Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19991215ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, DECEMBER 15, 1999 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Members in attendance were Roger Moyer, Jeffrey Halferty, Gilbert Sanchez, Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Lisa Markalunas, Christie Kienast and Heidi Friedland. Mary handed out information regarding pannabode houses. Mary has been communicating with Dr. Harris at CMC regarding the possibility of a Historic Preservation Curriculum. She requested a letter of support from the HPC Commission. Roger handed out information from Professional Builder Magazine regarding garages and additions. 419 E. HYMAN AVENUE - MINOR Sworn in were Holly Hamilton, Jack Wheeler and Dennis Wedlick. Amy relayed that a site visit occurred today to look at a mockup of the bulkhead on the roof. Members were concerned about its size. Staff is in support of the alteration plan to the north, west, and south elevation. On the east elevation staff continues to have reservations about the numerous alterations. Dennis relayed that the bulkhead is needed to complete the fire exits and an over-ride for the elevator in the building which provides access to the residences on the second and third floor. The height of the brick bulkhead is ten feet and possibly a small window would need to be added. The roof itself might need some additional structure. Heidi inquired about the size of the bulkhead when in other cases where this has happened it was a very small structure. Dennis explained that the bulkhead is combining the staircase and the elevator together. The dimensions are 12 by 25 feet. Lisa suggested separation of the staircase and elevator and other members supported her. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 Amy informed the board that the height limit is 40 feet and you cannot go over that unless it is for a code requirement. Holly relayed that the existing building is 42 feet high and with the bulkhead it is 49.6 feet high. Jeffrey inquired about the need for interior circulation and Dennis relayed that the proposal is best for his client. The length of the east side is of concern. Staff inquired about the egress regulations. Dennis said since the roof is going to be occupied two means of egress are required and one has to go through the building. Amy informed the HPC that the Elk's building has an egress to service mechanical equipment which looks like a little phone booth which is significantly smaller than the proposal. Dennis said the elevator does not open onto the roof. Jack Wheeler said this is a new type of elevator because they cannot get into the building to drill and it mounts from the roof and that is why the over-ride is needed and ventilation baffle over the roof structure. In order to change the elevator significant alternations would have to occur to the building on the front facade. Gilbert asked for dimensions of the upper floor including the over-ride for clearance of the elevator. Jack stated 14.8". Gilbert said the drawings presented show the parapet going too far back or the pent house too far forward. Amy agreed that the bulkhead continues longer. Dennis said the bulkhead was not to continue as long as drawn and not to continue past the parapet on the east wall. The length will be checked. COMMENTS 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 Roger agreed with most of staff' s recommendation and proposed a restudy of the roof and that the elevator box is the size that is required for the elevator only, not larger. The stairway should be constructed with a sloped roof and the door should open outward. The Cantina building is a good example of the open door. Two smaller elements are better than one long one. Jeffrey also felt that the roof element is too large and recommended looking at a different kind of elevator. He had no problem with the proposed elevations: East, west and south. Gilbert was also in favor of the east, west and south elevations. He also said the pent house would benefit if it were two separate smaller volumes. His concern is the height of the over-run of the elevator and typically it is twelve feet and the proposed is 14 feet. It should only be five to six feet above the roof. Mary agreed with staff' s comments. She recommended that the entire board review the revised drawings due to the importance of the building. Susan agreed with everything that was said about the roof. Lisa shared the same concerns about the bulkhead on the roof. Christie also agreed with staff' s comments and felt that the east window change takes away from the historic look. Suzannah agreed that the roof top has to be minimized and the elements need broken down in terms of their shapes. The height of the elevator can be reduced. The east elevation is proportioned appropriately. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the applicant's application for 419 E. Hyman Ave. The north elevation is approved, the south elevation, the east elevation including the skylight shown and the west elevation option two as submitted. The bulkhead on the roof to be redesigned and approved at a later date. The following conditions to be approved. 1. Removal of existing mechanical equipment and restoration of the historic mural are appropriate and commendable. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 2. Provide a restoration/repair plan as part of the building permit application, specifying all work to be undertaken. 6. Identify any windows that have been replaced previously and any that are deteriorated beyond repair. 8. Provide a plan showing all exterior mechanical equipment. Heidi second the motion. YES VOTE: Roger, defJhey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Heidi NO VOTE: Mary, Susan, MOTION carried 5 2. For clarification to the applicant no changes can be made beyond what was approved tonight. Dealing with historic materials is at a standard that is acceptable to the board. 