Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080312ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Jay Maytin and Nora Berko, Sarah Broughton, Brian McNellis and Ann Mullins, were excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Jim True, Special Counsel MOTION: Alison moved to approve the minutes of Feb. 13`h and Feb. 27`h; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. 202 N. Monarch Street -Major Development -Conceptual, Variances and Residential Design Standards MOTION: Alison made the motion to continue the public hearing and conceptual development, variances for 202 N. Monarch Street until March 26, 2008; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. 707 N. Third Street -Conceptual, Relocation and Variances Public notice -Exhibit I Sara presented the board with some background information. 707 N. Third was built around 1890 and the cabin is on the corner of Gillespie and North Third Street. It has a few alterations. It was originally a hipped roof and a dormer was bumped out. A wrap around porch was added and a few small additions were added. The applicant proposes to relocate the residence east of the property toward North Third Street all the way up to the ten foot setback and a little bit to the south. There is also a proposal to excavate a large basement and reduce the size of the non-historic additions and enlarge the one-story addition at the rear for a bedroom. The majority of these improvements are sub-grade. Keeping the mass below grade and away from the resource is great. Site planning: Staff is a little concerned about the walkout terrace which is along the south elevation. The reason for our concern is we feel that the relationship of the historic home to grade is jeopardized. It is almost like a huge trench even though it is not visible from the street. Another concern is the window well that is proposed beneath the front porch. At night time if there is light ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008 coming from the sub-grade it would make the front porch kind off glow from underneath. It is a good innovative solution to hide a window well under a porch but not necessarily the front porch. Parking: There is no parking proposed and the City does require two parking spaces for the primary unit and one space for the ADU. There needs to be some parking proposed on-site or they need to ask for a waiver from HPC. Mass and scale: We think that the one-story mass proposed for the rear bedroom addition is very modest and meets our design guidelines. There is a linking element that connects the gabled roof bedroom with the historic home. It is successful in breaking up the development. The two additions that exist are proposed to be reduced a little. Reducing the size and changing the materials is great as it meets our guidelines a little closer. As a suggestion maybe there is a way to keep reducing the additions or omit them and incorporate that space into the new addition to increase the integrity of the new home. They are going to be picking up the house and this might be a good opportunity to restore some of the historic form. Relocation: The applicant proposes to shift the building 23 feet to the east to the front yard setback. Staff is not opposed to relocation but we cannot support it right now because the overall proposal does not meet our design guidelines. Overall the applicant should restudy the sub-grade space, the large terrace, light well and restudy the relationship of this home to the home to the south which is also historic. Possibly the house could be shifted forward to the setback instead of bringing it all the way up to the ten foot setback that is required in the R-6 zone district. Affordable Housing: HPC has the authority to grant variances from design standards for ADU's through special review if the property is an historic landmark. Regarding the ADU staff is not in favor ofhaving asub-grade ADU space especially with the large terrace that would be jeopardizing the historic resource. The sub- grade space does not promote the unit's livability. The entrance to the ADU negatively impacts the historic resource with the large walkout sub-grade terrace. Criterion #3 is met because it is compatible with the neighborhood but criterion 1 and 2 are not met. Staff feels there should be parking for the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2008 ADU on-site as there is no parking on the West End. We're not concerned about the attachment of the ADU to the primary residence. There is a door that joins the ADU to the primary residence and we recommend that door be taken out and making it a wall so that there is specific ADU space with its own entrance. Design standard #6 relates to the setback variances and #7 discusses roof designs. There is a roof design over the entrance of the ADU and staff is opposed as it adds more mass and is a weird feature that sticks out from grade of the historic resource. Staff is opposed to that variance. We commend the applicant for proposing the ADU and it is great that the voluntarily propose to have the ADU. Setback variances: Staff finds that criteria B is not met. The setbacks do not enhance the historic property. They are asking for three feet on the north side and three feet on the south side. Staff is concerned about the retaining wall distance to the historic resource. Al Beyer, architect; Scott Slogan, associate. Doug Throm, contractor; Carol Craig, owner. Al Beyer said they reviewed the plans and feel they can pull the setback back so that they do not need a variance on the Gillespie Street side. In doing so the light well on the other side gets reduced. Al pointed out that they are leaving 700 square feet on the table and no maxing out their FAR. The owner loves her yard and intends to keep it. Most of the houses in the West End are maximized with additions to the back. What we are arguing is it is a better thing for HPC to take livable space and put it subterranean. The light well will make the space decent to live in. We can take off the ADU if that becomes an issue. Isn't this a better preservation of an historic resource than the chunk of building right beside and behind it? Right now we have a small one-story space in the back and the house when people drive by will look like the same old house. The owner would like to keep her existing parking space on the side where she walks through the gate and go to house that way as opposed to putting the parking in the yard. HPC has the ability to waive parking. This is an historic lot that has never had parking on-site and it is not accessed by an alley. In terms of moving the building, the pipes freeze and we have a radon issue and there is no insulation and the heat system is shot. We have to pick the building up, dig out a basement and put it on an actual foundation. We only want to move the house once. The dormer was added in the 60's. We will move the light well from the front 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008 porch to the covered walkway on the west side that faces the back yard. We are willing to pull things off the table to make everything work well. We can get rid of the setback on the Gillespie side and the light well gets reduced. We can take the ADU away which gets rid of the extra parking space that we have to provide on site. The only variance we are requesting is for the light well on the south side for the sunken terrace. Nora inquired about the additions. The bump out was in the 60's. The back bedroom was late 60's. If the ADU is not provided the space becomes part of the primary residence. Sara explained that the lot is about 5,000 square feet and you cannot have two dwelling units on it. You have to have a 6,000 square foot lot in order to have two dwelling unit. Al Beyer said the idea was down the line if we wanted live in care-giving we might as well have a legal place for them to live. Amy said this ADU is a little different because it is voluntary. If an ADU was required to be provided the City wants the kind of unit that we think is livable above grade, detached or give us the money and we will build one ourselves. Michael asked if the applicant has to meet all of the ADU requirements. Sara said she interprets that the three conditions need to be met. Amy pointed out that there are several design standards that need waived in order to build this ADU. Nora said the applicant is providing housing within walking distance to town and you are reducing density. Michael asked Jim if the HPC had the authority to be innovative. Jim said HPC has flexibility but you need to be in compliance with the criteria. Al said what is key to the space whether it is an ADU or livable space is the light well. That light well allows the space to be livable and keeps it from being in the back yard. Every project is allowed 2,400 square feet of FAR and if the basement is 100% below grade it doesn't count against your FAR. Whatever percentage of wall is above grade then that percentage of your basement space counts as floor area. By making the light well as big as possible I'm taking up FAR that aren't going to go in the back yard in the future. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2008 Michael said one of staff's issues is the walk out terrace. Al said it was 7 '/z feet by around 24 feet without the slope and that has been reduced to 5 feet. Nora said if the terrace is landscaped in a certain way it could become a terrace garden bringing in light. Could that mitigate some of the problems? Sara said our main issue is that you are taking away the relationship of the historic resource to the ground in a huge way. It is the length of the historic resource. That is something that we feel is going to compromise the architectural integrity. It is great that the mass is below grade but the reality is there is 700 square feet that remain above grade and the possibility of a 500 square foot bonus that this property would be eligible for. In the future they could be putting that mass in the back yard and still have the sunken terrace. Nora said the applicant is not maximizing the property and she is trying to figure a way to keep the ADU sub-grade. Jay said what you are asking is can we count that FAR as part of the project which would alleviate the ability to build another structure on the property in the future. Al said putting a project out there that has a light well to make sub-grade space livable is a good solution. In the code you would have to change how FAR is calculated on the lot. Jay asked if any trees would be removed. Al said there is a good size Aspen tree in the front that will have to be removed. The rest can remain. Amy pointed out that she would argue for the light well if there wasn't all this pressure that is going to come to us again ten years down the road requesting 700 square feet of FAR and possibly a FAR bonus. You need to look at the light well and decide if it is appropriate for the historic building not trying to think you are protecting the building from other development because that development is still out there. Amy said there are ideas to tweak the light well, whether it is moving the staircase so that it is oriented a different way so the ground doesn't slope right-away. Jay said he would like to see a restudy of attaching the light wells to the addition rather than attaching them to the historic structure. You are putting a light well on two sides of the historic structure. Possibly a light well can be moved to the master bedroom or where the hallway is. Jay said a very prominent part of the historic house is also facing Gillespie Street. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008 Al said the light well that we are talking about is on the south side of the building and you can't see it at all. It is on the south side between the two buildings. Alison said pulling the office addition back off the corner of the historic resource is helpful for positioning it. Michael outlined the issues: Walkout terrace or rather the extended light well. Alison said it is back off the corner of the historic resource. I understand what AI is trying to do but it is a 32 foot light well. Nora said this is a project that keeps the scale where it belongs and addresses a need that the applicant has. The light well is not even seen and is discrete. Michael pointed out that density in the West End is a huge problem. Staff's concern is that the light well or rather the sunken terrace degrades from the historic resource. Does HPC agree with staff's assessment? Jay agrees with staff. Nora, Alison, Michael did not agree with staff. Michael said the next issue is the window well that the applicant is moving to the west side which is under the deck. Sara said it is not on the primary facade but it is against the historic resource. Jay said he would like to do a site-visit. Michael said another issue is the parking. An encroachment license needs to be applied for. Sara said typically the Engineering Dept. doesn't allow parking in the right-of--way especially in the West End. They would either have to have on-site parking on the property or ask for a waiver of two parking spaces from HPC. Al said Engineering wants to put in curb and gutter everywhere. HPC has the right to waive the parking and that is what we are requesting. Al said this house has always had head in parking on the side and it is an historic part of this house. Amy explained that they do not have on-site parking and except for the ADU, I don't think this project triggers to provide parking. They have a pre- existing condition; however they don't have approval to park head in on the city right-of--way. HPC may not need to grant a parking variance. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008 Michael addressed the next issue which is the bump out on the kitchen and the office. They have reduced the sizes and are they acceptable. Jay said if alternations occur it is his feeling that they should go back to the original state, at least that is the way the guidelines are interpreted. If they alter the 1970's addition the way he interprets it, it would be appropriate to have the applicant restore the building. Alison said on Gillespie if the addition was removed you could read the historic resource more clearly. Jay said the design proposed is more complimentary to the historic building but reading the guidelines if you alter the existing addition then it should be put back to the original. Michael said the ultimate goal is to restore the original. Alison pointed out that the addition on the south side is fine. It is difficult with guideline 10.3 because the upper addition of the dormer was from a different time, although this is not a primary facade. Amy said on the south side Al isn't changing anything except some windows. On the north side they are changing things. Al said if we are penalized for reducing the kitchen and the office we will just keep it. Amy said if they keep the addition on the north they need a variance to do so. One way or another the board has to "bless" the north addition. Al pointed out that the guidelines say place an addition and we are not dealing with placing an addition, we are dealing with something that is already there. Michael said as it relates to the south addition that it is six feet and we applaud you pulling it back and we are asking you to pull it back four more feet. Sara said guideline 10.2 has to do with existing conditions: Amore recent addition that is not historically significant maybe removed. Al said he is opposed to pulling the south addition back four more feet because there is a dormer addition and this piece parks below it in a symmetrical manor and if you pull it back it doesn't work. Alison said she has no problem with the addition being six feet back. Michael agreed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008 Michael asked how the HPC felt about the north side. Amy said when they cut down the north side it will be a new addition and it is not the thing that is grandfathered in. Michael said on the Red Mountain side we would not approve the project with that addition. Michael said relocation is the next issue. Staff said we might agree to that but the rest of the plan doesn't work and even if we did we don't think it should go to the setback line. It should be even with the other structures on the street. Sara said she didn't mean exactly in line but to have a better relationship with the adjacent historic resource. Alison said ten feet is required and she has no problem moving it to the ten foot line. Jay agreed. Michael said the ADU request is off the table. Al said the bump out is very important as it effects the variance request. There is a 3'4" bump out and we will keep it the way it is and ask for the variance. The variance on the south side is to add space for asub-grade light well. Jay said you could propose acceptance with the following conditions: No setbacks. Bump out on Gillespie be kept in the same foot print that it is now or gone completely. Approve the light wells or not approve them. Approve the garden terrace or not and you can approve the other additions based on the information given tonight. Relocation, approve or not approve. Parking not on site. Michael asked our attorney if they can take action tonight. Jim said yes but there was no public notice for the parking and that can be handled at final. Nora said what if we approved the project with the condition of a variance on the south side being tweaked to the garden level and a variance on the north side. Jay said his concern is that the structure will be 3'8" away from the neighboring historic structure. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 707 N. Third with a site visit to be scheduled until April 23rd. Motion dies for lack of a second. Nora said there are only two things that she is not clear about. One is how you access to the garden level going to be handled and the northern bump out. I am having issues with guideline 10.3 and 10.8. We have a real ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008 opportunity here to act on something that we believe in which is reduction of density, restoration of an historic resource, housing people who work and live in town and improving the livability of a space. Those are my Aspen Area Community Guidelines that I am thinking about. Alison said she agreed. Jay commented that you have to go with the integrity of the guidelines and some are very clear i.e. 10.3. Michael said we already discussed this and came to the conclusion that they met the guidelines on the south side with the long light well. Nora said she would propose an approval with the condition to talk about the north side. Alison said what is difficult is the kitchen bump out on the north side and to put a condition on it is hard because it is part of the mass and scale. Carol Craig, owner said removing the addition is a big mistake because the kitchen is so little anyway. She appreciates every speck of space in the kitchen. MOTION: Alison moved to approve 707 N. Third Street, major development conceptual with the condition of removing the addition to the north side of the house and restoring the historic side. When the light well is moved to the west side of the house to make sure it complies with the code. New location can be reviewed at final. Setback variance for the south is being granted and relocation is being approved. The ADU is being removed from the program. Motion second by Jay. Nora said the space is small and the variance should be granted. Jay said with the preservation of the structure the north should go back to the way it was, guideline 10.3. If we are altering the north it should be returned to the original state. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Carol Craig said has been very interesting to listen to but I think you are crazy. You are making so much out of nothing. To me this isn't even a major project. This has been a 2 '/z hour meeting and as far as I can see you haven't gotten anywhere. If worse comes to worse I will leave everything 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008 the way it is and put a roof on. You can do whatever you want, I am leaving. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Michael said the architect does not like the requirement for the restoration of the north wall. Alison said we let them move the house to where they wanted; we are allowing the terrace to the other side. The only issue is the kitchen. Jay said we have bent our guidelines to make this work. Alison also pointed out if the house wasn't on a corner it would be a different discussion. Nora said the only other solution is to give a variance on the north side. Alison said Al is pushing the envelope with our guidelines and he wants us to look at them differently which will cause more discussion. Yote.• Jay, yes, Nora, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-0. Al asked for clarification. Alison said you got everything except the little bump out on the kitchen. Al asked if the HPC had the legal authority to remove the bump out. Jim said absolutely. Jim said the applicant has the right to file a 106 action to court if you don't think the HPC has the authority. Amy said this is a major project and we all appreciate that she isn't maxing it out. You are picking up the house, digging a basement, moving the house. The board decided allowing the addition on the north wasn't appropriate. Al said he is upset for Carol. She has this and she took something that was falling apart and she is trying to make it better. She is trying to all the right things and the one thing that she wanted was the space that existed. If HPC has the authority why didn't ask for all the dormers to come off instead of just the north side. Amy said if that was the one thing she wanted then give up the light well and get the house out of the setback. Jim said anybody who made the motion in favor of the project can make a motion to reconsider the decision. l0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008 MOTION: Jay made the motion to reconsider the decision of the previous motion; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION.• Jay made the motion to continue the public hearing for 707 N. Third until April 23; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION.• Michael moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Me~.ting a~ijoumedlat~:g5 p.m. ~ /] J. Stri~iykland, Chief Deputy City Clerk tt