Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20090527ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 Vice-chairperson, Sarah Broughton called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Nora Berko and Jay Maytin. Ann Mullins and Michael Hoffman were excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 219 S. Third Street -Historic Landmark Designation, Lot Split, Conceptual, FAR bonus, Variances Amy reminded the board that at the last meeting designation and the lot split were voted on. What we need to do is resolve the treatment of the Modern Chalet and the addition proposed to it. Previously there was a request to waive the rear lot line and HPC's concern was to maintain a buffer to the trail. The applicant has revised the plan and pulled back five feet. They still need a five foot variance but have cut the request in half. Five feet was requested on the west side and has been revised to three feet. A shed roof was proposed on the addition and it has come back to a flat roof. The height and profile of the chalet has been pulled down. Windows are proposed that will be addressed at final. There are variances proposed to grant even though they are just recognizing existing conditions. The alley is the front yard and there is a 25 foot front yard setback requirement and the building is at 8.6. The request is 16.6 feet. There is also a variance request for the side due to the existing carport. There is a 500 square foot bonus being asked for. Overall this project is deserving and it is a lot split scenario where very little square footage is being attached to the historic building and the rest is in the new structure. If there was no lot split and someone wanted to add on directly you would probably triple the size of the modern chalet which would create an awkward relationship that doesn't preserve its scale. Instead the Modern Chalet is approximately 1700 square feet of FAR with a1000 square foot addition to it. The rest of the structure would be a detached building on the new lot. FAR: The applicant thought the chalet was 1500 square feet but actually it is 1700 square feet. When they pulled in the addition from the setback line they lost some square footage. Most of the construction is being detached which is 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 successful. This building is very intact on the inside and outside and we don't see anything proposed as contrary to maintaining that condition. We like the placement of the addition. The only potential alternation to the house itself is reconstruction and repair of the rear deck which has a railing that doesn't meet code. At final the applicant will discuss a possible addition of windows on the front fagade. We feel this is a successful project that warrants the FAR bonus. Residential Design Standard Variances: Amy said the variances are for existing conditions. 1. The building is not oriented in a manner that the standards ask for. 2. The principle window doesn't face the street. Staff recommends approval and the amount of square footage proposed is within the guidelines and it is a very successful project. Suzanne Foster, owner thanked the HPC for their comments. After incorporating the recommendations the scale is better and we are much happier. We thought the original calculation was 1533square feet but there is more space which brings it to 1750 which is a 280 square foot difference. We are actually loosing 280 square feet which we thought we could add on and now we can't. Bill Maron -Stryker Brown architects. Bill explained that the calculation error was done by their firm. The roof form was a shed roof and from a massing stand point it has been lowered to a flat roof. The flat roof is more in keeping with the design standards. Bill and Suzanne went over the design of the addition with the flat roof and the connection. The addition comes in from under the car port. Sarah opened the public hearing on mass and scale of the addition. Junee Kirk - I am on the criteria subcommittee. This style of architecture has not met the approval of the majority of our task force. We haven't had a total vote. If you go this route it would be far better visually to see this exceptional style repeated. You have a low connector then repeat the style. We want this style to be part of our history and why do we have a box with a roof design that is flat and doesn't fit in at all. With Victorian's we have connectors that are one story. I don't see why this can't be a connector that is one story and the addition being repeated the same only a smaller scale as to what is existing. Most of the neighbors would not object to that so much. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 You have to repeat these lines and not have a box. I'm saying it is a bit too contrasting. Jake Vickery echoed Junee's concerns. The flat roof seems arbitrary and unrelated to the existing resource. The real issue is that this building has a terrible relationship to Third Street and yet it is the main street that it is on. That issue needs acknowledge or addressed. Possibly use a pathway or gate that leads into the property. Heidi Hoffman, architect said we are getting someplace and it has come a long way. I would like to see the connector unit dropped down and the roof form modified. I would look at a sloped roof or possibly a dormer. The chalet should remain in its current location. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing. Nora explained that her concern with the pitched roof was not the style; it was the height of the pitched roof. Brian referenced guideline 10.4 - design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building. The addition should have subtle changes. The flat roof does make the addition a product of its own time and more distinguishable from the historic resource. It might not be sympathetic enough to the historic resource. The flat roof is successful as it creates its own component. The height on the addition can come down a little further in order to make it more submissive to the historic resource. We also need to address how the house works with Third Street. Unfortunate the house is orientation toward the alley. Suzanne said she will incorporate fencing or something in the landscaping to address Third Street. Jay thanked the applicant for working together with the HPC. The flat roof and connector are his concerns. The addition barely connects with the chalet and it is very sympathetic in that sense. Looking back at the sloped roof design, the flat roof works better because the addition can stand out as a product of its own time. As a suggestion the materials should be restudied for final. The boxy structure works well and will not be confused with something that is original on the site. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 Bill Maron said the intent is to be a quiet simple form. The main structure is a strong basic form. Brian pointed out that he is comfortable with the 3 foot variance on the west and the 5 foot on the south. Brian said he appreciates pulling back the addition to give breathing room for the trail. Jay echoed Brian's comments. Nora thanked the applicant for all her hard work. The flat roof on the drawings reads well but on the model the compatibility issues speaks less to her. The difficulty of the shed roof before was the height. The compatibility, size and scale are still questionable. Nora said she is also ok with the 3 and 5 foot variances. The visual impact from the trail side needs minimized. Sarah said she is concerned about the height of the addition and how it could be more sympathetic to the existing structure. Is there any height that can come out of the addition? If the building is being designated we need to set a good example of how the expansion is proposed to the chalet. In terms to our guidelines 10.9 is not the applicable guideline as the building is set apart from the existing building; however in terms of the scale of the addition plate heights could be looked at to see how the scale can be brought down and the link looked at. Brian said there is no language in the guidelines that prohibits the suggestion of flat roofs. Possibly the plate height could be reduced 1 '/z feet. Nora said there is something that is not minimizing the visual impact. Sarah said we need to see how we can make this project better. I am in favor of the 5 foot south variance. We have a wall that is closer to a property line than what is allowed by code. If we could step it and give more articulation it would help in relationships to the property next door. Suzanne said that could be part of the conceptual approval, lowering the ceiling to the roof line of the existing building. Jay said staff and monitor could approve the change to the roof. What we have and what this person is trying to do we just need to tweak the design. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 Brian said he is in favor of giving a variance on the west if the roof height is lowered to the height of the existing chalet as it makes it less imposing to whatever will be built next door. MOTION: Jay moved to approve Resolution #1 S, 2009 for 219 S. Third Street as written by staff with the requirement of the restudy of the addition roof to be reviewed at final. Sarah second. Amended motion by Sarah: Clarifications of the restudy: That the addition roof be restudied in accordance to guideline 10.7 specifically about the connector to create more of a connector between the addition and the existing house by lowering the roof and that the overall roof height of the addition be reduced. Jay amended Sarah's motion second by Sarah. Motion and amended motion carried 3-1. Nora opposed. Nora said she is uncomfortable approving anything without seeing what we are getting. The south variance is OK but the west is still questionable. Sarah suggested building sections be submitted at final. We will discuss the height at the beginning of the meeting for final approval. Part II -Incentives Amy said at the last meeting May 13`h resolution #14 was passed in favor of recommending historic designation and the lot split. That has moved onto City Council. HPC also expressed an opinion about the benefits that were being requested. Council is still in the negotiations and they might want clarity from the HPC on the incentives or requests of the applicant. Amy said the applicant has chosen the lot split option but they could actually do two detached houses and condominiumize them and leave them all on one site. If they did that HPC could give the variances in terms of the setbacks. As soon as the lot split happens HPC cannot give variances on the site. It is just the way the program has developed. By doing the lot split affordable housing comes into play. The applicant is asking City Council for setback variances on the vacant lot where a new house is being proposed. They are also asking fora 16.6 variance from the front line as the existing house currently sits 8 '/z feet back from the front and they are supposed to have a 25 foot setback. The applicant has offered to pay the cash-in-lieu payment. They are asking that the rate be fixed as of 2009. They took off the 10 year 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 vested rights request. Amy said she feels Council is supportive of the lot split. Sarah said HPC should discuss the incentives and not the lot split. Suzanne said she is only concerned about two incentives, the front yard setback and the 493 square foot bonus which in essence has reduced itself to 213 square feet due to the calculation. We thought we had 279 additional square feet available to us which we don't have. If we condominiumized the lot HPC could grant the setback. If you go back to the 25 foot requirement the building will have to be a very tall massive front and it is not doable. We couldn't do the historic lot split and you would have to orient the front yard to be Third Street and that would push the duplex and carriage house. You would be ten feet off the alley instead of 8.6 off the alley and it would run for 70 feet. If you are going to have buildings along that alley anyway I'd rather see this building saved and just a small portion non-conforming. Bill Maron said in an urban context it has no street, the alley essentially becomes the street for that lot. The greater good for the trail users etc. is holding that line and creating an urban street like phase and giving green space on the trail easement side rather than the alley. Suzanne said the 493 square feet is important to us. If we build by right we can have a single family FAR of 3,652 square feet. In addition you get the 600 square foot bonus for the carriage house that you can sell as an affordable housing unit. You will also have below grade space of about 3,000 square feet. You will have about 7,152 square feet of heated living area. The preservation of the duplex has 3,175 of heated area, 1,907 for the single family home and 1,100 square feet below grade which comes to 6,182 square feet. The difference is around 970 square feet which is a huge number when you talk about real estate prices in Aspen. We are just trying to make this work. We would rather preserve the building and have 2,400 square feet for the single family which is not over burdening the historic resource or neighborhood. The 493 square feet is no significant in the scheme but it is important to us. At the council meeting they felt they didn't have enough input from HPC on these two incentives. Bill Maron pointed out regarding the FAR bonus the Chalet style is not as commercially viable as a Herbert Bayer. In preserving something of a less commercial appealing style a little bit of a bonus helps in that effort. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 Suzanne said the merits of preserving a Victorian are very clear. It is not as clear as to who appreciates the chalet type architecture in today's market. There are transitional structures that ordinance #48 is seeking to protect. I believe in 50 years people will have the same kind of economic parody. There is a risk in protecting transitional structures. It may be that an additional economic incentive is going to be vital. This is the first project to come through this process and still be moving forward. Amy said on a 3,900 square foot R-15 lot the maximum FAR for a single family is 2,652 square feet before slope reduction. Jake Vickery said it would be around 2,100 square feet with the slope reduction. Vice-chair, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Paul Young, neighbor - I'm the most impacted neighbor across the alley 413 W. Hopkins. I am the one who said I would rather have what is allowed than the proposed development. The allowed is with a carriage house and an ADU. What the applicant is asking for is all free market. I also disagree with Mr. True. You will end up finding that there will be a legal stance on the discussion what was pointed out to City Council last night. In my talk with Cit~ Council last night I went ahead and took how you voted on the May 13` meeting questioned the size of my home being 3,606 square feet of FAR. Our lot and my home is larger than the developers newly acquired property lot area which Ms. Foster is asking 1,383 square feet of FAR above what is allowed without land marking. This is a 40% increase over what our family built. 40% more on less lot area. The requested front yard setback variance is 16.1/2 feet for Lot 2 should not be granted and an approval should not be given because HPC board members did not approve that at your meeting. Secondly, because of the city code 26314 does not authorize this particular variance approval. It should be the developer's responsibility to make their project work without this major variance being the setback requirement. I keep hearing it is a deal breaker on the 493 more feet. Why does it need to be bigger? I pointed out to City Council that the 16 1.2 feet front yard variance is the single most biggest consideration that I beg you and also the City Council not to approve. If this property Lot 2 which is being created it needs a front yard. It needs trees and landscaping and a place to throw the snow off their driveway. What the model shows in close proximity the proposal by the applicant shows 25 feet and by pushing it back 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 I could live with the variances on the side, could live with all the variances on the historical property but this is one area I don't think the neighborhood is getting a fair deal if you grant what you did not approve before on this 16 1.2 foot variance. Since the neighborhood might have to accept the lot split and the designation that the City through the Council and the HPC would keep the height, mass and scale of the new structure consistent with the duplex. That is my position on this. Jake Vickery - Exhibit I -photograph of the alley. Jake said the alley is descriptive of what the area looks like. I suggest that you reduce the FAR. The new building needs to be compatible. On the design of the front elevations flat roofs should only be in areas of context. We are adamantly opposed to the front yard setback. It is crowded having the front at 8.6. Angela Young - 412 W. Hopkins. This alley and safety situations are not being addressed. If the proposed development is allowed to go forward our neighborhood will suffer. The proposed project doesn't work for the neighborhood. With the two variances requested we overwhelming recommend denial for this project. List of neighbors opposed -Exhibit II Junee Kirk - e-mail -Exhibit III Junee commented that preservation should not be used as a tool for FAR. Heidi Hoffman -Recommendations to City Council should include re- evaluation the front yard setback. I don't agree with the contention that it should line up with the existing duplex especially with the bonus given for the FAR. Junee stated that there is a lot of opposition to ordinance #30 and #48. Jim pointed out that there was no vote taken on Modern Chalet by the task force. Junee said in our committee of 8 or 10 two voted for it. Amy clarified that the task force is an evolving process and there have been no conclusions. They have broken into small groups that are studying issues. The criteria committee is the one that is most focused on style and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 which ones merit. They took a vote, 8 in favor, two opposed that Modern chalets, that there are examples in town that are worthy of preservation. It wasn't a decision specific to this project. Junee said it was for exemplary project. Amy pointed out that the committee has no conclusion; they are still working on it. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing. Committee discussion on the two incentives: front yard variance and 493 FAR bonus. Nora said we spent four hours at the last meeting and came up with conclusions that we wanted to send to City Council and in all due respect my decision has not changed. The motion was very specific. This is the first negotiation and it is really important that we have clarity. We need to be very careful in setting precedence. Jay said maybe a board members feeling has changed seeing and approving the conceptual design. Amy went over the motion from the last meeting, May 13`h 2009. HPC voted 5-0 to recommend designation and the lot split. HPC expressed some support for the FAR bonus and support for variances to legalize the existing structure; setbacks and Residential Design Standards just to make the situation conforming. HPC did not support the 493 square foot bonus. HI'C was divided whether setback variances were appropriate for lot 2. HPC did not support waiving the ADU mitigation which is off the table. HPC did not support the vested rights extension which is off the table. HPC through the Residential Design Standards, primary and secondary mass for Lot 2 should be determined during the conceptual review. Jay said his feelings have not changed. I was in favor of the front yard setback, the alignment to the new project. I am even more inclined to be a louder voice because of the alterations that were made in order to save this structure. I am a bit troubled by some of the comments I heard tonight by the public that the house had no integrity and wasn't worth preserving. And the second public comment made by the same person said that this ruins the 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 integrity of the house and how could you allow this to happen. I keep hearing contradictory arguments from the public and it confuses me. The bottom line when it comes down to how I feel, is this house worth preserving. The commission spoke that it was. I haven't asked the applicant this question and I am not sure I will but if the second option or the scrape and replace option is left there, Mick said it best, be careful what you wish for. What is allowed to be built after that house is scraped is a lot more detrimental to the neighborhood. A lot more mass and a lot more scale. We as a commission need to look at all possibilities. I fall back on preservation of this structure because of its condition and I feel that the incentives should be used in a proper way to preserve this structure. The addition that the applicant has proposed is small and sympathetic and seems to be less and smaller than what we typically see. As far as the 493 square feet, which is now 213 square feet, Mr. Young, the way I took your comment was that you don't care what is up there as long as they keep the 25 yard setback. Does that me he doesn't care if we or council allows the property building envelope to crowd our public amenity and our protected railroad and the open space that goes behind there. It concerns me that that would be OK as long as it is pushed away from the alley. As far as the crowding in the alley and parking, David Bentley and all the other stuff that was mentioned, in my opinion the project sitting in front of me would help alleviate a lot of the randomly parked cars and it would probably clean up that alley which is not very clean right now. That is why I support the front yard setback and I support this project for the preservation of this Modern Chalet. If we had the ability to look at this property without historic task force final conclusion I can't take comments of here say and am frankly offended by it. To be told what direction the task force is going is inappropriate. I am not using that as a reason to approve this project or setback and the square footage for financial reasons for this project to go forward. I just want that heard, here say is not appropriate here at all. I would like to see this house preserved and would give Council my recommendation to use the tools that they have to legally approve the setback. The bottom line is if they don't approve the setback and someone scrapes the house you are getting 1.5 feet more of setback legally that you cannot do anything about. I do not see the benefit the neighborhood is arguing for so much. I am for the 493 square feet as I was at the last meeting. My concern is protecting this structure and these two incentives I find just. Nora agreed that we are here to preserve structures that we can preserve. When I look at the incentives that have already come, the historic lot split, 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 one FAR bonus and variances on that site, it is a lot. Philosophically I cannot support another FAR. I don't believe that variances should be used for private. Variances are there for public use and I don't think they should be used for private gain. Respectfully, if between 2100 square feet and 2600 square feet if that is the square footage that the property can support maybe that is how it has to look. There is nothing wrong with small. The numbers game doesn't guide me, it is the philosophy of what kind of precedence's are we setting and how do we save something without over burdening something else, the entire neighborhood and property and if we are really about preserving something sometimes we have to be more modest in what we take. I have to go back to the community plan AACP and say we want neighborhoods with scale. Hopefully something small, modest and discrete could land there without lots of variances. I know that is not our purview at this point. I would vote the same way I voted the last time, no on the variance and no on the FAR. Brian said both Nora and Jay had good comments. I am more in keeping with the motion that was crafted the last time. I do feel that this is an architectural style worth preserving. It is an important era in the development of this town and an important fabric of this neighborhood as well as many neighborhoods within Aspen. That is what makes this neighborhood eclectic and great, the fabric of different architecture and styles. That said, do I feel that this is an exemplary model of that era, not necessarily, but I do feel it is something worth preserving. So that weights in on my view what might be reasonable on incentives to give for the preservation of this project. One of the things that have always bugged me was this house's orientation to the street. This is coming from someone who has a background in landscape architecture. One of the things that have always concerned me was how that house or any house speaks to the vitality of the streetscape and unfortunately this particular house really shuts down a lot of that vitality that should be oriented toward Third Street. Although, I would like to see this house preserved, my hope is that if this project didn't go through and something else is built there it would be built at the vitality or orientation of Third Street which is really lacking in that section of town. Regarding the alleyway we are looking at this as the front yard and will continue to act as an alleyway from an aesthetic point and functional point. I really don't have a problem with the setback variance requested. If you look at all the other conditions of alleyways throughout the town, especially through the West End, what is being created here is no different from that. All the buildings etc. are butted to the alleyway. A building closer to the 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27.2009 alleyway won't be any different then what people are dealing with throughout the rest of the town. This is an urban area and those are the constraints that people deal with in those areas. Despite the fact that you people are living in a dense situation and a very concentrated situation you have some of the best open space in the entire town within the media proximity to you; Shadow Mountain and the trail etc. To allow that concentration in an area I am not opposed to it. Based on those arguments I am OK granting a variance in the alleyway; however the incentive to preserve this is not enough for me to go toward granting the 493 square feet of additional FAR. Sarah said she echoes many of the same comments. Given the fact that we as a commission want to preserve this structure I would be willing to grant a variance off the alley. Apart of me is interested in making it ten feet so to give a little relief from the preserved structure and ten feet is what it would be allowed if it were a side yard setback so we are at least conforming to that portion of the code. I would be willing to give the variance off the north side of the property. I think the property should be allowed it's FAR by its zoned district, by its lot size without an addition FAR bonus. The applicant has determined the lot line based on the addition and from that you have determine the lot size and therefore the FAR has been determined by that lot line. Susanne Foster, applicant asked what happens if I have 1907 square feet left over and I can get 2300 square feet. Are you in support of a bonus that would bring it into that level? Sarah said she is not in favor of a bonus. She is in favor of the lot being built to what it is allowed as per the R-15 zone district for the lot size. Suzanne explained if she has 1907 square feet and after you do the topol and it ends up to 2300 square feet would you allow the awarding of a bonus of the extra FAR to bring it up to that number. Sarah said yes I am willing to allow and discuss the FAR that can be put onto this lot that is what is allowed by the zone district. Amy said the fathering parcel is allowed a certain amount of FAR. To keep it simple let's just say 4,000 square feet. When you do a subdivision it may end up that each smaller lot is allowed 2500 square feet which would total 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 more. Sarah is suggesting that she would be OK with Lot 2 being allowed to have what a subdivided lot would be allowed to carry with the slope reduction and normal calculations. Amy said Jake has suggested it would be around 2100 square feet if you took into account of the slope reduction. That might mean that the bonus is in the range of 150 to 200 square feet which might or might not satisfy the applicant. Suzanne said she is clear on what her requirements are for the front yard setback and the 493. You can recommend to council and based on their decision we will move forward or not. Sarah recommended since the commission is varied that each of our comments is submitted to City Council on the topics of the FAR and setbacks. Suzanne mentioned to the Young's that the new structure would be under HPC review. People have come to me after they knew what is going on in support of the project. Sarah said the resolution will reference the verbatim minutes. Jay said council is clear that they are looking for where the HPC stands as a board. In summary three of us said we would agree on the setback variance and three said they would not agree on the FAR bonus but for different reasons. Jim True, Special Counsel requested a motion to amend the motion of May13 to clarity individual points of view. Amy said the draft resolution in front of the board describes HPC support for historic landmark and lot split. The May 13`h recommendation will be included. I will include the discussion of May 27`h as Jay stated, three were in support of the front yard and three were not in favor of the FAR bonus; however, this will be better defined by the comments that will be specifically provided to city council. MOTION.• Brian moved to approve the above recommended motion stated by Amy; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009 MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14