HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19941109HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
930 KING STREET - SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85% 1
409 E. HOPKINS - AMENDMENT TO FINAL ...... 10
520 E. DUP~AiNT AVE. - CHANEL - MINOR ..... 12
210 S. MILL STREET - FOOTLOOSE AND FANCY THINGS 13
939 E. COOPER ........... 13
2--1
RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with Don
Erdman, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen and
Linda Smisek present. Excused was Tom Williams.
COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS
Amy: I met with Steve Bauer the manager of Planet Hollywood and
pointed out what he was to paint and the color was to be dark
green.
Roger: You can paint now if an alkide is used.
Les: Has anything happened with St. Mary's neckdown.
Bill Efting, Assistant City Manager: We agreed to give them three
years to complete it.
930 KING STREET - SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85%
Amy: We are now reviewing this subject to the neighborhood
character guidelines both the general guidelines and those for the
Smuggler neighborhood. The ones that I thought were particularly
applicable were mass and scale and impact on historic buildings.
The issues that I brought up were mentioned before and they are the
essential dormer on the new house have been discussed a't length did
change it slightly from the original proposal (shorter and wider)
but it still creates a disturbing relationship to the historic
building because it really is the same dimension as the main gable
on the historic building. I am recommending that it be restudied
as well as the entryway into the breezeway. That again is an
especially dominant element and it at least might be able to be
lowered so that the gable is below the ridge line of the breezeway.
Also from the Sept. 13th HPC review one of the conditions of
approval was that the breezeway be as transparent as possible with
little to no horizontal siding and the drawings indicate that that
had not been changed very much and another condition was that the
materials on the breezeway should be differentiated from the
historic house. I recommended with these amendments that the
project be approved by special review.
Joe: We are here tonight for mandatory review and voluntary
compliance toward the recommendations of the Board.
Mac Cunningham: We responded to the neighborhood guidelines
through the memo that we sent over with the application and I feel
we are in compliance. We took pictures of the neighborhood and
there are numerous roof types and trends with modern additions.
It is a hodgepodge. We need to know what we're supposed to do
while we are here.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
Joe: Just looking at this the second story is out of proportion
to the first and again it is a square box and the recommendation
in the guidelines is to break them into smaller modules so we don't
have one massive structure. It is also too tall. I agree with
Amy's comments on the front dormer. The elements on the second
floor are elongated and accentuates the size of the second story.
I like the first story real well.
Jim Perry: The elevations are more accurate than the model as they
indicate the difference between the historic structure and the link
and providing the three foot.
Don: I have some problems now that you are over the 85% allowable
FAR, we go into a totally different situation and as Joe pointed
out the second story of the new structure which is the main house
is doing exactly what we do not want. It has a giant way out of
human scale dormer combined with a huge light approximately seven
or eight feet tall over 8 foot french doors. It is not at all what
is within the general neighborhood guidelines. I am absolutely
against this and you have the monster house syndrome on the second
floor. The first floor is very much in human scale. In addition
to that the drawings are all wrong in terms of what you have
indicated so far on the changes or restoration to the historic
structure. You say replace stone and chimney as required to match
existing, that should say replace brick. You say wood siding to
match existing and it should say existing wood siding to be reused.
Doors and window to match existing should say doors and windows to
be reused. Your drawings are in error and I cannot approve what
I see here tonight.
Amy: I signed off on the demolition permit and redlined all of
those changes.
Don: Sheet A6 has the same problems which is dealing with phase
one of the project. The main problem that I have is the vastly
out of scale second story central story.
Joe: The procedure is mandatory but the recommendations are
voluntary.
Amy: That is not entirely true, possibly for condition one but
condition two and three about the breezeway connection and the
materials were conditions for partial demolition and they have to
be complied with. That is not advisory but the discussion of the
dormer is advisory.
Amy: We are reviewing the 85% but because the drawings that came
in for the permit don't comply with the last two aspects of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
review and that is why I reiterated them.
Don: I agree with Staff on the breezeway link that the general
detailing and materials is much too similar to that of both the new
structure and the historic resource; therefore, I would recommend
using what was suggested at the last meeting and that was not to
have or reduce to an absolute minimum any horizontal siding.
Mac Cunningham: Siding was not a condition.
Amy: On page 11 of Sept. 13th minutes, under the amended motion
Donnelley stated that it should not contain any horizontal siding.
Amy: It is a condition of approval.
Mac Cunningham: I do not think it was defined. The intent is to
put horizontal siding where there are not windows.
Don: HPC would like to see a clear definition between old and new.
Even if that siding were shingles it would give somebody a clue
that you have an old structure and new structure abutting.
Mac: We are going to rely on what we submitted and what we feel
was approved. This is the are of the process that I am most
concerned about and that is that there are so many loose ends and
issues that can be revisited. We started 5 months ago.
Joe: You are here today because you originally said you were below
85% and it turned out in fact that you are not.
Mac: We are at 82.4% exclusive of the porches and those were
recommended by HPC. We were pushed into the higher FAR because
porches are counted. In six months they aren't going to be part
of the process.
Joe: The memo says 92% and that is why we are here.
Roger: Why are we here today.
Amy: When Ord. 35 was passed if the lot was over 9,000 it would
be advisory only and that got the program through. Council felt
even at an advisory level there would be some benefit to this.
Jake: I would add to that and in some respects it is a learning
period for this ordinance and trying to learn how to apply it
fairly and consistently.
Roger: I would like a comment from the Planning Director regarding
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
this issue as I feel we are wasting peoples time.
Stan: Everyone in this room can learn from the process. My
thinking about the 9,000 square feet that gives some sense to that
is that council was concerned with monster homes so that in order
to quantify that if it is on a 9,000 sq. ft. maybe the impact is
not quite as significant so lets devise an exemption that allows
people who want to build a house a little more freedom. We are
faced with compulsory with advisory findings. What would be the
way to make the best of it. The best way to treat this is to try
and make some suggestions which might be compelling and make him
feel if they were followed he would have a better project. Amy
initially felt the project too large so we tried to initiate ideas
and suggestions that might be possible to implement without a
total redesigning the project and which might engage the
imagination somewhat. That was defined in the memo as we have
discussed and it entailed diminishing the massing of the central
dormer and also of the entry dormer breezeway. Those are steps
that could be taken that would favor the historic building and also
by lending a little more transparency to the breezeway. Those are
suggestions that I would recommend. I feel it is possible for a
committee to meet with an applicant and make suggestion on a
voluntary compliance that will be useful.
Roger: In your office have you discussed neighborhood character
guideline implications?
Jim Perry: We consider those on every project we work on.
Roger: Within the context of the block today do you feel this
house is out of scale with the neighborhood, particular since it
is a corner lot?
Jim Perry: I do not feel so as it is an eclectic neighborhood and
there are numerous types of homes over there and you can't define
what the neighborhood is. I feel this would draw something more
into what the character guidelines are by adding the porches and
pushing the historic structure forward. The dormer and porches
break up the masses.
Les: Basically you have made a nice attempt to work with the older
building and that buildings should help establish a sense of human
scale and my problem is as you come over the bridge you have one
of the largest masses. If you had pattern language in conjunction
with this and include the views it might not be so massive. That
peak is 16 feet and if you dropped the massing down so that it has
a pedestrian feel as you are walking up you wouldn't feel
overwhelmed. Porches are wonderful and the transition is great.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
Les: The corner could have been cut down more.
Mac: The elements of the dormers when you look at those in three
dimensions are going to be a lot softer and will appear much lower.
We did not go to the maximum height on the site. I feel the impact
that is read off the set of elevations will not in fact be there.
I am not interested in building a monster home. I feel the balance
of texture and color will work well between the breezeway. Perhaps
even a different width in the siding is an appropriate aspect.
Roger: Often times miners cabins were never painted and would it
be possible to leave the existing siding unfinished or the existing
siding with a light stain that is appropriate.
Amy: I suggested that materials are
distinguish between old and new because
new owners that he cannot paint it.
a more permanent way to
who is going to tell the
Martha: I really like the east end of the project and I voted to
have the building completely separated and no breezeway connected
at all. I have a problem with the scale also.
Roger: I agree with Les that we are close and I would encourage
you to do three things: Soften the columns on the new structure
from round to perhaps the traditional square posts and keep it
simple and not complicated. As far as the first story of the
building it deals with human scale except for the grand entrance
and linkage between the historic and new house. At the seminar
everyone discussed why you have to have a grand entry to any
building and why couldn't it be of human scale. I would ask you
to redesign the entry and linkage and bring it down to a human
scale and I think also part of that the round posts take away from
that scale. They give the impression of a southern plantation.
Also the grand windows which are either curved or trapezoid type,
you can only look out so much glass and the upper windows make the
mass more horrific then it could be and less sellable than
something more simple and classical in its design. We discussed
this at length in the seminar.
Donnelley: The unfortunate thing is that this realestate community
pushes that kind of entrance and most people that are unstable want
this curb appeal.
Roger: You were at the conference and if you would have passed
this around the room those elements would be rejected.
Mac: I hope this house will be an example of definable standards
to the issues we are dealing with. The same trapezoid is across
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
the street. I feel the balance and scale is appropriate and use
of the proper materials. I heard at the symposium that you would
not be able to build one bauhaus in Aspen today. P&Z was upset
with what you did also.
Amy:
it.
That is not true and a totally inaccurate representation of
Donnelley: A bauhaus which is really an international style house
has all the characteristics of small scale and done with
inexpensive materials. You can still do flat roof structures in
Aspen and they would probably approve one story but not two story.
Joe: We will find that projects like this are too massive and you
get a two story feel from the dormer rather than the human scale
which everyone has mentioned here and what will happen is that they
will downzone everything and reduce the FAR to keep these types of
projects from happening.
Mac: That is clearly the underlying thing that is going on.
Joe: It is difficult to come up with design guidelines with so
many differences of opinions. I still feel there are problems with
the main house.
Linda: I feel we have made a full circle and that is that the main
structure overpowers the historic resource and everybody on this
committee feels it is dominating the historic structure by being
so high, tall and glass expanse. If it was sitting by itself it
would be a great design. We are here to be concerned about the
historic structure being over powered.
Les: The process is working and elevations are misleading and we
have approved a lot of things on the west end that were serious
mistakes on my part and the committee's part. We are trying to be
proactive. I spent a week in Chicago looking at Frank Lloyd
Wright's work wondering why it works and he did incredible subtle
things on a railing, on a porch which made it unique. That is what
I am looking for in this project. One of the problems that I see
if that you are coming off a hill and that maximizes everything
instead of minimizing it. You have great taste but I feel when it
is done you will be disappointed.
Jake: There is no way this project conforms to the neighborhood
character guidelines either general or the ones from Smuggler.
Mac: That is what we attempted to do.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
Jake: We were all in the same symposium meetings and you are on
the other side of the fence. You have made a number of choices in
your strategy that intentionally go against the guidelines.
Everything is overscale and larger than a common scale including
the windows which are 4 by 8 and the doors are 8 feet high. The use
of porches is appropriate which follows under a guideline. I have
been reading a number of books and there is so much good stuff
going on out there and all that needs to be done is read it and
utilize it. There is significant needs in this community for a
certain kind of housing and approach of sensitivity. The purpose
of the guidelines is to encourage that and reward those people that
are in fact making these active choices and in some cases they are
sacrifices.
Donnelley: I agree with Jake and the glazed areas are out of
scale. Staff pointed out the two most blatant areas which that
occurs which are in the second story central dormer opening and
porch in the main residence and in the main entrance which happens
to be in the breezeway connection. Generally the window size is
out of residential scale.
MOTION: Donnelley made the motion to recommend the three
conditions made by Staff; second by Roger.
Amy: They have to comply with conditions two and three.
Jake: This committee is charged in making a finding along
criteria of the guidelines.
the
Joe: The finding doesn't comply with the guidelines.
Roger: I feel we should submit to council a resolution of our
finding (1) how inappropriate this is and the positions we are put
in in making these decisions.
John Worcester, city attorney: The ordinance itself says that the
board shall make findings that the project is either consistent or
inconsistent with the guidelines. It sounds like you are going to
make a determination that it is not consistent and I would suggest
that in your resolution you point out why and then the applicant
can take that as a suggestion.
Mac Cunningham: If you have specific things lets site them.
Jake: With the ordinance we have a responsibility of making a
finding and it should be anchored to the guidelines and the
specific points in the guidelines. My problem with this building
and I will reiterate is that it is over scale, not just large. You
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
cannot just talk about one element. The entire thing is over
scale.
MOTION: Motion and second withdrawn.
MOTION: Joe made the motion that the HPC finds that the project
does not comply with the neighborhood character guidelines in the
following basis:
(1) The second story is two large and out of
dormers.
(2) It doesn't break the massing of the main
of approximately 1200 to 1800 sqft.
scale including the
house into modules
second by Martha.
Jake: The general guidelines for neighborhoods shall be in scale
with the established neighborhood or to the scale that is desired
for the neighborhood and it clearly does not conform to that
guidelines.
AMENDED MOTION: Joe amended his motion to add Jake's statement;
second by Martha.
Mac Cunningham:
that are larger
neighborhood.
I can take you to buildings in the neighborhood
and taller and they are within a block of this
Linda: Do they have an historic resource on the property?
Mac Cunningham: The determination is does this conform to the
neighborhood character guidelines for the east side and the overall
guidelines.
Amy: One of the guidelines is impact on historic resources which
is what generated the discussion.
Mac Cunningham: We worked hard with separating the historic
resource from the main structure and the main structure is not 1200
sqft. but unless you want to change the economics of Aspen you will
not see 1200 sqft. houses on 13,000 sqft. lots. The miners cottage
is 444 sqft. and we attempted to make it prominent by moving it
forward. We are wrestling with a bigger issue.
Joe: To talk about scale, scale is not just the massing and size
of it, its the size of the elements and how it relates to humans
and I think that it is out of scale and I can clearing define that.
Maybe scale is a subjective issue.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
Jake: I would also like to add general guideline #10 architectural
features that enhance the pedestrian experience are encouraged.
It states that doors, windows etc. should be of a human scale.
ANENDED NOTION: Joe amended his motion to include general
guidelines #10; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries.
Mac Cunningham: We can't do any architecture until we know where
we are and how would you feel after 5 months. It took a lot of
courage on my part and a lot of expense to walk in here the way it
is. We added porches.
Joe: Economics are out of
economics we know you bought
the market for 2.9
our real and if you want to talk
it for $600,000. and you have it on
Mac: My point is when people are chasing a percentage of FAR as
defined today the differentials of things you are talking about in
reality of a difference of 6 inches and review process or not
review process and I think people will take the six inches and you
will have properties far worse than the concerns you have for this.
Les: It is a learning process for all of us.
Mac Cunningham: If it weren't for the FAR the porches would be a
lot bigger. My feeling is that the underlying zoning is the
problem and it should have been changed 15 years ago. Everything
we are doing now is window dressing. Aspen is a desirable place
to be. If FAR is reduced now you will end up in a large legal
battle.
Joe: The question is who is causing the reaction, is it caused by
HPC who wants to keep the scale down or people doing this monstrous
homes which results in a downzone.
Mac Cunningham: I feel it is a much greater issue than that. It
is an issue of economics.
Les: P&Z wanted to go to volume and you reduced the height 4 feet
and cut a foot off you drop the scale and massing and you haven't
lost any square footage and it doesn't effect your economics. To
me we are still back to scale and massing.
MOTION: Ail in favor of motion and amended motions, except Roger
who abstained, motion carries.
Roger: I refuse to vote for or against this project and it is
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMb~ITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 199,1
absurd that we re put into this position and city council should
deal with it themselves. The next time we have to make a decision
on reality and not politics.
409 E. HOPKINS - AMENDMENT TO FINAL
Jake stepped down.
Amy: The team has found out that the original proposal for the
elevator which accessed off of the alley is no longer going to meet
the ADA requirement so their only option is to put an elevator
shaft in the entrance area and so that is what you see before you
at the second floor courtyard. They have added a second wall
adjacent to the elevator shaft to balance it out. Although it is
an unfortunate change I recommended approval but am concerned about
the material treatment for the elevator shaft wall. It is a stone
veneer which is much larger blocks than the scale of the brick and
the stone that is used for coursing of the rest of the building and
I thought that should be restudied.
David Rybeck, Poss & Associates: We had anticipated in bringing
the handicapped through the alleyway and utilize the service
elevator in the back of the building. Due to the process this
building has gone through we have to comply with the ADA and it
must enter in the approximate location as the general public. To
gain access to the second floor we are proposing to locate an
elevator along the store front adjacent to the stairway. That will
then rise up into the second floor area. You enter from the street
side and exist out the back side to gain access to the courtyard
and the spaces above. As Amy pointed out because this building is
symmetrical about the stairway we felt it important to add a second
mass on the upper floor to maintain the balance. Unfortunately it
does enclose the former opening that went into the courtyard but
the stairway still comes through. There were metal blades with a
glass top so that you could see right through it. In the new
design we are doing stone clad masses for the elevator. Instead
of an arched canopy over the stair we feel that if we turn the arch
and have it run along the length of the stair three dimemsionally
we'll have a steel element that will catch the eye and draw your
attention into the courtyard. To balance the closing we are trying
to make the trellis work lead you into that space nd increase the
attraction to the space. As far as material we wanted to keep the
openness and not continue the brick along the front facade. We
wanted to go with a lighter material, a smoother face and in this
way it would be much lighter in appearance and go with a larger
pattern stone.
Roger: Did you ever consider if the elevator could be transparent
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
and you wouldn't have to have a large mass.
David Ryberg: That was our first thought but unfortunately because
the elevator has to be accessed from the exterior to find a glass
elevator that would work in this climate was impossible.
Bill Poss: It would end up being a glass box with two doors.
Donnelley: There is also a lot of metal in elevators.
Bill Poss: We also didn't want it to look too high-tech. We
wanted it to look like the wheeler where the vertical elements are
solid in mass and the size of the stone give it a more of a
contemporary rendition.
David Tybeck: We can't enter through a service station or someone
else's space.
Roger: You would have to put in a hallway that would take out
retail space.
David Rybeck:
year.
We would loose $350 thousand of lost income per
Roger: What is the stepback from the face of the building to the
elevator shaft?
David Rybeck: 8 feet.
Les: My first thought was glass and is there no way to incorporate
that.
Roger: How would you address Staff's comment and make it more in
scale with the rest of the facade.
David Rybeck: We are trying to use a smooth like contemporary
material as opposed to a heavy rusticated stone.
Roger: The original design was metal long before the elevator
shaft. Suppose those two walls were some kind of metal treatment
and would that soften it better than a heavy stone or brick?
David Rybeck: We studied that and that competed with the trellis
work on the lower part and also the trellis work over the stairway.
You could not differentiate from the mass of the shaft to the light
trellis work.
Roger: Is there not something that you could do to it that was
~ISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
fun?
Donnelley: What is the intent here to make it look like a definite
nonstructural veneer.
David Rybeck: A cladding.
Donnelley: Typically you would not have any off setting in your
joints and would run vertical lines all the way up.
Roger: Suppose the motion said no brick, no stucco, no stone what
would you do.
Bill Poss: Metal would work but we would have to sell it to the
client.
Joe: My feeling is this is a street front, a store front and we
brought this project forward and discussed all the open space
issues and we were trying to not make it a solid downtown block.
I feel metal is too heavy and I like the idea of using stone which
is softer. I feel you would want this to disappear.
Donnelley: A you want different materials but you are looking for
a non-material feeling for the tower and you do not want to
introduce new materials. You options are in stone, brick or steel.
YOU don't want it to be steel.
Bill Poss: We would prefer stone and the client would prefer that
as it is much more of a conservative element.
Les: There has to be something wonderful that you have never done
before that will accomplish what you want and allow the stone to
be there. Possibly one subtle little thing.
MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the amendment to final
approval be approved for 409 E. Hopkins Ave. with the following
conditions:
(a)
(b)
That the cladding presumed to be stone to match other stone
in the structure.
The size and detail be an expression of non-bearing. That the
elements be vertical and that the joints be studied to remove
all possibility of interpretation as a bearing surface, second
by Roger. Passes 6 1, Les opposed.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
520 E. DURANT AVE. - CHANEL - MINOR
Amy: This is a Chanel jewelry store as opposed to the boutique
that we reviewed previously and they are proposing to make similar
changes to the door and window. They are not lowering the window
ceil. I recommended approval as submitted.
Brand Allen Architects: The window is opaque and is 288 sqft.
MOTION: Les made the motion
application submitted at 520 E.
in favor, motion carries.
to approve the minor development
Durant Ave.;second by Roger. Ail
210 S. MILL STREET - FOOTLOOSE AND FANCY THINGS
Amy: There are awnings on the building and these will match the
existing except they will be collapsible. I recommended approval
but the awnings are going to be at the second floor level and there
aren't any on the basement level. It is not an historic building
and it is inside the courtyard.
Les: It might even make it interesting.
MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the minor
development application as submitted to 210 S. Mill; second by Les.
Ail i favor, motion carries.
939 E. COOPER
Amy: The committee was generally in favor of the site plan and
asked for some restudy of the treatment along the sides, the
setbacks because we have an historic resource on one side and
neighbors on the other side that were concerned about loosing their
light and air. There was a request for restudy of the new
buildings B and D and those are provided tonight but Staff has not
reviewed them. The board thought that the houses could be
contemporary and playful and did not have to try and replicate the
historic house next door.
Bob & Darnell Langley, owners: We have a project that we feel is
in absolute harmony with the best intent of the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the Neighborhood Guidelines. We have been
working with the HPC for 1 1/2 years. Les touched at the last
meeting that the process has worked. We have come to point that
we need conceptual approval and we have done everything to
accommodate the concerns of the HPC generally. I'm the developer
and I will be living there. Recommendations at the last meeting
were to remove the gingerbread and we have done that. The Villager
1--3
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
is next door and we have got a three foot setback and have pulled
back five feet where the windows are, so there is a ten foot open
area and being sensitive to the neighbors the building splits right
where the windows are so they are not looking right into a
building. If the property were to be maxed out you would have one
flat wall and you would have less light than this configuration.
As far as turning the barn and looking at the parking situation it
is not a prudent step to take. We feel we have accommodated the
historic nature of the property, to preserve the barn, to maintain
setback sensitivity to the neighbors while still designing a
project that works economically and socially. There is a lot of
inner action between the buildings. We are asking for an
additional 489 sqft. of FAR and we are asking for setbacks on the
front of 9 feet on the A_H and three feet on the multi family. We
are asking for rear setbacks of five feet and side setbacks of two
feet and combined front and rear setbacks of 14 feet for AH and 8
ft, for multi family. The current FAR is 10,500 and we are
requesting 7,200 and we are only trying to create a community where
our children can live.
Joe: Is this going to be rezoned.
Bob Langley: I can't go to P&Z and get rezoned unless I can go
through the conceptual process of HPC. By giving me conceptual you
are not approving the final plan and by designating the parcel you
can have design review. I have to have a project that works and
is both sensitive to the historic nature of the project and the
things that we tried to be in line with which are the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the Neighborhood Guidelines.
Amy: The back part of the lot is going to be split, 4500 sqft.
zoned affordable housing and the front 6,000 sqft. is to remain
RMF.
Roger; Is it possible for cottage A and B to on the Cooper Street
to have garage doors not look like garage doors. As you drive into
the garages will it be paved or is there a way to deal with
something else for that area like grass in between. The lines
where the buildings boarder the adjacent properties, are they
broken up.
Bob Langley: They are absolutely broken up.
Darnell Langley: There are some three foot setbacks and five foot
setbacks.
Donnelley: We fundamentally gave approval to a lot of the project
and what exactly should we be reviewing today? Lets deal with the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
issues that were left up in the air at the last meeting.
Amy: Unanimously everyone felt good about the site plan. Passed
around were computer generations of possible massing etc. This was
preferable solution. We are retaining the historic cottage A and
the historic barn and the cottage will be restored. There was
discussion about cottage B and D and what was discussed was a
misunderstanding between HPC and the applicants and what we are
trying to get out of new buildings from the applicants. The
cottages seemed very stylistic and the Board was not comfortable
with them. We wanted to look at cottage B and D further and the
committee wanted consideration of the adjacent property.
Donnelley: I have a question that concerns cottage
are there three different siding materials and
roofing materials on the plans presented today.
B and D. Why
two different
Architect: I would like to see it all horizontal siding with no
ginger breading and possibly a copper roof for the porch. I feel
that keeps it simple. Use a palate stone base that has been
carried through the whole project.
Donnelley: My first impression is that it is a non-meaningful use
of different materials and that leads to the questions as to
whether it competes with the historic resource. Stucco usually
reads heavier than wood and you wouldn't put it above wood as it
is heavier. It is also basically in the same plane and that
doesn't make much sense in cottage D, to change materials just
because one is below the roof line and one above. It appears that
added complexity and added confusion has developed by throwing in
a lot of materials.
Bob Langley: Would you say that the structure as it stands is more
compatible with your personal vision of what you would like to see
and are we talking about exterior material.
Donnelley: I do not have a personal vision because I am not
designing it, I am reacting to it. The forms as a committee no one
had any basic problems. There was an intent to encourage making
these other three non-historic structures, noncompetitive with the
historic structures. We also said maybe you are trying to read
into this more of a problem than it actually is. In other words
in terms of light and shade, in terms of what is happening with the
mix of forms in this very tight little area. You have enough going
on.
Architect: Cottage B is basically the same roof lines and cottage
D had roof line changes mostly the north L without the peak and I
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
feel that helps. The siding material we had gone over as a group
and I feel the simpler the better. I would hope we could get past
a conceptual on the shape of the structure and to know we can
really detail this out.
Bob Langley: Because we are landmarked if the forms and shapes
work and there are concerns with the siding and materials I feel
the committee has a responsibility to do is show the good faith in
me that I have shown to the committee. I am responsive to anything
you people would ask me to do and I will continue in that same
vain. I need to get conceptual approval.
Amy: They are asking for setback variances for both sides, parking
variances.
Darnell Langley: The setbacks have a
being so cramped and it is cut across.
front yard.
lot to do with the AH zone
They alley them becomes the
Amy: The historic building has now moved further forward, it is
seven feet off the front instead of the required ten and that is
because of the discussion about the rear addition of the house
which is historic. I feel the drawings are appropriate and you
still read that the addition on the back is one story although it
has something on top of it. It is a good solution as opposed to
demolishing it. Yes, the buildings are tight but as opposed to one
large mass this is more appropriate.
Darnell Langley: They are all below the allowable height.
Joe: I am in favor of the project and we will do what we can to
get conceptual approved tonight. One of the problems that I see
here is that there is not a model. I do not know how they relate
to each other and we always require quarter square drawings. I am
in favor of conceptual but with the caveat that it is not final
until it is final. I can't get a good feel how the structures
relate to each other on the site. Looking at four different sets
of elevations it is hard to see it. The model will help a lot.
In general I like the plan and the idea of a variety of structures
used on the site. It is difficult to review five structures at
once. I need the opportunity to dissolve it.
Martha: Will the historic barn remain where it is?
Bob Langley: It will be moved.
Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
Lisa Miller: I thought the barn was going to be on the villager
side. Why can't you pull back five feet on the entire side as I
will not get any light and we are crammed in. On the west facing
window that is all the light there is. Why can't it be switched.
Bob Langley: The barn has to be moved one way or another and I am
going to be living in cottage D. In order to preserve the view of
Smuggler mountain I do not want it switched.
Lisa Miller: I would like to see a model also to see exactly what
is happening here.
Martha Goshorn: If it stays where it is it would have to be moved
twice, one to move it off for the foundation to be built and then
moved again. If it is moved to the other side it is going to be
less difficult to move it one rather than twice. Right now they
can dig a foundation and move it once.
Darnell Langley: I feel we have addressed that in ever way.
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
Les: I feel we are close to solving this and the applicant has
moved in a few feet on that side which we requested. The site is
tight and would explain again why you cannot move it back anymore.
Darnetl Langley: We took their concerns and we went out and
measured every window that they have and from every window we came
back five feet, we gave the full five feet. If someone
came in an and what you are able to build is two monster homes you
would have a ten foot setback on front and back and it would be all
building from the front property line to the back and you wouldn't
have that little slot. It would be like a solid wall. There is
a five foot set back on the side. Also keep in mind that their
ground level is three feet above our plane level and that will make
a difference.
Donnelley; I could give conceptual approval only on the building
massing and the site plan. I could not give approval to the three
non-historic structures because they have not been presented to us
today.
Martha: The conversation at the last meeting centered around
cottage B and D and I feel we are headed in the right direction.
Amy: Everyone felt comfortable with what was happening with
cottage A, the historic barn and the new barn. Not that you would
approve every aspect but that you felt good about it and that B and
1--7
~ ~ISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
D still had problems.
Donnelley: It this gets conceptual cottages B and D would have to
be presented to us in a much more detailed form.
Roger: I could approve conceptual based on general massing and
site plan and I would request a model not only of the existing and
new structures but of the Villager and property to the right that
it be incorporated on the model plan. I would also be willing to
sit in on a worksession.
Joe: My concept is a massing model.
Linda: I agree with Don about the business of B and D and that
they should be simpler. I agree with the site plan and basic
shapes of the buildings.
Joe: Does anyone on the Board have any problems with the site
plan.
Donnelley: We would have to have a revised site plan.
Amy: The variances need to be taken care of with the conceptual
because this is a public hearing.
Joe: I feel this is difficult to evaluate in the absence of 1/4
inch drawings.
Amy: There is the possibility at final that
be reduced. They are requesting a 489 sqft.
affordable housing.
the variances could
in the FAR for the
Marsha Goshorn: There would be an FAR increase on that one 1500
sqft. parcel but it will not increase it on the entire 4500 sqft.
It is not an increase over the FAR allowable for the AH zone, just
for that one particular house and it is just being moved from one
site to another. The Planning Office came up with that idea due
to the layout of the site.
Joe: AH will be three lots 1500 sqft. each and one of those lots
needs the FAR bonus. Also one is under.
Amy: I have been in this process with you for some
application is not complete but because I want this
opposed to what could happen I feel OK about it.
discuss at length general compatibility.
time and this
to happen as
We need to
Bob Langley: We need conceptual tonight because we have a P&Z
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
meeting coming up.
Donnelley: You will have to redo the drawing correctly for P&Z.
Les: The solution is here and we won't like part of it and you
won't like part of it but it will work.
Chairman Joe Krabacher closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Joe made the motion
partial demolition and special
with the following conditions:
3 o
5 o
that HPC grant conceptual review,
review approval for 939 E. Cooper
That the applicant understands that this is conceptual
approval of the site plan and general scheme involved.
That the applicant submit a model showing this project
as well as the adjacent two parcels so that we can get
an idea of the setbacks affected.
That we have 1/4 inch drawings.
That we approve the variances requested for FAR of 489
sqft., setbacks in the AH of 9 feet in the front, 5 ft.
in the rear which is 8 feet at the decks and two foot
sideyard and 14 combined front and rear yard and in the
RMF parcel a front yard setback of 3 feet and rear yard
of five feet with 8 feet at the decks and side yard two
feet and combined front and rear of 8 feet and a four
space parking variation.
At final a revised site plan, landscape plan and accurate
representation of all materials etc.
HPC finds that the four development review standards are
met.
second by Les.
Martha: I feel
second.
Donnelley:
Bob Langley:
Vote:
the model is number one and the detailed drawings
Maybe we should have a worksession before final.
Amy and I will dialogue about this tomorrow.
Ail in favor of motion, motion carries.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
Donnelley did not vote as he had to attend another meeting.
MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; second by Joe.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk