Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950524ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 213 S. MILL 123 W. FRANCIS - 130 S. GALENA 435 E. COOPER HABITAT GALLERY CD - LANDMARK - PH ..... CITY HALL - MINOR ...... KEMO SABE - MINOR ....... 1 3 9 11 1--2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Meeting was called to order by Linda Smisek with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington and Melanie Roschko present. Excused were Donnelley Erdman, Sven Alstrom and Jeff McMenimen. MOTION: Martha moved to add Habitat gallery sign issue to the agenda; second by Susan. Ail in favor, motion carries. STAFF COMMENTS Amy: We need to set the amount of the bonds for the Langley historic house and the historic barn. Les: We need a cost breakdown. Amy: We could calculate it by square footage. I am suggesting $30,000. Melanie: I believe it is 1500 sqft. and Jake calculates at $30. a sqft. Martha: I would suggest $1500. on the barn. MOTION: Martha moved to set the bond money for 939 E. Cooper, the historic house at $30,000 and for the historic barn $1,500; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes of April 12th and May 10th, 1995; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 213 S. MILL - HABITAT GALLERY Amy: The applicant would like to add signage to the Wheeler building. She has proposed lettering to be painted onto the stone. Sandy Hagopian, owner: There is painted lettering on the building right now. Amy: There was discussion before that painted lettering on this building is not appropriate. Sandy: I feel if this was done with the right font it would look appropriate and is more in keeping with how the old signage was done. Bob Murray would also like to put signage up vertical to the building by the stage door. I don't want it on the flat surface. With any other kind of signage you would have to drill a hole in the wood. The Board could change the font. Roger: Is there any historic precedence for painting on historic buildings? ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Amy: The only thing I can think of are the old build boards. Les: We want mixed uses in an historic building and we have to figure out a way for that to happen. Roger: You need to go to the landlord and have the awnings replaced as you say they do not work. Sandy: The city will not replace them. Roger: I would inquire about an interior lighted sign that would show. Sandy: I can't use neon. Roger: Maybe you could secure a base material and the sign would be painted to it and the base material would attach to the window frame. The base of the sign would have relief off the building and attach to the window frame. Sandy: I have talked to people about signage. Linda: You are referring to lettering on a wood piece and setting it against the window so that it can be removed. The Board objects to painted lettering on the building. Sandy: If the stone wasn't already painted I wouldn't consider it. Linda: We are concerned about the integrity of the historic building and what is in keeping with the building. Sandy: I even thought of wiring out behind the awning that would shine back into the gallery but was told by the electrician that that was not a good idea. I could use the other window that is at an angle to the door. Les: Bill Drueding is the last work on sign codes. I feel one or two of the members could work with the applicant and make sure all he options are looked at and we can do a site visit. Amy: I also feel we should do a site visit. This is only a staff signoff. Les: We can also address the stage door at the same site visit. 123 W. FRANCIS - CD - LANDMARK - PH ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Chairperson Linda Smisek opened the public hearing. Amy: This is a 10,500 sqft. lot and the historic house is in the center of the lot. This application also involves the P&Z. They would like to relocate the historic house and propose to do a lot split creating a 4,500 and 6,000 sqft. lot. This is a code amendment that would only be allowed for historic landmarks because you are creating a non conforming lot you usually have to have two 6,000 sqft. lots and part of the idea is then less FAR would be directed to the historic house and the 6,000 sqft. lot could be developed as a normal 6,000 sqft. lot. The code amendment is not under your purview but if you have comments P&Z needs to take them into consideration. Even without the code amendment you would be able to do two separate structures on this property. You can do that on 9,000 sqft. or larger. The difference here is that ownership can be attached to two separate people. The total FAR for the lot is being held to the duplex FAR which is 4,170 sqft. If these were two legal lots the total FAR would be about 6,000 sqft. and that is not what is being proposed under the code amendment, they are restricting it to what the duplex would be to the original site which is good. I am recommending HPC support the landmark designation as it meets standard B, E, F. CONCEPTUAL Amy: We are being asked to review an addition to the historic structure and a construction of an entirely new house. I find the two designs compatible and sympathetic to the neighborhood and the historic resource. I am interested in the resolution of the front corner of the house. The house is essentially in its original form. There is a front door that has been closed and you can see bead board that was the roof of the porch inside a closet. The proposal shows replacing the porch and building on top of the addition and it would really involve removing the roof. The applicant is adding a minimal amount of space. The total addition to the historic house is 587 sqft. and they are asking for a FAR bonus of 500 sqft. so that they can add on. Katherine Lee: What would the total PAR be on that lot? Amy: 1450 plus the 500 bonus which is 1950 sqft. That does not include the garage at 500 sqft. There are three outbuildings on the property, barn, shed and a garage stall. The barn will be turned and made into a garage stall. I feel that is an interesting solution. One of the trees is proposed to be relocated. The house has a FAR of about 2900 sqft. which is small than what is usually allowed on a 6,000 sqft. lot. The applicant has revised the plans slightly and added an octagonal element to address the street. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Katherine Lee: What is the size of the second house? Amy: $2,900. sqft. The project meets all the neighborhood character guidelines. They are asking for a side yard setback and it is on the interior. They are also asking for site coverage variances of 5% on each lot. They want to keep the open space and I support that. Also if you put an ADU above grade you get the cottage infill variance of 5%. If they don't get the variance the ADU will go into the basement and Staff supports that. They are asking for parking variance of 5 spaces. I recommended tabling because I did not have the new design to review. The issue of the porch may not be resolved until a little demolition occurs. Les: I am worried about someone coming in and saying my house is not historic take it off the inventory. Amy: That occurs when there is a lot split but we are designating this from the start. Greg Prickrell, architect presenting for Jake Vickery: One of the ADU's is required and one was suggested. Melanie: Visually the interior setback is on 2 1/2 feet. could go and put a fence up and then you have 2 1/2 feet fence. Is there a way that you could get five feet. Someone to the Amy: Not unless we demolish part of the historic building. They have created a 45 foot frontage. Greg: You are not supposed to create non conforming lots. Melanie: We are creating a squeeze in the past in allowing houses to get close. Can't we build in a variance of a couple of feet. I am opposed to only seeing 2 1/2 feet to the lot line. Amy: We could put in a condition of approval that no fence can be built. Susan: It seems to me that is destroying the character of the neighborhood by squashing the houses together and loosing the side yards. Roger: If another developer comes in and buys the property what is the maximum square he can put in with the two buildings? Amy: He can build a duplex or two detached buildings or stay with one building and add on. Roger: If it is a duplex 4170 sqft. is the max and one per unit. If the lot split is allowed what is the maximum square footage allowed? ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Amy: 4,170 sqft. plus 500 sqft. bonus from HPC. Roger: By doing the lot split you will have 500 sqft. In your opinion with the neighborhood does the lot split offer a better project? Amy: Yes, in my opinion. There used to be another house there and this is re-establishing the neighborhood pattern. Jake's wife Della presented their history of living in Aspen. Greg Prickrell: The due diligence on the property terminates June 15th. We would like to know if HPC feels this project is viable. We have done a thorough investigation of the project. We desire to landmark and we have broken down the massing into smaller scale modules creating smaller ownership modules which preserves the small scale of the neighborhood. We want to reduce the historical forms to basics with the topology of a cross gable miners cottage. Each historic part has to be evaluation for the extent and nature of its historical value and contribution or detraction to the character as a whole. There also has to be architectural integrity. We want to put the new development on the adjacent parcel. We want to add new accessory functions to accommodate today's need to the cottage. We are asking for the 500 sqft. bonus for two bedrooms above grade. Lot A will have the historic cottage on it and we will utilize the outbuilding as part of the two car garage with new construction. To the rear of the cottage we are doing a second floor for a master bedroom. We are proposing an ADU above the garage. On lot B, 129 W. Francis the ADU will be below grade. QUESTIONS Roger: Why should we encourage the code amendment? Amy: It is another incentive for landmarks, that you could do a lot split even though it is less than 6,000 sqft. and have separate ownership. It does not result in more FAR. Katherine Lee, neighbor: and I do not feel there turned the shed. There is a garage right across the alley is enough turning radius where you have Greg: I will check it. Roger: I want to be clear on the code amendment? Amy: It will include how the FAR will be distributed for each area. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 199~ Martha: If the person sold the house could they get more FAR. Amy: There would be no more FAR available. Melanie: The other lot could come before us and ask for a FAR bonus. Amy: Yes they could but only if you found it compatible. You could also state in this approval that that would not be allowed. Greg: We are getting 250 sqft. reduction for doing the cottage infill. If we were not doing the ADU we wouldn't need it. Les: They could do the same thing with a PUD. Roger: I would rather hear public comments before our comments. Linda: We can change the agenda to reflect your concern. Martha: I am concerned about the bulk of the project. Roger: By making it a landmark we can control the bulk and making findings that the bulk is not compatible with the historic structure. PUBLIC QUESTIONS & COMMENTS Brenda Bigelow: I live on the corner next to house B and I am here representing the landlord. I feel much better knowing if it is designated the board has more control of the size. Roger: They could have asked for a setback and moved the house closer to you and instead they moved it in. Katherine Lee: The old house is moving east. Do you have to have the ADU on the new house? Amy: They are creating a new unit so they have to build an ADU for this property. Katherine Lee: Which is the more desirable of the two as it creates more mass. Amy: Only one creates mass as it is above grade the other is below grade. Martha: Except for cars and the impact to the neighborhood. Those are considerations that should be discussed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 199K Melanie: It is a two bedroom ADU so the possibility exists that two more cars will be there. Amy: There is an income restriction but I do not know how many people can live in one. They are small. Della, owner: We are doing the ADU on our house for income to an employee. Roger: Are the new elevations sufficient information for Staff to not have to table and we could grant conceptual? Amy: I do not have any design issues with the project. I am more concerned with the restoration aspects of the historic building. Della: Jake is really concerned about the restoration himself. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Martha: My concern is the second story to the historic house. I am not comfortable with the design and feel it detracts. Roger: With the information so far I would encourage the code amendment. I would also recommend that conceptual be approved with conditions. The concern of the neighbor can be addressed by moving the house forward and thus having enough turning radius. Ail the design aspect are fine. We need to address the tree removal and make sure that it can live. To address Martha's comments if the trees are left alone you will hardly see the addition. The impact would be greater if the trees were not there. I would demand restoration of the original right porch. I would also put the window well someplace else possibly on the west side. Landscaping between the house should be addressed in the motion. Susan: I am also concerned about the second story and do not like the height from the front view of the old house. I certainly wouldn't want to see the trees moved. If there was another house on the property it had to be a small house. I hate to see the sideyards disappearing. Amy: I totally agree with you but I would make the argument that having a number of smaller structures is better than having a structure with four times the mass added on which really disrupts the rhythm. Linda: I am in agreement with Roger on the front porch. When I site visited it looked to me that someone in past history might have taken on a border and that entrance was for that use and I feel it has a lot of significance to the time and to the house. I highly recommend that be restored and the lightwell moved further ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 back to give the ADU in the basement some space. I feel comfortable with the massing and scale. I am a little concerned about how satisfied a new owner will be with the new house plan and what we will be up against. I feel Jake has done a good job with coming up with new ideas and introducing a new concept for historic preservation and restoration. Les: I feel it is a good plan and it will work. I have difficulty recommending the code amendment until I see it. I am not concerned about a new buyer as they will have to work with us. Final will not be easy as everyone has considerations such as the tower. If there is not a worksession before final I don't want the applicant coming in and saying we got conceptual now we need final. We are granting conceptual with a lot of considerations. Amy: There is an existing addition and it shows up on the 1904 map and has the original windows and doors. There is a back porch and we have debated whether it should be retained. It will not be visible from the street but Linda made a good point recognizing the boarding unit. We little by little are not going to have examples of the evolution of an historic house. There has to be some way to indicate that there was a one story element there. Katherine Lee: I have been here 14 years and the entire back has been changed so many times that I couldn't begin to tell you how many. What are the side yard setback requirements? Amy: In R6 you have to have 5 feet on each side with a combined total of 15. Katherine Lee: Is the new one 5 feet? Greg: It is at 5 and 10. Chairman Linda Smisek closed, the public hearing. MOTION: Roger moved to recommend landmark designation to Lot C, D and E and the East 1/2 of Lot B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval as submitted to include partial demolition of the rear addition as show by the removal of the model at this meeting and that we grant the interior sideyard setbacks and site coverage 5% varianceS on lot A and B as requested with the following conditions for conceptual approval: 1) A worksession with a monitor will be held before final. 