Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920408Historic Preservation committee Minutes of ~pril 8, 1992 FINAL DEVELOPMENT 700 W. FRANCIS 715 W. SMUGGLER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT LANDMARK DESIGNATION - 134 E. BLEEKER - PUBLIC HEARING 320 S. GALENA - VOLK PLAZA SEATING - MINOR DEVELOPMENT CANTINA COURTYARD TREE REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT - WORKSESSION 10 12 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 8, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Karen Day, Martha Madsen and Linda Smisek present. Don was excused. Martha did not vote. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of March 18, 1992; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of March 19, 1992; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. FINAL DEVELOPMENT 700 W. FRANCIS Roxanne Eflin presented the overview of the project as attached in records. Roxanne: The proposal is for an enlargement and partial demolition onsite relocation and is asking for setback variations. You will be looking at three sets of standards: Development Review standards, Relocation Standards and the Partial Demolition Standards. There were four conditions of conceptual approval and I feel three were met. The condition that the applicant shall restudy the design to show the delineation of old and new and materials to be used needs to be addressed. In reviewing that I feel the intent has not been met. Regarding the side yard setback variation they have studied more about the trees and they are going to be moving the addition further to the east 1 1/2 feet so the total setback will be 2 1/2 feet. They are asking for a number of variations. It will be a combined front and rear yard setback variation plus a west side yard set back variation. The outbuilding they are asking for a rear yard variation and an east side yard setback. You have every combination of side yard setback imaginable that they are asking variations for. The primary issue for you all is the transition and now the new is being added to the old. Standard one has not yet been met unless you find that the transition has been accomplished. The rest that they are proposing meets that standard because of compatibility, the materials, form, scale etc. Standard #2 is fine and Standard #3 has been met in my opinion except if you consider that an addition like this or modification to a cottage of this nature will then make it ineligible for register listing. If you consider that to be a detraction from cultural value then you need to address that. #4 is about the architectural integrity and they are now proposing a domed skylight that needs addressed. The partial demolition standards are fine. The two issues of the relocation standards are the financial guarantee which we are working on and will be a requirement prior to the issuance of a Building Permit and working out the relocation. We also will need a project monitor. The partial demolition and relocation standards have been met with the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Aprll 8, 1992 exception of the detailed relocation plan and financial security. Applicant Presentation Gretchen Greenwood: I will respond to the review standards. The first one is compatibility with the design structure. In order to do the addition along the back we are going to have to rebuild most of the structure to the west and to the rear portion of the property in order to preserve the existing trees. Any kind of construction to this house could potentially disrupt the growth of the trees. We intend to keep the house as far away from the trees as possible. One tree will be relocated to the south of the property. We will work with the Parks Dept. on tree location or replacement. Two trees will be affected to the rear of the property. Our landscape plan at this point is to the patio area. It is only three feet below the grade and we are going to put a planting bed that steps at 18 inches and then again at 18 inches. There is a mild transition. We will rebuild the existing fence and keep it in the same location. It is a little out of the property line and we are not sure if you are concerned about that or not. Doug McPherson, owner: How do I keep our dog in because the fence is not adequate? Roxanne: The guidelines are very clear about fences and stockade fences are allowed to the rear of the parcel. Fences to the front of the parcel need to be open in nature if you choose to have a fence in front. Doug: We thought about doing a victorian metal fence and can I make it to keep the dog in? Roxanne: We need to see the fence design. Gretchen: It is an unresolved issue and if we have to come in again we can do so. Doug: Lets solve it right now and if we do that kind of a fence can we make it a little taller. Gretchen: I propose to keep it like the other one. Bill: We can go along with the fence presented and if the applicant decides to make an amendment they can do so. Gretchen: We will be using the sandstone around the planting bed and using the sandstone pavers. The house will stay in the same alignment but moved forward fen feet in order to accommodate for 2 Historic Preservation Committee M~nutes of ~pril 8, 1992 the addition in the back. To show delineation between old and new we have kept the existing roof line the same as the old roof line so that we don't have an addition overwhelms the existing building. We have chosen to keep the addition to the back quiet in detail. The siding will be a different size we are going from a 4 1/2 to a 5 1/2 siding. If we can, we will use some of the existing siding. Windows will have simple fenestration. We want to maintain a sandstone base because it keeps the bottom of the building clean and it is a maintenance situation. To change the roof pitch is a contrived situation because of the lines of the house and the form of the building should be maintained. In the stairwell is where we are making the transition between the existing building and the new building. The new building has been designed to be a split level to this existing building that allows us to maintain this lower roof height. The skylight is needed because it is dark and we have very low plate heights with the mansard roof so there is not a lot of sun. There will be no ornamentation but we will keep the shingles. The addition is compatible in character with all the guidelines with massing, roof pitches, etc. Because we haven't' decided to build over in this location we have maintained 90% of the view that residents of Aspen see, the east, west and south sides. On the partial demolition standards we are doing a partial demolition on the back of the house. Regarding relocation standards the house can be moved. We will run two 12 by 14 eye beams north and south of the building and six by six beams perpendicular to the eye beans. The four large beams will be lifted up by a crane, moving the building three to four feet above where it stands now. We will move it as far forward as we can in order to do excavation then we will move it back. The chimneys will be taken off and stockpiled and sandstone will be removed at the same time the building is raised up. We will be reusing the existing windows and glazing in the window and the new windows are a totally new proportion and they are in the application. Susan McPherson: We are going to reverse the trim paint. Gretchen: We have a basement that we are putting into the building and we are required to use 200 sq. ft. of our FAR and we managed that. We would like to add two windows for egress out of the basement and we also want to add windows on the west side of the window well basement area also. The windows are similar to the ones at Ann Miller's house. Gretchen: Basically we wouldn't see the skylight but you would see the parapet. Roger: What I suggested was if the trim was green and the house was white, on the new, reverse that color. 3 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of Aprll 8, 1992 Les: Will you have some metal grading over the window wells etc.? Gretchen: A fence will be provided due to the way it steps down. The window well will be very shallow, only six feet. It will be three feet below grade. Joe: To differentiate the old and new possibly the shingles could play a part. With respect to the scale and detailing along the roofline are those going to be the same width? Gretchen: The old part of the building will be different than the new part. Joe: From the plans it looks the same. Roger: Is there anyway to lower the skylight and not have the siding, just the bubble part showing. Gretchen: Yes that can be done. Roger: You mentioned that the sandstone on the site is large and it could be cut and used. Doug McPherson, owner: We cut it down to face the cement block because we are making a new foundation. We will still have to use some new. Roger: Do you have enough sandstone to face the original portions of the house the south side and the east side? Gretchen: Yes, we will face out with the original sandstone. And possibly we can use new and old in the new portion of the house. Roger: Are the windows placed per the code? Gretchen: Yes, light and ventilation and egress. Roger: Is it possible rather than have the double hung to have the windows similar to the other two which is more similar to a basement window and still allow egress. Gretchen: It is possible to change those. serve the needs of the client. The windows chosen Roger: This house could be a landmark house; could it still be a landmark with the addition proposed? Roxanne: No, as this addition is large. 4 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of &pti1 8, 1992 Linda: Will the dumb waiter from the kitchen to the existing basement be lost with this addition or attempted to be retained or used? Susan: That room is not workable as a kitchen. Roxanne: They are planning a complete demolition on the inside. Gretchen: We are only removing one wall. Roger: There was no comment about the building in the back. Gretchen: It is still 12 by 20. Roger: In general we need to discuss color changes on houses depicting the old and new. Roxanne: We dictate color of major materials, roofing, sandstone and brick. Roger: We aren't dictating different. What happens down want it different. color we are saying it has to be the road when they say they don't Roxanne: You can make that condition but it is a zoning issue. Karen: Was there any discussion of making the siding look like a barn? Gretchen: We thought we would stay the same as the building with the lap siding as the addition has, so it looks like it was built at the same era. Board Clarifications Les stepped down. Les: This is a wonderful victorian that we are loosing and I do not feel you meet the development review standards 2 or 3 or the relocation standards one and two. FAR is allowable but not guaranteed. To me it will be a visual disaster, a personification of all that has gone wrong in the west end and HPC is setting a dangerous precedent to let this scale and mass go through on this project and I wish you good luck with the project. Jake: I feel the addition is quite large. I voted for conceptual based on a restudy of that and we worked on that at the worksession and I gave you my ideas. I am not convinced that it is working. Histor~o Preservation Committee Minutes of ~pril 8, 1992 Certain tools can be used to mitigate a large addition on a smaller house such as the use of an architectural hyphen, change in materials and details and use of a less prominent massing or secondary massing. Making small variations and the exposure of the shingles or siding and the thickness of the trim to me is not strong enough to create the affect that is necessary. A clear example is the Crocket house, you can tell what is old and what is new and that is all I am looking for. Gretchen: Blanket solutions are not always the correct way to go. I have a problem when I hear it is too large, too large. We are keeping the shed for the community, trees, east lawn, height etc. This is a three bedroom house and one of the bedrooms is only 10 by 11. Martha: I like this project but I have trouble with the encroachment and setback which I have stated before. I have some concern with the detail. Linda: Is the neighbor to the west satisfied with the fact that the house is 10 feet forward and possibly she will loose the sunlight? Gretchen: She is satisfied and we sat down with her and moved the house over and worked the issues out. Roger: We should ask that the paint be reversed as a possibility. The original sandstone should only be placed on the original house and the new sandstone would be different and placed on the new portion. Also that the skylight be lowered so that you don't have siding showing around it. As far as the setbacks go the only problem was the neighbor and that seems to be solved. Karen: I am in favor of the house and differentiating between the old and new should be determined by the architect instead of HPC making that decision for them. Bill: I feel it is easy to tell the difference between the old and new on these plans. As far as changing the color in this particular case, they want to be sympathetic and use similar detailing. I feel it would be odd to use two different colors. It is always hard to add on to the small victorians and today's family needs can not live in 1200 sq. ft. Bill: Issues to be included in the motion are: Findings that the side yard and rear yard variations are more compatible with the historic structure. In order to save the trees on the east, a side yard variation and to keep a more compatible out building and garage structure on the alley. The skylight to be lowered. The 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 8, 1992 original sandstone left on the historic portion and the new sandstone on the new. The financial security must be approved by the city Attorney prior to the issuance of a building permit. Detailed relocation plan. combined front and rear yard setback. Combined side yard setback and a west and east setback variation and rear yard setback. Roxanne: The trees are very important on this parcel and the Board has to decide whether or not they want a statement in the motion that if anything happens to the trees that they be replaced etc. There are three trees that are going to be removed and a new one added. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant final development approval for 700 W. Francis finding that the application has met the development review standards; partial demolition standards; relocation standards, and also finding that we should grant the east side yard, west side yard, combined front and rear side yard, and the combined east and west side yard variations finding that the variations are more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimension requirements of the code. Also we have the conditions that the existing sandstone to the extent possible be used for the original structure; that the new sandstone to the extent possible be used for the new structure; that the applicant will preserve the existing trees on the property and if any are damaged that they be appropriately replaced. Financial security be posted and appropriate documents executed and approved by the City Attorney and that there be a detailed relocation plan submitted to Staff and monitor; second by Roger. Discussion: Joe: My concern on the skylight they were talking about 5'6" plate heights and I am not sure how the skylight would affect that. Gretchen said the skylight would be completely hidden behind the parapet wall. AMENDED MOTION: Joe amended the motion that the applicant have the abillty to lower the skylight or ensure that it is completely hidden behind the parapet wall; second by Roger. AMENDED MOTION: Joe amended the motion that HPC encourage to the extent possible to differentiate the use of materials and detailing between old and new; dies for lack of a second. Motion and amended motion carries 5-2. VOTE: No, Jake and Linda Yes, Bill, Roger, Martha, Joe, Karen Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of &pti1 8, 1992 Don Erdman is monitor of project. Bill Poss will be alternate monitor. 715 W. SMUGGLER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: They are seeking a variation for the side yard setback and the reduction of two parking spaces. Staff recommends final development approval. Gretchen Greenwood, architect: On the east side we are adding a gazebo which has its own roofline. We are moving the original car port in five feet as required by zoning and asking for an east side yard setback in order to not disrupt the landscape and gardens. The garage is as small as possible. Joe: Do we need to have an extensive discussion of this proposal since it is the same thing we saw at conceptual. Roger: It is the same except for the two windows on the property line. Gretchen: The neighbors prefer the windows. Karen: Why is the roof line the way it is on the garage? Gretchen: It is a flat roof and we will provide a little detail to match some of the detailing on the house. Karen: Is there a way to do a carriage style door? Gretchen: I feel the applicant would want an electric door but can make the front look like a carriage door. MOTION: Joe made the motion that the HPC grant Final Development approval for 715 W. Francis finding that the proposal meets the development review standards; granting the side yard and parking variations finding that the variations are more compatible in character to the historic resource that would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Also that the applicant restudy the design of the garage doors to have a more carriage feel; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. LANDMARK DESIGNATION - 134 E. BLEEKER - PUBLIC HEARING Jake and Bill stepped down. Joe chaired. 8 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of April 8, 1992 Roxanne: Staff is recommending landmark designation on this parcel finding that it meets standards B, E and F of the landmark designation standards for architectural importance and neighborhood influence and contribution to the community character. This structure was relocated to this parcel; however, the out building is original. We have designated other parcels such as 715 W. Smuggler that were moved. Relocations were not uncommon in this town. Chairman opened the public hearing. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC recommend landmark designation of 134 E. Bleeker Street finding that the designation standards B, E and F have been met. For the record we note that the house was moved to the parcel at a date uncertain and that the outbuilding is in fact an original building to that parcel; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. 320 S. GALENA - VOLK PLAZA SEATING - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: There will be planters and trash receptacles. In many ways this application is appropriate for this parcel because the building is new and contemporary but is compatible with the historic district. It was reviewed extensively by the HPC and the corner is required open space. They are increasing the seating. There has not be an established vocabulary of street furniture in the commercial core. Don Fleisher, owner: We do not like the present furniture and the wood material has not be successful. People carve on it etc. and food gets into the cracks. I have been working with Dick Fallin on the plans. Roger: Do you feel fiberglass plastic is an appropriate material to be used in throughout the mall? Don: I wouldn't suggest it for the entire city. The public impact on this spot is so severe that maintenance is critical. People want to be at this area. This provides the maximum amount of seating and is easy to maintain. In another areas of the mall probably a different type of material would be appropriate. The benches would be anchored into the concrete. Karen: I feel the wire benches are appropriate but am concerned about the seating placement. Don: It will function like the current benches are. Roger: Could you use all flat benches. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of &pti1 8, 1992 Joe: I like a combination of flat benches and the ones with the backs. Karen: With the flat benches you have the option to turn toward the courtyard or toward the street. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the minor development of the Volk Plaza 320 S. Galena as presented; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. CANTINa COURTYARD TREE REMOVAL/REPL&CEMENT - WORKSESSION Roxanne: There are existing norway maple trees with aphids. They want to remove the trees. They also have an idea of constructing four wood columns that would support a beam across the top that would then have extending slats (trellis) and hanging plants could be placed. The definition of open space is open to the sky. Bill: The trellis is a landscape feature and the applicant wanted that feeling in the courtyard. We also thought the structure would give the appropriate line along Main Street. Roger: The trees were part of the approval. special review. put in and they don't work but they were The applicant would have to go through a Roxanne: How does the HPC feel about having the trees replaced with other trees. Maybe the trellis gives the area a better feeling in the winter. Jake: There are two things occurring, a perimeter treatment and the interior. Joe: I like the shade in the summer with the trees. Bill: Should we sponsor a code amendment and how long does it take. Roxanne: Three to four months for a code amendment. Roger: What about a parachute connected to the tree. Jake: What about taking it to the Health Dept. and going to Council and getting approval for the removal of the trees. Roxanne: I see this as two fold, removal of the trees and the replacement plan. I would suggest they go to P&Z and get the GMQS plan amended. 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Aprll 8, 1992 Steve Schubert, manager: We have had this problem for a long time. We need to get it resolved soon. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Bill. favor, motion carries. Ail in Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11