Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19970528 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 28, 1997 Chairman Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Mary Hirsch, Gilbert Sanchez, Susan Dodington, Roger Moyer, Suzannah Reid, Jeffrey Halferty and Mark Onorofski present. Melanie Roschko was excused. Jeffrey did not vote. MOTION: Gilbert moved to change the order of the agenda, Food and Wine banner requests would be A on the agenda; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. FOOD AND WINE BANNERS Amy Amidon, planner stated that the banners would be located along Main Street and in the core. The design is 2 x 4 white lettering on blue and HPC should determine the start and end date when the banners should be put up and taken down. Diane Moore, ACRA president stated this is the 15th anniversary of the Food and Wine classic. Food & Wine would like the banners up in the early stage June 9th and taken down June 30th. Suzannah did not vote on this item. MOTION: Jeffhey made the motion to approve the Food & Wine application for banners which will be taken down by June 30th, second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Yes voters: Jake, Mary, Gilbert, Susan, Roger, Jeff and Mark. 514 N. STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Suzannah seated. Roger did not vote on this item. Proof of posting and noticing was received by the Chief Deputy Clerk and HPC had jurisdiction to proceed, Exhibit I. Exhibit II is a letter from Martin and Beate Block addressing the shed and snow loads and over sized homes ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 28~ 1997 for the neighborhood. They are the adjacent neighbor. The letter indicated that the shed was added and it runs up to their property and is not set back the legal five feet. To increase their holdings would be a grave mistake. Amy Amidon, planner stated that currently their is a carriage house and a Victorian cottage on the site, both original. The proposal is to place an addition between the house and carriage house. They are below the maximum FAR and a site coverage variance is needed. Staff has some concerns about compatibility. The Parks Dept. indicated they are not concerned with the removal of a tree. Some of the elements, peeled logs, posts should be restudied as they introduce a new design element that will compete with the historic structure. Staff is recommending restudy of the ridge line to be brought down in height. The porch element should remain independent between the structures. The main entrance is proposed for the addition and staff feels this change takes away the emphasis of the historic house as the main property. The carriage house has windows that are in the no window zone and a waiver is needed. There is no historic resource being demolished. Karen Ringsby, owner and Gray Ringsby, her son designed and presented the application. Gray responded to Staff' s memo. He indicated that the addition would not be that visible and the siding and color will be the same. A eye brow window is proposed. The peeled log post was an idea around the front to distinguish the new addition from the existing. The ridge line is two feet higher than the existing and the owner felt it was more visually balanced. Regarding the entrance being moved, it allows the other part of the house to be used and it is more central to the house. The exterior door would still look like an entry, it would not be changed. The idea was to get to the main house without getting wet. Clarifications and comments were made by the Board. Both existing houses were added onto at least four or five times with a dormer type architecture. The tree to be removed is a spruce. The front spruce will remain. A tree removal permit will be required. Unanimous concerns about the overlapping roof and the window design. Floor plans and landscaping plans were not submitted and the Board recommended tabling with conditions to restudy the ridge line and roof configuration, restudy of the two peak windows, and porch 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 28~ 1997 element. Elimination of log posts. The carriage house should have a different look. The roof over the door should have more distinctions in the planes. Subtle differentiation should be studied. The chair opened the public hearing, no comments. MOTION: Mark moved to continue the conceptual development application andpublic hearing for 514 N. Third St. to dune 11, 1997 with the following recommendations: 0 That the roof structure be restudied to include a restudy of the height of the ridge line of the addition. 2) That the addition become simpler in character particularly the west elevation. 3) Peeled log posts studied for a more compatible material. 4) Siding is restudied for a more compatible distinguishing material. motion second by Mary. Motion carried 7-0. Foters: Mary, dake, Suzannah, Susan defJhey, Mary and Gilbert. 303, 305, 308 S. CLEVELAND - LANDMARK, CODE AMENDMENT Amy Amidon, planner stated that the project involves three cabins that are listed on the inventory. They were built in 1948,1950, 1952. The applicant is requesting landmark designation and Standard D & E are met. The buildings are in an historic neighborhood. Glenn Rappaport represented the owner and schematically this will be an infill project and a duplex is proposed with modification to the cabins. MOTION: Suzannah moved to recommend landmark designation support for 303, 305 and 308 S. Cleveland, Lots' H and I Block 35 East Aspen addition to the City of Aspen, finding that standards' D & E are met; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Code Amendment Amy stated that the property is located in the residential multi-family zone district so the primary use is multi-family buildings. The code defines multi- family as three or more structures that are joined together. This property has 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 28~ 1997 a non-conforming use, it is not single family and it is not a duplex or multi- family. There are three structures and as it stands today they have no redevelopment options on the property unless they attach the buildings together. HPC discussed this and that is not something HPC necessarily wants to see happen. The best preservation method would be to allow the buildings to stand as they are and build an infill in the middle. The code amendment will benefit the project and other projects. It gives the capability to break units apart so that they can be free standing and compatible in scale with Historic Aspen. The issue that needs discussed is how the FAR is set. Glenn Rappaport, architect for the project stated that basically a duplex could be built of 3,600 and you would subtract the FAR of the cabins and divide the remaining. The applicant doesn't gain anything but making use of the smaller structures. The code presently forces you to demolish little structures. The duplex structure will respect what is going on with the little buildings on the property. Commissioner comments Concern of the calculation of the FAR. Should the code amendment be a conditional use. Address incentives. Be able to vary setbacks between the buildings. Is this just for historic properties and or new properties. Possibly for landmarks the proposed amendment could be a permitted us and for new properties a conditional use. The HPC supports the code amendment idea. Open space also needs addressed. MOTION: Jake moved to adjourn; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 28~ 1997 FOOD AND WINE BANNERS .............................................................................................................. 1 514 N. STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 1 303, 305, 308 S. CLEVELAND - LANDMARK, CODE AMENDMENT ............................................ 3