Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940622Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 22, 1994 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS ........ 523 W. FRANCIS - RECONSIDERATION ............... 715 W. SMUGGLER STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT .... 303 E. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 1 1 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 1994 Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with Donnelley Erdman, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Tom Williams and Linda Smisek present. Excused were Karen Day. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Les: I am still concerned about St. Mary's Church and I feel they should not get a CO until the front of the church curb is pulled out, neckdown. I feel no one wants to give up the parking but the neckdown was part of the approval process. Joe: At P&Z I was almost denied and they stated just because my property was landmarked didn't mean I was exempt from growth management. Designation is one of the incentives HPC uses and with that you don't have to go through growth management. It seems that P&Z is not happy with the HPC incentives. Les: We need to have a meeting with the P&Z to discuss our issues and answer their questions. 523 W. FRANCIS - RECONSIDERATION Amy: This is a request for reconsideration of 523 W. Francis from our last meeting. The applicant was dissatisfied with our decision and if you would like to reconsider one of the people who voted yes needs to make that motion and put it on the agenda. Jake stepped down. Amy: I am not hearing a motion and I still hold to my position and that standard B about historic importance is compromised when we take a story complex and make it much taller. Jake has found that the plate height isn't quite what he thought it was in the area that is in question and so basically what HPC has asked them to do now is give them in the realm of a three to four foot plate height in the addition which is not desirable to the applicant. Amy: Jake thought the plate height would be eight or nine feet and it is actually ten feet in the existing structure. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion to reconsider; second by Joe. Ail in favor, motion carries. Amy: The height is not desirable for a master bedroom so that is what the issue is here. Glenn Rappaport, architect presented: What came up was that the architect was working with drawings that were given to him by another architect and those drawings had misrepresented the floor to floor heights. They are actually ten feet not nine and that reduced the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 22, 1994 overall size of the second floor plate. The designer is trying to respect the fact that we are stepping back from the existing structure and include roof pitches. It was felt that simplifying the forms as much he could and reduce the plate height it would necessitate possibly dormers on this side which was felt to be less compatible and possibly more competitive with the historic portion. That was the design attempt. There are two very large trees that would obscure your view of this from the street. If you were to approve this a seven foot plate height would exist and a five foot in the other portion. Joe: You said if there was a lower ridge it would necessitate a dormer and aren't you proposing a dormer already? Glenn: I think this is the only one they are dealing with. Joe: With the dormer that is there now is that height of the roof where that dormer ridge is sufficient? Glenn: If the plate height was at the lower level the preferred way to go would be to create more room by the use of dormers. Joe: Could you bring the ridge height down and use dormers? Glenn: Yes, I suppose that would be possible but the attempt was to try and make these volumes abstract and push back. Roger: What is the height of the five foot plate peak and what is the height of the seven foot peak from the ground. Glenn: The seven foot is 27 and the five foot is 24 and the dormer as it is shown on the east side is about 24 or 25 feet. Donnelley: One of the arguments for the plate height is that the owners have purchased a bed. What is the bare minimal that is necessary? Glenn: I do not know about that situation but we could look at the plans. Roger: When the second story was allowed to be put on the garage when did that happen? Amy: I am not sure. Roger: The owner has requested various things over a period of time. Amy: Part of this has been approved while we were working with that 50% demo error. Roger: The second story was allowed to be put on the garage by HPC and the Board of Adjustment said no to the second story. ~{istoric Preservation Committee Minutes of June 22, 1994 Joe: What happened was remember the 50% period when they were allowing 50% demolition at that time the applicant came in and got approval from the Bldg. Dept. and the applicants position is we got approval for that and the HPC can't review it. We were only allowed to address the other side. Amy: A 27 foot form mitigated the impacts of the historical importance of the building. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Roger: Staff recommends approval with two conditions one lowering the height of the carriage house garage and the other was the shingles on the portion of the house which might not be historic and documenting the windows. It really gets complicated when people come back every few years to do something. Glenn: In defense of this project I think that when they decided to put the ridges in this direction rather than a cross gable situation they are attempting to break down the mass. Also they were not required to follow this foot print and could have moved a little forward creating more mass. I feel that they have attempted to mitigate impacts. Tom: Before us is whether they can take off the roof basically on the easterly part. Joe: We approved the drawing in the heax~y lines and they want to take the height back up because of the concern of the limited plate height of the second story. Tom: It looks wonderful to me and I would approve it as originally presented. Donnelley: If you stand next to a 12 & 12 you are restrained. This is typical with steep roof pitches so 7 feet didn't appear to me as a prerequisite. Glenn: The intent was to have the building mass to pitch in toward the existing historic portion. Tom: Is the dormer necessary for the floor plan to work? Glenn: It seems to be the place for the window over the bed. It is an aesthetic point. Donnelley: Lowering it to that point is where you came up with the 3.8 plate height and I tend to agree that really that might not be appropriate. The difference between 3.8 and 5.8 is only 1.4 and that might not be enough so why not go to 6 or 6 1/2 to separate the ridges 3 Historic Preservation Co~m%ittee Minutes of June 22, 1994 by a couple of feet. Roger: You are disagreeing with staff and would not lower it to 24 feet. Donnelley: roof. I am lowering it a little bit to the level of the other Amy: With that information I do not know if seven feet is right either. Donnelley: Compromise with six feet and that is what I would recommend. Les: I like the design and all the mistakes in the past have been allowing additions to overshadow the little house. I am willinq to come up with a compromise. As they get higher your eye goes away ~rom the historic resource. Martha: I agree and I like the deep setback and the way the addition recedes in the property. I do not find what the applicant wants objectionable. Roger: I feel it is appropriate to step it down. I would ask for a little reduction in the carriage house peak if possible. Joe: I am willing to reconsider the change and I agree with Glenn that if you have the two peaks the same height when you look at it from the street it looks more massive than if you have a break in the height so it does step back whether it is five or six feet. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that HPC amend the approval to reflect the allowance of change in plate height in the area under consideration of the second story of the carriage house to six foot; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. 715 W. SMUGGLER STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: This came for a significant development several years ago when the new addition was created and it came back for a significant development for a diningroom and garage. Overall it is a good design. In looking back at the HPC records there was a lot of discussion about the height of the new addition and they were edging toward asking for a reduction then decided since it was so far back from the street it would be OK and I think it is. I hesitate seeing the main ridge of the addition extending ten feet to the north forward so that it sits right on top of the historic building so I recommended not approving that portion of the request. I did recommend approving the extension of an existing dormer towards the east which cannot be seen from the street so I feel it is not a problem. 4 Historic Preservation Co~u~ittee Minutes of June 22, 1994 Gretchen Greenwood, attorney: Our proposal is to add an closet to the upper level, the bedroom. In 1988 we didn't max out the property because it wasn't a financial consideration at that time. Ann has a closet in the upstairs bedroom 7 by 7 and she wishes to add another closet. On the property the current FAR is 2287 sq. ft. and has an allowable FAR of 3240. sq. ft. and has the remainder F~LR of 953 sq. ft. We have added little additions to promote the victorian character of the building and not to try to maximumize the site. The proposal to add on is 180 sq. ft. which would remain 773 sq. ft. Some history about this project is important. The victorian is not original to the site and it was moved to the site in the early 80's. It was elevated three feet off the ground. There is not other way to add on. This addition follows the exact same roof line and I do not feel it appropriate to create another roof line. Ann has tried to keep the victorian quality of this building. It could have easily been torn down because it was not original to the site and it had to be completely rebuilt. The designated historic structure is completely new and the only thing maintained is the form of the structure. With the proposed addition we do not intend to add dormers or do anything like that to the existing roof line. The proposed addition is only 180 square feet. Ann Miller, ownei: I do not understand why I am here in the first place because this building has been moved. Amy: I'll tell you why, your house is an Aspen landmark and everyone on this committee knew that this house had been elevated and moved. Gretchen: This house has been rebuilt so much that it has lost its historic value because of that. Ann Miller: My house is the best contribution in the west end in a radius of three blocks. Gretchen: We feel ten feet out to an existing ridge line was a reasonable request. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Donnelley: What you call a gable addition is really a dormer addition. Gretchen: The north side is a closet and the dormer on the east side is presently a closet. The closet is 7 by 7. Joe: You are going to extend it another 6 feet so it will be 13 by 7. Les: My only consideration is if it were held back a foot or something it might work better with the older house. Maintain a feeling of depth. The rest is fine. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 22, 1994 Martha: In defense of historic preservation you are not the only person who has to come in for evaluation. You should get information from Amy regarding that. Gretchen: We have no setback problems and were granted one for the garage by HPC. It is also detached. Amy: You got that because you were a landmark. Donnelley: What is the second floor plate height? Gretchen: Five feet. Donnelley: When you extend the ridge line it will become a very long ridge and we try to stay away from that. Gretchen: I thought of breaking it but things started looking too contrived and what do you feel is the reason to do that? Donnelley: It is growth and change and it would keep a little break in the ridge line and it would be evidence of the history of this house that is growing whether it broke on one side or the other. Gretchen: I like that concept but it seemed so small and insignificant. Ann: As long as it doesn't affect the closet. Tom: I would approve this if the overhang could go to the ground/ Gretchen: There is a light well so structurally that could not fit. Roger: Overall the house is fun and it has evolved and I could approve it as drawn. I also could approve it if it has to step down a little. I think Donnelley has a great idea. Linda: I have the feeling as these houses evolve whether it is this year or 50 years ago or 50 years from now it is all part of history and to try being on the defensive and say preservation doesn't have any right to say anything because it isn't historic I can't follow that philosophy. If in good each time it is added on the house must retain its historic value. I also agree with Les and Donnelley. Les: I feel visually going straight up with the addition will not be attractive. Your eye will stop. Joe: I am sympathetic with the problem of having an historic house as I have one of my own. We are trying to correct the problems and on the other hand it is an historic landmark and in my view we can't allow people to make the argument that you allowed us to make so many changes therefore it is no longer historic. We are working with you to allow 6 Historic Preservation Co~unittee Minutes of June 22, 1994 you to put on new siding, roof, etc. My comments on the proposal are that I do not have a problem with the gable addition and I did have a slight problem with the addition of the gable end but feel it can be solved by Donnelley's approach. It seems like a long horizontal element on that east elevation. It would help to have some break. Gretchen: I understand your views but when I get my comments from Amy that say this or nhat doesn't fit it becomes a negative comment different from what we are hearing here. There is an evolution of design with all victorians some good some bad. I have no problem of lowering it two feet but would have to look at it and it is a good suggestion. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the two additions to the residence of 715 W. Smuggler be approved as drawn with the following conditions: That the north gable extension be revised slightly at the applicants discretion to produce a break in the continuous ridge line and to be reviewed by monitor and Staff; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Martha is the monitor. 303 E. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Jake stepped down. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Amy: We site visited this area and came up with some conclusions. I felt that the flat deck option on the east addition is the way to go. The basement stairway located inside the existing structure would eliminate a shed addition on the building. The shed roof be eliminated. Lightwells we need to discuss and I am suggesting that they be on the south side of the building but as you walk around the front you still see green space. I am still concerned with the tower and am in favor of keeping the outbuilding in its original orientation. Roget Kuhn, applicant: This is the third meeting and I would like to make some clarifications. The reason we want to shift the building forward is to have the back door and the entrance. We decided to put the stairs back behind the house under the porch. We will put employee housing in the basement. In order to put the light well or stairs we need to move the house four feet. We also want to shift