Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900328HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of March 28, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Don Erdman, Les Holst and Glenn Rappaport present. Joe Krabacher and Charles Cunniffe were excused. 118 N. 1st. STREET-MINOR DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: The changes taking place involve the enclosure of a car port making it into a family room with a bath. At the last meeting the presentation was unclear about the plans. The plans have been revised and the Planning Office is recommending approval subject to a redesign of the west elevation fenestration to eliminate one window. The materials are compatible and they meet the guidelines. A FAR variation has been requested of 191 ft. The footprint has not changed but to enclose it, it becomes square footage and therefore they are requesting a FAR variation. The reason we are recommending FAR variation is because the footprint is already there and the car port framing is already there. Bill: In allowing floor increase~ it is only under our purview if it is compatible. Georgeann: This is a modern element and covering that roof over will make it more compatible in that the addition will be less obtrusive. Bill: Does the Board feel that the other standards have been met as outlined by Staff. All in agreement. Georgeann: Two separate windows are less of a strong statement and don't enhance the horizontality as much. Don: I agree that the center bay could be removed to make it more consistent with the rest of the building. Les: I agree also. Don: I would also recommend a more vertical double hung window. Bill: You are saying that the window would be more historically compatible in a more vertical element. Jackie Wogan represented the applicant: The window at the end is long; would you rather have one more pane. I feel it would be too low in the bathroom. Don: By extending the window down another two inches you would not be decreasing the privacy in the bathroom. It is a minor detail. - Jackie: That is acceptable. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 28, 1990 MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to grant minor development approval for the proposal at 118 N. First Street subject to a redesign of the west elevation fenestration to eliminate the central window. Make the two windows longer by extending them down one more pane to create a vertical feeling in the wall. I also move to recommend or approve FAR variation finding that the enclosed car port will be more historically compatible with the existing building. Les second, all approved. Motion carries. CLARIFICATION Jackie: Six panes rather than four. Don: It could be a four pane if the panes were not all square; if they were rectangular with a vertical dimension being the greatest. Glenn: house. We want it to be more in proportion with the rest of the AMENDED MOTION: Georgeann made the amended motion to change the wording, it does not necessarily have to be six panes but a more vertical window. Less second. All approved of motion and amended motion. Motion carries. VESTED RIGHTS - 413 E. ~ - REIDE'S CITY BAKERY Roxanne: This is a standard resolution vesting for three years the final development approval of 413 E. Hyman. MOTION: Don made the motion that the resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee vesting the site specific final development plan for 413 E. Hyman be approved. Georgeann second. All approved. 126 W. FRANCIS - CONCEi~i~JltL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing opened. Roxanne: This is a cottage next to Mrs. Paepcke's house built around 1886 and the new owners propose to do a significant addition to the rear. The new addition will be build onto the newer late 50's and 60's addition. The historic cottage will remain the same. The critical issue is the massing and height and is that compatible at all. They are asking for landmark designation. Mrs. Paepcke is concerned about any additional encroachments into setbacks and the height of the addition. We find that the massing does not meet the development review standards and there needs to be a height reduction. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 28, 1990 Welton Anderson, architect: The original cottage was built in the 1880's and this house has been added on to numerous times mostly with flat roof additions to the back of the property. The main problem is the west dining room portion, it is only one foot or so from the property line so I suggested that he apply for historic designation so he could line up the west wall my means of a variance but the applicant did not approve of that so we submitted plans to the Building Department. We now are applying for a variance. Georgeann: The proposed variance encroaches into a setback. Welton: The only real variance we are asking for is to line up the west wall. Glenn: That is all you are asking for? Roxanne: They are requesting parking variation and floor FAR. Welton: We can live without the parking but we will end up with one fewer bedroom because we cannot increase the number of bedrooms without providing parking. Roxanne: They are building three new bedrooms on the second floor but sacrificing one lower bedroom for the entrance for their stair. They are trading one for one so the net increase is two. Welton: The Gilberts' sold the property to the Roy family and they have one child and desired two extra bedrooms on the second floor. In order to do that I suggested historic designation and variances. The only variance that you can see a difference in the exterior architecturally is the one gable. We are only planning to add onto the portion of the house that was added onto within the last 30 years. Preserving and restoring the front eleyation and concentrate the new origins on the back. The gable peak that you can see on the front elevations is 70 feet from the edge of the pavement of Francis Street to where that gable is. It will not overpower the front gable. The Board has the opportunity to preserve an historical facade that has been facing Francis Street for over a 100 years. The historic designation will make it much harder for any future owner to raise the house and give the City one of the few cottages. Don: By maintaining the 12 by 12 pitch what is the roof height? Sven Alstrom, architect: 24 feet. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 28, 1990 DISCUSSION ON STANDARDS Roxanne: Standard #1. The front yard setback is not being changed however, the combined front/rear yard setback is an existing non-conformity. The applicant is requesting variation approval for this existing situation. No changes proposed for spacing but Staff feels this addition does alter the facade in the perception of the small scale of the miners cottage that deals with bulk and height. We have seen a number of very large additions to a very small cottage with the argument that it needed to grow to families and not preserve the important small scale. We need a good solution for additions and it should be done sensitively. A landscape plan will be required at Final. There is no on-site parking currently and no detached buildings therefore on-site parking is virtually impossible. The proposal generally meets the standards for roof pitch with the exception of the very large shed dormer, north elevation. There are two pair of french doors and Staff is recommending elimination of one pair. No changes to historic windows but a maintenance schedule should be presented at Final. The proposed dining room windows are large fixed panes and Staff finds that they do not meet the guidelines and need divided and re-studied. The porch will be reconstructed but the original porch elements should be kept and any other porch elements should be duplicated. The proposal is for asphalt roof shingle and Staff is recommending wood shingles stained dark. At final there needs to be a partial demolition proposal. There appears to be some front yard drainage problems and that needs to be addressed. Staff recommends elimination of the roof cresting. Don: With a project of this complexity it would be appropriate to have an accurate scale model. With the impact of the setback of the second story addition on the original miners cottage, the model would help as some of the Board are not architects and cannot get as accurate feeling about the building. Welton: I will forward that request to my client. MASSING: Welton: It is 70 feet back from the pavement of Francis Street and well under the height limit required. From the street it will appear as a small miners cottage with another house behind it. By providing a gable on top of the dining room it gives it some consistency with the gable character of the house which it doesn't presently have. The shed on the gable end is an architectural device to allow us to get bedrooms for both of the children. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 28, 1990 Georgeann: I am not too uncomfortable with the massing. I am concerned about the porch..possibly half the size it is. It is too heavy and too close to the front and conflicts with the front elevation. Glenn: The way the space works is appropriate and does make you believe that it is a much smaller house. I have no problem with the shed gable on the back end as it is not visible from the street and it is often difficult to get enough room for bedrooms. The model would work favorably. Don: I don't feel the massing will be disturbing especially if the original cottage is handled in a way that it reflects dominance always in detail and color. How can we improve this building through the process rather than just let you build it the way it is presented to the Building Dept. Bill: From the street the massing will recede in effect. From an architectural and compatibility standpoint I find that the proportions of the gable looming over the top to the proportion of the gable on the front may have some validity from a view from the street. When you put it in conjunction to the mass that you see from the side street it will have a more powering effect. If the roof was broken up a little more, if possible it would appear much smaller. There needs to be more sympathetic design on how it interacts with the house. Basically the massing is quite large on the back. Bill: No discussion on streetscape, fences, or alleys and parking. Roxanne: If the deck goes in the Board would have to grant a rear yard setback. Bill: I do not feel comfortable with the roof shape on the front which is somewhat of a hip-shed. I would tend to think a flat roof structure or slightly pitched would be a better shape and allow the cross gable of the smaller structure to read through. Welton: In writing out the application a month ago we thought the site coverage was too much and we would leave the open porch. Apparently we are still under and part of the front porch will only be enclosed where it is currently enclosed today. The reset will be open. Bill: The porch on the west elevation will be enclosed, this is a change from the proposal in the packet. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 28, 1990 Sven: Enclosure of the porch as a sun room is included in the FAR. Bill: The change is not represented on the drawings. If the Board approves this change the drawings submitted by Welton should be entered into the records. Welton: At final we will give you a complete set of working drawings. WINDOWS: Welton: We will replace the dining room windows with double hung as recommended for the west elevation. Bill: You are within three feet of the property line and if you are going to have operable windows they will not allow you or they will need to be protected. Don: You can have true divided lights but not operable. Welton: They don't open now. Bill: What I am saying is possibly you are going to come back and say the windows can't be changed and the Bldg. Dept. may not let you put the new windows in. Since you want to change them and they aren't going to let you, you will say they are an existing condition and the Bldg. Dept. will not let you have the windows up above. Welton: There is a way around a protected opening which we did on the Elisha house. Bill: What about the porch. Welton: I would be willing to commit to a smaller gable over the porch. Georgeann: Keeping the porch as close to existing as possible makes better sense historically. Bill: Any of the decorative elements should be simplified. Welton: On the west elevation I agree with Roxanne and we will keep it simple. Above the windows I would like to do decorative shingle work. I will recommend to the applicant a shingled roof. Welton: The precedent setting on the massing was set long ago. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 28, 1990 Georgeann: This is a good precedent setting treatment of the massing compared to what has been done in past additions to small cottages. The architect is compromised by not trying to get a full second story in. Bill: I don't agree with that. Roxanne: Regarding Standard #3 we find that the cultural value of this cottage is in the small scale. Bill: Standard #4 that the proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Roxanne: I lumped everything into standard one and recommend study of the west elevation. Staff has given several aIternatives for the Board to consider. Les: I feel the massing is not going to be changed no matter what happens so we really have no say so and a model will not make any difference. We are giving them 300 sq. ft. in exchange for restudy the porch etc .... I guess that is a fair trade off. I personally do not like the massing. Georgeann: I would like it looked at to restudy porch and push it back. The detailing of the gable end that is facing the main street should be simplified. Glenn: I would vote for designation because it would give you a little more leverage with your client as to a more historically sympathetic solution to the problem. Less wrought iron, less copper etc. Bill: I think the massing of the different elements are out of scale with the small structure and they aren't compatible. I have not heard the argument to give them 350 sq. ft. is more compatible historically. The building is built out already. If you get designation why not fight to get a more compatible massing? Welton: I will look at methods to make it more broken up. Possibly there is something that I have not seen yet. Possibly a split ridge where the bathroom is. Getting historically designated makes it harder for a future owner to come in and raise the entire bldg. and put in a spec house. MOTION: Georgeann made Development approval at 126 W. the following conditions: the motion to grant Conceptual Francis Street and variations with Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 28, 1990 a) Restudy of the second floor addition to reduce mass and height b) Drainage and Landscape Plan c) Partial Demolition details for the front porch d) Restudy of the front porches to bring it back to its original configuration e) Eliminating the roof cresting and square gable end shingles on both gable ends the front and west elevation gable ends. f) Restudy the fenestration and doors as has been discussed in this meeting. g) Massing model if possible. h) Exact major materials, windows and porch details i) Detailed preservation plan for remaining original elements and materials of the historic cottage. Don second. VOTE: YES, Glenn, Don, Georgeann NO, Les, Bill Motion carries. Bill% For clarification of d) simplification of decoration. MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT STUDY Roxanne: The primary goals are to analyze the district to add a new chapter in the guidelines that deals with development infill and changes going on with the Main Street Historic District. Also to look at tree replacement, restoring irrigation ditches, Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan and how it all works. Looking at infill and uses in a comprehensive way. INDEPENDENCE BUILDING - 501 E. COOPER-STOREFRONT REVISION Roxanne: We have already had a opening put in the building. After talking with Lane Ittelson, he had recommended that the plan resemble diagram A. He looked at the recess that we had presented and was against it. Recommendation was to have the storefront look very similar with kickplates, proportions iron casting but just simpler. The A,B,A, approach that Glenn and talked about is recommended. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 28, 1990 Michael Ernemann, architect: With the A,B,A we stay with the basic fundamental form that occurs naturally in all of the storefronts. We will go with simpler detailing. Bill: Did Lane indicate that he would want .the sandstone replicated. Roxanne: Lane just stated that he wanted it to be compatible. Michael: We had suggested a very clean but rather direct replication of the historic form. #4 drawing makes the most sense without the sandstone lentil. We are down to how we treat the edges of the openings. We were asked to restudy and the drawings and studies. Roxanne: I would recommend #4 without the sandstone. Bill: I have talked with one of the applicants and have reviewed the diagrams. Roxanne: The applicant is asking for an amendment to conceptual approval. Glenn: This is a solution but the one thing I disagree on is taking the worst thing going on in this building which is the entry to a grand hotel and you step into "the sewer" (figuratively speaking) and turning that into a more important event by making that be the entry to another shop. Roxanne: Lane was saying if this could be done over do not have the step down entry as Glenn has stated. Les: I agree with #4 and have no problems with using contemporary construction methods as long as the dimensions are kept. Georgeann: I would rather not have it changed but will go along with #4 and approve the lentil around it. Keep it as similar to the existing as possible but simplified. Don: We all almost agree that unless there is no change to the building there will be three bays and they are almost the same width so they read as three elements that are quite repetitive. When you walk by, three openings will be revealed, framed in a consistent manner, then the revelation is the way the openings are handled. The framing gives the continuity. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 28, 1990 Bill: Unifying the openings with a sandstone surround simplifies the vocabulary of the architecture and is a more quiet statement. Now we are down to the fenestration or detailing of the openings. Michael: The quieter solution works better for the applicant because the importance is what is being displayed in the windows. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve plan #4 as presented to amend the Conceptual Development approval. Les second, all approved, motion carries. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to adjourn, second by Les. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 10