Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19990512ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Members in attendance were Lisa Markalunas, Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer, Heidi Friedland, Mary Hirsch, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Christie Kienast and Maureen McDonald. Staff in attendance were Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer; Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie and Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathleen Strickland. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the minutes of April 14th and 28th; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Amy brought up the issue of the glass on the Mullin House at 234 W. Francis and it was recommended that the glass be clear since distorted glass cannot be located. Neither salvaged nor reproduction glass could be found. The window is on the west side of the building and it is a bay window. One of the panes of glass was already broken before the Mullin's bought the house. The lower pane was broken during construction. The Board approved the modification to the glass. 450 S. GALENA ST. Amy asked for a clarification on the landscape plans on the Art Expressions Store. A door and awning was approved but several modifications were presented regarding the landscape plan. Staff needs clarification if the plans presented in the packet were approved. Lisa stated that the building modifications were approved. Patrick Duffield represented the owner and clarified that it was the walkway that was proposed with pavers that match the adjacent entry. Gilbert said the plan retains enough of the grass and plantings. He also stated what Stefan Kaelin did to the front of his store was disaster. There are no plantings but relentless pavers. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 514 N. THIRD - Ringsby House The door that was approved in the new construction which was glass and wood has been changed to a full lead door with leaded glass that is somewhat decorative. Also the door that was on the carriage house is being replaced. The owner purchased a salvaged door that they claim is older than the existing carriage door. The owner claims the existing door is only from the 70's. Suzannah said it is in the new portion and under a porch roof. Amy said it was her understanding that the door in the carriage house was half wood. The Board determined that the review of the doors could be approved by the monitor. DISCLOSURES Gilbert recused himself on 117 N. Sixth St. 123 W. FRANCIS ST. - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL MOTION: Roger moved to extend the public hearing and conceptual development on 123 W. Francis St. until May 12, 2000; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. 312 E. HYMAN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy informed the board that the building is new and it is an art gallery right next to the Crystal Palace. They propose to add windows on the back of the building and staff is recommending approval. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minor development for 312 E. Hyman; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 930 KING STREET PH - AMENDMENT TO FINAL David Hoefer, attorney stated that the affidavit of notice was in proper order. Amy stated when the construction drawings were presented for the building permit, the historic house had been measured incorrectly. It is about 80 square feet larger than what was represented to the Board. The square footage has been taken out but narrowing the addition slightly and dropping the roof ridge 18 inches. The changes were an improvement to the project. Sworn in were Lee Letson and Augie Reno, architect. Augie stated that the new addition in the back has been reduced in the east west direction and the north south direction. They also had to lengthen the addition between the old house and new house and that pushed the new addition one foot further back than what was originally planned and a window was added. Amy said on the east side the railing should be redrawn so that it does not clip off the back comer of the historic roofline. Augie stated that adjustment can be made. He also said he contacted Julie Maples to review the drawings. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Public hearing closed. MOTION: deffbey moved to approve the amendment to the final design of the historic house at 930 King Street with the condition that on the old house the entire eave along the east facing gable end is to be retained and should not be clipped by the deck railing behind it; second by Heidi. .411 in favor, motion carried. 7-0. VOTE: les, Roger, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Heidi and deffbey. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 135 W. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL PUBLIC HEARING continued from April 28, 1999. Amy stated that the project was reviewed in detail March 24th and it was tabled with concerns about the preservation/restoration of the historic house and how it was being handled. There was also concern about the kitchen addition. The majority of the concerns are really with how the historic house is going to be restored. There is a proposed six foot stone wall that is out of character with the miners cottage. That type of fence would not have existed on historic properties. A wood picket fence is being recommended if a fence is to be built at all. If the original siding exists an effort should be made to restore it. Also trim and fascia boards should be restored. On the North side of the house the existing bay window is to be retained and the porch is to be reconstructed according to the photographs. The existing double hung window on the front porch will be retained and a second historic front door is to be reinstalled. The window on the front porch should be one over one instead of two over two which the drawings show. Information is needed about the character of the front door. On the west elevation there are two existing bay windows which are to be restored. The upper floor windows on the west side are a continued issue. The proposal is to remove the center window and lower the two side windows. There are construction issues that are driving this and staff has asked for an explanation. There is still concern with the new entry door on the west side of the house. It enters where there used to be a side porch and if there is any material left of that side porch it needs to be retained. The chimney mass has been eliminated and a stack through the roof exists instead. Staff still has concern about the stack and that it is out of scale with the historic chimneys on the house. Staff is recommending a metal flu instead. On the east elevation of the old house there is an existing bay window that will be removed by the new kitchen addition and there is some mention of placing that bay window somewhere else on the historic house and staff feels that is not appropriate. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 Staff feels that the kitchen addition is not incompatible with the historic house and it is not out of the question to add onto that side of the house but the size of the proposed kitchen is large and does impact the character of the building from the street and it is also far forward from the house. In terms of the new construction, the long north sloping roof line and the flat roof area where there is a deck for a hot tub is visible to the street. There is concern that it doesn't relate to the other forms and features of the historic house. Numerous variances are being requested: 300 FAR bonus; a 5% site coverage variance and side and rear yard setback variances. Staff is in support of the rear yard setback variances and combined front and rear yard that are needed to push the new construction as far back as possible. Staff is also in support of the site coverage variance. The only concern is the floor area bonus and the Board needs to be clear as to why it is being granted, particularly because this is an undersized lot. Sworn in was Gretchen Greenwood, architect. Gretchen relayed that a picket fence is agreeable. They would like to get conceptual before going forward with an extensive level of detail on the windows etc. because there is no guarantee that they will get an approval on anything. At final the house will be catalogued and detailed extensively. There will be extensive restoration. The fascia board will be restored. The porch on the back according to Frank Day never existed and a shed roof is proposed. The windows will be double hung. There will be two flues; one is the chimney and one a mechanical one from below. Regarding the window on the east side of the building according to Frank Day the historical bay window had been moved a number of times. They would be willing to move the historic bay window to the south side of the building. Another option would be on the east side. Regarding the kitchen addition it was symmetrically designed with the roof of the main part of the building. The design is sensitive and has a flat roof and it distinguishes old from new. The owner actually helped in the design and the idea of the kitchen. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 The applicant is not interested in pushing the kitchen back. They want it symmetrical with the roof line. A staircase is proposed and light will be coming down to the lower level. The doors were removed along the dining room so that it maintains an historical design. Doors were added to the kitchen in order to access the yard. Variances are being requested because the building is located practically on the property line. The setbacks would allow the building to be retained in its original location which is important for preservation. Christie was seated at 5:45 p.m. Clarifications: The historic bay window would be added to the south side by the entry door. The stairs being added are on the north elevation toward the back that lead to the roof top deck. The Board felt that the kitchen addition was too massive. Gretchen explained that the size was 12 by 20 and it could come down a foot but then you loose the space in the manner that the applicants want to use. The flat roof form is simple and doesn't compete. The kitchen addition will be in a white vertical siding and possibly a different roof material. The plate height of the kitchen addition is 10 ½ feet. On the west elevation the two windows are proposed to be lowered in order to build a flat roof with skuppers and a cap. The middle window was added and will be removed. If the windows are kept they will only be visible from the outside. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments: The Board was in favor of the chimney changes. The kitchen addition needs pushed back or made narrower. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 Susan felt that the bay window needed to be used somewhere on the old house. The railing around the deck needs restudied. The Board appreciated the elimination of the stone wall. Heidi felt that the kitchen should be shrunk in some way so that it is subordinate to the main structure. On the bay window on the east side it should be retained in the historic portion of the house. She would be in favor of a small chimney stack. Shrinking the section of the stairs to the hot tub would help in the design. She is in favor of the FAR bonus if the project could be reduced in size. Jeffrey relayed that the portion of the house he is concerned with is the kitchen. Not necessarily the setback from the property lines but the plate height. The plate height is in too much competition with the historic resource in wrapping the eave around at the same plane. Regarding the stair in the back possibly there is a way to channel one of the legs of the stair on the North side of the new addition. He is also not in favor of the relocation of the bay window. Lisa had no problem with moving the two west windows down somewhat to accommodate the drainage problems with the roof. The picket fence is preferable. The east bay window is a concern. The historic window should be reused on the historic house. Maureen added that her concern is the deck and stairs and railing and its impacts. Possibly reduce the size. Roger agreed with restudying the plate heights of the kitchen addition and the reduction in size. He felt that the hot tub sets back enough. Gilbert felt this project is one of the more successful ones. The massing and forms proposed are suited for the site. Regarding the kitchen addition Gilbert also feels the plate height should be restudied. Picking up on the porch plate height, by lowering the mass would be helpful. In terms how far it sits back, three dimensionally it is more successful than what the elevation show. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 Regarding the relocation of the bay window he feels it should go on the new construction not the old. Mary also agreed that the kitchen addition should be a little smaller and she has some concerns about the deck space. Suzannah said lowering the plate height of the kitchen would make the addition more acceptable in its current location. On the double hung windows possibly a framing detail could make them work in their present location. The 300 square foot bonus cannot be granted at this time. Pulling the stairway in would be successful. Gretchen stated that at the last meeting everyone was in favor of the stairway on the north elevation. Regarding the kitchen addition lowering the plate heights will be looked at and possibly the form can be reduced. The FAR bonus request will be less than 300 square feet. In reference to the bay window, Gilbert's suggestion of putting it on the new addition visible from the street will be looked into. MOTION: Gilbert made the motion to continue the Public Hearing and Conceptual Development of 135 W. Hopkins Ave. until June 9, 1999; second by Susan. Clarification of motion: Straw Poll on the two windows on the west elevation being kept in their original location. Six members wanted the windows kept in their original location. The bay windows was brought up and Amy informed the board that there should not be any confusion as to what is old and what is new. She doesn't know where you would put it. Gretchen stated historically the bay window was moved. Gilbert said he would like to find some examples of how artifacts have been used in a way that there is no confusion. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 12, 1999 Suzannah said she thought the north elevation was too symetrical. Gilbert said if in fact the window was located in an asymetrical way it would be clear that it was not an original element and in fact has been located there. It relates to the historical building because it is a part of it yet at the same time it is clearly in a new location within a new context. Amy stated that no all of the 19 conditions need to be approved at conceptual due to their details but she wanted the board to be aware that they will have to address them at a future date. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. VOTE: Roger, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, JefJhey and Christie voted yes. 117 N. SIXTH ST. - AMENDMENT TO FINAL Gilbert recused himself. Maureen was seated. Amy relayed that final approval was granted in January and the project is under construction presently. Three changes were requested and the monitors asked that the building be built as approved. The architect is here tonight to appeal Staff and monitor' s decision. The butterfly roof porch has changes in the window proportions. They now have casements with awning windows below it as opposed to the more vertical proportions that they had before. This is the closest piece to the historic cottage and Staff and monitors have concerns about its compatibility. They felt that the original proposal was more similar to the vertical windows in the historic house. The second issue is the area above the butterfly porch on the north side of the building. It had double hung windows and a sloping roof. The revised drawing has metal siding and horizontal windows. The third issue is a horizontal skylight that is also proposed on the north elevation running across the ridge. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 The final issue is a construction issue. At the back of the historic house there is an addition that HPC gave approval for to demolish two walls in order to expand it. The plans indicate that one wall would be kept and the roof form. Their concern is how to support the structure while two walls will be taken away and a basement excavated. Their proposal is to demolish and reconstruct and Staff and Monitors feel this is inappropriate. The attorney had concerns about the public notice regarding the demolition. Sworn in were: Scott Lindeneau, Mark Mahoney, Jeff Chabez, Linnie Coulter. Scott said the skylight will not transmit light and it is held back from the house by 12 feet. It is 12 inches wide. The skylight will bring light into the bedroom and dressing room. The change to the butterfly porch is due to the change in uses. Originally it was a screened in porch for summer use only and now it will be used all year. The window changes are needed for function and sun conditions. Above the porch the windows have changed to horizontal windows. This change is due to the interior sliding garage door that lifts up and goes through the floor. Scott relayed that essentially they are being asked to support a portion of the roof that will never be seen from the inside or outside and sistered in and completely covered. It is a matter of safety as to how this will work. During a design process things do change between when things are submitted to HPC and working drawings. Jeff Chabez, project superintendent said basically there will be nothing to support one side of the roof. Mark Mahoney said ideally the wall should be removed and a foundation poured and then put the wall back. Lisa clarified that the garage door is an interior door to close off the porch area. Members felt that the wall could be supported as do other projects. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 Susan said she remembers other projects that had the roof and walls supported. Mark stated that the foundation is being poured four feet away and it would have to be hand dug instead of machine dug. Jeff said if a strong wind came it could lift the roof section and cause damage to the historic wall and other parts of the house. Roger said two walls have been approved to be demolished that leaves the one wall in which they want to separate from the house and expand the room. It was the assumption that the roof would stay intact and then be extended. Amy stated that the board allowed the demolition of the two walls as a reasonable expansion of the structure. Mark stated that the one wall that is to remain could be left as is and work around it or it could be taken off, pour a new foundation underneath and move it back on in one piece. 40% of the existing roof has been approved to be removed in order to put the additional roof on. Suzannah stated that there are two issues: The demolition of the remaining part of the structure which would require a public hearing. The alternative is to save parts of the structure and reuse the south wall. Amy said if they disassemble and lay the wall down it would not have to be publicly noticed. Amy said that the application appeared that the whole gabled roof remained in place and there was over framing of new construction. The application was implying that those pieces were to remain in place. Only part of it would ever be visible. COMMENTS: Maureen felt that the applicant should find a way to support the roof and that no further changes to the structure should occur. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 Lisa agreed with Maureen that as much possible should be saved on the historic house. Christie stated that she does not recall that the two historic walls were to be demolished. Jeffrey said he is in favor of removing the wall carefully, racking it properly, doing the foundation work and somehow supporting the roof framing and sistering on the joists. He could support the project if the existing material would be saved in its original form. Heidi agreed with Jeffrey that the wall should remain. Susan stated that she does not want to see everything taken down. In fact when it was approved originally she understood that the walls were just going to be moved out not demolished. When things are approved the Board needs to look ahead as they did not know the ramifications of the basement being poured and the roof implications. Mary said she was not for a wall being put down and a roof being built in the hopes that everything would be put back correctly. Roger said when this was approved the two walls were to be demolished and that a portion of the roof would be furred onto and extended and therefore not be visible. He is in favor of removing the wall and excavating and putting it back. Suzannah also agreed with Roger and Jeffrey. MOTION: Roger moved to allow the applicant to remove the roof or dismantle it and set it aside and store it and to remove the wall, set it aside and store it and excavate and do whatever they have to do and reassemble the roof and wall; second by Heidi. DISCUSSION: Jeff Chabez stated that the rafters are 2 by 4 which are structurally unsafe. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 Amy relayed that she is opposed to allowing them to totally dismantle the roof because it will never be the same again. There should be some way that it can be supported. Mark said the roof would fall in upon itself if it was to be pulled off in one piece. Amy asked if the entire addition could be moved away and then brought back? Mark said the smart thing would be to disassemble it and he claimed he can get it back exactly where it was. Roger said an internal frame could be built inside the addition. It could then be picked up. Jeffrey said if the wall or roof are removed some splice has to occur where the new is attached to the old for the expansion and how that is treated with a comer board etc. is an issue. Suzannah said in order to remove the piece of wall and preserve it there is going to have to be some temporary shoring that happens in order to pull that wall out and move it as a piece. It seems possible that the same process could occur with the roof. Amy suggested continuing the issue on the roof and wall. Motion was withdrawn. Discussion on the windows on the porch, skylight and area above the porch. Several members felt that the changes make the addition look contemporary. The skylight was a split decision among the board. Suzannah stated that the manufactured window units that are operable degrades the quality of a screened in porch. She would rather see something more of what was originally approved. The piece above the door is disruptive to the elevation and the same material should be carried through and retain its modesty. The skylight was acceptable. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 12, 1999 Mark said that the owner relayed that the lower awning windows could go back to wood siding. MOTION: Roger moved (1) To approve the applicants' design submitted on page A3.1 with the understanding that the E windows are removable and will be a screened porch in the summer and that the awning windows below will be the wood wall that was originally designed. All other elements' on that design are acceptable. (2) To approve the drawing A3.4 as designed with the skylight. (3) To table the historic roof and wall issue until further information can be obtained. Item to be brought back to the entire board. Motion second by Heidi; motion carried 4-3. Fote, yes: Roger, Heidi, defJhey, Maureen Fore, no: Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Scott and owner disclosed the following information. The owner and architect stated that they do not want to come back before the HPC so they will take the HPC directive on the old cottage. It will be supported in place. The wall will be kept and the roof will be kept in place. 134 W. HOPKINS - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 12~ 1999 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ................................................................................... 1 450 S. GALENA ST. - .................................................................................................. 1 514 N. THIRD - RINGSBY HOUSE ............................................................................... 2 123 W. FRANCIS ST. - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL .................................................. 2 312 E. HYMAN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 2 930 KING STREET PH - AMENDMENT TO FINAL ........................................................ 3 135 W. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL .............................................................................. 4 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM APRIL 28, 1999.- ............................................... 4 117 N. SIXTH ST. - AMENDMENT TO FINAL ................................................................ 9 134 W. HOPKINS - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ..................................................... 14 15