Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960612 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12, 1996 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Jake Vickery with Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Melanie Roschko, Susan Dodington, Sven Alstrom, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski and Donnelley Erdman present. MOTION: Jake moved to add the Howling Wolf to the agenda; second by Mark. All in favor, motion carried. RED HEAD TOUR BOOTH Amy stated that this company owned by Susan Thomas offers tours around town and they are proposing to put up a booth on the Popcorn Wagon site and she is proposing a desk with some sort of an awning. The signage needs to meet the sign code and Staff will review that. Staff recommended approval with the condition that signs permits are obtained and that the desk will be in use between June 1 st and Oct. 1 st of each year which is consistent with what the Planning & Zoning Commission approved. Susan Thomas, sole proprietor of Aspen Red Head Tours stated that she started the business a year ago in July. She also has had a public relations and marketing business which is primarily nationally based for 17 years and this is her way to get into the hospitality business in Aspen. The tours include the history of Aspen and the west end Victorians. She had restored 8 Victorian homes in her past as the general contractor in Pensacolla, Fla. Susan T. stated that the booth would be custom made out of oak and hickory and she desires a canopy but the design cannot be done until she sees where the sun hits. Jake stated that the location would be off the patio into the mall. Susan asked if the booth would have to be attached to the bricks? Susan T. stated no as it would take five people to move it. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minor development application for Redhead tours at the Popcorn Wagon to be in use June 1 to October 15th of each year with the following conditions: 1) Permits for signage are obtained. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 2) Review of awning will be handled with monitor and stafJ~ second by Martha. All in favor, motion carried. 712 W. FRANCIS - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Amy stated that the applicant would like another addition to the house as the house is under construction presently. They want to do a garage with an ADU above it I the back. In order to do that they need to demolish a shed. Lawrence Orbe, owner stated that they came before the HPC last fall to get the shed removed for safety reasons and the HPC stated that a justification for the removal needed to occur and that in the meantime the shed should be stabilized. He stated that the shed was stabled before the heavy snows. The shed is in the way of the proposed garage addition. The shed is not an historic structure and is not on the inventory. It is a non conforming structure and encroaches on the property next door. Amy stated that the comment in the minutes referred to the other shed that was on the property along the side of the house that was not historic. This shed is not a Victorian building and the age has not been determined. The shed on the Sanborn map shows a shed but in a different orientation. Inside there are a lot of wire nails which suggest that it is not 19th century. Lawrence Orbe stated from his research the building is from the 1950's. The building was shored up on the inside and stabilized. Jake stated that the stabilization was to make the building safe and ensure that there is no further deterioration of the structure. He also stated that the HPC should address whether or not the structure is historical and the enforcement aspect. Roger asked Staff if HPC requested that the siding on the house be kept? Amy stated that on the condition of approval drawings were submitted for staff and monitor approval indicating how the building materials will be preserved. She also stated that there is a notation on the building permit that says salvage existing siding. Amy stated that she felt is was a violation of the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 agreement and of the permit. The applicant stated that there were numerous problems with retaining the siding. Jake asked if the owner contacted Staff. Amy stated that she went to the site and met with the project manager and discussed the problem and when they were doing the interior demo the siding was falling off the studs. She explained different ways to remove the clapboard etc. and then the next thing occurred, they were all gone and taken to the dump. Roger asked if the applicant could explain about the siding and address the design of the garage and some kind of ~human scale" on the alley. Dennis Cyrus, architect stated that his recollection is that applicants are encouraged to put the massing to the back of the lot to preserve the human scale of the street elevation. Lawrence Orbe addressed the siding and stated that he has tried to preserve everything on the house, keeping the studs, floor joists and preserving the interior structure. He also stated that he wanted to pull the siding out and lay it on the ground and save what he could and put it back. He had a man lined up for seven months and when they jacked the house up to straighten it the siding fell off. Nothing went to the dump until after HPC was told about it. Kurt Lantz, superintendent for Alpine Construction stated that when they attempted to remove the siding the nails were rusted and would not extract from the studding which caused the siding to be pulled over the head of the nail which caused it to split. When you didn't have that problem the nails were rusted off which is what caused the siding to splinter or fall off when the house was wrapped. It is 1/4 inch thick and brittle and rotten. The house was six inches out of rack in one direction and the back was three inches in the other direction. The outside walls from front to back were bowed out three inches and out of rack as well from front to back. When we racked the house portions of it exploded. Other parts splintered all the way down the nail lines. He also stated that he contacted Staff and photographed before and after. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 Mark stated that on the site visit on the street side the siding was intact and still remains from the first floor line up. Mark asked why that siding was not reinforced behind the siding? Kirt stated that after racking it was reinforced from the interior. Martha asked if the ADU would be attached. Dennis stated that it was attached by the stairway. Susan stated the windows on the old and new are at the same level but the roof on the new addition is much higher. Dennis stated that it is standard 6'8" head height. The addition is built with 8 foot walls and is slightly higher than the dormers that were added to the existing house. The ADU is functionally a two story building where the existing is a story and a half. Amy stated that there is no significant historical material being demolished. New construction is abutting new construction. The only standard of importance is the standard that states new construction is compatible in mass and scale with the old building. That is what HPC should focus on. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ann Miller, 715 W. Smuggler stated her house is directly in back of the shed and the shed has sunk over the years and is dangerous and an eye sore. She stated that the shed should come down and in the winter the snow builds up in front of it and makes the width of the alley less. Doug McPhearson who lives directly east of the house 700 W. Francis stated that the shed creates a problem with plowing. He believes it encroaches to the property to the west and would like to see the shed come down. He also stated that he has reviewed the Lawrence' s plans and they are not out of scale with the existing neighborhood. The advantage of the garage in the back is that they have had problems with parking. Kathleen Albert stated that she is amazed that the shed stood as long as it has and she heard it was used as an outhouse and believes it is hazardous. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 Joe and Dee Belina stated that they are in favor of the shed being removed. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Susan stated she is in favor of sheds in town and she likes to walk down the alley and the alley scapes. The sheds are part of the character of the historicness of the town. Roger stated that the shed should be demolished. Roger stated that before we asked for stabilization that all buildings should be evaluated initially. If stabilization occurs it should be done in a proper manner and done in some sort of enforcement and that if they don't do it some recourse should be issued. Roger stated that this particular shed is not historic and it is board and batten. His only concern was that the boards were taken to the dump. Jake stated that the HPC is always looking for communication from the applicants. Martha stated that members of the board have gone through the process and it would be appropriate for the applicant to contact those members for guidance. Sven stated that the shed is not a big issue but he would like to see a more vernacular context to the design of the garage. He feels the plate heights to reduce the scale should be addressed and table the design and approve the demolition. Roger echoed Sven's statement to table the garage. Roger also suggested that maybe a balcony could be incorporated with a sliding glass door so the occupant of the structure would get the feeling of the outside and it would enhance the starkness. Donnelley stated that he would vote for demolition of the shed and table the garage issue. The garage needs restudied as it creates a large mass of shade and will effect the site lines across the alley. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 Melanie asked if this is an ADU why does it have to be attached to the house? Jake stated that the ADU issue will be addressed at P&Z. MOTION: Donnelley moved that the demolition of the shed at 712 W. Francis be approved and the approval of the garage and dwelling above the garage be tabled until a date certain, dune 26, 1996; second by Roger. Motion carries 6-1. Susan opposed. 303 E. MAIN - VESTED RIGHTS Donnelley moved to table 303 E. Main until duly lOth; second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. 706 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL Amy stated that the applicant did not have the proof of publication. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney suggested that the Board proceed o the condition that proof of publication be provided within a week and if not the meeting is technically void. John Muir, designer for the project. Chairman dake l?ickery opened the public hearing. Amy stated that the building is in the office zone district and they got approval for that. What is before us now is to retain the building as a residence. The historic cabin has a large one story addition behind it and most of that is being retained. There are a few setback variances that are being requested and one is a rear yard setback variance of five feet and ten is required. In addition on the west they are requesting a variance of three foot eight for a light well on the ADU. A window on the south facade violates Ord #30 no window zone. There is a concern that the dormers create a large dormer behind the historic house and possibly reconsider the way the shed 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 dormers are designed. On the street elevation there are a large variety of window types and more consistency should occur with those windows. Differentiation of materials needs addressed. John Muir stated that they created an addition that has minimal impact on the miners cabin which pushed the addition to the