Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19930414Historic Preservation Committee Hinutes of &p~i! ~4, ~993 234 W. TRANSPORTATION PLAN - DIANE MOORE VICENZI BALCONY 120 W. FRANCIS FINAL DEVELOPMENT - 210 LAKE AVENUE 232 E. HALLAM'- FINAL DEVELOPMENT . FRANCIS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 1 3 4 5 6 9 13 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 14, 1993 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen and Linda Smisek present. Excused were Joe Krabacher, Donnelley Erdman, Les Holst and Karen Day. MOTIONs Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of March 10th and March 24th, 1993; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. STAFF COMMENTS Kim Johnson, Planner: Does the HPC feel the open space code amendment should have a one step process or two step process. Since this is a new code amendment regarding trellis's the Planning office would like to hear HPC's recommendation. Bill: A minor review comes before the HPC also. Kim: If it were a minor review and you wanted them to come back you could expand in that way to a two step process. I need to know if you want it to be a significant with a two step public review or what as it is so new. If you decide this applicant (Cantina) would be a minor review and after reviewing it you change your decision you could always make it significant. Diane Moore, Planning Director: minor review. We are thinking this would be a Bill: In addition to the minor review the monitor can follow and report to the board. I would suggest minor review in front of a full board with a monitor. Kim: The ordinance reads that only historic parcels or parcels in an overlay can partake of this particular code amendment and get HPC review. TRANSPORTATION PLAN - DIANE MOORE, PLANNING DIRECTOR Diane: Enclosed in your packet is the proposed transportation plan and we have done a summary and also how the plan will impact use and we will take different scenarios. We are not sure everyone agrees that we have a traffic congestion problem within the City of Aspen. I certainly do. Community trends have lead to increased traffic. The population growth and distribution have impacted Aspen: Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield Counties. Employees that worked in the City of Aspen in 1987, about 47% of those employees lived down valley and 50% up valley. In 1992 through the Community Plan we have found 55% living down valley and 45% living up valley which creates the commuting problem on HWY 82. Another indication although I do not think this is particularly accurate, is registration of vehicles. In Pitkin County between 1980 and 1990 H~storic Preservation Committee ~inu2es of April L4~ 1993 going from 13,000 to close to 19,000 is close to a 43% increase in motor vehicle registration. Numerous people register in different counties. Our commercial growth, square footage in Aspen in 1975 we had a little over a million and in 1990 we had 1,451,456.00 which is a 43% increase. I like to look at this in a sense that the city is really in a sense a mall. It rivals some of the larger suburban malls in the country in regards to square feet. About 43% is actual retail and 43% is office and 16% is restaurant space. Retails sales in 1981 were 120 million going up to 230 million in 1991 which represents a significant increase. Commercial air line passengers increasing from 1980 to 1991 from 125,000 to 220,000 which is a 76% increase. Another one is our actual traffic volumes and I calculated this over the Castle Creek bridge. In 1973 we were looking at 9,800 vehicles and in 1980 we are up to 17,000 and in 1991 we are looking at 31,500 and projecting to 2010 39,500. In the summer of 1992 figures report of 34 or 35 thousand. The summer trips to and from Aspen are based on the O&D study. 3% is from over the pass and 97% from HWY 82. The profile component of that is about 42% are work trips; 25% personal business; recreation represents 21% which would be higher in the summer and shopping is 4%. Passenger drop off is 2.5% and other is 6%. This transportation element is not about paid parking it is about how we can reduce congestion and quality of life. This all started two years ago with the community plan and Council appointed back in September of 1992 a committee to implement the plan. The goals are to create less congestion down town. The incentives and carrots have to be put in place first. There are positive benefits to the downtown merchants regarding this plan. It will improve parking availability. Long term parkers, employees and employers will be offered alternative parking; RFTA, car pooling and spaces around the core etc. We are trying to get them out of the single occupancy vehicle coming into town. Another goal is to reduce impacts in our residential neighborhoods. We have found that there are about 700 to 800 spill over cars of long term parkers in the neighborhoods. We do not see our neighborhoods as long term storage areas for cars. We have tried to design the plan to be equitable. The menu should meet the needs of numerous people coming into town. One of the key components is focusing on transit alternatives. There has been a lot of discussion about park and ride lots. We also feel there should be a series of lots before you come into town. We are looking at additional bus service downvalley and bus service from the park and ride lots. We are looking at establishing year round transit service and providing different vehicles that can go into different residential areas. Establishing HOV lanes between Brush Creek road and the City of Aspen. We figure there is about 18% of people who cannot use RFTA service. Possibly they can use the cab coupon program; dial a ride etc. We will also have information 2 Historio Preservation Committee Minutes of April X4, X993 centers. You will not have a successful program unless people understand what it is about. We also want to improve access around the core with more trails and cycle paths. We do not even have a sidewalk system on Main Street that is complete. The pay for parking system in town is the commercial core: Main, Monarch, Durant and Spring and we are looking at six days 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Every angle has been discussed. We are looking at the voucher system and will it be confusing or will it work. What it is, is a punch card and hanging it on the inside of the car window. The other side is resident parking and the concept is delineating a six block area from the commercial core. It will have signage and the residents will have the ability to park in their own area and on an interim basis until the east end parking facility is constructed. We would sell an all day parking pass for $6. a day on designated areas in the residential area. That is part of the overall management. We really do not have the facilities to put all these cars in. This has been discussed to death. Lodging properties would have parking permits available in residential areas and there would be an annual business parking permit available. We would add short term loading spaces designated on each block in town. COMMENTS Roger: Historically the individual meters would not be conducive to the atmosphere that is trying to be created in Aspen. The Marolt is designated and from my point of view using it from a drop off point would not be appropriate. The Marolt was also voted to be open space and it should be sacred open space. The truck loading areas are very interesting and are blocking different views throughout town. Diane: For clarification we are talking about short term delivery parking. Regarding the discussion of the Marolt it was determined that if anything should ever be there it should be underground due to the visual impacts and the open space issue. Jake: Explain the ticket box concept. Diane: They would have to be wired electrically and there would be one on each block. VICENZI BALCONY Kim Johnson: The city attorney informed me that since the streamlining process had not been codified yet as being legal he recommended that the two items being heard come back to the full HPC to be ratified. The conditions are stated that were discussed at the sub-committee meeting and you need to take a vote. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Aprll 14, 1993 Roger: On the Vicenzi balcony memo there needs to be an amendment as we do not know when the picture window was put in. The window on the left is original but we are not sure about the other. Jake: Who was on the sub-committee? Kim: Bill, Roger and Les. Bill: Everyone is encouraged to attend the sub-committee meetings. We are trying to simplify minor reviews for people who do not have to wait for public hearings or wait for a meeting date. When we have an issue Kim calls me and I find people who can attend. The applicant makes a brief presentation to the sub-committee and drawings are submitted. Jake: So the sub-committee felt that what was presented was relative to the standards. Bill: Yes. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC approve the 3 x 7 foot balcony addition replacement picture window with french doors at 201 W. Francis finding that it is compatible with the four standards along with the correction of dropping the word original; second by Martha. Ail in favor, motion carries. 120 W. FR~/NCIB Kim: 120 W. Francis was considered a relocation of the structure because it was being moved off of its foundation to another parcel so a better foundation can be built. Technically a bond would be required and conditions of approval have been met. Photographs, plans and a letter from the house movers saying that the structure is capable of being moved and actually moving the structure to the south east corner of the lot would be more safer than doing the foundation work under the house while it is in place. Bill: This was an inconsistency in the code where you find that people can do work to a structure with less than a 50% remodel and not have to come to the HPC. In this case they are lifting it and putting it back on a foundation and in the code it is considered a relocation. The committee felt that they met those requirements. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC approve the proposed temporary location of 120 W. Francis; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. ~ · Historic Preservation Committee Ninutes of &pril ~4, 1993 FIN&L DEVELOPMENT - 210 L~KE AVENUE Doug Graybeal, architect: It has been determined that the porch over the stairway cannot be done due to our site coverage. We would be over in site coverage. The house is broken into three massings. We located a picture from Mary Hayes and the front porch shows the same motif, a grid/curly pattern. We would like to retain the curly pattern. As far as siding we intend to go to a 4 3/4 with a 4 1/4 inch trim board in the middle addition and the back section will have the same trim size but a 5 1/2 board. So we are going in increments of 3/4 inch. I feel it is enough to break up the scale but not get the appearance of a subdivision home. Jack Frischman: How many square feet is that house? Doug: 3,800 and is just short of the height limit. Jack Frischman: When a house is historically designated why is it when they get through with it, it never has anything historic left. You can't recognize that the house is original. You allow them to build all they want. Bill: That is one of the problems with working with the code that allows them by right to have that amount of square footage. We do go through a public hearing and try to work with the applicant and he has been helpful to make changes to us to keep the identity of the original house and its revisions over time. We attempt to keep it as low as possible. We admit that a lot of houses have been unsuccessful in retaining what is original. We have become more sophisticated in our own process. Being on the inventory or designated is a means or control to get them to come in and try to work out an agreeable solution. Standards have to be met and it is a give and take situation. Roger: The other solution which we have been talking about is linking the old with the new. We have been trying to get a change. Bill: Doug's firm in this project does conform to the zoning and setbacks and it is a large lot. 10,000 square foot lot is three lots. COMMENTS Jake: The level of detailing on the addition vs the detailing on the original house. I do not remember all the shingle work being there. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of &prll 14, 1993 Doug: The client requested that we not do the windows up above in the gable and wanted something in a pattern. Jake: The original house is simple and there is a lot of complexity in the addition. Is it appropriate to take that intricate shingle work and detailing it in the addition. There is no real shingle work on the house. The idea is that the addition not be competitive with the original house. Doug: To me it was a change from the original miners cottage which is very simple and this will separate the addition from the original. The complexity is the tower element in the back. It is a progression and I felt if we kept it too simple it would blend in too much. We have the subtle size of material that is changing in each addition. Jake: What is your thinking of the horizontal windows with a grid? Doug: There is a stairway behind both of them and it was the intent to make them like a jewel with beveled glass to let light into the stair well. It is not meant for a view windows. Just to break it up. Jake: I think the siding concept is great and I like the idea of simplification. I realize what you are trying to do but they are eyeball elements in the composition. They are the only two horizontal windows with grids. Bill: Do you feel smaller more square cottage type windows would be more appropriate? MOTIONs Bill entertained the motion granting final approval based on the information provided in the Staff memo dated April 14, 1993 and that the materials have been submitted at this meeting and that the conditions of conceptual and final have been met for 210 Lake Avenue. Martha: I so move; second by Linda. Chairman; Carried 3-2. In favor: Bill, Jake and Roger. Question was called by the Martha and Linda. Opposed ZSZ E. HALI~%M - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Wayne Stryker, architect: We originally thought of this as a contemporary thing and make it contemporary but through the meetings we decided to integrate historical parts of the house and contemporary. We decided to take the massing and simplify the detailing. I feel the design has improved. Some people are very hot or cold about this house as it has the 70 style addition. The 6 Historlo Preservation Committee Minutes of ~pril 14, 1993 detailing of the addition is simplified. We did an analysis of the second empire style of the old house and developed those into the appearance of what we are proposing. The addition would have the same siding but the roofing material would be different. Bill: Wayne is asking the Board to approve the revisions to his conceptual design and also asking for final approval which means submitting details on how he is going to build this building and samples of building materials. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Jake: The letter is one of the best letters ever written to this Board. The research, thinking and philosophy, approach and strategy is very consistent and appropriate to what this Board supports. I feel the design is extremely compatible and does exactly what it should do. The changes are excellent. Roger: I concur with the letter and the mass and scale work with our standards. The fenestration on the north side is non-competing with the original and the other addition. The fenestration on the west side is compatible. The south elevation (street view) is competing with the original building. Wayne: The south fenestration came about as the owners wanted light. Roger: The shape and size of the fenestration and the width of the trim surrounding it is quite large. It stands out. Linda: The south elevation is a of the windows and doesn't' flow. little different. little competing with the shape The windows could be shaped a Martha: This project is difficult because it is as though we are going to loose another old building due to the additions. Bill: I feel this is a compatible additional and the style works well with the new and old. Since it is a one bedroom studio I can see the architectural intent of having the north and south windows be complementary and the east and west windows be complementary. When you read the south elevation and the designer or architect tries to represent what is going on in the back they tend to read and have a lot more impact to the south elevation. I do not feel the window will ever be perceived from the street. If you look for it you would see it. The consensus of the Board is giving approval to the conceptual revisions. We would have to go through materials and details if Final is to be given. 7 Historic Preservation Co~ittee Minutes of April 14, 1993 Bill: Sometimes a study model is necessary but I realize this addition is small. Wayne: This is on a cad system and I can show exactly how that would appear from the street. Roger: My other question is the trim width and is it exactly depicted? Wayne: The reason that line is so heavy is that a roof exists and we were keeping the insulation of R-30 through that dormer. Roger: I am dealing with the standards as to whether it detracts or adds to the original structure and the new addition. I feel the window fenestration on the south side should be the same on the west side. I feel that would be a simple statement. Linda: I also feel the windows should be in keeping with the main structure. Martha: I do not feel strongly either way. Wayne: I will study that issue. Jake: I understand what you are doing taking the old and new and mixing it together and a restudy is appropriate. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC deny final approval and that one condition of conceptual has been met and upon receipt of proper drawings designating exact scale of trim and materials final could be granted; second by Martha. DISCUSSION Jake: I feel the applicant should receive final approval and pass this onto a monitor. I will volunteer to be that monitor if the board deems so. Regarding final the applicant has talked about the roofing material and he has said that the materials in general are the same as the old house and that the detailing is similar to the detailing on the old addition and. he has given the simplified cornice going around the perimeter of the roof. The only detailing in question is the trim and window treatment on the north and south. The drawings represent the roofing and siding. Bill: You could table it and revert it to the sub-committee. Roger: I didn't want to deny it, tabling would be appropriate. AMENDED MOTION: Roger made the motion to grant final approval with H~s~or~c Preserv&~on Committee Hinutes of April L4~ ~993 the condition that the architect submit drawings to the monitor and restudy the fenestration on the south elevation; second by Martha. All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. DISCUSSION Bill: For clarification Jake is concerned about the thickness of the detailing on the north and south elevation. 234 W. FRANCIB - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Kim: The principle residence is going to be remodeled inside and the majority of work will be focused on the carriage house and the addition to make a bathroom and legal living quarters. Staff agrees with the request for a setback variance. John Schenck, Project Manager for Cunniffe & Associates: This house is at 234 W. Francis and is the Davis-Waite house and built 1896 by Governor Waite and he was the only populist governor. We want to keep the historic style of the house. On the main house the structural engineer stated that the house needs under pined. The interior remodel requires the roof to be restructured. The client also has requested an additional window on the north side of the structure. On the carriage house we want to make this deed restricted dwelling unit and that requires a bathroom and in doing so we will add a 9x9 ft. bathroom. We have it located on the eastern edge of the building on the north side trying to hide it from street view and keep the context of a small building. The cottage needs raised to make head room for a nice accessory dwelling unit and loft space that the client has requested. We propose to do that by putting in a stone base or water table under the existing structure and also building a new foundation. Since we are building a new foundation we are going to use storage in the basement. We also have a window at the western elevation of the carriage house. We will try to match the details and proportions of the existing building. A door has also been proposed to enter into the back yard. We will add a parking space even though it is not required. The total of the ADU would be 694 Sq. Ft. CLARIFICATIONS: Roger: You said you had roof modifications, will the roof be opened up or what? John Schenck: I am not exactly sure but if it does get opened up it would be replaced as is. Roger: The carriage house does not have a foundation presently. Does the existing house have a foundation? 9 C C Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 14, 1993 John: The ground has sunk and has reached to the point of the siding. The structural engineer said the foundation is just sinking. Roger: You are underpinning from the inside. John: Yes, we will underpin from the inside of the original house and for the carriage house we would lift it straight up and replace it and move it to the side. Roger: You would have to have a bond and we wanted you to be aware of that. Martha: On the landuse form it says no-onsite parking? John: That is existing and we would provide parking and conform to the code. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Belinda Freischman, neighbor: I am thrilled with this proposal and it is such a treat to see something that isn't lot line to lot line in the west end. It is wonderful to have clients that want to preserve the old house. Our fears were that they were going to raise the little house and destroy our view of the mountain. Our house is a duplex and we face Smuggler. Our co-owners face the alley and we do not want them looking at the parking. Esther Devoul: How far does the carriage house go on the east property line. John: One foot from property line. Esther: going? Where is the eight feet addition on the carriage house John: It is going on the alley side. Esther: Then in actuality the view from my place will not change. Public: I am also concerned about the parking area and the view from the duplex. John: We will preserve all the trees on that edge. Martha: I am not clear where the setback on the drawing is. John: The setback on the side yard is a ten foot setback. Our