Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19840807RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Historic Preservation Committee regular meeting August 7, 1984, because of the City Council Chambers being used HPC moved the meeting over to the Court House in the Commissioners Room. Present were Connie Mc Cruuden, Nick PasquarelL Gretchen Greenwood, Marjorie Riley, Bill Drueding, Colette Penne, excused Georgeann Waggaman, Terry End, and Zoe Compton, Mona Frost. The meeting open to a report on the satellite dish, by Bill Drueding stating that the satellite dish for the KSPN, will be settled with in a week. Bill Drueding said if this matter is not settled it will be in front of the City Attorney by August 14 th. In other words the satellite will be off the exsisting site by 8/14/84 restated Nick Pasquarella. New Business: Preliminary review of construction plans for 214 Lake Avenue, the Chefan duplex application. Nick Pasquarella, Colette Penne, and Gretchen Greenwood said they went by the site and made a site visit before this meeting. Nick Pasquarella open the discussion: Bill Drueding said he could not stay very long at this meeting, and asked that HPC make any approval conditional to the zoing and building codes of Aspen. Colette Penne said that it was brought to her attention that since this application has come in, Sunny Vann the planning director, at the time Welton Anderson requested this area be historically designated, the area is were Nancy Henry Peterson, Deitech's have this house, and the Wogans have a house, those four houses were a part of a subdivision W.P.W., the owners and Welton wanted to change some lot lines and wanted to do some expansion, and they asked that the area be historical designated, it is one of the few residental areas that are outside the Main Street Historical District, or the ~ommerical Core Historic District.There are individual houses were people have requested, this time the owners came to the City and asked that area be d~signated, at the time it was designated and the City Council took action Stacey Stanley was mayor, the minutes of that meeting reflect that a FAR was put on those properties, that is different from the FAR ,that has since changed for residential zones, there is a FAR ~imitation on. these properties, that needs to be review before approvals can be given. Someone stated that these properties have a FAR point three; Colette Penne went on to say that she did not know if this design fits with in the FAR. The history of this designation needs to be checked into, as she remembers on H. Peterson house because of what he wanted done, the FAR was changed to a point four, but this will have to be checked also. This FAR is different from most, explaining that in the design if it will fit into the FAR which seems to be a point three, Colette asked if the applicate was aware of this? The plans being presented today are approximately the same size as the one that has been approved when Welton Anderson brought it before HPC for approval, but that does not use a point three This plan shown today is using a point four, said the applicate as far as the design is concerned. FAR. Colette asked if this by using the FAR point four would this fit within the current FAR regulations for the zone. The applicate said yes. Colette said the applicate will have to be with in the residental FAR that everyone complies with and if this FAR is more strick than that, then the applicate needs to apply to that also. Nick Pasquarella asked that for the record, that HPC has given approval of lot 17, but approval of tearing down the house down was not given, but Welton plan used the existing house as part of the duplex of the Shaw and the WPW Joint Venture. Colette Penne said in the orginal approval the house was part of the design, the new applicate would like to tear down the house. John Segal attorney for the applicate Steve Chefan, and the architect is Theodore K. Guy, this property is now under contract from the Deitsch's. Showing the members photo's of the area and the house. John Segal said the proposal is to tear down the eX isting house a recreate its size and visual effect, not to recreate board by board, as the rendering shows they would create a victorian lines, and similar materials of the orginal house, which is, showing on the drawing that part of the house, then they would expand the structure and build the duplex, the whole structure will be uniform in its architectureipresentation. They will not take the old and put something modern or inconsistent with victorian design or materials. John went on to say that HPC has approved already a similar structure on this site, which incorporated the existing building. The applicates feels for a couple of reasons,they do not want to do that; one is that the structual aspects of the building to save it, it is so far gone and out of code, explaining to the members that the north wall on the exterior is visible that it is sagging, if this type of re~vation is needed it will have to be from scatch anyway they would like to and what they think is important that not that the building be duplicate board by board, but the feeling of the victorian house be presevered, so long as the scale of the existing house, and the similarity in the lines, they could go through the exercise of duplicating the house, then adding something to the back of it, but then they would not have two structuals that will blend together, they want to create the same shape and form, but not pacifically the same dimension in this proposal being given today. Giving his view of when he was on the HPC board, and how times have changed with the different board members being appointed. Going on he stated they really don't want to work with the old building, but would like to start from stratch, but they will retain from the street side the sense of a small house, and build in the back of it; The question was asked of John, what was the size of the present house? The reply was eight hundred and fifty. Gretchen Greenwood asked if about the history of the house, it looks like the house has been added on to. Jackie Wogan said the orginal house did not have the back porch, it was one of the first Mont~ Wards p. fab, dating back to the late 1800's and has b~en expanded at least twice over the years. Colette said the applicates need some direction, if HPC feels whether or not c®mfortable tearing down the house, what HPC would like to see changed in a preliminary sense on the design before it comes to HPC for final review, all of this has to go to public hearing the demoli~i6~ as well as the new house plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves HPC August 7, 1984 P.3 This is a notible structure, the situatuion is some what similar to to the Marquands, in that if the structual was notible but the owner did not want it designate, it would not of been, but because of the way that all four of these houses came in, it is historical designated. Jackie Wogan said that when they took this of Historic designation to City Council, part of the deal was, they would let them change seven lots, if the houses were kept. John Segal said that does not reflect in the minutes, on looking at the plat, where it was approved it said that as far as this body was concerned lot 17, they only wanted historic designation for the demoli~t~ion , and no intent that they had to keep the building, they just wanted to have some imput. JaCkie said no, not that she wants to differ, but if you read the minutes from City Council we were told that , we were suppose to keep all those houses, and that was part of the deal they made, and it took two years of going to planning and zoing. John Segal said this information he has,came off the plats, and lot 17 was and it deals with lot 17 differently than the other three lots. Colette Penne said that is different from the Marquand house, Colette has gone through the Marquand house and when we are talking about demolishing any house that is historically designated, there needs to be a site visit; This house should be seen by the members to see what condition this house is in, the house looks pretty good from the front, its a pretty charming small victorian miners cottage, know Colette said she doesnot know what that means in terms of structual integity the Marquand house looks charming from the outside, but inside it was like early dormitory, it was a mess, it had been covered in barn wood, it had been added on to, it did not retain its victorian integ~t~, Colette went on to say she did not know if this was the case with this house, This house should be seen and HPC decision should this house be saved, It was mention to the applicates when they called when they said they were thinking this that HPC has been under the gun a lot with this type of question. such as the Glidden and the M~rquand house, reviewing the problems and the findings of those projects, this house today if the materials have to be totally reconstructed, until the time it is shown that they are as rotten as the Glidden house was, if that is the case, then HPC will have to look at it one way, if it is not the case it seems to Colette that it can be expanded. The other element of this is the neighborhood character, all the houses around this house are larger than this house, Henry Peterson houses has been added on to from the small brick victorian, it would not be reasonable or fair not to let them expand this house, the neighborhood character is okay to have the expansion, most of the houses in the nieghborhood are large, but to approve for a demol%%i~n, of this house, will have to be done on a good bases, it could become a way of dealing with small victorian houses through out the West End. Marjorie Riley said she would like to see this house, her concern is the size, if it is within the confinds of the rules. Colette Penne said that when the Historical Society came to visit, the Peterson house was an expample of what not to do with a small victorian house, to expand it, with such a large addition to it, that it is five times as large as the victorian. The -4- HPC can not say to the applicate that they can not add a addition that is five times as large as the existing victorian, because it has been done right next door, and to add the addition can probable be done, but that should be a seperate question, and the design of it is one question, the demolis of it ex~ ting structual is another question, but the addition of that much square footage is reasonable. John Segal went on with the presentation, explaining that HPC has approved the plans of Welton Anderson for this property, when his client came to purchase the property, he saw what had been approved and thought he could do a much better job, given the criteria of the approval, this house can be built. , but they feel they can do better. John Segal showed what HPC has already approved, so that it is not thought of as just that little victorian there,but in terms of of this structure, showing the plans already approved. If they can not get the house they want, they might build the one as appoved by HPC already, or someone else will build this one in the future. The exsisting house, the plans suggested that they move the house and go to the expense, and build this new structure around it, what the new client has done, they have taken basically the same element and retained it to last another 100 years; Explaining what Welton plans were, John said that even the peach blow stone foundation, they do not met the requirements of current pratice so far as desireable comb~ination, floor joist . are probable 2 by 6, and not able to sup orr as the code states, rather than have to come back in and show this committee that each stud has a little bit of dry rot, they are saying lets be honest up front, the best way to do this is to allow them to rebuild this with new materials. Gretchen Greenwood said that she has gone over to the house, and this is a notible house for Aspen, there are a lot of miners cabins of this scale,and she feels part of this house can be saved, the caracter of the town should be saved, and they still represent a period of history of Aspen; It is a design problem to attach any big addition on to a small victorian, but design wise it can be done, if the old victorian was saved then perhaps the design would senivity to this frontage. Theodore Guy said the frontaqe is in the same proportion to that that in the rendering Gretchen Sai.d she can not see tearing this house down, and that with a new design can be saved.Maybe knowing a little more history on the house tearing off the back portions, and by using this front part as a entry for a new house, or something like that, she feels that she does not want to set ~present it would set. Mr. Guy asked if its important to save the studs, and shape, but can they rebuild it as the same size but use new materials so it will last another 100 years? Gretchen said yes, like what has been done on the Glidden House. Gretchen Greenwood said of the new renderings there is a bay window on there, there is no bay window on the orginal house, they are flush windows~ and that the new plans don't show any of the victorian detailing that, that house has, it has some nice wood molding and details around the top ridge, none of this is picked up in the new plans, this is something that HPC wants to preserve, these elements need to be saved. 5~ke the new design work, this design dominat~ this victorian, this design is not good speaking of the Anderson plans, and if on the board at that time would of voted against it. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves HPC August 7, 1984 P.5 Mr. GUy~sa~d this is.w~at they~tried to~do by, by putting the two story element as far away from the road as possible. Gretchen said yes with the new plans they have done it but, they have picked up the front part of the victorian only from an elevation point of view, but you do not see the house from an elevation point of view, you have the whole structure that is shown. The design could be more sensivity to that, and there is quite a bit of land back here, in which to do that with, moi'e the whole thing forward, to allow for more land. another thing on the design, the new design, the house next door, it maintains a 1 inar design, it doesnot look like it is two houses behind one another, maybe with this design thats all you can do, but it might crowd the lot between the two houses. If it could be kept a little more linar, so it does look like you · have a house within a house. Colette brought up the community feelings of the Shaw house and the Glidden house. The other comment Colette had to make was that she liked the new ~ design better than the one HPC has approved already for this property. There are a couple of elements in this design that she does not care for, and they center around the porch, the porch is really charming, the detailing on the porch/the detailing on the door, and the small porch; The problem she has with the new plans is the roof line, the front view of the larger roof line of the house behind the smaller house,was exceptable, its the side view,and the line of the porch; Mr. Guy said they would do some modifications to the plans, but both Welton's and their's, do antici~te if the orginal house is to be used, that it be picked up and moved off,remove the old foundation and build a new foundation, and put the house back on, Welton's plan loses the north side of the house, you would not have the green room or the back porch; Gretchen said that would not be a problem for her, its the front she would like to see kept. Mr. Guy said the house is not ready to fall down, replying to Colette question, but does have some structual problems, there are some sags. Jackie said she has lived in the house, and it is ready to fall down, but that it should be reconstructed in the same way, as it is now. Mr. Guy said he would rather reconstruct using the same details of that front elevation, and maintain the massing, then to go to all the additional expense of adding each peice, peice by peice to the existing building from the inside out. Connie McCrudden said ~hat she felt that the old building should not be preserved~theold building if it is just going to look the same,when you are the investor,and putting the money in to it, then you have to look at that stand point. If they want to keep the orginal part but reconstruct it so will last another 100 years. Mr. Guy said that any additional that they do there will dwaft the orginal structure. Connie said she agrees with Colette on the Peterson addition. When you deal with the abstract, when talking about preserving the P.6 building, that find they really don't care, they can go either route as long as they do not have to use the same boards, but you have to know what the end product will be like, because what ever happens on that property will dwaft the orginal house, and will consume what is known as the miners cabin, in the end you will have a better product by doing that than saying we want to create a feeling of it and some of its details, but have a more comprehensive approach to the property,when you incoporate a new structure around the old you totally have forgotten what the old one looks like, stated John Segal. Nick Pasquarella, from his point of view listening to his collages here, he feels strongly, tha~ this be preserved that image of that house and have it added too. Gretchen said she felt that the feeling can be held, with reconstruc tion, it will cost alot of time here as far as the architect to catolog that house, and make sure all those compon~ts will go back in, and to take those componets to the rest of the house also;or you could do an abstraction from that like the Glidden house,with a contemporiary house next door, and the older house reconstructed. Mr. Guy said that the only change to the rendering that they have there is that there would have to be another gable roof that came out, and continue that,that again would remove the long sloping roof there in the front; Marjorie said she has not seen the house but agrees with the other mem rs on reconstruction and to preserved the orginal house. Connie said that she means with her statement that she wants to preserve the house but to let them rebuild it. Discussion continued; Colette said that if this building needs so much reconstruction, then the members should be told why, what elements are so rotten that it has to go to that degree to be preserved. Mr. Guy said you really can not tell till you start tearing it apart, the fact is that there is a big sag in the back, and words from someone that has lived there, that it is about ready to fall down, its with today design codes, totally understandard, such as to carry snowloads, to use the normal floor loads, more and more installation is added to these houses, which make all the heat instead of excaping through the roof, and allowing those building to stand, there is so much installation in there that the roof claspe. Colette said she does not care what is done with the inside, it is the out ward appearance, and this is where the concern is, if the applicate has to demolish this house and truel¥ reconstructed it, Colette said she would like to see if there is elements of it that can be worked with. Mr. Guy said that he agreed with Gretchen that you would use a lot of the old trim,it will take some time to take the details off, and the siding will be thrown away, but the trim will be saved if the approach is this way. What he thinks he is hearing, the massing needs' some addition work, to have a better sense that the added on to the exsisting house, and more in keeping with the historical house, and a stronger reading of the totally new work whether that can be a take off the developement from that detail or total departure. Gretchen said the design will have to be looked at again when they come back in. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS lO0 Leaves HPC cont. August 7, 1984 P.7 The meeting can be changed to the 28th if all members all in agreement. ~Me members have given direction that they would like the exsisting house rebuilt, and change some things in the design, that is not unusually at preliminary reviews, under certain conditions be given, no HPC will not approve demoli~i~n~ of the house, HPC wants to hear about the approach to reconstruction, HPC wants to see a different porch~roof detail, Gretchen point of it being more linar, those points, might make you have two final reviews; Nick acting as chair person, said the Public Hearing will be set for the 28th of August, Colette Penne said she would look at the minutes as far as the questions of the FAR either being a .3 or a .4, and the FAR when Stacey Stanley was mayor, and see if that was changed before this house or for Henry's house; Nick said it is not this board that make approval of FAR's. ~chen Greenwood made a motion that HPC give preliminary approval with the following conditions, that the orginal house be reconstructed, and that HPC allows you to be tean out the un room in the back,all the detailing and the windows and general form of the house be maintained and reconstructed and the preliminary approval on the addition subject to futher design and review with the front view being reconstructed and the FAR in compliance with what has approved on that site, seconded by Majorie Riley, discussion: Colette Penne, Asked if the three car garage is really necessary, ~he applicate said that Welton's plans had a three car garage, and they have tried to a revision of Weltons' already had approved, rather than a total start from scratch. Colette said that maybe the applicate, maybe they do not want to follow Welton's plans, the people want some interior space, maybe they want it for them and not the car, you might want to get the space for living area rather than a ca~s, Ted Guy said that can not be done with the FAR, you get 600 square feet per dwelling for the garage space. Colette said that HPC went round and round on the Glidden house with the garage, it is an impact in terms of bulk, when you add garage space, and if it is important to the applicate then ask for the three oar garage, but if in designing it if it is not that important to Chefan's you could elimiate some of the bulk, and use it better. Gretchen said that a three garage doors are rather obtrusive, Ted Guy said that there are thing they can do to minumize the impact, he would like to say sure we will look at it and probable reduce it, but they will probable still be three, Mi jorie Riley said that perhaps there does need to be three doors, maybe a two or a one, they will look at the whole house the detailing, and the rooms have to be worked out, Gretchen said that maybe it could be attached like the old carriage house, you could up date the concept of a victorian for that neighborhood. Colette said this reminds her of a subdivision victorian, and she has a real problem with it. Jackie Wogan said that she wears two hats,she has a back up contract on this house and is here for her client, and she thinks the area and the neighborhood is so special, that she would dis approve of anyhting of that mass, or that bulk. and she does not like the idea of a duplex; Majorie Riley said that she agreed with JAckie Wogan, as far as the massing, however if it is the rules and regulations, that they are allow 4,250 feet, how can you say no. John Segal said that he has some concerns, with Jackie, it is difficult to work to halfs, and given the fact this is a small community, that an applications like this one they pres~ted today get sabotaged, referring to the remarks of Jackie two hats, one ane~bo~ one a realstate person with ~]~second contract on the house if, this deal falls through. Nick Pasquarella said that that is not a problem here. Nick called for a vote from the members on the motion on the floor, all in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned.