Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960522 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22, 1996 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Jake Vickery with Roger Moyer, Melanie Roschko, Susan Dodington, Sven Alstrom, Suzannah Reid and Mark Onorofski present. Excused was Martha Madsen. MOTION: Melanie moved to approve the minutes of May 8th and May 22nd; second by Susan..411 in favor, motion carried. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Melanie stated that she contacted the Villas and there is no agreement between the homeowners and CDOT that Stan mentioned at the last meeting in regard to the rail distance to the Villa complex. It was mentioned that they wouldn't come any closer than a certain distance and there is no guarantee and in fact it is not determined how far they have to be away from the buildings. Suzannah stated at the last meeting there was a shift in the roof pitch and that qualified as a ridge line change and that does not meet ordin 935 E. HYMAN - CONCEPTUAL PH David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that the notices have been provided and presented to the clerk. Amy Amidon stated that this is an historic landmark with 6,000 sqfl. It is an historic landmark due to the Ute #4 survey marker and there are no historic buildings on the site. A small shed will be removed. The property is zoned residential multi-family and with the historic landmark that zone district allows the development of two detached dwelling units. They are restricted to the FAR that is allowed for a duplex which is 3600 sqft. The applicant has requested several variances. Because of the location of the rock and the fact that they are developing two detached buildings they are constrained in meeting setback requirements. Five feet on the east side yard, rear yard of six feet; combined side yard setback variance of ten feet; five foot variance on the required distance between the buildings on the lot, they should be ten feet and they are requesting the 500 sqft. bonus. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 Amy stated regarding ordinance #30 the build to line standard has not been met but is probably not an issue because there are not 75% of the buildings on the block that conform to any build to line. Amy stated that the primary mass standard needs met. Amy stated that the volume standard which deals with the no window zone there are several areas in which that zone is violated. Amy stated that this is not a simple project to review. There is not a specific historic context and you are not dealing with renovation of historic buildings. Kim Raymond presented the project. She presented photographs of the alley and a fifty foot scale of the neighborhood. The condominium building is 27 feet off the property line and the little cabin closest to the street is 13 feet. Those are the only two structures on the block right now. With the rock where it is there is no way we could pull the building closer to the street anyway. Klm stated that she reworked some concerns that Amy had and presented the new drawings. The volume of the windows has been broken up. Kim addressed B building which is not the rock. The front porch has two different levels of a roof and the front plane is set back. Kim stated that building A is the building behind the rock. The plate heights are different on the building to break it up. Kim stated that the site plan indicates hardships and they were trying to preserve the rock from every angle. The closest point of the porch to the rock is seven feet and other areas are 15 feet from the rock. There is nothing in front of the rock. Large trees exist and will be retained. To retain the rock building A had to be set back and they are requesting a variance in the back to do so. The variance is a deck on the second floor and it is in further than the Chateau Blanca building on the rear. The impact on the second floor is just a deck. Klm stated that the east side yard setback is one foot but the eave line comes to the property line so a five foot variance is needed. There is an agreement 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 on the lot to the east that they would not build his house within ten feet from the property line so there will be ten feet between the structures. Kim stated that the lot isn't wide and in trying to break down the mass with the two smaller buildings rather than one large duplex they need a two foot variance between the buildings. She also stated that is isn't for the entire length of the building. She also stated that they are one foot short on the combined yard setback. She stated that they need the 500 sqft. bonus in order to meet the ordinance #30 codes in breaking up the mass. Also because they had to move the building back due to the rock. Klm stated that when the lot split was made it was done on the condition that one side was a single family and one side was a duplex so the lot that was sold was the single family lot and this lot is technically a duplex. Suzannah stated for clarification building B has a step down on the ridge. Kim stated that building A has a shed roof and there are different plate heights. Melanie stated that the agreement states that it can be amended and there is the possibility of two buildings ending up on top of each other of a zero lot line is approved on this lot. Chuck Brandt stated that the concern is opposition to a zero setback situation on their side of the property line which is the duplex. Kim's partner Ron Kanan stated that in order to get the courtyard down low below grade separate they had eaten up a lot of the FAR and this is a speck house and they incurred a lot of additional expense by separating the building. There is financial hardship and a FAR hardship. A lot of the living area is being pushed into the basement. Roger stated that due to the roof line he thought there would be a snow buildup in the courtyard. Klm stated that they would be using snow melt. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 Roger stated that he felt the courtyard would be a dark hole. Kim stated that it was open from the ends and they would do planters and try to make it a nice environment. She also stated that there are two different levels. Roger asked if the buildings were connected couldn't they be designed to be a little less imposing in relationship to the neighborhood as opposed if they were moved apart. Kim stated that the front facades are 15 feet apart that breaks up the mass. Having one large building would make it seem a lot bigger connected in the front. Kim stated that you will hardly see building A due to the large trees in the front. Jake stated that each building is 1800 sqfl. above grade and the allowable is 3600 sqfl. He asked where the proposed 500 sqfl. bonus was in the drawing. Kim stated that between the two buildings they have 300 sqfl. in the window wells and they would like to make those a little larger and rearrange the living area. She also stated that the drawings include the 500 sqfl. bonus. Jake stated that most of the 500 sqfl. bonus is related to window wells. Amy stated that there was a lot split and with that you are allowed to do one duplex and one single family. They have the ability to due a duplex and then turn the single family into two detached units as an incentive for an historic landmark so we now are not talking about one duplex one single family we are talking about two duplexes so that in itself is an incentive because of the landmark process. We are giving them an additional unit. It is not a hardship in that sense. Kim stated that the lot next door will have a single family. Amy stated that was by your choice. Chairman Jake Vickery opened the public hearing. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 David Hoefer stated that a letter was received from Ruth Sherman who stated that she was not in favor of the variances and that Aspen needs to slow down on all their building. Stephen Kanipe stated that he lives at 1015 E. Hyman which is one block to the east of the project and is representing himself and a neighbor Miggs Hubbard. He stated that Mr. Hubbard is opposed to the variances. He also stated that the architecture still looks like a big duplex and is still out of scale with what is adjacent. From a practical standpoint he is opposed to the one foot property line separation from the adjacent lot. Stephen also stated that it would be better if the building was centered and three feet existed on each side. Stephen also asked how they would maintain the rock wall and dig 12 feet vertically beside it. Ron stated that it would stop where the unit starts. Kim stated that part of the wall might have to be rebuilt in order to deal with the foundation. Kim stated that the building will not look like a duplex because the one building is set back. Chairman Jake Vickery closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jake stated that Sven stated that he did not support the FAR bonus because there is no justification for it. He also stated that he had concern about the ADU and there are ordinance #30 problems. He also stated that there are not setback hardships and the variances should not be given. Sven suggested that the project be tabled. Susan stated that the project is overwhelming to the rock and if there were more space around it people might recognize it. It seems like the landmark is diminished. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 Amy stated that it is private property and they would not be invited on to it. The plaque could be put in the public right-of-way. Amy stated when it was originally landmarked HPC wanted to preserve a view from the street which they had done and some distance around the rock. Klm stated that the porch was seven feet from the rock. Susan asked what the distance of the rock was from the sidewalk. Klm stated that it was back quite far. Melanie stated that she was opposed to the variance on the setback of the side yard. She dislikes zero lot lines and she feels the agreement will not hold up. She also stated that the FAR bonus should not be granted and that there is wasted space in the buildings. Melanie also suggested a model for the next meeting. Suzannah stated that she feels the courtyard does not have an effect on the street. With the vegetation you would not have the sense that the courtyard is there. She also stated that the she would not approve of the one foot side yard variance as the amount of damage to the wall would be the same as if you built across it and in that context she did not see the rationale for the variance. She also asked if the board could request Building Dept. issues that the one foot side yard should be treated as a one foot zero lot line. Mark stated that conceptually he did not have a problem with the massing. As far as structural visualization he did not see this as massive but a model would help. He also stated that the one foot setback could be an issue. Roger stated that he would table and in dealing with the side yard setbacks he would not favor those. A philosophy has been adopted over five years that when you look at a structure next to another structure we did not want to see a huge wall going down a lot line. Somehow that has to be broken up. He also stated that he would not grant the bonus and they are only given when something great is presented. A model is encouraged with the massing on either side and it helps sell the project. He also feels the look, mass and the scale do not fit in or play with the historic neighborhood. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 Jake stated from the floor plans he was not clear where the window and window wells were located that reflect the FAR bonus so it was difficult to evaluate that situation. He also stated that some of the drawings were labeled incorrectly. Where windows are three feet from the property line they are not permitted by code. He also stated a model would help visualize exactly how the project is working. He also stated that he supports the front and rear yard setback variances for the A unit due to the placement of the rock. Regarding the court yard the arguments are not convincing and he is concerned about windows of one unit looking across at windows of another unit. He also stated that there are roof drainage problems in the court yard. Ultimately attaching the units would provide for a larger side yard. He supports the concept of breaking the massing down into two separate forms but possibly that doesn't work in this application. Chuck Brandt stated that his understanding of variances that you didn't really have to show a hardship that it was a Board of Adjustment concept. He thought it was to address the innerplay of an historical designation and to try and make the building work. Jake stated that with regard to Board of Adjustment you need to show a hardship but with HPC you have to represent or demonstrate how what you are proposing is more compatible with the historical resource than what would otherwise be permitted by the code. The project is different because the historic resource is a rock and it will take some variances in order for it to work. Ron asked if he should look at one building as opposed to two as he does not feel two buildings can be done without the side yard variances. The design is rustic and stone and we are not trying to be victorian. Kim stated that she did not feel that the neighborhood was that historical. There is a huge condo building next door and an empty lot that will have a large single family home on the east side. There are two historical buildings across the street that are hidden by trees. In comparison with other things on the block the mass is not that big. MOTION: Roger moved to table the application and public hearing of 935 E. Hyman to June 12th with the following recommendations: 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 1) A good landscape plan. 2) A massing model showing adjacent properties. 3) A streetscape drawing showing both sides of the street. 4) A drawing showing the egresses and size of the lightwells and how they will be treated. HPC encourages breaking up of masses in a long plane. HPC encourages movement rather than having one big mass. Second by Melanie. Discussion Roger stated that the two buildings mirror each other and possibly if they didn't do that it would be more interesting. Suzannah stated that if the court yard cannot be made into a real courtyard then possibly one building should be drawn up to see what really works on that site. If we get a court yard that has no impact on the street then it is not going to make any difference to us whether a court yard is their or not. Susan stated that she liked the idea of one bigger, one smaller concept or make one different so that the scale is broken down or do one. Jake stated that the court yard is forcing the side yard setbacks and that needs addressed. A victorian design is not encouraged. What is needed is something that is compatible in scale. Suzannah stated that the building does not fall with the intent of Ordinance 30 massing even though the numbers are correct. It doesn't effectively reduce the feeling of a single volume in that particular solution. Roger stated that the lightwells and window treatments need clarified with regard to three feet from the property line. Jake stated that the ADU figures conform to the code. All in favor, motion carried. Passed 6 - 0. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 123 W. FRANCIS - FINAL Jake stepped down. Amy stated that everyone on the board is comfortable with mass and scale, design and preservation issues that are being addressed. She recommended final with two conditions: 1) A site visit to determine of demolition of the barn is appropriate. The historic barn has been on the property since the late 1800's but it has been changed a lot. All of the siding on the outside is new and it doesn't maintain its integrity. The applicant is asking to reconstruct basically. That building has approval to be turned sideways and used as one garage stall. They intend to replicate it but it will not be the historic structure anymore. There are three outbuildings on the parcel. The one in front we do not know where it came from and the barn is original and the shed next to the barn is original. During the discussions we thought that we were at least preserving one of the original stmactures, now we are loosing them all. Amy stated that she strongly recommends and encourages that in someway the shed next to the barn in the back be preserved. The other disucssion is materials. She is concerned that the material palate of the addition is a little distracting and too modem of a flavor although she feels the architects handled it well. That particular addition is stucco with metal roofing. The garage will have board and batten siding. She also recommended one generic condition of approval dealing with the existing framing and alterations of the house. Roger stated we should start with the demolition. Suzannah stated that the historical value of that piece is the size and location regardless if the materials are still historic. It has the quality that it had when it was original and still maintains that quality. Too raise it up, change it orientation to the alley really takes away that aspect of it. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 Susan stated for clarification he has permission to move it and now he wants to tear it down and start from scratch. Melanie asked what the alternatives would be. Roger stated that the structure has been dismantled and rebuilt and what is left is some framing and possibly the roof. He stated that he felt dismantling was appropriate but not demolish it and rebuild it and reuse the existing materials including the roofing in whatever configeration he wants to do. That was the discussion at the site. Susan stated that she agreed with Roger. Roger stated that the Board already allowed moving it but that the applicant could dismantle it and build it as is without the one comer and allow him to raise it and then the Board basically has preserved the concept. Suzannah stated if it is going to be raised up and rebuilt she didn't have a problem with it being engaged in the new building. Amy stated that the building strattles the lot line. Roger asked if it could be a separate entity on lot A or is there no room for it. Deanna Olson stated that it would eat up the open space. Amy stated that the entire barn is on lot B right now and is being moved to lot A. Roger asked if it barn could be left on B or the other shed left on B. Amy stated that we have given approval for the buildings and all we can do is ask the applicant to try and save the other shed. Suzannah asked if we have control over the other lot. Amy stated that covenants could be placed on that lot. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 Roger stated that the board could request that it not be demolished but dismantled and rebuilt except for the comer with the current materials including the roofing. The Board agreed with Roger's recommendation. Roger stated that the existing framing shall be maintained in place and any alternations interior or exterior must be approved by Staff and monitor. Deanna stated that the applicant had no problems with the above recommendation. Deanna stated that the materials on the barn were fairly new materials and that they were not historical. Suzannah stated even with newer siding materials it is still not a new stucco building. Roger stated if we keep the existing materials and painted them, it would look old. We would still maintain then an historical character even though the siding was put on in the 60' s. Suzannah stated that the battens are probably larger than what you find now and the boards are thicker than what you buy now. Deanna stated that the applicant has no problem with keeping the materials. Roger stated another recommendation would be that exterior siding will not be removed or distroyed without permission of the entire board. Basically for example on Cooper (Langley)we lost everything so before anyone can take the siding off they will have to work with us to save it. Roger stated that the other two items, the small shed, and the materials of stucco need discussion. Roger stated the Board could demand that the shed be retained or that it be requested that they work it into either lot as a separate entity. Or it could be kept on Lot B. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 Amy stated that they already have approval to demolish it. Roger stated that the Board encourages the applicant to utilize the shed and that could be part of the motion. Roger stated that in the 90's the vernacular of materials is stone and stucco. Stucco does make a big impact and perhaps a distraction from the historic structure. The other argument is that stucco could be a good break from the historic structure as you know in fact that it is new. He also stated that would be Donnelley's argument. Roger stated on the North elevation you would see the two peaks that are stucco. Suzannah stated that in this case she had no problem with the stucco in this case because the real view from the street is the historic house. Roger stated that in reality the view plane of the stucco is the alley. Suzannah stated that she felt a distinct separation in this case was appropriate. Amy stated that maybe her concern is the complexity of materials, stucco, clapboards, metal siding, standing seam metal, asphalt all on a very small building. Melanie stated that the building has numerous planes already broken up. Roger stated that for himself he finds stucco a strange material; however, in this situation it shows a good break and it is not visible from the street plane. Amy stated that a colored rendering would be appropriate. Roger stated that a condition of final approval would be a colored rendering. Deanna stated that the stucco would be painted the color of the wood siding so that you wouldn't have a differenciation of color there but it would provide a plain background as it is a non-ornate materials and would provides 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 basically a back drop for the historical structure in from. It also provides for the differenciation. It would provide a soft offset. Roger asked if an EIF system would be used. Deanna stated yes. Suzannah stated that the colors should be slightly different. MOTION: Melanie moved that HPC grant final approval for 123 W. Francis with the following conditions: 1) That the historic barn not be demolished but dismantled and rebuilt except for the portion that has to be cut out to attach to the the house with use of all of the existing materials that are on it. 2) That the existing framing in those portions of the historic structures which are to be retained shall be maintained in place. Any alterations to interior of exterior demolition as represented to HPC must be approved in advance by Staff and monitor. 3) That the exterior siding will not be removed or distroyed without permission of the entire board. 4) That a more full rendition of materials and colors be submitted to staff and monitor. 5) We encourage the applicant to utilize the small shed on the adjacent property if possible. Second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carrried. MOTION: Jake moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22~ 1996 935 E. HYMAN - CONCEPTUAL PH .................................................................................................. 1 123 W. FRANCIS ................................................................................................................................... 9 14