HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940901HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING
Minutes of September 1, 1994
Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with Jake
Vickery, Les Holst, Roger Moyer, Tom Williams and Martha Madsen
present. Donnelley Erdman and Linda Smisek were excused.
COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS
Amy: The next meeting will be held September 13th.
930 KING STREET - PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PH
Amy: HPC had made at least two site visits as a group to this
parcel recently and the applicant is requesting permission to
demolish all of the additions on the historic structure as well as
the existing barn and garage. In my memo I had found in terms of
the additions of the house, that only the western addition where
the kitchen is located is of historic significance. It is the only
one that I could determine the age of. I feel it is compatible
with the original building. The two easterly lean-too's are of a
more undetermined age. As far as the out buildings go this site
is important because it is the only site in town where you have the
original historic context. You have the house and the group of out
buildings; however, they are in a deteriorating state. The barn
could be demolished and the garage is non-historic. The other two
out buildings they are planning on keeping. In terms of the
relocation I found that the relocation should not be approved. They
are requesting to move it back on the parcel and I found that the
parcel is large enough to accommodate new development without
relocating the building and also that integrity of location on this
site is important as well as the connection of the historic
building to the street and so that should not be permitted. In
summary I have recommended that you deny the request to relocate
the historic house; approve the request to relocate the out house
and smoke house; deny the request to demolish the west kitchen
lean-to; approve the request to demolish the eastern lean-to;
approve the request to demolish the barn and garage. We also have
to request that the applicant submit a temporary relocation plan
and bonds to protect the structures.
Mac Cunningham: It is important to state as there are members of
the public here, that the newspaper article was grossly inaccurate.
Our purpose is to take the historic structure and do nothing but
move it north 15 feet so that it is out of the setback. The house
sits into the setback on King Street. I the old days King Street
was very narrow and has progressively widened with time. We need
to move the house back because there are virtually large trees
right on top of the house and causing damage to the porch area and
Joe had put a lot of shingles on the base to protect as snow was
building up. The other obvious thing from an historic context is
that we are sitting with a house so close to the street that if a
vehicle is parked on the street you can't even see the house as it
is blocked. Within the context of doing something on this my
concern as is Gibson Reno that we accentuate the historic structure
and return it to its original gable miners cottage. I feel it was
a Sears package and you put it together. When we did the
investigation of the foundation there is none, not even rubble.
It is just plain sitting on the dirt. We have to put a foundation
under it in order to preserve the structure long term. That was
our first point for relocation, to just move it north. It
basically will stay right on the site north 15 feet and we will be
out of the setback. Two, we have to pick it up in order to put a
foundation underneath it.
Mac Cunningham: I was first chairman of the Aspen Historic Trust
and helped publish with the trust a recent history of historic
structures in Aspen. My background goes back 20 years to
rehabilitating historic structures across the country. We have
received many awards to do it. One of the design criteria that I
placed on the architects when we started working on this is that
we separate this house physically from the other structure. One
of the big issues in the Neighborhood Character Guidelines was
focused that big structures were over powering the original miners
cottages. We are asking to relocate the house, rehabilitate it
and linking it with a breezeway to the other structure. There was
an original T configuration of the house and we would like to
maintain and rehabilitate but putting on a new foundation. Also
there was stuff added trying to save what was left of the original
structure when Joe lived there. The basic idea is bring the
structure out of the setback, set it up so that there is a good
streetscape to it, link it through the use of a breezeway to the
main house and that also gives us the ability to have a garage in
the back of the property. There are no alleys in this area and in
order to get to a garage we set it up so that the garage is hidden
behind the structure. We feel the smoke house and out house are
neat and what we have done is do a courtyard so that when you walk
up to the front of the house the courtyard focuses back. It is
important to save small structures like this and it is also
important that we make them usable and functioning within the raw
context of the site. One of the other things we did was put new
gables on the new residence mirroring the same pitch as the old.
You review for the existing structures on the site and does not
relate to the rest of the property. We wanted to emphasize that
we are trying to do all these things so that they are compatible
and work together. We have met all the guidelines for the review
process that is now in place. Also for your edification we are
under the FAR as adopted by the city in every regard and we have
made the mass and scale work together. In terms of the relocation
the purpose of it is to get it back away and put a new foundation
under it. Amy addressed what was original and what is not. It is
very clear from am historic standpoint and from the Willits map
that the original T-shaped house is the same. If you look at the
pictures you can see all the additions. Amy's concern relates to
the piece that is mow used as the kitchen area.
Public, neighbor: The addition was added 25 years ago.
Mac Cunningham: Most of the addition in the area that Amy is
looking at in terms of history was added about twenty five years
ago. We would like to remove the additions because they are recent
additions but it lies lower than the original house about eight to
ten inches and the north west corner is in very bad condition. The
back of the structure is actually broken and it is questionable in
regards to salvaging it. One of the advantage of the main
structure that has a coal cellar and the timbers sit laterally.
The ability to pick the house up, move it to the side and put a
proper foundation down and set the property permanently on a base
is very much there on this site. There is a lot of junk around
because Joe was a big collector as we all know. Our purpose is to
restore the cottage to its original context and there is also a
metal roof on this structure which is not original. There are the
original shingles and we would restore that. I feel in summary
that we have met what the objection has been in salvaging or
rehabilitating properties of this nature in town. I personally and
Dave and everybody at Gibson & Reno is really happy with what we
have put together here. Our purpose is not to build a monster
house and we are under the FAR's and our purpose is to move this
thing along and try and stabilize it before winter. We are here
to answer any questions.
Pam Doremus presented a letter from Peggy Joe. Attached in
records.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Amy: It is difficult to put dates on these buildings but the
structural engineer tagged the kitchen and lean-to early due to the
way they were built.
Jake: My first question is what have you done to analyze the
neighborhood context of your project. Issues to address are there
any landmarks in the vicinity etc. Second question would be how
to describe the neighborhood context of your project. How would
you summarize it. The third question would be how have you
responded to this analysis. I know you are not directly held to
the guidelines but I wanted to pose those questions to you. As I
understand it all you are doing is moving the existing house back
about 15 feet and then the driveway going through the foreground.
Do you have photographs or documentation of the house itself like
an east or west view.
Mac Cunningham: Yes, they were handed out.
3
Jake: Those are not clear to me. I need a frontal view. I am
trying to figure out what it looks like right now and where you
plan on taking the historical structure.
Mac Cunningham: You want to look at each elevation to determine
the position of the historic house.
Jim Perry: One of the problems in trying to do that is the trees
and dense foliage in front that prohibit us from getting a clear
shot. You wouldn't even see the house from the street view. We
have the other views.
Mac Cunningham: Relative to neighborhood context it was one of the
things I spoke about during the discussions over the new ordinance.
This block has a structure across the street that was historic that
had a new modern architectural design built onto it and the
property directly to the west of this is a one story ranch house
and the house to the north is a house has been there 26 years.
Owner of the property to the north:
myself and was a log cabin package.
It was erected partly by
Mac Cunningham: Tom Isaac's house is partially on the inventory
and the entire area is a conglomerate of architectural designs on
the street, some victorian, log cabin etc. During the ordinance
discussions I stated that it was very hard to define what anyone
block in the city looks like. We have attempted to try and take
the context of the original structure and restore it to that. We
tried to mirror the roof pitches. I have read the guidelines
numerous times and feel we have met the mass and scale purposes,
i.e. porches. We tried to break any sense of mass with gables and
with the porches.
Les: What are the ramifications of the setbacks. You put a new
foundation under the house and lift it up and then are you required
to conform to the setbacks.
David Gibson: Yes we are required to conform unless we went before
a board for a variance.
Les: If you move it to the existing setbacks what does that look
like?
David Gibson: We are taking it back 15 feet roughly.
Mac Cunningham: Les's question is it right on the setback line.
Jim Perry: It is right on the setback line.
Les: Can you repair it in its present position?
Mac Cunningham: We have to pick it up in order to put a foundation
under it.
Roger: Is the new house a speck house?
Mac Cunningham: I have not determined that yet, we may move there.
Roger: What is the square footage above the ground?
Mac Cunningham: About 37 by 37 and below the ground the same.
Roger: If you put a foundation under the existing cottage would
that include the front porch or would the porch be setting on posts
or something.
Mac Cunningham: We would build a footer underneath the porch and
would just build under the T. There is a large spruce tree and an
apple tree.
Roger: Do you think the mass and scale of the new portion is
acceptable for the west end and also acceptable for the east end
of Aspen? Did you look like it in both contexts.
Mac Cunningham: I looked it in the context of what I feel the
overall neighborhood character guidelines are for the whole city.
Does the new structure compliment the existing miners cottage and
we really worked off of that. I feel you have to be true to the
site in a neighborhood that has so many architectural elements.
You cannot find anyone specific architectural element anywhere
along King Street. We tried to do it in the context of the site
and the miners cabin itself.
Roger: So you read the Neighborhood Character Guidelines regarding
the Smuggler Mountain area.
Tom: It is my understanding that we cannot review the new
structure. I would like to know why?
Amy: The way that the code reads right now for partial demolition
we can review anything you can tie directly as an impact to the
partial demolition. For instance the breezeway causes the partial
demolition so you could comment on that because it attaches to the
building. Whether we allow them any demolition or relocation the
lot is so large there is room for them to do their new construction
so it is not a direct tie.
Joe: In Amy's memo it states the standards that you need to apply;
impacts on historic importance of the structure or structures
located on the parcel. That the applicant has mitigated to the
greatest extent possible impacts on the historical importance of
the structure or structures located on the parcel.
Roger: If you weren't granted any of the things you were asking
5
for, what would you do?
Mac cunningham: I don't know.
Roger: Suppose you were granted everything you are asking for but
the HPC asked for design review of mass and scale of the new
addition, would you allow that?
Mac Cunningham: Frankly you would have to ask the owner because
the HPC would be setting a new precedent because it is under the
85% FAR and over 9,000 sq. ft. The Committee would have to decide
if you can do that relative to P&Z and City Council's instructions
to you.
Roger: You made an astute point on King Street architecturally.
Do you feel that the mass and scale of this new building
drastically changes the mass and scale of that particular one
block, one neighborhood?
Mac Cunningham: No, I do not because if you stand on the site and
look around at the other properties around there this is not a big
house. The Whipple duplex on the other side is a much bigger
structure. We looked at this really hard and did a couple of
things that our neighbor from the north requested. We are set back
significantly further off Neal Street than the actual setbacks.
We all got together on the property and the request was do not
block my view to Ajax and that is why the house sits where it does.
We also set it back off of King Street and I think when you see it
from the streetscape that this house is actually not going to
appear massing or overpowering to any other structure on King
Street. I live in Aspen and am very concerned about the house.
The setbacks and pitch of the roof and the breaking of the mass
with the vertical separation and porch will all make it ready very
soft in the overall context.
Roger: In the context of the block do you think that the height
perhaps of the new portion might be a little excessive or do you
feel it still works in the context of the block which is basically
single story homes?
Mac Cunningham: There are some two story homes visually from the
site and I do not think it is out of scale at all. I have worked
in many historical communities in the states and do not feel it is
out of scale at all with the area. If you take King Street as a
singular line I do not think you are taking the context of the
neighborhood into account because we are at the corner of Neal and
King. We are more on Neal in terms of visual location.
Amy: One other clarification when you submitted the application
with ordinance 35 cut off you could go up to 80% of your FAR and
over that was special review so I believe you came in at 80% and
it has been changed by council at 85%. Are you intending to go to
6
85%?
Mac Cunningham: We are at 82.9% on the design that sits here.
Roger: Would it be a problem to steak out the. boundaries of the
new addition along with a flag showing the maximum height.
Mac Cunningham: At this juncture HPC is reviewing the existing
structure and if the City Council wants to give HPC the ability to
review all structures then we would comply.
Amy: At the last meeting you adopted the character guidelines for
any project exceeding 85% which is what Council included in the
ordinance. You also said that in the future you would like to
review these types of projects in terms of mass and scale such as
partial demolition. Our Assistant Attorney David Bellack agrees
that the motion was not sufficient to become a new policy that it
is something that we need to do in terms of a code amendment.
Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing.
