Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920422HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 22, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Jake Vickery, Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Roger Moyer, Linda Smisek, Karen Day and Martha Madsen present. Les Holst was excused. MOTION~ Roger made the motion to approve the March 25, 1992 minutes; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roger: Numerous members of HPC received a letter from Adam Waltam and I feel he deserves a response. Along with the concept of a tax break possibly something could occur if historic houses are kept within the immediate families. Deeded to family members in order to help the elderly. Roxanne: Donating a facade easement to a 501C39 to get tax breaks has been set up for some time. At that time an endowment fund is set up by the family. There is a worksession scheduled for Tuesday April 28, with the P&Z at 4:30. Added issues to be discussed will be FAR calculation methods; CAD system. Three additional awards for Preservation Week: Ruth White's house, Court house district court room remodel and the HPC's 20th anniversary. We had discussion at the last mtg. about Don Erdman's house being nominated for an infill project. Bill: We may have a problem with giving an award to a project that now does not conform to a code issue, because it is built into the setbacks overlooking the lake. When Don's house was built the Hallam Lake ACES group discovered more and more houses were starting to look into their sanctuary which they are trying to keep relatively pristine and in a natural state. They got enacted an ESA review requirement for houses being built. Roxanne said lets not have this backfire from anybody else who wants to build into the setback saying that we awarded a design that doesn't conform to the setback. I feel we are honoring a piece of architecture that is an infill project fitting in from the street or historic nature. Don: The house has two faces, the historic is on the streetscape side and the other architecture is basically contemporary. The contemporary design, the rear area, is projecting into the ESA overlay. Bill: We just want to make sure we are not setting a precedent. Jake: That rule was not enforced at the time he built and we wanted to discuss this openly at the meeting to make other members aware in case this is brought up. Roxanne: Cantina Trees: They are taking the trees out and Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 22, 1992 replacing them with potted aspen trees as the other trees have aphids. We had talked about a trellis but that is not allowed. They are proposing a 2 1/2 to 3 feet pots with eight foot tall Aspens. If the Board has no problems I will sign off. Roxanne: Harley Baldwin: Presented a design for a cafe in the open space of the court yard. He has to go through the P&Z in order to get a temporary use in required open space. This is all non-fixed furniture. He is going to do a tara-cotta color canvas umbrella over five tables with a wrought iron fence around. If the Board has no problem with the design I will sign off. RESOLUTION #3 1992 Bill: This is a resolution supporting the creation of statewide property tax credits for historic resources. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve resolution 3, 1992; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. 17 QUEEN STREET - PUBLIC HEARING - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. MOTION: Roger made the motion to continue to the public hearing of 17 Queen Street to May 13, 1992; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. 134 E. BLEEKER - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Bill and Jake stepped down. Martha seated. (voting are Karen, Don, Joe, Linda, Roger, Martha Joe seated as chairman. Roxanne Eflin presented the overview of the project as attached in records. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting approval which consists of partial demolition and expansion and three variations that consist of a parking reduction of one space, west side yard setback and a FAR variation of 500 square feet. The ordinance for landmark designation was approved on first reading by City Council and second reading is scheduled for May llth. After that time the applicant can apply for final development approval. The positive aspect of this project is the cottage infill unit that will be developed into the carriage house and also the general preservation aspects that go along with the original cottage. With corner parcels the facade is more than just the front of the house, it is 2 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of ~pril 22, 1992 an angular type of thing. The view is of great public concern and needs to be preserved. The problems with the addition are height, massing, FAR, and it is larger than the cottage. A positive aspect of the project is the hyphen which Jake has very effectively worked in there. It is a very clear separation between old and new. The materials are compatible and the general scale and proportion is fine for the overall size of it. In order to grant variations you have to make findings stating that it is more compatible with the historic resource than would be underlying dimensional requirements. The side yard setback should be looked at very carefully. I do support the parking variation of one space because there will be two parking spaces left on the parcel but they are required to have three. The fourth bedroom in the accessory dwelling is not required because it is going to be a deed restricted ADU. You need to look at the close proximity between the west elevation edge and the east elevation of the adjacent structure. They are asking for a full FAR variation of 500 square feet. You need to determine if that much of a variation is more compatible to the historic resource. You are going to have to find that the design of the addition is more compatible to grant this. Roxanne: Let me explain the FAR bonus with the cottage: Through the cottage infill program which is a separate program from the FAR variation that they are asking for from you all, they are able to get a bonus of FAR. They do not have to make a finding of compatibility. As an incentive that we created for the accessory dwelling unit they are able to get a bonus on FAR. The maximum they can ask for is 50% of the amount of the square footage of the unit provided it is all above grade. The unit is very small and barely meets their 300 sq. ft. net livable requirement. Another concern is the projecting bay and the change that would be made to the original cottage. The beauty of this cottage is its simple working class form and adding elements that "cute" it up is not preservation. Adding windows is an appropriate solution due to the way it faces, overhangs etc. and light is necessary. The partial demolition standards have been met. The demolition portion is toward the rear of the building and its loss would not diminish the integrity of the building. Applicant Presentations Kim Weil and Andy Wisnowski from Poss & Associates made the presentation. Andy: The clients have been in the Aspen area for seven years and the intent is that they will retire here and make this their family residence. Kim: Presently the house is 1350 square feet and the proposal Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of ~pril 22, 1992 would be a three bedroom which would make it around 3200 sq. ft. and one bedroom is in the basement. The house is not that big in its final form. We have tried to mitigate and make the addition within the scale of the neighborhood. We created more interest by keeping the two historical buildings in place and the addition in the middle back. That is part of the reason for the variance which gives prominence to the two historic buildings. We have kept the 16 foot repetition in roof pitches so there is a lot of continuity through the project. Andy: We are requesting the demolition of an existing kitchen which is 312 sq. feet which included an upper bedroom that was tucked up in the roof. We also have an exemption of 500 square feet in the garage area which we are revamping and reusing the existing carriage house/barn. Roxanne: That 500 foot exemption applies to access by an alley and this bldg. is accessed by the side street. We may have to get a clarification from Zoning. Andy: We are exempting 500 sq. ft. for the garage area, so that the total FAR reduction is approximately 812 sq. ft. The proposed addition is around 1789 sq. ft. and the net increase is basically 977 sq. ft. Kim: The additional footage (430) includes overhangs, balconies and the stairway that aren't necessarily bulk and mass. Andy: If we did away with the overhangs etc. that Kim mentioned we would loose valuable points in the design that help us make this a more successful project. Kim: We are trying to create a rhythm here within the neighborhood with this lot. Andy: The height is set by a seven foot plate height on the upper level so we are not trying to get extremely high ceilings on the upper level for living space. The design is four to five feet below the height restriction that we are allowed, even though it is higher than what is there. By setting the addition back we are trying to preserve view planes. The addition is not trying to replicate anything other than the basic massing. We thought the materials should be complementary but not actual representations in detail or design to the original structure. We have gone to siding shakes that are a little larger. We feel this is the most sensitive way to handle the situation and maintain the integrity of the two charming little structures. Questions or clarifications: H~s~or~c PreseL*v&t~on Committee ~inutes of &pr~l 22, 1992 Don: Regarding the addition of the new cross gable on the west side of the existing cottage when I look at the plan I cannot see anyway in which that cross gable is assisting you in the plan. Half of it is taken up by a closet that doesn't require a window and the other half of the area underneath the cross gable is a bath which is only helped marginally by the cross gable. For the changes to the existing cottage I do not think you are getting the full use in terms of internal planning. Andy: To maintain circulation that will be added from the link of hyphen we basically have to put space back on that side and the gable end will allow us to get headroom for those spaces. Don: Your proposed new cross gable shows a dandy little window in a place where you are not proposing it in the plan. I know you didn't do this but I find this to be fallacious representation of the drawings. Andy: These drawings were prepared and then Jake and the applicant refined them in design on what you are seeing here. The model is more accurate. It is too my knowledge that what we represent is a window on that west side and is needed in the plan. These are conceptual drawings. Karen: Andy, you said you were changing the siding on the new, what is the siding going to be since that is one of the most outstanding features of the property as it exists. Andy: One by eight lap siding that is larger in depth to give it more of a definite transition to what is there now. Karen: What is the purpose of adding the bay window, because it looks like a very large space without that. Andy: The purpose is light and that sort of addition is complementary and attractive to that side of the elevation. The bay also offers a lot to interior space. Roger: Justify the need for the bay window and if it were approved would you build it in the exact scale as the existing miners cottage or would you change it. Are the windows on the bay the exact same size as the windows on the cottage. Andy: Light for that side of the house and it is a desirable side of the house to look out on. It is not uncommon to have bay windows on victorians and adds a three dimensional element to the elevation. In maintaining that bay window would be how well it is detailed in making it blend in with the materials that are there. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of Xprll 22, 1992 The intent is to have them the exact size as existing. Roger: Could you live without the cross gable? Andy: At this point I would say no. I do not think that addition would demean from the street scape. Roger: If the gable were installed, the fenestration on the gable is quite different from anything on the original cottage, should that be an exact copy or different. Andy: You should not try to replicate. Roger: What will the foundation of the new structure be? Kim: The existing are shallow concrete block which leads me to believe that at some point they were moved to this location and we will use concrete block for the new addition also. Committee Member Comments: Don: These buildings are extremely simple and any new bay addition is absolutely out because it changes the character of the two facades. The expression should be totally bland and anything decorative is not going to be appropriate. Karen: I wanted to thank the applicant for doing the massing model and saving the structure in the alley. I have no problem with the gable due to it being hidden. On the east elevation it has completely lost its character due to the bay window, the glass door and garage. I would be in favor of keeping the natural siding in any way you can. Roger: In relationship to standard #1 is it compatible in character with the historic structures on the parcel, I think it is too large in mass and scale. The bay window is not acceptable as far as compatibility, perhaps two windows added in would be. The gable to the west if it has to be included needs to be modest and simple. We are dealing with a simple miners cottage. Regarding standard #3 the fenestration needs simplified. The demolition standards have been met. Modest and simplification is what is needed. I would recommend tabling. I would like to compliment you on a good presentation and the massing model. Martha: I sympathize with the situation and if I had this property would definitely want to expand it. My concern is the encroachment into the setbacks and I am basically against giving up any setbacks around property. I am standing firm with staying in the setbacks. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 22, 1992 Joe: I do not have a problem with the addition being taller and the massing being somewhat larger than the historic residence but would deal with it through simplification so that it becomes less dominant. I am going to concentrate on the conceptual aspect as opposed to looking at the fenestration and the detailing of the doors but that needs restudied on the addition. At this point I could not justify the 500 sq. ft. FAR variation. Possibly some of the overhangs could be eliminated. I have no problem with the side yard variation because it enhances the east lawn which is one of the principal facades. I reiterate what everyone else has said about the bay window. It is not compatible. I don't have an objection to the gable end on the west elevation and it would blend in and is not a principal facade. I have no problem with the conceptual development of the outbuilding. The partial demolition standards have been met. Roger: The setback opens up the entire area. Andy: As far as the setbacks based on the map the structure is close to the property line. Martha: What is the square footage of the lot? Andy: 4500 sq. feet. Don: The height in the roof I don't find objectionable as long as the architectural approach to the new construction is appropriate and does not compete. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing Applicants response. Andy: To force this project to be lower in height would be detrimental to the final product and to the applicants needs. Don: No one is adamant about lowering the roof and we are aware of programmatic requirements. Andy: I get the feeling that height and bulk is not a big issue and the setback is not an issue which is very important. The Board has concern with the 500 sq. feet. Kim: 375 feet of the 500 is for the caretaker unit and the rest is for the hyphen and overhangs and articulation of the addition. Roger: Possibly there would be a way to lower the basement further to make the roof heights even to address Karen's concern. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Aprll 22, 1992 MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC table the action and continue the public hearing to a date certain May 13th to allow the applicant to revise the proposal submitted as per input received from the HPC for 134 E. Bleeker; second by Donnelley. Ail in favor, motion carries. Joe: Plans need to be submitted to Roxanne by May 1st. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Ail in Kathy Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk