. 520 B. Hyman - Pitkin Centez Building Roxanne: This is for a minor development approval for the addition of a new third floor balcony deck at the southeast corner of the Pitkin Center Bldg. We find that the application satisfies all the development review standards. This structure is not historic and the proposal does not affect any neighboring historic structure. The nearest historic structure is on the far corner which is the Elks Building. We recommend that the HPC grant minor development approval for this application. Kim Well, architect: The building contains a deck and the new owners wish to add a deck at the south east corner. It would be the exact same railing and construction as the deck that is presently there. It would have the same metal detailing at the railing and would appear as if it was there originally. You would access the deck by changing two windows into a door. Nick: The entrance would be from the west side of the balcony. Kin Weil: There would be two entrances from the west. Next we would have to go through a cash in lieu of open space. Charlie: It encroaches on your open space. Chris: I have no objection. Donnelley: It seems appropriate. Charlie: I have no objection to it. Charles: Just as a comment I think the building is better off without the balcony but that is a subjective view so I also have no objection. Donnelley: I think the occupants of the second floor of that corner would rather not have the balcony and have an awning. An awning wouldn't project as far. Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Nick: Aesthetically there is a little concern but no real opposition and I will entertain a motion. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to grant minor development review of 520 E. Hyman and allow the addition of the balcony as it has been presented provided the same materials are used as are in the existing balcony. Chris second, all approved. 423 WEST FRANCIS STREET-HALLET HOUSE Charles Cunniffe stepped down. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Richard Klein, architect introduced applicant and individuals involved with the proposed project. Roxanne Eflin, Planning office made the presentation as attached in the records. Roxanne: The application is very comprehensive and it was very educational to go through all the evolutionary steps that have taken place with this unique house in the west end. It is very complex due to the number of changes proposed. I see this first meeting as a dialogue in determining which elements might be appropriate in elevations. The National Register Hallet House is significant historically for three specific reasons: It's historic association with an early mining financier Samuel Hallet. It's original log cabin which exists within the walls and it's architectural evolution of the additions and all the expansions that have taken place over time. Jay Yanz, State Architect stated his review comments on the project. The Hallet house is significant as one of the pioneer log cabins which was incorporated into a wood frame and clapboard house, a change indicative of Aspen's growth and rising fortunes of its residents during the 19th century silver boom. Based upon this information, the original log cabin portion and subsequent historic additions all contribute to the significance of the property. Therefore its character should be maintained and alterations to the physical elements and features discouraged. The proposed work as indicated violates the essential character defining features of the historic property and is not in conformance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. I have attached in your memo five of the standards that I felt were particularly important in reviewing this project. I do feel that this project is somewhat indicative of modern adaptations to historic structures to meet todays needs. In this memo I have utilized the Development Review Standards in the Landuse Code, the Secretary of Interior's Standard and our own guidelines. 2 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Roxanne: The applicant is also requesting variations for side and rear yard setbacks and FAR. To grant those variations the Committee must find those alterations more compatible in nature to the historic structure. Roxanne: The proposed two car garage exceeds the site coverage and that requires a Board of Adjustment approval. The applicant must demonstrate hardship. Also there is a Zero lot line variations that is being requested for that garage. The garage element forces the whole east elevation to be 50 ft. in length without any undulation or stepback and that is an issue the Committee needs to deal with. The partial demolitions proposed need to be reviewed carefully to see if they meet the standards set in the Landuse code. The majority of the openings are proposed to be changed as well. Due to so many fenestration changes, more study is warranted. The applicant will address the foundation issues. They intend to raise the structure and excavate more of the basement and bring the structure back down into its footprint but it might be elevated some. They are proposing to do some stone work around the new foundations and that is something that should be taken into consideration. We are recommending tabling due to the scope of the project and that we feel further study is warranted on the overall parcel etc. and the changes being proposed. An Historic Presentation on the History of presented with photographs and was distributed in record. the house was the packet for Ken: In 1947 there was an entry room/mud room added across the front of the house and the shed area in back was enclosed. From 1904 on there were shutters on the house and were removed from the house in the 60's but are still on the carriage house. Nick: When did Hallet leave the house. Ken: In the 1930's. Richard Klein: Historically there has been a lot of building activity on the site. We have tried to create some space between the carriage house and the main house. We removed the entry that was added in the late 40's and in doing so the porch re-aligns with its historic shape. The log cabin becomes the center, the family room of the house. We relocated the front door to address Francis St. In the 70's the bay window fell off and we want to restore that bay window to the side of the house and replace the bay window element with a door. The existing bedroom space becomes dining room space. The stairs will have to be rebuilt to code as they are too steep. The breakfast room is Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Richard Klein: essentially a rebuilt laundry room/mud room and is in that same location. The breakfast room also acts as access to the garage. Along the street elevations we wanted to maintain the existing perception of the house. Existing in the carriage house are two substandard parking spaces and because we are providing parking in the garage our idea is to convert the area in the carriage house to a studio apartment and remove the added on shed which would access a stair to the upstairs which would be a small study space for Mr. Hernandez. Upstairs in the carriage house we propose to take the barn door opening and rebuild the doors as glass to get light and ventilation. We want to restore the street elevations and re-establish the perception where the log cabin is. There are a lot of problems with the foundation system and a new foundation systems needs to be put in. Tim Pleune, contractor: There is asbestos in the house and we will have to re-support the existing house. It is a matter of putting some large steel girders both ways underneath it and supporting it on wood cribbing while you get the house set up on wheels. We will do that while we put a foundation underneath it. We may have to raise the house a little bit but then lower it to the minimum elevation that the building code will allow for proper drainage. If a basement is a problem we can leave it as a dirt crawl space. Nick: Our concern is that you are not going to make another floor on the building. Roxanne: Is the basement proposed for storage and not habitable space. Richard: We are not quite sure yet. Roxanne: If it is habitable space it requires light wells for egress which is a design issue that we have dealt with before. Tim: The window replacement would be essentially a new piece of glass with a wood strip around it. All the exterior and interior trim if possible can stay in place. This system we chose causes less interruption of existing fibers. Larry Doble, engineer: A lot of the foundation is resting on dirt and is causing problems from the ground up. From a health safety issue there is need for foundation repair. The front porch would have to be moved to get the beams underneath. They area called needle beams that run both directions under sections of the house. You have to support the four walls of each section that you want to build up and you need to get into these different areas. This does require that things need to be moved 4 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Larry Doble: temporarily. In order roof modifications there is going to modifications to the roof as well. to accommodate the proposed be need to do structural Cecil Hernandez, owner: There is a lot of sensitivity in this house and we propose to maintain that. Roxanne: Due to the significant activities proposed for the foundation work a bond is appropriate and I have included that in the memo. Also we need more information regarding the sequence of what is going to occur in the move. Nick: I understood that he is going to raise the building and lower it but he didn't say he was going to bring it back where it was. He said something about meeting some nebulous number. If you are going to build a foundation when the house comes back down it comes back down to the inch to where it was. Richard: The house slopes and the porch in front used to be wood but now is concrete and there is an obvious drainage problem. That might be the reason why it is concrete now. We would like to correct the drainage problem by either regrating around the front of the house so we can get proper drainage up to the house or when we put the house back down on the foundation if the foundation is 6 inches higher in the air then we can grate properly to it. Chris: There is a drainage problem. Joe: Is this a tax act project. Noelle Hernandez, owner: I have investigated accountant and as far as I know it doesn't qualify. that residential residences were harder to qualify. that with my I understood Roxanne: It doesn't qualify due to the extent of the renovation. For tax credits the property has to be income producing, it can be residential income producing. Joe: In order to do the foundation work what historic elements are going to have to be torn down and rebuilt. We had talked about the porch. Tim: The porch is cement and we would like to bring it back to its original wood. Richard: To renovate the main body of remove the porch and put it back again. the shed in back of the carriage house. the house we will have to We propose to eliminate We will salvage as much 5 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Richard: of the existing siding as possible. We also intend to reuse the chimney brick. Joe: Do you intend to raise the house all up at once and will it affect the landscaping or fence of the property. Tim: There are still unknowns about the floor construction all of which could effect the sequences. If we get conceptual approval of renovating the foundation then we can give you a specific documentation at the next meeting. Zoe: What is your intention on the use of the basement. Richard: We would like to have some kind of habitable space. Z oe: At the next meeting that is something we would like to have spelled out. Richard: Essentially the concrete porch and overhang has to be taken off so that we can repair the actual house foundation. Charlie: So the roof has to come off. Couldn't you take out the cement and leave the roof intact, support it and raise it. Larry: If it is preferable we could support the roof. Charlie: We have seen Elli's walls taken off and moved around and it did not work very well. What will the carriage house foundation have. Larry: There is no foundation but we would use slab-on-grade. Charlie: What do you intend to do with the chimneys. Richard: We would prefer to eliminate the flu and house the flu in the chimney which would require us to rebuild the chimney which is in bad shape now. In that way we would end up with one chimney which would be the mechanical exhaust of the house. The chimney in back we would like to relocate it and restore it. Nick: How does rebuilding chimneys fit historically. Roxanne: It is one of the many elements that we are looking at including the changing of the windows. Charlie: I don't think the city has a problem with the use of basement space as long as there are light wells and egress. 6 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Nick: We wouldn't have a problem see now. if it wasn't changing what we Roxanne: If there were light wells put in on the east elevation they would be tucked in among the vegetation on the site and probably wouldn't be visible from the street. Roxanne: You are getting the consensus from the Board that we have seen other projects before with the material removed and put back and the character is destroyed. Donnelley: The portfolio with photographs of the replacement sash appears that the replacement sash is single glazed and in order to get the insulating value of a double glaze or insulated window you are putting a second piece of glass outside of the mullions. Tim: You can do it either way. Donnelley: By placing a second sheet of glass outside it changes the entire character of the window if you have wood mullions in the window. Tim: If we are not using divided light it is preferable to use the IG glass then you eliminate the problem that you mentioned. Public Input Steve Whipple, neighbor: I being stretched. Preservation an architect, if all that can the sky is the limit to me. I feel the word "preservation" is should be protected by the HPC. As go on it is encouraging to me as didn't realize there was this much freedom as is being presented here today. If the carriage house can have a slab-on-grade then the house could also. Nick: We have established that they are going to raise the house, put a foundation under it and lower it back where it belongs. Dick Durrance, previous owner: I came in 1947 and bought the log house. We saw the plans and they retain all the warmth and charm of the log house when we lived there. The Hernandez's have done research to preserve in detail the character and appearance. Robert Chamberlain, next door neighbor: I am glad the Hernandez's are undertaking this project and overall I am pleased with the concept and look in general. In detail I have some comments: The garage does not bother due to the barrier of blue spruce trees. The City Engineer told me last year that the Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Robert: plans for Francis Street are to pave it and put in curbs and sidewalk and restrict parking. I will no longer have legal parking space in front of my house but this plan addresses that eventuality. The zero setback doesn't bother me because my building on the alley is also a zero setback, the conversion of the carriage house is also quite nice as it is a tradition in Aspen of having carriage houses. The opening up of the central area is pleasing. Leslie Holst: I feel very positive about this. It is a very difficult renovation. It is a unique opportunity for some compromise. The only thing I have a problem with is the sum total of all these, as it could change a lot. Maybe the east elevation could be compromised and I am glad they are not here with a demolition permit. Mark Finkle: I echo what has been said and I am glad someone is going to live there. I have one objection, as I look at it there is an existing garage and there are parking regulations. Gretchen Greenwood: It is very difficult to meet the needs of the owners and the needs of the community. My personal comment is that we are getting further away from an historical restoration of that because of the addition of the garage and change of use from the caretakers unit from a garage to a living space. If the existing carriage unit in the house is maintained as is and the garage was placed as it originally is in the caretakers unit and the living space could be put in a habitable basement which is an excellent solution for some of these older houses that can provide for some overflow bedrooms. It would allow the building to maintain itself as is. With the east elevation and the garage on there it is not an appropriate historical addition. Richard: Presently the space in the carriage house is a substandard parking space in other words it is not 18 ft. long. We would like to see the shed removed so that we have a more historic carriage house form. By doing that we are able to open up a nice space between the house and carriage house. With the historic guidelines it is recommended that garages have access off the alley. Don Swales, neighbor: We live next door 365 days a year and this house will have more impact on us then anyone else in the City. We have looked at the plans and it is a major step in historic renovation for our end of town and is an improvement of what was there. 