Chuck Maple: I live on the north side of this property. My
biggest concern of course is the fact that Joe always piled his
junk in front of me and blocked my view. He had all kinds of cars
there and dirt. Year after year he would get another two truck
loads of dirt so that the height of that property has risen during
the 25 years that he and I were neighbors. My point of view is
that my view is blocked now and my view will be blocked by any
structure in front of me even if it is a fence. I think that the
historic people have not got all their facts straight and I am not
so sure I have. This is what I know, when I came there people told
me that Joe's house served as a house of prostitution during the
mining days and even when I moved there 26 years ago there weren't
any trees around there to speak off. Ail the trees have grown in
recent times and so they are not historical. When trees get old,
tired and wide they have to be trimmed and that is why all the
views are dying in town. It is not the tall houses so much as the
big tall trees because in the mining days if we go back to history
the whole place was barren. There weren't any trees. Ail the
trees were small that were planted. There was a three foot alley
way over to the barn between my property and Joe's property and
there would go mules and horses to get shoed. There was a gray
line of ashes over to the fence and the most historic was that the
mules came to get shoed and to provide entertainment because it was
a black smith shop. The man not only made shoes for the animals
but also made spears that chickens wore and they had chicken
fights. Ail of these buildings are falling down and I do not know
what you can do with them. I would like to suggest all the
buildings be taking to mine tailings and establish a tour of the
black smith shop. That would be preserving history. I feel that
this man should get rid of all this trash and these buildings and
the historic committee should try and deal with the Albouy crowd
which is really dealing in the history of mining. This is part of
mining history not part of residential history. This is not a
miners cottage. He could get rid of that property and relevel the
lot and build the type of structure that you want to let him build.
Mr. Cappelli: I live across the street from Joe for 30 years. I
agree with Chuck if you want to preserve something like that junk,
take it away and let the people see it fixed up elsewhere. I tried
to fix his porch many times so that it wouldn't leak and he
wouldn't let me do it. He wanted it left alone. Take it somewhere
where people could look at it.
Jim Mickey: I am Chuck's son-in-law and I live next door on
Gibson. I probably have the best view of Joe's property than
anybody. I agree with the first two comments. You should just
take everything off the lot and take it to the dump. It is not
worth saving any of it. Ail this is doing is causing a property
to be built that is totally out of scale that should be built
there. It is forcing whoever is going to develop that property
into having more square footage on that entire piece of property
than they should. It will be out of scale of the neighborhood.
I agree it is all piece of junk and should be hauled away. I am
sorry to have that point of view. There are three property owners
that surround Joe's property who believe that.
Pam Doremus: I have a comment from Lana Trentin who lives in the
neighborhood and she approves of the design and it is in character
with other places in the neighborhood.
David Gibson: We would like to respond to a couple of points that
came out in the discussions. After all the junk is hauled away we
might have to have to resurveyed as we do not know where the ground
really is. I would like to respond as to whether the house should
be moved and two whether the structure should be taken away. Our
goal is to make this place look like it did when it was first
built. We will take off the plastic and metal roof and redo the
shingles and reglaze the windows and make it look like a miners
cottage. The position on the street is important and when this was
platted it didn't have 60 foot wide streets, there were just little
horse paths through this area. This area through here which is now
called King Street was really never laid out for traffic and
sidewalks and therefore some of the buildings are really two close
to the road. Right now this building is only 12 to 14 feet from
the edge of the pavement. That is really close to have the cars
going past. To make it more appropriate we aren't going to give
you a 60 foot right-of-way but to make it feel more like a street
we would like to move the house back. It would also come into
conformance with setbacks. In the public interest we feel the
house should be moved back. It still stands forward of the
proposed new structure by over 20 feet. That is our thinking in
moving it back, to improve the neighborhood. On the Willits map
it showed a T-shaped building and we would like to rehabilitate the
8
building minus the three sheds. After the silver boom in 1893 most
of the new construction was done with recycled materials. Before
93 it was new materials and after 93 it was a poverty center and
anything that was built was built with boards taken down from other
houses etc. These three structures one put up 25 years ago were
really built of recycled materials. We would like to move the
house and take off the inappropriate sheds.
Mac Cunningham: This main house actually
existing miners cottage which drops it four
grade that you see today.
sits lower than the
or five feet of the
Roger: A new sidewalk has been put in on the east side of the
street and today when I drove buy the five foot mound is being
taken down. Have you thought of where the new structure would be
in relationship to the sidewalk.
