Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20000322ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 22~ 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, Heidi Friedland, Christie Kienast, Melanie Roschko and Rally Dupps. Staff in attendance were Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie and Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the minutes of March 8, 2000; second by defJhey. All in favor, motion carried. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Lisa asked staff to inquire about regulations regarding graffiti on an historic building. The chair welcomed our two new members Melanie Roschko and Rally Dupps. 213 W. BLEEKER- LANDMARK, CONCEPTUAL- PH Jack Palomino and Ron Schelling were sworn in. Amy relayed that the project was continued because of concerns regarding one part of the house that was to be demolished and the height of the new addition. The applicant has revised the proposal and addressed the concerns of the board from the last meeting. The proposal is to pick up the house and put a basement under it and add an addition toward the back. Because the lot is 3,000 square feet they are fairly constrained and they do need a number of variances from the HPC. The only piece of the building to be demolished is a non-historic section. Staff recommends approval. The materials for the new addition should be addressed by the board as they are rustic materials that are characteristic of alley buildings and might not be appropriate. Materials should tie more closely to the historic building that they are connected to. The window style chosen on the new addition, which is four over one, is not characteristic with the original house. A landscape plan needs submitted. A detailed description also needs submitted indicating how they intend to store ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 22~ 2000 the house during excavation. They may have enough room to pull it to the back of the lot. Staff is opposed to moving the house off the lot. Jack informed the HPC that they are being responsive to the boards concerns. The historic kitchen/shed addition will be retained and converted to the new kitchen. Exploration of the existing openings has not occurred due to the dry wall etc. There is a request for new openings to the new kitchen layout and dining area. The proposed windows will not be visible from Bleeker Street or the alley. At the last meeting there was concern about the height of the master bedroom ridge and in the new proposal it has been lowered by 4 1/2 feet and also the north end of the ridge has been moved four feet further away from Bleeker Street. On the alley side the roof elements have been redesigned. More of the historic shed has been exposed. Also at the last meeting there was concern about the square footage of the proposed addition overpowering the existing building and in the new proposal there has been a reduction of 250 square feet. The allowable FAR is 2,400 square feet and the new design is at 2,004 square feet. Amy relayed her concern about the bay window on the front and the windows on the front porch. Staff is not opposed to the addition of windows on the back. Jack relayed that if a bay window existed in the kitchen it would be replicated as close as possible as to what might have existed. All of the original openings will be retained. The chair opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: The board was in favor of keeping the kitchen as it identifies the east elevation. The ridge height reduction of the master bedroom keeps the massing down. The historic resource is an integral part of the home. The differentiation between new and old is well emphasized. The perspective views were well drawn. The variances can be supported by the board. The 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 22~ 2000 board £elt that the applicant did a terrific project on the little lot. The material selection should not compete with the historic shed. The differentiation in the windows sets the house off. An elevation of the south wall identifying the kitchen should be presented at final. The windows on the west side, the number and the way they step up and down seems a little complex for that side of the house. The four over one windows on the west elevation are a concern. Possibly look at breaking up the siding with a band on the west elevation. MOTION: Mary moved to recommend Landmark Designation to City Council, and approve Conceptual review, Partial Demolition, Temporary Relocation, Fariances, and Residential Design Standards' review with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby grants' the following variances: a 2foot west sideyard setback variance for the new construction (the old house will maintain an existing non-conformity), a combined sideyard setback variance of 7feet for the garage and shed, a rear yard setback variance of l O feet for the shed, a rear yard setback variance of 7feet for the new addition, a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 15.3 feet for the existing shed, a combined front and rear yard setback variance of l 1.7 feet for the new addition, and waiver of one of the required parking spaces. 2. Any restoration efJbrts on the old house will have to be based on physical evidence to the extent possible. Framing should be examined to determine the size and location of the original bay window opening on the front gable end. Typically there is only one window under the porch, instead of a pair as shown, and this should be investigated. (These decisions will likely have to wait for the construction phase to be fully resolved.) 3. A cut sheet showing the profile of the windows that will be used in the restoration will be required for final, with the goal of choosing a window which reflects' a historic double hung wood window. 4. The new front door, porch posts', trim and other detailing for the historic house will have to be addressed at final and ~ " scale plans will be required. 5. Restudy of materials so that they do not overpower the miners cottage nor conflict with the shed. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 22, 2000 6. The window style on the new addition and whether 4 over 1 window panes are appropriate since they do not reflect the design of the historic building should be restudied. 7. A landscape plan will be required for final. The applicant must verify that the project does not require removal of any trees or excavation within the dripline of any trees without Parks Department approval. 8. The applicant must discuss how the house will be stored during excavation at final review. 9. The South elevation to be presented at final. The proposal is consistent with Exhibit 1; motion second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes Fore: ~lefJhey, Mary, Suzannah, Susan, Heidi, Lisa, Christie. 330 LAKE AVENUE - FINAL - PH Sworn in were David Warner and Aaron Hoffmans. Amy informed the board that the application also includes review of the temporary relocation. They intend to lift up the house and barn and replace the foundation on the old house. HPC needs to look at the landscape plan. The plan indicates removal of some trees and the City Forester is looking at the trees now and it is entirely his decision. If the Forester will not grant the tree permit the applicant will have to return with an amended design. Light well locations needs to be discussed and HPC needs to address the FAR bonus in addition to the one that was given before. The entry into the house is not going to be the main entrance and staff has a concern about the primary living space being abandoned. Staff recommends approval with conditions. They intend to leave the foundation of the barn in space and reinforce the foundation and HPC needs to know how the reinforcement will work. The foundation on the old house needs replaced and possibly the existing brick can be used as a veneer for the foundation. Applicant: 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 22~ 2000 David said the one story scheme and connecting the buildings can only occur on one wall and some of the trees need cut down in order for that to happen. David said he feels he can mitigate two trees and remove two and hopefully the Forester will approve the permit. The idea is to pick up of the barn and move it over to the corral lot and have it sit there until the foundation is built. They would intend to use the ruble foundation that is existing and it would have to be disassembled and reassembled. They would also recycle the brick foundation but the wall will have to be torn down and the concrete foundation put in and then the existing bricks on top of the concrete. The lightwell on the south side of the house makes a lot of sense and it is in a location that isn't very prominent as far as what is visible from the street or entering and exiting the house. They want a light well and want people to walk on and off the porch. The proposal would be to have a grate over the lightwell. The front entrance for the past 50 years was the north elevation. As far as the front entrance is concerned it will be the formal entrance but there is a secondary entrance which is the way most people live. You get out of your car and go into the house from another route than the formal front door. The existing north entry by the driveway, the door will be removed and the siding restored. The door will be replaced with a window. The windows in the barn are not the original. They would like the windows replaced with operable windows. Dave relayed that they will be returning to HPC with detailed solutions. On the FAR bonus most of it is being used in the basement area. Clarifications Heidi suggested two separate lightwells on either side. Dave said the concern is getting light downstairs and the light well could be shortened up. It is not an historic porch. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 22~ 2000 Suzannah said lightwells have a required size both for exiting and light into the same and ventilation. The one at the porch is probably larger than it needs to be. Dave said the grate will be spring loaded. Lisa suggested that the door on the north that is being removed be used in another area if possible. The chair opened and closed the public hearing. Board Comments Lisa relayed that the project is too much for the site and she is opposed to it and the FAR bonus should not be granted. The light well on the south porch is too large and the effect of the grating is too much on the house. The changes to the living space are a concern. Heidi is in favor of the project and supports the one story. She also has concerns with the light well on the porch. Susan said the addition is too big for the little house and agreed with Lisa. As you look at the historic house from the front there is an addition on each side and it overwhelms the historic structure. Restoring the front porch is commendable. Mary supports the project in general. She also informed the HPC members that the board should not have gotten involved with the city forester's decision on the everygreen at the Coltier house and should not get involved with the foresters decisions on this project. The lightwell in the front is inappropriate where it is. Part of the revised bonus square footage goes along with the light well. Possibly the size can be reduced and they will not need the full amount requested. Mary also felt no decisions should be made until the city forester gives his report on the trees. Jeffrey supported the one story since conceptual. The project sprawls but he is willing to grant approval. The model conveys the mass more effectively than the plans. Jeffrey also agreed with Mary regarding the spruce trees. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 22~ 2000 Suzannah relayed that the standard is to have a bond on each building. She reminded the board that approval was given to 213 W. Bleeker for a lightwell that is much larger than what is being proposed on 330 Lake. She asked the board to be more aware of lightwells etc. and what "exactly" is being approved on projects. One concern on the lightwells is whether or not railings would be required. She is also concerned about activity in the front rooms as that is what gives life to the street. The one story modest addition is commendable. The FAR bonus could be supported but the lightwell needs reworked. The proposal for the north entry and the windows on the barn should be presented to HPC. The barn should keep strong differentiation between it and the new construction as a separate element. Board members felt that the placement of the proposed lightwell is a concern. David said some of the roofs are asphalt shingle and some are asphalt sheets. Amy said there are many issues that need to be presented to the HPC at a later date. 1. There are no labels on the drawings where the piece is being removed from the house where the new window is going in. 2. There are no elevations that show the bathroom window switching out. 3. More information needs to be presented regarding the intentions of the barn windows. 4. The design of the front porch and door need presented. 5. The driveway and sidewalk materials need addressed. MOTION: deffbey moved to approve the final review and temporary relocation on 330 Lake .4venue with the following conditions: 1. The old brick will be salvaged as a veneer for the new foundation on the house and the old stone will be salvaged as a veneer for the new foundation on the barn. 2. Redesign the lightwell on the south side of the house so that it does not eliminate the use of the side porch. 3. The HPC grants' a combined side yard setback variance of 8 '6". 4. HPC has granted a 450 square foot F. dR bonus. 5. The drawings have not indicated any proposed changes to the exterior of the historic house or barn other than the reconstruction of the porch and 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 22~ 2000 front door. The near front door must replicate a door style that ~vas typically used on a miner's cottage and must be approved by staff and monitor. 6. If the Parks' Department does not approve removal of the trees in front of the barn, the applicant ~vill have to return to HPC ~vith a revised design in this area of the project. 7. Provide a structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about ho~v the house ~vill be stabilized from the housemover. 8. Provide a bond or letter of credit in the amount of $45, 000 to insure the safe relocation of the structures. 9. Provide a relocation plan detailing ho~v and ~vhere the buildings ~vill be stored. Because of the location of the barn at the edge of a steep hillside, the housemover ~vill need to indicate ~vhether any special measures ~vill be required to safely access and move the building. 10. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved dra~vings shall be provided for revie~v and approved by staff and monitor ~vhen the information is available. 11. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly ~vhat areas of the historic house and barn are to be removed as part of the renovation. 12. Submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating ho~v the existing materials, ~vhich are to be retained, ~vill be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage. 13.No elements are to be added to the historic house or barn that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials' other than ~vhat has been specifically approved herein may be removed ~vithout the approval of staff and monitor. (Note that the dra~vings of the house do not showy all of the existing trim. Nothing has been approved for removal.) 14. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 15. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved ~vithout first being revie~ved and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 16. The preservation plan described above, as ~vell as the conditions of approval ~vill be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 22, 2000 17. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 18. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a buildingpermit. 19. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 20. Submit details' of the reconstruction of the front porch area, including the front door. Identify the materials' to be used for the driveway and sidewalk. The full HPC board will review this information. 21.Submit drawings showing the alterations to existing entry on the North Elevation to the historic house, and the proposed relocation of the window for a bathroom on the old house, and the existing and proposed new windows on the barn. The full HPC board will review this information. 22. Take before photographs of the building foundations as use the photographs to replicate them. Motion second by Mary. Motion carried 5-2 Yes vote: defJhey, Suzannah, Mary, Heidi, Christie No vote: Susan, Lisa 419 E. HYMAN AVE - MINOR Jeffrey recused himself. Dennis Wedlick and Connie Hamilton were sworn in. Amy relayed at a previous meeting HPC gave approval to modify the south, east and west sides of the building. HPC also looked at a roof top staircase and that is on hold while code implications are being determined. Dennis said the motion from the last meeting said the skylight was approved. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 22~ 2000 Amy relayed that the skylight was over the height limit and the HPC did not have the authority to approve it. Dennis said he had a letter from the zoning department that said even though it was over the height limit, it was an HPC approval. Amy relayed that the wrong direction was given and it has since been established that HPC is going to talk about variances with everything that is on the roof. Dennis wanted it noted in the minutes that this decision is a reversal. Amy felt that the location is not the problem but it is the peaked roof that was reviewed. HPC and the zoning officers do not have the ability to give height variances without that kind of hearing. Dennis relayed that the gates will be left alone and is withdrawing his application. MOTION: Mary moved to adjourn; second by Suzannah. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p. m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 22~ 2000 213 W. BLEEKER - LANDMARK, CONCEPTUAL - PH ................................................................. 1 330 LAKE AVENUE - FINAL - PH ..................................................................................................... 4 419 E. HYMAN AVE - MINOR ............................................................................................................ 9 11