8 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Nick: It is our job to move in the right direction and please everyone that is in the room and in the town. Noelle Hernandez: The carriage house will be used for both sets of grandparents to come and feel at home and not feel like they are in the way. That is why we want to change it into habitable space and take the cars out of there. Z oe: This is one of the best presentations we ever had. My concerns are not the physical appearances. The way you have done your placements of the additions is in character and in keeping with what is existing. My concerns are old chimneys, restoring them and replacing them; the clapboard siding being kept in its original place and not moved off the site; the house being raised up and put back to where it might be too high and you have to fill it in with sandstone or rock. The minimum height that the house would have to be raised. Richard Klein presented the elevations. Richard: This is our first meeting and we are also looking for information from the Board as to what you think should be done with this house. In concept we feel this is a proper location for a garage. We would like to remove the entry element and restore the old front porch. When the addition was put on the cabin inside lost its architectural form and we would like to restore that form so that as you are walking along the street you can identify where the cabin is. In discussion with Roxanne she felt that the new front door should address the street. We put the new door along the edge of the old cabin so that as you enter you are in a natural circulation of the house. The main roof of the house would be shingles. There were shutters applied on the house around the turn of the century. Possibly we should re- introduce the shutters. They were removed in the 60's and 70's. We also could restore the brackets that were on the house. We have introduced some vertical windows and whether or not they are appropriate possibly you could help us determine that. What we are really after today is to get the concept of the house. We would like to remove the old chimney flu and have it in the old brick chimney and in doing so it would clean up the house. In the livingroom space we would like to remove the ceiling and create more volume in the inside. Charlie: Would the change in the front door be in line with the existing window. Roxanne: It is a new cut in the logs. 9 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Charlie: The window that would be behind the vestibule would be in an existing opening. Richard: At one point it was a door and we would like it opened back up and used as a window. Nick: Our concern is another hole in the log cabin. Roxanne: You could make the existing opening into a doorway. The guidelines are specific and state that orientation to the main elevation is historically correct and should be maintained or put back. Bill Drueding: As a zoning officer if you do touch the carriage house you will be required to get an encroachment license. One parking place per bedroom is required. If you eliminate those two you can return them somewhere else on site. Richard: They are substandard spaces. Bill Drueding: I haven't addressed whether they are substandard or not. If you turn that into a studio that will require additional parking space to be added. Roxanne: Unless they go through review for parking reduction for an historic landmark. Bill: The Board would have to make variations for the garage as you need at least 10 feet in the back. I talked to the Streets Dept. and they are opposed to a zero lot line in the alley due to plowing problems. The existing site coverage is 28 and they are proposing 33.8. You cannot go above 30% without a Board of Adjustment variance for site coverage. Richard: The Fourth St. elevation shows how we would relocate the fireplace. We would like to have that element outside the wall. We propose to move the closet and beyond it is the laundry room. In the location of the laundry room is where we propose to put the new breakfast room which would also have access to the garage. You don't see this because the carriage house is in front of it. The planning staff indicated objection to this but it is 38 ft. from the street and it also has a fence and shrubs shielding it. On the carriage house we would like to use a asphalt or fiberglass shingle to help differentiate the main house from the carriage house. The main house would have a shake roof. The door to the garage could be a panelled door. We would like to put in a bathroom window and utilize part of an interior opening. We are proposing a window in the kitchen. We have not determined anything final in terms of the windows. The carriage 10 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Richard: house has a proposed studio and we are proposing some window treatment for light. We are proposing that the hay loft doors on the second floor be changed into some kind of window element for light. Nick: At this time the Board will give general comments. Chris: I like what is presented but I see some problems with the length of the garage wall on the east elevation but you have left everything open for adjustments. Donnelley: What we have to do is establish and agree upon what aspects are historically significant and by that I means what is architecture and what is building. There is a lot of building that went on here over the years and people tend to mistake building with architecture. It started out as a log cabin and has been compromised about 50% over the years. The suggested relocation of the entry and other amendments compromise it by another 20%. There is only 30% left and it has no structural integrity and do we want the log cabin enough to expose it. This building has a great history. We have many elements built over a period of time and we have to give priorities to those elements. Shutters were introduced at one time as an element to protect you from weather conditions and whether they are appropriate in this case I am not sure. As drawn the shutters look like add on's and shutters make no sense when you have paired double hung windows. If you are going to insist upon paired double hung windows then shutters are really added on as "featurettes" which I think doesn't have anything to do with the architectural significance of this project. Some of the fenestration needs to be restudied as we don't want it too divided up and too busy. I also see a tendency to remove some of the lovely idiosyncratic window placement that has occurred over the years and try to smooth it out. I don't know if that is complimentary or not. Possibly the use of existing openings on the carriage house (north elevation) would be more a better approach. There is a lot of this house that doesn't have any architectural distinction. Joe: On the south elevation of the main house I would like to not have another cut in the original log cabin. I would like to maybe see the original door opening as the entry way to the house and if that is not possible then I would be in favor of using the door entry way that is into the proposed livingroom. In general I would like to see you retain as much of the fenestration as possible. I don't have a big problem with the length of the east elevation given it is not a principal facade and taking the landscaping into consideration but I do have some problems with the fenestration on that addition. On the carriage house I would like to see keeping the shed and get away from 11 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Joe: adding this dormer to the roof and maybe you could use that as some of the living area. That shed was part of the original carriage house from 1898. Maybe you could restudy how you could use that. Overall it is a great project and I am encouraged that it is going to be saved especially in considering the condition of the foundation. I would like to see the window openings and fenestration patterns that we have kept. Nick: I would hope that you would work as diligently as you possibly can to keep it like it was. Shutters had two functions, to sleep during the daytime you closed the shutters and in the heavy winds you closed the shutters to protect the window panes. Charlie: The approach to historic preservation and the restoration of what we have is to try and keep intact a lot of what is there. The architects needs to look at the preservation element and I feel it is riddled with new components and I don't know that it has to be. We have to address with you the types of techniques that we use so we are very clear that we are going to get authentic restoration or the look we are after. The windows are also an issue to me; the variety of windows with little square mullions and round stained glass windows. Those are nice features and you begin to pick them up on some of the alternatives on the carriage house. I think they were elements that were originally there. We are interested in seeing as much of the history remain there. Roxanne: We need to get some clear direction on the partial demolitions they are proposing as that is going to force the rest of the design issue of the site planning and everything else. Possibly not all of the proposed demolitions are appropriate when you are looking at the sum total. Charlie: I don't have a problem with the shed or perhaps the carriage house part but I do have a problem with redesigning and recreating the east elevation wall. I think the continuity of what was there, back through the bedroom should stay intact and I don't think there should be any demolition to that. I have several opinions as to what to do beyond there: Possibly a breezeway or off setting the garage further east, something to break it. Roxanne: The consensus is that the Board would like to see a restudy of the east elevation. Fenestration is also an issue and the shed dormers are also a problem. Charlie: Having lived here being 5 ft. off the alley is appropriate because of the snow plow issue. Those problems did not exist at the turn of the century. The issue is the garage. 12 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Roxanne: They might have to have three parking spaces on site. Joe Wells: The building is not in conformance with FAR right now. There is a reduction of FAR in this plan. Under the non- conforming provisions in the code you can alter a non-conforming use as long as you don't worsen it. We are about 135 sq. ft. over on site coverage and that has to go to the Board of Adjustment and may or may not be approved. On parking there are no legal off-street parking spaces on this site. It is not reasonable for the city to take the position that illegal spaces are spaces. In the proposal there are five bedrooms. There are presently four bedrooms on the site and we have to address the parking for the incremental increase which requires one additional space on site. In the proposal we are offering two. Richard: The setback is overall 30 feet across. 13 ft. on one side and 17 in on the east. There is a lot we can do to break up that long east wall, such as the roof and siding. Nick: Possibly the Board and Staff can agree on conceptual. Roxanne: We have foundation issues that we have to deal with and material issues that have to be resolved. The east elevation has to be restudied. Do to the scope of this project a tabling action is appropriate. MOTION: Nick made the motion that we table and continue the public hearing and continue the presentation to Feb. 14, 1989. Charles second. All approved. Meeting adjourned 5:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk