Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20021023 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ OCTOBER 23, 2002 Chairperson, Rally Dupps called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Vice-chair Jeffrey Halferty, Neill Hirst, Michael Hoffman and Teresa Melville. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland Intern, Katie Ermer Jeffrey was seated at 5:15 p.m. Disclosure: Rally will step down on 334 W. Hallam Teresa will step down on 533 W. Francis CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT Katie issued a certificate for the Ute City building - awning replacements 334 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL (Continue PH to Nov. 13, 2002) MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 334 ~. Hallam until Nov. 13, 2002; second by Neill. All in favor, motion carried 3-0. Yes vote: Neill Teresa, Michael 533 W. FRANCIS STREET - CONCEPTUAL - ON-SITE RELOCATION - HISTORIC LOT SPLIT - VARIANCES David relayed to the applicant if conceptual goes to a vote all three members must be in the affirmative but it is his understanding that the case will be continued. Affidavit of notice entered into the record as Exhibit I. Sworn in: Mitch Haas, land use consultant and David Gibson, architect. Katie noted that the staff feels that the allocation of the FAR puts more burden on the historic structure rather than the new structure. The incentive of the lot split is to reduce the size of the additions on historic properties; ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 23, 2002 Staff is also concerned with the scale, massing and location of the addition. Guideline 10.6 addresses size and states that additions should be similar and lower in height. The proposal height has dropped down but staff still feels it is too large in comparison with the historic house. Overall the addition has a bulky appearance. Guideline 10.8 talks about location in relationship to the historic structure and that it not obscure the structure. This house is located on the corner and has two facades that are highly visible and the proposed addition over shadows the west facade of the historic house. Guideline 10.11 says materials should be similar or subordinate to the historic materials. The connecting piece is stone which is out of character with the historic materials. All of the guidelines should be met in order to receive the additional FAR. Mitch said he understands that the FAR bonus is more a function of the guidelines, then it is necessarily of the split between the two lots. The FAR split can work if we can come up with a design that meets the guidelines. One main issue is the west side yard setback, bulk and mass of the addition. Dave Gibson said from the work session they made architectural changes to the design. The connector has a pitched roof and the roof of the addition has changed to a single peak to make the massing more compatible with the historic house. The addition has been changed to a 1 ½ story element. The historic house which is being retained, is a cottage hipPed roof addition of 1890 and is 774 square feet. The project is about 2380 square feet and the connector is 240 square feet, which is basically replacing the historic sheds. The material selection is clapboard siding. Jeffrey was seated 5:15 p.m. Chairperson, Rally Dupps opened and closed the public hearing. David noted for the record that a letter was received from Charles Israel in opposition to any changes made to the house at 533 W. Francis Street, (Exhibit II). 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 23, 2002 an opportunity to do some restoration of the kitchen area and incorporate that. There are many ways to do that, possibly demolish it and add other things in its place. Rally also said it is just his opinion and that doesn't mean he would vote against the project, it is just a concern. David Gibson presented revisions to the project. One thought was to make the setbacks equal. He also suggested that the two buildings could be move to the adjacent lot. Jeffrey and other members felt that the historic house it gets too far away from 5th Street to the west if the project moves to the adjacent lot. Mitch said if the house is moved to the interior lot you have an historic structure next to another historic structure and retain a relationship between the two. You also do not have the street facing elevation problems created by the addition. David Gibson said he agreed with Rally that some of the walls and foundations are still there. The roofs and fenestration have been changed and the interior walls blown out. DaVid also explained how the property has progressed over the years. An 1893 map shows a 16-foot miners cottage. On the Sanborn map it showed that the building had doubled in size and a hip roof added. Some time in the 50's another addition occurred and a carport was added in the 60's. Amy said our guidelines talk about relocation and it is something that we would allow only if it were clearly to the benefit the building. Right now you view two sides of the building and if it was moved to the interior that 'would be compromised. You would be hiding more of the historic house. Katie also noted that location is part of the history of the building. Some board members were in favor of looking at the equal setback concept. The viewing of the house is from Fifth and Francis and the majority of the board was not in favor of moving the historic house to the adjacent lot. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 23, 2002 Nell1 noted that he is not in favor of moving the historic house. History can't be moved to accommodate a new addition. Neill also said he is concerned about the historical findings at the back of the house. Mitch asked the HPC if they have to keep the sheds in the back. Michael relayed that he needs more information before making that decision. How much of that wall would have to be removed to accommodate the connector? David Gibson said it would be replaced entirely, and rebuilt partly on the footprint of the original shed. The connector on the west falls exactly where the Sanborn map shows the shed used to be. Michael said based on the representation from David he would prefer the connector as is. Jeffrey said he needs to do another site visit but could go either way. There are tough head height issues. Rally said he could entertain some reworking of that area but would like to see a proposal. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 533 W. Francis, Concel)tual, Lot Split, Variances and Public Hearing to Nov. 13, 2002; second by Neill. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Neill, Michael, Rally MOTION: Rally moved to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 5