Mac Cunningham: Back about two feet.
Joe: Have you studied keeping the ADU as a detached unit and what
was the theory you had.
Mac Cunningham: From a practical standpoint you need the linkage
in order to get access to the rest of the property. In the
historical context there has been very strong encouragement to link
the old with the new in ways that compliment and bring the old
cottages forward. Also there is a great big cottonwood of the
porch which creates a lot of shading. With the breezeway you will
always see the historic building.
Joe: Are you saying that it will be transparent and you will be
able to read the outhouse and smokehouse from the main house.
Mac Cunningham: We spend a lot of time on the south elevation so
that when you walk up to the house you either go into the historic
house or left into the other and that your whole visual impact is
to draw you to the back courtyard with the outhouse and smokehouse.
Chuck Maple, neighbor: I do not understand an historic committee
trying to save an outhouse. There are outhouses throughout the
country that are still available.
Mac Cunningham: The purpose is to try and keep an open feel as to
where the structure are located.
Amy: Is it possible to move the two trees that are in front of the
house. I believe you can move a 40 foot spruce tree.
Mac Cunningham: This tree is 60 feet tall.
Amy: Isn't it the apple tree that is causing the problem.
9
Mac Cunningham: Yes but the spruce shadows directly south of the
house.
Amy: You could get a variance from the Board of Adjustment.
Jim Perry: I feel if you remove the foliage it would open up the
building right on the street, then you are twelve feet off the
street walking out the door.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Jake: I do not have a problem with the relocation of the house as
it corrects a non-conformity and it maintains its relationship with
the street. I also feel there will be a maintenance problem wit
the trees and this helps mitigate that. Relative to the breezeway
because of its transparency and lower roof line and it does
function as a hyphen to the old house. I do have a problem with
the driveway coming across the historical house and would prefer
that it be a walk off the street. I think to a certain extent this
application need more information such as the location of the trees
on the site. If you are going to keep the house I would like to
see the treatments that you intend to use, specifically trim. I
would like to see at some point that you return to the board with
more detailed information unless the Board wants to pass that onto
a monitor.
Jake: Now I would like to make comments on the guidelines. The
house that you are proposing is basically a square and very blocky.
By doing that it solidifies its mass and there are other L shaped
forms and variations that work to break down the massing. The idea
that the entry is in the breezeway as opposed to somewhere in the
house is an oddity to me. The major volume of the new house does
not really address the street with an entry. I do not know how
that will work with a breezeway. For future reference with the
guidelines if you do a photo board of both sides of the street and
a photo board of the alley it helps so much to see what the context
is. On the west elevation you have a two story wall.with a band
that goes up through the window and doesn't differentiate anything
horizontally. It emphasizes vertical with the tall massing. I am
sure the architects know how to break that down horizontally that
would make it more compatible and the same thing occurs on the
north elevation. I think the east L works really well in terms of
being playful and complex in what it is doing.
Martha: I am basically in favor and sympathetic to this project.
In general terms I like the design. I personally do not like the
breezeway idea and feel it looks artificial like you are trying to
figure out a way to connects buildings. I know it has been
accepted but I would prefer to see that outbuilding totally
separate from the main building. I know we are not here to approve
these details we are here to approve the demolition and
relocations. I feel this project is sympathetic in some way in
10
trying to relate to the cottage and area. I also feel the property
is last due in being cleaned up. I am in favor of the demolition
described.
Les: I need to know that as much of the old house is being
restored and saved and that it still has context in the
neighborhood. I feel the west L is too heavy. I am glad the two
buildings are being saved in the back and it is a positive approach
to this whole project and will add texture and be very good. I
could let the house move back as long as I know we are saving as
much as possible of the old building and being restored back to its
original state. Regarding the breezeway we have been looking at
using these to keep the massing down. The mass proposed to me is
a little out of context to the neighborhood. It is a little too
strong. I feel the driveway is bad the way it is set out in the
context of this house. This is setting the entrance into town and
so does 17 Queen Street. We need to keep records of the old
original building. My main concern is the driveway in front of the
house and the massing of the new house.
Joe: In general I am supportive of this project and I am in favor
of relocating the historic house. I do have a couple of issues
that our troubling and one is the review procedure ~hat we have
which is a one step procedure and this seems to be a significant
project for a one step procedure but I guess that is the way the
code is written and we have discussed this before and maybe the
attorney has a different view than I do. This came up when we
discussed the Iglehart house and my view of the standards for
review says that the applicant has mitigated to the greatest extent
possible impacts on the historic importance of the structure or
structures on the parcel. I think that the addition has an impact
on the historic importance of the structure. So, I do not limit
my review to just to looking at the historic structure and what is
going on. I am looking at the whole context based upon the
standards. The applicant has to show that they have mitigated
whatever the impact is whether it is from the addition or the move
of the historic structure. Having said that about how the historic
relates to this new building. Originally I did not like the
breezeway and I am still not sure I am comfortable or not. I would
feel better with the idea of the transparency. It does add a
horizontal element that lessens the importance of the historic.
Maybe the historic should read a little different not like it is
the end of a wing. That is one element that I would like to have
further study on. I think I agree with Jake's comments on the west
elevation, the two story feel and also you can see it on the north
elevation and it seems a little out of sink, possibly using
architectural elements to give that a horizontal feel instead of
so vertical. I also agree with Jake's comment on the driveway and
I can see the problem and maybe that can be restudied with using
the breezeway as the center piece of the entrance I can see why you
have the driveway the way it sweeps in front of that and across to
the historic house but Jake's comments are well taken regarding
11
that drive location and the way that relates to the historic. The
only other issue was Staffs recommending denial for the request to
demolish the west kitchen lean-to. It is a marginal structure to
start with and I would be in favor of allowing that partial
demolition to take place.
Roger: I concur with Joe that the review process
however, in dealing with the historic we did the site
thought everything should be removed on the property
footprint of the original cottage. We would take the
all of the sheds and save it and use it on the original
the other buildings. I think it is great that you want
other two little sheds. I concur with the neighbors
to be cleaned up. Our job is to preserve a sense of
is absurd;
visit and I
except the
lumber from
cottage and
to save the
that it has
history and
in doing that you can take an old building and put it in part of
a complex and really have quite a stunning situation. You can show
that when the buildings were built there was not much too them.
When we site visited everyone liked the idea of the cottage on the
street as Joe used to sit out there and people stopped to chat.
I found that to be a rather pleasant thing to happen as there was
a sense of community there. At first I did not want the cottage
moved back but in listening to the proposal and comments I could
in fact move the cottage back to the setback; however, I find from
an historic perspective a gross error on the developers part in
putting the driveway in front of the historic cottage. I would
also allow the addition to the historic structure to come off and
the structure be cleaned up. I would also like to see a detailed
plan of the structure because you will have enough original
materials to restore it. I feel we should not approve anything to
this unless we at least get to review mass and scale over the new
structure. I find the new structure goes against everything that
we are fighting for in the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. It
is a box and we are trying to get rid of boxes. It shows
verticality and we are trying to get away from that. I think the
breezeway is something we have been wanting and talking about for
some time. I also feel it could be softened. The fact that the
house has a porch is terrific. I think it is interesting that
there is no orientation of the new house to the street. When you
read Molly Ireland's commends in the paper about monster homes in
the community it is a terrific letter and these houses in which
people do not live in is one thing but at least they could look
like a house with a human scale. There is an entrance with a
standard door size and not a 40 foot door. I feel at least mass
and scale of any structure next to an historic structure should
happen. The proposed structure is almost workable and very close
in design. The neighbors don't seem to have a problem with the
height. This part of town needs to be looked at in the context of
the block and what will happen in the future. The house seems like
it was plopped in and not sensitive to the neighborhood. There are
numerous things that could be looked at. Maybe other members feel
that this is a insignificant parcel and it is not necessary.
12
Tom: I will totally support what Roger said if we approve the
demolition subject to having review of the new building I would do
it.
Mac Cunningham: Let me make a couple comments that might help the
committee out. The drawings are not three dimension because our
requirement was to address the historic building and we were trying
to meet the guidelines that we were told to meet. I agree with the
committee on mass and scale and I support that. I had to fight the
planning department to do the building across the street and fight
to put the sandstone on the building. They told me I was
cheapening the building. I measured the store front windows all
up Galena and that is the window I chose. My pride in mass and
scale is very strong. Our design focus went into the relationship
of this structure and its relationship to the rest of the property
but I know people are concerned about it. There are a number of
very important things. This structure sits way in front of the
rest of the property. We went exactly to the setback line to push
the house forward so that it is the prominent element. This house
is actually lower than it legally can be. The purpose of the porch
which wraps around the side of the house is to break the horizontal
mass. The problem with elevations they don't read true to what you
see. There is the use wood material and a pitched roof. There
is broken massing interspersed on the building. A fireplace goes
up the side of the house and possibly it could be made smaller.
Those elements we are willing to work with. I am very concerned
that we have six people on a committee becoming a design committee.
That is an issue that City Council deals with and you deal with all
the time, where is the balance in the relationship. This new house
is a direct mirror of my grandparents house. I went and measured
when I went back this summer and this porch is deeper than you will
find in any other porch in Aspen. On an elevation it doesn't ready
that way. The purpose of the breezeway is to get light into it and
move the glass through and that it sits lower. I do not feel this
house will read high. We have worked hard to break the massing and
bring the roof line down. On building form the guidelines said
step buildings down in scale as they approach smaller structures
and we have done that. On the plan there are steps that come down
but we did not present those as we did not know you would be
reviewing that. Use of natural materials we have done by using
natural clapboard, masonry, window and doors. We also have a porch
around the house and that was taken out of the east end guidelines.
If we had done a three-D you would see the differentiation. The
issue of the driveway we can eliminate. Due to the narrowness of
the street we would like to have some kind of means of entering the
main house to be able to get off the street. There would be
landscaping in the front to soften the house.
David Bellack, Assistant City Attorney: Some of you were at the
debate about ordinance #35 and some weren't. Council ranged in
that debate with the concept of making the Neighborhood Character
Guidelines applicable to all new structures in the historic areas
13
in the various zone districts and then making them applicable to
structures over 80% of allowable FAR and it was ultimately raised
to 85%. In Council part of their final ordinance was to have this
committee & P&Z to review projects over 85% and apply the
Neighborhood Character Guidelines in determining whether the
project should be approved. It seems to be somewhat inconsistent
with Council's expressed findings that this committee should apply
the guidelines over projects of 85%. To say that when you have a
project under 85% at least given our ordinance framework now, the
committee will use the Neighborhood Character Guidelines to review
a new structure to determine whether or not to approve a partial
demolition. In looking at mitigation of the project it is
appropriate to consider new structures as part of that mitigation
but to allow the Neighborhood Character Guidelines view of a new
structure to become the paramount factor rather than an incidental
factor maybe inconsistent with ordinance #35 as it is now. I do
not know if anyone was going to make the Neighborhood Character
Guidelines a review of the new structure be their deciding factor.
Jake: HPC has been pursuing the Neighborhood Character Guidelines
for over two years and they are attempting to help us identify in
a more objective and specific terms what constitutes compatibility
and incompatibility and give us a tool to do that. A partial
demolition is before us right now and the real issue is that the
mass and scale of the addition should be considered. Then the use
of the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. It really has nothing
to do with ordinance #35. We would have adopted the Neighborhood
Character Guidelines regardless of what council did. Timing is an
issue with this applicant and we need to be fair just because of
that aspect.
Joe: I am applying the standards for review of partial demolition,
1 2 (a) 2 (b) . It is my understanding that the Neighborhood
Character Guidelines are voluntary and are just guidelines anyway
and that everyone is encouraged to follow them. The guidelines
give architects ideas of where our thoughts were.
Jake: This parcel is 13,500 sq. ft. and even if you were going
through a full review it would only be advisory.
Roger: As a condition would you agree to mass and scale review.
Mac Cunningham: That is a pandora's box and you guys have not had
projects go through to determine when you deal with mass and scale
and what it looks like when you are done at the end. I agree with
your intents entirely but I do not want to be sitting here six
months from now debating on the angle of the shingles. When I read
the guidelines I sited A.B.C.D.E. that I thought we complied with
but your reaction is that we did not comply with anyone. That is
what I am afraid of.
Joe: We need to know what the committees concerns are and address
14
them in the context of the standards that we have.
Jake: I think a restudy of the massing, the box effect so that it
is broken down into discrete volumes or apparent discrete volumes.
Jake: We could table and give direction.
Mac Cunningham: We were told that they are not going to extend the
contract.
Roger: It is so close that I do not want to see Mac loose it. And
all the things that we have been working on for so long need to be
addressed so they are not just thrown out the window.
Jake: My concern was massing, verticality on the west and south
elevations. The cemetery of the south elevation and the tall
simple dormer are larger than the pedestrian scale that we are
taking about. Make it read as two forms and not just one large
one.
MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC table 930 King Street partial
demolition to a date certain and ask that the applicant study the
following elements: The central dormer on the south elevation to
try and get more of a pedestrian feel. The north side of the west
elevation to try and get more horizontality and also the north
elevation. Restudy the driveway in front of the historic house;
second by Les.
Mac Cunningham: I understand where you are coming from but as the
Attorney said our obligation was to address the historic structure
and some relation as to how it relates to the property and that was
what our presentation was. We were not to address the other
structure.
Roger: I would prefer to make a motion to where we approve the
partial demolition and relocation with conditions and that the
applicant accept those conditions and can proceed with the project.
Personally I would rather deal with this applicant as I feel he can
do a terrific job and I have confidence in him. If we had a model
we would understand completely. This is so close to working that
it is not a big deal. I had to make it a big deal when I spoke
before to get the point across that these things and falling
through the cracks and Council has to do something and at the same
time we cannot penalize the applicant because he has played by the
rules. We are the ones that are putting all the time in it and are
not winning. We need to take a forceful stand and try to make
something work for Mac.
Dave Gibson, architect: If you could set it up so that the monitor
could review subsequent refinements.
Joe: Usually this is a one step application and if you have a
condition who determines whether the condition has been fulfilled.
Roger: Conditions are usually determined in cases like this by
monitor and Staff.
Joe withdrew his motion.
MOTION: Joe made the motion, the same motion to include the
approval of the partial demolition and relocation with the
conditions that the same elements be restudied and approved by
Staff and monitor.
Martha: How can this be approved by just the Staff and monitor and
so many other projects come in for more review.
Jake: I am for having them come back to the committee.
Amy: It depends on what the approval means.
Joe: Usually a significant development requires a conceptual and
a final hearing before the HPC. This project because it is a
partial demolition and relocation is just a one step process so
technically there is only one hearing before the HPC.
Jake: We actually have the ability, to require anything we feel
that is necessary.
Joe: This is a one step process.
Amy: I think it is extremely important on the historic house that
the applicant work with Staff and monitor about the preservation
of the existing materials and existing boards.
Joe withdrew his motion.
MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC grant partial
demolition and relocation to 930 King Street as proposed by the
applicant with the following conditions:
a) That the applicant provide a detailed plan of renovation
of the historic structure to include preservation of boards and
reuse of materials on site taken from the other buildings and types
of finish.
b) That the driveway be taken from in front of the historic
structure and moved within reasonable boundaries so to not
implicate in front of the building.
c) That the linkage from the historic structure to the main
house be restudied and softened.
d) That the applicant provide a model showing the new house
16
in conjunction with the historic and I think that will really
show that the mass and scale will really work.
e) That the applicant deal with the verticality of the new
structure that it is shown either through a breakup of large
walls and positioning of siding and so on, that it is taken
away and it becomes more of a residential type of home.
f) That a restudy of the dormers be done and the massing to
be looked at but left at the discretion of the applicant as
to how to deal with it. The restudy of the massing and
dormers should be more consistent with what is in the
neighborhood guidelines for residential areas.
g) The project will be reviewed with monitor and Staff and
brought back to the committee for final approval.
Motion was second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries.
Jake: The dormer on the south elevation, the north side of the
west elevation and the north elevation are my concerns.
Tom: The model does not need to be detailed just showing the mass.
Les: The Board should work with the applicant and if they need a
special meeting we can do one.
Mac: Everyone has a different interpretation of the guidelines and
I am very concerned that we are the guinea pig to this. I know
what you want and I agree 100% and I do not like some of the
structures that were done either. We all appreciate your time.
I appreciate Rogers comments that we are close and will work
together and give you the visual representation that will make you
feel good about.
MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. Ail in
favor, motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
17