Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19990324ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Members in attendance were Lisa Markalunas, Christie Kienast, Susan Dodington, Mary Hirsch, Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer and Jeffrey Halferty. Maureen McDonald was seated at 5:35 p.m. Heidi Friedland was excused. Staff in attendance were Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer; Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie and Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathleen Strickland. Commissioner Comments Lisa had a concern about the lighting at 132 W. Main. Amy reported that the zoning officer has been diligently trying to do enforcement regarding the lighting plan. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the minutes of March 10, 1999 as amended; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. 134 W. HOPKINS, BUDINGER – PH - VARIANCES MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue the public hearing and variances for 134 W. Hopkins until April 14, 1999; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. 424 E. COOPER AVE. – MOUNTAINS AND STREAMS – MINOR Jeffrey and Gilbert recused themselves. Kevin Heineken sworn in. Amy Guthrie relayed that the applicant desires to add a door because the space is going to be divided in half. The door should match the finishes on the existing building. Motion: Mary moved to approve the minor development at 424 E. Cooper Ave. for the new entry door as proposed; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: Christie, Lisa, Susan, Suzannah, Mary, Roger. Three exhibits were entered into the record. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 135 W. HOPKINS – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT & VARIANCES The affidavit of notice was presented to the assistant city attorney which meets the jurisdictional requirements to proceed. Gretchen Greenwood, architect was sworn in. Amy Guthrie conveyed that landmark designation is being requested in addition to conceptual design review, partial demolition, temporary relocation and variances and residential design standards which is ordinance #30. Three of the landmark designation standards have been met: Architectural Importance, Neighborhood Character, and Community Character. Staff is recommending that landmark be approved at this meeting due to its lengthy process and continuation of the rest of the project. The building has had changes that were not sympathetic and a lot of restoration is needed. Existing bay windows are to be restored. Fascia boards will be salvaged where possible. The board and batten siding is to be removed and if the original clapboards are underneath there will be an effort to restore them. The existing iron work on the front porch needs to be replaced. Although the board does not review interiors the floor plans are provided in order for the board to understand what is being proposed. In the historic house there is a new proposed addition on the side. Generally new construction is to stay to the back of the house. The side addition changes the shape of the house and it is relatively close to the front of the building. Staff’s concern is that the proposal is an open floor plan in the house and one third of the building is a circulation area rather than it being used for living space. This is a different lifestyle that is requiring the addition to be made on the side of the house. The other issue is that currently there is a second floor with some living space in it and that is to be removed so that all of the house would be a vaulted interior. Partial demolition is being proposed to make the addition and there is demolition proposed to make the new entry into the house. Currently there 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 are remnants of a side porch and staff recommends that the porch be restored and used as part of the entrance to the house. There is a single double hung window that is proposed to be made into two double hung windows which is not a change that should be made. There is no historic basis for a railing on the front porch. The historical window on the east side of the house is proposed to be moved to the front and staff is opposed. Staff is also concerned with the chimney mass on the street side of the house as it is not an original element. Staff recommends a typical roof vent. The applicant also desires to remove three historical windows on the west elevation and staff is also opposed to the removal of those windows. Amy also stated that the circulation hallway goes from floor to ceiling and there is no living space. Staff understands that the proposal is part of the architects decision to bring the height of the building down to meet the plate height which maybe the right decision but on the other hand that area could be cut out and turned into a deck to reduce the bulk of the building and staff feels the board should discuss it. The house is to be used for two families. Staff also has concerns about the full light windows on the kitchen addition on the east elevation. They are not architecturally compatible with the house. The staircase going up to the roof is not architecturally very similar to the house. Gretchen read a letter from one of the owners John Key. The letter has been entered into the records as Exhibit IV. Gretchen informed the board that the house will be lifted up and a basement will be put underneath it and it will be put back down in the original location. A kitchen addition has been added. The second floor was added on at a later date and it is not of legal size