alley. They have reduced the vertical scale from the alley side by creating the impression of a one story structure with dormers. They are requested a variance on the alley and a larger window for the ADU. They restudied the roof lines of the shed dormers which were on the street elevation. Some of the earlier design elements considered the creation of a gable element that would run the width of the sitting area on the second floor and they could re-visit that option. It would lower the fascia and shorter it as well. John also commented on the variety of windows on the south elevation and how they correspond to the street. The windows are at different distances and they will look at the proportions to see if there is a way to address the issue. With regard to differentiation of materials old and new portions they will provide a color board concurrent with final approval. John stated that with the volume standard they cannot have a window between 9 & 12 or 9 & 15 fl. depending on the window type, that distance from the floor line. The intent of that ordinance is discourage the use of too tall or two story window elements. The window that does not comply is in an isolated plane and set far back from the street. They are requesting that the HPC waive the volume requirement on that particular elevation. Roger stated that the shutters on the front of the house are probably not original and there are 1960 ski elements on the original house and will those elements be brought back to the original. Amy stated that the representation in the application was that they intended in doing no work to the historic house. Melanie asked why a five foot variance was needed on the back/alley. John stated that the intent was to not impact the one story existing structure. Chairman dake Fickery closed the public hearing. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Melanie stated that she appreciated that the applicant did not want to impact the existing structure by adding anything on top of it but she feels the very large structure added to the back is out of scale. She stated that it looks like two totally independent structures stuck together. The mass and scale does not work. She stated that a site plan should be presented and possibly a model to understand what is going on. Susan stated that she agreed with Melanie and would like to see a model as well. It is out of scale with the historic house (overwhelming). Donnelley stated that there is an issue here that is more complex. The owners have a programmatic requirement and right to add a certain number of square feet above grade. His main objection is that the cabin is joined so closely to the new work and the new work grows out of it. There is no differentiation in materials and detailing. On the exterior this is the time to create an expression to differentiate it from the historic resource. All the siding and roofing is the same. The roof forms are also the same as existing. He stated that he is sympathetic with the massing to the rear but not sympathetic to the solution. Suzannah stated that she agreed with Donnelley and the Board has pushed themselves in a comer by allowing everything to the back as in previously approved projects and that is something they need to grapple with. The board needs to be consistent. She also stated when dealing with Ord. #30 issues the board should look at the materials that are required for an Ord. #30 review, adjacent buildings, site plan and street elevation. Donnelley stated that if a model would be provided he feels the massing wouldn't seem so significant. Sven stated that a streetscape plan is necessary and he feels the design has morphed a cabin into a cape cod and the transition needs restudied. Stylistically nothing is objectionable. He stated he has a problem with the siding. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 Roger stated that he has no problem with granting the variances and would encourage a model, streetscape and site plan. Possibly a gable would be a better solution than the dormer. Amy stated for clarification the cabin and first part of the addition are existing and the addition is behind that. Sven stated that the west wall of the addition needs to be looked at. The issue is differentiation between the historic resource. Jake stated that there are design tools to accomplish programmatic goals and do it in a way that is more sympathetic to the historic structure by maintaining a small scale in the formalistic massing elements. John Muir stated that he is hearing a number of things and some conflict. Objection to mass and scale but yet it was pointed out that the property has a right to a certain amount of square feet. He also stated that he is willing to put together a mass model if that will help the committee but he needs more focus on the concerns. Amy stated that the office building was approved and has vested rights. Suzannah stated that the Board likes the idea of differentiation between old and new. Donnelley stated that breaking up of the surfaces can be done by changing materials, changing shadow lines and scale of the elements used to create the surface. Ord. #30 deals with that long west wall. John Muir asked if the committee wanted him to look at what was previously approved regarding mass and bulk. Melanie, Roger, Sven all stated ignore it because it was a commercial project. Jake stated that the applicant needs to come in and state what they have proposed is of a lesser impact than what was previously approved. Jake stated that the applicant has requested impute from the HPC on mass and scale, differentiation, and reference from what was previously approved. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 Jake stated that in terms of what was previously approved is there and it would be helpful if what is being proposed is less of an impact. The HPC feels this program presented today should be finessed and refine the compatibility with the historic resource. On the previous drawings the hyphen element punctuates between the old and new. Also the roof form from the street is brought down dramatically to be in sympathy with the low one story miners cottage. From the front there is a substantial off-set that is back in so there were techniques used in the massing. Staff can share with you some successful projects to view. Jake also stated that a metal roof could be used on the addition and a shingle on the existing. Changing materials in an intelligent way will differentiate old from new. MOTION: Roger moved to table 706 W. Main and continue the public hearing until June 26, 1996; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried. Suzannah abstained from voting. Jake stated that the application was not complete as there was no Ord. #30 documentation and a streetscape elevation needs to be provided. He also stated that the supplemental data sheet was missing. 935 E. HYMAN - CONCEPTUAL Amy stated that at the last meeting HPC indicated that the buildings should be obviously different or combined into one building. They have remained detached buildings but shifted north south so that there is a little more a view between them. Major areas of concern are the material palate, placement of materials i.e. stucco placement and there are still windows in the no window zone. Klm Raymond stated that they are going to continue with the two buildings and the shape of the roof has been changed. The buildings have been staggered. A hip shape faces the street and stone has been incorporated. Klm also stated that timbers have been incorporated. Variances have been requested. Sven stated that a roof plan is missing. Chairman dake l?ickery opened the continued public hearing. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 Stephen Kanipe, neighbor stated that he liked the direction the new plans were going rather than what he saw before. The concerns were addressed. He stated he liked the separation between the two buildings. David Gutherie stated that he was the construction manager. Melanie stated that houses five feet from the lot line are close enough and when you build two story house ten feet apart they are still close due to the height. She still has problems with the two foot and three foot variances. Martha stated conceptually it is pleasing and they used imagination to allow the rock to be landmarked. Roger asked if one of the buildings could be brought forward. Klm Raymond, architect stated that they are requesting variances already. Ron Kanan, contractor for the project stated that if they eliminated the deck on the back of the house they could push the house back further but it would be getting into the alley. Kim stated that if that occurred they would be beyond the setback. Susan stated that the applicant did a good job of incorporating the ideas from the last meeting. She still feels the site is crowded and what is built on the next lot will make it even more crowded. Ron Kanan stated that one thing that would help the situation is planting more trees but then it would interfere with the view of the rock. Kim stated that a lot of the block has numerous plantings already. Sven stated that it has been previously determined to get setbacks or variances we need to find that the proposed development is more compatible with the neighborhood than would otherwise be. He stated that even with the modifications he does not find the project pleasing and it does not have the elements that when we review projects, have to be found compatible, elements of the neighborhood design review. Some concerns of ordinance #30 are not presented either. He stated that the proposal missed the 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 opportunity to embrace the rock and make some kind of cultural expression or link. He also stated that he sees this as a building design and not architecture. He is opposed to the 500 sqft. bonus. He stated that he doesn't oppose the rear or sideyard setback variances and he doesn't oppose the distance between the buildings. He recommended tabling and stated a plan of the roof decks is missing and he is concerned about a lot of the materials taking on a vertical emphasis. He is also concerned about the fire access between the two buildings and possibly the lightwells will not be allowed. He said he is looking for an architectural expression toward HPC guidelines of both vernacular and historic links and some kind of cultural expression that links the rock. Donnelley stated that he was not present at the first meeting and can only base his comments on what he sees on the present drawings. He said that the designs are not stylistically cohesive. He cannot find stylistic references or anything in a vocabulary that is appropriate of common elements of Aspen. For that reason he does not recommend the FAR bonus. It is a difficult project but stylistically it has not been resolved yet. A lot of the massing has been resolved. Suzannah stated that she would have to agree with the comments on the setbacks and they are acceptable with terms of the new layout and she agrees with the recommendation on the bonus. Her only concern is the stone facing, it competes with the rock rather than compliments it, regardless of what color it would be. Roger stated that he agreed with all the comments from the other members. He also stated that a roof plan is necessary and we need a strong clarification of materials. A good landscape plan is also necessary. He said he had no problem with the setbacks and would not grant the bonus. He also encouraged keeping the back deck. He stated that a stone foundation would be appropriate as a practical matter rather than the use of stucco. Mark stated that he finds the project an improvement and in particular the features of the roof on both units. You can't see the rock from the street due to the foliage. Jake stated that he concurred with what has been said and the FAR bonus is reserved for very few projects of