Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070912 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12. 2007 135 W. HOPKINS - MAJOR REVIEW - FINAL - VARIANCES.................................. 2 408 E. COOPER AVE. - ASPEN SPORTS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT .......................9 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12. 2007 The condition was to restudy the porch element on the new house to be more in scale with the historic home. Staff finds that the elevation still needs restudied in style and size. The front should be similar in scale with the historic building. There have been changes from conceptual in the roof forms. The reoriented gable roofs are much more appropriate (colored rendering - Exhibit V). The long ridge line could be broken up somewhat. There is a new light well in the new sub grade space that has been added beneath the addition to the historic house. Staff is recommending that the light well be minimized. Moving onto to the FAR bonus. HPC granted a 333 square foot FAR bonus during conceptual based on the rehab of the historic resource ofthe design that was presented in 2006. According to the packet the design requires 312 square feet. Clarification needs to occur on the square footage requested. There were squatters in the historic home and staff is working with the building department on how to board up the historic home without damaging the exterior materials. We are also concerned about demo by neglect at this point, the length of the project and the state of this home as winter is approaching. Final review issues: Staff is recommending continuation of final for restudy of the front porch elevation and the fenestration of the detached residence that faces First Street. The plantings in the right-of-way need to be passed through Parks but can be dealt with by staff and monitor. In terms of the fenestration on the new detached building staff finds that there needs to be a better dialogue between the historic resource and new resource. A residential design standard variance would be necessary for the front fa<;ade but staff recommends denial and that the front height be brought down. Gretchen Greenwood said the light well that was changed from the L to be smaller is as small as it can be for light a ventilation. It is a light well for two bedrooms. It meets our requirements under the code. Regarding the restudy of the porch element this is a subjective opinion. At the last approval we had a completely different porch element to act as a 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12. 2007 Gretchen said they are ready to submit to the building department to get a portion of this project started and securing some of the historic features. John said the worse the historic features are the more it will cost him to bring them back the way they were. The bay element will be taken off and restored. If someone on the board has ideas we are open to them. If you feel there is something better for the porch let me know. I really am easy. The interior of the house has held up well and there is no water infiltration. The less we do to effect what is already there the better it will withstand the winter. Ifwe were to put a membrane inside the roof we might be disturbing something. Gretchen identified the process. The Victorian will be lifted up and moved to the rear of the property. Micro piles will go into the ground and we will excavate. Then we will demo the buildings on the back. John said he is sure his neighbors will be happy. Michael asked Sara to prioritize staffs concern. Sara said the #1 concern is the historic resource. When we did the site visit the back door was unlocked. The next concern is the front elevation that faces First Street, the compatibility of the design with the historic resource. This is one parcel and there needs to be some kind of dialogue. Michael requested clarification of the variance from the residential design standards. Sara said it is on the new construction, the front porch plate height from where the over hang is to finished grade. It is too high. The guidelines want a pedestrian friendly scale and that is why the guidelines have that height restriction. Michael asked Sara what our remedies are for demolition by neglect. Sara said staff is concerned but we do not actually want to pursue that as we are actually at a cross roads and we need to get specialists in to talk about stabilization ofthe building for the winter time. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12. 2007 stone maybe there is a way to reverse the stone. The ridge length on the new structure behind creates a back drop and is appropriate because there is a long ridge on the historic building. With the proposed 1ightwell maybe there is a way to combine the lightwells. The owner lives in Texas and obviously it is difficult to keep this property secured and the only way we can help is to keep this process moving along. Sarah said she has no problem with the size of the lightwells. The lightwells on the new construction are OK but they might need pinning. On the front porch the plate height is 9 feet on the upper level and maybe that could come down in size a little. I think we can work through options on the front porch tonight and get you back here in two weeks. Maybe we can look at the long gable and add another dormer facing Hopkins. The landscaping plan and lighting can be handled by staff and monitor. Michael said he can approve the lightwell also. He also agrees with staff that the character of the west elevation is not consistent with our guidelines and needs restudied. It is too formal. He is also bothered by the long ridge line of the new structure and the height. Jeffrey said this is a "gem" and we welcome the restoration. He agrees with staff on the porch element on the west elevation. There is plausible direction but some design considerations need addressed. It is rather modern and on the west elevation ofthe historic resource there are very simple gestures and simple details. The landscape plan can be worked out with the Parks Department, staff and monitor. The fenestration needs simplified on the north and west elevation of the new building. The lightwells are set back off the historic fa<;ade and have a flush grate. The stone is ornate and does have some competitive elements when looking at it from First Street. There are some small variations that will help this project even further and create a terrific plan. Final review needs to comply with Chapter 1 and 11. The board would like to give you final approval and help get the buildings demolished in the back but we do have a procedural process that is extremely important. Hopefully we can get you on the next agenda. Gretchen said what is the process; I come back someday and show you something you like. We have been through a lot of design processes on the building. We lowered the roof in the back and we cannot change the plate heights do to significant grade heights on this property. We are accessing both properties from the alley. With having all the gables face one direction 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12. 2007 Gable facing west vs. the way it is facing now. This should be in the architect's hands and it could be restudied for the best effect of the overall house. Sarah said we are asking to give a variance from the residential design standards for the front porch element. Is there a way to reduce the perception of the height of this entry element that gets us in compliance. Maybe it is a materiality issue as we have a real heavy material that is all of a sudden going up two stories against a simple wood structure. Gretchen said she understands what the board is saying. With the front porch element she will try different designs for the board. Alison said we need to see options for the roof materials. Amy said we need to see a restudy of the west fa<;ade, the perceived height of it through some mechanism, whether it is changing the porch or materials. Amy said in order to get on the next agenda we need to by the 19th of Sept. 408 E. Cooper Ave. - Aspen Sports - Minor Development MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue 408 E. Cooper, Aspen Sports, public hearing until Sept. 26th; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn, second by Michael. All infavor, motion carried. 2 adjOurn. e::..~ 7:00 p.m." a.tltl!LLL> ~u(~1 Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 9