Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19970108 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 8, 1997 Meeting was called to order by chairman Jake Vickery with Roger Moyer, Melanie Roschko, Susan Dodington, Suzannah Reid and Mark Onorofski present. Sven Alstrom was excused. 633 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy Amidon, Planner stated that the house has functioned as a residence and is now being converted into an office space. A few changes proposed effect the outside of the building in order to make the office space more usable. Skylights are proposed on the east and west side of the roof. The existing front door is to be replaced with a transom and a window added on the north. A railing is also being proposed for the porch. The applicant will try to replicate the front door and eliminate the transom which is not an original element. Staff is recommending against adding the window because it is on the primary facade. Staff is also recommending against the baluster. Staff recommends the change in the front door and that they should consider putting the original second door back in (the former entry of the parlor) and that they install the skylights and not do the railing. Joseph Edwards represented the owner and stated that no railing existed and would follow staffs recommendation of not installing a railing. The skylights bring light into the stairs and entry foyer. Mark inquired about the evergreen and recommended that the applicant get a Parks Department report. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minor development application for 633 W. Main with the following conditions: 1) That the applicant may replace the front door with a front door that is similar to the original as shown in the new drawing. 2) A transom would not be added. 3) No window on the north facade. 4) Skylights' may be added as long as they are flush with the roof and dark in color to blend with the roof 5) No railing added as it did not exist historically. second by Susan. DISCUSSION ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 8, 1997 Mark stated that skylights have a four inch curve. Joseph Edwards stated that they are looking at Velex type skylight and not the bubble type. Mark asked if the skylights would be vented? Joseph stated yes. MOTION passed 6-0. Jake stated that a new front elevation needs' to be presented to Staff fbr the records. 17 QUEEN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT Jake stepped down. Roger chaired. Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer stated that the affidavit of proof of notice has been presented and is adequate and HPC has the jurisdiction to proceed. Roger opened the public hearing. Public asked for an explanation. Amy stated that a code amendment in the R-6 allows for a GMQS exemption for lot splits and allows for a non-conforming minimum lot size so that little houses can be on smaller lots and their additions can be a separate structure and sold off separately. On the parcel in question a new house could be built down the hill. MOTION: Roger moved to table 17 Queen Street and continue the public hearing to danuary 22nd; second by Mark. All in favor, motion carried. 307 S. CLEVELAND - WORKSESSION 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 8~ 1997 Glenn Rappaport, architect for the project stated that the project involves three cabins. The cabins are on the inventory but not landmarked. The cabins were built in 1948, 50 and 52. The applicant desires to keep the cabins unattached. Presently a duplex is allowed on this property which is zoned RMF and that could occur in the center of the parcel. The problem with keeping all the cabins intact is that the applicant would have to mitigate approximately 11 parking spaces. One of the ideas would be to have a cabin turn into a car port and retain as much of the structure as possible and keep the small scale and if that is done 7 parking spaces could be located along the alley. Roger asked how many parking spaces are being used presently. Glenn stated six cars are on the property. Amy stated that HPC could waive the parking but P&Z is against it as it is a dense neighborhood. Roger stated that he does not understand how anyone could consider taking someone's housing away for parking. Glenn stated that only one cabin would be lost. Roger stated that he recommends keeping all the cabins and recommends landmark designation. Jake stated that he would support anything to keep the cabins as they are. Susan asked what the distance would be between the buildings if the duplex were built. Glenn stated that ten feet would exist around the building. It would be a descent size walkway. Susan stated that she is in favor of keeping the cottages the way they are and try to waive the parking. Suzannah stated that she has nothing additional to offer without seeing a presentation. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 8, 1997 Melanie stated that she has concerns waiving all the parking due to the dense area. She would recommend a few on-site parking spaces. She would like to see innovative architecture of the duplex to tie into the existing buildings. Mark stated that he agrees with Melanie and the parking should not be over looked. Jake asked about joining things together. Glenn stated if they touch the cabins they have to deal with the new codes. 939 E. COOPER - FINAL UNIT E Jake stepped down. Amy stated that she is recommending tabling. What was brought forward is identical in footprint and FAR height as was approved at conceptual. The design proposed is a departure from conceptual and from the project as a whole. Particularly the change in the roof form, flatening of the wall surfaces and the windows which now are casement as opposed to double hung. It is recommended that the applicant look at the Aspen vernacular that was brought up in the rest of the project. Roger stated that he does not see this as a final application and that it is a great departure from conceptual. Amy stated that she worked with Carol Ferrino and apparently she needed more clarity. The drawings are 1/8th instead of quarter scale and materials are not presented. Nell Ross, owner stated that he asked Carol to depart from conceptual. He never saw the conceptual drawings. He asked Carol to maintain simplicity of design, maintain compatibility and spirit faithful to Victorian styles and maintain an economy of price RO deed restricted. The roof is asphalt shingle and double gabled and the siding is a board and batten. Amy's memo stated that there is significant changes in massing. He feels that the term Victorian is infinite and in terms of the spirit he tried to do a contemporary home but 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 8~ 1997 Victorian in spirit and economically feasible. Upon research Victorians were much simpler in style in terms of ornate detail. Standard #2 states that the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. HPC was in favor of the project because of the preservation of two historic structures. He feels that only one structure was preserved visually. Standard #3 states that the pattern of dividing the buildings into small components is found in historic buildings and he feels that is true with ornate buildings but with simpler building they are or are not. The roof design with gables were done because of economics. In summary when the original design was done economics did not come into play. He feels A,B,D are somewhat inconsistent of themselves. Melanie stated in regard to unit A not being retained there were major elements that occurred; siding was taken off that should not have been so the original intent, if it had been followed, would be a more historic structure than what is up there now. What is there now was not approved. MOTION: Mark moved to table final approval for 939 E. Cooper Unit E; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried. Suzannah stated in terms of the great departure if you look at the conceptual drawings regardless of the roof shapes there is a lot going on that minimizes the mass of the building; the porch on the west and the step back on the North. Because it is so close to the adjacent buildings those elements become very important in getting light into the narrow areas. The windows need to be looked at and get away from the casement window style. Susan stated she would like a floor plan included at the next meeting. She stated that she has problems visualizing the drawings presented specifically with the use of materials and how it will look. Melanie stated that she would prefer that the applicant study the conceptual application. There is no definition and it needs restudied. Nell stated that he changed the design due to cost. Mark stated that he feels the design does not represent clearly what the intent is. A complete package should be submitted at the next meeting. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 8~ 1997 Roger stated that Aspen has a Victorian style and it is very recognizable. Aspen mining Victorian first had cabins, then money came along and then the cabin was painted and then additions added which came out of catalogues. Additions were shipped from the East. He stated that he would encourage the applicant to look at the whole project. A landscape plan should be incorporated into the whole project. A model is available which was presented and should be looked at and there are drawings from the other homes. He would recommend to scale drawings at the next meeting so that the scale shows the dimensions of the windows, trim and delineation of the siding including the width, type etc. One distracting element is the windows. This is a village within a village. The fenestration should blend with Victorian not be a departure from. Entrances were meant to be of human scale and porches are encouraged. Breaking up of the mass so that there is not just one roof line is encouraged. In looking at the drawings the breaking up with a strange band doesn't delineate the purpose. What is the foundation, stone, rock cement etc. A large huge structure could have been built here and HPC spent numerous hours on the little village. MOTION: Melanie moved to adjourn; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 8~ 1997 633 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 1 17 QUEEN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT .............................................. 2 307 S. CLEVELAND - WORKSESSION .......................................................................... 2 939 E. COOPER - FINAL UNIT E ................................................................................. 4 7