Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20000223ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, FEBRUARY 23, 2000 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Members in attendance were Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Gilbert Sanchez, Lisa Markalunas, Jeffrey Halferty, Christie Kienast. Heidi was excused. Staff in attendance were Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie and Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minutes of January 26, 2000; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. 7TM & MAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING - FINAL REVIEW - PH MOTION: Mary moved to open the public hearing and final review of 7th and Main and continue it to March 8, 2000; second by defJhey. All in favor, motion carried. 920 W. HALLAM - FINAL REVIEW - PH MOTION: defJhey moved to open and continue the public hearing on 920 W. Hallam until March 8, 2000; second by Lisa. All in favor, motion carried. HISTORIC PRESAERVATON DESIGN GUIDELINES - PH MOTION: Susan moved to open and continue the public hearing on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines until March 1, 2000; second by Christie. All in favor, motion carried. STREAMLINING THE PUBLIC PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS Joyce Ohlson presented the overview of the process to the HPC members. 330 LAKE AVENUE - FRONT PORCH David Warner presented and relayed that the intent is to put the front porch on and restore the door. Research is not complete regarding the porch on the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ FEBRUARY 23~ 2000 south side as to whether it was the original porch or not and then moved around. The inclination is to leave the south porch on and then replicate for the west side. Once the decision is made to put the front door in and get circulation to that door we cut through the way the house is used and the uses change and we loose space. Those ~nctions will then go down into the basement area. The basement will require egress light wells, which will kick into more FAR of about 250 square feet. The roof over the existing east wing of the house will be retained. The location of the light wells will be on the south side, which is the hidden courtyard. The light well will be placed under the covering of the porch. Staff discussed this and possibly the light well should be on the side outside of the roof area. The second lightwell might fit on the west elevation, which will be a fire egress. Amy informed the board that the light well cannot be in front of the facade of the historic house with the bay window but it can be tucked anywhere else without a variance. Comments Susan felt that the porch was moved to the side. She also asked about whether the west wall of the 50's addition on the east wing of the Hume addition or just the roof would be remoced. David relayed that they actually kept a lot of the perimeter wall, whether they have to rebuild it or not they don't know until they get into the structuring of it. The shape and volume will be kept. Lisa asked if the request for approval would be to retain what is there or that you maintain the shape with new materials? David said it could be either. Amy informed the applicant that temporary relocation of the white house would have to be presented at final. Suzannah relayed that the issue tonight is the front porch and if the board desires they can comment on the additional FAR. She indicated that a drawing needs submitted showing the light wells specifically. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ FEBRUARY 23~ 2000 Christie relayed that the shape of the 50's addition is commendable. The revisions on the east elevation are acceptable. Lisa relayed that she is in favor of the restoration of the from porch. She felt it not necessary to rip up the south porch which has been there for some substantial period of time. The east wing should be retained in its original materials. Susan also agreed that replicating the front porch was appropriate. Light wells are OK as long as they are not on the west side of the historic house. They should also be away from the porch. Susan is not in favor of the additional FAR. Mary agreed with the other members regarding the replication of the porch. If the footprint remains the same she would support the additional FAR. Gilbert was also in favor of the replication of the porch. The door is also appropriate. If the window wells are set back far enough that they do not have any impact Gilbert could support them. The light well should be outside of the porch rather than under it on the south side. The bonus can be supported. The new architecture presented is compatible. Jeffrey agreed with the other commissioners regarding the porch. A plan in elevation for the light wells needs submitted. The new east elevation architecture is compatible. Jeffrey can support the bonus. Suzannah dittoed Gilbert's comments. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the concept of putting the porch back on the front including the front door indicated on the drawings exhibit I submitted today for 330 Lake Avenue; motion second by Mary. carried 6-1. Yes vote: Jefj'hey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa. No vote: Christie David said the bathroom moves to another part of the house. They would like to have a window that comes out of the east wall of the west wing and they would be going through the historic wall but the window is not historic. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ FEBRUARY 23~ 2000 Staff explained that it would be on the historic house facing the courtyard. No comments from the board. 312 SOUTH GALENA- MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PH John Davis and Tom Schutz were sworn in. Amy informed the board that the Engineering Dept. is willing to grant an encroachment license to let the steps come slightly into the sidewalk so that they can bring the door into the building more forward. Staff has two concerns and one is that the two columns flanking the doorway are within the window frames above and the drawing now shows them slightly wider apart. Looking at the original photograph of the building the threshold is below the top of the kick plate not at the top of the kick plate and that needs to be discussed in order to get the transom above the entry doors and all the features that were original. On the issue of stripping the brick more investigation needs done to make sure the brick is not damaged. Applicant: Tom Schutz said the columns have been re-clad and are fatter than they were. The structure is still inside the casement. Historically the front 2/3 is newer than the back 1/3. The back is masonry bearing and the front half has steel bearing columns. It is the intent to replace and replicate the existing columns. Regarding the kick plate they are trying to establish reference points and even counting the blocks on the sides the biggest difference is the height of the sidewalk. During reconstruction we will know what really happened. Staff relayed that stripping the paint off the brick needs to be tested and approved by staff and monitor. John Davis said he restored a building in Detroit and sandblasting was prohibited. He did a chemical deal that was water based and nontoxic. He will research the product. It is important that the door height be the same height as the floor inside. Amy suggested a step up after you get through the doors. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ FEBRUARY 23~ 2000 Tom relayed having it level is a better solution. The north side which is the alley side is going to be restored. The roof top equipment will be presented at a later date. John Davis said the broiler in the basement has already been replaced. The chair opened and closed the public hearing. The board preferred that the panes be replaced and retain the mullions. All historic glass should be retained. Jeffrey suggested retaining the proportions of the west windows or at least brings them back to what was historic. The columns need to be looked at after the casement is removed. Gilbert said the placement of the elevator being pushed back so that the elevator doors are not facing the street is a good solution. Gilbert dittoed Amy and Jeffrey regarding the columns. Gilbert supports the threshold configuration. The transom should be replicated and the doors shortened to accommodate that. 8.6" doors are quite tall. The storefront mullions should replicate the historic configuration. Mary supports Amy's memo regarding the threshold. She also feels that the storefront mullions should replicate the historic configuration. Susan also said the storefront windows should replicate the Jewett Grocery windows. Pushing the elevator back is commendable. She is uncertain about the step up recommended by Staff. reopening the windows is appropriate. Lisa agreed with Gilbert regarding the threshold and transoms. The columns should carefully be explored. Christie also agreed with the six panes of glass and that the columns should be explored. She also felt that an awning would be appropriate. Suzannah said she would like to see a restudy of the doors and transom. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ FEBRUARY 23~ 2000 Applicant Tom said he felt that all of the issues could be addressed. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve 312 S. Galena with the following conditions: 1. The location, conditions and possible restoration of the columns be confirmed and review after demolition discovery with staff and monitor. 2. The proposed new window on the south elevation to be reviewed by staff and monitor. 3. That the storefront mullions replicate the historic configuration and that staff and monitor will review the details'. 4. Confirm the existence of the condition of the historic glass during demolition and discovery and review with staff and monitor. 5. The replication of the transom configuration above the entry door shall match the historic storefront per staff's memo. 6. The process for brick restoration shall be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 7. A speck for the replacement windows on the north elevation nee& submitted. 8. More information about the elevator tower nee& submitted and anything else on the rooftop. Motion second by Christie. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: deffhey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa, Christie 213 W. BLEEKER- LANDMARK DESIGNATION- CONCEPTUAL Amy informed the board that her only concern is the demolition of the kitchen area, which shows up on the 1904 map. Staff is recommending retaining that addition. Jack Palomino was sworn in. Jack relayed that they are committed to saving the facade on Bleeker Street. By keeping the kitchen it compromises the project. Demolition of the kitchen area would allow for a larger back yard and would bring in more sunlight in the original building and proposed basement. Jack feels the lean-to that is the 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ FEBRUARY 23~ 2000 kitchen was an addition of some sort. He feels if the addition is demolished it will not effect the way the building presently looks from the alley or Bleeker Street. It is not visible. Questions: Amy stated that the building was built in the late 1880's. Jack said the site is narrow and they are not asking for increases to the FAR. Christie relayed that the addition looks like a piggy-back on a small house. Susan relayed that the addition is too high. The chair opened the public hearing. Amy said Ted and Suzanne Guy had a concern about waiving a parking space. They are concerned that people will be parking in the alley. The chair closed the public hearing. Comments: Christie relayed that the kitchen addition should not be demolished. Lisa relayed that she is concerned about the height. The master suite seems to be twice the height. The kitchen addition should not be demolished and as much of the historic property should be retained. Susan agreed that the kitchen should not be demolished. She is also concerned about the height of the addition in the back. The western shed wall should be exposed as much as possible. Mary also agreed that the kitchen should not be demolished. She also feels it is too much house for a 3,000 square foot lot. The parking space is a concern in the west end. Gilbert felt that the kitchen addition was not part of the original design. It is possible that it was built during the same time period and has historic quality. He supports the removal of the kitchen element. Jeffrey relayed that he is in the Gilbert "camp"as well regarding the kitchen. Restoration of the porch is commendable. Exposing more of the shed on the south elevation is recommended. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ FEBRUARY 23~ 2000 Suzannah relayed that the kitchen addition is a contributing element to the house. She also had concerns about the height in the back. The restoration of the front of the house is commendable. There is also a concern with the window openings. MOTION: Christie moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 213 W. Bleeker until March 22, 2000; second by defJhey. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: defJhey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa, Christie MOTION: defJhey moved to adjourn, second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ FEBRUARY 23~ 2000 7TM & MAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING - FINAL REVIEW - PH .................................................... 1 920 W. HALLAM - FINAL REVIEW - PH .......................................................................................... 1 HISTORIC PRESAERVATON DESIGN GUIDELINES - PH ............................................................ 1 STREAMLINING THE PUBLIC PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS .................................................... 1 330 LAKE AVENUE - FRONT PORCH .............................................................................................. 1 312 SOUTH GALENA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PH .................................................................. 4 213 W. BLEEKER - LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL ............................................ 6 9