Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20090513ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Ann Mullins, Nora Berko, Jay Maytin. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Toni Kronberg pointed out that tourist inquire about the height of our buildings in Aspen. We no longer have grass in Aspen. Toni discussed the fire station and the height difference. Toni pointed out how much view we have lost in Aspen with the LaCocina and Galena and Main buildings. People are gravitating to the Rio Grande Park and the Wienerstube. Brian said he has a concern with the fire house. He approved the fire house based on the relationship of the building with the Isis and the representations that were given to us in the packet. Amy said the error is 18 inches. Jay said when we see a streetscape for core projects the renderings and drawings should be approved by staff and signed off indicating that they are correct. Jay said a lot of his decisions are based on the integrity of the drawings. Sarah will recuse herself on the Wheeler because her firm, Rowland Broughton Architecture are the local architects for the project. Wheeler Opera House work session Sara pointed out that the meeting tonight is about programming. Gram Slaton did a power point on how the wheeler works as a building. Michael Farewell/Michael Schnoering went over the elevations. 219 S. Third Street -Historic Landmark Designation, Lot Split, Conceptual Development FAR bonus, Variances ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2009 Amy: This is the first application for a voluntary designation. Designation, lot split and variances are being discussed tonight. Step one is historic designation. It is a lot that is accessed from an alley. There is no curb cut on the street. The duplex was built in 1965 and is divided down the middle with a little door on each side. There are no records of alternations. The interior is remarkable intact. This property is termed a modern chalet. There are about 11 buildings of the Modern style chalet in town that are an evolution from the more flat roof tendency to a shallow pitched roof. In Aspen Modern chalet is related to our Classic Chalet in their roof pitch and plan form, overhangs and decks. The difference is that Modern Chalets don't have the decorative details and they tend to have more glazing. Staff recommends that this house does meet criteria C. This neighborhood is a microcosm of the Post War styles that we have been talking about and the Victorian. It is a good example how the two eras are meshing together with the St. Moritz etc. In a small area you have a great display of Aspen's architectural history. Staff has not supplied a scoring system or context paper. Having a scoring system is not required when applying designation standards. Historic landmark lot split. The lot split program has been in existence since 1995 or so. The lot is 9,942 square feet. When you are doing a lot split on the newly created lot the house has to mitigate for affordable housing or pay cash-in-lieu. The applicant is asking Council to waive that. Proposed density. The applicant is permitted to have a duplex and single family. When the lot split occurs there is an allocation of the FAR. The fathering parcel, the 1500 square foot chalet would have 1,100 additional square feet added on and 2,400 square feet would go on the vacant lot. The way the number was arrived at is that the applicant is asking for the 500 square foot bonus and they are asking Council fora 493 square foot bonus. If the property was not landmarked and the building scraped and we had all new development the applicant has the opportunity to achieve approximately 5400 square feet of total FAR by building a single family or duplex and by accessing a program for carriage houses where you build a deed restricted unit for sale that is not counted in the FAR and would be 1200 square feet and you the get a 600 square foot FAR bonus. 5452 square feet is the most square feet that anyone could build on this site. The applicant's scenario is 400 square feet less than that. The lot split is strongly supported because it adds less onto the historic resource and transfers the rest of the square footage into a separate mass. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2009 Conceptual review is for the historic house. The addition is back up against the car port. The height and roof line is sympathetic and the rear of the facade is left intact. One of the existing doors of the duplex will be the primary entry. Far bonus -Amy relayed that the applicant is requesting the fu11500 square foot bonus. Staff feels that it is warranted because there are very few alterations. The applicant has some plans for refurbishing the building; adding some glass which will be addressed at final. Amy also said setback variances are being requested. This particular home is oriented toward the alley. The front yard setback is 25 feet. The car port is two feet too close to the side yard setback and the applicant is requesting to extend the basement to the rear lot line and have a patio above which requires a variance. Council is being asked to grant variances on the vacant lot, the front yard and interior side yard setback. The existing building needs a variance from the building orientation standard because the front of the building should face the street but this is an existing condition and the variance is needed in order to preserve the house. With regard to vested rights instead of three years the applicant is asking for ten years. Suzanne Foster, owner: Changes have occurred over the months through staff and neighbors comments. The lot line has been redrawn so no variances are needed. This resulted in a smaller building envelope for the single family and an expansion of two feet between the carport and the proposed garage. There is 19 feet between the existing building and the garage and instead often feet between the new addition and the garage there is twelve feet. We are actually giving a wider opening. It is our hope to convert the duplex to a single family this summer. We will take the top floor and open it up to the single family. There is some concern about over burdening the historic resource with square footage. We are asking 2,400 square feet of far on a 3,985 square foot lot. We are also asking for 2,625 square feet for the duplex which is on a 6,000 square foot lot. Under the scenario we are not over burdening the site. We are actually building less than other parcels in the area. Our plan calls for 2 single family homes, 4 cars, two families and six bedrooms. The duplex carriage house scenario 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2009 creates five to six cars and 12 bedrooms. We understand that the view planes are concerns to our neighbors. The 1 `/z story addition to the duplex helps preserve the view. The front yard orientation for the new structure would be on S. Third Street with a ten foot setback along the length of the alley. Suzanne discussed the changes on the model. Michael stepped down. Sarah chaired. Jay said the applicant is asking fora 16 '/z foot variance for the front yard setback in which a 25 foot is required. Nora said the 1,100 square foot addition reads higher than the Chalet. Suzanne said it is not proposed to be any higher and we can shorten the overhang which would lower the height. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk- I serve on the preservation task force. In California they are preserving modern chalet entire neighborhoods but here in Aspen we cherry pick them. The majority of the task force voted down modern chalets. Basically this town is a Victorian town and founded on mining houses and the surrounding open space. We are very split on the modern chalet. There is concern on the incentives given to preserve the moderns that are violating the land use codes and the integrity of the neighborhood. Amy pointed out that there are no final recommendations because this is a work in progress. The subcommittee criteria voted in favor that there are examples of modern chalets. Michael Behrendt: criteria committee. A letter from Terese David was submitted and the notable part is that they are not objecting to the Foster's proposed addition. They are objecting to the lot split. As a neighbor of 40 years this house has lived at the rear. The proposed patio toward the berm should be looked at. The task force has not yet defined the modern chalet and there is no criteria. I worry that you use this as your first defining product. Ann pointed out that Modern Chalet has not gone before the entire Task force to make a determination. 4 MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2009 Amy said the criteria committee took a vote with the majority saying Modem Chalet is a style worth recognition and discussion and there are examples worth preserving. Suzanne said there is a Midland right-of--way and we can't build anything on it but we can landscape it. There is 17 feet and 25 feet that are under our landscaping control which HPC should take into consideration. Jake Vickery said he represents the Young's and a couple of other owners. Jake said he made a rating sheet. He scored the house 48 out of a 100. A landmark should be 75. 219 S. third does not qualify to be a landmark. Maybe they can earn it by doing a great addition. Jake said they feel the proposed lot split doesn't need any variances. Anything bigger than the historic house we cannot support the variances. We don't' see how the site can accommodate the 493 square foot bonus they are requesting of council. TDR's would be better used for the property. Ann said at the council meeting it was referred back to HPC for their comments. Jake said he feels the design was done originally for a sloping area with a walkout basement. The existing house has no relationship to the street. Jake went over different designs of Modern Chalet houses. In the R15 zone they are generally required to have a lot of space around the houses. The only way it makes it as a lot is because it has alley access. We also support not having the variances for the front yard. Paul Young, neighbor for 15 years at 413 W. Hopkins. David Bentley and myself are the neighbors mostly impacted. We oppose the lot split and oppose that 219 S. Third is an exemplary property and we oppose the west side variances and the 500 square foot bonus. The parking on the survey for 219 S third is illegal since it encroaches into the alleyway. I have filled out complaints to the police and parking to no avail. The duplex is on a non- conforming lot and does not have room for additional cars and snow removal. Snow removal at times is not accomplished because it is a dead end alley with illegal parking. Trash containers are not at the site. In summary there is a necessity of two way traffic which creates a double burden on the alley. The proposed lot split with an alley entrance only 5 AVa ~~. MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2009 would create over crowed, over density and over development. The owner wants to split in order to create and sell a free market lot. The applicant is asking for about 1,000 square feet above what is allowed without landmark designation since the ADU and carriage house are not being proposed at this time. The deck has been doubled in size which disqualifies the property for designation. The lack of adopted guidelines and criteria by HPC task force should support postponement or non-approval. I struggle with Aspen's real intentions and if interior floor plans are really applicable to this application having two projects within a half a block from our home abandoned and behind chained link fence makes me very skeptical. A lot split should not be recommended and I urge HPC to air on the side of caution. Sarah said the alley accesses the Young's property, David Bentley's and 217 and 219 S. Third Street. Sarah asked if variances were granted for the Young's property. Angela Young said there were no variances granted. Susan Foster said the Young's house is 3600 square feet of FAR and they received a variance for a window but no side yard variances. Jody Edwards, attorney representing the Young's. We are talking about some valuable development rights that are being sought in exchange for keeping this house. These request include exemptions,variances and FAR bonuses. At the Jan. 28`h hearing another Modern chalet which had characteristics as this one was found not to be worthy of proceeding through the negotiation process. The next item was the current house and HPC found that it was worthy of protection. Since they were so similar it appeared that it was for no particular reason in relating to features but because the applicant here seeks a voluntary designation and the other applicant did not want his property designated. There should not be too different standards. In this case the applicant is requesting 493 square feet as an economic incentive. This is not allowed by the land use code or applicable law. While the council has flexibility to grant waivers of fees and other monitory type charges which are real economic incentives additional floor area is not provided for in the code and therefore is a defacto rezoning if HPC recommends it and council grants an additiona1493 square feet of floor area without going through a rezoning process. Staff and the applicant rationalize the extra 993 square feet of floor area bonus by arguing that the applicant can build more floor area without the historic designation. 6 ~,,,..... ____ _ _ - 2009 MINUTES OF MAY 13, Without her land marking her alternative is to build the maximum floor area free market square footage that is available in the R-15 plus the 1200 square foot carriage house which is a for sale affordable housing unit and obtain a 600 square foot floor area bonus for that. While this may total up to more floor area at least the community gets something. If that is the outcome, that is OK with my clients. If they are going to have their views blocked with this overly congested alley that is only going to get worse there might as well be some tangible community benefit such as a deed restricted for sale affordable housing unit. The landmark designation proposal generates nothing but free market square footage and the non historical alternative generates a significant amount of affordable housing. There are real tradeoffs here. If you feel this property is worthy of landmark designation we will get almost the same square footage but no affordable housing. The applicant has also asked for a waiver of the $172,000 worth of affordable housing fees. What sacrifices should the neighbors and public at large should be expected to endure when additional development is allowed to protect a marginally historic building. If you feel this is a marginal property then please don't support the request for landmark designation. If you feel it is worth designation please be careful and fragile with the benefits that would be bestowed on this property. The project as proposed will have negative impacts on the neighbors and we request that you deny it. Angela Young said in the absence of context papers we request that the project be denied. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments Amy: In terms of the benefits HPC really did not support any of the benefits. You were undetermined on the front yard setback and you thought the residential design standards should be held off until a design was presented. Ann pointed out that this is a very important style to preserve and there are not that many left in town. You don't just preserve the best. It is a newer Aspen and it is a style common in the ski areas. This is a good neighborhood. All the small scale houses sit very well on their lots. The lot split would be more beneficial to the neighborhood. 7 ~,,,..... ____ _ - - 2009 MINUTES OF MAY 13, Jay said there is no doubt that this house is part of Aspen's History. Waters Ave. was built by skiers that came here and that is how this town came about. Staff said this house is almost in its original condition and is worth preserving. Nora said she cannot separate the building from the incentives. The neighborhood has different houses from different eras. A neighborhood is about employees as well as homeowners. I can support the lot split and designation without the incentives. Brian said this is not a shining example of Modern Chalet but it is also identified as an historic era in the history of Aspen. It is indicative of an era. Maybe this is something that needs to be preserved due to the eclectic style of the neighborhood. Sara said we have an applicant that is willing to designate and we should take that seriously. I can agree on the lot split but not all of the incentives. Sarah said HPC is concerned about the south portion of the lot and its relationship to the right-of--way. Sarah said we can make a motion for council and give direction to Suzanne on the design. MOTION: Sarah made the motion to go forward with the following recommendation to City Council from HPC as it pertains to the historic designation of 219 and 217 S. Third Street. HPC is in favor of the 500 square foot bonus and recommends designation of the property and also recommends a lot split. The following incentives were discussed at length and recommendations. Grant the 500 square foot bonus to the overall project. Recommend that the existing structure receive setbacks and waivers from the residential design standards so that the existing structure is conforming. We do not recommend a 493 square foot additional FAR bonus. We are split on the setback variances for the lot split for lot 2. HPC recommends that there should be affordable housing mitigation for lot 2. HPC does not recommend an extension of vested rights. HPC recommends that a residential design variance for lot 2 be determined at conceptual review for a structure for lot 2. HPC does not recommend any setbacks for lot 1 at this time; however is willing to look at setbacks in the concepeualArenvli yes~Jaye addition of lot 1. Motion second by Ann. Vote: Nora, y > yes, Brian, yes, Sarah, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 8 MINUTES OF MAY 13.2009 Sarah requested full size drawings for the next meeting. HPC gave comments to the applicant on the model and recommended changes. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 219 S. Third to May 27`h; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ,~~~2~C'i~. ~c Ltif~~~~' Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk