Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19990310ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10, 1999 Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the regular meeting at 5:00 p.m. with members Roger Moyer, Susan Dodington, Heidi Friedland, Christie Kienast, Lisa Markalunas and Jeffrey Halferty present. Mary Hirsch, Gilbert Sanchez and Maureen MacDonald were excused. Staff in attendance were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer and Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk. MOTION: Susan moved to approve the minutes of February 24, 1999 as amended; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Roger suggested a reply to Mr. Hodgson who wrote an article in the newspaper explaining that the HPC does not take into consideration all the promises that people make. The HPC looks at the site and merits of the projects. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that in a legal proceeding you would not be allowed to discuss things that are not related to the issue. David also stated that the worksessions need to be more formalized as applicants get confused as to what direction they are given. Each member should give their comments but a vote cannot be taken. Heidi was seated at 5:07 p.m. 205 S. MILL STREET – CAMPO DI FIORI – MINOR DEVELOPMENT Sara Oates, planning technician presented. The restaurant is located in the Mill Street station downstairs in the courtyard. It is not an historic building but is in the historic overlay district. The proposal is to expand the space into an adjacent shop which was the Aspen Sewing Center. Windows are proposed to be changed out to match the slider that exists in the façade. Elizabeth Plotke-Giordani, owner was sworn in. The proposed improvements enhance the entire downstairs area. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10, 1999 MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minor development for the windows at 205 S. Mill Street know as Campo De Fiori as submitted; second by Christie. All in favor motion carried 6-0. Four exhibits were entered into the records. 210 S. GALENA - MINOR DEVLEOPMENT Amy relayed that a site visit was done today. The enclosure is needed for safety reasons. They need a better way to get to the roof to fix the mechanical equipment. Presently there is only a ladder. Staff recommends approval with the condition that all the mechanical equipment on the roof be painted in a dark color. It would help unify everything when looking up the street. Jack Miller, 894 McLaughlin Rd. Basalt was sworn in. In noticing the roof lines there is a lot of mechanical equipment on the roofs with the restaurants etc. and he is in favor of painting the mechanical equipment. The Elk’s has made an effort on the inside of the building by cutting out some space in order to get the enclosure as subtle as possible. It is not visible from the Hyman Mall. Suzannah stated that dark colors such as dark brown or charcoal have been used in painting out mechanical equipment. Amy stated that the Elk’s previously had approval for the courtyard garden out in front of the entry elevator and it is not in compliance with the landscaping that they told the Board they would use. There is an area of brick on the wall that is deteriorating that needs repaired. Amy suggested that the previous condition be included in the new motion. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the application for the Elks Lodge # 224 at 210 S. Galena as submitted with the following two conditions: · That the mechanical equipment on the roof be painted a dark color to blend in with the roof. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10, 1999 · That the Elk’s will come in with full compliance with the previous approval regarding the exterior patio on the east side. Heidi second the motion. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Three exhibits were entered into the records. 406 E. HOPKINS – ISIS – AMENDMENT TO FINAL Geoff Lester and Charles Cunniffe were sworn in. Amy stated that the two monitors Suzannah and Roger had concerns with the pent house apartment on top of the building. Windows were approved and the applicant is proposing to change some windows due to light issues and add one double and one single skylights. They are also proposing a light fixture for the apartment. Charles informed the Board that the previously approved windows had a nine foot headheight and they are now lowered to 8’6”. Because the windows have no horizontal view the pent house got squashed down into the building. When you look at the pent house you look at the parapet. The owner is one of the principle partners and has purchased the pent house. His concern with the unit is the lack of view. The five new windows to the west are needed for light and view. The rooms inside of the proposed windows are a bedroom and a guest bedroom. Susan stated that it seems like too many windows are being added for the light. Geoff felt that the proposal is not extraordinarily significant due to the fact that they are barely visible from the street level. Amy also stated that on the south façade the four windows are going to reach the floor and that is a modest change. Heidi stated that the only visible area would be from Jimmy’s Restaurant across the street and visually you see irregularity in the window pattern. She recommended that they be placed in a consistent pattern. More windows is acceptable but the break in the rhythm pattern needs addressed. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10, 1999 Other members had the same concern and the applicant submitted Exhibit II which modified the windows for the records. Two of the head heights of the windows were raised and two windows were dropped in order to be consistent. The placement of the windows is based on the room configeration. The Board had consensus with the additional skylights and lights. Two proposed motions failed and the following motion was adopted. MOTION: Heidi moved to allow the applicant to submit Exhibit II and to approve the windows, lights and skylights with the windows shown on Exhibit II. (Clarification) From the front of the building right to left the two middle windows will drop down so that the sills and head heights match. All the head heights of the west façade would be the same height. All the sill heights would be the same. Motion second by Roger. Motion passed 4-2. NO: Susan, and Suzannah YES: Heidi, Roger, Lisa, Christie 706 W. MAIN (GOLDRICH) – WORKSESSION – no minutes 234 W. FRANCIS STREET – Remediation Plan Jeffrey was seated at 6:30 p.m. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the applicant that as decisions are made they should be removed from the list in order for the Board to clearly know what the remaining issues are. Don Mullins, Scott Lindeneau and Gwen Mullin were sworn in. The south facade was discussed first. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10, 1999 Issues that were not controversial were discussed and agreed upon from the th March 4 remedial plan from Studio B. 1. (f) The underside of the porch shall have the same 2 ¼ inch beadboard ceiling which is what existed on the historic porch. 2. (g) The roof of the porch to be copper to match the flashing and it will be patined a dark brown. It is a low roof pitch and you really cannot see the roof at all. The former roof was tin and it has been removed and was leaking severely. 3. (i) Above the front porch is new siding that has been installed and they have enough old siding remaining to replace that and repairs need made to the historic siding. 4. (m) Confirms that all the siding that has been placed on the house replicates the exposure of the historic siding. 5. (n) The roof flashing is all to be patined to be a dark brown. Discussion on i. Amy relayed in the past certain repairs were to be made to the clapboard and that was not the approach that was taken in the past and how do we know that the repairs will be made to the expectations of the Board and Staff. Suzannah relayed that a meeting needs to be set up with whomever is going to be doing the work to explain what the Board expects etc. Heidi asked if Rob at Aspen Design would be looking at the siding as it is taken off. Suzannah stated that there are two different issues, restoration input from Rob to make sure the person installing the old siding is clear on what has to be done and the proper technique in putting it back up. Roger recommended that the siding boards be cleaned while they are down and a coating of oil be placed on the back to preserve it before it is nailed back up. Then whoever does the finishing of the house would do the preparation of the siding, filling the siding with a soft filler. Roger also suggested that screws be used for installing the old siding. Roger and any board member interested in the process will do a site visit with the owner. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10, 1999 Amy stated that all parties involved need to be aware of all the issues involving restoration etc. Conditions that were acceptable were f,g, i with conditions, m,n. The next discussion was acceptables with conditions: 1.(j) The trim detail around the casing of the large picture window will be removed as it is not accurate. It will be replicated with what was original. Staff feels that is acceptable with photographs to confirm what the original appearance of the windows was. The board was in agreement with 1 (j). 1.(L) There is a small window on the upper part of the front of the house in which the glass is cracked and they applicant would like to replace it. It was cracked before the house was bought. When restoration glass is purchased it can have characteristics of different time periods. Staff recommends confirmation of the “seedy” replacement glass at the site to make sure it matches the period of the original glass that is in the house. Members suggested a piece of the broken glass be sent away for exact replication. The applicant brought a sample but the Board was not in agreement with the selection. More research on the proper replacement glass needs done. The Board did not approve 1. (L). 1. (O) The copper drip caps remain on top of all the windows and that is acceptable because it has been discussed that it may actually be better for the building in the long term. The Board was in agreement with 1. (O). EAST FAÇADE 2 (A) More broken windows and Staff recommends that the replacement glass needs carefully looked at. The Board did not approve 2 (a). 2 (B) Historically there was a door and a transom window on the east side and they were allowed to replace the porch that was over it. They will reinstall the door and the transom. Everything about the door and transom needs restored, how the trim looked etc. The porch and posts are all new construction and they were permitted to be new construction. The transom window will also be replaced with the appropriate glass as it is broken. The Board was in agreement with 2 (B). 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10, 1999 WEST FAÇADE 3 (A) The replacement glass issue is brought up again in this condition for the large broken window panes on the west façade. Glass to be determined at the site by Staff and monitors etc. The Board was in agreement with 3 (A). Staff reiterated the conditions that could be approved at this meeting. 1f, 1g, 1I, 1j, 1m, 1n, 1o, 2b. The rest of the items refer to replacement of broken glass and further confirmation is needed to determine that they are matching the original character of the glass. MOTION: Heidi moved to approve the above items stated and discussed by th Amy in the March 4 remediation plan having resulted in the satisfaction of the HPC; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Clarification: Amy is approving the concept of replacing the glass but further information is needed and a sample. SOUTH FAÇADE 1(A) On the front porch there is a trim on the cornice that when it was reconstructed it was not replaced accurately to what was there historically. They propose to replace the trim board to match the original. They have a piece of the original trim and they will use that as their pattern to make the replacement. The trim will wrap around the front porch just as it did originally. The Board was in agreement with 1 (A). The type of species of wood was not addressed. 1(B) The tops and bottoms of the historic porch columns were removed and new pieces were installed. There is a small piece of trim that needs added to the columns to make them match the original. The applicant presented the Board with a sample of the historic piece and a replicated piece. Scott Lindeneau stated that he can verify the size of the casing for the trim and window sills with existing historic materials. The Board was in agreement with 1(B). 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10, 1999 1 (C) Currently there is a decorative trim that has recently been put around the front door and the applicant proposes to replace that with a flat trim board which historically existed. The corner blocking around the front door will also be replaced to match what existed historically. The Board was in agreement with 1©. 1 (D) The front door and transom are in storage and Staff inspected them. Transom glass is broken and that needs replaced. The original type of glass will be installed in the transom window. Staff inspected the door hardware as the Mullins had a concern in terms of safety and they would like to replace it. The handle on the door is somewhat loose and could be repaired and Staff has resources for historic hardware. The plate for the doorknob is very decorative and beautiful and there is also a little door bell. The door has a lot of character. Staff does not feel any replacement of the hardware is appropriate. A dead bolt is installed and it could be replaced with one that locks from the outside and the inside. The door jam for the historic door is retained and needs to be installed. The Board was in agreement with 1 (D). 1(E) This condition is in regard to the front porch and the original scroll work pieces need to be installed exactly where they were. The Board was in agreement with 1 (D). Amy stated that 1 a through e address the front porch. MOTION: Roger moved to approve 1(A) through 1(E) as discussed with D being modified; second by Christie. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Heidi did not vote. VOTE: Suzannah, Roger, Susan, Lisa, Christie, Jeffrey. 1(H) The floor of both the front porch and the west porch for this construction project was a concrete pad that was scored. That is not what would have been there historically. The plans never identified any change for that porch floor. The applicant would like to do it in a flagstone which matches the path that will lead to the house. Staff is not in support of that because it would not have been an original material, probably wood was used. Roger said his recollection is that John Gatos did that part of the remodel and he lives in town and can be contacted. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10, 1999 Suzannah stated that this item needs more clarification in terms of when the concrete was done and to determine what existed. Don Mullin stated that they would like to use Aspen sandstone not flagstone which is a common material used in Aspen. The Board did not approve 1(H). 1(K) The window trim, sills, and corner boards are new but are of the same dimensions. We are being asked to approve the window trim, window sills, and corners boards as they have been installed. The dimension of the corner board was determined by an old piece of corner board. When the windows were taken out there was evidence showing where the trim was and that verified the 4 ½ inch dimension. The Board approved 1 (K). Amy stated on the south everything was resolved except the floor of the porch. MOTION: Roger moved to approve 1(K); second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Sample was provided at the meeting. Yes: Roger, Susan, Heidi, Christie, Lisa, Suzannah and Jeffrey. WEST FAÇADE 3(B) Roger suggested the Board hold on this item until the research is done on the porch. Staff stated that they will contact John Gatos. The Board did not approve 3(B). NORTH FAÇADE 4(A) The only thing historic on this façade is the window sash. Drip caps will be darkened, new clapboards installed have to match the original clapboard exposure. MOTION: Roger moved to approve 4(A); second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. YES: Roger, Suzannah, Susan, Heidi, Christie, Lisa and Jeffrey. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve as to form Resolutions 7 & 1; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10, 1999 MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10, 1999 205 S. MILL STREET – CAMPO DI FIORI – MINOR DEVELOPMENT ................................ ........ 1 210 S. GALENA - MINOR DEVLEOPMENT ................................ ................................ ..................... 2 406 E. HOPKINS – ISIS – AMENDMENT TO FINAL ................................ ................................ ........ 3 706 W. MAIN (GOLDRICH) – WORKSESSION – NO MINUTES ................................ .................... 4 234 W. FRANCIS STREET – REMEDIATION PLAN ................................ ................................ ........ 4 11