Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880412HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall April 12, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Patricia O'Bryan, Zoe Compton, Charles Cunniffe, Charlie Knight, Augie Reno and Joe Krabacher present. Georgeann Waggaman was excused. MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the minutes 22, 1988. Second by Charles Cunniffe. Motion carries. COMMITTEE MEIqBER ~ STAFF COMMEI~TS of March Roxanne: It is my recommendation that we add 222 E. Hallam, Amato house to the agenda and it is public noticed for the 26th of April. Bill: When we reviewed 222 E. Hallam approval we had tabled it to be reviewed at are asking to be put on today's agenda for under the demolition this meeting and they redevelopment review. MOTION: Charles made the motion to review conceptually 222 E. Hallam. Charlie second the motion. All approved except Pat. Motion carries. Roxanne: I attended the state historic preservation office in Denver and an historic landscape seminar and will be sending you a memo. We are researching some historic landscapes and materials that were used in mining towns. The preservation forum is scheduled for May 10th during preservation week at the Pitkin library 7:00 to 9:00 pm. Augie: We owe it to the citizens from the continuity standpoint to have people here on the Board so that over the period of preliminary and final submissions you have the same group of people for the most part so that you don't get differences of opinion back and forth. I would urge that you Bill as the chairman would enforce the rules on behalf of the citizens. Bill: I have a note from Kathy that if we do hold meetings at different times it has to be done by a motion at the previous meeting so notification can be made in the paper. Nick: I would like to thank the City Council for inviting us to the evening at Primivera. Nick: I looked at the roof at Elli's and they moved the cooler that we were concerned about and I believe we will be getting a HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 proposal to add some other equipment on that same roof so we all should be aware of this meeting this afternoon. 222 E. ~ALLAM-AMA~O R~DEVELOPMEI~ PLAI~ Charles stepped down. Richard Kline, project architect: I'm presenting drawings of the revised proposed residence based on comments from the Board and the previous meeting. We have supplied you with a massing study which incorporated trees that exist on the site; Mona Frost's house to the left and the proposed Amato in the center and the Vigoda house on the other side. We have tightened up the house considerably; it has less height. We have used hip roof forms to tighten the massing even further and lowered the second story plate down to six feet. We have used the form of Mona Frost's house as our gable roof form and it is the same width and same height. Mona Frost's house is 18 ft. wide and our house is the same and the Vigoda house is 25 feet wide. Because of the lower plate on the second story we have dormer windows that project into that massing and that is taken from the Vigoda house. The house is smaller in scale and the way we did this was to remove the second story bedroom and put it in the back on the first floor. We actually didn't lengthen the house at all. The house is in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood. We have reduced the amount of detail substantially from the first house and the only real trim is the horizontal banding that occurs across the front gable end at the livingroom to tie together the porch roof. In back the garage was originally to massive and we eliminated the roof on the garage and it is a deck now to bring the scale down. We have tried to address all concerns of the previous meeting. Nick: Please repeat the dimensions of Mona's house, the new house and the Vigoda house. Richard: The closest areas that project toward the street, Mona's is 18ft, Amato 18 ft. and Vigoda 25 ft. Charlie: What is the height of the top gable. Richard: 28 ft. to the rear ridge and the gable is even with Mona Frost's house which is about 20 ft. The Glidden house is about 26 ft. Steve: The old plans were 29 ft. to the pitch of the top roof. Zoe: How many square feet are you adding. Richard: We are under our FAR and about 3,200 sq. ft. 2 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 Bill: What did the existing house have. Richard: Close to 2,400. Bill: We wouldn't be able to pass on this today we would table it until the next meeting. Roxanne: I would like to know their goal and what they are looking for. Richard: We have created a very complimentary house to the neighborhood and this is the house we would like to see approved. Steve: Don Westerlind stated the existing house was 2,000 sq. ft. and 420sq. ft. for the work shop. Charlie: I think you have scaled it more to the streetscape that is appropriate. Bill: I would look at the west elevation, although it is held back which I like, it seems like one long wall. I like what I see overall on the reduction of the new proposal. Richard: Would it be appropriate to have Mona Frost review these drawing and comment to that elevation adjacent to her. Bill: I don't want to shade her too much but there may be nothing that you can do and the trade off's might be fine. Bill: I like the use of the hip with a cross cable coming out and historically that is a good roof shape. I would be looking at the round top windows on the front also, we won't want it to look like a replication. Zoe: What about the oval window. Richard: It is a window and a door and it could be square if you would rather have something like that; it comes out onto the porch off the master bedroom above the entry. Zoe: I also have a problem with the arched windows; possibly a double hung plain window and not look so gingerbready. I also feel the presentation is excellent and the scaling is good. Richard: We tried to eliminate most of the gingerbread trim work. Augie: The massing fits into the neighborhood. To me it is too similar to victorian; I would have rather seen something that is related but could be defined as something different. 3 , HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 Zoe: This style of house fits the client, they want a victorian home. Patricia: What are the dimensions of the footage across the front in relations to Mona's house. Richard: It is the same 18 feet. Joe: I feel they have addressed had, reducing the complexity of strongly about the window issue. a number of concerns that we the windows. I don't feel Patricia: Will the tree in front stay. Richard: Yes. Steve: I would like to note that the building is only one foot shorter than was presented at the prior meeting and massing is still of concern. Patricia: Will you have a model next time. Richard: If the Board desires. Roxanne: I would like a summary in letter form for the next meeting of what you presented today in comparing what is new to what you previously presented on the 22nd. Charlie: I have a question on the rear yard setback to the R-6 zone, the 6,000 feet that you are trying to work within. Are you at 5 ft. with the garage. Richard: The Planning Office indicated that there was no problem locating part of that garage in SCI zone. Charlie: As big as that house is if you set it back it will help in massing. Bill: The consensus of the Board is that a model is not necessary and the drawings are very detailed. Zoe: It is a complete and concise presentation. 334 W. HALLA~-GREENHOUSE SUNSPACE AND CARRIAGE HOUSE RENOVATION Bill stepped down. Trish Harris: We would like to add a sunspace to the east side of the house. The clients were very disappointed that they could not do the sunspace addition to their house. We are submitting 4 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 the same plan. We are using the same size as the window that is there right now for an opening out of the library portion of the house and using that as a corridor to go back and forth to the kitchen. The sun space addition will not obstruct any of the primary facade which is the south elevation of the house. We are adding the sunspace to the east side of the house which is low level of viewing. It will not make that much of an impact on the house. It is a transparent addition, all glass. We are keeping away from the front part of the house and moving it back about three feet from the corner of the house from both ends so the corner board detail of the house is not obstructed. The existing trim will remain with the removal of the window making it longer for a doorway to come back and forth to the sunspace. We believe that we are not obstructing any historic detailing with this addition. We are adding it on to the siding of the house. The remainder of the sunspace will be added onto the addition of the house. Roxanne: On March 8th HPC reviewed that no changes be made to the windows on the south, east, and west elevation of the original structure. The recommendations made by staff that were approved were specific that the greenhouse addition be re- designed to be inconspicuous as possible with no damage done to the original historic structure and attaching the greenhouse only to the newer addition and limiting its size and scale and that the cottonwood on the east side yard be retained. Trish: The Parks Dept. said they would approve the removal of the tree condition to our adding three new trees to the landscape design of the house. Roxanne: Additions such as this type make a strong impact and every effort should be made to mitigate the effect that its installation will have. Greenhouses should be placed where they do the obscure the primary facade. Primary facade can mean the street facade or in my opinion this particular elevation is a very important facade as street view goes. The plans submitted have not changed from the original and they show the sunspace in the same location attached to the original structure with the removal of the original lower level window. By attaching it the original details will be destroyed which is not in keeping with the guidelines. Alternatives for the placement of the sunspace have not be adequately addressed. The Planning Office recommends that HPC uphold its original motion requiring the attachment of the sunspace to the new addition and that no changes be made to the south, east, west elevation windows and if necessary further study of the sunspace attachment. Charlie: Is the roof made up off metal and the arches are glass 5 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 on the ends and they tunnel back to the sidewalk. Is the remainder of the roof flat or what. Trish: Slightly pitched for drainage and is insulated. Charlie: How tall is it. Trish: About 12 feet. Charlie: This house is in relatively good shape and I tend to agree with staff that its positioning is going to infringe on the historic character of this house. Augie: I have no problem with the greenhouse because it is not on a significant side of the building and you can tell what is the existing building and what is the greenhouse. If you could keep the window to just an opening into the library instead of a door so the actual opening of the window stays the same. Trish: It will just be an opening. Nick: You don't want them to use that as a doorway. Patricia: I'm concerned about the tree, saving the old tree rather than three new ones. The greenhouse is on a less important side of the house. The tree is my major concern. Zoe: After visiting the site the existing structure is going to be restored and the east elevation is minimal exposure. The applicant wants the sunporch here and I don't think it will effect the historical integrity of the house. The tree trade off is fine as long as you get substantial trees. I'm in favor of the placement of the greenhouse. Trish: We will work with the landscape architect. Joe: I don't have a problem with the sunroom but the placement is so close to the front of the existing house, only three feet back and that is a definite concern. My other concern is the same as Charlie's the way the windows are impacted on the second story of the existing house. Zoe: The arches bother me because they are crowding the one window. Trish: The arches on the greenhouse enable the light to come into the space and make it open and airy. They carry on more of a victorian feel to reflect the style of the house. Joe: I only have a problem with the front arch. HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 Charles: What is the actual purpose of having the sunroom in front of the library study as opposed to leaving it open to view. Trish: When Marta and Frank use the library study they don't want it to be right off the kitchen. Marta, owner: We work out of our home and spend the morning hours on the phone and the library will be where that work is done. We also have people staying with us and it is nice to have an area off the area where you are working to go and get away. I don't want an area into the kitchen because it interferes with the business feeling to have people coming in and out of the kitchen with a door there. This is the most important part of the house to us. Charles: I wanted to know why you couldn't have the sunroom be attached to the kitchen section to alleviate some of the concerns of how close it us to the corner of the original house. Marta: Then it is only functional for the kitchen. is relief to be able to step away with the people and sit down a little more informally. The sunroom you are with Charles: My suggestion would be if you have the try to pull back the front edge a little more than and I have a little trouble with the bubble also. opening there shown so far Marta: We are trying to stay in character and it is as important to us and it is for you. It is the only side of the house that we can expand on. Trish: This we feel is a compliment to the neighborhood without obstruction too much of the detail. As far as the arches we can look at other configurations. Nick: You have made some effort to move the greenhouse back and the fact that you are willing to talk about the arches gives us the feeling that we might reach some compromise. Roxanne: My concerns are any destruction of any feature of the original house in making a door out of a window; I'm concerned about that. I'm also concerned about the location of the greenhouse. I had talked to Trish about possibly giving you the same amount of square footage with the sunspace but just making it a different shape instead of long and rectangular but then the issue is the floor space and how do you deal with it through the library. Originally we had asked for some other plans so we could see what the alternatives were. 7 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 Nick: Not having gotten anything back as alternatives I can only ask for a motion with some stipulations. Augie: Can you live with leaving that window the way it is but yet leaving the greenhouse in the same configuration so essentially you don't have a passage you just have an opening window so you get the light and look into the greenhouse. Marta: For our lives it is very difficult because that space is very functional. Zoe: This house is a #5 which means it is one of the nicest victorians in Aspen. From the Department of Interiors standards when you alter the exterior of the house, by putting something on it and augmenting it, starting to make doors out of windows that is where the concern is coming from. I don't know what else you would do as you have to get in somehow. Charlie: You are either going to allow them to do this or you're not. I think we should go into a motion and at that time we can still make a conditional on the review of the roof line. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to allow the greenhouse on the eastern facade of 334 W. Hallam as designed in its footprint allowing the applicant to join the library to the greenhouse altering the eastern side window to a door provided however that the roofline is brought to the Committee for further review. zoe second the motion. Augie: Do you want to clarify that the door becomes the same width of the window. Marta: Maybe a few inches wider than the window as the window is very small. Charlie: I will amend the motion to have the window altered to a door and that should be reviewed. Joe: The motion is to allow them to attach the greenhouse to the original structure but they will not be required to change the position of the greenhouse addition but to study the rooflines and changing the window to a door. Nick: Ail approved. Nick, Zoe, Augie, Charles yes. Joe, Patricia, Charlie no. Motion carries 4-3. Trish: We would like to clarify our position on the carriage house. Our structural engineer said that the carriage house would need extensive renovation. What might happen is that you HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 would just see the skeleton of the house. The siding is not in very good shape at all and we will save what boards we can to incorporate with the new siding and we also are going to remove the new existing roof of the carriage house because it needs new roof rafters to withstand the loads. There is an 8 inch cinder block all the way around the house sitting on an 8 inch concrete pad. We are unsure about the stability of that. We would probably have to pour a new foundation. I want everybody on the Committee to know that this may happen in order to reuse this structure. Steve: We have discussed this as to whether it constitutes complete demolition. I would request the applicant to present that plan and allow staff to make that determination and to get back to them as soon as possible so that they know if they would have to go through the public hearing requirement for complete demolition of the carriage house. There is a gray area as to extensive renovation vs. demolition and we need to review it. Nick: I have to go along with Steve's recommendation. Trish: We feel it doesn't require total demolition and it is the same plan and received conceptual approval. After the structural engineer looked at this he has said it will be an extensive renovation and we wanted the Committee to know that. Charlie: Could you provide eastern and southern elevations when you do the greenhouse. Trish: Yes. Charles: I don't have a problem with restructuring the carriage house provided that we're getting the original look back. Augie: I agree as the building is in bad them to go through the process of telling us doing before we go ahead and say do it. shape. I would like exactly what you are Trish: We will do that at final approval. Steve: Trish, submit a letter to staff so that we can determine whether we have to establish a public hearing pursuant to the demolition review ordinance. Trish: You are saying go through staff that would dictate whether it is demolition or part of the development review. Joe: We want to find out "do we have to do a demolition review" because of the nature of the carriage house. 9 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 Patricia: It is between you and the staff and then it comes to us what we are dealing with here. Zoe: I like the carriage house plain. I don't have any problems with what you have proposed. I don't like the arched windows but I like the working class look. Nick: You have enough information for the preliminary and if you can satisfy staff with the documentation they need you can work out whether it is demolition or not. 101 S. MILL, ELLI'S ROOFTOP EQUIP~NT Heidi Hoffman: We have two issues here existing equipment and Sushi Masa to propose their equipment. We are looking for approval of what is there already but also to hear Wayne's presentation. Heidi: Pinion's equipment was already up on the roof at the time of the Dec. 22 meeting. Steve: At the point that we had received the drawing which was to explain what had already been installed I looked at it and felt it was not in compliance with the two options that HPC had approved at the December meeting. Rather than the duct coming straight in an elbow was created and I brought to the Committee that violation or lack of compliance to ask whether the Committee thought this was something significant to look at or something that is very minor in nature. At that time you determined that it should be reviewed and at the same time try to review the restaurant equipment that was shown to be installed at a later date. Wayne Stryker has the details for that. What we did not review at the Dec. meeting was Pinion's equipment which goes between B and C. In my memo I had noted that it was fairly noticeable particularly as you are walking down on the north side of Main St. around Country Roads restaurant it starts to be visible only from that point. It still is a judgment call. As far as I know that had never been approved. It was quite specific at the time we were discussing the roof top equipment that all the roof top equipment would need to go through the HPC for your approval. Wayne will make his presentation of what he will be doing with the Sushi Masa equipment. It is fairly minimal only 37" high in places. Perhaps it could be moved in a little and reduce the impacts as you start to pick it up from Carl's Pharmacy and that might be preferable but I don't think it is a problem. I also brought up the concern that HPC had discussed as to whether screening was appropriate. As I recall HPC had decided if we weren't going to see much more mechanical equipment it was preferable to see mechanical equipment rather than screening it which adds to the bulk of the structure. I 10 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 would recommend to HPC that you allow the mechanical to be visible and not add to the bulk of the structure as I think that will effect the sense of the store front even though it is objectionable in my opinion. Charles: better to it. I agree with Steve's recommendation that it would be see the "honest" equipment rather than a facade around Nick: They did move the cooler and my concern is that there is an awful lot of equipment up on the roof. Could you do something about the blateness of the duct work. Heidi: We had it painted this week. Steve: You should hear Wayne's proposal and make one motion. Wayne Stryker: I agree with Steve's recommendation. Steve: Could you move it in any further. Wayne: It cannot be moved to the east but could move to the south but the reason it is going to the west is to get the separation between intake and exhaust. Joe: It won't be higher than 37". Wayne: I have been assured by the mechanical installer. Charlie: I have a question: Why in Nov. when we asked you to move the swamp coolers we thought we were going to have the one swamp cooler vented directly in and altered and at that point we asked you that we review all further mechanical equipment on the roof then Pinions appeared on the roof. Heidi: Pinions was already up there prior to discussion. The Dec. 22 issue was the three swamp coolers because we assured staff Pinion's restaurant equipment would be under the view plain. Steve: For the record Pinion's equipment was no something the Planning office was aware of. Charlie: My comments were that we asked for review of any equipment on the roof and the reason was that there was a raised element to the roofline that we allowed to slide through, that inconsistency provided the problem that raises all your roof top equipment an extra 2 feet or so. 11 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 MO~ION: Joseph made the motion to approve an amendment to the roof top equipment plan for Elli's conditional that it not be more than 37" and to be painted out to match the existing. Nick second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Zoe stepped down. 300 W. MAIN-CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Scott: We put together a summary to respond to 6 items put forth during the March 8th meeting and a summary of the applicants design changes directed by HPC from previous meetings. Motion 91: A. moving the massing; result, moving the massing does not accommodate the workings of the interior, family needs and restaurant requirements. The footprint of the addition is the same except the employee housing has been removed. B. Fenestration south elevation. Shed roof over ground floor, pitch increase, as a result it decreased the exposed window area for the second floor and complete hides the second floor porch. C. The second level block of four windows (2 doors broken up to 2 blocks of 3 and 1 windows) result breaks up the expanse of glass. D. Ground level; block of 4 french doors broken up to 2 french doors bounded by 2 divided light double hung windows; result gives impression of enclosed porch. E. Fenestration east elevation, shed dormer over 3 true divided light double hung windows; results shed dormer accommodates the needs of bathroom, bedroom windows. Motion #2: A. Study pitched roof types south elevation. Shed roof pitch over ground level increased, result hiding completely the balcony. B. Shed roof over 2nd level balcony is a different pitch than the west elevation facia gable, results further breaks up south elevation and less modern. C. 2nd level gable roof with attic divided light window, result gives a victorian effect, masks Elisha carriage house east fenestration, causes the original structure to be subordinate to the addition, decreases sun to the north neighbors and increases general massing. D. Reconsider hip on south elevation gable; result too modern. Motion #3: A. Decrease breakup massing on east and north elevation. Removed employee housing; results less than 30% of the original structure is obscured from view by the addition and that is only on the alley and Elisha sides. Edge of flatroof N. elevation reduced to 27 maximum span. We feel it gives the impression that the flat roof is more of a shed attachment. B. Facia gable north elevation over garage door; result breaks up 38' continuous wall in half. C. Use of material options: use of 4 sided log clapboard and channel lap, result further breaks up 38' wall and massing. 12 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 Motion #4: Eliminated staircase. That was eliminated at second meeting and most likely not required by code. Motion 95: Shake or shingle roof. The shingle roof has been incorporated on the house for 2 or more layers in 44 years. The current roof is tar paper and leaks due to the snow catches on the original structure. Ice dams form unseat nails and break seams. Further damages a shingle or composite roof. The only logical roof is metal which resists environmental and shoveling damage. Motion ~6: South west corner. A. 2nd level west elevation true divided light window; results focal point and breaks up massing s. w. corner. B. West elevation facia gable; result focal point and breaks up massing of s.w. corner. C. Ground level west elevation, divided light double hung windows; result further breaks up massing of s. w. corner. D. West elevation material framed by facia gable, 4 sided logs, remaining wall clapboard; results breaks up massing infers west shed roof was an add on. E. West elevation channel lap framed by facia gable, remaining wall clapboard; result further breaks up massing, infers west elevation shed (flat) roof as an add on. F. West elevation all clapboard. G. Other issues: fenestration, double hung windows used throughout; french doors are divided light and broken up a little bit. The glass area southern elevation remains unchanged as it is our only sources of direct sunlight exposure. We have a 25 ft. diameter tree located directed in front of the southern exposure limiting drastically the sunlight. The addition is set back from the original structure. The carriage house second level glass area remains unchanged for the same reasons as ground level glass and for passive solar consideration but we have reduced the glass area that can be seen. Welton Anderson: I looked at the design from the public-right- of-way. The Sec. of Interior guidelines for additions to historic structures says don't try to imitate them and make it look like it was part of the original building. Give it enough of a difference and make it look like it can be torn away in future years. We talked about using channel lapsiding roughly at the same scale as the logs but not trying to duplicate the log material. It was my understanding that the Commission was least interested with the alley. Functionally to meet the McDonald's requirements for living space I didn't offer any suggestions to change the actual floor plans. On Second St. you would see that this is a continuous wall for a very short period of time. Bill: D. You are asking us to review D and staff has not reviewed 13 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 Welton: doors. It is similar to A and the only changes are the french Roxanne: Is the balcony 4 ft. wide. Scott: It is a little less than six. Bill: So only the south elevation windows have changed. Roxanne: What has changed on A other than the south elevation. Welton: There are a lot of little detail changes; pulling the roof in so that it reads like a shed. Bill: The changes are basically in the window. Patricia: What are the materials. Welton: In order to compliment and not copy the logs in the surfaces that are visible to the public right-of-way it would be channel-lap wood siding which would be the same dimension vertically. In the area adjacent to the carriage house and on the alley it would be clap wood (bevelled siding). It would be painted or stained to lessen its importance so that the gable on the west side and the alley would dominate. I got together with the McDonald's to refine and make the drawings read clearly for the Board. Roxanne: Prior Committee actions: On Feb. 9th HPC recommended historic designation which gave conceptual development review approval subject to the conditions that the applicant further study and clarify massing, softening of contemporary features, elimination of the dominant character of the porch and steps on the south elevation. Consideration of extending the addition further east while pulling back the addition from the south and changing the roof pitches slightly. Also a subcommittee of HPC will meet with the applicant to generally discuss the concepts of compatible architectural design that should be considered. The subcommittee did meet on Feb. 12th and HPC reviewed the revised plans to meet the conceptual review conditions of approval on Feb. 22 and also on March 8th. At the March 8th mtg. HPC passed a motion to extend the period during which the applicant could meet the conditions of conceptual approval by one month to today with direction to the applicant to study and present revised plans which they have done regarding fenestration, pitched roof types, continue to study breaking up of the massing, the elimination of the staircase on the west elevation, consider the use of shake and shingle roofing and restudy the southwest corner regarding the second story porch and massing. Problem Discussion: The applicant has submitted at this point 4 plans 14 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 and had submitted 3 alternative plans and when the memo was prepared no letter had been presented to explain the reasoning undergone to arrive at the alterations in response to the study areas that HPC had defined. It was HPC's recommendation that other studies be made. With the fourth plan (A prime) being presented today we may be closer. Alternative A, the west and north elevation have a 1/2 gable end with what we saw on the plans to be a two foot roof overhang and face rafter mold to give the appearance of a full gable end. The shed dormer does extend the full width of the addition. Alternative B which was requested is very similar to A with a truncated partial gable end. Alternative C is the addition of the 2 1/2 story with a north south gable end. Staff asked for additional comments from the State of Colorado Historical Architects and I gave him copies of the three options that we had. I haven't heard from him yet. His basic thoughts were: The log house was a classic; a 1 1/2 story addition with a twelve twelve would be a nice transition between the log house and the Elisha carriage house; a flat roof was not at all fitting; in this case new should not necessarily look so new, that compatible was really the issue and it should be very compatible and that by the very design that it would not be mistaken for the old which is an issue that Welton brought up. He did feel that dormers would be OK to allow for more head room and possibly allow them more square footage inside. The fundamental questions in this review are: What are the specific historic qualities of the existing log house that make it worth preserving; Does the addition honor as well as possible those qualities or does it substantially alter or destroy the character of the property. Alternative A we feel is an attempt to use some of the partial gable ends, false face rafter mold and the large shed dormers to break up the massing of the addition. It has not increased the height of the addition, the applicants have not done that above the original log house and the design follows to some extent the direction in condition #2. The south elevation doors and windows are very nearly the same as in prior plans which in our opinion fails to respond to conditions one and six per HPC. The siding of the south elevation has also not changed in response to condition #1. We do conclude that alternative A is an interesting attempt to use the false gable roofline detailing to break up the massing while retaining that box wrap around effect. Unfortunately we cannot conclude that it adequately answers all of HPC's objectives to the design regarding the effects of the original house and the neighboring carriage house. Alternative C doe create a true gable end and we had asked for that. It does overshadow the original house and it does tend to dominate the Elisha carriage house. It is 2 1/2 stories high. The applicant has not shown us a 1 1/2 story pitched roof design which may have achieved the balance between the use in compatible roof types. 15 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 Alternatives: You could move to direct the Planning office to draft a resolution giving conceptual approval subject to conditions. You can move to withdraw and deny conceptual approval, finding that the applicant has not met the conditions of the Feb. 8th conceptual approval or the conditions of the March 8th extension. We are impressed with the work the applicants have done and the improvements they have made. We believe Alternative A is the best design and alternative A prime in my opinion is a better design however none of the alternatives shown respond adequately to the design challenge put forth in HPC's conditions of approval and extension. It is our recommendation that the HPC withdraw and deny conceptual approval for the reason that the applicant has not met the conditions. The applicant is still eligible to reapply with a new design. Steve: The Council decided that HPC should have the jurisdiction to allow for encroachments and setbacks and other things for all structures not just simply residential structures. Based on that directive which will be incorporated in the new code the McDonalds have not gone through the Board of Adjustment for a variance and that can now be granted by the HPC through your final review. The encroachment is into the 15 yard rear setback and they would then be 5.2 ft. from that alley rear setback line. The Committee needs to make the basic findings which are in the code that state that it is more compatible to have that kind of variation in requirements then it would be if they were meeting the setbacks. Bill: I'll open the public hearing. I'll close the public hearing. Bill: This is a letter dated April 12, 1988 to the HPC from the renters of the Elisha House. To whom it may concern. We the occupants of the Elisha house located at 320 W. Main St. support the McDonald project currently up for approval. If you have any question do not hesitate to call. Christine De Bartollo. Bill: We could deal with the issues of massing, roof pitches, south west corner porch, materials-siding and roofing and fenestration-windows and doors. Zoe: Stepped down. Patricia: The windows on the second level are grouped in three and then a single, are they staying that way. Scott: They are situated that way due to the bathroom and street noise. 16 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 Augie: I visited with the McDonald's last Thursday to discuss Alternate D or A prime. From the massing standpoint the project has come a long way on the Main St. elevation and 2nd St. elevation. On massing I still question the box effect in the alley of the west end. I like the roof pitch that has dormers that lift up and the porch idea of being filled in. The only question I have again is the back corner-the big flat roof. As far as materials log cabins historically had numerous kinds of materials; I have no problem with the metal roof. The fenestration is a lot better with the windows. I question the upper balcony on the south side I think it would be nicer to relate more to what is down below. I have no problem with the change in siding as long as the relative size is similar on the two Main Street elevations that the public will see. My big question is the north west corner of the building; is this rear corner coming off as well as they think it will with the change in materials, change in scale and roof pitch. The majority of what is important in the Elisha house will still be visible from Main St. coming from the east. There are square windows down low boarded up on the Elisha house which I don't think are as important but you will still see the majority of the gable end of the building. Charlie: The north west corner is the issue and is holding the Committee from finding a direction. Patricia: The north west corner is not visible from Main Street. Charlie: It will be hidden from the Elisha house. Possibly we should do a straw vote concerning the corner; does the Committee prefer the flat or a gabled roof that is higher than the existing roof line of the original cabin. If the Committee feels the flat roof is appropriate then we should go on to reviewing details. Caroline: With Planning's recommendation of a 1 1/2 gable pitch we didn't get any floor area since we are down to 1700 sq. feet from our first 2,000 sq. ft. Bill: Lets address the north west corner. Nick: I don't have any problem with the north west corner. Bill: Does the Committee want the applicant to keep the roof as low as possible or would they entertain a gabled roof which in fact would be higher than the original house. Augie: I wouldn't be opposed to a gable even if it was a two 17 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 story space if the mass of the building moved back relative to the front face of the Elisha carriage house. Charlie: In general would the Committee prefer that they keep the massing like this or they try to make it perhaps more vertical. Joe: I like alternative C better than the flat lines. As far as the northwest corner I have no problem with it; the main elevations here are clearly the South and East. Nick: I am mostly concerned with the south elevation and the fenestration etc. have been addressed by the applicant. The south elevation looks good. Knowing what we would see on the west elevation it doesn't adversely effect me with a flat roof or a pitched roof. Patricia: I am not emotional about the north west corner. If I had to choose a design I would choose C. You can't see it from Main St. and either way I don't think it would overpower the Elisha carriage house. Charles: I like the pitched roof and it may be able to work. Keep in mind the rating of the house and its location. It has to be apparent what the original house and what the addition is. The pitch might be more successful. Bill: I feel the original structure is a very important structure and I feel that we should not make a decision based on that you are not going to see it. It is on Main St. and is an important structure and I would like to see a structure that has more integrity than something that has a flat design. I also don't feel C is the solution. I am not seeing good proposals for an important structure. Charles: I am uncomfortable with the lack something to review in conjunction with the that these elevations have to work this way. of a floor plan or elevations to know Charlie: I am not real comfortable with the proposal and I feel you are slighting this building. One of the points that the state points out is that the addition be compatible and not significantly different. What I am hearing from the Board is that 4 out of 7 aren't satisfied with the roof line. Nick: Lets not forget all the changes they have made. Bill: If by putting a house on here with a restaurant is detriment to the saving of the structure then we defeat the purpose of preservation here. 18 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 Roxanne: The Committee is more interested in seeing a pitch. Possibly you could look at alternative C and move to approve with conditions. In our opinion alternative C is quite high and too high. There is a transition point, a way that you could replicate the roof pitch of the original log house because it is an unique structure and replicate the roof pitch for the addition to actually make that transition to the carriage house. If the applicant cannot do that due to square footage etc. then I don't know where else the Committee can go. Welton: Maybe I can work with the McDonalds to change the program spaces on the second level primarily. I did not touch the floor plan but it is time to do that. You can either table it or conceptually approve it with the condition that this flat roof portion be changed. It is the flat roof area in the north west corner that is the problem and I feel we can do something about it. Nick: Another concern when you start raising that flat roof there are people that live on Bleeker St. that nobody has even considered. That is a whole new plain. Augie: One suggestion would be changing the floor elevation of the addition. Welton: The restaurant kitchen projects underneath a portion of the livingspace above. Either you have a step in a space above or you step down to the kitchen from the rest of the restaurant neither of which is a wonderful solution. Roxanne: You could extend your 30 day deadline. Charles: I would be in favor of the extension to give them the time to meet the requirements. MOTION: Bill: Ail in favor of the extension. unanimously. Motion carries. That passes Bill: Lets address the other issues to give them direction. Charles: You could extend it and table it until the next meeting. Bill: I would need a motion to extend and in that motion give them input on the materials; porch on south west corner; fenestration or address it at the next meeting. Charles: Possibly extending it from before and leave it open as those issues may change. carrying over the same items they work with Welton. Some of 19 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 MOTION: Charles made the motion to extend the conditions to the conceptual review of 300 W. Main to the 26th of April. Nick second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Scott: I've got the idea that you want a pitch in the southwest corner to get rid of the flat roof. Bill: They want a pitched roof. Charlie: Are you to your maximum FAR. Scott: We aren't close to it. Charlie: You might even now move your eastern facade on the addition further east and you might be able to accommodate the Board and move the southern one back a couple of feet. You have more room there now. It may be the shapes of the rooms. Bill: We need to extend the public hearing until the next time. Bill: Technically I will reopen the public hearing and extend it to April 26th. 212 W. HOPKINS AVE. Bill: We have now moved our quarters to the 2nd floor conference room. Bill: 212 W. Hopkins for historic landmark designation Charles stepped down. Jan Deirington, architect: The house is a good example of a miners cottage in the late 1800's. The street facade is about all you see of the house. It is a one story building and the addition was put on in 1974. The addition does not compete with the house as it is at the rear of the house. The addition that we are proposing will be to the west and would link the two very well. We believe the addition will enhance the rating of the house. It was given a #4 rating. In order to get the historic designation we have incentive and one is we wouldn't have to cut down several cottonwood trees in the front of the property in order to provide parking which is required by the code which is one space per bedroom. We would only have parking spaces in the rear and the garage. The other incentive is we are trying to get a variance on the alley sestback because we are trying to keep the addition as far back in the rear of the property as possible. The lot is 6,000 sq. ft. 20 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 Charlie: You are requesting an encroachment to the rear and elimination of a parking space. Jan: With the addition of one bedroom we would have four bedroom so we would need two parking spaces. Roxanne: We are looking at designation and you have a partial demolition of the one story leanto shed. The applicants next step is to be reviewed by the P&Z Commission to obtain recommendation for historic designation and then City Council would hold first and second meetings of that. Since you are requesting partial demolition your applicantion must meet standards in section 24-9.5 four through six. For designation standards it is staffs opinion that the property should be designated, that it does reflect an architectural style that is significant in Aspen's history. We feel that the west duration of the front porch would merit designation. With the addition to the back and changes made to the 1974 addition that it probably does help the character of the house somewhat. We are concerned that the height of the addition might be overwhelming however the landscaping do shield that from the street. We feel that this home has special features of a miner's cottage that include a front gable with a projecting bay window and cut shingles and horizontal clapboard siding. The windows are tradition long double hung. Are recommendation is for approval for historic designation. Bill: Any questions or clarifications at this time. Charlie: Are you planning to leave the addition on the back. Jan: The 1974 addition is not being changed from the street side at all. From the alley side we would be filling in the second level; what was a little carriage house. Bill: Does the Committee feel that the four standards for historic designation have been met as outlined in the memo of the Planning staff. Nick: I concur. Bill: I'll entertain a motion to approve landmark designation with the condition that the front porch be restored. MO~ION: Nick I so move to approve landmark designation with te condition that the front porch be restored. Joseph second the motion. All favored the motion. Motion carries. Jan: On the front porch on the floor plan they just enclosed the porch and put a stud wall with clapboard siding to match the 21 HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 rest of the house behind the existing porch railing and ornamentation. That serves as is a windbreak type vestibule for entering into the house. They would prefer to keep that. Bill: I've seen good examples of enclosed porches when they are more transparent and in this particular case I could support the motion if it was restored with a little more transparency. What coems to mind is Adam Waltons on Hopkins and Spring, his is very transparent and still gives the feeling of a porch and it allows it to act as an air lock in this climate. Roxanne: Staff would support that. Staff is mostly concerned about getting removed the tapped on detailing and the balister look. Bill: The motion allows the applicant that leway. Look at making it more transparent. SPECIAL BUSINESS Roxanne: The preservations awards are beginning to come in and we had a newspaper article last week. We will go to Council to request $500 to fund plaques. The Historical Society, The Community Church and the ARA are interested in working with us. There will be a walking tour on Mothers Day in the west end including a reception at the Community Church. A proclamation draft has been given to the Mayor. There has been a press release on the guidelines and they cost $10. each. Augie: Architects and attorney's should be informed also. Joseph: I can get you the list of attorneys. kjs 22