Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950628ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES ROUND III 1 525 W. HALLAM - PH - CONCEPTUAL - LD ..... 2 217 S. GALENA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 7 939 E. COOPER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 7 1--1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Donnelley Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Linda Smisek, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington, Sven Alstrom and Jeff McMenimen present. Excused was Melanie Roschko. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the April 26, 1995, May 24, 1995 and June 14, 1995 minutes as amended; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. Sven and Susan did not vote due to a quorum. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy: The Design Appeal Board will not be advisory but mandatory review and we need three members of HPC. Roger: I will volunteer. Sven: I will volunteer. Jake: I will volunteer. Gideon Kaufman: I would like to request a site visit for the meadows. Amy: July 12th at Noon at the tennis courts. INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES ROUND III Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Amy: We have five properties to discuss. One is the Meadows which we have just discussed for a site visit. The Colo. Midland Right- of-way and the Red Butte Cemetery. The caretaker of the Red Butte Cemetery Jane Stapleton in Snowmass is difficult to get in touch with so the notices have been returning. I also feel we should go forward because the public notice has been in the paper. 437 W. Smuggler and 325 N. Third have been demolished so they should be deleted. Amy: There are just portions of the Colo. Midland Right-of-way existing as most was destroyed with the construction of }{WY 82. While this is clearly historic we need to determine why we want it on the inventory. Roger: A finding would be that we wanted to maintain an historic resource and have signage on the trails recognizing it as such and that it was part of the Midland railroad right-of-way. Donnelley: What is the width of the trail easement? Sven: There is quite a differentiation. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 Roger: Also that no structures should be built on the right-of- way. Martha: The Parlor Car could have traded easements and I also thought part of the area was a trail easement. Amy: I am not sure about where the trail easements are. Donnelley: It seems we have consensus that the right-of-way should be on the inventory. Donnelley closed the public hearing. MOTION: Roger moved to maintain the Red Butte Cemetery on the inventory and that we add the sections of the Colo. Midland Railroad right-of-way as shown on the plat and that we delete 437 W. Smuggler and 325 N. Third since they have been demolished; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Amy: I will bring that back to you in a form of a resolution. 525 W. HALLAM - PH - CONCEPTUAL - LD Amy: They are requesting landmark designation, conceptual review, relocation. The structure is eligible for landmark and it meets standard B architectural importance, standard D neighborhood character and standard E, community character. Under conceptual development the basic explanation of the project is that the applicant requests an approval to construct and addition to the east of the existing structure; to take an existing historic outbuilding and move that to the east and to add a half story to an existing non historic garage and to alter the front porch. I feel we need more information on the rehab of the restoration work. For sideyard setbacks there is a minimum for each side which in this case is five feet minimum on each side and 22 1/2 feet total. What is being proposed is three feet on the west side because that is existing and five feet on the east side which conforms but they are 14 feet short of their combined total. This is a one story addition, small in scale and compatible with the historic house. The facade is around 60 feet long. There are structures of similar length in the neighborhood but they are not historic. There are also two large trees that will help mitigate it. I have provided the 1904 Sanborn fire insurance map and although it appears to be altered, some of the detailing and some of the form the existing porch seems to be in the same location as the historic porch. They are asking to expand that and alter it and I do not feel it is appropriate. The height of the garage appears to exceed the height limit of an accessory structure, only by a foot which have no limit on the ridge height. The mid point ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ~UNE 28, 1995 is now measured 1/3 of the way up so the architect needs to confirm that. They also need to confirm that there recently adopted residential design standards are met. Amy: The remaining part of the project is an onsite relocation of the historic shed and they would like to move it to the five foot setback line which is conforming and they would like to retain the zero foot setback line which is not conforming. My main concern is that we are sure the building can withstand the move. It probably requires constructing an entirely new frame inside and then picking it up by that frame. If that can't be handled then the building should not be moved. Glenn Rappaport, architect: The addition is hidden fairly well behind the conifers on the site. We also stepped the building back a few feet and changed the material attempting to break it down. We have dropped the height of the out building a foot and that was an oversight. The client does not want to do much to the historic building so we tried to not touch the building. The outbuilding was disconnected on purpose. The other addition to the east will cantilever over. There was a lot of desire to maximumize the south facing yard. We realize when you combine the setbacks we are asking for a large variance but we feel respecting a five foot setback on the east side is consistent with many historic structures and it gives us the ability for maintenance and snow removal. There is some concern with the neighbors on the setbacks. We are working with the neighbor to the west to understand what their view concerns are and possibly modifying the outbuilding roof line. Although the existing square footage of the house is large it only has one legal bedroom and one bathroom. The client needs more additional bedroom/bathroom space and that is the reason for the addition. The building originally was a duplex and when we climbed up in it looked like there were two gable shapes over- framed with a giant hip roof at some point. We still do not know the date of the porch. CLARIFICATIONS & QUESTIONS Donnelley: It looks like the property to the east is set back from its property line five feet. Jake: Is there any change that you would restore the form in the roof. Glenn: We had looked at creating a bedroom in that space but there was so much structure randomly running through the space that it was not feasible. Roger: Does the addition to the east follow the original form from your observations when you went up in the attic? Originally there ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 might have been a gable running to the east. Glenn: There were two gables running north and We intend to use horizontal clapboard siding and batten to match existing. south parallel. some board and Donnelley: existing. the new. The eave line is also carried along the same as the Roger's point was how do you differentiate the old from Glenn: One idea was to change the siding. Roger: You have two very different windows on the street side and one even looks lower and why do you have two windows that are so dissimilar and how does that relate to the streetscape in reference to the neighborhood character guidelines. Glenn: One is in the bathroom and one is in the bedroom. We aren't particularly wedded to a style other than that we felt it should have a vertical proportion. Glenn: We are actually exploring a two story addition. Linda: Can the shed be moved without being damaged? Julie Wyckoff, owner: Yes. Amy: The height of is shown at 24 feet. it is only one. the house is 22 feet and the proposed garage It was two feet taller than the house and now Roger: You are asking for the setback variances and a landmark designation tonight. Susan: Why do you want to move the shed? Julie Wyckoff. The shed obstructs the view of the park so if I could move it over to the east then you can see the trees. Walter Bauer: I live to the east and it seems to met that the setback should be greater if it is a two story than a one story. Donnelley: The application is for a one story. Walter Bauer: I would think a two story would change the appearance greatly but I do not have an architectural perspective on that. That block of land has very few setbacks. They are minimal. There might be argument for a greater than five foot setback and I would personally like to see more because it effects my property but to the other point that block is crowded. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JI3NE 28, 1995 John Sweeney: I live to the west side and our concern was the height of the garage and it looks more like a tower. We would hope the architect would come up with some way of modifying that. I do not know the regulations for an ADU, if they like it on top of the garage or not as they are getting so high. We just did a modification on our house. Jake: Does the garage effect your view plan Mr. Sweeney? John Sweeney: Vivian's studio is effected. Our house is five feet from the property line. I am also concerned with the snow falling off the roof. Julie Wyckoff: This design is in sympathy with both my neighbors but the Sweeney's are more impacted by the height of the garage and I would like to see the garage come down a little to make their view corridor more visible to the east. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. Les: I feel you are going in the right direction. Jake: I am looking at the five yard setback and the relocation of the existing shed. In general this is a low impact. In order to justify the side yard 5 ft. setback and the rear yard variance for the relocated shed you have to make a finding that it is more compatible with the historic resource. I am not sure why you have to press that window toward that property line. You do have drainage problems with sheds in the alley. Linda: I feel uncomfortable approving something that they want to change or are going to change and with the neighbors comments it looks like they are going to have to do a restudy. Susan: I would OK the one story but not the two story. Glenn: This building was a duplex. Martha: I wasn't sure about the encroachments but it sounds like something that can be dealt with. Most of the activity is toward the back of the lot. Moving the shed is not a problem and I need convinced about the ADU. Jeff: Perhaps, if the height of the garage is a concern story polls could be put up to adjust for height and view. I like the idea of a shed roof on the pop out vs. the gable. On the setbacks I do not have a problem with the five foot setback if it is a one story building. If it become9 a two story we need to see what impacts it has on the historic house as well as the eastern ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 neighbor. If it was a two story I would go with a larger setback on that side. I prefer a two story outbuilding garage and it keeps in pattern with the neighborhood. I also am in favor of the designation. Roger: I would recommend landmark designation. I agree that the five foot setback maybe OK but I would like to see support for that. I have no problem with altering the front porch. I also feel working with the neighbors to the west on the garage in some sort of design is appropriate so I have no problem granting a variance for that nor do I have a problem moving the shed and maintaining the pattern of the neighborhood. Donnelley: The eastern setback of five feet maybe ok. The landmark I recommend and I don't find a compelling reason to relocate the shed but I do not feel it is a major issue. The garage ADU has ways to mitigate and can be worked out with the neighbors. Roger: My motion would be to recommend landmark designation and table until some of these issues are worked out. I would like to see a massing model and models of the houses next door. MOTION: Roger moved that the application for 525 W. Hallam for landmark designation for Lot C, D and the west 1/2 of Lot E. Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen finding that standards B, E and F are met. I recommend tabling to July 12th, Conceptual Review to a date certain so that the applicant can provide more information in regards to a one story or two story addition. They can come back to us with design considerations dealing with the east yard setback. Also that they restudy the ADU reconfiguration; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: I would like to see a model and historic photos of the house and the east and west side. Possibly a streetscape photo if you can see houses. It would help us to determine the relationship of the historic building to the addition. Glenn: We are talking about a model of the houses and the ADU as well. Amy: We need to know what y~u intend to do with repair to the historic house. Julie Wyckoff, owner: Once the asbestos is off whatever story that gets told will tell. I plan on using what I find and copying. Amy: My second concern is the front porch. The proposed porch stylistically not in keeping with the house. It just does not communicate with the house. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JIJNE 28, 1995 Glenn: We can show a few porch studies. Julie: Regarding the concrete abatement, the asbestos will get wet and then put into sealed containers while it is still wet and then it is taken to Colo. Springs. 217 S. GALENA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: This is a proposals to place a hot tub on top of the Mark Justin building. We do have a-roof plan and there are a number of structures up their, a deck, stairway and satellite dish. The hot tub is three feet tall and has no reflective material and I do not feel it is visible from the street. Les: We went through this stuff with Harley Baldwin on his national building and we did not give him this stuff as we did not want people seeing different uses on the roof. I feel we possibly made some mistakes there. Is this on the National Register? Amy: No, but it is on the inventory. Roger: I have been on the roof and you wouldn't know it was there. Les: I like roof top activity and it is part of the messy vitality. Roger: There is a deck with lawn chairs. Don: My only recommendation is that the Building Dept. ascertain that the roof structure is capable of carrying a 5,000 lb. load which is approximately what this would create and it is a concentrated load. Usually structures need altered. Sven: Do they need a statement from a structural engineer. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC approve the minor development application for 217 S. Galena, a portable roof top spa with the following condition that a structural engineer evaluate the existing condition of the roof to determine if it will support the requested addition; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. 939 E. COOPER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Jake stepped down. Sven seated. Bob Langley: We need help on the FAR. We did calculations for the historic unit A and we came up 50 feet short. We captured 16 feet as Jake moved the staircase so we are now 34 feet short. We ASPEN ~I~TORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 C initially requested 489 sqft. out of 500 which now we are lacking 23 feet. We have two options one to redo the plans and the other is dealing with the porch. Roger: Is the porch included in the FAR? Amy: They are under the old regulations which includes porches. Roger: New regulations state that porches are not included so it should be a done deal. Jake: We had the option of going under the old or new rules. As we calculated out we chose the old rules. Les: We could give you 500 sqft. and you didn't ask for all of it. Jake: When you raise the porch above grade it is then counted in FAR. It is not all counted in FAR, only the part of the porch that is beyond three feet. So that is approximately 70 sqft. Our design instead of being 1800 is 1870 sqft. Roger: Why don't you move the porch back to grade. Jake: We could but that doesn't serve anybody. My solution is a combination of a few things. The HPC cannot give any more bonus than 500 sqft. We have 11 available so we will request that. We had 600 sqft. allotted for the barn and only need 577 sqft. so that 23 feet left over we will bring over to allocate to the cottage. Having done all that we are short 28 sqft. I am seeking support from the HPC for the Planning Director to give support for the 28 sqft. We are asking that the FAR be increased and asking the porch be exempt. Donnelley: Does anyone have an objection to Jake going to the Planning Director to do this. Linda: Can you give up anything Jake to compensate for this. Jake: We have done what we could and have looked at everything. Martha: It really isn't precedent setting so I do not have a problem with it. Jeff: What is the vertical threshold on whether or not a porch is included in the FAR. Amy: 18 inches above grade starts to count. Sven: I have had projects an~ it is difficult to calculate and some I never did come out to what Bill Drueding calculated it at.