exceptional merit. He supports the notion of 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 creating two separate houses but pragmatically that might not be feasible. He would encourage increasing the side yard setbacks and using the side yards to develop the lightwells and get the light into the basement from the perimeter of the property as opposed to internally between the two houses but this is just a suggestion. He also stated that he didn't consider this site particularly sensitive in terms of the surroundings and neighborhood character and doesn't consider this a pristine Victorian neighborhood so he is not, personally too concerned about the details of the design. He would have a problem with the variances but favors the front and rear variances due to the impacts of the rock. Ron Kanan stated that they looked at one building but the scale did not work. He stated that they were offering the two buildings but the FAR that is eaten up is in the courtyard lightwells. Ron asked if the Board wanted a wood sided house. Roger stated that he thought the rock and rock wall competed with each other. There is a lot of verticality in the design. Ron stated that he did not know what to do to honor the rock, it is a difficult challenge. He stated that if wood siding is used it might look like a clapboard Victorian and he is not sure if that is what HPC wants. Sven stated that he had a few questions for the applicant to think about: 1) What style is it? 2) Is it compatible with HPC goals and defining the character of Aspen? 3) What is the rational or idea behind the design that has been presented and how is it linked to the rock and HPC goals. Sven stated that he sees two simple buildings that do not contribute to or enhance the character of Aspen. He stated that these are basic design issues. The building envelopes are OK and he doesn't have a problem except for the FAR bonus but it all goes back to compatibility. He stated as a suggestion that the rock is a piece of the mining era or industrial era and then went through Aspen Paepcke era of great corporate wealth and now we are in a kind of post-technocratic end of the millennium so there could be some kind 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 of expression of that period of evolution from the time the rock was on the site. Donnelley stated to make it simple he did not see any passion or commitment in the design. When people walk by all they see is a facade, we are talking about it from a pedestrian standpoint. There are lots of window types with different heights and different materials put together. Kim stated that at the first meeting the two buildings were very similar and it was suggested that we make them two different buildings. Donnelley said from a pedestrian standpoint all people see is the facade and that is what we are talking about. Roger said maybe the 90's vernacular timbers/stucco isn't the way to approach it. Maybe a mixture of historical materials and new materials would be better. MOTION: Roger moved to table 935 E. Hyman to a date certain June 26th; second by Susan. Motion carried 5 -2. Opposed were Martha and Sven. Martha asked what was missing for the approval. Roger stated this is not enough information, we need a deck plan a landscaping plan, and answers to ordinance #30. Ron Kanan said that he thought the landscape plan was submitted at final. Jake stated typically a landscape plan is a requirement that is put on at conceptual to be provided at final unless it is integral to some aspect of the conceptual design. Also the emphasis of materials is at final. Ron Kanan stated that he might bring in materials at the next meeting. Jake said Ron should focus on the massing, setback and FAR issues because those are the conceptual level issues that need to be addressed. We feel that materials are integral with the conceptual design and are very important to the success of the conceptual design. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 414 N. FIRST -WORKSESSION NO MINUTES - PAEPCKE HOUSE Jake stated that the board should focus on what is historical on the house and what are the flexible areas. Herbert Bayer did some of the design. There is 67,000 sqfl, left that over look the lake. HOWLING WOLF Sven stated that a change order was submitted to the Building Dept. and during the site visit it was determined that we are submitting a light well to the basement but because of exposing a perimeter wall area it does generate additional FAR which would be over the limit of a minor development application. We would like to add the square footage that the window well generates as a minor development which is 120 sqfl. There is a dimensional error on the existing building of 48 fl. so we really only have a net gain of 72 sqfl. There is a new concrete wall and basement under the historic house. Roger asked if there will be a railing around the lightwell or could it be grated. Sven stated that a grate could be incorporated. MOTION: Roger recommended approval with a grate or a solid cover the lightwell; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 RED HEAD TOUR BOOTH ......................................................................................... 1 712 W. FRANCIS - PARTIAL DEMOLITION .................................................................. 2 303 E. MAIN - VESTED RIGHTS .................................................................................. 6 706 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL .................................................................................... 6 935 E. HYMAN - CONCEPTUAL ................................................................................. 10 414 N. FIRST -WORKSESSION ................................................................................... 15 HOWLING WOLF ................................................................................................... 15 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12~ 1996 17