Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880112 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO~ITTEE Minutes Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall January 12, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Patricia O'Bryan, Zoe Compton, Charlie Knight and Augie Reno present. Excused were Georgeann Waggaman and Charles Cunniffe. MOTION: Charlie made the 22, 1987. Augie second carries. motion to approve the minutes of Dec. the motion. Ail approved. Motion STAFF CO~ENTS Steve: The Amato appeal will be remanded back to HPC at the next meeting. Charlie: Do they want it rated as a 2 or 3 so they can demolish it? Steve: Their proposal is to lower it down to a two or three and I will have a memo for HPC going into detail as to what has transpired. Bill: The Council did not want to remand it back to HPC and they were in favor of upholding our score. Steve: The publication for the guidelines will cost approx- imately $2,000 for 200 copies. MONITORING PROJECTS Jesse Graber: The Building Dept. has requested that I appear to HPC and discuss the Barnett house. Apparently there are some discrepancies. I dropped a letter off to Steve and would like to read it: To the HPC Aspen Colorado. I have been notified by Bill Drueding and Steve Burstein that the HPC is concerned about the project at 513 W. Bleeker. Steve has requested that I inform you in writing of any plan changes not approved by the Committee and reasons for noncompliance. I also understand that there are some general areas that were not interpreted as you wished or intended. I have completed a quick review of the project using the blueprints and at this point, I'm somewhat confused as to the conflicting areas. I will make myself available to the HPC at the January 12th meeting to answer any questions I can and to clarify the situation if possible. I came into the project late and I guess this house has done through several review processes and change orders. I heard some comments on flashing and siding that are not what HPC wanted to HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 be done with the project. According to what I have picked up off the blue prints from the original to the change order there are items in there due to the fact of the way it was drawn and handled and the changes by the owner there are a lot of conflicts in the prints as to how things should be handled. Essentially there is not an architect on the job to interpret these things. I would like to work with HPC and the owners in getting this done right. We will make every effort to correct and do the project according to what was intended. Bill: Augie Reno is monitoring the project and will work with you and compare the blue prints. Jesse: I heard a comment that we put up copper flashing and we shouldn't have done that but on the plans all that is dictated is metal flashing. I will give a status report every two weeks if you want. Bill: If there is any discrepancies on the plans and how the project is progressing then we would want you to come back in and resubmit to approve those changes. One of the items that did come to my attention was a siding has been taken down which was indicated to us going to be replaced. lot of the that it was Nick: Quite a bit of duct work is being raised on the roof of Elli's. It is not being assembled it is just being delivered. The four swamp coolers are still in their original places. HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE Peter Carley, applicant: There is a house at 134 W. Hopkins on lot K which sits to one side of a 60 x 100 lot. I'm requesting to take another historic dwelling in town and move it over to lot L which is the adjacent lot thereby recreating two old miners lots, two 30 ft. by 100 ft. lots. The existing house sits a couple of feet inside the property line and the other 30 ft. lot is vacant. We are negotiating a house at 120 North Spring to move it to the property and put an addition on the back of it. In essence you end up recreating an 1890 streetscape. The house that is there is the original house and was recorded in 1886. I have no records on the North Spring Street house but it obviously late 1800's. It is our feeling to replace two historic houses on the same site is a better submission than to take an existing house and bury it inside a 3200 ft. addition. We would have a better looking project. We can't meet perfectly all the side codes in terms of setbacks, distances etc. We have measured the 2 HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 total square footage, land coverage and done all the arithmetic. We have photographs and site planning of how it would end up being. There are a few things to consider such as the side yard, front setbacks, and the general look of the project. Steve: This request is for two actions by HPC, the first is for historic designation of the property 134 W. Hopkins Avenue. The second is conceptual development review approval for the project they have in mind. I understand the project to take the existing house and do a few renovations activities to it including removing the asbestos siding, replacing the wooden siding underneath as necessary and adding a dormer on the east side of that structure. Then to move the house which is presently at 120 North Spring onto that site and to build an addition to it. We took a look at all of the designation standards and evaluated the project and we felt that this project does meet some of the standards. To be eligible you have to meet some of the standards but not all of them. The first standard is historical signific- ance and association with important historic persons or events. There is really no documentation that this criteria is being met. The second standard is with regard to architectural style. Here we noted that the existing house at 134 W. Hopkins received a historic evaluation rating of "2" and the house at 120 N. Spring received a "1". Those are both low ratings. We tried to figure out if you removed the asbestos siding what is the effect on the house. We felt as the applicant had stated it that that does increase the architectural historic importance. We feel that it would then make more of a contribution to the neighborhood. With regards to the small house at 120 N. Spring Street when HPC gave it historic evaluation rating of #1 I think that the primary reason was its location. It is in a neighborhood that has virtually lost its historic integrity although the house does have some historic features to it; shape, the porch which is partially enclosed, the windows etc. all make it a typical miners cottage. The third standard is regarding characteristics of a significant architectural type or specimen. We simply noted here that there are two different styles of miners cottages both of which are fairly typical and are simple structures of the mining era. The fourth standard is an association or work by an architect. There is no evidence of that. The fifth is regard to its significance to the neighborhood. The west Aspen Mtn. or Shadow Mtn. neighborhood has only a few structures scattered around however seven of those are within a one block radius of this property. So there is actually quite a concentration in this area and we do think that preservation of 134 W. Hopkins and adding another structure would help in this regard to maintain historic character. Looking at the conceptual development review standards we had comments about the treatment of the existing house at 134 W. 3 HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 Hopkins. We think that removal of asbestos siding is appropriate and adding a shed dormer on the east side would seem to work to open up the second floor, however, we are concerned about the size of the dormer. The main issue is the location of the moved house and the addition to it. We looked at it with regard to the variations from underlying area and bulk requirements, the setback, site coverage etc. in the R-6 zone district. We felt that while some variations seem reasonable and absolutely necessary for this project to occur not all of them appear to be necessary and would appear to meet the criteria which is to say that it is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be the development in accord with the area and bulk requirements. The front yard setback which is now 18 feet from the existing house should be retained. In a sense that is the historic setback on that block. Charlie: So you are saying that the moved house should be 18 feet back. Steve: Yes, that would be more in keeping and give a larger front yard. Bill: Is the current zone 10 feet. Steve: The current zone requires that there be a total-front rear setback of 30 feet and we realize that footage can't probably be met but we would like to increase the front yard to 18 feet. Bill: What is the minimum required. Steve: The minimum is a 10 feet in the R-6 zone. Bill: So it meets the minimum. Steve: Site coverage is the next area. We now have a site coverage requirement in the R 6 zone of 40% for a lot of 6,000 square feet. The next area of concern was the side yard setback to the east which is five feet and that is the minimum require- ment; the total side yard setback requirement now is 15 feet. The project would not be able to meet that. This needs to be studied as it cramps the house next door. In general the Planning Office supports this proposal. Our recommendation is for approval of both designation and conceptual development approval. One aspect that I didn't mention yet is that we were asking for a timing of one year after designation for the asbestos siding to be moved. Peter Carley: Since your memo we have moved the house around and we cannot meet the code but we can meet the lot coverage, the HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 distances from other houses, some of the side yard setbacks and we have spaced the houses ten feet apart. Bill: I'd like to go through the memo in a logically progres- sion for the Committee's comments. Charlie: Steve, what would be the allowable site coverage and FAR on a 3,000 square foot. Steve: On a 3,000 sq. ft. the FAR would be 2,400 sq. ft. and there is no limitation on site coverage, it is simply a matter of the side yards which in this project are five feet on each side a total of 10 feet. The front is 10 feet and the back five. The total is 25 feet. Nick: With regard to designation of the house on 120 N. Spring Street I would like to know specifically how that house will be moved from 120 Spring Street to Hopkins Street. Roger Kerr: I think the house can be moved by a house mover and we are checking into that aspect tomorrow and we will get an exact plan on how it will be moved. Bill: Whoever makes the motion a detailed plan on how the house will be moved should be in that motion. Patricia: I'm concerned with the structural analysis of both houses especially the one being moved: that it is not going to be demolished after you get in there due to termites or burnt walls etc. Peter Carley: there. I'll just have to do the best I can with what is Patricia: When you come back for preliminary approval I would like to see a report on how structurally sound the building is. Peter Carley: That house will have to be changed inside. Zoe: To get a City designation the exterior has to be replaced intact. What you do with the interior is your business. Roger Kerr: Do you designate both houses? Steve: You designate the property at 134 W. Hopkins Ave. Zoe: It is a wonderful idea and another chance for us to retain two little buildings that would otherwise be torn down if we didn't do something about it. HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 Bill: For clarification once the house is moved we don't want you as an applicant to come back in and say it is rotted, has termites etc. and we have to tear it down. Peter Carley: I've moved houses before in Delaware and I can guess that we will find a 100 year old house with simple studding and simple roof structure. Charlie: What do you know of the existing house on the corner. Peter Carley: That is a good house, the foundation is good, the house is strong but lacks insulation. The roof will take the dormer pretty easily. Charlie: Will you reside it after removing the asbestos? Peter Carley: I don't have any idea. Zoe: In order for you to get historical designation these issues all have to be very specific. Bill: Lets discuss questions regarding conceptual development and review standards, the setbacks. Steve: I'm concerned with the side yard setback to the east. Charlie: One thing for the staff is to do a comparison; lets say they were 2 separate 3,000 ft. lots. You would have a 2400 foot house one on each end and five foot setbacks. The encroach- ment to the neighbor is a definite consideration because of what it does to his property value. The concept is good in that we would have two old houses. To the applicant I would address is there a potential to change the line which has very little definition to it and reverse the gallery to put the patio facing east. Would that work so there is some relief and it doesn't "run" the whole length lot. Peter Carley: setback. The gallery is the easiest thing to make meet the Charlie: What you have now is a 100 ft. lot and an 800 sq. ft. house. Peter Carley: You do and you don't. You have a 100 ft. house because you have two buildings joined by a gallery. We shoved them together and we felt that that was worse than pulling them apart. Roger Kerr: What we are trying to do is maintain the one story 6 HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 victorian as a single element and with the new addition to isolate it from the original house by the gallery. Peter Carley: If you look at the site plan and push the gallery over to the west then you encroach on the space around 134 W. Hopkins that is existing. If you leave the setback minimally on the east side even though his garage roof overhangs that property line he doesn't loose any light by having it that close and at the same time on the front of that adjacent lot there is a house that sits way to the east on that so there is a yard there. Charlie: We are getting two historic houses basically on two 3,000 foot lots although you may end up with condos or whatever ownership you are going to do. Maybe we would be safer to stay within the guidelines of what the regulations would be on a 3,000 foot house which would be a 5 foot minimum on that side. What is the setback on the existing house. line on the west side is that. How close to the lot My only concern is you have the porch and entry to the house and that a fair amount of relief on the east side but then you are going straight back for a distance of some 50 feet of house and you don't know what is going to happen next door. How fair is it to the neighbor. Patricia: What'is the address of the house next door and was it designated. Steve: It is not an historic structure. Bill: Does everybody have a clear understanding; Does the applicant agree with the Committee that we are going with a five foot side setback and allowing them to have ten feet on the front. Where do we want to go from here. Charlie: Right now you have ten on the front and five on the back. Peter Carley: You have 3.3 feet on the side and ten feet between the houses. Charlie: We aren't concerned how close your two houses have to be on the one property as much as we are concerned how to treat the other neighbors. We want to protect the open space of the neighbor and we don't know potentially what that neighbor will do. Bill: I don't mind giving up the ten feet on the front that is the minimum within the code on a 30 foot lot. 7 HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 Peter Carley: The existing house is actually 16.6 feet and if we went to 13 to 15 feet that would give us enough. We could move the gallery. Bill: We would like to see that pulled back a little as we want it increased more than ten feet and you will have to study that. Peter Carley: You want 13 feet minimum on the front and 5 feet on the east side. Augie: Does the historic designation allow them to vary from the number of parking spaces that are required? Steve: I think it does. Bill Drueding: the answer. I haven't dealt much with that so I don't know Charlie: On the back yard of the existing house, the last of the open space, would you be putting a garage in there? Peter Carley: a garage. The Julie Wykoff lives there and she doesn't want Roger Kerr: We have already used up 300 sq. ft. of garage. Charlie: You are under 200 sq. ft. of the allowable site coverage. A garage back there would begin to mass the lot and disrupt the concept of what you are doing and we would want it to remain open space. Bill: I believe the garage is included in the they are already at their maximum site coverage be able to build a garage. site coverage so so they wouldn't Steve: If they need potential living space they can use the basement and that is very compatible rather than creating more site coverage. Bill: It becomes a technicality and I don't want to say that 43% is fine and then they come in and we can't legally find a reason to give them that 3%. Peter Carley: It would seem to me that to do something with this preservation make a few adjustments to the code. if the City really wants then they would have to Steve: The potential exists to make those adjustments. HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 Peter Carley: I think within 2 1/2% of the total site coverage of 40% is pretty close. Charlie: They are giving up 200 square feet of potential FAR and they are giving up a potential 500 square feet of garage in terms of what they could do. They could bring a bull dozer in and take advantage of all that is allowable there. I think it is a good compromise. Zoe: I would rather see the house restored. Charlie: One of the guidelines that we asked is that the addition not be placed right up to the house and now they are willing to put a gallery onto an addition of the existing historic house. Bill: Since we are trying to keep the houses as small struct- ures and they are adding additions because they are small structures there is an area (the gallery) is required to connect these and keep them small so I do find that compatible, that it would add square footage and allow it to go above the site coverage. Peter Carley: I think we should take your setbacks and calcul- ate where we are. Once we set the buildings we will recalculate. Steve: We have not discussed 1.b the size of the east-facing dormer. Bill: On lot K to the east there is a dormer that is approxima- tely 2 1/2 times the size of the shed dormer on the front. Staff has raised the question as to whether that is compatible to haves one large dormer. It is the same type but it is larger. Peter Carley: It is not that visible due to trees. Augie: Could you possible make these into two smaller dormers. Peter Carley: Yes we can. Augie: Everything else on the roof and the building is small scale except the dormer that would be a one larger scale element. Patricia: From what angle will it be visible? Steve: From down Hopkins Street there is a front yard view of it. Bill: If you look at the plans there is a bath up there and it HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 appears to be a closed between the two vanities, would there be the ability to get a break in there with two dormers. Roger Kerr: I think we could get a break in there and get two dormers instead of one. Zoe: We're talking about the new dormer on the existing house on lot K. Bill: This is a nice project and a great presentation both Steve and the applicants have done a good job in preparing us to be able to evaluate this. Steve: Should we change the wording in 1. c to read the new east-facing dormer to be reduced in size to two smaller dormers. Steve: 2.d has not been discussed. We were discussing the concept of the height and massing of the addition as it relates to the original house. My comment was that I'm not sure that lowering the height is necessary. What they have done is brought the height to the same as the existing 134 W. Hopkins structure and it is possible that it may over shadow that structure (the moved house). Bill: I think it is back far enough. Are we just going to make a motion to accepting everything. Charlie: We just need to add some changes to the recommendation in the memo. Bill: How many motions do we need. Steve: Two motions: one for designation and one for conceptual. MOTION: Zoe made the motion to approve the recommendation of the Planning Office to HPC and I recommend historic landmark designation of 134 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots K and L of Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen subject to the condition volunteered by the applicants that the asbestos siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed, the old siding restored and replaced as necessary with matching new siding within one (1) year after historic designation. Patricia second the motion. Ail favored. Motion carries. Bill: So that you know for the record in applicant could go through this and if you plan you may loose designation. the past you as an don't meet with the 10 HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 Peter Carley: We have an option to purchase the property at 134 W. Hopkins in which we close on the 15tgh of April. There is a slight problem with 120 N. Spring in that the purchasers of that piece of land are willing to sell me the house, however, they have been told I think that if they give me the house they loose one unit on the land. If they loose the one unit they are going to tear the house down. MOTION: Bill: I'll entertain a second motion for the concep- tual development approval for the restoration of 134 W. Hopkins and the moving of the house at 120 N. Spring to the site with conditions and amendments as presented on the memo dated 1-6-88 for items 1. (a) (b) (c) (d) and items 2. (a) (b) (c) (d). Patricia: I will move to approve that motion. Augie second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. Second Motion in detail: I move to HPC to give conceptual development approval for the restoration of 134 W. Hopkins, moving the house at 120 N. Spring to the site and building an addition subject to the following conditions: 1. Detailed rehabilitation plans for the existing house at 134 W. Hopkins shall be submitted for final development review including: ae Method of removing asbestos siding, restoration of existing siding and replacement of matching siding. 0 Plans for new roofing, alterations to front porch, and any other architectural elements of the rehabilitation project and materials shall be presented. Ce Plans showing the new east-facing dormer on Lot K to be reduced in size to two smaller dormers. de Structural analysis of the house sufficient to assure that the proposed alternations will not undermine the structure leading to major reconstruction or demolition. 2. Detailed moving and restoration plans for the house at 120 N. Spring shall be submitted for final development review including: ae Method of moving house to assure that the structure will remain in tact. 11 HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 b. Modifications to the location of the structure such that: The front yard setback to be a minimum of 13 feet and further studied regarding compatibility with the existing residence. The east side yard setback shall be a minimum of 5 feet and further studied to incorporate in the design sufficient space for vegetation and separation from the next-door neighbor. Total site coverage of the proposed development shall be studied to be as close to 40% of the site as possible after they move the setback. de Lowering the height of the addition shall be studied as to how the addition relates to the height and massing of the original house. Nick: On this project I would like to assume the responsibility of the movement of the building from 120 N. Spring. Adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland Deputy City Clerk 12