Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19881220HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall December 20, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Charles Cunniffe, Joe Krabacher, Chris Darakis, Donnelley Erdman and Georgeann Waggaman present. Nick Pasquarella, Zoe Compton and Charlie Knight were absent. Charles made the motion to approve the minutes of Dec. 6, 1988 as corrected, second by Joe. All approved, motion carries. Mac Cunningham requested to be added to the agenda to discuss changes made on 605 W. Main. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to add 605 W. Main to the agenda as an informative session. Donnelley seconded. All approved. 320 W. MAIN - SMITH-ELISMA MAIN HOUSE Charles Cunniffe stepped down. Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office made the presentation as attached in records. Roxanne Eflin: The minor development deals with the two skylights and the window changes in the kitchen on the main floor. I would like to mention in particular the letter from Jay Yanz, State Historic Architect. This project may be the third rehabilitation investment tax credit project this City has ever seen. It is very critical that all the work done on it be certified by the State Historic Architect. I sent him an entire set of plans and his letter is extremely clear that the skylights are inappropriate but the windows are appropriate subject to the conditions. We recommend that the window replacement be approved and the skylights be denied. The applicant should research the exact placement of the windows and the original framing of the windows is there. Approval for the window installation must be obtained by Jay Yanz prior to installation. The skylights may jeopardize the rehabilitation investment tax credits worth 20%. Bill: For clarification, the windows that are being added were existing openings that had been closed up. Welton Anderson, Architect: Yes, the horizontal added some time in the 40's. There are no windows that are new. window was being added HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES December 20, 1988 Bill: If the reason for Jay's comments are only if they are going for the 20% tax credit that is up to the applicant to decide and weight the comments. Roxanne: This is a national registered property and it is important that the renovation be done according to the guidelines. Donnelley: The portal window was not viewed by Jay Yanz and I am wondering where the recommendation came from. After our site visit it was determined that it was colored glass and rather awkward looking. Roxanne: If the applicant wants to take the tax credits he will work through the state architect. I don't think the stained glass is original and I will notify Jay that his recommendation regarding the window might not be appropriate. Bill: What is designated. Roxanne: The whole parcel is designated and structures. Welton discussed the window placement. Welton: The skylights are the most controversy which were designed to fit between the roof framing and provide light in the attic on the west elevation. There is not enough roof area on the north elevation for the skylights. The skylights would primarily be blocked by a large fir tree and are very unobtrusive. Georgeann: I support changing the colored glass in the attic and am in support of changing the windows. We have been opposed to any skylights that can be seen at all from Main Street and it would be incorrect architecturally to allow skylights. Donnelley: The only point of contention seems to be the skylight issue and everything else is an upgrade in restoration to the original condition. I believe you could make the skylights work on the north side. Joe: I agree with the comments on the skylight. With respect to the colored glass I have no problem with replacing that assuming that it is not original. I also agree on Roxanne's recommendation regarding the other windows. Donnelley: Will you glaze the window. 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES December 20, 1988 Welton: I don't think adding double glazing to window will make a real difference on heat loss single glass will work better with the mullions. that small of and probably Chris: From my point of view I feel a skylight could be installed on the north side. Bill: I concur with the other comments and would support the north side with specific regards to the skylights. All other comments made by the committee members regarding windows I am in favor of. Welton: We will look at approaches to putting the skylight on the north side. Roxanne: If Jay Yanz gives approval of the skylight on the north side and it can work architecturally that could occur. MOTION: Joe: I move that we grant minor development approval for the window replacement subject to the condition set forth in Roxanne's memo of Dec. 20, 1988 and I further move that we deny the application for the skylights and also move that we grant a minor development approval for one or two skylights on the north elevation subject to approval by Jay Yanz, State Historic Architect, second by Georgeann. All approved. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR 320 W. MAIN SMITH ELISHA HOUSE, CARRIAGE HOUSE; DEMOLITION AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION Roxanne made the presentation as attached in records. Roxanne: The application is to consider changes on every elevation of the carriage house plus the entire demolition removal of the metal shed behind the house that is detached plus the partial demolition of the original stairs that are on the rear of the house that lead downstairs. Those two demolitions are being proposed due to parking constraints on that site. Changes to the south elevation are to enlarge the central gable dormer to match the north elevation gable and to add two smaller gables on either side of the central dormer. Also a new window would be added. The west elevation changes are two new windows adjacent to the lower window. The north elevation is proposing a new skylight and two new double hung windows in the lower elevation. Also glass panels are proposed for the inside of the upper hay loft doors, 2nd floor and 2/3rds of the panels of the original barn doors. Metal bars are proposed for across the hay loft door. The only change to the east elevation is to include glazing inside the existing window openings. The exterior stairway to the basement is original. The changes to the site 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES December 20, 1988 are to raise the grade that is closest to the McDonald property to sidewalk level; replace the rubble stone wall along the property line and to install walkways that lead into the central seating area. A cut in the stone wall is proposed for the walkway and they are proposing to remove the barbecue. Roxanne: I have had inquiries from neighbors expressing concern about the gable changes to the carriage house. Roxanne: The Secretary of Interior standards 1,2, 10 are very significant to review with this project including the guidelines. Roxanne: I picked out the guidelines that I felt were very important regarding carriage houses such as spacing. The guidelines talk about traditional landscape patterns to be maintained. The Development Review Standards: 92 in particular deals with the character of the neighborhood. Adaptive uses of carriage houses are highly desirable. Jay Yanz and I as well have stated that the proposed alterations to the south elevation cannot be recommended by staff. The question as to when does a carriage house begin looking like a "competing" residence and looses forever its visual and historical integrity as a support structure should be asked when looking at the overall project. This carriage house is the most visible carriage house in Aspen due to its Main Street location. I have reviewed the standards for partial demolition and complete demolition and recommend demolition of the metal shed in order that the parking goals can be better met. At this time I do not find that the partial demolition of the stairs is recommended. I want to get further direction from Jay Yanz regarding the rear stairs. The alternatives are listed in the memo, page 6. Recommendations are stated on page 7 and 8. The Planning Office recommends that all changes proposed be approved subject to approval from the State on a variety of issues. We recommend denial for all the changes that are proposed to the south elevation which include the enlargement of the central gable dormer, addition of the two smaller gables, additional double hung window, denial of partial demolition of the basement stairs and the site grade changes as well as the cut from the sidewalk through the stone wall. We find that the principal historic entrance orientation should be retained. Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Bill: Ruth White, neighbor entered a letter into the record dated Dec. 20, 1988 stating her concerns. 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES December 20, 1988 Ruth White: My concern is maintaining the integrity of the historical part of the building. The drastic changes to the windows and possibly it could be subdued. I don't think it is necessary to put windows in the existing doors. Bill: Ruth's letter basically states that she is concerned with parking and windows. Welton: The code requires three parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of commercial space. The P&Z can reduce that to 1 1/2 but no less per parking space per 1000 sq. ft. plus one parking space for the one bedroom apartment. That number of parking spaces meets the requirements if the P&Z will reduce it to 1 1/2. By law we cannot reduce the parking any less. I have no problem with not demolishing that stair enclosure if the HPC will make a recommendation to City Council to grant us an encroachment license so we can encroach slightly from the legal requirements of a parking space which is 8 1/2 by 18 ft. We would get a encroachment license for the two spaces and not demolish the stair enclosure. Bill: Lets review the recommendations. Georgeann: I think we would all agree that the work be prior approved by the State Historic Architect but that might not be applicable if the applicant does not want to pursue the 20% tax credit. Welton: Referencing page 2 regarding the principal structure: #1 demolition of the shed, no one seems to have a problem with that. I mentioned the stairway before regarding the encroachment. Georgeann: or another. I don't have any problem with the stairway one way Welton: We are caught in a cross fire of codes. Anytime you have a basement in a commercial structure you have to have two exits. We have two exits one through the house and one exterior to the house but the other code states that you have to have a parking space 18' long. If you can make a recommendation to Council for an encroachment license that would solve all the problems. Georgeann: Ruth has said the alley is already tight. Roxanne: I am not sure if sacrificing a portion of the historic structure is the other alternative either. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES December 20, 1988 Chris: Rather than demolishing the stairway could you take the top portion off the slanted roof and a heavy grate be put over it, that way the stairway would be preserved and you would have access it you needed it. Joe: I am in favor of keeping the stairway the way it is and recommending that an encroachment be granted in the alley. That stairway is a very unique part of this house. Donnelley: Possibly there could be some flush means of providing a water proof hatch that would not be open except for an emergency. I feel it is much more important to provide off- street parking. Bill: I think it can be worked out with the Bldg. Dept. possibly and if it can't then I am in favor of removing the structure and doing some sort of "flush" open stairway. With regards to the parking I would like to see it saved because of the off-street parking problem. Donnelley: How wide is the stairway. Welton: 4 ft. outside wall to outside wall and about three feet inside width. MO~ION: Georgeann moved to allow the demolition and removal of the detached metal shed off the alley and the partial demolition of the wood structure on the exterior basement stairway. The stone work of the stairway to remain with a grate put over the top that can be operable in an emergency. Donnelley second. Joe: Is the enclosure of the stairway original. Ramona Markalunas: Wood over it appears to be old. Chris: The stone stairway is original but it is difficult to tell whether the wood is original. Bill: We can leave the motion stand and Welton can work out with the Bldg. Dept. if the cover should be solid or open. Ail approved of the motion except Joe, motion carries. Joe: I don't think they should destroy the enclosure for the stairway and I would prefer us to recommend an encroachment license. Welton: Site: 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES December 20, 1988 Regarding #1 raising the lowest terrace grade to sidewalk level: By raising the grade it would give us more usable landscapable area as it is chopped up right now into three small areas. Regarding #2 the stone wall which we propose to replace: The stone is haphazard and we would like to replace it with a fine quality of stone more in keeping with the stone in the foundation of the house. Regarding 93 walkways installed leading to seating area. I have no problem eliminating the proposed opening in the wall. If HPC does not think the new entrance is appropriate we will delete. it. Regarding ~4 new plantings. The landscaping has not been kept up and cared for and we proposed to do an upgrade and plant small diameter trees and shrubbery. Regarding 96 removal of barbecue: We propose to move it. Roxanne: The stone wall us original and I cannot support removing it. It is cracked and needs work. It is part of the terrific site. Georgeann: Building a wall may have more impact on the neighbor (McDonalds) than is fair. It would really put the front of their house down into a little pit. I do not feel comfortable with raising the lowest terrace grade to sidewalk level but I might be interested in looking at minor changes to give you a little more open space. The stone wall has an interesting detail and I would rather not see a cut in the stone wall and the walkways should remain oriented to the main house. I have no problem with new plantings or removing the barbecue. Joe: I'm not in favor of changing the lower terrace grade as it is the original terrace that was put in when the property was built. I would rather see the stone wall kept rather than replaced and I am not in favor of the cut in the stone wall. I also have no problem with new shrubbery and the removal of the barbecue. Chris: I agree with Joe's comments. Donnelley: I am basically in agreement also with Joe's comments. Roxanne: The Board is basically in agreement with my recommendation. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES December 20, 1988 Welton: THE CARRIAGE HOUSE Welton: Jay had a problem with the south elevation of the carriage house. The applicant realizes that the carriage house's importance is as an outbuilding and its character should remain that of an outbuilding. Consequently the elements that contribute to its character (dormer, double hung windows, carriage and a loft doors) will be modified or reproduced to allow more light inside. The north (loft) gable will be reproduced on the south side and will be flanked by smaller dormers identical to the existing dormer. We have tried to take the elements that presently exist on the carriage house and expand them. Take what was already there and reproduce it to allow more light in. Adaptive reuse is one of the goals that historic preservation is based on. I tried to be as restrained as I possibly could. Georgeann: glass. Also keep in mind Ruth's concern about the amount of Donnelley: The carriage house is becoming more "residential" with the added windows. I would like to look into placing the bath on the south side which would eliminate the need for the two dormers. The dormer on the east portion of the south facade only gives light to the stairwell which is not critical in my opinion. I would feel more comfortable if it were resolved with one central dormer as opposed to a central dormer flanked by two minor dormers. Allowing the larger central dormer on the south elevation. Georgeann: I found that the north dormer was very interesting and possibly could be put on the south elevation. Three dormers on the south side are too overwhelming. Bringing the detailing of the north side dormer to the south side would allow two windows which could be a little bit wider that would allow for more light into the space without changing the character totally. Roxanne: The function of the north dormer was to provide hay that is why it is bigger than the south. Welton: The one central dormer on the south side is acceptable and we would eliminate the two side dormers. Bill: I agree with Donnelley's approach that the large dormer in the center would allow the building to retain it's carriage house character but philosophically you are still making a change and you are no longer a "purist preservationist". Roxanne: Jay Yanz may approve the one central dormer. 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES December 20, 1988 Joe: I have a problem with changing anything on the south elevation. Chris: I have a tendency to like the two smaller dormers which would give you the chance to leave the bedroom where it is at and do something more on the north side as far as windows and ventilation. Georgeann: I don't mind adding the one window on the first floor of the south elevation which would allow light into the office and not affect the bldg. architecturally at all. On the upper floor possibly three windows could be added as opposed to two. On the north elevation skylights will open the space up. When you put glass in the barn door only put it in the top section so people wouldn't look directly into the house behind. I have a problem with the railing as it is modern. On the south elevation I would be inclined to leave it as it is and if that isn't possible I would be in favor of one large dormer. Bill: If we were true preservations the building should be kept the same and the use should be made to fit the building. It appears that the State allows changes to the north side. We might be able to enlarge the central dormer if approved by the State architect. Alan Shada, owner: The view to the south is preferable to me to be able to see the mountain and get the warming effect of the sun exposure. I would be happy to eliminate the two upper dormers and keep a larger dormer. I am trying to make the neighbors happy. MOTION: Bill made the motion to approve the conceptual development approval for the carriage house at 320 W. Main St. with specific regards to the south elevation. On the south elevation that we deny the addition of the two small dormers and that we approve conditionally the enlargement of the central dormer, that condition being approved by the State Architect, Jay Yanz. Approval of the addition of the window to the west on the south elevation on the first floor which would also be contingent on approval of the State Architect. I also move that the west and east elevations be approved as drawn and submitted today. That the north elevation be resubmitted in regards to the amount of glass to the north and views to the neighbors across the alley and the railing needs restudy. Georgeann second. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES December 20, 1988 COMMEN~$ ON MO~ION: Joe: I still feel we should preserve the south elevation. I have no objection to the north elevation if that is a compromise to preserving the south facade. I have no problem with the two double hung windows and I do have a problem with the railing. I agree with Georgeann's comment regarding the barn door that the top three panes should be glass. Roxanne: The applicants application and when you say direction. next step is going to be his final restudy you have to give him enough Georgeann: Direction for the north elevation: I don't think we want a victorian railing necessarily and I am not sure that a railing is the proper solution. I would be inclined to see more skylights on the north side rather than more dormers. The double hung windows on the north elevation are acceptable or possibly they should be small similar to the five on the east elevation. Bill: Welton and Alan have done a wonderful job and the Board appreciates them working with us on this important project. VO~E ON MOTION: Ail favored the motion except Joe. Motion carries. Joe voted against the motion as he felt the south facade should be preserved as is. Roxanne: The members recommendations and we need issues. are in consensus with Staff's a motion approving or denying those MOTION: Georgeann made the motion for the Smith-Elisha house regarding the site that we allow the applicant to come back before us with some possible subtle changes in the terrace grading. That we do not allow him to change the rubble stone wall from what is existing there now except that he is allowed to repair it. That we do not allow him to put in additional walkways from the sidewalk that leads to the carriage house specifically. That we do not allow him to cut into the stone wall at the sidewalk. We do allow him to put new plantings to replace the small diameter trees and shrubbery. We do allow him to remove the brick barbecue. Joe second. Chris: On #3 you said that we do not allow walkways and I thought we OK'd that. 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES December 20, 1988 Georgeann: I was trying to say the walkway that is cut back. AMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the walkway leading from the main building to the carriage second. All approved. Motion carries. to be installed house. Chris VO~E ON ACTUAL MO?ION: Ail favored motion except carries. Donnelley who stepped down. Motion NO~ION: Bill made motion to table items C,D,E until Jan. 10th, 1989. Georgeann second. All approved. Motion carries. RIO GRANDE INFORMATION Tom Baker: If anyone on the Board has strong feels about the presentation they should come to the public hearing Dec. 27th. The plan consists of the library, parking, youth center and potential performing arts center. The access road will be an extension of Spring St. At conceptual comments were made to bring the extension of Spring St. to the north but Council did not really like that idea. The entire facility will be about 20,000 sq. ft. The concept for the parking facility was to create a transportation center and step it back into the hillside. We are working on land exchange agreements. The issue of concern to HPC would be what the library looks like. Caudill Gustafson did the design. This presentation is informational so you are aware of it. You can make comments to Roxanne. Bill: I find the bldg. to be incompatible with the historic structures of this town and this building will be the third most important building. The court house is very vertical and this building is very horizontal in nature. Charles: The two buildings do not relate. Bill: This Board tends to get into the aesthetics of buildings and it is up to us to offer comments. Tom Baker: Your comments could help P&Z. Georgeann: This should be a extension of the commercial core. Tom Baker: The facility is being designed another building on top if that is what we future. to carry a load of choose to do in the 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES December 20, 1988 605 W. MAIN STREET-INFORMATIVE SESSION Mac Cunningham presented a massing model. Mac Cunningham: In reviewing the notes from the conceptual a big issue was a massing model in reference to the house next door. The Shaw building is 5 ft. higher than the top of this building due to the elevation of grade on the street. The height steps down through the block. The Commission discussed concern and fence on property line. Bill building and side need some work. of the roof line, band density Poss felt that the back of the MO~ION: Bill made the Jan 3, 1989 at 2:30 p.m. Ail approved. motion to schedule a special meeting for to review 605 W. Main. Charles second. Meeting adjourned 4:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 12