the house two feet sideways. Someone also mentioned connecting the roofs and one of our main concerns is not touching the historic building. Roget: The connection of the addition with the main house as minimal as possible. We are trying not to make this a maintenance nightmare. We are going to heat it. We have hyphenate the addition of the house. Roget: Amy said we could move the shed sideways and eliminate the Historic Preservation Co~unittee Minutes of June 22, 1994 parking; however, we are only asking for one parking space and we need it. Roget: In conclusion we studied every possible solution for this property. We have tried to make the addition look like a separate building and concentrate the square footage in the tower but as I talked with Amy she wanted us to reduce the height. We came up with a cross gable which would lower it two feet and the impact is a lot less. We hope you will pass this project. CLARIFICATIONS Donnelley: Why weren't the drawings redone because we are looking at the same ones as last time. Roget: We did not know the exact direction you wanted so we decided not to redo them. Donnelley: It is tough for us to make decisions when we do not know what we are looking at. Roget: Staff. Roget: Roger: if that were done how would you get light into the bedroom. Amy: On one of the drawings it showed a gable going all forward and that is not what I wanted. Is the addition milch farther than the first one presented. It is the same and we looked at the six points recommended by We are trying to make it compatible to the victorian. Almost the whole way forward. On the flat roof to the addition to the east what did you mean the way Roger: Without moving the existing historic structure there was concern to get light into bedroom why couldn't you put a dormer on the west roof. I am asking this of the committee and the applicant. Roger: That is a possibility. Amy: Or a flat skylight. Roger: We might not have to move it sideways but it would have to be moved forward because we need the lightwell. Roger: Couldn't it go on the northeast side of the front. Roger: If you can solve it without moving it you would save a lot of money as it is a big expense to do. We will have to raise it due to the basement anyway. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 22, 1994 Les: My primary priority is not having the building moved. I have no problem with the parking in the back. I would not like to see the lightwell on the front but would approve the side. I would like to see the shed retain its alignment but if it can't it can't. We need to preserve the historic flow of this block. Roger: Roget: Roger: Roget: Does the east addition have a basement? Yes, it is part of employee housing. You could put a lightwell in the front along the alcove. We were thinking of putting it in the back. Donnelley: I feel the design is moving in the right direction. Martha: When the project started I was against the tower but now I feel the new design is appropriate. Also the hyphen is appropriate. I am also concerned about moving the house. Roger: The parking is not an issue for me and I would want the lightwell not on the historic structure and I am OK with moving the shed to however it has to be positioned in order to make the project work. The treatment of the roof of the tower is much better. Joe: The lightwell changes to the rear I am in favor of and the staircase inside the porch. I am afraid we will set a precedent of high towers in the back for additions and that is my only concern. We need the accurate drawings before conceptual is given. I would be in favor of tabling. Joe: We need to give the applicant direction on moving the house. Chairman did a straw pole on moving the house and the Board determined that the house should not be moved and the original footprint should be retained. Les: Ail these compromises that we have given throughout the years, the house has been moved and we have not considered the neighbors. Roger: I would propose keeping the shed in the same alignment unless there is no other way. Joe: You loose a parking space with that. Roget: I this town parking is important. One parking space for this property is not too much to ask. Joe: Lets take a straw pole on the little cabin on the south end of the property. Roget: I would ask that you give and take and I cannot give you every Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 22, 1994 little change that you want. We are going to try and not touch the victorian. We need to move the shed and we are not asking to destroy it. We feel it is important to keep it. Joe: I somewhat agree with the applicant that you are putting on all these constraints and then he has nothing left to work with. To me the orientation of the shed is not the big issue here and I would be in favor of orienting it the way he should in order to make the project work. Roget: It is my understanding that you like the cross gable on the tower better. Linda: It is more compatible with the historic house. MOTION: Les made the motion to table the public hearing and conceptual review of 303 E. Main Street to a date certain July 13, 1994; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; favor, motion carries. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk second by Les. Ail in