Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880223HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMI~EE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Ball February 23, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Charlie Knight, Augie Reno present. Nick Pasquarella and Patricia O'Bryan, Joe Krabacher were excused. Charles Cunniffe and Zoe Compton were unexcused. MO~ION: Charlie made the motion to move to approve the minutes at the end of the meeting. Georgeann second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Steve introduced Roxanne Eflin who will be the new staff person to BPC. Steve: The last item in the packet is Elli's roof top diagram of how the swamp coolers had been moved. As you recall there were two alternatives: One was to move the swamp coolers up to the top roof and to the back. The other was to sort of shift them over and they opted for the second alternative. There is a small discrepancy, one of the ducts on the Mill Street side, the east side of the structure does make an elbow joint to go in and is somewhat visible. The applicants did that without prior approval. Heidi Boffman, Bagman Yaw Architects: as an option at that meeting. I think that was approved Steve: The duct was approved to go straight in, not come further out toward Mill St. Bill: How accurate is it to the drawings that are represented here Beidi. It is a 30 by 30 duct. Beidi: It is very accurate to what our mechanical engineer sketched up at that meeting. We could mitigate some of the shiny duct by painting it. Georgeann: Thinking of the views from the Jerome it would be good to paint the duct and minimize it. Charlie: Have you started with the placement of the restaurant equipment. Beidi: Pinions Restaurant equipment is already up on the roof but Sushi Masa's is not. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Charlie: I thought Sushi Masa's restaurant reviewed before being placed on the roof. Steve: I have not received any plans yet. equipment was to be Heidi: We were left with two options from that meeting: The first option was the two smaller pieces of equipment up on the top and the second one was the duct work pulling back into the shaft and because it was duct work it was lower and less obtrusive. Charlie: Alternative #4 is very explicit and shows two directly into the building. Bill: Should we have them come back and show us the plans of the restaurant equipment on the roof. Heidi: I thought the Committee had viewed the building. MOTION: Augie made the motion to have this issue put on the agenda at our next meeting for review. Charlie: Can we get presentation for Sushi Masa's equipment too. Steve: Heidi we need to see the plans for Sushi Masa, it needs to come back to the Committee. Heidi: I can suggest that their architect come in and show you their equipment. Charlie second the motion. Bill: Ail in favor of studying the mechanical equipment as presented at our next meeting say I. All approved. Motion carries. Bill: Heidi, we would appreciate you coming back at our next meeting and also notifying them that we would like to see the plans for the equipment placement before it goes up which has been happening on this job all along. Heidi: It is not our job and I was going to have Wayne Stryker contact Steve. Bill: That is fine. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 MONITORING PROJECTS Georgeann: The guidelines are in the process and they should be printed within another week. We will be under our budget. 300 W. MAIN ALTERATIONS-CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Caroline McDonald: We have explored all plausible avenues. The main reason why we are locked into the airspace that we are in: There is a 15 foot set back from the alley that is required and we have to go in front of the Board of Adjustment to have a variance for a five foot setback. If we don't get this the project can't work. This is a duplex zoned lot that affords 6500 sq. ft. by code and we have a 3500 sq. ft. usage. We are leaving more than half of the lot for open space on Main and Second St. Bill Ness stated that he feels we need a six foot off-set from the dripline not to disturb the roots of the tree and any excavation would disturb the trees. Blue spruce have very shallow roots and they spread out considerably. The height at the first meeting was critical and minimum blockage from the carriage house was essential. You didn't want a higher roof elevation over the log cabin blocking the Elisha carriage house characteristics. These were reasonable demands and we don't want to block the sun to our neighbors to the north either. Expansion to the east toward Second St. we again have the dripline problem from our largest spruce tree that is 125 ft. tall. We have eliminated a skylight. Pushing the southern exposure back on the addition would knock us down to 1200 sq. ft. of living space and that is unacceptable. Assuming the B of A would go with a 2ft. alley setback vs. the required 15 ft. setback is pushing it. 5 ft. I think is all we can ask for mainly because we have the existing nonconforming shed. On the Main St. or the southside we reduced the glass look on the second floor by using wooden french floors further broken in half with a balcony railing. The roof has a two foot horizontal offset. The deck has been reduced and replaced with a low sloping roof. The stairs exit to the west and we will need a variance for that. Going to the east side of Second Street the addition of a large dormer sets off the old from the new and breaks the roof line. The North side, alley side, the massing has been broken by the addition of gabled bay windows and horizontal siding. Bill Drueding: Do you have a parking plan. Caroline: We have off street parking. 3 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Bill Drueding: bedrooms. It is one parking space per any additional Scott: We have four bedrooms so it would only be one more space. Charlie: Is the setback to the Elisha house conforming again. Scott: Yes. Charlie: So you are only asking for the alley. Caroline: 1700 sq. ft. Charlie: For clarification: You have french doors on the new addition to a deck and the second floor is a recessed deck on a slanted roof. Are those doors or windows onto the deck. Scott: Those are doors into the deck and the stairs go down the west side behind the carriage house. Steve: This is the first time that staff has had a chance to look at these except for the south elevations. I'm not sure that they have met all of the concerns that were made by the Com- mittee. Bill: What is the procedure now. Steve: We are trying to create something to give another motion of conceptual approval that is more definitive. I would hope that this meeting will go in the direction of general comments about the design concept and perhaps it would take one more meeting to get to that point. Bill: What are the other concerns that were issues before since not all the other members are here we must represent that. Steve: I usually make it a policy that reviews the submittal to the Planning Office with sufficient time for us to review them then come back to the Committee. In this case it didn't work out that way because there was an attempt to have a sub-committee involved and the timing was such that the McDonalds are anxious to get going with this project. I would hope that whatever results from this meeting would be something that the McDonald could work with; then make a submittal that would be timely so that we then could do a formal evaluation for the next meeting. Charlie: I had made the motion at the last meeting that we designate the structure historical provided however upon the approval of the addition, otherwise they didn't want it desig- 4 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 nated and the motion is conditional upon the Boards approval of the addition. We need to review the addition as best as possible. If we can approve it today they would move forward. Georgeann: We may or may not be able today but I do think it would be valid to the changes so that they will have don't think we have to wait for a memo to make a final approval to get the Boards reaction something to work on. I from Steve. Bill: I would prefer more documentation on an approval because it is quite lengthy and costly to them. I think we can give them direction but if we could have everything documented by the next meeting it would be appropriate. Steve: The Committee should look at the motion Georgeann made at the last meeting and find out if clarifications of the massing; the softening of the features; the elimination of the dominant character of the porch and steps; the consideration of the additions location both the east elevation and the south elevation and the roof pitches. If you are comfortable with this I would think that you would want to make specific reference to these plans and give conceptual approval. Bill: Scott will you summarize the materials. Scott: The two basic materials are the lapstrake and 8 3/4 by 8 3/4 timbers for the log structure. The idea is to have this a natural finish and let it weather for a few years and then put a sealer on it to match the original structure. The window trim would be an off-white stain. A very simple color scheme. The stairs would be out of 3 by 12 timber and a wrought iron railing. The roof is green pro-panel and the flat section is tar-gravel. We wish to have sky lights only on the flat section of the roof just to allow light into the rooms inside and the maximum height above the tar and gravel will only be about six inches. Bill: I'd be concerned that a six inch curve might not be high enough for leaking water. Scott: I'm confident with the sealers. Charlie: What is the railing on the south elevation. Scott: It would be wrought iron also. Charlie: What are the windows on the first floor. Scott: They are divided one pane windows. get the four panel thermal panes. It is difficult to 5 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Bill: Georgeann will you report from the sub-committees work. Georgeann: The sub-committee was divided between making the materials on the addition similar or different. Scott has kept the colors the same. The view from the Main St. elevation is pretty much what the Committee was comfortable with, that it was a quieter elevation then what was presented the first time. We looked at changing the addition out in different directions and felt comfortable with this one. The back elevation: we talked about having a sloping roof but after talking with Scott there isn't a real good way to do that and he wants to keep the straight back but he still tried to incorporate the gables visually to break it up because we were concerned with the look of that back elevation. We also talked about the windows. Answering Charlie's question of divided lights we talked about dividing the windows to keep the feeling with the old building but dividing them into a larger pattern so that it again would look like a new part to the old building. In most cases Scott has followed the suggestions of the sub-committee and in some areas we just left without things being completely resolved and hopefully we can resolve them today. Charlie: round. On the first floor the logs are three sided and curved Scott: No they are four sided. Georgeann: Is this the new logs or the existing. Charlie: The new. Georgeann: We talked about three possibilities: one to have them exactly like the old, two sided; or we thought if he did it with the four sided and straighten sided logs that it would have a little bit of a different look and he has also incorporated some of the lapstrake. I wanted the squared off logs, Zoe wanted it exactly like the original and Charles wanted it to be cedar siding or something. Scott: I'd prefer the stud wall on top. Steve: I'd like to look at the square what they actually look like. logs to get a sense of Georgeann: The thought was to separate the old from the new. Some architectural comments: I like what he has done on the Main Street elevation. I like what he has done on Second Street except I'm wondering if the new part could be pulled out just even a foot or our classic two feet to separate that longness. Whether it goes in or out I'm not concerned with. 6 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Scott: It would be better out because of the finishing problems associated with going in. Georgeann: I think the gable is fine but it seems like an awfully long gable but it is the pitch of the roof next right next to it on the existing building. I find that the horizontal windows look out of keeping with the rest of the building. I would make them all larger windows in the dormer so they would have more of the proportions of the other windows. The west elevation is fine. The alley elevation while it is a tremendous improvement over before, I still don't like the resolution there. I like you bringing in the two different materials because I can understand you wanting to keep it a flat plain. The two different materials does visually lower the line of the building but the pseudo-gables that are just plastered on there I don't know..that is a boxed out window. I'm just not sure if that elevation is resolved in my mind. Bill: It is an improvement over what we have seen before. I agree on the dormer and the window should be more square and a little more vertical than horizontal. On the North elevation which is the alley elevation I feel the dormers are not really dormers and it is really a "look". It would be better if you had windows more in keeping like the west elevation. My approval would be conditional on studying the materials more at the final submission. Augie: One thing that troubles me is the relationship of the addition on the west to the Elisha coach house. That is a significant piece of Aspen. We are putting on an addition and not respecting it. We are going way too far out in front of it and too close to it at the same time. I could live with either having to build the addition back even with it so that it relates to it or further away from it. What you have done is a tremen- dous improvement over the last time. To touch on what Georgeann talked about on the east elevation it would be nice to have some differentiation of really what is the existing building and what is the addition. The roof being in one plain you kind of loose the building. I would agree with Bill that they either need to be dormers which means to move the roof and give it a pitched roof or just put in square windows. Caroline: If you look on the alley side the front part of the original cabin on the north side is set back a little. Bill: Could you indicate where the Elisha carriage house is on the site plan. 7 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Scott: The Elisha carriage house is about another ten feet up, With four feet it lines up perfectly with the eaves. Georgeann: If we could push the addition back another two feet..but unfortunately he needs that space and he doesn't think he can get it from the Board of Adjustment. I certainly would like you to try. Steve: The Elisha carriage house is five feet from the west property line. Georgeann: So the two buildings are five feet apart. like to be able to push Scott's addition further back. I would Steve: There is a role of HPC to make a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment. Bill Drueding: The Board of Adjustment can't give a variance unless HPC has OK'ed it as historically designated first and a written recommendation. Bill: Have the owners of the Elisha house been notified of close they are building to the carriage house. Steve: There has been no notification. how Steve: In the last memo staff comments hit heavily on the roof pitches in the sense of keeping the scale of the different portions of the structure both the length and to some extent the fenestration as well. The design concept with utilizing fairly significant two story flat walls is really not an acceptable and compatible design. On the south elevation a two foot separation between the two pitches really doesn't accomplish much. If that is the 12x12 pitch it could be continuous and it would be the same but then I would like to see some kind of gable end to it rather than come to a flat wall to the east. Dormers could be used to break up the massing on the alley side. Roxanne: Hip roofs were used extensively and a low hip may fit with this, some kind of pitch instead of the flat roof. Dormers are not appropriate with the era or the log cabin style. I am speaking of the north elevation, the alley side. Charlie: Are the stairs on the western elevation within the five foot space. Scott: Yes and we would need a variance. Charlie: On the north elevation I like the attempt to get light in there and make it a good living space especially since HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 you are now coming close to your neighbor. The wall is cut very interesting in detail and makes it look like a house and not an addition that is stuck onto a restaurant. On materials I'm not so sure going to a four sided log won't give you a kind of warehouse look; maybe a three sided log with a soft curve would match the other rounded part of the log and soften the look. I think they would be so uniform that you could distinguish the old from the new and yet get the log cabin feel. By the time you put lx6 siding on the second floor and an 8 foot square heavy log on the first floor that it is going to look too commercial and not residential. The new windows toward the Elisha house should be a true divided light as the esthetics would be considerably better than the window chosen with a plastic mullion. I know the expense is greater but in keeping with the theme of the original house the overall effect will be greater and more pleasing. Bill: You can get insulated true divided lights. Charlie: In your attempt to protect the visual part of the Elisha carriage house and the gable, you can find your ability to change architecturally what a lot of people would like to see with possibly one solution of a small overhang for your fire- escape; put a small roof line on so that when you saw it, it looked like this was the original house and then there was a shed roof line put over it. That may be more variance than you would be allowed. If it were long enough it would probably function to keep the snow off of the back stairs which won't get a lot of light. Georgeann: In our motion I would like them to try get the addition pushed back another two feet from Main Street. I would like them to try and go to the Board of Adjustment and see if they can get that. HPC should strongly recommend it. A four foot setback would be much better than a two foot setback and it would break the roofs more and protect the Elisha carriage house. I hear Roxanne's and Steve's comments on other roofs but in the practical limitation of their living space we can live with this kind of roof line. Charlie: I think we should consider there is a neighbor to the north that deals with that alley and there is going to be a large addition and it is going to run almost the length of the lot, two full stories, flat wall and I think it is going to shade that area quite a bit and I think that five feet will be asking a lot of that property owner. If I were living there and somebody said they were coming back an additional ten feet with a two story wall I wouldn't be pleased. C Georgeann: On the internal plan part of that is an overhang on the first floor of the southside. I'm trying to determine if HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 there is a way we could push to push it back to the rear. it back another foot without having Scott: I did push it back two feet on the second floor. We have ten foot wide bedrooms and when you start pushing on that the rooms are getting too small. Georgeann: As I recall you were going to have an overhang and a sidewalk and possibly that could be a little more shallow. Scott: There is a two foot overhang built in there now. Georgeann: I know you want that for shade but is that a possibility to shallow that a little bit which would make the break between the old and new stronger. I was trying to look and see if there was anyway to satisfy people; Charlie doesn't thing we should encroach on the alley more and that is a valid consideration and some of the other people felt that the new and the old building should offset further than two feet. Steve stated that 2 ft. would hardly have an impact. Georgeann: So no one else is concerned about the offset but me. Augie: I'm not concerned about the offset with regard to the old building, I'm concerned with the offset in regard to the carriage house. I think 2 ft. is enough if you are looking at the building as it is but because of the neighbor next door that is my concern. Georgeann: They have a right to build to the building point but if they can build out to within five feet of the carriage house you would like it to be pushed back a little further. Augie: Either further away from the Elisha carriage house or further back if they are going to keep it that close to the Elisha house. Bill: I'd like to have a motion. Steve: My thoughts are to have a gable end facing the south in order to have some fenestration there and extend the roof line over to it and have dormers along the alleyway so that you have more of a deep orientation of this whole gable roof line. If it went up a little higher than the original house I wouldn't think that would be a problem. Scott: The only problem is it starts to use our square footage and we can't loose anymore. 10 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Georgeann: That to me just makes the addition more dominant and more busy. We are trying to simplify and make it quiet so the old part of the structure stands out. Steve: It takes away the boxiness of it which to me starts to enfold the original house. MOTION: Georgeann: I would like to make a motion to have Scott and Caroline McDonald to study the pitched roof design suggested by Steve Burstein. No second. Motion dies. Charlie: At this point I feel we should ask the applicants to review our comments and return. MOTIOn: Charlie: I move that we designate the structure to be historical provided the addition is approved by the Board in its entirety both architecturally and with materials. The applicants are to review the last meetings minutes as well as this meetings minutes to review the Boards comments. Augie second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Steve: For clarification would that motion then deal with designation rather than conceptual. Charlie: I'm providing that they are still designated provided the addition is approved by the Board both architecturally and with the use of materials. Steve: There are two steps, designation and conceptual. Would you then need the applicants to come back for further clarifica- tion of their conceptual proposal or is that done. Charlie: I'm trying to keep the designation effective for them provided that the addition is approved by the Board. This is a continuation from the last meeting because we were not satisfied with what was brought before us. The Board is rather splintered on all this and we are very vague except that we want them to come back for more approval. Bill: We have had quite a few comments but we just aren't quite there yet. Caroline: Can I get a written recommendation to go to the Board of Adjustment. Georgeann: I don't think you can until we all are satisfied with the design. 11 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Scott: I agree with you on the dormer. I would like larger windows on the dormer and I would prefer not to use the gables in the alley elevation. I will pull the employees living quarters out a little bit to off- set the roof. Bill: I agree with Georgeann if you could move it back a few feet on the west we would take a look at it. Scott: I'm in favor but Caroline Adjustment and it has to be a hardship. talked to the Board of Georgeann: At that point we could write a letter stating we recommend this so strongly that we are creating a hardship for you by asking you to push it back those extra feet. Steve: I would like to suggest that before we schedule the next meeting that the applicants do have something that we can put into the packet. Caroline: Can we go ahead and try for that two feet from the Board of Adjustment Bill. Bill: You don't have approval from us yet. Caroline: If it doesn't work we will have the either or pushing it back the other way. We have to go with a complete set of plans. Georgeann: I think you have to have our approval regardless. Steve: We need to talk about that as there is some interpreta- tion in the code. Bill: Caroline, work it out with Steve and see what can be done. MINOR DEVELOPMENT-513 W. BLEEKER, BARNETT HOUSE-PORCH ALTERATIONS Welton Anderson: The latest set of plans approved had some inconsistencies primarily on the west side of the building. The elevation shows a porch and the plans show no porch. The porch was not continuous along the east facade of the building, it turned back in then urned in again and then there is a gable over the french doors. When Hamilton got approval the porch was on those plan. The second set of drawings were somewhat schematic and it was not really clear, in any case on the east side making this a continuous porch is going to make for a much "happier" east elevation. The west elevation showed a porch in 12 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 elevation but no porch in the plans so the solution to that is, the ridge goes down and it looks like a porch had been cut off. We would continue the ridge down to its natural termination gives you about a 5 ft. porch on that side. That porch tends to break it up. Charlie: Is that porch lower or the same level? Welton: It would be a continuous porch on three sides. The west elevation would have gables over the french doors and the windows would stay the same. Charlie: What does that do to the setbacks? Welton: The HPC code allows for setbacks to be varied for historic designated structures. This is also a request that the setback be varied by 6 inches. Bill: Are there any other changes? Welton: East side porches at south and north extended due to kitchen ceiling not working inside. Siding and roofing was replaced. Windows were replaced. The windows are colored glass vs. new windows with leaded beveled glass. Optional roof peak was not done. The west porch has changed; french doors are in place as originally approved, not as amended on 9-22-87. Current flashing is cooper and the drawings say flashing was metal. Copper is metal and copper will fade and turn brown. We can treat the copper to age immediately. Georgeann: I'm wondering if this house should even have historic designation. Steve: The house has changed a great deal and the only original portion of the house is the front of the house and even it has changed. I think that it is a house that still has some significance. Charlie: This house has been changed extensively within the last two years particularly in the front. Georgeann: I think it ought to go to a notable or be a #5. Steve: Either it is designated or it is not. Charlie: There is such a large expanse of straight line almost feel the porch should come around. I don't know really needs to property line especially that I if it infringe, whether it is six inches, on the in as much as whether the house is historic or not. 13 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Whether the porch is 4 1/2" or many changes. 5" the house has gone through so Welton: There are two reasons for approving the 6 inch encroachment: one, 6 inches is not noticeable; by making this less than five feet we're recreating or reproducing the same kind of why did they do it this way rationale of the front. Another reason would be the geometry of the ridge. Charlie: Six inches is not very much but it is becoming an issue with our historic buildings and this particular building had a bay window and then it appeared that there was a granting of the west wall being moved out to the length of the bay which still allowed for a porch but now it's moved out beyond the length of the bay and moved out to the building line at the back. It is now one wall that runs the whole length of the west side. It seems to be a continuous manipulation of what had been approved. The setback sort of says that is where your building should end. What happens if the front porch is extended; is there a setback variance needed for that? Welton: I don't believe so. Bill: Basically you are asking for approval of the additions to the porch on both sides. The other question that has been raised is whether there have been enough changes to this structure to whether designation is still viable. The Committee approved many of these changes before; how far does the Committee go before it feels that the house has been changed. There are two issues: do we want to approve this; do we want to restudy the designation. MOTION~ Augie: I'll make a motion that we approve the amended changes to the Barnett residence at 513 W. Bleeker as presented by Welton Anderson. Georgeann second the motion. Bill: Could we amend that motion to include that any other changes be brought to us before they are constructed. Bill: Do we need to add that the setback will be encroached in the motion. Steve: It should be stated in motion. A~ENDED: Augie: I would like to amend the motion to include that he is allowed to extend his setback by 6 inches. 14 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Georgeann second the amended carries. motion. Ail favored. Motion MO?ION: Georgeann: I would like to make a motion that HPC restudy historical designation of the Barnett residence. No second. Motion dies for lack of a second. Bill: Could we get a set of updated drawings as the house is being constructed now. 334 W. HALLAM-PRE-APPLICATION, HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND DEMOLITION OF CARRIAGE HOUSE Bill Poss stepped down. Trisha Harris: This is a proposal for 334 W. Hallam St. on the Corner of 3rd and Hallam Streets. This addresses 3 key objec- tives: historic designation of the property; demolition of portions of the main residence and the carriage house; additions to the main residence and a new development for the carriage house. The structure was built in the 1880's. The important historic factors of the house are the ornamentation, trim and architecture of the silver mining era prevalent in the 1880's throughout Aspen and the victorian essence of the structure with the steep pitched roofs. The fish scale ornamentation and bay window that faces south which is Hallam Street are the essence of the property of an historic nature. Georgeann: Could you tell us of the recent changes. Trisha: The gables were original and the map of 1904, the Sandborn map, indicates them. The gable that runs north and south along Third St. is original also. The shed roofs on the east and west elevation are additions. We went under the crawl space and there was no foundation, just floor joice resting on dirt. The basic house, the L shaped crossed gabled roofs are shown throughout history. The house is significant in architec- ture and social history. It is associated with Eugene Wilder who was one of the founding partners of the Aspen Lumber Co. back in the 1880's. It was his house at that time. It is also sig- nificant socially as inside it is an example of traditional family living at that time. Mainly we would like to demolish the rooflines where you can read the old additions, this would include that part of the building north of the main north-south gable and north of the east-west cross-gable. On the new east elevation we emphasized the gable vernacular. We would then have to rebuild and we would like to 15 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 reuse the existing foundation under this portion of the house. The addition to the house would be to the north side of the house which we feel is more compatible with the structure and would increase the size of the house. We would do different roof lines that were more in keeping with the main residential structure. We also propose to demolish the existing carriage house. We have looked at reusing the carriage house but the structural engineer stated that this structure is unsound. The roof will not support a 75 lb. snow load and the foundation underneath will not support the loads that are needed. The floor structure on the second floor is inadequate also. Right now this carriage house is not habitated by anybody. Georgeann: Was it used for habitation. Trisha: It was remodeled in 1965. Steve: I believe it was remodeled to add a bathroom. Trisha: It was remodeled to be used as an art studio. Trisha: We have a 9,000 sq. ft. lot and that qualifies us for duplex zoning so we want it to be habitable. We are proposing putting two bedrooms and a garage in the structure to make it a true carriage house. We would essentially be rebuilding the whole structure again. The third phase would be additions to the existing structure. We are also taking an advantage of an incentive to add more square footage to this house which is not normally used except with historic designation. With that we added a green house on the east side. We are doing that as a transparent addition not a closed in addition. The greenhouse is not making a big impact on the house. The clients wish to enlarge the kitchen and dining area more so with that we added the greenhouse. With the main esldence we are going to restore all the ornamen- r ' tation along the south side around the bay window. We are working with the State Historic Preservation on how to restore all of this ornamentation. We are also keeping the fenestration to the historical look as far as the double hung windows through- out the addition. We will maintain the same size. Our new carriage house proposal encompasses two bedrooms, kitchen, dining room and also an enclosed garage. Right now parking is difficult so we are proposing the one car garage. You would go in off of Third St. into the new driveway to the garage. There would still be room for two or three more cars in the driveway. So we are taking a lot off of the parking off the street. We are maintaining the same roof line as the original, 16 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 the 12 by 12 pitch but we are lowering the height of the ridge to make it seem what it is a supplemental building to the main residence. We want the main residence to read as the primary structure of the property. We are coming out onto Third St. to the limits of the property line with a front porch. Steve: The Sandborn's map shows the footprints of an addition in the same location but it notes that it is a one story. The key issues that we pointed our are the carriage house demolition since it is an original structure. The carriage house had been moved. Trisha: The carriage house had been moved from the far northwest corner. Steve: The other concerns are pointed out in the memo. Roxanne: We had talked about the very large birch which would have to be removed with the addition of the greenhouse that matches the one on the exact opposite of the facade. Trisha: It is the cottonwood tree that is very close to the house. Steve: Since this is a national register caliber property alterations should be to that same standard. If you agree with that we may review it a little more strictly. Trisha: It is not designated but rated #4. It was considered by the National Register but it is not on. Steve: It was considered eligible but the owner chose not to. Georgeann: I think it was rated #4 because of all the changes in the car port etc. Charlie: With all the changes why do you want designation other than perhaps to encroach on the setbacks. I feel there is going to be so little left after demolishing one of the structures and replacing it with something considerably different. It's basically not what I think we are after for this particular property which I think is very attractive in its present state and had a great deal of impact to the west end community. Augie: I think while I understand the structural problems with the carriage house that I feel there is probably a way to save it. I would rather see the windows more of what the existing windows were. I don't have a problem with you removing some of the additions that were added onto but again if you are going to add back on I tend to agree with Charlie about the historic 17 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 designation part. With your proposed coach house vs. what was there if for some reason I did go along with demolition which right now I probably would strongly not, I think the proposed coach house looks too much like a "house" and not like a coach house and I think it would detract from the main structure. Georgeann: I a~ree -: ~ ,~u~ aught on the carriage house, you have turned it into a charming little doll house but it could be restored or rebuilt in a way to make it look like a carria e house that had .been created as a ' ' m~ln house that is a .__ living quarters, y g~ wlth the greenhouse vff~Y~slT~l~-h°use' What you are ~ave ~ are gettin ca , -~ua ~ tnt extra window ~.~ ~lng on would cons~derrf~d a~a~ with your victorian de~-~'~ ~u~es you work well. ~ ~,~,~Orlg.~nal west wall that is _~±l~g.. If you ~ . ~ unxnK we t~at man,, ch .... ~=~M simple and it ~l~ubut .t~ere might be3a w~% Ws~.mWD~d b~ ~eluctant to se still rem=~-~ ~- : ..... p~l~y t~lngs so that ~.,~ u~ ~mpor~ant ~eature. Augie: Are you going to continue national designation. Trisha: Not at this time. In regards to the carriage house we are maintaining the exact same lines that are there right now. The west elevation we are maintaining the same roof lines and just making some modifications to it. Georgeann: We are not Uncomfortable about the garage. Again you are turning this into a little house and it is going to look like two houses on the lot. Maybe you don't want to end up with the elaborate windows and porches so it still becomes the carriage house feeling. Augie: I like the U shaped driveway but I doubt if you Will be able to do that as it is two curb cuts. Charlie: This house is 2900 ft. sq. ft. and is going to 4900 sq. Georgeann: You are overwhelming the house. Trisha: You are saying we are totally changing the house and I don't think we are. Charlie: You are leaving so litt · ~e~ an~ so grand to it that it ~ ~t~ th~ additions are so ~ ~ne house. I like what .... ~ ~x~Y cna~glng the nature ~e~st~ll come together but~ ~%o~°~g.~d feel al.1 the ere. We would rather ....... x~.nlstoric kee ~n minor modifications, o~e wna~ is t~ere kept the~e ~i~ Roxanne: This was a working man's home not an elaborate house. 18 HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Charlie: We have that in all our houses, people come here and would rather have an elaborate victorian. Steve: I would encourage them going in the direction of designation as it is an asset to the City. It is a fine house. Georgeann: If the additions were simplified and made quiet so that the original house would dominate then ou mi get designation even ' : . Y ght be able to ..... nat~ongl designation. I'm a little leery of ~ne greenhouse; that again is overwhelming the whole thing. Steve: One thought maybe if the greenhouse was on the addition part and not on the original house it would be more acceptable. Georgeann: Also if it wasn't curved and made a little quieter. A more simple greenhouse. Augie: I don't have a problem with the location of the greenhouse because you can tell what is new and what is old as long as you don't change the windows and doors that are on the old. Georgeann: That tree near the greenhouse is very critical. Pushing the greenhouse back partly whether it still stays partly on the old or all on the new will be one way to save the tree. The tree then buffers the view of the greenhouse from the street. Trisha: The tree is a very old tree and questionable as to whether it was as stable as some of the other trees. Charlie: The Parks Dept. will core it and see if it is a healthy tree. MO~ION: Georgeann: I move to approve the minutes of Feb. 9, 1988 and April 14, 1988. Augie second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. 5:00 Adjourn 19