headroom. This is the first time a staff member has mentioned how a building should be lived in, whether it should be contemporary or lived in an “historical sense”. What is important to the project is that the building is being restored. Owners have a lot to say how a building is designed. One of the owners is 6’5 feet tall. The creation of an open floor plan with a timber frame system accentuates the form of the outside of the building to the inside of the building. The upper level was never meant to be kept. The existing windows are eight inches from the ceiling and the roof presently leaks. The flat roof will have to have proper 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 flashing and curved flashing. as well as scuppers. A fireplace to the exterior of the building will house the scuppers and the boiler from the flue will all go up through the brick mass. No penetrations will be on the flat roof. Non- historical chimneys exist throughout Aspen. Three sides of the historical building are being preserved. The only thing visible from the street will be the chimney. The north elevation has been rebuilt by the tenants besides the owners. Any vestige of historic elements is gone and the proposal is to put in a shed metal roof at the entry. The areas being added onto have already been tampered with, new window, new siding. The only historical element remaining is a fascia which can be reused in other parts of the building. A door is being added in order to get to the proposed patio. The neighborhood is part Victorian and part Skiing neighborhood. There is a roof top hot tub proposed. The change in materials and color can distinguish between what is old and what is new. The goal is to have the least amount of addition onto the building and to maintain the most important street frontage which is what the community is used to seeing. A staircase goes down to the basement on the main level. Utilizing the roof with the staircase between unifies the old to the new and also unifies the basement to the house. On the west elevation the height of the doors on the link are eight feet. The historic house was analyzed and determined with the photographs that it was historic. The great room concept is what the applicants want in a design. Amy informed the HPC members that the building was on the historic inventory and a site visit and worksession were done and the previous architectural team held up pictures of a different house. Clarifications Gretchen clarified that the second floor was not original and was part of the expansion of the out buildings in back to create more habitats. The two windows on the west elevation by the fireplace are historic and the framing will be taken down and logged and they will be restored. The two windows will be restored to be double hung. On the kitchen addition the siding would be a v-groove painted a slightly different color with white trim. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 Gilbert asked what details are proposed that differentiate the old from new. Gretchen responded that she desires to keep the thin fascia details similar. The two roofing materials have not been determined yet. Her first thought was that the roof material should be restored on the historic house to what it was originally. Mary inquired about the three existing windows on the west elevation below the flat roof. Amy clarified that there was a gabled roof and my 1904 the roof was changed to the flat roof and presumably that is when the three windows were added. Gretchen contacted one of the previous owners and they said the windows were added but she was not clear if he meant replaced or added to the façade. The proposal is to eliminate the three windows on the existing west façade and Gretchen feels the elimination of those windows will not effect the quality of historic preservation in Aspen or to this building. She feels the thin center window was a vent at some point for the attic. The chimney is proposed to be weathered old brick in a Victorian motif design. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. She informed the public that sideyard setbacks are being requested. Gretchen said the variances requested are 300 square feet. 150 is for the basement area which includes lightwells. Bill Budinger, 134 W. Hopkins was sworn in. He is a neighbor and is in favor of the project. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 Maureen interjected that if projects were approved in the past it doesn’t set a precedent that they should be approved now. Each situation is unique. Members had no problem with the open floor plan. The chimney needs restudied. The front of the house and stairwell with the side addition changes the impression of the historic house from the street elevation. Lisa was concerned with the east addition historic window being relocated onto the north elevation. Some concern with the elimination of the three windows on the west elevation and the front porch railing detail should be eliminated. Christie felt that the design of the house blends in well with the neighborhood. Jeffrey’s only concern is the eastern addition of the kitchen. It is the only historic un-tampered wall. Possibly the addition should be pushed south. He also had no problem with the staircase. The chimney needs simplified. The front porch railing should be restudied and remain without all the details. Susan also had concerns with the kitchen addition. The house is unique with the bay window and that should be the focal point of the front of the house. The addition to the east detracts from the idea of the bay window and porch which is a