Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080423ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23.2008 Vice-chair Sarah Broughton called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Sarah Broughton, Brian McNellis and Nora Berko. Michael Hoffinan was excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION.• Alison moved to approve the minutes of March 26`" second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. 707 N. Third Street -Conceptual, Relocation, Variances - PH Jim True, city attorney pointed out that at the last meeting there was a motion to approve with conditions. The applicant requested that the motion be reconsidered and that past. That puts the motion to approve with conditions back on the table. Technically this motion is still on the table. There are two ways to proceed, one to keep the motion and make amendments or the person who made the motion and the person who second it, Alison and Jay could make a motion to withdraw that motion and you could go forward with the full review and get the presentations from staff and the applicant and go forward like any other application. Because three members that are here tonight where not at that meeting you need a full presentation. Al Beyer said they did new drawings and if the motion is based on the old drawings from the last meeting it would be wise for us to just use the new drawings. Alison requested to withdraw the motion from the March 12`" meeting regarding 707 N. Third St. Jay consented. Al Beyer, architect Scott Slogan, associate Sara stated that 707 N. Third St. is an 1890 miner's cabin situated on the corner of Gillespie and North Third Street. There have been a few ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2008 alternations over time. A wrap around porch was added and a dormer to the south elevation. There are also a few small scale additions to the north, west and south sides of the resource. They propose to relocate the residence east on the property toward N. Third Street and also a little bit south of the property. A full basement will be under the residence. They are also proposing to reconstruct the porch so the wrap around porch will be removed and they will construct a very simple porch on the primary elevation. A one story addition to the rear for a new bedroom is being proposed. The majority of the development is sub-grade. The addition for the bedroom is very modest and the location of the light wells are appropriate. Staffs main concern is the large sub-grade tenace. We are concerned about the relationship of the building to grade. We are also concerned about future development of the property. The way the City calculates FAR only a portion of the sub-grade space is calculated. There are about 700 square feet that can be added in the future and the 500 square foot FAR bonus that could be added above grade. Allowing the sub-grade space and the possibility of 1200 additional square feet will jeopardize the historic resource. Staff has to take into account future development. They are requesting a setback variance for the south where the sub-grade terrace is for a retaining wall and staff recommends HPC approve that variance. HPC is being asked to decide upon the relocation, setback variances, proposed addition and the sub-grade terrace. Al Beyer, architect and Scott Slogan, associate. Al said at the last meeting HPC said they would approve the project if the kitchen was taken off. We have removed the porch extension and semi- enclosed the air lock. We are now down to one setback variance for the sunken garden. Jay said he looked over everything and the applicant has done everything that we have asked them to do. Al pointed out that a fence and hedge has been added to the North Third street side. Sarah asked if they could attain the access to the garden level without the side yard variance on the south. Al responded that the extra space requested would keep the area more enjoyable. If it is seven feet across you can put a little table etc. but if it is only five feet it feels different. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2008 Sara reiterated staff s concerns on the sunken garden. The relationship of the historic home to grade and future development of the property regarding the calculation of FAR. Jay pointed out that the applicant isn't asking for the 1200 square feet at this meeting. Ann pointed out that 700 square feet is available but the 500 square feet is for the bonus. Nora asked if some kind of condition could be put on the property. Nora pointed out that we cannot control what happens in the future. Amy said the guidelines do not support the creation of this large of an excavation along side the building. The applicant can sell TDR's at any time but HPC cannot force them. Sarah said the square footage of the project is 2, 229 square feet. Vice-chair, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Nora thanked the applicant for massaging their design. She applauded the remodel because it addresses major needs in an old house and a modest addition with minimal impacts. The garden level is an enhancement. The street is very busy in the summer and you wouldn't want to put a table close to the street. This is an opportunity for HPC to act in the spirit of the community plan which is restoring historic resources and reducing density. This is an opportunity to make this corner a show case. Jay thanked the owner for seeing both sides of HPC's dilemma. As far as staff's concern I am not sure we should worry about what happens in the future as we do not know how long that will be. Whatever happens in the future will come through this commission anyway. At this time I would vote yes for this project. They are leaving a lot of open space and that is a great thing. The design is not over bearing and not what we typically see. Alison said she personally doesn't think the project should be punished for the future of what could happen. The setback variance for the sunken garden is appropriate and it makes sense to widen it. By pushing back the 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2008 older addition from the front of the house it helps to protect the house addition at grade. Brian said having the additional square footage is a good thing for this project and the historic resource. The sunken garden is one of the elements that is making that area livable and allowing the historic resource to stand alone. Making it a little bit wider also allows for more sunlight. Alison added on the Gillespie elevation they removed the 1970 kitchen expansion but they added a new bump out and to add such a small new piece didn't make sense. Jay said the issue to him was that they were altering an addition on a primary fapade of the building and we came to an agreement if it was going to be altered it had to be put back to the original. Jay also said he supports the alteration to the addition on the south side because it is not a primary fagade and doesn't face the street. Ann stated that the north and east fagade are fine and a good trade off for the sunken garden. Ann also agreed that we can't judge this project on what might happen in the future. Ann pointed out if someone came in and filled in the terrace the FAR would change again. Sarah asked about the setback calculation. Al said the wall is sub-grade so we are assuming the outside face of the wall has to be within our setbacks. The setback request will be three feet and then the wall starts. Sarah said you are asking for a variance of two feet from the five foot setback. Sara said five feet is required and they are reducing it to two feet and providing three feet. Sarah suggested that the applicant discuss the removal of the one aspen tree with the parks department. She also suggested that we need to be consistent with are packets and include actual elevations. The west elevation has a lot of complexity and different roofs coming together. We also need to see the context of the street. Ann mentioned that the plan is preserving the cotton woods along Third Street. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23.2008 MOTION.• Ann moved to approve Resolution #5 for conceptual development for 707 N. Third, including relocation and a 2 foot setback variance. True elevations need to be presented for final. Motion second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Nora, yes; Jay, yes; Alison, yes; Brian, yes; Ann, yes Sarah, yes. 210 S. Galena -Elks Building -Minor Development, Variances, PH The affidavit of posting is to be submitted to the attorney within 24 hours. Amy said two years ago the Elks Lodge asked for approval to construct a deck which was completed. At this point they would like to expand the deck. The building is significantly over the height limit. In 2006 it was 40 feet and now it is 38 feet. The deck structure on the roof requires a variance as much as five feet. They are proposing two separate platforms with steps in between. At the highest point it is 1'6" off the roof. A 42 inch railing is required. Posts where put up and not visible until you got half way down the Hyman mall. HPC can grant a variance under hardship where they are being deprived of their rights if you don't grant the variance. The deck is for the benefit of an organization that has been in existence for a long time and has owned the building for some long time. They owned the building long before height limits where established. Staff feels that a variance is appropriate because we can understand the need to use the deck but the variance should be as minimal as possible. Maybe we don't need to step up to a higher platform and keep the deck as flat as possible. There are two other requests with this application. There is a closed structure that covers the staircase and they want to change a door and window and staff has no objection. The fire station needs a location for their siren and the Elks propose to accommodate it on their roof and staff has no problem with that. The sire would be temporary until the fire station is built. It is important to minimize the deck from the street. The cornice line of the Elks building is a beautiful and important feature of the building and the dome and I don't think we want umbrellas and heat lamps up there. Mike Haman, represented the Elks Lodge. Mike said they have 850 members. The top couple feet of the deck will be wire and steel railings to make it invisible as possible. The roof does slope significantly over the length and we can drop it six to ten inches. We where 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2008 stepping it up to deal with the roof slope. Presently there is a 12 x 12 deck on the roof. . Jay asked what the roof was used for now. Mike said mostly smoking. Mike said we are not proposing any future decorations but the plans indicate a bench. Hardship variance: 1. The grant of a variance will be generally consistent with the AACP plan. Staff feels this is consistent with the AACP. 2. The grant of a variance is the minimum possible. Staff is concerned that the proposal is not the minimum. 3. If the variance is denied the applicant would be deprived of a right enjoyed by other similar properties. This building was constructed before height limits where established. Mike said the building was built in 1892. Jim True, attorney said it is discretionary on HPC's part to determine whether this application comes within the statement would cause an applicant unnecessary hardship as distinguished from the mere inconvenience. The roof can't be used because their building is so old. Nora said there is a lot of stuff on the roof. Mike said a few exhaust vents will be relocated but the significant large pieces will stay where they are. Mike said the roof slopes toward the north, the alley. Brian said they mentioned lowering the deck slightly. If it was lowered six to eight inches it would almost nullify the visual impacts. Mike explained that the materials would be a steel quarter inch vertical post and the bottom couple feet are horizontal. Aircraft cable would be in incorporated. Nora asked if the design should be shrunk back further because this is a significant building in town. Ann said there is also the possibility of adding umbrellas on the roof when it is already over the height limit. Amy said HPC can put conditions on the approval but staff has resisted this in the past due to enforcement issues. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2008 Rick Head, Elks member asked that they board look favorably on this request. Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Sarah said she is all for the use of roofs in town. Our roofs are disgusting when you look down on them from above. Our town is seen from above. We need to think about beautifying our roofs with decks, greens etc. In terms of use and getting on the roof and seeing the stars it is a good function to have. The materials selected for this railing are second rate compared to the materials of the building. The building is a turn of the century building and what we have is something very modern. At some point this roof deck will be seen. Let's design something that when it is seen it looks great and it is a great attribute to the building. Possibly the use of glass could be looked at. Ann said the railing diminishes the effect of the cornice and dome. It is a great handsome building and there aren't that many older buildings left in town. Possibly there could be some way that the deck can sit at the lower end of the building and push it toward the alley end of the building. Mike said we can't push it back because this is the only space on the roof with all the other equipment. Whatever is done needs to be thought out and it should be minimal. Brian said downtown vitality is very important. Keeping vitality to the urban core is a necessity. Seen from the mall the cornice of this building is very important and seeing anything above that detracts from it. In the winter it will be more prominent. The deck needs to be lowered by ten inches if possible and bring it back one foot on the west side. That would eliminate the visual problems. Also the bench could be taken out. Alison said she has no problem with a deck on the Elks Building. To rearrange the roof equipment would be costly. Brian's suggestions are plausible. Jay said he would like a condition that says nothing on the deck would be higher than 42 inches. No chairs and no high tops. Nora stated that the roof deck should not be visible and it needs to be pulled back and not stepped up. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23.2008 Sarah said there are a lot of roof decks in town that we aren't seeing and are visible. Nora pointed out that this building is the Elks Building. Sarah agreed that it has to come down as low as possible. Mike said the height was from an engineering thing from snow removal and drainage. Sarah said the issue is hardship and whether a variance should be granted. Jay said he can support this because there is a deck up there already and they aren't changing it to use anything else. Ann indicated that she is not convinced that there is a hardship here but she couldn't argue very strongly because she is not clear what a hardship is in this case. Sarah asked about handicap accessibility. Mike said he has spoken with the Building Department and this is the maximum size deck we can ever put on the roof and we have a second exit. Alison said it would be safer to have the improvements. Brian and Nora stated they are having a hard time finding a hardship. Mike said the Elks Club building was bought in 1915. Brian also commented that the expectations of buildings has changed. In 1892 they never had an inkling of using the roof. Mike said from a long term perspective we have considered developing the alley on and off over the past seven years. If we where moving forward on that we wouldn't be here we would be designing it in the new section of the building. Jim True explained that in order to grant the variance you need to state that it complies with the requirements and the three sections of the code. Sarah said in going through the goals she believe that the variance is consistent with the AACP (1). She also thinks that granting this variance is the minimum variance made possible the reasonable use of the parcel (2). ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2008 There is not an outdoor area and this allows for an outdoor use in the function of the building. In referencing (3) there are special conditions and circumstances that are not applicable to other buildings in the same zone district. Granting this variance would not confer the applicant any special privilege denied by the AACP. With that there are changes that need to happen. Ann said she cannot approve guideline (2) until a revision is made and the board can see what the minimum is. Ann suggested a site visit and continuation of the agenda item. It is a great type of urban space to be utilized. The building is one of the few intact historic buildings in town and what is drawn here detracts from it. Sarah said the applicant needs to show us how to do a stellar roof top deck. MOTION: Jay moved to continue the minor development and public hearing on 210 S. Galena to NOONMay 14`" at the site 210 S. Galena. Motion second by Jay, carried 6-0. MOTION: Ann moved to approve the temporary placement of the fire siren to be placed on the roof of the Elks Building until the certificate of occupancy is granted for the new fire station or three years which ever is sooner. Motion second by Jay, all in favor, motion carried. MOTION.• Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Stric c an ,Chief Deputy Clerk