2) No moving of tree or trees on the front side of the property. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 3) That the restoration of the right porch occur to as close as possible to the original. No fence of any kind either structural or landscape between the interior division of the two properties if in fact they are divided. 5) Study the rear garage access to determine if there is sufficient space to enter and exit a garage on the alley. If the study shows that the rearyard setback variance is applicable then we will grant 2 feet on the rear and 3 on the alley side. 6) That we grant the 500 sqft. FAR bonus to Lot A. 7) We waive the 5 parking spaces. Motion second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. 130 S. GALENA - CITY HALL - MINOR Amy: We approved a lightwell in the back of city hall so that we can build a basement. The basement will contain city council meeting room and the Sister City meeting room. What is being proposed on the south side is to cut the wall back and light would drift down to the sister city room. There is a sidewalk and traditionally you bring light into a lightwell and if you cut into the sidewalk and relocate it you will put people right into where the roof dumps snow off. I do not find this a compatible solution as it does not respect the rhythm of the windows. Possibly this could be a trade off of the basement as one of the rooms does not have natural light. Someone has suggested a lightwell with block glass across it and that would be my recommendation. Les: This is a landmark building and I do not like what is going on. I went to Breckenridge and they just finished their city hall and it has no windows in the room and they did it on purpose. The lighting was designed well and I talked with members of their council and they indicated that their meetings actually work better. They do not need the natural light for a city council meeting with people distracting them from the outside etc. Cris Caruso, Engineer: Council likes the feeling of the light shining in the room. Council said if I could provide natural light to that room they would consider having the present sister city room moved to the basement with the council chambers otherwise they are against it. If that doesn't occur we can use the space as storage space or office space. It gets difficult working a full week without natural light. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Les: I do not feel anyone should live or work in the basement. Cris: We discussed whether to stay in this building and if so it has to grow. We could annex city hall somewhere else in town. We are trying to do what we can with this building to bring it up to speed and code. Functionality against the historic nature of the building is the HPC's job and they need to make the recommendation. We had looked at the glass block and one is that it is slippery and actually it cuts the light down. Melanie: It is not going to give you much light to begin with. Roger: What is the ceiling height of the basement? Cris: Right at the bottom of the building. Roger: So the ceiling height is at the bottom of the building and you are going to build something like two little elevator shafts. Melanie: Then that cuts down the diffused light when you are putting it into a well. You are not gaining anything. As Les says you would be much better by designing the lighting and having the room well furnished. Les: I cannot vote for this and it should be mentioned about the rooms in Breckenridge. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC approve the restoration of two historic window openings on the south side of city hall and deny the addition of new openings under what is now a doorway and will become a restoration of an original window. The sashes will be of the same size and scale of the original window; second by Susan. DISCUSSION Les: I would like to make sure the masonry work specks are met. VOTE: Passes 5 to 1. Martha voted no. 435 E. COOPER - KEMO SABE - MINOR Amy: This is an approval of a swamp cooler. MOTION: Les moved to approve the minor development for 435 E. Cooper with the condition that there will be no aluminum shining surfaces showing at any time. It should be painted out or whatever and any existing aluminum should be painted out also; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carries. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn at in favor, motion carries. 7:30 p.m.; second by Les. Ail Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk