Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880308HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO)]~ITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall March 8, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Patricia O'Bryan, Charles Cunniffe, Charlie Knight, Augie Reno and present. with Georgeann Zoe Compton, Joe Krabacher MOTIONs Georgeann February 23, 1988. Motion carries. made the motion to approve Augie second the motion. the minutes of Ail approved COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMRENTS Steve: The committee had requested top mechanical restaurant equipment equipment is still not designed yet first meeting in March. that we bring back the roof on Elli's. The restaurant but will be ready for the Nick: I went up on the building and one of the swamp coolers is moved and its location from the building cannot be seen from the road but when you get up on the building it is messy but I don't feel it is a responsibility that we should be concerned about. They did what they said they would do with the one cooler. Nick: The tenants of the building on North Spring St. came up to me and said NPC was intending to move their building and they stated they were never contacted and have a 10 month lease. I feel we get tested an awful lot before anything happens. Georgeann: I have one staff comment. I would like to compli- ment Steve and Roxanne on their memorandums they have been sending us but I want to remind you at first we had no memoran- dums and now they are very long. There has to be a middle ground both for your sake and ours. Bill: Some of the projects demand lengthy information. Bill Poss stepped down. 334 W. BALLAR Trisha Harris: The basic concept of this project is to get historic designation for the property at 334 W. Hallam and we also want to get permission to do a partial demolition of the portions of the main house and then to do reconstruction of the existing house and the carriage house. We have decided to maintain the carriage house in its present location and restruc- HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 ture, rebuild it because it is not suited for our purposes in the state it is in right now. We are doing this in lieu of total demolition. We are going to take off the old additions to the existing structure, the L shaped main part of the house. We will leave the south elevation totally alone. On the west elevation we are going to remove the shed roofs which were part of an older addition to the house and do the same thing on the east elevation which is part of an older addition to the house also. When we do that we will be restoring the original gable intent of the original house. We will do a straight-off gable roof addition to the back of the house. On the carriage house we will have to take down the existing siding and structural portions of the main house which are not capable of standing the loads and weight. We want to maintain the same roofline but we are doing some cross gable additions in the front and back mainly for the head height because when you get on the second floor of the carriage house it is only 5 ft. at the edge of the gable and is not usable space for our clients. We will put as much of the siding back as we can and incorporate it with the new siding to maintain the old feel of the house. Georgeann: main house. Could you go over a little more the changes on the Trisha: On the main house we are keeping the south elevation the same as the existing. The north elevation is going to be part of the new foundation. We are tearing off the existing shed roof and coming in with a cross gable; we are essentially changing the roof lines of the structure. We are only adding 400 sq. ft. to the existing house. We are doing that upstairs mainly. The basic footprint of the house will stay the same. Georgeann: Have you simplified the greenhouse. Trisha: We have narrowed down the greenhouse to a shed type greenhouse and it is not even 12 feet high and is back behind the wood fence that you can't see through and it is not highly visible from the street. We don't think the cottonwood tree can be saved. The owners want the greenhouse as they want sun space and it gives the owner flexibility from the dining area to the kitchen. We will be maintaining the same 12 x 12 pitch that we have in the rest of the house. On the addition we will be maintaining the historic rooflines of the existing house. Patricia: Is the tree diseased or does it not fit into your plan. 2 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Trisha: The tree is looking like it doesn't fit into our plan as we want to continue this long longitude look. We have talked to the Parks Department and the tree doesn't seem to be diseased but we were proposing replacing it with three or four other smaller trees not necessarily in that location. Our argument for not keeping the tree is that it is not highly visible and it is behind the fence in the back yard. Patricia: Would the Parks Department take the tree. Trisha: We are talking to them about taking it. Roxanne: Originally the plans came before us for historic designation and conceptual plan approval with request for the entire carriage house to be demolished with a replacement of a new two story structure. They have now decided to retain as much of the carriage house as possible. They are [gquesting demolition of two sections of the main house and ~feenhouse.~,~'~% ~ In the original plans the original window on the east elevation of the second floor would be replaced with two windows. Rehabilitation of the carriage house: The siding material should be reused as much as possible. We felt the greenhouse should be attached to the new addition and not to the old. Approval of the partial demolition to the main structure and denial of any carriage house demolition. We recommend designation and conceptual development subject to the following conditions: That the greenhouse be designed to be as inconspicuous as possible and attached to the newer addition; that further stepping in of the east elevation addition be studied and that the cottonwood tree in the east side yard be retained. In the partial demolition of the main house that the structural analysis of the house be sufficient to assure that the new alterations will not effect the existing house. At final review that detailed plans for repair and maintenance of the original house be submitted including treatment of the front bay windows, siding and roof. Our recommendations would retain the integrity of the structure enough to be eligible for the national register. Nick: How would we control that it maintains the necessary requirements to go on the national register. Roxanne: Any changes or modifications to the house and par- ticularly in this case with a newer addition that is not historic that the original historic fabric of the house not be harmed in any way. Particular attention should be made to the east upper facade where the proposed design eliminates that original window and adds two that is not historically accurate with that house. 3 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Charlie: This house and carriage house have some major rot and I don't know how much wood these people can save. Trisha: We are going to do our best to restore that wood and we are following the guidelines of the national historic preservation. Roxanne: Our condition of approval have addressed those issues. Georgeann: If anything dramatic develops then you will have to inform HPC as quickly as possible. Charlie: Are there any historic photos of the carriage house. It appears to be that there was probably some kind of carriage door, barn door, that faced the street and was probably elimina- ted and converted when it was made a residence. It would be charming if you could find an alternate side for your entrance and give it at least the original look of the carriage house that it might have had. Roxanne: I have not come up with any from my research. I have received a letter from the Colo. Historical Society regarding the national register listing on the property. The carriage house was found to be non-contributing. Basically it was because the building had been moved slightly on the property and altered somewhat. The Historical Society is willing to relook at this and have it considered contributing again. Steve: I agree with Charlie's observation that it appears that the door had been on the front because of the patching that had been done. It does appear to be the original carriage house but moved five feet. Georgeann: What difference will it make if it is contributing or non-contributing if they are going to maintain it anyway. Roxanne: Development design if it is reconsidered for the national register. Joe: It doesn't seem like there can be a lot saved on the carriage house. Why is the roof being changed. Trisha: Because of height limitations and they need more space upstairs. Joe: It makes it look more of part of the house than like a carriage house. Georgeann: I like the simplicity of the carriage house that you HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 have achieved. I do not think the window in front on the second floor is in keeping. Trisha: We have changed that. Georgeann: My thought is if we keep something of that mass and keep the simplicity of it even if a lot of the boards need reconstructed that doesn't hurt my feelings if we keep something of that scale and simplicity on that corner. I would like not to have a connection between the two buildings so the two buildings would stand out clearly as separate structures. Charlie: I feel that the carriage house should remain a carriage house and possibly have a living unit within it but from the street it should look like a carriage house. I would be more sympathetic to trying to have a living unit that looked like a carriage house and have them dealing with more living space off the back and maybe the east sides of the house and compromising there rather than having it look so much like a house. Nick: The carriage houses that I am familiar with, none of the barn doors face the streets. They all faced the back of the yard and the front of the carriage house was usually a place where the people who took care of the carriage house lived. Zoe: My recommendation would be that you use the building for your separate residence but the design from the exterior be kept intact. We don't have very many carriage houses in Aspen and I don't feel it should look like another house or residence. If it has to be torn down structurally etc. when it is finally resurrected that it should look exactly like it looks now; the look of a carriage house. It should also be detached from the main house. If you have to have extra room do it to the back and east but the front should stay sterile like it is now. Augie: Was the carriage house shown on the Sandborn map. Roxanne: Yes as a two story structure. Augie: We don't have a lot of information to go on concerning the carriage house. We can't determine what that building looked like. I agree that the carriage house should stand by itself and should be simplistic. Zoe: A carriage house is not that unusual and most of them looked the same. Trisha: There are a lot of carriage houses hood. Enclosing the car port with the garage and a better place for the owners to store etc. in this neighbor- is for esthetics 5 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Zoe: The visible part from the street should be retained. Georgeann: Then Zoe, you would feel uncomfortable with the west elevation that has the little porch on it. Zoe: Yes, that looks like a little house there. Georgeann: Maybe they need to restudy the west elevation and see if that can be simplified even more and in general the feeling of the carriage house is positive and perhaps there is any way to simplify the connection between the carriage house and the main house. Steve: From staffs point of view that attachment is less compatible, it would be better if there was no attachment. If this is a duplex 9000 sq. ft. then they wouldn't have to go through conditional use through P&Z. If the units are separate they would have to have a conditional use. On the other hand since you have to go to P&Z for recommendation of historic designation they could take care of the conditional use review at that time so in effect it isn't burdensome to have to go through conditional use. If you are willing not to attach it you should be aware that you might have to go through one more process. Georgeann: Two concerns: On the main house the one window has been replaced by two windows changing the character of that side gable end; where the greenhouse is attached to the old part of the building in which the applicant is saying the owners need for a pass through from one area to another. The whole character of that end gable has changed with the greenhouse and on top of that the two upstairs windows. On the west elevation where we have a bay window I'm not so sure bay windows are necessarily appropr- iate in that space. Augie: I assume Roxanne you mean both windows behind the greenhouse on the east elevation. Those windows I assume will be turned into a door which means you would probably have to enter from the new part of the structure if we decided that window had to stay. Charlie: The important character of the house will be the south elevation. Zoe: I agree with Charlie that the south elevation is the most important. Augie: The greenhouse doesn't bother me because to me it looks like something that has been added and could be taken away at the same time as long as they don't damage the building. I'm 6 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 concerned about the window on the north elevation above the garage. Traditionally most victorian windows were vertical. Trisha: That window is high as there are closets inside. Augie: That explains why you chose that window. Patricia: Is the greenhouse visible from the southside and what are the dimensions. ?risha: It is beyond a six foot wood fence. The greenhouse is 26 ft. long and is visible. It comes out approximately 9 ft. into the yard. Patricia: I'm a little concerned with it attached to the old house but I could live with it. Charles: The greenhouse could be attached in a way that is not as continuous on the house. The other problem is the west elevation of the carriage house. The west elevation could be handled in a way that is simpler and more in keeping with the way it is now. Other than that the house is well done. Joe: On the original I like the separation of the main house and the carriage house. When I look at the west elevation my eye is drawn to the bay window that is right in the middle and with the attached garage and the "chain" to the carriage house it all seems like one building rather than two. Maybe that could be best addressed by some work on the carriage house as to whether it should be connected. Zoe: The choice of design of the greenhouse is good because it kind of favors the look of a sun porch feeling. I also feel it would be better not attached to the main building. Georgeann: Perhaps we can get a motion to allow conceptual approval with the main house being generally approved but asking for further study on keeping the original part of the east elevation as it is existing; keeping the south elevation, as you have said, exactly as existing and perhaps simplifying some of the new addition to the main house so that the original part of that building stands out. On the carriage house giving conceptual approval with further study on the second floor window on the west elevation or rather the whole west elevation. Steve: Carriage house: Not attaching it to the original house and presenting a precise plan similar to the format of the other; that they present a simplified fenestration along the west 7 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 elevation particularly so to appear more like a carriage house and that further detail be given to which materials have to be replaced and what can be repaired. If I may suggest that you follow the format that Roxanne had laid out in the memo on pages 8,9 for your motions of conceptual development approval and designation. Georgeann: We certainly can recommend for designation on the condition that no changes be made to the original part of the building. Joe: Perhaps we should incorporate the standards for national designation. Georgeann: I don't want to get this motion to complicated. MOTION: Nick made the motion that we use the designation recommendation as made on page 8 and the top of page 9. Charles: That recommendation doesn't allow for windows to be changed. Georgeann: We are also asking them to study the windows or rather the whole east elevation. With this we give them a motion that tells them they can't change the window and can't attach the greenhouse on the east elevation and we haven't said that. Charlie: Did the Parks Dept. tell you you could cut the tree down. Trisha: No and the diameter is 18 inches. Fred Gannett: They might well get a permit to cut the tree down but they would have to either replace a tree of comparable size or put in other trees greater than six inches in diameter that would equate what they took down. Trisha: The root structure will probably be harmed when we remove the newer addition part of the house. MOTION: Georgeann: I would recommend that we give this project conceptual approval based on the recommendations presented by staff on page 8, 9 of the memo and ask the applicant to also study the minutes for the further details. Nick second the motion. Ail approved. Motion carries. MOTION: Charles: I would make the recommendation for designation the same as the planning office has on page 8, 9 with the change: that no changes be made to the original windows on HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 the south and east making any changes open enough that we elevation of the original house. They aren't on the west elevation and the demolition is can incorporate that also in the motion. Patricia second the motion. Joe: The motion is subject to the south, east and west. Trisha: We aren't doing anything to the west. Charles: We could include the west which would be more encompassing. A~E~D MO~IO~: Joe: I move to amend the motion to include the west. Nick: Second the amended. Ail favored. Motion carries. The first motion was conceptual and the second motion was designation and demolition. Gretl Uhl: I'm living next door and this house had cedar wood siding originally. I know this house from 1953. The kitchen was added on. There are people still alive that have pictures and I would be glad to give you their addressed. The artist put big windows in the carriage house as he worked up there in the 60's. Brunhilde Schloffer: I'm the neighbor to the north and I am concerned with the gable you want to put up there and what kind of windows you are putting up there in the carriage house. The windows that face the alley, as those windows look straight into our living room. If you could make skylights or short high windows so that every time they walk by it doesn't smack right into our living room. Trisha: Those windows are more for light than viewing. Trisha: Concerning page 9, is this motion saying you don't want the greenhouse at all or what. Georgeann: Yes, and if you want the greenhouse you will have to come back with very good reasons for why you need to keep it attached to the original part of your building. Trisha: With this are we getting preliminary approval. Georgeann: Yes, subject to a final approval. On final approval we have asked you to retain the original portion of the east elevation as it was originally with the single window and the 9 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 non-attached greenhouse. We have asked you to simplify the carriage house. Steve: The carriage house was not included in the motion. It was my understand that you wanted it not be attached to the original house and that there be a more simplified fenestration on the west elevation in particular and that they show a more detailed plan of repair and maintenance of the structure. MOTION: Patricia: I'll make that motion. Charlie: What does that do to the roof line. Georgeann: We have approved the roof line as they have submitted it. Trisha: You are wanting us to examine the fenestration on the west side and possibly no connection with the garage or using the car port; also to restudy the fenestration on the north side. Charles: I don't think I agree about there having to not be any connection between the two buildings. I think you can have a connection that would be acceptable. Georgeann: We are only asking them to study that possibility. Fred: Are you suggesting that they stop the greenhouse at the east wing or that they not connect it to the east wing. Georgeann: We are asking them not to connect it to the old part of the house. Fred: You are asking them to study not bringing it or extending it as far south as opposed to not connecting it to the east side of the south extension. You are saying keep it back as opposed to just don't bring it forward but don't connect it to the house. Georgeann: Don't connect it to the old part of the house. Fred: Which means that they can bring it forward but not con- nected. Nick: Come South. Joe: We are saying both Fred. Charles second the motion with the clarification about the connection. All favored. Motion carries. 10 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Georgeann: I think it is messy trying to use these notes in making a motion. By the time we have our discussion a lot of them aren't applicable. Steve: I would suggest that you go down the points and change the words as you go. Georgeann: Someone should write out the proper motion. 300 W. MAIN-COITf'D CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPME1Ff P.~VIEW Caroline McDonald: I hope we can get our letter of recommenda- tion to the BofA as we are set up for P&Z in early April. We are getting near building time. On the north side we removed the mini dormers and on the west side we extended the gable line over the stairs, we won't know if we can eliminate those stairs until the Bldg. Dept. looks at it. We moved the east section out a foot and it is really hard to mesh the addition, the east side with the original structure with just a foot out. We might be able to put some type of flashing on there to show the old from the new. We also added a dormer on the east side. On the west side we have shortened the building from 52 ft.to 32 1/2 feet. Steve's memo is still talking about the massing on the north and east side. I agree it is kind of deterrent from the original structure but there is the possibility since we are under the old ordinances that we can wipe out the employee housing. We would like to do that. If the employee housing is a deterrent from the property maybe we can get along without it. This would reduce the alley to 36 ft. instead of 50 ft. so it would just be 36 ft. on the north side. Scott McDonald: If we got rid of the employee housing we would almost look like a semi... Georgeann: So you would push the east elevation back. Bill: Is employee housing required by zoning or are they providing that on their own. Caroline: As I understand we are under the old ordinances. On the shake and the shingle, metal roofs are historically in character with log houses especially at the turn of the century. In Aspen a lot of metal roofing was used. There is no natural shed and the snow will all have to be shoveled off so ice dams will be building up and it migrates underneath the wood and destroys the wood. Metal you can walk on easier without doing damage to the shake. With the trees around the riveted metal really offers a lot more strength for falling trees on it. One 11 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 has fallen on it already. It is a structural matter to. Personally I like the shake but it is not feasible on this house with all the flat areas. I took some other pictures of where the addition would be nestled in which is right behind the bbq pit on the Elisha carriage house. Scott: There is a carriage house and a stone wall. Steve: There are five main areas of historic compatibility issues which were raised at the last meeting that are still somewhat outstanding issues as we looked through the minutes of that meeting. The first is the siting of the addition. There was concern about the location with regard to the Main St. elevation so that it is set back far enough from Main St. Furthermore that it contrasts with the existing structure as you look at it from Main St. There is concern about how it works with regard to the Elisha carriage house because that is only 5 ft. away from where the proposed addition is to go. There are the concerns about encroachments which Caroline has again made a request that HPC direct staff to write a letter recommending the BofA to approve the encroachments for historic compatibility reasons. The second area is the character of the Main St. elevation with regard to the porches, railing and fenestration aspects. The third area are the roof types, whether they are to use a flat roof, 1/2 gable, a full gable, hipped roof, combinations there of, possibly shed roofs that are attached to sort of a 1/2 gable. The fourth area are the window detailing and particularly on the east and north elevations there is concern about how the particular dormer window worked on the Second St. elevation which is the east elevation and on the north elevation there were to be pseudo dormers and they changed that as well. The fifth area are selection of materials, logs, some kind of siding which would go on the second level and the roofing material. Thus far the committee hasn't discussed much more than the logs. In general it appears that the siding on the second floor and well as the roofing is appropriate. In my memo on page 94 I laid out three alternative actions for HPC to take today. One action would be to direct staff to draft a resolution of conceptual approval in which you could give further conditions for final development review and we can try to specify what those conditions are. The second would be to extend the period of this conceptual review where they are still trying to meet some of the extending conditions for one more month. The third would be to reconsider the motion of conceptual approval and pass another 12 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 motion of denial if you feel that the applicant simply can't meet the approval that was first given. Our main points are that we think that the location aspects are mainly appropriate, that they have chosen a location, with a lot of constraints on the site probably are the best. It sounds like there are some further modification on that, of pushing some elevations back further and I guess that should be clarified. In general staff feels the location will work. The fenestration details are important and we still have concerns about the south elevation of its visibility from Main St. and whether that kind of french door approach is appropriate, however, it seems to me that can be worked out at precise plan review, it is a detail, in general they have come a long way from when they started. We are still concerned about the flat roof and the form that results from having a flat roof that you get a very boxy structure and we feel that is a critical problem and we suggested that the roof lines be changed or that there be some further changes to the detailing on the structure that may give the appearance of the roof lines being changed. Give the appearance that perhaps there are shed attachments, gabled roofs or something of that sort so that it does start to break up the massing more effectively. We suggest in the memo that there may be an approach that even though the roof lines are not strictly compatible that because of the craftsman detailing of the addition that it does indeed stand on its own as a separate structure. Staff has not seen that approach and does not have a level of confidence that we can recommend conceptual approval at this point and further study is needed. Our recommendation is for one more attempt for further clarification, that you do extend that period subject to giving direction to the applicants on five points which are listed on page 5 of the memo. For the employee housing right now there is no requirement for when you change the use of a historic structure to a commercial use, that you provide employee housing. The new code will require that an applicant provide either on site or cash in lieu for the additional space to the standards of the minimum requirements of GMP which would be 35% of the employees gener- ated. We have suggested to the applicants because the intent has been set up clearly by the P&Z and Council that they do think that there should be some mitigation of impacts by the applicants for an historic project. It would be reasonable for them as an inducement to get designation at this time to follow through with the project to attack it in that way. Meet the intent of the new regulations. It certainly is attractive reducing the size of the structure. Employee housing mitigation is strongly suggested because that is the direction for the new code. Bill: When is the new code going to be adopted. 13 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Steve: May at the earliest. Steve: They do not have to provide employee housing. Fred Gannett: Which is assuming that they get all their approvals prior to the adoption of the new code. Anything that is in progress there is no vested interest. So if for some reason the process of approval is delayed they become subject to the new codes as adopted. Steve: We are suggesting that there ought to be some rap on this conceptual approval because we have already had today the third meeting and it would seem cleaner for the Committee to give a real clear direction to the applicants. Fred: One of the things Steve brought to our attention in fairness to the Board, staff and applicant when you drag out the conceptual approval process three or four times you are putting a strain on everybody. If you get it no closer to either approval or denial it becomes a point of time when it is wasting peoples other time. We are recommending that in terms of conceptual approval you give specific instructions to the applicant with the understanding that they either live up to them or if they can't meet them it dissipates, its over. At some point in time you have got to say to an applicant you can't come back next week. If you can't improve on these areas we aren't going to consider approval. We are recommending you as the Board to determine the areas that you find critical and if you aren't satisfied with the proposal as indicated then highlight those specific areas with instructions as to what you expect and then give the applicant another crack at it but if they aren't able to come back with something that meets then at some point in time you are going to have to say this application is going to have to be shelved. Patricia: How many employee units are there. Scott: Two essentially, or rather one large bedroom. We feel we could meet all your needs right there in massing. Since we began this thing, we have to live in our little area and if something has to give it has to be employee housing, it isn't going to be us otherwise it is not worthwhile for us to build. Steve continually refers to the north side massing and the flat roof back there so it seems a logical alternative to us. Zoe: I have given a lot of consideration to this project because we have spent extra hours together and in fairness to you I am going to make my recommendations as to what I think would be required for this project and then I was going to say that you can meet those requirements and the project can continue. That is basically what you are saying. I have never gone right 14 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 through the list and agreed with the Planning Office's recommen- dations. This has come a long way since you have started and with a little more sensitivity to a few areas that you will be able to achieve what you are after. The employee housing is a wonderful contribution although I feel like in terms of this project it does increase the massing considerably and this has been one of the big issue all along. Two of the main concerns to be: ~1 further study including the size and shape of glass panes on the south and east elevations of the addition. On the Main St. side I feel like that there, actually in this project period I feel there should be no large expanses of glass in this project, they should be true divided lights, french doors, no large expanses of glass should overlook Main St. #2 The flat roof is not in character with the existing house so that should be a consideration to a slightly pitched roof, something with a gable and/or hipped, something to cause it not to be so flat, so stark. To me the character of the Main St. side of the house is just as important as the Second St. elevation. They should look similar, the new addition should look very similar to that. Metal seamed roofs are actually not historical, tin roofs are but you couldn't even put a tin roof on. Scott: The Berko Bldg. has a tin roof on that is 90 yrs. old. Caroline: The propanel here is ribbed. Zoe: That is not historical and is not in character with the house and is not in keeping with the historical building next to it. I don't know what the rule is on a tin roof but this house was built in the 40's and a roof that would be put on that house would be a shake roof or would be a tin roof. It would not be a seamed metal roof like this and it would not be a color. The roof has to be changed and considered. Bill: A lot of what you are considering is what staff is recommending. Patricia: Where is the stairway on the west elevation. Scott: It will almost likely be gone. The only reason it was there was for the code. If it doesn't have to be there by code we will dispense with it. Patricia: I have one main concern the large expanse of clear pane glass rather than divided light. clean Caroline: Main St. is so dirty and when you have to those little panes all the time. Main St. is a dust cloud. 15 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Augie: In general I agree with what the Planning Office said. I'm concerned with the massing and the shapes of the addition relative to the building and to the Elisha house. I have mentioned that time and time again. We are doing a dis-service to the Elisha house with some of the additions and also to the existing structure. The only comment I have is that it seems like we are trying to put a lot of things on this site all of a sudden; we are having a single family residence; a potential restaurant and now employee housing. That might be contributing to the problem. Bill: That is a valid point. Charles: I don't think the project has come very far at all since the first meeting. There have been a lot of very good suggestions offered to break up the massing of the building and I think the applicant has refused to listen to most of them and has continually come back with the same project, designed the same way and keeps sitting here wondering why we don't approve it. The main issue is the massing and the location is probably the most appropriate on the site. The massing continues to not change even though everyone has voiced one way or another an opinion about that being inappropriate. The effect on the Elisha house seems to be real negative and that is something that the applicant doesn't seem to be real concerned with. A trade off in employee housing; that isn't even in our jurisdiction. With its location on Main Street, historic significance and importance to the community, you are doing a disservice to yourselves, to the project, to the Elisha house and to the community to not do something else with this property other than what you are proposing. Scott: I do have some window options here. Bill: The elimination of employee housing would help somewhat with the mass, it would give them the ability to slide it forward which would be more sympathetic to the Elisha house. Scott: That couldn't happen as you only have 21 ft. outside dimension and if you start sliding things around what are you going to do here. Bill: I was thinking of the back. Steve: It could be that it would give different massing alternatives for the roof. Scott: It would be a possibility. 16 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Georgeann: to see this of the over If we got rid of the employee housing I would like section pulled further back which would relieve some whelmingness compared to the Elisha house. Bill: Some slide up and some slide back which would give relief to the south elevation and still allow some relief to east. Scott: If you start sliding it back the garage is in here and I need direct access to the restaurant. Steve: I agree with Charles that employee housing is not the purview of this Committee but simply a question of massing. If you are to make a presentation to say we are eliminating a portion of this structure or eliminating one of the uses that allows you to do certain things that may make the massing more presentable, more acceptable to the Committee I think that is all this Committee is concerned about. As far as the historic compatibility issue go from what I hear of the HPC's concerns it is not so much as this elevation, this elevation to some extent the whole wall. There might be alternatives presented that might restructure some of those elevations that show a problem. Scott: Here is the Elisha outline and if you move this back we are already in a cave, this is a retaining wall. If we have to give up something of a resemblance of decent living then it isn't worth while doing. Put yourself in our shoes. Caroline: There is over 61% of the property open space. Scott: There is 6100 sq. ft. and there would be more. I'd love to build up but I didn't get a good consensus on everyone saying it's OK to build up because everyone is worried about the carriage house. Steve: We are worried about the carriage house but to not say that if there are other trade offs that you might get a little more height. Scott: A little bit of height isn't going to buy us anything other than higher rooms. I've already sunk this thing down and the living area starts six inches below grade. We are way down here in the alley. We have 21 ft. on Main St. Zoe: It is not the space it is the exterior design. Scott: Take a look at the new drawings and envision without the stairs. 17 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Bill: Everybody is having a problem with the flat roof. Zoe: And the way it drops off in the front. Had you come today and that been changed I think you would have had approval. Scott: It is changed by 2 ft. At the last meeting I had four action items and I went up before everyone at that meeting and I reviewed those. Everyone was OK on it. I come back and new things are generated because new people are here, what are you going to do, is that fair. Zoe: The same people are here. Caroline: Zoe you were not here at the last meeting. Scott: First of all to have quorums that make decisions and then you come back and things are changed. I do have an issue here. Caroline: We're back to square one. Fred: Escentialy the staff memo says you have conceptual approval subject to a realignment of the house in five areas and that the realignment is going to be subject to the Boards approval. That doesn't matter from a legal point whether the entire Board changed. The persons you are coming back to to seek approval are the Board as it exists on the date you come back. Scott: Is this a federal guideline. Fred: This is a City Board. Scott: I don't understand the fairness in that as it bounces us against the wall. Caroline: The massing the meeting last time. and we addressed all of of the roof was not brought up at all at We had four things that were brought up those today. Zoe: It was brought up at the first meeting and visually it has not changed since the first meeting. Caroline: It has changed immensely. Nick: Why don't we stop and start over and get a consensus of how we stand. Fred: A quorum exists and they are entitled to take action. The action they take may not be the action you like but they are saying the project cannot go on forever out of fairness to you 18 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 and fairness to them. They would like to get a consensus of those issues so that they can say to you unless it is changed you will not get approval. Scott: That is fine but the problem is next week, two weeks from now there will be different people here and those people have different ideas and we go to what they say and that is what happened from the last time. The last time we met all the requirements and they changed their minds now and we're bounced against the wall. Fred: Try and take into consideration what is being said. Scott: How can we when people change their minds. Caroline: To salvage this we have to go in front of P&Z in early April. If we take what the Board wants us to do, another conceptual, we're back to stage one as far as I can tell. Bill: I'm trying to find that out from the Board. Everybody has a problem with the massing. Scott: If we don't get this thing in time it doesn't matter. If I don't have the building window I don't want to embark upon this project. Bill: The alternative is come back for demolition review and do a new building. Scott: I would like a statement from HPC on their policies from minutes from meeting to meeting. Steve: You have to appreciate that there is some sensitivity in Kathy's attempt to get the minutes out accurately and quickly as possible and the Planning Office's attempts to write a 5 page memo to summarize what the comments were that I heard using the minutes in part and using the notes that I took because we are sensitive to the issue that there is a change in cast of characters on HPC. We want all the members to be cognizant of what the discussion has been and yes massing was an issue at the last meeting. Scott: That is right and it was the conclusion that we move these buildings out to separate the old from the new. I would like to know if we met the requirements of the last meeting before we go on. Bill: We are trying to get a feeling of the flat roof and the massing of the back. Then I'll try to get into the windows, stairway, front doors, south elevation. 19 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Bill: The Committee agrees that the massing of the flat roof needs to be studied more. If the employee housing would help you do that then there may be the ability for you to restudy the roof shapes and be more sympathetic to some other issues that might come up. Georgeann: In fairness at the last meeting the massing was discussed and my thoughts were to have a gable end facing the south in order to have some fenestration there and extend the roofline etc. etc. however, I also made a motion to have Scott and Caroline McDonald study the pitched roof designs suggested by Steve. That motion didn't carry. I do in fairness think that we should have shot him down more absolutely earlier on the massing. We keep mentioning it but we've never said if you don't change the flat roof you can't have it. We've let them go a long way through two meetings with the massing this way. In a way Scott does have a point there and I would also agree that Scott has been reluctant to show us any alterations to it which we have asked. At the last meeting we discussed trying to push it back and pull it away from the Elisha house in a number of occasions. Scott: We did it push it back 2 ft. from the roof and then we pushed it back another 1 1/2 ft. Bill: We still have a problem with the massing and the employee housing may give you the ability to change that somewhat. Scott: To do that I need to know how far up I can go. Bill: That isn't in our purview to design it for you. Scott: I know it isn't for you to design but you do have constraints on viewplane, what it will do to the carriage house fenestration on the side from Main St. If you answer all those essentially you are telling me what I can do, where I can put it. You know that 91 you don't want to block out the fenestration from Main St. 92 you don't want to have to insubordinate the original structure so that has something to do with it to. Steve: There is no way that the Committee should give you specific instruction on height. Scott: I'm not asking for that, I'm asking for specifics on what you will allow as far as viewplane and everything else. Within that formula, within that envelope, I can put something in there. I can't put something in there when somebody say arbitrarily well no that does not work. 2O HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Fred: This is a review board not a design committee. you as a designer or your architect must do. Either Scott: What are the review standards. Fred: The review standards are set forth in the code and you can read them as well as anybody else. Scott: Wrong, we meet the standards by the code. Fred: It is not the duty of the Board to try to provide you an explanation, their duty is to review what you have provided to them to see whether it comports based on their consensus with the city ordinances. Scott: Steve says one thing and HPC says another. I'm asking on height restrictions, you put it on the Hotel Jerome and Elli's. Bill: That is in the code. Zoe: The compatibility to your neighbors and what is across the street and what you are attaching it to are considerations of this Board. At the first meeting I stated that the restaurant idea was an excellent one and this building is significant to Aspen, Colo. and is in a prestigious spot because it is next door to one of the most famous homes here. If this gets historical designation the roof should not be metal and I also think you need an architect as the design is not appropriate and in character with Main St. There should be no metal or clad showing from the street and too much glass dilutes the house itself. It crowds the Elisha house just a little too much; it is too different from the Main house and there is too much of a contrast to the Main house; it should be more compatible and possibly a little more of a pitch to the roof; more of a traditional line. This is our third meeting and I had to say the same thing again. Charles: I agree with Zoe and at the meeting we emphasized the importance of those issues; of the massing of the building, the flat roof being inappropriate; the way the addition was handled and fundamentally this application has not changed since day one. Scott: We are locked into area. Zoe: You can get good looks with having the same amount of space. Scott: This is what I want from you, how high can I go. do 30 ft. I can 21 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Zoe: It is very possible with a different design that roof height would be appropriate. You have to have a good design. Scott: Since the fenestration of the carriage house is so close it going to be compromised. Augie: In the last meeting the minutes states: either further away from the Elisha carriage house and you can go up as high as the code will allow you as long as you give some space between you and the Elisha carriage house. Or move it back so that at least you are in the same plane and you can keep the same elevation. We're not limiting you to the height that you are allowed to go by code we're just saying that you have to give some respect to the Elisha house next door which has to do with massing of the entire building. Scott: ~1 What our minimum needs are for this project to go. ~2 Where are the building lines, we have set those out pretty straight because of the trees and everything else. We are locked in to the back and to the side. We may not even get the 5 ft. offset from the Board of Adjustment. Those are the foundations of doing the building. The other one is height limitation. There was no bottom line drawn at the last meeting. The whole front roof is entirely different. Zoe: I think you should go up in height and it ought to be in balance and in keeping and in character with next door. Caroline: Do you really want something sticking up here in front of the Elisha carriage house. Nick: I would like to see what it would look like. Caroline: Do we have time enough to make this before P&Z in April or should we just bag the whole thing. Georgeann: I do not think we should make this building higher as it will be a conflict with the Elisha carriage house. I would like to see this addition pushed back a little bit further. The south elevation moved back more so the pitch of the roof is in line with the pitch of the front of the Elisha house. In that case at 5 ft. away I don't think this long expanse is a con- sideration. We have a huge tree and other things for the eyes to see as they go by. We are making the massing more of a problem because we look at all four sides of it. It would be terrific if we could get rid of the employee housing. That would solve the problem of massing on the rear and it also preserves more of the original log cabin. 22 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Bill: Please be specific that when you take the employee housing off you may not want to see that flat wall. Georgeann: We would have to push it back. Minimizing of the roof shapes not getting into more complicated pitches which distract the eye even more is a good solution. On the south elevation the addition should go back even further so the planes from the old roof to the new roof should be at least of a 4 ft offset so that the point where the south roof meets the flat roof is on the same plane as the front wall of the carriage house. So that with only a five foot separation between the two buildings you will have the least impact possible of the flat section of their roof giving them maximum square footage inside, maximum feeling of space, minimum impact on the Elisha house. We will get a fairly minimal structure on Main St. this way. On the Second St. side I believe by eliminating employee housing and moving the facade more or less as he has presented it, moving that facade west as far as he goes to eliminate the employee housing would be a tremendous improvement on the massing. With both of those things moved back they will virtually keep the same square footage they have now, they would loose maybe two feet out of their livingroom and the kitchen. We have tried to give you a gap of two feet but that is not just acceptable from the Board. That would be a simpler version than a whole bunch of pitches. They have something fairly livable here and I don't find those two story walls are much impact. Zoe: The expanses of glass on Main St. if that little section were true divided light it would be a more appealing design from Main St. Georgeann: Do you want the windows smaller. Zoe: No, if they were just true divided light and down below it they were french doors with divided lights. The flat part of the roof when it goes up, the porch. Bill: The low part, the balcony. Scott: It is modern. MOTION~ Bill: In light of the massing that could be removed by the employee housing I would entertain a motion that would following the Planning Offices recommendation: We extend the period in which the applicant can meet the conditions of the conceptual approval by one month to April 12, 1988 with the direction to the applicant: %1 by moving the massing to further study the fenestration detailing including the size and shape of the glass panes on the south and east elevation of the addition. %2 Because there is a large mass removed that you study pitched 23 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 roof types including gable ends, cross gables, or hip or partial gable ends that would fix the balcony on the front that is just cut out of the pitched roof on the south elevation. Maybe a gable would open that up and it would increase your view somewhat. 93 Continue to study the breaking up of the massing of the east and north elevations which would be allowed now because of that removed employee housing unit including the use of characteristic log house detailing. #4 We could eliminate the staircase on the west elevation. ~5 That you consider the use of shake or shingle roofing to attain a small scale element consistent with the character of the original house. To include in this motion under #1 is that when the massing is removed if we could move the south elevation back and possible use a cross gable I think you can incorporate a balcony there a little more compatible with this type of structure. Scott: At what height. Bill: The identify of the log house is important and the identity of the Elisha carriage house is important so some where between there is some compatibility. Now that the massing has changed at this meeting and you can pull it back maybe some more height of a hipped roof is appropriate and will still allow views to the Elisha house. Bill: Maybe you don't get a balcony and make two dormers. Scott: back. When you have a cross gable here this thing would extend Bill: There might be some other roof shapes. Scott: We have looked at other things and they all compromise floor area and that is the bottom line. Bill: Only you can make that decision. Scott: You haven't reviewed the fenestration that I supplied on the window types. Bill: That style of option A is more in character. ~OTION: Charles made the motion that Bill entertained. Georgeann second the motion. Scott: I need a clarification. Zoe: You have on page 5 the staff recommendations. The front porch is the #6 item and needs to be strongly considered and 24 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 changed in order to get approval from this Board. The Main St. elevation, the second story. Charles: The southwest corner. Scott: What do you take issue on with the front porch. Zoe: The way the roof comes down and the hole and the way the glass is that whole section. That whole section looks like a garage addition. Bill: The whole Board feels that way. Scott: Does anyone take issue on the area of glass that I have there. I'm taking light. Charles: We are saying that there is too much continuous glass area for the size and scale in proportion to the other windows. That isn't what I asked, that's continuous. I said Scott: area. Zoe: Scott: Zoe: Zoe: Bill: Too much expanse of glass. If we don't have sun I don't want to build this thing. You have two windows that are in character. We have been specific, it is 1 thru 6. We can't be specific on the 70 sq. ft. of glass. would follow more of the traditional window opening site. If you AMENDED MOTIO~ Charles: I want to amend the motion to make sure we add #6 which is to restudy the south west corner to consider different roof pitches and fenestration on the second level. Georgeann second the motion. Ail favored. Motion carries. Nick: A good solid metal roof would be to their advantage as there are a lot of catch places. It would be acceptable if it had the appropriate color. Scott: I wouldn't build it if I didn't have a metal roof. Fred: One of the comments you have made is I won't build this if I don't get it. 25 HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 Scott: That's right. Fred: You may not get this. You got direction from the Board and they will tell you at the next meeting whether or not they are going to approve your plans as submitted. Whether you choose to accept this approval or not is your responsibility. I don't want the Board to feel intimidated. MOTION: Bill: We voted on the amendment and now we need to vote on the motion. All favored. Motion carries. Adjourn: 5:15 p.m. Kathy Strickland Deputy City Clerk 26