Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20051214ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14~ 2005 522 W. FRANCIS ST. - DE-LISTING FROM THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISDTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES, PUBLIC HEARING ............ 1 520 E. DURANT ST. - CONCEPTUAL, PUBLIC HEARING ........................................ 2 307 S. MILL STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING ................... 6 311 S. FIRST - PROJECT MONITORING ....................................................................... 8 100 W. BLEEKER ST.- 4334 E. COOPER AVE. worksession - no minutes .............. 10 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jason Lasser, Michael Hoffman, Sarah Broughton and Alison Agley. Derek Skalko was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Alison moved to approve the minutes of Oct. 12th and Nov. 9th,' second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Sarah will recuse herself on 434 E. Cooper Jeffrey will recuse himself on 520 E. Durant and 307 S. Mill 332 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL, DEMOLITION, VARIANCES MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 332 W. Main Street until January 11, 2006; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 522 W. FRANCIS ST. - DE-LISTING FROM THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISDTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES, PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Amy said the subject property was added to the inventory in 1980. It was a very typical miner's cottage and had a few alterations to it. About ten years after that it had a significant addition constructed. Up until 1995 HPC had very distinct purview over structures that were land marked but there were a group of resources that were called inventoried but not land marked. HPC could only review those buildings if someone were tearing down 50% or more of it. There is no land use file that approved the addition. The new property owner has asked that the property be de-listed. The criteria was applied. The property has to be at least 100 years old and it also has to have enough integrity to be maintained as an historic landmark. The property scored 20 points out of 100 and it needs 50 points to be land marked. The house has basically been cut in half. What you see from the street are the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14~ 2005 two cross gables but the entire back half of the building is gone. There is not too much documentation on what this house looked like. It is staff's recommendation that the house be de-listed. Preston Fox said Michelle Lawson bought the house last February and in her do diligence it was discovered that hit was historic. Lisa Purdy's report relayed that the integrity of the house has been destroyed. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Michael said we have no evidence in front of us to come to any conclusions. Sarah said it is always difficult to take properties off our inventory. Jason also agreed that there is not enough evidence to retain the house on our inventory. Alison said she worries about the future that we will loose the little piece that is still remaining. From the street you can read the remaining pieces. Jeffrey said it is unfortunate and he also scored the house very low. A lot of the elements are lost and the porch has been altered. There is very little of the historic record left for us to justify keeping it on the inventory. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #46for 522 W. Francis Street to de-listing the property from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; second by Michael. Motion carried 4-1. Roll call vote; Jason, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes; Alison, no. 520 E. DURANT ST. - CONCEPTUAL, PUBLIC HEARING Jeffrey recused himself. Michael chaired. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I 6 photos - Exhibit II Amy relayed that this is a non-historic building, The Ajax Mtn. building that is on the edge of the historic district. The block where this is situated has no historic resources along its face or across Durant Ave. The nearest historic ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14~ 2005 resource is on the back side. There are some basic regulations that would matter to the board to make sum there is an appropriate transition into the core of the downtown. The proposal is to add a third story on a portion of the building. The building is sunken part way into the ground and as it stands right now is well under the height limit even with the addition and it is also under the FAR. The Cooper Street view plane will be dealt with at final. Regarding the design guidelines none were challenged by this design. It is a flat roof addition set back very far from the street and is in keeping with the design of the rest of the building. Staff supports conceptual as proposed. Rod Dyer and Suzanne Williams represented Jeffrey Halferty and the owner Stephen Marcus. The proposal is for a one-story addition to an existing two- story building which is sunken into the ground a ½ story. The addition consists of a single family residence and an affordable housing unit. Suzanne said the proposed square footage on the two units is about 6,100 square feet. Existing square footage is 22,000 and we have an allowable square footage of 54,000 square feet. We are only about a 5th of what we can take. The building is about 55 feet back so it is not imposing. As far as the height allowance goes we did our own study and we are presently right on the Cooper Street view plane. The affordable housing unit is not visible from the street at all. It is stepped back for the view plane. Them is a portion of the residential unit that you would see from the side, Hunter St. Suzanne said there is an open corridor into the free market unit and the first bedroom, living room and master bedroom height of the ceiling is above the parapet. Sarah said it looks like it is 18 feet above the current roof level. Michael asked what the height was. Rod said from the alley it is 31 feet. Amy said the third story is 42 feet and the fourth story is 46 feet. Suzanne said the ADU is a little over 1,100 square feet. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14~ 2005 Sarah inquired about the condensers and roof penetrations. Rod said we will have to deal with them at some point. They will have to be moved or hidden somehow and there is space to do that. Jason asked why it was 15 feet tall and why there was a 13.6 space on the inside and could the volume be lowered. Rod said it was the owner's desire to have a more dramatic feeling and also for view of the mountain. Jason said it shows a shingle parapet and you could possibly loose three feet. Why have shingles been chosen? Suzanne said the materials have not been selected. Jason felt that the cap could be lowered to the height of the existing building. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Barbara Amenis, owner of the Big Wrap. Some of the owners in the building would like to know where the construction will be staged and whether the alley will stay open for deliveries. Rod said they would probably stage construction from the roof. It will be a complicated staging. Barbara asked if the patio area would be impacted? Rod said if it was it would be temporary. The City has regulations when construction can occur. Amy said she received a comment from a neighbor in the Aspen Square building across the street concerned that the mechanical equipment should be hidden and not sit on top of the unit. Another letter came from the general manager of the North of Nell building supporting the project. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Michael relayed that there are no historic structures around so our guidelines are looser. Amy said mechanical equipment is allowed to be on the roof but at final we can require a detailed drawing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14~ 2005 Jason said he is bothered by the 15 foot height. It is a generous interior volume and does not need to be that tall but if it is within the height limitations and not interrupting the view plane it is compliant. Amy pointed out that guideline 13.9 talks about floor to floor heights should be appear to be similar to those seen historically. Alison agreed with Jason regarding the ceiling height. One needs to think about it from a comfort level from inside this space. Sometimes a higher ceiling inside is not as desirable as you might think. To tie it in with the parapet and hide the mechanical as best as you can makes a lot of sense. Sarah concurred. This addition can be very complimentary to this building and tie in well and there is a great opportunity to clean up the roof in the process. Michael said he is also concerned about the drawings being inconsistent. Suzanne said the elevations are to show scale and mass and that it is in proportion with the building rather than actually building materials since this is conceptual. The digital renderings were done by an artist out of state and there are some discrepancies. Amy said what is shown in the architectural elevations is accurate other than you are not committed with those materials. The board needs to focus on those elevations. Michael said the addition is stepped back to the extent that it is not an issue. They have also stepped down the addition. Most of the guidelines have been met. Rod said the materials will probably match the existing building to the greatest extent. They might be able to lower the tall roof a little bit without damaging the integrity of the design or the owner's desires. Regarding the mechanical equipment there is space where it can be put and hidden somewhat. Sarah said the board collectively is concerned about the height. Michael said it is high and there is no reason to take it to the height in that zone 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14~ 2005 district if it doesn't really add anything to the structure; however it is stepped back so far that it doesn't make any difference in this case. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 520 E. Durant for further restudy of the roof height as it relates to the overall building, guideline 13.9; second by Jason. Discussion: Inconsistent drawings such as the perspective drawings submitted. No drawings of the view plane. Staff pointed out that they were not expected to submit a view plane drawing tonight. Jason said he would like to see a building section from across the street. Sarah withdrew her motion based on the fact that we might see this again with a view plane and the fact that it will come back to us for final. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution ~47 with a restudy of the height of the addition as it relates to the existing building. In the guidelines it talks about the mechanical mask so that it is not visible to the public space surrounding the buiMing; second by Jason. Motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote; Jason, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Alison, yes. 307 S. MILL STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Jeffrey Halferty recused himself Michael Hoffman chaired Amy said the proposal is for an airlock and HPC has had debates off and on about temporary airlocks and whether they are something that we want to see downtown. Some plastic airlocks stay on the property for over a halfa year. The current guidelines do not particularly speak to airlocks. The revised set has added more language but they are not applicable right now. The current set discussed HPC's goals for the character of store fronts and the first floor level of buildings down town and an airlock like the one being proposed is in conflict with those guidelines. In addition the city has adopted commercial design standards in which HPC only had to apply a couple of times. Those standard specifically state that buildings should have internal airlocks and that temporary seasonal airlocks should not be ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14~ 2005 necessary. This is not new construction and they are trying to adapt an existing building and space is at a premium. We are having continuing applications for additional airlocks and some were installed years ago with out any review. The Community Development Dept. needs to develop guidelines which will be brought forward in the future. At this time staff does support this particular application. In this particular case the entry does set well back from the street and the airlock is minimal and there are no historic buildings adjacent to it. Suzanne Williams said the entryway is recessed a good distance from the mall area. The width has been cut down to minimize the look. It will be a canvas airlock similar to the one at the Wild Fig. Craig Cordts-Pearce said the space is very difficult to maximize and we really need the outside patio space in the summer. There is a design on the building side to provide heat for the airlock. Vic-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Sarah said she is in support of the application and the aiflock situation will be discussed in a more global scale. In this application it is tucked back. Alison agreed, and it is temporary and sets back off the faqade. Until there is a better way to deal with this she can support the proposal. The situation in general will be difficult to resolve because most restaurants are in existing buildings. Jason said the airlock seems to work but aesthetically it is not the best. Michael agreed and also stated that we will need to get public input regarding airlock regulations. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #48for the airlock at 307 S. Mill Street as proposed in the drawings; second by dason. Motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote; Jason, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Alison, yes. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14~ 2005 Jason said they would like to see better drawings in the future if we are going to do case by case and have judgment for each project. Michael agreed. 311 S. FIRST - PROJECT MONITORING Jeffrey Halferty was seated. Amy pointed out that this project has gone beyond on the project monitoring stage and is back before the board. The project is under construction and there is a brick Victorian house which is quite unusual in town that was attached to a very large 1970's addition and the connection was demolished between the two parts and now the little brick cottage is free standing and has a lot more integrity. The owners are doing a face lift on the 1970's portion. The monitors were asked to review the idea of replacing the windows in the historic building. A site visit was done and it was decided that it needed referred back to the board. Amy said there are several ways to go about this. Some windows could be replaced that are not visible from the public right-of-way. Another site visit could occur. Martin Mata said this meeting will be a good exercise in making sure our terminology is correct. When you say window, what does that mean. Windows are made up of components being the sash, stops, ceil etc. We are asking not to replace the entire window assembly, but to replace the part that goes up and down, the part that holds the glass which is the sash. In all of the cases there are degrees of rotting and bowing and the windows are not working. Regarding the other components we are asking to look at the windows and see what is really going on. We would replace the wood with the same profile. We would repair what we could. Sarah asked if they intended to keep the existing glass. Martin said no. The glass and the frame, the sash that holds the glass would be replaced. Martin said a letter indicates that there is no historic glass on the windows. They have all been replaced at some time or another. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14~ 2005 Jason asked if the jam liner would be vinyl. Martin said yes. The product is similar to what has been put into City Hall's second floor windows. Amy said they are asking about the sash and the trim would be in place. The board needs to be comfortable with the analysis that 50% or more of the window can or cannot be restored. Some of the photographs show a lot of paint and that can be stripped and repaired. Martin said when we looked at the windows individually we felt that in general 50% or more of the little pieces needed to be replaced. The material difference after the restoration is that the jam liners would be visible. Amy asked instead of the window sliding in a track that the jam liner creates could they not be operating more like the traditional ones where they have the pin raised and lowered and inserted into the existing jam? Martin said that would escalate it to a different type of project where it would be more custom work and more individual details and more labor. Jeffrey said typically when we look at a partial replacement we want to keep as much of the historic record as we can include the components. Jason said there are 9 double hung windows and using a vinyl liner compromises the look of the windows. They make windows that are all wood with counter balances in them. Jason said he realizes that is an added expense. Martin said if we go with the wood counter balances you are talking about a window replacement project and we are trying to keep it as a window restoration project. This building is not the Wheeler Opera House; we are proposing to do what we can do in the most appropriate way to keep what is there. Sarah said Jeffrey worked on a project that had historic windows that needed replaced and they used a bonding system and they retained as much as possible of the historic window and they function well. Jeffrey said they cast a mold and fasten the wood to the bondo. That person is from Gunnison. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14~ 2005 Sarah said it would be terrible to not have a workable solution with the windows. We are hesitant to see the vinyl. Amy said maybe an entire new wood window is the way to go. Maybe HPC should suggest that someone who works on historic windows be contacted and give the board a report on the condition of the windows. The HPC board should also do a site visit. Michael said this is a very technical issue. Martin said he would like to know if the entire window assembly could be replaced. Michael said he is not ready to make that decision. Amy said we need a level of information before the board can make that determination. Amy said she would check into the FAR and see if it could be sold for TDR's to provide money for the restoration. Jeffrey said the windows need preserved as best they can. If the report comes back that the windows need replaced then the board would consider replacing them with wood windows to match the existing. The monitors can determine the replacement window if that is the path chosen but the board will need to go over the findings of the window preservationist. Worksessions 100 W. BLEEKER ST.- 4334 E. COOPER AVE. - no minutes MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjoumed at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10