Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060726 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2006 435 W. MAIN, ASPEN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL ............................................................................................ I 100 E. BLEEKER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL - V ARlANCES - PUBLIC HEARING........................................................................................................................... 1 135 W. HOPKINS AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) DEMOLITION, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING ....................................................... 6 WORK SESSION - HEARTHSTONE HOUSE - NO MINUTES ................................... 6 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.rn. Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Alison Agley, Derek Skalko, Jason Lasser and Michael Hoffman. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 403 S. Galena - Manrico - Certificate of no negative effect issued for two doors and relocated windows. The space is being broken up into three retail spaces. 435 W. MAIN, ASPEN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER- EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #19, 2006 for 435 W Main, Aspen Jewish Community Center for a 6 month extension of conceptual approval; second by Derek. All infavor, motion carried. 100 E. BLEEKER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - FINAL _ VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit - Exhibit I New Plans - Exhibit II Mitch Haas & Rally Dupps Amy said the subject project is a miner's cottage on a comer next to the Yellow Brick School. It currently has a non-historic addition and non- historic garage on the site that will be demolished and replaced. Final review is materials, landscaping etc. In terms of the addition because this building is on the comer the building is fully exposed. The connector as it attaches to the back of the house immediately brings in a material palate that is very different; aluminum commercial window system. We suggested that perhaps it should be wood or something that is in more keeping with the house. In the floor plans the connector becomes a primary entrance to the building. They have not abandoned the front entry but it seems like there is less emphasis on the front door. In the historic house the kitchen layout has a counter running through the bay window which is visible. Possibly there is another way to handle the kitchen layout. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2006 Going back to the addition the glazing on the windows is much larger than exists on the historic building and it is oriented differently. There are large windows that are meeting at the comer of the walls and are horizontally oriented and out of scale. If this building was on an interior lot we wouldn't be so concerned but staff feels there is too much change from the historic house. Copper was brought up as a material for the master bedroom bay but it doesn't have the same texture as the clap board and shingles that are on the historic house. There is also a direct flue that should be discussed. Maybe it could go around the comer. Historic house - There is concern about the standing seam metal roof. Maybe there is another solution such as creating a membrane roof or wood shingles. The standing seam metal roof changes the character ofthe historic building. There is a non-historic bay window to be removed and replaced by a pair of double hung windows. Any new windows should be formed by framing evidence if that is found when they are under construction. There is a large new fire place flue coming through the ridge of the historic house and that may need a different location as it is almost as large as the historic chimney. The right-of-way has strange tree plantings and that is something that should be discussed with the Parks Dept. Staff supports the setback variances that relate to light wells. Mitch said they went through all the conditions and it was all good feedback. We made most of the changes ifnot all of them. 1. The window material has been changed to wood. 2.The steps in front of the connector have been shrunken north south. 3. The bay window in front of the historic house, the kitchen counter has been pulled back so that the bay window serves as a shelf. 4.With regard to the addition a dormer has been added over the window facing west to break up the roof. 5. The vent flue has been moved out of the wall and onto the roof of the gable end and will stay below the ridge height of the building as well. 6.Rally said they got rid of the copper in the bay window and it is now wood. 7.0n the back elevation the garage doors have been made to look like two separate doors instead of one long one. 8.We are using wood shingle wood everywhere including the front porch. 9.The two "gang" windows, two above two on the back of the west elevation of the historic house are now double hung. We will investigate what is 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2006 underneath and take direction from that if any for the window placement and openIng sIze. Jeffrey inquired about the variances requested. Mitch said the light wells on the east side come right up to the property line. The variances are for a side yard and a combined yard. Rally said they are picking up a lot of the detailing of the Victorian with the gables. Clarifications: Derek inquired about the siding around the windows which is proposed to be zinc. Rally said if that is something that needs changed we can run the siding down through it instead of having zinc comers. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing section of the meeting was closed. Commissioner comments: Sarah addressed the fenestration and suggested on the east elevation that there be some more horizontality added because it is so vertical. Regarding the historic resource we want to go with the framing evidence on site once the building is opened up. With regards to the zinc wrapping on the comers she could accept that vocabulary on the new portion of the house. She is also concerned that the stairs come up and abut the historic resource. In reference to the venting she is opposed to it coming out of the roof. Moving the vent to the other side of the ridge is more appropriate. Sarah pointed out that it is HPC's stand that new penetrations should not come out of historic resources. Jason said Sarah's comment about the stair touching the historic resource is a good one and they should be detached. Changing the porch on the historic resource from metal to wood is good. The concern of the board is to not cover up the bay window. The kitchen plan is not final. Jason also recommends approval of the variances for the light wells. The connector piece might be more successful if transom glass was used and it needs to be separated further from the historic resource. The reduction of the size of glass on the pop out works well. The new window in the historic resource will be determined after the framing is opened up. Changing the metal windows to wood is good. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2006 Alison thanked the applicant for addressing so many of the issues. She agreed with making the secondary entry as secondary as possible. The stairs need to be away from the historic resource and the primary porch should be off the front. As a suggestion for the kitchen, pull the sink to the side where the refrigerator and pantry are and make the area in front of the bay window a desk area. She has no problem with the zinc accents because they are interesting. The vent on the historic resource moving to the other side makes it barely visible from the street. The variances to the side yards are acceptable. Michael discussed procedure. The applicant brought new drawings to the hearing and he finds it hard to assimilate all the changes. If the commission is willing to operate that way he will accept it but it is difficult to address 13 new recommendations. Amy said she was under the assumption that if an applicant wanted to bring in new drawings at their own risk they could. Some drawings might be very clear and others not. Michael said one of the things that bothers him is that it gives the impression that our process is so onerous that the applicant should get in as soon as possible because it cold be two or three months to get back in. Mitch said the client is in a big rush and we had a list that needed addressed and we addressed them within the parameters that were acceptable on our end and our client. We were under the impression that the agenda was very light and perhaps the HPC could take some time to review the changes with us. Jeffrey said from a consistency standpoint Michael has a good point. We need to give our staff the ability to evaluate new plans. The design of this building and the improvements made are conforming to our guidelines. The material palate changes are also consistent with our guidelines. On the eastern and western elevations of the addition the fenestration should have some consistency whether it has a header line or awning below it. It needs to tie to the historic house. The new roofing change is appropriate. Staff and monitor will reveal the window openings. Overall the improvements are in line with our guidelines. The landscape can be worked out with staff and monitor. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2006 Sarah said she feels the board should receive applications that are well thought out and are thorough and not just hurry up, get it in to receive comment so they can react to it and get approval. Applicant comments: Rally said two things came up, the garage and the kitchen. The windows on the east side ofthe garage can be duplicated for the west. The east would match the west. Regarding the kitchen we do not really know what is going on but when someone walks by it the kitchen should be lively and know that someone is living in the house. Jeffrey pointed out that HPC does not get involved with interior design but the bay windows were designed for a piece of furniture for a seating area and a program of a 36 inch tall cabinet no matter how far it sets back will be visible. Mitch said they would re-work the interior of the kitchen. Alison suggested a free standing piece. With regard to the vent once the fireplace box is put in, staff and monitor can decide which way the vent will work. MOTION: Alison moved to approve Resolution #20, 2006 for 100 E. Bleeker with the following conditions to be approved by staff and monitor; 1. Reduction in the size of the stairs leading outside from the connector. 2. Mirroring the garage windows from the west side to the east side. 3. Revise kitchen layout and preserve the unobstructed bay window. 4. Staff and monitor to approve the locations of the fire place vents, the master bedroom and inside the historic resource. Motion second by Derek. Sarah said she has a problem with the powder room window which is completely foreign. Amended motion: Derek amended the motion to empower the architect to restudy the fenestration patterns specific to said area (east elevation) and to be approved by staff and monitor. The motion is based on the plans presented today - Exhibit II The standard language will be added to the resolution. Rally said the east elevation will not be visible. Mitch said in fairness the only way to see the window is by trespassing. You can't see it from the 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2006 alley. Rally also pointed out that since Michael has been on the board the process has been consistent and judgments have been consistent. It is so much more stream lined than when he was on the board. Michael said the issue we are dealing with is the function of the east elevation. Rally pointed out that you can't see the east elevation. Mitch said staff and monitor can help review the fenestration on the east side. Jeffrey said part of the preservation effort is to make sure the addition to the historic resource is well thought out. Alison accepted the amended motion made by Derek.. Roll call vote: Jason, no; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-1. 135 W. HOPKINS AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) DEMOLITION, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: Derek moved to continue concertual development and the public hearingfor 135 W Hopkins until August 9' ; second by Jason. All infavor, motion carried. WORK SESSION - HEARTHSTONE HOUSE - NO MINUTES MOTION: Derek moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6