330 LAKE AVE. LD - CONCEPTUAL - PARTIAL DEMOLITION - VARIANCES - PH - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Sworn in were Ellen Hunt, David Warner and Aaron Hoffmans. Amy informed the board that several worksessions have occurred and the project meets the criteria of landmark designation. The effort to keep the one story is excellent. The contemporary character of the addition needs discussed and the nature of the materials selected. The addition is angled from the house and HPC should address that. The entry to the older house is a continuing concern and the restoration of the front porch and entry. Staff also has concern about the proposal to demolish the 50's addition to the barn. The barn was designed by Fritz Benedict which was reported to staff by his daughter. Fritz was an important architect in Aspen. The last issue is the proximity of the new single car garage to the very large trees. Staff requested the City Forester to examine the trees. The garage has to be out of the drip line of the trees. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney relayed that the notice has been provided and the applicant can proceed. David Warner relayed that prospectives are generated on the computer to show how much or little visually you would see. The trees are very dense on the site. A person in Fritz's office designed the building and it was built 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 without permission. It is not a Benedict design. The building is not significant. Aaron Hoffmans relayed to the board that the volume of the building would not be changed. If it is demolished and rebuilt they can free up the structure underneath the deck and reconstruct it with cantilevers, which would be a significant improvement. It would be more energy efficient and structurally sound. David Warner stated that asphalt is on the existing roof and the proposal is to have the new roofs metal. The smaller roofs are connected around the other roofs. If the building is demolished it can be reconstructed under the Hallam Lake review. The existing encroachment cannot be increased. 50% of the entire structure can be demolished. There are two gas fireplaces in the livingroom. Susan was concerned why the porch would be put back on when there is no entry. David Warner felt that porches add character to the street and it is part of the historic building. The problem with the door is that the house was configured back in the 50's to be what it is. The only picture from the Historical Society indicated no porch. The roof fascia shows and the porch wraps around under it. Members liked the concept of the smaller pieces on the site. The majority of the board had concerns with the proposed curved roof. The chair opened the public hearing. Sworn in were Elizabeth Altemus and Don Erdman. Don relayed that you can hardly see the historic resource from the street due to the trees. Don felt that it is not a good idea to elevate all of the lower branches of the blue spruce in order to make the house more visible. Elizabeth supported the project. A duplex could have been proposed. The vegetation hides the house. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 The chair closed the public hearing. COM]V[ENTS Christie opposed the porch being restored because historically in the last 80 years porches did not exist. She was non-committal about the partial demolition of a 50 year old building. It does add to the historic structure. The glass windows on the contemporary addition needs toned down. The mass is appropriate but the materials needs restudied. It might be too competitive with the historic building. Lisa had significant reservations about the project. The demolition of a nearly 50 old structure and addition to the house is inappropriate. The demolition of both structures is almost 32% of what the existing structures are on the site. Doubling the existing FAR on this site to over 4,400 square feet serves to overwhelm the historic resource and causes everything to ramble across the entire site. The landscaping and setting is particularly important here and should be preserved. The contemporary addition also needs restudied, as the features are too prominent. She also felt that the FAR bonus is not merited. She also agreed with staff regarding the window replacement. Changing the floor plan to allow the street faCade to change in its usage within the building is of concern in how the property relates to the street. If you have all of your public rooms facing the lake not only does that have impacts on Hallam Lake from lighting at night but you loose the lighting from the house to the street and it becomes a very dark faCade. It was a positive move to relocate the garage off of the driveway and taking it off the south side. The one-story elements are positive but there are too many of them. Heidi relayed that the design is being respectful to the historic building. She also favors the one-story buildings and keeping everything lower. The contemporary element needs toned down i.e. the fireplace in the front and the curved piece. Landmark Designation is supported but she feels more information should be provided to the HPC regarding the barn before demolition is approved. Demolition of the east wing is favorable. More information also needs provided regarding the front porch. Susan is also concerned about the front porch and contemporary look of the addition. The addition looks "industrial". She feels there are too many 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 windows. The barn addition should be left as is due to the correlation to Fritz Benedict. She also agreed with Lisa regarding too many one-story elements. The chimney in front is distracting from the historic house. The one story addition is very commendable. The garage relocation behind the trees and out of site is appropriate. Mary felt that the project is massive. The variations in the ridgelines are commendable. The curved wing is reminiscent of a "diner" and needs addressed. Historic preservation is returning the structure to what it originally was. Additional