Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960724 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 1996 Meeting was called to order by chairman Jake Vickery with Roger Moyer, Melanie Roschko, Susan Dodington, Sven Alstrom, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski and Donnelley Erdman present. 1008 E. HOPKINS - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES 706 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL CONTINUED - PH Chairman dake l?ickery opened the continued public hearing. Amy stated that the gables for the new addition are running parallel to the original house. There were concerns at the last meeting about roof mass and how the addition blended into the existing structure and that is what the applicant has attempted to address. Amy also stated that there is an existing structure in which a large portion of it will be retained. They don't have the ability to create breaking up the hyphen with smaller forms between the old and new. There are a few setback variances requested, one on the alley and one on the west side for a lightwell for an ADU. The applicant has attempted to create a pop-out in the west wall to break the wall plane. Amy indicated that further discussion should occur about material selection. If the Board is favorable the volume standard needs waived which doesn't allow windows in the no window zone. They have glazing that carries up into the gables and that is forbidden by Ordinance #30. Joseph Krabacher, owner stated that he got approval for an office building and one of the problems is Main Street which takes a lot of abuse and because of exactions, parking etc. it has made it impossible to do an office building. There is talk of a rail system down Main Street and it is not the greatest residential neighborhood. We have tried to keep the addition to the back of the property in order to not disturb the historic house and separate the old from the new. The porches create a break. John Muir, architect stated that the model speaks for itself. The roof lines are rotated which gave the ability to create the additional gable elements. On the west elevation a one story roof element was created with a recess to allow the ADU window to function. The sun deck was brought out to break up the west elevation. In terms of creating a hyphen they looked at the house on Hallam St. and created a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 transition from old to new. Material would be wainscoting, stone and a vertical channel siding. Roger asked about the old house. Joe indicated that there are old windows and the roof has been replaced. When you go inside the roof you can see that the materials have been tom up and a new roof was framed. The house has old and new elements. Melanie stated if the applicant could do without the 4.6 variance off the back addition. She stataed the plans are a great improvement over the last presentation. Joe stated that the front of the house is not at the front setback and if they were to move the house forward there would be more room in the rear but they do not want to move the historic house. He also stated that it is the second floor that is in the setback and the first floor is allowed because it is a garage. Donnelley stated that the comer of the historic house and the new addition should typically have a comer board that wraps around. Amy indicated that aluminum siding exists and it is not intended to come off. Joe stated that the original siding is not coming off. The new addition will have wood horizontal lap siding and the existing is aluminum siding. Donnelley stated that he would like to know how the window trim and detailing will difference between the historic and new. Jake stated that the trim detail concern could be addressed at final. He also stated that the Board needs to address the rear yard setback addition and the impacts of the mass on the alley and whether or not the commission at large is comfortable with that. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger stated that he concurred with Staff and he stated that the mass is less than what was proposed before and he would approve with the condition to continue to 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 study materials and detailing on the old and new portion of the building for final. He also stated that trim should be looked at on the north west comer to show where the old house ended and the addition started. He also stated that the window volume should be waived. Suzannah stated that she had no problem with the setbacks. Donnelley stated that he is not convinced that the upper story master suite etc. could not be accommodated with an increased setback as it casts a shadow on the north side of the alley and it is something that HPC has been discouraging and we have asked people to reduce the massing on the alley. On initial viewing it could push to the south by a decrease from the sun deck and one could still have all the problematic concerns addressed. Susan stated that she feels it is massive in the alley. Melanie also stated that she feels every time we approve variances things get closer together and she feels there is enough space upstairs to rework the area. Mark stated that the street elevation has dramatically improved. He feels similarly regarding the garage elevation. The alley gets a lot of traffic from the Hickory House and there would be a lot of snow falling off the roof and possibly something else could be done. The gables on the east elevation are well done and the overall design is good. Roger stated what was approved next door is outrageous. This design is a terrific compromise and they have reduced the FAR. Joe stated that he is trying to get as far away from Main Street as he can and the FAR has to go somewhere. John Muir stated that if the sitting room looses five feet, it will not remain functional in the manner that it needs to be in. We cannot push the addition any further. We have rotated and kept the roof mass down. We have done what we can to mitigate. Amy stated that the new ridge on the addition is substantially taller than the original house and she does not feel the HPC would want that to come any closer to the house. She agreed that it would be appropriate to not encroach so much on the alley but the goal would be to not bring the addition closer to the historic house. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 Donnelley stated that he was not suggesting decreasing the size of the interior living space. He was suggesting decreasing the size of sundeck #1 by 5 feet and perhaps sundeck #2. MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval for 706 W. Main as presented duly 24, 1996 with the following conditions: 1) Continue to study differentiation of materials and detailing for review at final. 2) Grant a rear yard setback variance of 4 '6" and a west sideyard setback variance of 3 '8" 3) Waive the primary window standard and volume standard. 4) Look at or restudy trim detail on the original north west corner of the historic structure. 5) Look at or restudy possible adjustment of plate height and roof angles to soften the verticality of the north elevation if possible. Second by Mark. DISCUSSION Melanie stated that she could not support the motion with the north variance. Donnelley stated that the applicants needs can be met within the rear setback. Motion failed 4-2. Roger and Mark voted yes on the motion. Donnelley stated by decreasing the size of the porches and decreasing the ultimate height by changing the roof angle one can accomplish the recommendation. He would grant conceptual as long as it is a requirement that the roof slope or ridge height should be reduced and move the second floor living space elements to the south to decrease or eliminate the encroachment on the rear and eliminate the variance on the rear. Melanie said she would grant conceptual with the above recommendations. Jake stated that the proposed motion is to deny the rear yard setback for further study. Amy stated that variances need to be granted in the public hearing. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 Jake stated then the HPC should table otherwise the applicant has to re-notice. Donnelley stated reduce the encroachment into the rear yard setback by a more significant amount. Melanie stated that she feels they can restudy within the space that they have. Jake stated the cleanest way to deal with this is to table. Joe stated that he is building a project that is 1,000 sqft. smaller than that has already been approved. He stated that comments were made that the HPC should disregard what was approved next door but he has to live in his house and look at what was approved next door. He also stated that he doesn't have a yard. He stated that he has two small decks, a train, 100,000 cars etc. going by. The committee is micro-managing his application. Donnelley stated that he feels restudy being able to pull back somewhere within the 4'6" setback variance to take some of the burden off the alley. Roger stated that his motion included all the elements 1,2,3,4,5. He also stated that the Commission needs to be proactive. MOTION: dake moved to grant conceptual approval for 706 W. Main as presented duly 24, 1996 with the following conditions: 1) Continue to study differentiation of materials and detailing for review at final. 2) Grant a west sideyard setback variance of 3 '8" 3) Waive the primary window standard and volume standard. 4) Look at or restudy trim detail on the original north west corner of the historic structure. 5) Grant a second story rear yard setback variance of 4 '6"for the second floor and to be restudied to reduce impacts from the alley to be presented at final; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 Jake said all we are fundamentally saying is take a look at it and see if there is anything that you can live with to reduce the impacts on the alley. 123 W. FRANCIS - VARIANCE - PH Jake Vickery stepped down. Donnelley Erdman stepped down. /st l/ice-chairman Roger Moyer opened the public hearing. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that the notice of a public hearing was presented. Amy stated that a variance was previously given for a light well in the setback and at that time we did not know that a combined sideyard variance was also needed. No comments have been received in the Planning office. There were no comments from the public. /st l/ice-Chairman Roger Moyer closed the public hearing. MOTION: Melanie moved that HPC approve the combined side yard setback variance of 2. S feet at 123 W. Francis Lot A, l/ickery Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. 214 E. BLEEKER - Lot SPLIT - CONCEPTUAL - PH Assistant Attorney David Hoefer stated that notice has been provided and the chairman has jurisdiction to proceed with the meeting. Chairman dake l/ickery opened the public hearing. Amy stated that this application is an historic landmark lot split. It would allow instead of the historic house having an addition twice the size, that same mass would be broken down into two buildings and the property owner could sell them as legally and distinct parcels. At this time there is no proposal for the empty lot. They are asking for the 500 sqft. bonus which would bring the historic house and addition to 2413 sqft. and lot B would be 2344 sqft. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 Amy stated that the applicant is proposing a small addition pushing out the kitchen on the back of the historic house and Staff finds no impact. Possibly differentiation of materials should be addressed. The roof proposed is metal. The primary issue is the out building which is in good condition (site visit verified condition). It is presently used as a bedroom and they wish to continue to do that and allocate the space with a detached structure rather than an attached structure. Their proposal is to tear down the existing shed and re-build a two story shed that will have two bedrooms in it. There are a few problems as the out building is original to the site and is historic and secondly the two story building is over the height limit. Their option would be to connect the two buildings with a breezeway and they would not have to ask HPC for a variance. For the partial demo, the standards would have to be met that the site would not be impacted. Gretchen Greenwood, architect for the owners Brumder' s. The outbuilding has been used for a bedroom for a few months and houses pool equipment and it does not have a bathroom. The applicant wanted to keep the new out building away from the main house and close to the alley. There are several two story buildings that are right on the alley and it is a realistic solution. We could certainly move the building in and attach it to the main house but the owners want it separate so that the Victorian doesn't become a rambling Victorian. The other desire is to expand the kitchen which would be a 150 sqfl. addition on the back. The kitchen addition would have a different material. Susan asked the condition of the shed. Amy stated as a shed it is OK but as a living space it needs improvement. Gretchen stated that she reinforced her shed and it is costly to try and restore the out building. Susan stated on the west end Arenson's outbuilding was restored with a second story and could that occur. Gretchen stated that she also restored her building and it cost four times as much to do it and this out building is not the significant building on the site. Part of it has an concrete foundation on it. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 Sven stated for clarification that the applicant is requesting, conceptual, lot split, partial demolition of a shed and an opening would be made in the historic house for a kitchen. Amy stated that they cannot built the building as is. It is over the height limit. Only Board of Adjustment could give a variance and they would have to prove a hardship. The other option is to connect the out building by a breezeway to the house. They are also asking the HPC to let them build the house on the alley so not only are we allowing that bigger impact, they also want it on the alley. The option is to make they comply with the five foot minimum rear yard. The third option would be to deal with the building as is and build in a basement and raise it or do a pop top in the roof to create a loft space in an existing building. Sven stated that they wouldn't necessarily have to do a pop up, they could add onto the shed to meet the needs of the client. He also stated that he would need a landscape plan of both parcels before granting conceptual. Adaptive reuse is part of historic preservation. If that happened he would be comfortable in giving variances. Roger stated that there are four elements: Lot Split Bonus Conceptual (A) Possible Partial Demolition Amy stated that they are asking for the bonus for the out building which is Staff' s only concern. She reiterated that the out building is on the 1904 Sanborn map. Gretchen stated that the inside was rebuilt and there is different kinds of siding. Jake stated that the records should have photographs of the existing conditions to see exactly how the out building is framed. Gretchen indicated that she will have 6 foot plate heights and the height would be 22 feet, a story and a half. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger stated that he would favor the lot split, bonus and retain the out building and allow a basement remodeling. No problem with the height of the building although 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 it would be easier if they attached it. No problem with the kitchen addition. Roger stated that it is very difficult to have out buildings taken down and HPC is against it and hopefully most owners are briefed of that. Suzannah stated that she agreed with the lot split, kitchen addition, and she cannot approve the FAR bonus without seeing how it relates to the out building. She indicated that the out building should be preserved. Jake stated that the lot split creates value potentially for property owners to offset the cost of whatever historical efforts the board decides are needed. Donnelley stated that he is in agreement with Suzannah. He also feels adaptive reuse should occur on the out building. It is in the form of what might have been built in the turn of the century and therefore a gabled ended building would be more appropriate in this case. He is in favor of the kitchen addition. Susan stated that she agrees with what has been said and she is opposed to tearing town out buildings on the alley. The alley scapes in this town are the last remnant of the mining era days. There are things that can be done to preserve it. Melanie and Mark concurred with the commentary presented by the other board members. Sven encouraged adaptive reuse of the outbuilding in order to receive the 500 sqft. bonus. Gretchen stated that she had no problem with restudying the out building but initially they would like to do the kitchen addition. She also stated that that probably an addition to the main house would occur at a later date or to the shed somehow. The desire is to try and not add to the house. Amy stated that the application could be treated at a minor development for the kitchen addition only. Gretchen stated that they need the far bonus and if they don't get the bonus they are not going to do the lot split. They need an incentive. Amy stated that the bonus is to cover the kitchen and the second story of the out building. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 1996 Chairman dake l?ickery stated that there were no comments from the public. Jake stated for clarity there would be two lots: westerly lot at 5,963 sqft. and would house the existing residence and the lot on the east would be a 6,000 sqfl. lot and would be vacant and no plans are being brought forward at this time. The FAR is 1900 for the westerly lot and 2343 to the easterly. MOTION: Donnelley moved that the HPC grant minor development approval for the addition to the kitchen on the existing structure at 214 E. Bleeker and that the other elements of conceptual approval be tabled to August 28th; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried ASPEN MEADOWS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy stated that the owners are proposing to not build the detached garage and instead utilize existing car ports; they want to make a change in the entry foyer area popping a wall out slightly and changing the front door configuration. There is a trellis over the rear deck and some of the people would like to remove them to increase the light into the areas and they are deteriorating. Staff is recommending against the removal of the trellis as it is original to the structures. A storage area is proposed on the deck in the back and it is appropriate. The biggest change is to the east; they desire to remove the staircase that goes up to the balcony and this is for access and safety concerns and they also want to reconfigure some of the windows. Several years ago window drawings were approved and this proposal is far less than what was proposed. Some of the windows are proposed to be changed into a door for the disabled. Staff is recommending approval of the change of windows on the east facade and revision to the entry way is acceptable and construction of a storage area is acceptable. The trellis should be retained. John Sarpa, owner and secretary of the Homeowners Assoc. stated that he has been involved with the property since 1987. The individuals present are full time residents. The units in 1991 were approved to be expanded to 2500 sqfl. and we came back and indicated that it would be reduced. On the east elevation due to the stairs lighting is very difficult to get through and the room is dark. There is no way to get light back in. The intent is to preserve the Bayer property. If the changes are approved the space will become livable for the families that will be there. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 David Brown, architect for the project stated that the trellis is intended as a light shading device. There is nothing due south. We have introduced double E glazing and there is no real technical need for the trellis now. It also has the impact of blocking views into the living area. David also stated another proposal is to change the fireplace which would open up the living room. One unit has the fireplace external. Mark asked the condition of the trellis. David stated untreated and they have been exposed to direct sunlight. Donnelley stated that the applicants are asking for minor issues which relate to fenestration and he would like to know how the fabrics as a whole are being maintained such as colors, finishes etc. John Sarpa stated that it is part of the homeowners agreement and funds are escrowed. We are hoping that HPC will approve the foyer's on a case by case. David Brown stated in front of the stairs there is a mature landscaping. Roger asked if the trellis could be kept and restored. David stated yes. Mark asked the size of the trellis. David stated 3 feet and 25 feet long. Esther Ferguson, owner stated that the stairs would prohibit someone from getting out the window and it is very dangerous. Mr. Alders, owner stated that that he came here in 1965 for a seminar and fell in love with Aspen and there were 8 units but none of the trustees wanted to buy them. Mr. John Powers moderated the seminar at the institute and brought him here. He was interested in the plans and there was a stairway going up because the upper floor was intended to be rented separately. He made it clear he was not interested in renting his house. He wanted a window to the north for ventilation and balance. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 They told me Mr. Bayer wouldn't accept any changes at all. He made an appointment and the changes were on the porch and after 1:30 nobody could go out there due to the heat. After the agreement Herbert Bayer wanted his money back and the trustees said no we want Mr. Alders here. Now everyone wants his changes. Esther Ferguson stated that Larry donated his house to the institute today. CLARIFICATIONS Roger stated if the window is changed it would have to be an egress window. It could be a casement or double hung. Donnelley stated that he agrees with Staff regarding the brise-soleil -trellis. It was an integral part of the west facade. He also stated that he is the monitor on the project and in favor of removal of the stair and the Board needs to be aware that a balcony will be over a portion of the east facade. The fireplace relocation is not a significant change. It is very important to retain the brise-soleil and rebuild them. Roger stated that he concurred with Donnelley and Staff and would allow the trellis's to be removed, rebuilt and raised slightly. It would still retain the flavor of the original design. Sven stated that in this climate the trellis doesn't have obvious benefits but it was inserted in the original design and helps date the design. He would allow the design but slightly modified and raised. MOTION: Donnelley moved that the application for minor development for the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes be approved with the following condition: Removal of trellis, can be rebuilt and raised if necessary to accommodate a slightly higher door configuration and also the spacing or orientation of the horizontal elements' provide shade could be altered somewhat to provide a more effective shading element when the trellis's if necessary are rebuilt; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. John Sarpa stated that some of the owners might not change their trellis. Donnelley stated that it is understood that different homeowners want different things done. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 935 E. HYMAN - WORKSESSION NO- MINUTES MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24~ 1996 1008 E. HOPKINS - WORKSESSION NO MINUTES ......................................................... 1 706 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL CONTINUED - PH .......................................................... 1 123 W. FRANCIS - VARIANCE - PH .............................................................................. 6 214 E. BLEEKER - LOT SPLIT - CONCEPTUAL - PH ...................................................... 6 ASPEN MEADOWS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................. 10 935 E. HYMAN - WORKSESSION ................................................................................ 13 14