Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880510HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS . CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 300 W. MAIN 212 WEST HOPKINS- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 222 E. HALLAM-REDEVELOPMENT REVIEW 513 W. BLEEKER-SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW .1 .4 · 10 · 16 · 20 25 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES Old City Council Chambers 2st Floor City Hall May 10, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Charles Cunniffe, Zoe Compton, Augie Reno, Charlie Knight and Joe Krabacher present. Nick Pasquarella and Patricia O'Bryan were excused. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to approve the minutes of April 12, 1988. Augie second. Motion carries. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS Bill Poss: The Historic Preservation Committee would like to congratulate all of those individuals who made this first Annual Preservation Awards presentation possible. We had excellent responses to the call for nominations. Seven distinctly worthy projects are honored this year with an engraved brass plaque. The plaques are designed to be mounted to a base of your choosing, then securely fastened to your historic property in a prominent place for viewing. The importance of historic preservation in Aspen cannot be underestimated. In the words of Mayor Stifling, it is a "pivotal and fundamental phenomenon here in our community". Each of your projects serve as an example of preservation excellence which will encourage other property owners to do the same in the future. Historic Preservation has long been considered a particularly important factor contributing to the quality of our environment and life. 131 E. Hallam - The Dexter Reynolds residence, built 1892. This is a newly renovated private residence. Bill Poss accepted the award for his firm. 332 W. Main - The Taylor House, built 1888. Now the office for Showcase Properties, representing a renovated historic residence adaptively used as office space int he Main Street Historic Overlay District. Owner of property accepted plaque. The Wheeler-Stallard House, built 1888. The home of the Aspen Historical Society, the restored historic home of Aspen financier Jerome Wheeler, now a house museum and community showplace, listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Carl Bergman, president of historic society accepted plaque. The Aspen Community Church, built 1890, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, currently undergoing restoration. MaryAnn Downes minister of the church accepted the plaque. HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 The Wheeler Opera House, built 1889, representing the arts in Aspen, about to celebrate its centennial next year. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Eve Homeyer, chairman of Wheeler board accepted the plaque. The Hotel Jerome, also built in 1889, representing the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District and an outstanding example of commercial renovation, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Dick Butera, one of the owners accepted the award. Bill: Most of the buildings that are outstanding in our community today were built in a two to three year period in 1889 and 1891 and about 1/2 exist today. The last one we are presenting is the Pitkin County Courthouse, built in 1890, representing the public sector and is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Augie Reno, architect for the courthouse accepted the plaque. Three of these projects are also be honored by the Colorado Preservation, Inc. with a statewide historic preservation award to be presented in June in Denver. The Wheeler-Stallard House for its contribution to the community in history and preservation education; the Aspen Community Church for its contribution to the community in architectural style; and t our own Zoe Compton, for her contribution as Interior Designer for the Hotel Jerome renovation. The Historic Preservation Committee looks forward to continuing this annual awards program in the future, and would like to again thank those of you whose projects are being honored here today. Eve Homeyer: I have to thank you formally for doing this and I would also like to make notice of the fact that the Wheeler Opera House could not be built today. It is built lot line to lot line, 54 ft. tall and never came before a committee. It was built in the style, class and private money. Public: I thank Roxanne because it was her idea to start giving awards and I hope you continue every year. Steve: I'm about to take my vacation which will be permanent and I have enjoyed working with the HPC and has been a privilege. Bill: We're sorry to hear that and we have enjoyed working with you and Steve has been very influential in getting a lot of these programs started. 2 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Dick Butera: I would like to thank you and we are planning the 100th anniversary of the Hotel Jerome as well as the Wheeler and if anyone has ideas that should be incorporated your input would be greatly appreciated. Roxanne: You could start by having the awards presentation next year for Preservation Week. Dick: That would be a great idea! Carl: The Stallard House is also planning this summer a celebration. Bill Lipsey: We are requesting to be put on the agenda today the sculpture garden which went before you before. We would like to have approval of a modification of a bar that incorporated all the service facilities of the Brand Bldg. and would have an extension of an existing awning. Bill: Bill Lipsey came to me this morning to ask whether it was a modification to an existing approval or whether it needed new application. I asked him to come today because I could not speak for the board. Augie: Is that permanent. Bill: It is an awning over a wall that has a counter built onto it. Certain things are permanent. It will be used June, July and August. NO~ION: Georgeann made the motion to add Bill Lipsey's proposed modified service structure to sculpture garden to todays agenda. Augie second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. MONI~ORING PROJECTS Augie: They just started to ad the additional porch on the Barnett building to the west. Roxanne: There is excavation being done at 113 E. Hopkins to remove the location of the tree. Charles Cunniffe: Monitoring 113 E. Hopkins, Gary Bucher residence. CONNX~TEle NENBER CONNENTS Bill: here. code My comment has to do with the attendance of the Committee I looked through the by-laws and the new code and the new only allows for 4 absences within one calendar year. I 3 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 would like to get the attendance turned around on this committee so that we have a big quorum. In the by-laws it states that you are only allowed three absences and those are excused absences. Excused absences are when you are out of town or due to an illness. Please keep an eye on this so we can process these applications on a more uniform basis because we need continuity in members as we review them. It is quite a problem when we have applicants coming in on consecutive meetings and we don't have members here that remembered what transpired on the meeting before and we would be processing our applications more uniformly. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 300 W. HAIN Roxanne: At the last meeting of April 26th we reviewed plans which addressed most of the committees concerns. We were encouraged with the plans and felt that for the most part all the areas that HPC had stressed concerns had been met. We recommended at that time to HPC to give us direction to prepare a resolution granting conceptual development approval for your consideration today which is attached to the memo. They have gone before P&Z for designation which was recommended to Council and first reading was approved. Second reading in June. They have presented some revised plans now and we are very pleased to see these and I will let them present now. Scott: On the east elevation there was concern about the shed dormer which has been brought in from the north face quite a bit. It allows light for a bedroom and a bathroom. We considered the option of having a gable on this elevation but due to the offset from the Main building; it would look like essentially like a slot and very deep so we are sticking to the shed dormer. The north elevation would have two garage doors. We put in a fire door and a ramp for wheelchairs. Nothing has been changed on the west elevation. On the south elevation the windows are uniform and the fenestration is the same from top to bottom and there is a skylight which was there on our last meeting and affords light for the bathroom. We brought in a sample of the channel lap and the roofing material for the Committee to review. We have two sample shades of green for the roofing. Charlie: On the south elevation the french door on the first floor are they going to be the same as the three doors on the second floor. 4 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Scott: They will be the same mullion and same spacing. There will only be one opening door on the second floor. Charlie: The transom on the south side on the second floor is that the same as was presented or was there a triangular one. Caroline: There was a triangular one and Welton liked the square one but we would prefer the triangular. Roxanne: Regarding the south elevation gable end we find that this gable end approach is responsive to your concerns however we recommend further study of a simplified upper floor fenestration to be presented at final review. Regarding the egress and handicapped access we are expressing our concern that no damage be done to the original log cabin. Great care should be taken by the applicant regarding the construction of the doorway which is cutting into the original logs. The resolution has the conditions that the applicant shall address at their final development review the simplified south elevation upper floor dormer window and door fenestration. That detailed plans or size of panes and the true divided lights and all the window trim be reviewed and that an accurate representation of all the siding materials and roofing materials be brought to us at final. The applicant at final should supply structural analysis of the house sufficient to assure that the proposed alterations will not undermine the structure leading to major reconstruction or demolition. Scott: On structural that is a Building Dept. requirement and is straight forward. Bill: Could you give us that in writing so we are assured that it will not be structurally damaged and the code calls for that. Scott: I don't understand the simplification, you mean window trim. Roxanne: Comments from HPC is that there is too much glass, too much transparency on that one elevation. Bill: Actually the window detail will probably be entailed at the final presentation. Bill: This is a public hearing regarding this project and if anybody would like to speak please stand up. Peggy Stephens: I'm active in the Historical Society and historical architecture is a hobby of mine. I feel this is the kind of project we want to get forward. It is innovative reuse 5 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 of a building and they are going to be there in their own home on the same property. It is an ideal project. This type of small project where we are reusing buildings instead of arguing about trying to tear them down and arguing that they aren't historic to me is what we want to happen in Aspen. I urge you to go forward with it. The applicants have been here many times and they are cooperative and I don't think they should have to go too many more times. Thank you for listening. Ruth White: I live at 323 W. Bleeker and I am pleased with the conceptual idea of the building itself. I'm glad they added a double garage. My concern is the traffic. Bill: I did receive a copy of the letter that Ruth White sent to both myself and Welton Anderson who is chairman of the P&Z. Ruth's house is adjacent to the McDonald property and owns two units directly across the alley. She is concerned with the roof and height and she understands that the new addition is to be no higher than the existing log structure. It is a little bit higher. She agrees with adding a non-glare roof and would object strongly to any shiny roof. The applicant has presented a non-glare roof. She is also concerned with parking and that is addressed at P&Z under conditional uses. She has some concern about the windows on the alley side which are directly across from her property. She is concerned about the noise and traffic and the use of this structure as a restaurant and that is also handled by P&Z. Bill: I'll close the public hearing. Charlie: The shed roof dormer on the east elevation; one of our concerns was that it be reduced or modified, narrowed down and had to be brought in from the alley side, was that done. Scott: It was done and brought in about another 8 inches from what it was before. It now looks more like a shed dormer with about two feet in the difference of the roof lines. Charlie: I still see the angle parking and can you give us an update on that. Scott: That is actually up to Engineering and we have nothing to say about that. That is on public land and we meet the parking requirements. Charlie: Are you requesting parking. Scott: No and we put it in there as an option. 6 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Scott: A sidewalk will be put in and we have a total of seven parking spaces including the two car garage. We have five spaces to our property line. Caroline: When we went to P&Z we requested not to pave the parking spaces as the trees need drainage, air and water. We would rather not have the angle parking because it is hazardous to the trees since they are so old. Steve: At the P&Z meeting they did create a seven space parking area, two in the garage and five along the alley and P&Z was satisfied with that configuration and it wgs not determined that it had to be graveled or paved but one of the two. Augie: The only concern I have is the wide east dormer. I noticed that you did pull it into the south a couple of feet but what might be more appropriate as long as you didn't take the gable approach is to maybe split that dormer up. You have the two rooms the bathroom and the bedroom so that you basically get a two dormer scenario that has a smaller scale. Scott: We thought of that but on the inside you start chopping the rooms up significantly. Augie: I think it is still too broad across the front and needs a breakup and cut down. Zoe: This is a vast improvement; on the south elevation since this is an addition I don't have any problem with the square window. On the east elevation I agree with Augie that the scale is too massive and it should be lesser of an impact if it were broken up. As a suggestion on the roofing material I'd prefer the darker roof, green or brown tones. Maybe the dormer could be broken up in another way. From the original presentation the south elevation has improved drastically. Georgeann: It is a tremendous improvement and I'm especially pleased with the way the west elevation and the north elevation have changed. I'm very happy with the south elevation. I think you can make a triangular window in there if you want, I'm not concerned either way. I am a little concerned with the sky light as I thought we as a board were opposed to skylights on major visible surfaces. Zoe: That is a trade off for light. Joe: My only comment is on the south elevation, the first floor. We are talking about the siting that we are going to use and how that is going to match with the original house and I don't see much matching there. It looks basically like french 7 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 doors and all windows. major concern. That is my only concern and it is not a Georgeann: I think that enclosed porch look is fine and the glass doesn't bother me. Charles: I agree that some progress has been made but I don't think that I have seen a lot of progress since the last meeting when we continued to this meeting in order to give the applicant time to make the changes that we were talking about at the last meeting. I don't think that house has changed much and I don't see the applicant really coming forward and trying to reduce the massing and trying to change the direction that we have been struggling with. We have not seen any general changes to the house or to the concept of the house. I still see the massing as too large and the matching up of the addition to the original house as being not fully resolved and I'm afraid that if we go past conceptual review you aren't going to get any change because we have come this far hoping to see a change and it hasn't happened. We made a motion to continue the hearing to allow the applicants time to make further changes, not to leave it the same and just try for another meeting to see if it passes this time and I am uncomfortable with that. I'm still not convinced by the floor plans and the elevations that the building works and the reason for that is I don't know that what we see is what we are going to get. Again it happened with Elli's. I would rather see it worked out on paper. Scott: Roxanne will you clarify what we need. Roxanne: Staff feels that what they have presented is what they need for a complete application for review. Floor plans might be a little bit more than what is required but I understand Charles has wanted that so that he can see the configuration. That is something that could be volunteered by the applicant but I don't know that it is absolutely required by this Committee. Georgeann: We have floor plans in our packets. Bill: To clarify that Scott a lot of times when you are trying to think of three dimensions and think of massing when you look at drawings and a model floor plans and site plans are helpful. Scott: I submitted them. Bill: I see some improvements and the massing is there but that is a program requirement. I think they have come a long way and helped reduce somewhat the presence of the massing by their roof shapes and I would compliment them on that. I tend to agree with Augie to about the rhythm or proportions of that long dormer on 8 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 the east elevation and I would like to see further study on that. I'm a little troubled with the south elevation with the enclosed porch but I'd let it go at this time. As far as the guidelines go I don't think the proportions of the windows are similar to the existing structure although we could make an argument that we want it to be different so that you can tell the difference between the new and the old structure. The applicants have done a good job and have tried to accommodate some of the concerns that we have. Bill: Staff has recommended the acceptance of a resolution and if the Committee feels the dormer needs more study that should be included in the resolution. Zoe: I have been one of the committee members that has followed this closely from the very beginning and have been very sensitive and picky about the stairs, windows, roof etc. We want to improve ourself every time something is presented and when we made mistakes we want to profit by our mistakes and don't want to make the same mistakes again. I think we are picking at this now as they started out with an awful presentation product and sought professional help and you have been very cooperative. The presentation is good, the elements that you are using are good, the roofing material is good and the exterior siding is good. The material selection should be written down on paper and it should be monitored (Georgeann) to make sure we are getting everything that we see on the drawings and that is with any project. Georgeann: Why are we doing this in a resolution form instead of a standard motion form. Steve: When we embarked on a rather lengthy conceptual it was felt that we should make a very clear motion in a resolution form that does act instead of the minutes to capture the exact motion. Georgeann: left in. Lets take a straw vote. How many people want l(a) Charles: I think it should be left in because it says "for the consideration of", they can or cannot consider it. Georgeann: At any rate they can come back in with a triangular window if they want. Georgeann: Do we still want a more detailed plan to the size of the panes or do we want Scott to bring us the catalog and show us what kind of windows that he is going to put in. Bill: I agree with the resolution that we just want it documented that it is going to get built the way it is drawn. 9 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Zoe: What is the material on the garage doors. Scott: It will be rough sawn plywood. Georgeann: That would be covered in %2 where we require a list of the specific materials. Roxanne, what are we asking for in %3. Roxanne: Structural analysis can be from a certified engineer or a contractor etco Scott: Ail plans are submitted to the Building Dept. and checked off to see if they meet the code requirements. Charles: In a case like this we don't want to just rely on the Building Dept. or the applicant because we have to have some form of reliance to know that we are approving something that can indeed get built the way we are reviewing it. Scott: I know what I have to do and I don't want drawn out on all of these conditions. Charles: HPC has a code that you have to comply with and does require a structural analysis of an historic structure. MOTION= Georgeann made the motion to adopt the resolution as drawn up for granting conceptual development approval for alterations and additions to 300 W. Main St. Zoe second the motion. Augie: I really think the applicant should look at the east dormers. MOTION A~ENDED~ Augie made the motion to amend the motion made by Georgeann to add item (1.C.) that the applicant shall study the east dormer specifically the mass and scale. Bill second the amended motion. Yes vote: Zoe, Charles, Bill, Augie Joe. No vote: Georgeann and Charlie. Motion carries, 5-2 Bill: We do have a motion on the floor to adopt a resolution all in favor say I. Yes vote: Charlie, Zoe, Bill, Georgeann, Joe, Augie. No vote: Charles. Motion carries. 212 WEST HOPKINS- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Charles Cunniffe stepped down. Roxanne: Since there was no quorum for this particular item on April 26th it was tabled to today and the public hearing was also 10 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 tabled until today. This project goes before P&Z for designation May 17th if approved conceptually here. You have already approved the designation and we are approving now a partial demolition and the conceptual development review. It was approved for designation with the condition that the front porch be restored or made transparent if still required as an airlock, as it serves now. Jan Derrington: The south east corner of the building has the predominant feature of the enclosed porch. The baluster, railing and posts are the original porch structure which was enclosed at the time the committee gave it a ~4 rating. The windows that are inside of the openings that were the original porch openings do not restrict the opening of the porch much more than do the columns themselves. The only thing that could be done to make it any smaller would be to build a wall behind the railing. The only thing they could do to make it more transparent would be to glaze in the opening between the columns and you wouldn't have any insulation and it would become practically useless as an airlock. We don't really feel that it can be made more transparent. They do have a stained glass piece in one window which produces I suppose its transparency. The owner would like to keep it as an enclosed entrance, vestibule type air lock. A lot of the victorian residences in town have enclosed their porches and become airlock vestibules and we feel this is in keeping with the others that have been down throughout the town. With due respect we would like to request that stipulation be withdrawn and the porch allowed to be remained as it is. The partial demolition is for a shed because it is structurally incompatible with the addition that is to be added and that space would be enveloped in the new mud room. The peak of the roof of the adjacent house is about in the same proportion and scale as the proposed addition would be and it is very much in keeping with the surrounding property and scale of the neighborhood. Augie: On the north elevation the section of the building on the right is that the existing height of the building right now. Jan: Yes. Roxanne: The partial demolition is pretty straight forward. The applicant wishes to take advantage of the incentive in ~Ord. #42 which has been incorporated into the new code to build the addition encroaching into the rear yard setback. In cases where the proposed development would extend into the front yard, side yard or rear yard setbacks HPC would find that such variation from the underlying area in bulk requirement more compatible in character. The original house is encroaching in the west side yard required setback of five feet. As it sits down it is 1.4 ll HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 ft. from the property line at the south west corner and about 1.6 feet at the north west corner from the house and the proposed addition would be located about 5 1/2 ft. from the rear yard setback for the garage only but 10 ft. for the principle building. We feel that this siting is acceptable. THe proposed height is just under 25 ft. It seems as compared to the two additions of the adjacent properties much higher. It seemed to over take the original house somewhat because of the height however since it is set back approximately 60 ft. from the very sidewalk, from the front facade it appears less dominant. The height of the project should be discussed. We strongly recommend that the applicant renovate the original facade by restoring the front porch. That was dealt with specifically at the last meeting when we officially dealt with this and the other members of the committee agreed and that motion carried unanimously. The guidelines discuss importance of porches as a common element in residential streetscape and we feel that the porch is a very important part of the architectural style of this home. I have made reference to color in this and of course HPC doesn't have jurisdiction over color selection but it is dealt with in the guidelines. We just want to inform the applicant that in our opinion a more subdued choice in color would probably diminish the dominance of the new addition and it would be more historically accurate. We do find that the new addition is in keeping with the adjacent new additions of the properties next door and it doesn't detract from the original structure or the adjacent parcels. The setback variations specified in the code finding that the addition is more compatible in character with the historic landmark. We feel very strongly about the front porch being restored or at least made transparent, it is not transparent now. In addition that accurate building material representation be made at final review. Bill: Do you mean on the front porch that the insulated wall should be removed and not used as an airlock. Roxanne: When we discussed that for designation we specifically talked about either completely restoring the front porch as it originally was or making it completely transparent; keeping it as an airlock understanding that they need an airlock and that is why it is there. We are fine with that as long as it is transparent. There are examples of transparent porches all over the west end. Bill: Public hearing open. committee comments. Public hearing closed. I'll take 12 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Charlie: On the setback of the new addition can you tell me what it is going to be to the east lot line. Jan: The east lot line would be within the required 5 ft. setback. It is slightly more than that probably. Charlie: Can you tell me how much higher it is to the neighbor on the east, their addition. Jan: I have not measured it but siting it from behind, the alley side it appears that the neighbor to the west is higher than the required 25 feet to the medium. That may be a mere optical illusion. Charlie: I feel pretty strongly that the neighbor to the west, that building kind of looms over the original victorian that is in front and I kind of feel the same thing happening here and will be out of proportion, it looks too large. I agree with staff on the front porch that it would be nicer to have it as an open porch as we continue to add more massing to the building and taking away open space. Georgeann: I'd be inclined to agree with Charlie that there should be someway to enclose the porch and keep it transparent. When I look at the back it does seem out of scale with the front and possibly there is someway to drop that roof line back down about three feet which would lower the proportions as it seems too tall. Jan: The cornice of that addition to the rear is actually about 1 foot lower than its drawn on the drawings and the actual height of that whole back element would be a foot lower. Zoe: I agree with everything Georgeann has relation to each other. Possibly it is window. said. It is out of the design of that Jan: We have also kept the same 12 and 12 pitch. Using the HPC guidelines we weren't trying to imitate the original house. Augie: I would like to see the roof relate more to the structures on the north elevation. If they want historic designation I feel the porch should be restored as close as possible to what was really there. The new zoning has a new aggregate setback so one of the things we need to be aware of is if we are granting a variance with regard to setback on the side we should talk about that. What I see now would mean that we are granting a variance. 13 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Jan: The only side yard encroaching is the existing house itself which is encroaching on the west boundary 1.4 ft. from the west boundary as opposed to the 5 ft. required setbacks. On the east side we are about 4 inches back from the required setbacks and the overall building is 49'8" and the required allowed building envelope is 50'. We are requesting that the addition come to the 5ft. setback on the rear for the garage and the room above. Steve: Is there any dimensional variation requested for the front rear dimensions. Jan: The existing setback in the front is 18.75' and that added to the existing setback in the rear of 5ft. would five is 23.75 ft. as opposed to the new regulations which require an aggregate of 30 ft. The existing structure is not in compliance with the regulations that were just passed. The side yard setback would be 6.4 ft. as opposed to 10 ft. The existing floor area is 2205 ft. and the proposed addition exempting the garage is 687 ft. and the total proposed floor area of 2892 sq. ft. of FAR and the allowed floor area for that property is 3240. The proposed site coverage is 2243 sq. ft. and the allowable site coverage is 2400 sq. ft. Bill: I'm in agreement with what everybody else said. I supported this project from the last meeting and my only problem was the front porch and I think if there is an alternate solution that I would be in favor of supporting the historic designation. Jan: Are you suggesting that we put a sheet of glass 8ft. by 8ft. along the front porch and go to an all glass doorway. The door is a victorian style door and it can't be anymore transparent then that. Bill: Maybe the porch could be handled in such a way that it looks like an enclosed porch and we could still see the details beyond. Roxanne: We have an original front porch here that should be preserved period. Nothing should be removed and we have given him enough direction on it. Augie: If we give this historic designation does the committee feel the porch should be enclosed or not. Vote: 3-3 airlock or open porch. Charlie: The board was giving the applicant direction that we 14 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 based the porch as the most prominent feature on this cottage and we wanted it restored. Zoe: I agree that the porch should be kept intact. Georgeann: I feel you just haven't found the right solution for the enclosed porch. Jan: You either have a wall behind it to frame you stop the glass into these openings in the railing and between the columns. the glass to or existing porch Bill: What the board is saying if you can find an acceptable solution to the board that allows you to have the airlock and still keep the transparency. Jan: Is that an acceptable solution. Augie: I don't support the airlock, I support putting it back as the original porch. Zoe: I agree with Augie. Georgeann: I have mixed feelings. Joe: We would like to see the original porch; if you can come up with an alternative that preserves it yet accomplishes what you want which is an airlock or an enclosed vestibule then I would like to see that. Georgeann: Possibly you could build a very light framework behind the porch to hold the glass. Jan: You can't have a light framework less than a 2 by 4 stud wall to hold a door. You either have the framework or you don't have the framework. MOTION: Joe made the motion that we table conceptual approval and direct the applicant to restudy the height of the addition and the enclosure of the porch, whether it is going to be enclosed or just restored. Georgeann second. Ail favored. Motion carries. Bill: The public hearing has been tabled also. Roxanne: We will have to pick a date for the public hearing and if you want that date for the next meeting I will need the packet information by Monday otherwise we could table it until the next meeting in June. HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 MOTIONs Joe made until May 24, 1988. carries. the motion to continue the public hearing Second by Augie. Ail approved. Motion 222 E. BALLA~-REDEVELOP~EI~T REVIBW Richard Klein: These particular sketches address the square window vs. the round window in the turret. We are here today to seek conceptual and final approval for our design. At the last meeting we were asked to investigate the arch windows vs. square windows in the turret. We feel that the square windows do not enhance the design as the arch windows do, in fact they detract from the continuity that the arched windows are able to provide. From the drawings I have presented you can see the comparison of the round windows vs the square. We did this study awhile ago and we decided at that time it was not a direction we would like to proceed. We feel very strongly that arched windows are the window forms that best work with the house. Roxanne: They are requesting redevelopment approval which is different from conceptual approval. General comments regarding scale, detailing of the streetscape were made to direct the applicant at the formal review on March 22nd. On April 12th we formally reviewed revised plans and we are generally pleased with the scale down design approach. We have concerns particularly in massing. HPC members expressed concern that the height and the massing of the new house maybe be more than that of the adjacent houses in the neighborhood and tending to dominate the block rather than fit in with the neighborhood scale. The proposed redevelopment is a very large two story contemporary victorian definitely new and not reflective in anyway of the existing historic structure to be demolished on that site. It is staffs opinion that the general massing of the proposed structure is out of scale with the neighborhood and should be diminished to soften any negative impacts. The west and east elevations are very long with minor setback breaks which do not adequately address the issue of breaking up those walls as HPC had mentioned before. The Planning Office recommends further study of the west elevation including the separation of the garage or pulling the garage in to the east and south, which would bring the main house back into scale with the adjacent structure. This elevation is important as to how it relates to the Frost House next door and how much of the continuous wall is visible from Hallam Street. The scale of the east facade is important as it has fairly high visibility from Hallam St. beginning at the intersection with Monarch Street. In staffs opinion the bulkiness would be reduced if the height of the cross gable were no greater than that of the adjacent Frost House. If the height of the turret and the cross gable could both be reduced compatibility and massing would be improved in our opinion. The site plan contrasts with the two 16 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 adjacent properties by having a deeper setback than what currently exists. The new footprint is approximately 10 ft. to the west of the existing house, closer to the Frost House and requiring removal of a line of shrubs. The applicant appears to be trying to minimize the streetscape impact from this large house by sitting it back further than the neighboring houses. We are concerned that the new house will still have a great impact on the streetscape because of its massing while not respecting the street alignment now intact. Staff believes that the most appropriate solution is a smaller-scale house, more closely resembling the scale and siting of the historic resource currently on the site. We also suggest that the applicant address whether he will save or replant the existing shrubs along the western property line retaining the historic landscape pattern that gives a soft buffer and visual break between the properties. Some HPC members expressed concern about detailing about the appropriateness of using the neo-victorian high style detailing on this house. The applicant was asked to consider simplifying some ornate replication features that may tend to muddle architectural interpretation. We share the concerns about this detailing and the turret in particular continues to be overwhelming and a very dominant element. Its staffs recommendation that further study be made of the architectural element with direction to scale it down in relation to the other details of the proposed house. Fenestration: HPC's concerns were primarily with the arched windows, and the applicant was asked to present other window options which they have here. We do believe the longer slimmer windows presented are better in staff's opinion. Materials as presented: The roof will either be ceder shake or metal standing seam. In our opinion cedar shake would be more appropriate and would aid in softening the general mass of the new house. It is our recommendation that HPC table their approval on the redevelopment plan based upon the concerns of scale, siting, landscaping, massing and fenestration and give direction to the applicant to further study those areas presenting changes at a future meeting. Gideon Kaufman: The questions that Roxanne has asked were the questions that you asked of us March 22nd. At the April 12th meeting we went through these things in great detail and it was my impression that the HPC was very pleased with the solution we came up with. When we left that meeting we had a strong impression from the HPC that the only issues that were left to resolve were the issues around the windows. From the minutes you were unanimous in terms of what the old building was compared to the new building in terms of scale and height. Joe: That is exactly what I recall happening that we went through all this once before and the only comments were on the windows. 17 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Georgeann: This particular building falls in a unique area and we have to remember this was just a demolition plan. It was because we demolished the building that we have review of this building and I think this was supposed to be kept a more minor review than a typical review of an existing victorian. Joe: Difference between redevelopment and conceptual. Georgeann: The degree of review that is supposed to go into this as compared to a standard application. Gideon: In the motion that was made March 22nd by Charlie: the motion was made that we approve the demolition of the Amato house condition on the approval of redevelopment plan which we will table until the action on the demolition is done. Gideon: At the time of the April 12th meeting we addressed all issues. Roxanne: At that time the committee didn't have a memo and they didn't have anything in their packets to review prior to that which is why we are doing it now. Gideon: You had it and everyone through this. the original redevelopment plan and we reviewed left happy. It's up to you, we will take you Augie: I don't have any problem with the massing but I have a philosophical difference of bringing into a community basically not a replica victorian but something that looks a lot closer to a victorian house than something that looks a little bit different but yet might relate to the victorian image. What I'm afraid of is if we allow one house like this to happen then we will allow more, like other areas that have these victorian buildings that really don't relate historically. I don't have a problem with the massing, I have a problem with the design of the building. Bill: We have a conflict between what you are presenting, the re-working of the windows and what the staff is recommending= that we review siting, detailing, fenestration etc. Does anybody else on the Committee feel the need to discuss those issues any longer. Steve: Height and massing were the key issues that Roxanne mentioned in the memo and I agree with Gideon that there is not a need to go into the level of detailing. 18 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Georgeann: My only issue was the landscaping and the hedge. Richard: The hedge will remain. Georgeann: I'm not unhappy with the massing and I feel the person has the right to design a house in the style that they want to as long as it is not something that is so far out that it is a real shock to the neighborhood. We will have enough change in design, victorian, art deco, modern that the mix in the community will be compatible and we will not have a "Telluride". Joe: I prefer the arched windows and it is a matter of taste. The massing, siting we have gone through and was pleased with the reduction that they made. Zoe: To lessen the neo-victorian styling of a house as large as this is I think the square rectangular shaped windows are more appropriate. The massing doesn't bother me anymore. Bill: I agree we did review this earlier on and I think I brought up the restudy of the windows. I can go either way on it and the massing is such that the window fenestration becomes a small point now that I see it drawn up. I don't want to go back on anything that we already reviewed. If there aren't any questions I would entertain a motion. Joe: Are you seeking conceptual and final. Gideon: Yes. Roxanne: It is redevelopment approval. Gideon: There is as problem in the code, it says two different things in two places so it is confusing. Roxanne's memo calls it a redevelopment approval. In terms of significant development on page 17 we say significant development is defined as the redevelopment of the site of a historic landmark which has received approval for demolition when a redevelopment plan has been required by the HPC. On one hand it could be that and on the other it could mean what Roxanne is saying. In this code the same thing is called by two different names. Joe: It seems from the language you read there that if we have approved demolition subject to a redevelopment plan therefore it is a significant development review. Gideon: The code needs fixed up. 19 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Bill: Staff recommends and the applicant concurs that we go along with redevelopment. Bill: You would like to go back to the original window design that you presented. Richard: Yes. Bill: After reviewing the two window designs I don't see that much of a difference and if the applicant would like to have the design that was presented April 12th with the overall window on the door and arched windows I would concur that the applicant should have what they want. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant redevelopment approval for the Amato residence based upon the plans that Richard is going to have marked for the meeting dated May 10, 1988. Georgeann second the motion. All approved except Augie. Motion carries. Steve: Joe's motion is fine and stands as final review. 513 W. BLEEKER-SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Roxanne: This is unusual as we are going for conceptual and final at this meeting. I felt that due to the simplicity of this project that we could deal with it this way. In the recommendation it is stated that you approve conceptual and then approval final. This is a public hearing. We don't want to set a precedent by doing this. The applicant is requesting a garage addition connected to the main house with a 3ft. by 4ft. breeze way. Total square footage is just under the 500 sq. ft. maximum for exemption from FAR. The existing carriage house will also be connected to the proposed garage via a similar breezeway and it will receive new roof singles and interior renovation. We find this development plan appropriate in many areas, the garage is a one story structure with a shallow pitched roof, very low profile. The breezeway connectors between the carriage house and the proposed garage and the main house link all three of the structures together and we find it to be compatible. The setback of the new proposed garage and the renovation of the existing carriage house is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and consistent with the guidelines. The garage is tucked behind the large main house and prevents it from being significantly viewed from Bleeker Street although we do feel this lot itself is largely built out and minimum open space remains to compliment the structures. The simple design and low profile and siting of the garage allows the historic structure to stand out architecturally. We recommend approval of conceptual and we also recommend approval of final at this time providing the accurate representation of all building materials be approved 2O BPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 and in your final development approval that any conditions that you might place on the conceptual that the applicant needs to respond to it. Bill: How does this relate to the house, and do we have the drawings, the roof shapes. Jesses Graber, contractor: There are porches there that have fairly insignificant roof pitches that more or less surround the house and the slope of the garage roof is compatible with the slope of the porch roofs. Georgeann: I would like to know where the breezeways go. Jesse: On the site plan there is a breezeway between the carriage house and the garage. The other one comes out off of the side of the garage more or less the same walk thru in between the garage and the carriage house it goes straight to the back porch. Georgeann: I don't mind approving these but it is hard from this little bit of information to figure out what is going on. Bill: I'll open the public hearing. I'll close the public hearing. Zoe: What is the material. Jesse: Cedar shingles which are on the house and the siding is bevelled siding. The garage door are wood doors and will be painted. Charles: To do a conceptual and final approval I think we would have to have better drawings submitted. Georgeann: Where are the cow horns. Jesse: On the rear facing the alley above the garage door. Georgeann: No one even presented this. Jesse: Welton had to leave town and I'm trying to do my best to present this as I can. Now Welton has this all tied together I can't really speak for him. Georgeann: I feel we have slipped into getting approval a little too quick without anybody really having a chance to understand this. Bill: Is this a designated structure. 21 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Roxanne: Yes. Joe: I was curious why the applicant wanted conceptual and final approval all at once. Roxanne: The applicant had requested it and the only thing that made this particular project go into the conceptual stage is that it was over 250 sq. ft. The rest could have been reviewed as minor as a one step process. This is not a precedent setting ca se. Zoe: It is hard to say it is compatible with the house because we don't know what the house looks like. Charles: I think that the house has to be shown in context with the garage. The carriage house was remodeled and now they are adding a garage. I have trouble finding this compatible with the original intention of the redevelopment of the house. I don't think a garage per say is a problem but maybe a garage that looks like its from the cattle country isn't necessarily appropriate. This is supposed to be a high victorian house and now it is going to have a garage that doesn't really fit with the character of the house. A lot has happened with this house and at what point do you say wow and start looking at something that would improve the house. Charlie: I'd be curious what the FAR is on this house. I look at this project having watched it get developed and it says it has an historic designation status as excellent. It is my opinion that it should have no status at this point. It reminds me of the Elli's project and I think we have been trampled on. I don't think there is anything wrong with the house, it is beautiful. I just think that the process was inappropriate; HPC has been ignored. Things have been continuously done without our approval. I don't think that the house is anywhere near the character that it had originally when it had an excellent rating. I think that if there is any consideration that we are making because of its designation that I feel like Charles that the proliferation of this house has gone on and on and not to the benefit of HPC only to the benefit of the applicant. I think at this point that if the applicant needs us for any reason that my answer to the applicant is no as you have not done anything necessarily with our blessings. Maybe it is not all the applicants fault but that is my feeling. Roxanne: It does not encroach into the setbacks and is under the 500sq. ft. maximum for FAR exemption. 22 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Charlie: I disagree with staff completely because I have seen this process go on. Charles: There is a two year history on this house already. Charlie: At this point I feel it is not an historically designated house. Bill: Is it within the FAR without the garage and the garage is a 500 sq. ft. exemption. Roxanne: I can't answer that directly but I do believe so. Georgeann: When we were giving the ratings we got to Kathryn Thalberg's house and gave it a #2 because it had no relationship to what was originally there. Maybe this house should not be designated. If this is an exemption that it only gets because it is historically designated then that is a concern. Bill: Take away the designation and they don't have to bring the garage before us. Roxanne: There is a provision to rescind the rating. Joe: It is difficult for me to see whether the garage and breezeways are compatible with the rest of the house without seeing what the rest of the house looks like. I also have some problem with doing it all in one meeting. We don't want to establish a bad precedent not that I am opposed to this project. Georgeann: I'd be inclined to suggest that we give this conceptual approval only and ask the applicant to come back with photos of what is going on in the house for the people who aren't as familiar with it or until we have a chance to go and look at it and see if it is in keeping with the main house. That would also solve the problem that Joe brings up of not setting a precedent of doing both in one meeting. Augie: I agree with everything that has been said about compatibility with the house also it has to relate somehow to the carriage house. I don't have a problem approving it in one meeting but it definitely has to be what we want. Zoe= I have trouble with it relating to the house. Jesse: The carriage house has been remodeled in the past so it is not a perfect victorian and was done several years ago. When we come back I want the committee to know that is not one of the things that we did. 23 HPC. MINUTES MAY 10, 1988 Zoe: I have no problem with the exceptions to the rules but feel photos could do the conceptual. one step as there are are necessary. I feel we Charlie: Is this glass in the garage doors. Jesse: They are divided panelled. Charlie: It says full glass doors. Bill: I don't have a problem with adding a garage on to the project but I don't feel this roof line is in keeping with the prominent 12 x 12 pitched roofs on the main house and what appears on the carriage house beyond without the dormer. So I wouldn't approve it. The roof pitch is too low and not compatible with the victorian structure and we are stretching its limits of designation quality and we would like it to be in keeping with our guidelines. Jesse: Is it possible that I can amend my application and just ask for conceptual at this point. Is that appropriate. Bill: We could table the conceptual approval with a restudy of the roof. Zoe: Does anybody object to doing a two step in one occasionally. MOTION: Joe made the motion to table conceptual approval until our next regular meeting with the direction that the applicant study the roof pitch of the garage and continue the public hearing until our next regular meeting. Charlie second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Joe: If we feel comfortable with conceptual at the next meeting we could consider final. Charles: In order to get final approval certain requirements such as material representations etc. should be presented. MOTION= Charles made the motion to add the Sculpture Garden to the next agenda. Augie second. All approved. Adjourned 7:00pm Kathleen J. Strickland, Deputy City Clerk