research needs to occur regarding where the original door was and it should be replaced. Gilbert agreed with Heidi regarding the additions and he feels the massing is very successful with the backdrop over the historical building. The historic resource is very dominant. The materials and details will pull this project together. The vaulted roof is unconvincing. The massing and general size of the end part of the addition is very successful. If the original building had a front porch it should be replaced. It seems odd that you would have a porch that you could not get too from inside the house. More information about the addition to the barn regarding its significance needs provided. Jeffrey commended the applicant on the careful modeling. The garage relocation is a strong move. Jeffrey also would like further information regarding the front porch. The connection to the barn needs restudied. Due to the efforts to make this one story which is commendable in mass and scale it also leads to sprawl. More information needs provided to the HPC regarding the barn. The entry sequence east to the garage needs looked at. The contemporary nature of the addition can be achieved by a simple detailing. Roger relayed to the public that HPC has had numerous discussions regarding vegetation and planting of trees that would totally hide a resource. When the HPC looks at a resource their job is to save and maintain the resource and they try to eliminate what vegetation is there. Landmark Designation is encouraged. He would not encourage demolition of the barn. He is concerned about the demolition of the 50's addition. The project has the feeling of"sprawl" and this is an enormous project. The connection of the resource and how it connects to the barn might be reduced and be a little 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 more "lighter". Reiterating, detail and materials are critical. He would not give a bonus yet but the project is going in the right direction. It is extremely important to maintain the historical importance of the house and what was there. Suzannah stated to the applicant that the HPC has asked for this kind of project for many years and she commended the applicant. The 50's addition to the historic house is an example of why not to do an addition that imitates the historic house. It naturally becomes associated with it. She is in favor of removing that portion of the house. Regarding the addition to the barn she feels there is a lot of restructuring issues and most of that addition will probably have to be removed. It doesn't seem to be a significant piece of architecture. The volumes on the site are well thought out. The modesty of the street elevation and minimum windows, and the fact that they are not double hung windows, they are windows handled in a much different way sets off the historic house much more than adding windows that are more traditional. The addition is true to its own time. She is not sure you will read the "sprawl" from the street due to the bulk of the floor plan being behind the historic house. The concept of the curved shape is OK but what is going on is a little vestigial looking, (tacked on). In general, Suzannah is in favor of the plan and can support the bonus. Applicants Comments: David Warner relayed that they are resisting the front door due to not being able to park on the street, you can't get too it because of the vegetation and interior changes are effected. On the barn addition, he does not feel it is historic. The house could divide itself into a duplex and as a duplex they are below the FAR limit and would not need the bonus. The bonus they are asking for is for the single family because they are over the single family and under the duplex. That is where the bonus comes from. There is also a setback variance on the south. The new construction is within the setback limitations. A total of 50 feet is needed but you can have a minimum of 15 but the total of both sides needs to be 50 feet. Our new structures meet that criteria but with the old structures 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 added they are under about 10 to 12 feet although nothing is closer than 20 feet where a minimum is 15 feet. MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue 330 Lake Avenue to January 12th with the following direction: 1. That the character of the proposed additions will be studied. 2. It must be determined what the character of the original front door and porch was, and a restoration procedure will be discussed. 3. To confirm the historical significance of the 1950 's addition to the barn. 4. More detailed elevations will be needed showing the proposed materials' and detailing of the additions. 5. 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. Motion second by Roger. YES VOTE: Roger, defJhey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Heidi. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. 212 W. HOPKINS - MINOR Mary and Lisa recused themselves. Sworn in were Jennifer Twelvetrees, David and BJ Williams. Amy conveyed that the project is to renovate unit 5, at 212 W. Hopkins which is the upper floor unit in the original portion of the unit. There is a large addition to the rear and numerous changes when it was made into a multifamily dwelling. A new dormer is proposed for the West Side of the building and staff feels it is appropriate and not visible from the street. A new door and window configuration on the East Side where you enter the unit is proposed. At the site visit a discussion was brought up regarding the replacement of the double hung windows on the front of the building and staff finds that inappropriate. The windows are historic and original to the building and can be repaired. They are also part of the architectural character of the building. A skylight is also proposed but staff feels it is in a too prominent location. The original chimney to the house exists and they intend to keep it in place but they want to take it down and rebuild it. Staff supports 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 reconstruction but an accurate reconstruction and right mortar and original bricks need to be incorporated. Jenny informed the I-tPC that the skylight is flush and does not open. Its purpose is to provide light. The idea of adding another dormer instead of the skylight would be cumbersome. Regarding the windows there are two panes out of four that are original glass and they are worth saving. There are holes in the window frames themselves and a tight fitting window is necessary. Wood storm windows can be looked at. COM]V[ENTS Roger's concern is the skylight on a prominent facade. The windows can be repaired. Jeffrey relayed that the skylight is too close to the front of the building. The double hung windows and historic gable should be retained, as they are one of the last true historic elements on the structure. The door replacement is acceptable. Gilbert said he had no problem with the size or shape of the proposed windows on the east elevation. The transom window should be eliminated and by getting the window and door head heights aligned will improve the east elevation and organize it. The dormer is OK. The double hung windows can be restored. The chimney reconstruction is OK with conditions. A metal chimney cap should be incorporated. The skylight is proposed in a too prominent of a location. Susan agreed with the commissioner's comments. Wood storm windows should be used over the historic windows to retain the heat. Heidi, Christie and Suzannah dittoed Gilbert's comments. Jenny asked for clarification of the repair of the historic windows. Suzannah said basically you need to work with what is existing. There are epoxy methods of repair and some of the wood can be replaced if damaged. Amy will provide the applicant with the repair information. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 MOTION: Gilbert moved to grant minor development approval for 212 W. Hopkins Avenue with the following conditions: 1. That the transom be eliminated above the door. 2. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures when selected. 3. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 4. No elements' (beyond what is approved herein) are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials' other than what has been specifically approved may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 5. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 6. The language of the Historic Preservation Commission resolution will 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. 7. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC r3esolution 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 know and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 8. The double hung windows on the front facade are to be restored. 9. 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. 10. The reconstruction of the chimney is approved with approval of staff and monitor specifications. 11. Skylight not approved. DISCUSSION David Williams requested fi~rther information regarding the bedroom window which is important to him, as he has to live there and spending his lifetime hours there and the denial of the skylight. The house sits back off the road quite a bit and there are trees in the area and cottonwood in front of the building and there is an evergreen tree on the side. He does not understand 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 why that skylight is such an issue when it sits so far back off the road. David asked about potential problems with the windows and who to contact. Amy relayed that a monitor will be assigned and should be contacted if problems arise. Staff and Monitor can resolve issues as they come up. David said there is potential egress issues with the window. Amy asked what the means of egress is? Jeffrey stated that egress is not only defined how to get our but also getting in and that should be researched. David said for safety reasons he is concerned about the windows. Suzannah relayed that the windows can be restored for adequate safety. David said he is asking for balance for the boards desire to perform their job as historic preservation and at the same time take into consideration their safety as the board makes the decisions. Amy relayed to David that the HPC has handed this requirement to 300 other property owners and the board is trying to be consistent. The HPC will try to find a way to make the project work. Jenny said all the other units have a transom window and they are there because there is very little window area on the south side or street side of the house in that area. It gives wonderful light. Heidi said since the board is against the skylight and after hearing Jenny's explanation for light she is in favor of the transom window. Susan agreed with Heidi and Jeffrey stated the elevation is significantly altered. Amended motion: Gilbert amended condition 2 to allow the transom window over the door but the head heights of the doors and windows would have to align. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 Heidi second the motion and mended motion. YES FOTE: Roger, Jefjhey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Susan, Heidi, Christie, Motion carried 7-0. Jeffrey is the monitor. 333 W. BLEEKER STREET - WORKSESSION no -minutes MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 419 E. HYMAN AVENUE - MINOR .................................................................................................... 1 330 LAKE AVE. LD - CONCEPTUAL - PARTIAL DEMOLITION - VARIANCES - PH - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ............................................................................................... 4 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ DECEMBER 15~ 1999 212 W. HOPKINS - MINOR ................................................................................................................. 9 333 W. BLEEKER STREET - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES .................................................. 13