common element in historic houses. She also felt strongly about not removing the historic window from the east to the north. The railing should not be put in and the window on the porch should remain as is. Two of the three west windows should remain. Gilbert feels the massing is extremely successful. The bulk of the new addition is far back to the south. The flat parapets at the hot tub level is not a problem. The kitchen addition is modest and would be better if it was pushed back but at eye level the historic house dominates. Eliminate the rail on the porch. If the three windows on the west elevation are eliminated the chimney would then add aesthetic appeal. The chimney can always be removed and the wall restored. There was some concern about the materials chosen for the chimney but conceptually Gilbert could approve the chimney. The proportions of the windows on the east addition need restudied. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 Roger concurred with Gilbert and he had no problem with the interior, lightwells or variances. He also agreed with elimination of the railing as the majority of the members stated. No problem with the kitchen addition and fenestration mainly because that area is not a public access. He understands that the west wall was not historic and modified many times over the years. Since the windows on the west elevation will be removed the chimney is a much needed element. Suzannah informed the members that numerous houses have been altered in various ways and her concern is that the Board is allowing this building to get “beautified” and not really worrying about the historic integrity of the building. The double hung windows are a piece of the historic building at one time whether they are relocated or whatever. To say because it is weird looking it doesn’t need to be preserved is not preservation. Some of the projects throughout town were done before a preservation commission existed. She felt that the kitchen addition is too close to the front of the house and it should be moved back. The piece of roof that extends down over the entry needs restudied. She agreed with the elimination of the porch railing and the long windows in the dining room need restudied. The hot tub element is appropriate. Amy relayed to the Board that she is concerned about the flexibility that the Board is giving regarding historic preservation. The Board is an Historic Preservation Committee and not here to facilitate re-development with additions. The Board needs to be respectful about the Historic House and what kind of modifications are permitted on it. Staff is concerned on how the Board is treating the Historic house itself. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney reminded the Board that they need to satisfy the criteria and he doesn’t see the justification for some of the criteria. He also reminded the Board that they are being asked to give a 300 square foot FAR bonus. Mary stated that she appreciates all that the applicant and owners are doing regarding the restoration of the house. The proposal is venting a chimney on the historic house, taking out three historic windows and putting up an iron porch on the side of the house that is visible. She feels that is not historic preservation. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 Gilbert stated that he feels there is a lot of flexibility with the National Parks Service guidelines. He feels there is room for additions with modifications. He feels the changes purposed have not hurt the integrity of the historic house i.e. there was a gable end on the west elevation. Roger relayed that the house has been changed over the years including the roof and in the past the board has allowed adaptation. Amy reminded the board that a variance is needed if the chimney is allowed to be there because it is in the side yard setback. Gretchen said the three windows do not work. They have to be moved technically and she is not keeping the windows there and leaving herself open to a roof that does not work. The project was approached as a preservation project. The front porch can be restored back. She feels the building has retained its historic form and it is being restored to the best of her ability. She stated that she and the Board are in this project together but the building has to have adaptive reuse to modern times. The addition pays respect to the flat roof. Roger asked Suzannah if the windows on the west have to stay could they just be moved down. Suzannah stated that it seems to her that it could be detailed in such a way that you would be able to move the windows slightly. Without seeing the way the roof is structured she could not answer for sure. Amy informed the board that the existing code states that if something is 50 years old it has historic significance. Christie stated that she considers herself a strict preservationist and she does not see that the addition takes away from the historic building whatsoever. David Hoefer stated that each project needs to look at the criteria. Gretchen stated that seven sides of the building have been maintained in terms of what is important to the street and neighbor. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 David informed the applicant and board make decisions are made through a public forum debate and the board has a right to say whatever they want as long as it is within the criteria. MOTION: Jeffrey made the motion to continue the public hearing and th conceptual development for 135 W. Hopkins until April 28 ; second by Susan. Motion carried 5 – 2. No vote: Roger, Christie Yes vote: Gilbert, Mary, Suzannah, Susan, Jeffrey Direction: Straw poll on the west elevation and in favor of the concept of a chimney. This means that the windows on the west elevation would be taken away. Three people in favor of the chimney and four in favor of the window concept on the west elevation. Kitchen addition on the east side in its current location. Four members felt it OK as presented. Three were not in favor. There was consensus on the porch railing and window and maintaining the doors. The addition to the back is acceptable. A compromise on the west elevation would be keeping two of the windows. The two dining room doors on the historic wall on the east elevation 6 – 1 opposed. Gilbert was not opposed to the doors. More discussion: Suzannah stated that the issue with the kitchen is the proximity of the wall on the Hopkins Street side to the front of the house and if that wall could move back. 234 W. FRANCIS (MULLINS) Remediation Plan Gilbert recused himself. Seated were Roger, Mary, Suzannah, Susan, Jeffrey, Lisa and Maureen 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 Amy relayed that numerous issues are related to the replacement glass. 1 D) The replacement glass for the transom has been approved. 1 L) The replacement glass for the small window on the south façade has also been approved. 2 A) Replacement glass for the two broken window panes on the east façade has been approved 2 B) Replacement glass for the transom over the east door has been approved. ( 3 A) The replacement glass for the bay window that is not approved until we have a little more investigation on options for such a large piece of glass). Miscellaneous A. The fence was inspected and evaluated. B. A stone veneer was proposed but it is eliminated and instead a patina copper will be applied. D. Gutters and downspouts will be painted to match the house. E. Measurements were confirmed on what the restoration will be. F. A change to the dormer in terms of the window installation and Staff has no problem with the decision. G. A grating on the window well is approved. Discussion on 1 h and 3 b which is the porch. Amy did research and possibly a wooden porch existed. This is the side porch on the west. Staff feels it appeared between 1950 and 1970. The applicant proposes to replace the concrete porch with brick and staff recommends against that. Stephen Kanipe, Building Official relayed that the porch roof can be rebuilt with 2 x 4 construction. A letter from a structural engineer explains about the porch columns and what method is recommended for retaining them. A steel rod will be placed down the center of the pole and the tops and bottoms of it will be rebuilt. Staff feels that more information needs provided to make sure that there is no other option for retaining what is there. Roger stated that he was not prepared to address the solution. The columns can be repaired with epoxy but if you introduce a steel rod that is another element. The steel moves expands and contracts and would weaken the column. A wooden dowel would be preferable. One column is hollow and that could be filled. He also felt a consultation is needed with a colleague that handles wood restoration epoxy. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 Stephen Kanipe stated that the columns do have to perform in compression and the one that is broken needs repaired. Patillo & Co. stated that the epoxy steel rod would basically be the column. Suzannah stated that the Board recommends that the porch columns be kept. The process needs verified by Roger regarding the epoxy and steel rod. The 2 x 4 roof structure is acceptable to everyone 3B. Porch floors to be wood 1x3. Screens: Jeffrey informed the board that there are examples of historic wooden screens that have a hook and eye at the top and clamps on the jams. Gwen said wood screens would have to be 1 ½ inches of wood to be able to hold the screen and she presented a thin profile of a metal screen. The new part of the house will have metal screens. Roger stated that the metal screens allow more of the window to be shown. The Board decided on wood screens because that is what would have been on the house. Suzannah stated that there are two outstanding issues, one the column and epoxy issue and the large glass. Gwen stated that brick will be used instead of flagstone for the paving. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the full restoration glass for all the replacement areas except the large window. The approval of the wood porch 1x3. The restoration of the porch columns to be verified with the epoxy method by Roger. The approval of wood screens. Any additional fence posts as required must match what was there before and they can paint the fence. Motion second by Roger. Yes vote: Roger, Mary, Suzannah, Susan, Jeffrey, Lisa, Maureen PROJECT MONITORING DISCUSSION – NO MINUTES WORKPROGRAM DISCUSSION – NO MINUTES 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 24, 1999 134 W. HOPKINS, BUDINGER – PH - VARIANCES ................................ ................................ ......... 1 424 E. COOPER AVE. – MOUNTAINS AND STREAMS – MINOR ................................ ................. 1 135 W. HOPKINS – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT & VARIANCES ................................ ......... 2 234 W. FRANCIS (MULLINS) REMEDIATION PLAN ................................ ................................ ..... 9 PROJECT MONITORING DISCUSSION – NO MINUTES ................................ ............................. 11 WORKPROGRAM DISCUSSION – NO MINUTES ................................ ................................ ......... 11 13