Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20020123ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JANUARY 23, 2002 110 E. BLEEKER ST. - CONCEPTUAL ................................................................................................... 1 (CONT'D FROM 12-12-2001 ) PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................................ 1 950 MATCHLESS DRIVE - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING ..................................................... 6 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JANUARY 23~ 2002 Chairperson, Suzannah Reid called the meeting t0 order at 5i00 p.m. Commissioners present: Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Rally Dupps, Melanie Roschko, Michael Hoffman, Paul D'Amato, Teresa Melville and Neill Hirst. Staff present: Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer MOTION: Rally moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 28, 2001 and January 9, 2002; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. 110 E. Bleeker St. - Conceptual (cont'd from 12-12-2001 ) Public Hearing Sworn in were Sven Alstrom, and Herb Klein Amy said at the last meeting direction was given to 'restudy the addition and the connecting piece to the old house. Staff is enthusiastic about the potential restoration of the house. One of the guidelines, the placement of the addition, is not being met. If the addition were a one story it would be compatible but in this case the addition is a two-story competitive with the original building. Staff feels the design is not appropriate as it changes the perception of the width and the size of the building. Staff's recommendation is that it must be slipped back in order to be an appropriate project and one worthy of any kind of FAR bonus. That is the sole focus of staff's concern. Sven said from the last meeting they took off an addition 150 square feet of FAR bonus request and that was by pushing the stair back further into the building and addressing the stair connector, which is about 12' 8" above ground line. Sven said he likes the lower roof of the stair and he might be able to shave off another six inches. The connector is an 8-foot ceiling. The main Changes from the last meeting are'the reduction in FAR and the sloping roof of the connector. They eliminated the porch columns on the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 23~ 2002 balcony and they could reduce the main ridge one foot, more which would reduce the ceiling height. Regarding minor issues the client wants to keep the laundry room that is an existing addition on the back of the houSe. Questions: Herb Klein said standard 10.8 talks about the minimum setback often feet being recommended and they are now at 14 feet back. Changes have been made to the windows and the stair tower does not have all of the glass that was originally proposed and it has also been reduced in height. Herb said he and Sven spent numerous hours trying to incorporate all of the boards concerns in order to make this project happen. Sven said it is their intent to keep the floor line the same as the existing house. Sven also said the flat roof reads well between the two buildings. Melanie asked if they looked at moving the addition back so that the edge of the balcony is at ten feet. Sven said they tried but they had to address the client's needs, Jeffrey asked about the cross section of the staircase and could that 12'4" plate height be reduced. PosSibly visually that might look better. Sven said he did not want to introduce any vertical wall there. Possibly if it was reduced and tied to the roof below that could be something that could be studied. Sven said the house is somewhat of a "sleeper" and with restoration will look good. Another main component of the project is the wall that is being added on, has a cellar and there are three different kinds of foundation conditions on that wall. The wall basically only has foundation under the rear one third. They intend to provide a new foundation on that wall and they are only doing a structural basement, not a full basement. Melanie inquired about the windows on the west elevation as some windows indicate divided light and others d° notl sVen Said it is "form 2 ASPEN HISTORIC P~SERVATION CO~ISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 23~ 2002 follows function". There are French doors on the front of the building and French doors on the office in back. There is fixed pane glass at the stair connector and the remainder is cottage type windows. Teresa inquired about the connector and Sven said it was three feet taller before and the size has been reduced. He also stated that he cannot reduce the ceiling height anymore due to the existing floor. The building is only 18'6" wide and then there is the connector. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: Jeffrey said the project is massaging itself. Fundamentally the stair town is a helpful tool but als° hurting the project some because the new addition visually seems so close on the east west access. With the restoration of the Victorian this could be an exemplary project and be worthy of the FAR bonus. On the front fagade Jeffrey shares the same concerns as staff. The lowering of the connector one foot is commendable. Possibly an investigation could occur to lower the plate off the rear of the building. Gilbert said he could accept the front setback of the addition if there was some reduction in the height of the addition. The physical plan seems appropriate. Gilbert said he likes the notion to keep the tree and he feels lowering the roof height will accomplish the same thing. He feels the building is pushed back far enOugh. The treatment of the facade is more successful in the plan presented tonight. The way the mullions break down the large expanses of glass seems to be successful. Gilbert supports the bonus with the effort that is being made on the historic house that will be visible from the street. Rally also said he could support the bonus. There are many good things about the application and his only concern is the stair element. Teresa said what is important to her is retaining the historic elements of the historic house and enhancing it with good fenestration. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JANUARY 23~ 2002 Neill said he is gratified with the redesign of the front of the house. The front faCade now allows for the original historic building to be the fancy decorative Victorian structure that it is and the south elevation is clearly a more modem and well-defined su-ucture. Neill agreed with Jeffrey and Gilbert that in the drawing the stair connector from the north elevation looks massive and does disturb the boundaries of both the addition and original house. On the model it doesn't seem that massive. Melanie said she has mixed feelings: She would like to see what it would look like if the addition was slipped back but from the back of the house the addition is on the same line and that simplifies the design and back section. If it were moved back we might create something that will be even more disturbing. Lowering it one foot and the material selections will set it apart from the historic house. Michael said he felt the nine-foot setback acceptable. He also felt the new proposed elevation appropriate. The connector is much simpler. Michael also said he feels the height should come down in order to approve the bonus. Paul said he is in favor of the revised porch scheme and would prefer that the addition be moved back some. How the building looks from the front is what is essential to the project. Suzannah agreed with staff's recommendation. She felt that the stair tower should be incorporated to make it a more integral part of the addition and allow it to be more separate from the eave line of the historic house in the back. It seems that there are opportunities to explore that idea so that the buildings are not so butted up against each other. If the addition gets moved back maybe the height is less important. The board members felt that the sloping roof over the mudroom would work. Sven said if we pushed the addition back the rear width of the addition would appear larger which would be of concern. The client doesn't want the addition pushed back and wants to save the tree. Sven said he could put two risers in the second floor plane. 4 ASPEN HISTOmC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 23~ 2002 MOTION: Rally moved to grant conceptual resolution #2, for 110 E. Bleeker St. with conditions 1-3 of staff's memo. 4) Restudy a stair conneetor with the goal of being to increase visual separation. 5) Lowering the addition so'that the ridge of the addition is lower than the historic resource. Michael second. Motion died 7~0. MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue the application for 110 E. Bleeker until February 13th with the folllowing conditions: 1) The addition must comply with the design guidelines by moving further back from the front fagade of the existing structure. 2) In order for this project to qualify for the FAR bonus, the porch and front window should be restored to original condition. Removal of paint on the masonry is also recommended. 3) As part of an overall restoration of the historic character of the property, staff recommends the owner work with the City Parks Department to remove and replace the existing trees on the City right-of-way with more appropriate trees. 4) Restudy a stair connector with the goal of being to increase visual separation. 5) Lowering the addition so that the ridge of the addition is lower than the historic resource; motion second by Melanie. Amy stated that we are going onto a third hearing and these issues should be considered important and the HPC is focusing on the concerns of the project and these need to be taken seriously as we do not want to get into the situation of continuing, continuing etc. Melanie said one of the thoughts is if the addition were moved back that the stair connector could be incorporated into it and that might solve a few problems. Motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Melanie, Neill, Mike, Suzannah 5 ASPEN mSTOR~C PRESERVATION COMMIssION MINUTEs OF, JANUARY 23~ 2002 950 Matchless Drive - Conceptual - Public Hearing Chief Deputy Clerk swore in Klm Raymond and Alan Richmond. Proof of publication was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Alan Becket letter was entered into the record as Exhibit Il. Amy said the applicant is requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus. Staff recommends approval because they feel that the project is moving in the right direction at least in terms of placement, form, and size of the addition. The applicant will need to request from council a PUD amendment to be able to have the 500 square foot FAR. bonus. Presently they cannot have that due to prior agreements when they were annexed. Even with the bonus they are under 200 square feet of what they are normally allowed to have. A lot of the square footage has been placed in the detached garage with the ADU. The other concern is the deck which is encroaching on top of the historic building and that needs to be restudied in order for the project to be outstanding and worthy of a bonus. There is very little work specifically that needs done on the historic house right now. Kim said regarding the deck on the east elevation there will be no problem to shorten that and the way she wo~ld like to do that is put a little post up offthe wall of the existing building and shorten the deck up so that you can read the entire house completely. The comment about the window on the east elevation they can add mullions. Amy said the large undivided piece of glass is a scale issue with the historic house and there are lots of ways that can be handled. Klm said she could also break up the long skinny window on the west elevation in order to break it up. Suzannah and Gilbert said the drawings on the west elevation needs to be redone to reflect what is happening with the roof line. Alan Richmond said all the house owners would be applying for the PUD amendment together. They are trying to amend the ordinance that 6 ASPEN HISTORIC P~SERVATiON COM~SsioN MiNuTES OF~ JANUARY 23~ 2002 establishes the maximum floor area for the units. Alan said the 1976 document is superseded by annexation and rezoning. Michael said he has concerns about the agreement without some clarification. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: Paul said he needs floor plans before he can approve anything especially when an FAR bonus is involved. He is unclear how the connector ties in to the front elevation. Gilbert said the drawings need to be complete and coordinated so that we have a real understanding of what is going on. Michael said, other than his concern about the neighbors he supports staff's comments and recommendations. Melanie said Kim relayed that she could do a drawing on the connector making it clearer and open and that should be presented at the next meeting. Neill said the height seems rather imposing; it is too high especially when it is faced with stucco. Teresa said she is Ok with the height of the addition and would support a different window on the connector. Rally said referencing standard 10.6 the addition over towers the historic house. He would also prefer a one-story connector, which is recommended in the standards. As far as the bonus goes the project needs to be an outstanding restoration and that includes bringing the historic house back the way it was. The penetrations into the gabled roof form of the addition flat roof are not in keeping with the historic character and he would not support the bonus. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 23~ 2002 Gilbert said the overall concept is fine. The concerns are the two-stow connector and the fact that it does extend beyond the roof form of the existing building. Clearer drawings would help us figure out how that really works. The tower element in terms of its massing and location on the site are fine. What concern's him on the tower will be the architectural finished materials. It is contrasting with the historic building by virtue of its shape and the window patterns and shape of the windows. It seems that something has to tie them back to the historic building. He also said he would be concerned if stucco is being used for the finishing materials because that is another contrasting element. He also has concerns about the tall slim window on the western elevation, Jeffrey said the two-stow link has a strong visual presence from the east side. The massing and placement is OK but their needs to be a tie to the existing building. The large window on the hiStoric resource is troubling in its proportion. Jeffrey commended the applicant for keeping the massing down. Suzannah said the connector and the impact on the historic gable needs to be looked at. She would also like to see a study of the pitch of the roof on the tower and possibly bring that down a little bit. The height could be reduced easily and the lower pitch might be more in character with the architecture of the tower. The deck supported by its own colunm would be preferable instead of coming off the back shed of the historic house. Suzannah also concurred with the other commissioners about the window on the west side. Michael said he is concerned about the right of the neighbors to review these plans before they can be built. The concern is that they go through the entire process and then the neighbor says they have these rights and they want to exercise them and it would be much more difficult to do so at that point. The declaration of covenants provides for an architectural review committee to approve the plans. Michael would like something from the applicant or lawyer that the covenants etc. for Alpine Acres are ineffective. Amy said as a policy the City does not get involved in property agreements. It is a private agreement and we would not stop the review from going through. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JANUARY 23, 2002 Alan Richmond said he would be glad to look into this and provide an answer. MOTION: Rally moved to continue Conceptual Development of 950 Matchless Drive until February 13, 2002; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Neill, Melanie, Michael, Suzannah Worksession - Holland House - no minutes MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn the meeting, second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p,m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9