Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20030226 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26~ 2003 Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Teresa Melville, Michael Hoffman, Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander. Neil Hirst was excused. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Intern, Katie Ertmer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of Jan. 8th and Feb. 12tl,. second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. J~es vote: Faleri¢, Derek, Michael. Teresa, ~leffrey Valerie relayed that the decision was made on 533 W. Francis that it was not appropriate ro move the historic vegetation. Michael was elected as the new Vice-chair. 114 NEALE ST. - CONCEPTUAL Sworn in: Craig Pasquarelli, William Sharpies, Suzannah Reid Affidavit of public notice was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Katie stated that the proposal is for a new house on the vacant portion of what was a lot split on 114 Neale St. The maximum allowable FAR is 3,945 square feet. They are proposing a single-family residence with an accessory dwelling unit. Thev are asking for variances from the Residential Design Standards regarding the garage door, covered entry porch, one-story element, secondary mass and inflection. Preservation Guidelines: This is modern architecture that we have not really seen before with an historic project. The architecture itself is great but we need to compare it to what is required in historic preservation guidelines which say that there needs to be a strong connection between the two buildings in terms of elements that relate ro the historic structure. Guideline 11.1 discusses street orientation. The historic house faces Neale St. and the proposed house faces Queen Street so it doesn't fit that ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARy 26, 2003 guideline. The garage doors are facing Neale St. with conflicts with the orientation of the historic structure. Guideline 11.2 discusses the front porch. The porch should be similar in size and shape as the historic. The proposed porch is larger and travels the length of the house and it has a deck above it which is not consistent with the historic structure which is a one-story small element. Guideline 11.3 and 11.4 talk about the massing and having similar size modules. The massing on the proposed house is one large mass and not sympathetic to the historic structure as we would like. It is not in a small scale and not broken up. The historic structure has a small addition off the rear which breaks up the massing of that structure. Guideline 11.5 discusses the forms that they should be similar to the historic house. Staff feels that the forms on the proposed house are more complex then those found on the historic house. The proposed roof forms are very contemporary and A-symmetrical. The request for variances are from the residential design standards and the secondary mass. The reqmrement is that all new structures have a p~ece that is separate from the main dwelling and maybe connected by some element. There is no mass that detaches from the structure or uses a connecting element that we feel fits that design standard. The ADU is connected by a deck. Staff does not feel this warrants an exception from the standard. Parking: The standards say that the garage doors should be set back ten feet from the front most faqade. The proposed garage doors are flush with the faqade that faces Neale St. Staff feels that this didn't quite meet that standard. The garage doors come pretty close to the sidewalk and creates a curb cut in a primary sidewalk. The standard talks about the covered entry porch which should be a one story. The proposed porch ~s more ora two-story element because it has a deck above it. The standard for one-story elements states that the element should comprise 20% of the building's overall width and should be street facing. There is a 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OY FEBRUARY 26, 2003 one-story element on the structure; however it is at the rear of the building and not facing Neale or Queen Street. Inflection talks about the relationship between the varying buildings. Staff determined that there was no need for a variance from this because there is a one-story house on that side. There were discussions with the Engineering Dept. about the driveway. The plat notes said that the entry to the property had to be off Queen Street m~less the City Engineer found it to meet safety standards. After a meeting with the parties, the City Engineer said the new proposal meets the requirements. Staff was unable to recommend approval for this project. Craig said they met the Trettin's at the International Design Conference where he was a presenter. Coming over the No Problem Bridge is the dynamic way that you would first be introduced to the site and to the house. They did dozens of designs but it became important that the front elevation be facing Queen Street. That is the entry to the neighborhood. The Trettin's moved the historic house up to the hill to its present position. The lot is narrow after the setbacks are into play. Natural materials and rested metals were chosen to blend in. These forms are contemporary but modest. They designed the house to not disturb any of the original landscaping that exists. The house is almost dug into the hillside. The view plain from the historic houge is intact to the mountain and the overall height of the house was lowered to snuggle it into the hillside for sustainability and heating and cooling issues. Greg responded to staff's concern. The proposed footage is less than allowable. They are below 3,500 and the allowable is 3,945 square feet. The ADU has a separate entrance from the side. There ~s an open walkway from Neale Street or from Queen St. The house really tries to address the comer in two different ways. The roof of the one-story building is used as part of the family's outdoor space that would be an extension from the living room above. The porch has a band that goes the entire length of the house. The massing has two bars and the inflection was brought down in the back to keep the view plane open and make a more gentle connection between the 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARy 26, 2003 historic structure and the new structure. The roof form is a contemporary roof form. If we put gable roofs on it would block the entire view plane of the other house. One of the biggest issues was the location of the garage. Either you bring the driveway from Queen St. where we have a very difficult topography and hill Would have to kill a lot of the vegetation or use the existing curb cut on Neale St. which is there currently and that is why we located the garage where we did. We wanted to disturb as little as possible. Since the front elevation is on Queen St. the side elevation Would be on Neale St. and that would be an appropriate response to the guidelines. With the setback it is difficult because the site is narrow. The plan has three bedrooms in the lower level and a bedroom above. The lower level bedrooms have glass so you can open the doors in the summer time and get out into the grass area. We are pushed to the edges on both setback lines. If we had to push the garage in it would make a strange dark overhang underneath one side and we would also loose one of the bedrooms. The idea is to keep the house as compact as possible, get it right, get it in the ground, get the roof low and let the historic house have its presence on the comer and let the new house have its presence on Queen St. Suzannah Reid said this is an unusual site based on what the standards and guidelines were written to address. There is a lot more separation between the two houses both horizontally and vertically. The design is low key and modest with the use of simple materials. Questions and clarifications: Valerie inquired about the cut on southern side of the site? Suzannah said apparently the historic house used to site on that flat area and the cut was behind it. Valerie also asked about the height. Greg said the house is 25 feet and the allowable is 25 feet. Suzannah said if you did a gabled roof it would be measured at the mid point and it would go up considerably higher depending on the roof pitch. Jeffrey said the historic house was moved and the new access is off King Street. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26~ 2003 Teresa asked for clarification on the driveway. Katie said the Engineering Dept. determined that they needed to come off the existing curb cut. Teresa also asked what the distance was between the new house and the historic house. Greg said it is at least 60 feet apart. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Gary Nichols said he lives on King St. and the plan indicates that cars will back out onto Neale St. He feels that is a real mistake because cars come up over the hill and they won't even see the cars backing out until they are over the crest of the and headed down. He would rather see the garage offof Queen Street. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Comments: Michael said the applicability of the historic preservation guidelines to this project do not apply. There is no physical relationship between the two structures. Regarding the residential design standards he agrees with staff that changes need to be made to meet those standards. Derek emphasized when we are looking at this project there is a severe non- applicability of the guidelines as to what they have produced. Regarding guidelines 11.3 the massing is handled fantastically well. A gabled roof will not work on this project. This design is very different from most everything that we have seen in Aspen. The roof form is successful because it is conscientious of every surrounding element. The porch design from the double fafade is ingenious solution. Teresa said she appreciates the design and the minimization of the design. We need to stick to our guidelines and keep ourselves accountable. Teresa supported staffs memo that the project is too far from our guidelines. Valerie said it is a great project and feels there is an opportunity for approval with conditions. The residential guidelines seem to work best in the West End where it is nice and flat. We will have less ~mpact to the main street being Neale as it relates to the front of the house in that you have seven foot retaining wall there to accommodate the entrance offNeale street 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2003 which can be very imposing as a pedestrian coming up. Possibly use snowmelt or lowering the retaining wall; getting the driveway off Queen Street with some minimal vegetation removal might, be a little more sensitive to the site. There is an opportunity to restudy the garage and consider it off Queen Street. Guideline 11.2 refers to the front porch and entrance offofNeale St. The design ideas are great. The portal is a nice interpretation ora porch. Regarding mass and scale the only concern is on Neale Street where it gets really big. What is overwhelming about the fafade is that it ~s a false fafade. There is an opportunity to do a little separation between the one bar and the other structure and it could be brought down a little and still provide privacy to the users but not be so intimidating to the street. The roof is a fun modified fiat roof and it is quite exciting in the project. Jeffrey relayed that the distance between the new and historic house is a great. He also disagrees with the garage offNeale St, It ~s a very steep grade coming down to the river and would be very problematic. He recommended restudy of the garage doors off Queen Street. Guideline 11.2 refers to the porch connection and the scale entity. Jeffrey said he has some concerns with guideline I 1.3 and 11.4 and the historic vegetation. Guideline 11.6 relates to roof forms. He agrees that this is not a gable form but the mass is approximately 65 feet. When you are in the historic resource and looking down that is a large roof form and possibly needs restudied even though it is unassurmng. He suggested a little more height. The garage wall form creates an intimate privacy but it also does shield its way away from the street which is also purposeful and it is a very busy street. With some modification the project can work but he supports staff's recommendation. Suzannah said with the garage offNeale Street and the trade off you end up with a much more building appearing on the site. We are limited to using the shared access that exists by the Engineenng Dept. Greg said they worked for a year and a half on this project and the most difficult issue has been the location of the garage. Michael said one of his concerns is that we might weaken the design for no particularly good reason. Derek dittoed Michael's concerns. He would 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2003 prefer that the project not be shut down due to fear of the unknown. There are a lot of things in this project that do not neatly cinch up and apply. David Hoefer reminded the board that their decisions or recommendations need ro be tied into the criteria. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development of l14 Neale Street to Mayl 4th: second by Valerie. Motion carried 5-0. Ires vote: Valerie. Derek, Michael, Teresa, Jeffrey Jeffrey reminded the board that this is a landmark lot. Suzannah requested the board address specifically the garage and if it works on Neale Street. Jeffrey: Guideline 11.2 regarding the porch needs restudied. Guidelines 11. I orientation needs restudied. Guideline l 1.6 concerning the roof form and 11.10 need restudied. The residential design standards 26.410.040 regarding parking garages and car ports needs to be re-thought. The one story element also needs addressed. The garage location because of the safety issue needs looked at on Queen Street. Valerie said she gave her direction previously. Teresa said she doesn't mind of the garage is on Neale Street and the garage door being flush doesn't bother her. She is as traditionalist and likes a front porch with a little cover. She also feels their needs to be a little more tie in to the historic house up the hill. Michael said after evaluating carefully the location of the historic structure and the landforms and the slope of the hill it is his finding that the historic preservation guidelines are largely inapplicable here but there is so little physical connection between the historic structure and the proposed new home. With regards to the specific question of the garage he shares Gary Nichols concern about backing up onto Neale Street in the winter. Possibly 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF'FigBRUARY26, 2003 cars could enter Neale Street going forward. In terms of general guidance the residential design standards are important here for a lot of the reasons Teresa mentioned, Little damage to the overall design could occur to meet those standards. Derek said obviously the garage is the main concern of the board. He does not share the same concerns. Guideline 11.1, 11.2,3,5,6 they are applicable as the house ~s an excellent design. The material palate is conscientious. The design inspires me and makes me want to continue to be a better architect. 819 E. HOPKINS - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor. motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 8