Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19911218ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of December 18, 1991 Meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. by Chairman, Bill Poss, with Don Erdman, Glenn Rappaport, Jake Vickery, Les Holst, Karen Day and Martha Madsen present. Joe Krabacher was excused. Both alternates (Karen and Martha) were seated. Roger Moyer arrived late (Note: Jake left during new business discussion, prior to the vote on 700 W. Francis, Roger was seated then.) General staff and Committee member comments Staff reminded HPC of annual Christmas Party, scheduled for December 19, from 5:00 8:00 p.m. at Les Holst's house. Staff informed the HPC that City Council adopted the new Planning office fees schedule, which includes modest flat fees for all historic preservation applications effective January 1, 1992, the first time in the program's 20 year history. Resolution #13, 1991 was read into record, commending Glenn Rappaport on his two years of service to the HPC. This was Glenn's last meeting, due to his resignation caused by moving out of the city. 700 W. FRANCIS ST. LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Bill POSS: We have before us under New Business the project at 700 West Francis Street. Would staff please present. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting Landmark Designation and Conceptual Development approval which includes Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation and Expansion. They are also asking for setback variations, and approval to demolish the outbuilding at the alley. 700 W. Francis is a gem of a house. It is one of the best remaining examples of cottage architecture in Aspen. It is eligible as it currently sits for listed on the State Register of Historic Places, and may be eligible for listing on the National Register as well. I have also informed the applicants that they are eligible to receive a 20% state rehabilitation income tax credit for the property. The Planning office thanks the applicant for submitting a detailed and thorough application and drawings. My memo separated out each aspect of the project. First is Landmark Designation, and we find that Standards A, B, C, E and F are met. If you have no further comments or clarifications on this aspect, you should recommend designation by Council in your motion. The Development Review Standards require that all four be met in order for the application to be approved. Our concerns in response to Standard #1 focus on the relative large size of the addition in its relation to the cottage, and feel that a reduction is necessary in order for the proposal to meet this standard, and be able to meet the finding necessary in order for setback variations to be granted. find Standard #2 has been met, as additions are common in We Aspen. We find that the restoration aspects of the proposal meet Standard #3, however, we believe that due to the extent of the proposed addition the property may no longer be eligible for listing on the State and especially National Register of Historic Places, which does detract from its cultural value. We strongly encourage the applicant to reconsider the proposal in order to protect the ability now or in the future for the property to be listed on the Register. We find that Standard #4 has not been met, and feel that more time is necessary to restudy and review the project in order for it to meet this standard. The memo is self explanatory under partial demolition and on- site relocation standards. Are there any questions? (none) I have listed a number of alternatives for you to consider when taking action on this application tonight. The Planning office recommends that the HPC recommend Landmark Designation for 700 West Francis St., and table the remainder of the application to allow the applicant additional time for restudy. Your restudy requirements should be specific. The Public Hearing should be continued to a date certain. Are there any clarifications of staff? Gretchen Greenwood presented, on behalf of the applicant, the Doug and Susan McPherson. Gretchen: The McPhersons have been residents of Aspen for 25 years. This house is very dilapidated and hasn't been live in on a full-time basis for 20 years. Now it will be restored. The most important aspects of the house are the ornate detailing and combinations of styles. The existing location of the house maintains the lawn area and existing alignment along the street. The shed in the rear will be demolished, and reconstructed on another part of the parcel. We feel it is important to retain this outbuilding. It is our intention to minimize the impact of the addition and we have been able to accomplish this by putting it at the north and west of the house. The existing house is not usable square footage now for a family of four. The McPhersons want to move in with their two children. The upstairs is not habitable due to steeply pitched roofs. We did not want the new roof lower than where it is now. We are proposing a Mansard roof for the addition, which maintains the proportions and keeps the addition at the same level. We needed to sink the addition into the ground, which continues the same design idea but in modern and contemporary fashion. The design we propose allows light to get in to the lower level with raising the height. We intend to keep all existing vegetation, which screens the addition. The is important to keep the addition to the north and west to stay in the existing alignment. There is an existing dilapidated shed on the alley now. We want to maintain the alley character of the property, and intend to rebuild the outbuilding to look like the carriage style. The 13'6" front yard setback allowed us to keep the shed and provide additional parking. The only variance is the west setback. Our information is that the shed is not historic, and that it was built in the 1950's. The rear yard setback is 12' 8 3/4". The eave line is maintained. We intend to re-use all the existing sandstone and add new sandstone around the building to unify. It is not our intention to copy the detailing. The addition will be more simplified. Wood shingles will be used, and no change is proposed to the front of the property. The existing rear porch is incorporated in the new addition. Gideon Kaufman: Polly Marolt remembers that the shed was moved there at least 50 years after the house was built. Les Holst: How big is the basement? Gretchen: We're not sure. We won't know for awhile. Les Holst: I just wanted to know if it's a 3,000 sq. ft. or 6,000 sq. ft. house. Doug McPherson: The house needs a new foundation. We have not planned to use the basement as living space, maybe just a crawl space, but this is dictated by cost. Don Erdman: I have been analyzing the new roof plan, and have not been able to tell where the old house ends and the new begins. Gretchen: The new Mansard roof continues on about 8' from where the existing house ends. (Photo boards of additions and foliage around town were passed around.) Larry Doble: I'm the structural engineer on the project. I submitted a letter to Gretchen stating my professional opinion that it can be moved and safely supported during the relocation and new foundation. We intend to lift it slightly and move it forward on the lot. Bill Poss asked Gretchen to clearly specify the setback variations she needed. Karen Day: How may new square foot of livable square footage will there be? Gretchen: 1,250. Karen: What is the total square footage? Gretchen: About 3,100 Karen: How do you know the barn is only 19457 Doug McPherson: We only this from the neighbors. Karen: The screened porch on the side will it still be a screened porch? Gretchen: No, it will be glassed in. This split level area is where the transition occurs. Les Hoist: What is the set back of the house to the west? Gretchen: 8'2" to the property line. Les Holst: What will be the use of the shed? Doug McPherson: We are not sure at this time. Don Erdman: I still find a discrepancy where the rear end of the original house stops and where the new begins. The rear of the house does not correspond with the overlay of the roof plays on any of the drawings. Is this a drafting error? Bill Poss: If there are no further clarifications from Committee, I'd like to open the public hearing at this time. Please remember to state your name for the record. the Leslie Sugar: We own the building directly to the north. We looked at this building, and decided it had no real livable space as it is now. The McPherson's are giving a gift to the City by fixing it up and making it attractive and safe. The open space along 6th Street is nice. We find the change to be attractive and happy to look at. We don't thing anyone would want it without an addition. This impacts us the most because we have to look at it, and we like it a lot. Heather Tharpe: I live next door to the west and object to the 1' setback and having the house moved forward because it cuts off the sun. I am also concerned about the alley density and massing. Bill Poss: How much more does it sit closer to Heather's property? Gretchen: 1' now, and will sit 9' forward, including the 3' bay window projection. Heather: These three houses are kind of cute. Moving it forward changes the way these are. Bob Richey: I live directly across to the south and have been here 9 years. We have put up with vagrants, skunks and raccoons for years. I have a question for Gretchen: it looks like its below the height limits. Gretchen: The height limit is 25' and we are 4' below that. Bob Richey: It sits low and doesn't exceed the height limit. Gretchen: It is 40' below maximum site coverage and is also below maximum FAR. The 240 sq. ft. shed FAR was taken out of the house. John Thorpe: I have been concerned about some projects massing and proportions. I like the sale of this. Nancy Thorpe: We live at 615 W. Francis and have been there 20 years. We are familiar with the house, and it is definitely not suitable for a family. I feel the addition is suitable to the cottage. The neighborhood is really not the architecture - its the people, and the McPherson's are going to be living there year round. I fear that this study will go on and on and might prevent them from doing this project and moving in. Fred Sugar: Gretchen has thought this out very well. Sarah Kane: I live 2 blocks away, and am glad the McPhersons have taken this project on. I'm glad to see the primary, old time resident of Aspen move back into town. They need the additional square footage to move back. Gideon: (Read numerous letters of support for the project from neighbors such as Polly Marolt, Reese Henry, Jack Silverman, Francis Kalmas, who could not be at the meeting. He handed them to staff for the record.) Heather: Why are you preserving the shed? Doug McPherson: We're not really interested in the shed. We like the alleyscape and it makes some sense to preserve it, but we recognize it reduces the FAR. Due to the input we received from you all and staff, we decided to keep an alley building in the project. Leslie Sugar: I can sympathize with Heather, with so much change going on. Bill Poss: If there are no further public comments, I'll move on the committee members, but leave the public hearing open. Glenn Rappaport: There are a lot of things I like about this project, and some I'm uneasy with. Its good that you've kept the landscaping and large trees in their positions, which will make the project not seem so large. The rebuilding of the fence is a good thing. The outbuilding will have a nice effect on the alleyscape and I will support a variation to keep the outbuilding. I am concerned that we can't distinguish where the old and new end, and encourage you to brainstorm how the massing works in the Mansard roof area. Look more closely at the roof transition. I like how you are emphasizing modernization and are not interested in replicating, and feel that the north facade is successful. The detailing on the south elevation may be too literal. The project may be stronger without such a literal translation of the detailing. I like the north elevation massing - it helps the project a lot. Dropping the addition down on the site makes more sense. Karen: I would to thank you so much for your consideration in landscaping and the atleyscape. Everyone has been very supporting of this project. I am very much in favor of saving the barn in back because it is so integral to the alleyscape. Don: You have a project here that has been carefully thought out, even with the drafting error. I would like to see the transition occur stronger. Keep the same roof slopes on the gable ends. The detailing is too literal, and would like to see a change in the roof height - its all at the same elevation, which I do not support. I am very much in favor of recreating the alley building, and would like to see the project develop more where the break occurs, which may not even require a change in the floor plan. The southwest corner of the house is being enlarged, though. Gretchen: Yes, it is, to make that front room space work better. Les Holst: I applaud you moving into the area, but find it difficult to find that all four Development Standards are met. Its a Catch 22 to designate, to move it in site and impact the neighbor with the 1' setback and all this massing. It doesn't sit well enough with me to approve. This is the best presentation I've seen in a long time. My concerns are the massing at the rear and the impacts to the neighbor. Martha Madsen: I go along with Les' comments. about the impacts to the neighbor. I am concerned Jake rickety: I like the preservation of the lawn and the cottage at the rear. I have a question for staff, about why the addition may preclude listing on the National Register. I am also concerned about the differentiation between old and new. (Jake left at this time. Roger became a voting member.) Roger Moyer: I find that the mass and scale is good. Regarding the cultural compatibility standard - I think it fits well. I hate to approve anything with variations, could the addition be moved east? Gretchen: Maybe 1.5' because of the trees. Roger: I am concerned that we have to have all this parking. Roxanne: HPC has the ability to reduce the number of required parking spaces on designated parcels as one of your incentives. Roger: This addition height is the same plane as the cottage, which is a concern. The selection of materials and color is important, and may be enough to show the differentiation between old and new we are concerned about. One thought is to maintain a photographic record through the Historical Society to show differentiation. Bill: The applicant contacted me in advance, I just wanted to mention for the record. I feel they have done an excellent job in keeping the massing and scale lower, and I agree with Roger, Don and Glenn that it is nice to work the transition but I'm not as concerned about it now that I view the model. I think the applicant and the architect are penalized because this is a corner lot and we all want to save the trees, the landscaping, the alley building and still work with Heather's setback concerns. I find that the character would be preserved by granting the setback variations. Don: The lot to the west will be developed at some time, but to place the west side of the garage 1' from the property line will compound the problem of developing Heather's lot. I would suggest moving the entire structure 1.5' to 2' east to allow more room between Heather's structures. Roger: It is very clear that the addition on the main house is new. Simple color shading will help distinguish old from new. Les: Have you considered the root system of the large trees? Have you looked into less parking and moving the house to the north? 7 Gideon: As the house is moved further to the east, the trees will be further impacted. Roger: Can we demand landscape replacement should those trees die during construction? Roxanne: Yes, we'll require a site and landscape plan be submitted at Final. Glenn Rappaport: Unfortunately there are always trade offs that happen. The public gesture to preserve the trees is good, and I support the sideyard setback variation. Heather: What is the McPherson's intention with the spruce tree on the northwest of the property? Gretchen: We would like to relocate that tree on site. Karen: What is the life span of those trees? Susan McPherson: Those cottonwoods are mature and may need replacing. Roger: I would like to make a motion. I move that the HPC recommend Landmark Designation and grant conceptual development approval for the project at 700 W. Francis St., with the following conditions to be met at Final: 1) 2) 3) 4) The applicant shall submit a plan for the preservation of the trees and replacement for any that are damaged. The applicant shall restudy the design to show the delineation of old and new, and materials, color and scale of materials to be used. Allow side and rear yard setback variations subject to further study with staff to move the addition more to the east taking into account the impact of the trees,~ ~ 5~?0 Landscape plan be submitted, which shall indicate fence around the patio. Seconded by Martha Madsen. Don: I want to see more effort made between the old and new. can be dealt with at final. This Les: The patio is throwing me - how deep is it? 8'? Gretchen: No, its only 4' deep. Glenn: I would like them to simplify the fenestration. Roxanne: Before you take the final vote, for the record I need to know from each of you, who was contacted by the applicant in 8 advance of this meeting. Glenn: Martha: Roger: looked. Question was Karen, Glenn, I was contacted for general feedback. I was invited but did not go. I saw the model and commented on how called by Chairman: Carried 6-1. Don, Martha and Roger. good the massing In favor: Bill, Les Holst was opposed. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff presented a proposal for a new facade sign for city Hall, above the entry, to replace the plank sign that currently exists. The new sign is to honor the 100th anniversary of "Armory Hall", which occurs January 21, 1992. It is painted wood, and is to be attached flush with the building. Motion approving new sign carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Minutes submitted by Roxanne Eflin, staff 9