Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960626 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26~ 1996 Vice-Chairperson Roger Moyer called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with members Martha Madsen, Melanie Roschko, Susan Dodington, Sven Alstrom, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski, and Donnelley Erdman present. Jake Vickery was excused. 939 E. HYMAN - CONCEPTUAL Fice-chairman Roger Moyer opened the continued public hearing. Roger told the applicant the Commission would prefer that he not video however, if they do the Commission would like a copy of the video. Amy stated that Ron had some ideas to express verbally and if the Commission grants conceptual approval some of these can be made conditions that can be dealt with at final. Amy said the variances that have been requested are; 1) the applicant does not meet the 15' combined side yard set back they are providing 3' because of the lightwells on the East side and; 2) they need 10' of distance between the building they are providing 4'. Ron Kanan, applicant for 935 E. Hyman stated that he knows the courtyard was part of the Commissions concern, he likes it for the ventilation into the basement. He also said the house closest to the Main Street has a long backyard and driveway. Jake suggested (at a meeting in his office) that the garage be pushed on the alley and put the ADU above which would make a nice carriage house and he would like that looked at that. Ron stated that he will have to deal with the drainage and put a grate in front of the garage door because he would like to keep the height of the carriage house low, if he can put it a few feet below grade, deal with the drainage, have a plate line on the ADU and some dormers it will give them a backyard and some privacy. Ron stated that they need two ADU's because there was not an existing house. There is some concern about the window grouping on the front of the house. They would like it to appear as if there is a living room facing the main street. He said he will work on this and come up with a nice window arrangement. On the back of the building they have an 8' door with a beam across and then glass above, he said they may be able to work that out to keep that, it is on the alley with the Ajax view. he ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26~ 1996 said the ideas that he is incorporating into the house although, they may not have related well at the last meeting but is very similar to what is going on in the Marolt Barn, he said he can look into using big bolts and malibou washers, his concern is not making this look like a factory. Roger listed the changes; 1) the courtyard; 2) add a carriage house with one ADU on top, the other ADU will be in one of the houses; 3) window group on the front; 4) alley glass study and; 5) opinions on bolts and washers being exposed on an exterior. Melanie asked if changing the courtyard or by taking the ADU out of the house and putting it over the carriage house would change the size of the house and the courtyard in its relationship to the other house. Ron responded that he does not plan to move the houses closer together, the benefit is keeping the buildings as far apart as he can. Melanie said she does not see how the applicant can look at adding that space to the back without taking it away from the house in the front, otherwise it would add more sqfl. and more space. Ron said that if it does move back the house would have to change shape, it probably would not happen in the area of the courtyard, where the two houses lap because that is the narrowest part of the house already. Suzannah asked if removing the ADU would relieve some of the lightwell problems in the courtyard. Ron stated that he did not know. Sven stated that if the applicant wants the 500 sqfl. bonus they might do better doing two separate buildings if the entire project was more compatible. Ron stated that the bonus was traded away when the rock was designated. Amy suggested that the board go through the standards. Sven stated that he was not opposed to the project and addressed standard #1 (compatibility with adjacent development) and stated that multi-family use was on the site and is compatible. He also stated that standard #2 character of the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26~ 1996 neighborhood has already been severely compromised but he is not in favor of the FAR bonus. Standard #3 enhances or does not detract from the character of the historic resource. The historic resource is the rock in the site location. He stated that he did not feel the application was a neutral application because it doesn't respond to the neighborhood character guidelines. He stated that he did not feel it was a good enough submission for standard #3. Bonuses are given to projects that betters the planning. He stated that comments were made that the design should attempt to integrate the rock really into the development as an asset on the site rather than an obstacle. Donnelley stated that during historic designation it was stated that bonus and variances were available but were not automatic. There are three bonuses $2,000 grant; waiver of park dedication fees, rear and sideyard setbacks. He stated that the 500 sqfl. bonus is not appropriate at this time. A project has to exceed the requirements of the standards. Suzannah stated that she essentially agrees. Mark stated that he was in concurrence with what has been said. Roger stated that he was encouraged about the carriage house and ADU on top and if that should happen he would look at the bonus. He also stated that he had no problem with any of the bonuses except the 500 sqfl. Roger commented on the five points brought in. 1) The discussion of the courtyard should be looked at. 2) The addition of the carriage house for an ADU is exciting. 3) The window grouping on the front is appropriate. 4) The concept of the bolts and washers on the beams is an interesting and fun concept. 5) A courtyard is better than a bad basement. Melanie stated that she would like to see a landscape plan and the garden space around the rock and its relationship to the street. Ron Kanan stated that a landscape plan will be provided at final. He also stated that he doesn't plan on doing anything except get the sidewalk up to the house. Susan stated that the importance of the rock should be brought forward. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26~ 1996 Ron stated that you could tie the house into the rock by pulling the natural landscaped rock and wrap it to the front of the building. Amy stated that conceptual could be approved tonight without the bonus or the applicant could table and try to get the bonus at the next meeting. Martha stated that the concept for the project was that it should be pleasing from the streetscape. Susan agreed also. Melanie stated that she has concern with the FAR. MOTION: Donnelley moved that HPC approve conceptual development for 935 E. Hyman and that the FAR bonus not be considered. The following variance be given: 5fi. variance on the east 2 fi. sideyard for the building on the east 2fi. sideyard on the west for the building Combined sideyard setback variance of l2 fi. Distance between buildings a six foot variance. Waive Ord ~30 standard regarding volume calculation so they can have the window on the alley. Materials' and lan&cape plan be studied at final; second by Martha. Motion carried 4-3. Suzannah, Sven, Melanie voted No. Roger, Don, Susan and Martha yes. 712 W. FRANCIS - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Amy stated that comments were made at the last meeting regarding the carriage house and how it relates to the original structure. A revised plan has been submitted that shows some smaller roof forms on the second floor of the carriage house and the plate heights have been lowered. There is a two car garage with a voluntary ADU above which will be reviewed by P&Z. It is a partial demolition and the only area being demolished is where the new garage will attach to a new porch so we are not loosing historic materials. Staff indicated that the garage was in compliance with Ord. #30 and she recommends approval of the partial demolition. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26~ 1996 Dennis Cyrus, architect represented the applicant. The roof lines have been pulled down by creating a shed dormer on one side and the upper floor of the ADU has been stepped back an additional five feet from the alley. This was done in order to stay out of the setbacks and stay within the zoning requirements. The ridge line of the addition is now at the same height of the ridge of the original house. The siding of the shed dormer would match the siding on the shed dormer of the original house but the owner would like to hear HPC's comments. Neighbor to the west had concerns about the five foot distance between the fence and that the character of the house has been altered an awful lot. She stated that the foot print of the property has increased tremendously. Amy stated that the applicant had to conform to everything that the neighbors house had to conform to. The applicant us under their FAR. Neighbor asked why the garage had to be jogged over instead of coming straight off the alley. Amy stated that it is a general feeling that HPC does not want the addition to be continuous with the historic house, they want a distinction. Lawrence Orbe, owner stated that the one bedroom in the back had to have a third parking space and the jog creates that space for the vehicle. Amy stated that a public hearing will be held by P&Z regarding the ADU. COMMENTS Mark stated that the problem with the neighbors is the fact that the garage has shifted to the west and possibly it could be jogged to the east side. Dennis stated functionally no as part of the back porch would have to be demolished and the circulation through the kitchen comes out the back of the house. The owner would be walking into the garage. Lawrence Orbe stated that they desire to preserve the entire back porch. Martha stated that she does not like to see the large addition on the back and that is what she thought would happen when the shed was lost. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26~ 1996 Susan stated that she opposed the demolition of the shed but the ridge line of the addition is appropriate. Sven stated at an earlier meeting when the dormers were discussed on the front of the historic house HPC discussed vertical siding to distinguish them from the rest of the house. That is the chronological reason why tongue and groove is a good choice. He also stated that on the second floor possibly the plate height could be lowered to 6'8" on the garage addition and would accommodate the neighbors concerns. Dennis stated that the plate height of the gable and shed are 8 feet. Sven stated that the gable could be pulled down to seven and the shed down to 6'8" feet and visually you will see the massing pulled down. Sven stated that the plate heights are his only issue. Donnelley stated that when you have vertical tongue and groove on the west elevation of the ADU and horizontal siding on the north elevation that should be resolved. He stated that he did not see the reason for changing the siding to vertical arbitrarily. It made sense on the dormer of the new construction but it should be consistent. Amy stated that this is a partial demolition and all we have to review is that the mass and scale is compatible with the house. It is not a two step review. Donnelley stated then his concern is only the reduction of the plate height on the second floor of the ADU. Suzannah stated that the architect has done a good job and he agreed with the plate height. Roger stated that he would approve demolition with the condition that the plate heights be reduced and that would be beneficial when the applicant goes to P&Z to address the neighbors concerns. Possibly look at metal roofs on the shed roofs. As a suggestion possibly not mixing the vertical and horizontal siding. MOTION: Sven moved that HPC grant partial demolition to 712 W. Francis with the condition that the plate heights of the ADU be lowered to 6 '8" on the kitchen ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26~ 1996 and bath portion of the plan and a 7 'plate height maximum in the living space; second by Don. Motion carried 6-1. Martha opposed. Lawrence Orbe stated that it has been 8 months working with the HPC and he is pleased with the out come. HPC has been constructive and helpful during the process. 706 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL Chairman dake Fickery opened the public hearing. MOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual for 706 W. Main until duly 10, 1996; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried. PAEPCKE WORKSESSION NO MINUTES MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26~ 1996 939 E. HYMAN - CONCEPTUAL ............................................................................................. 1 712 W. FRANCIS - PARTIAL DEMOLITION ............................................................................. 4 PAEPCKE WORKSESSION .................................................................................................... 7