Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20040901ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Michael Hoffman, Sarah Broughton and Jason Lassef. Valerie Alexander was excused. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk The board welcomed our new member Jason Lasser. 114 NEALE AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in Alice Brien and John Muir. David Hoefer informed the board that Jason may participate in' terms of questions and comments but he may not vote because he will not Officially be appointed by City Council until Sept. 13th. Any action by the board will require a vote of three members. Amy said this is the new home on a vacant lot as part of the lot split. No variances are allowed on the parcel. In this case they either need to provide an ADU or pay cash in lieu. This lot split was approved before council amended our preservation program to say that lot split projects do not have to do ADU's. From the last meeting the concern from Staff and the HPC is the relationship of the proposed house to the miner's cottage up the hill. The whole reason the lot split program is in place is to try to take the pressure off the historic building, separate the mass but still provide some kind of relationship. HPC has approved other projects that created that relationship in a number of ways: Sometimes through a traditional kind of new home that has very similar roof pitches, similar materials etc. Other times it has been a much more contemporary solution reflecting certain characteristics of the miner's cottage, paired down, and finely detailed architecture. In this particular case staff recommendS continuation with many of the same concerns of the last meeting. Staff feels that not enough has changed in the design to respond to the issues being brought up at the last meeting. It appears that there is more distance, between this new house than what we have seen before. Also there has been a reduction in height. However, there has not been a successful effort to address the idea that the massing of ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 this building is somewhat overwhelming in comparison to the miner's cottage. It is a very linear design and has a much broader street frontage than the miners cottage and there are different ways that the architect might revisit that to break the building up even more, into somewhat distinct pieces that are linked together more subtly or orienting the floor plan so that it is front to back rather than long. There is also some concern about the roof forms, which was brought up at the last meeting. It is understood that the hip roof has some benefits in the way it recedes and cuts down on the mass of the roof but overall, the roof form is not a roof form that is typical of the miner's cottage of the historical part of the building. Alice Brien read a letter in response to what they have done so far with 17 Queen Street to meet the guidelines. We have many structural changes to the buildings such a lowering the ceiling plates and the house five more feet into the ground. We have worked on the scale of the house and now all of the rooms are one foot shorter. We have moved the house forward ten more feet further from the Victorian for a total of a 20 foot setback. The style of the neighborhood is a mix. The house on the hill is Victorian and on the river in front of the property there is a newer huge log home. To the left of the property above the park there are large wood and stone homes. On Queen Street there is a mixture of large wood/stone and log homes and smaller older sided homes. Given the nature of the surrounding area 17 Queen Street will fit right into the blend. We have made many changes to the 17 Queen Street property. When we initially started this procedure we had a larger house than we do today. The original house was approximately 500 feet larger and please don't forget we have a 15,000 square foot lot. We have pushed the house into the ground and squeezed in the sides to meet HPC guidelines of massing requirements. We are also trying to rework the mass to make the building appear as two separate entities. We are willing to make 17 Queen Street have more ties to the Victorian era if this works well for the committee. I trust that 17Queen Street will blend right into the neighborhood. I hope you-will consider the changes we made to achieve your guidelines. John said it seems that we misinterpreted the input that we got from Staff last time in terms of the significance of the Trettin residence relative to its height and distance from the property line. We certainly made responses relative to that and we are going to continue to push some of those modifications. It seems clear to the owner and myself that it is time to take a 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF'SEPTEMBER '1, different approach to this. Rather than belaboring the existing design we would like to request a worksession showing an alternate drawing if that is acceptable to the board. We understand that we will not be getting an approval tonight. John presented a character study that is not fully designed. We have taken the master bedroom and separated it out and tried to develop it to more of a gothic style of the Victorian which is simpler in form and relates a little better to the existing miners cabin both in terms of detailing which is simple and scale and massing as well. We made an effort to de- emphasize the linking element. The main part of the house has Queen Ann elements added because we thought that tool might break down the element of the house more effectively. There is a mansard canopy entrance porch which relates to some of the detailing on the existing miners cabin. We also pulled up a tower element and feel it helps break down the scale and mass better. Relative to height the top of the tower will be 79.32. The revised drawings brought down the house about six feet from the original submittal. We shortened the house by six feet in order to move it ten feet further to the south so that we can get 20 feet clearance to the property line where before it was ten feet. We have 57 feet between the miners cabin and the new home which is approximately where the previous approved project sat. Questions and clarifications. Jason asked what the square footage difference would be. proposal is 500 square feet smaller than the previous one. John said this Jeffrey asked if the architect looked at an east/west plan to shrink up the length along Neale Ave. which was a concern for staff?. John said the point of reference seemed to be position of the apProved Trettin residence. We shrunk the house by six feet in order to move it ten feet to the south. Alice said there isn't enough land to switch. John said in order to take advantage of the views and the long narrow lot the front presence needed to be on Neale Ave. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. No public comments. Chairperson closed the public hearing. Derek said his biggest concerns are mass and scale. We are getting closer and he is willing to go forward. He feels the house has gone in the right 3 ASPEN HISTORIC P~SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER li 2004 direction. He is not convinced that the new plans wouldn't do anymore justice. Sarah said moving the house ten feet away helps the mass and scale with the historic 'resource and moves forward with .meeting our guidelines. Bringing the height down diminished the overall sCale. Regarding the different styles, she agrees with staff's comments about the effort to design a Project with a compound of massesi When you look at the historic resource that addition that went onto it is definitely a compound of masses. Sheresponded to the new elevation with that in mind. Chapter 11 guidelines ShOUld be used to overlay the new design. Certain guidelines, are not being met yet such as 11.2 and the roof forms. The roof forms are quite alienated from the historic resource. Michael said in terms of mass and scale you are on the right path but in terms of what you are doing there the style is contrary to the guidelines. Michael said he would prefer a more integrated approach, one that has the mass and scale broken up. The design seems to be too busy. Guideline 11.3 which addressed scale with the historic building needs to be restudied. He could accept the mass and scale if it was a lot more simpler in design. Jason stated that guideline 11.3 relates to subdividing larger masses. The design overwhelms and it is more of a function of the main piece and if that were broken down it could be successful. Guideline 11.10 imitate historic styles needs to be restudied and incorporated into the design in order to meet that guideline. Jeffrey thanked the architect for compromising and getting the massing and setback considerations away from the historic resource. Jeffrey also asked about east/west plan utilization. The concern is the length of the front elevation. The massing concerns are addressed in guideline 11.3, 11.6 and 11.10. There needs to be a restudy of the simplification of the roof forms. Some of the mass and scale is starting to work but it is how the detailing is put together that needs restudied. The 57 feet of separation from the historic house works well. The street frontage should not be overwhelming even though it is on a higher perch. Amy said there are some good improvements. The gable ends have good proportions. Some of the detailing is good and some is too Victorian. The ASPEN HISTORIC P~SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 design should not be too QUeen Ann as it is a basic miners cottage and we don't want to be too competitive. The gabled roofs help a lot. John said there is an undertone that the overall size of the house is to° large · but this is being undertaken as a commercial project and below a certain size we cannot do the project. We do not want to reproduce any particular style. John said the house is a 6,500 square foot hoUse. Jeffrey said the code allows a certain size house and that is a zoni ~ng guideline. Amy said the board is looking for the least overwhelming kind of scale as possible. Sarah pointed out this is a very exposed house and you have two sides that are very visible. The guidelinesstate that the goal should be to subdivide it into smaller modules and to use building forms that are similar to the historic property. With that in mind lOoking at the new sketch you are on your way there without compromising the size of the building. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and major development for 114 Neale Ave. until Oct. 13th; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 113 E. HOPKINS - MINOR DEVLEOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: Kim Raymond, Ellen and Jim Gould Amy relayed that the miner's cottage is in the front and an addition was added in the' 1989. The addition though successful doesn't meet some of the guidelines that we have today such as a little more separation between the new and old and less Victorian detailing. In some ways the revisions will help this project. They want to pop out the front porch of the addition and take away a Victorian porch and construct a porch with simple posts and columns. There are some light wells proposed because of the basement but they don't require setback variances. Staff supports the project with the exception of having a discussion about the porch and whether it is a helpful element. It is excellent to remove the existing porch but whether the new porch provides enough distance from the front of the house needs discussed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER i, 2004 On the upper'floor deck' of the addition they propose a Solid wall With siding on it as a railing and possibly that should be investigated' Whether it should be a baluster With some openness. Kim pointed out that the front porch that is there now goes all the way across the new addition so we have cut that back to make a separation. We went to a much simpler porch. The front porch is used for entertainment .and Ellie is an artist and she paints out there in the north light and protection is needed. The roofing on the new porch would be either shingles or the narrower pro- panel so that it looks more contemporary and newer. The addition will be brought back behind the chimney s° the entire mass is Smaller. Jim pointed out that the siding, feneStration, and Windows are not original on the entire house. Kim said with the new hddition on the back it is stepped back one foot and the staircase has been made smaller. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. No public comments. The public hearing was closed. Sarah said the elimination of the Porch helps distinguiSh the hiStOric reSoUrce away from the addition. Sarah recommended that the monitor deal with the nature of the porch. Jeffrey said his only concern is the nature of the porch. Michael said the deck is OK but it could be restudied to be made more transparent MOTION: .Michael moved to approve Resolution #28for 113 East Hopkins with the following amendments: Staff and monitor work with the applicant to make the deCk on the second floor more transparent and changing condition #3 to reflect that; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: Derek, Sarah, Michael, Jeffrey Sarah said she would be the monitor. 6 ASPEN HISTO~___C PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMB'E~~ i~' ~0011 POTENTIAL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENT - WORKSESSION _ NO MINUTES MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. ,,Ill in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk