Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20120208 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Jay Maytin and Jamie McLeod. Nora Berko and Willis Pember were excused. Staff present: John Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Brian announced that he is resigning from HPC. His expertise on the board will be greatly missed, especially landscaping! Disclosure: Jamie said her office is next door to 302 E. Hopkins and she will explain that to the applicant. 217 E.Bleeker— Conceptual, Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Demolition, Variances, cont'd public hearing. Amy said this property was created through a lot split and it is a 4,500 square foot lot with an historic structure on the site and a large tree on the property. There is a maximum floor area of 2,280 square feet that has been allocated to the property and the applicant is proposing to develop a house and they are asking for a 250 square foot bonus because of the historic out building and they are asking for some setback variances for the placement of that building. They are not asking for any variances for the house, only the historic structure. The design is different and staff finds that it is more in keeping with the design guidelines. It is a very simple cross gable design structure. They are proposing to move the historic out building and keep it as an out building along the alley and reorient it and pull all the new construction away from it so that it has high visibility on all sides. Staff is in support of the location. They are proposing to demolish a small non-historic shed that is in the middle of the property. They are asking for a 250 FAR bonus and staff feels the request is appropriate. We don't have very many out buildings left in town. Staff has concerns about some of the window and door changes proposed in the out building. They are asking for two setback variances. The shed is to be located one foot from the alley where ten feet is required and one foot from the east property line where five is required. They need a residential design variance due to the large tree. Staff recommends approval. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 Karen 'Cribs, owner Mark Hogan, architect Steve Walbeck, builder Karen said Mark has done work for her in Summit County. Karen said we want to make this project right for the HPC and one of the comments was that you wanted a model and we have one. The major concern from the last meeting was the massing and that the design was too big upstairs, to close to the historic resource next door and that there was too much patio. The bump out was removed and square footage was added to the basement and the patio was made smaller. The front entry was moved back. The porch has been raised to coincide with the historic house and the house across the street also has a raised porch. The front of the front porch is 19 feet behind the property line and the front of the house is about 27 feet behind the property line. Jamie said she is excited to see a client so involved. Karen said the house has become a lot more compact than before. The roofs have also been simplified and with the cross gable we will be able to install solar panels. We have lost about 75% of the original patio. There is a little bit of living space under the driveway and with the solar panels that will help with the snow melt. Karen said we are proposing masonry wainscoting along the bottom of the house about 18 inches and brown horizontal siding and some stucco for accents to give variety to the design. Jamie inquired about the trees. Karen said there are a couple of aspen trees we think we can save and the spruce. Jamie said she counted 7 trees that would be removed. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. Lee Gettman said he owns the property at 227E. Bleeker that enabled the lot split and we are happy to have Karen as a neighbor. The new design is great. The one thing we have an issue with is the side yard setback on the east side of the house. We have talked about doing something on the east side. If the setback is granted it would limit our expansion in the future and that is not acceptable. Regardless what we do that would devalue our property on a resale and would limit anyone in the future from doing 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 anything. We are already constrained on the east side by a transformer box. One foot isn't enough to maintain the building and it is far less than what the fire code requires. The location is arbitrary. We would like to see the five foot setback maintained and it is in line with the historical integrity. What really is being accommodated there is a second driveway. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Commissioner member comments: Jamie thanked the applicant and the fact that the concept has come a long way since we first looked at it. You definitely have heard what the commission said about their concerns. I am in favor of the demolition of the little shed. In regards to the setback variances I am concerned about the one foot off the neighboring property especially when the neighbor next door is opposed to that variance. There needs to be a little more planning in looking at the driveway location and where the historic resource is. Jamie asked about the windows on the historic out building. Amy said they are proposing some window changes and they are larger in proportion than the double hung's that were originally in the building. There are also a couple opportunities to restore openings that are not represented. With the FAR bonus typically we like to keep the historic house in the same location. Maybe it can be flipped. Keeping the doors and windows close to original as possible is important for the FAR bonus. The site relocation and setback variances need to be restudied. Jay said his issue is the setback and the shed. This project is so close. I have an issue with the five foot setback and the 250 FAR bonus. The restoration of the shed itself should not include any new openings and it should back to the original. There is an opportunity to move the historic out building to the west. The south side variance is OK and the residential design variance. It is on the alley where it should be. One foot away from the neighbor's property is difficult to approve. To offer the bonus we need to see the east side variance changed. Everything else is stellar. Ann said the design is much better and the one story relates to the historic shed. At final we should discuss the fenestration and whether or not stucco 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 is appropriate. The shed needs to be restored to the historic forms. Restudy the idea of moving it to the other side of the property. The east side setback needs looked at again. Brian said the design is much better and we appreciate the applicant bringing this forward. I echo the one foot setback concern from my fellow commissioners. There is also the issue of snow shedding which will shed into the neighbor's yard. I don't find that to be a very fair situation. Karen said she is trying hard to listen to what the board wants and you all said visibility. If we take the building and move it back in we lose the visibility from Bleeker Street. Brian said the commission needs to take into consideration by moving the side building out for visibility sake we are also doing it to accommodate more vehicle storage which is a tough sell for me. The bonus is reserved for exemplary project where we are actually preserving an outbuilding in its original location and not modifying it. In this case we aren't doing either of those to the greatest extent possible. Ann clarified that visibility meant from the alley not Bleeker but both are important. We have never verified where the original location was. Amy said we have verification where it was when it was up on the street front and then it was only moved once to where it is today. Ann said on the alley where it is currently is not the original location. Jay said it has been in its current location for 90 years but that wasn't the original site. Jay asked if there was a parking requirement on the site. Amy said they have to provide two parking spaces on-site. The applicant has indicated that the two parking spaces on-site are important. Jay said we can waive those. Amy said it wasn't noticed for the parking spaces. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 Jamie said if you move the shed how does that effect the house and the forms of the house, mass and scale. Mark said a compromise might be to have the setback from one foot to three feet. If we go with the five foot it complete removes the ability to do the garage. Brian said 9 feet is the standard width of a parking space. Jamie suggested looking at a tandem approach for the cars. I would really like the applicant to look at bringing that in five feet. If the neighbor would come in and say they want to build one foot you would have two feet between two buildings and snow piling up between them. Karen thought historic projects were entitled to some setback variances. Jamie said you are getting the design yard variance and rear yard setback. Jamie said if you were to leave the historic shed where it is current and not rotate it, I personally would look at granting the side and rear yard setback because you aren't moving it. Karen said regardless it has to be moved because it is encroaching at the moment. It can't stay exactly where it is. Amy agreed. Mark said they can work with the neighbors to increase slightly a side yard setback in exchange we would support a side yard setback for them in the future. Is that appropriate to work out something like that? Amy said you can't bind the commission. Jay said that doesn't necessarily work with our program. Amy asked the board if there is a side yard setback dimension that the board is comfortable with if it were two feet or three feet instead of the one proposed and that you would not have to see a restudy. Ann said she feels three feet would be acceptable, basically moving the shed up to the edge of the garage. That would be a four feet setback. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 Mark said there are inches here and there and we can probably live with a three foot setback and still make the current concept. Jay said by moving the building three feet is accomplishing one goal but then I'm further away from a 250 square foot bonus if that building is going to be hooked to the other building. Basically you are fighting for a garage. You are asking me to compromise my historic preservation guidelines for a bonus that you haven't achieved yet and on top of it use that bonus for a garage in your home. Moving it over one way will take away the bonus. There is not enough room around the house. This one thing is the hardest to figure out. MOTION: Ann moved to continue 217 E. Bleeker until Feb. 22nd in order to look at the location of the shed and the improvements to the restoration of the shed. Motion second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Jay said at the next meeting to also address the solar issue whether they are shingles or panels. Karen said it would be good to know what I need to accomplish. There is no point coming back with three feet if you are dead set against it. Ann said she heard from the board that five feet would be acceptable and anything else would be up for discussion again. 302 E. Hopkins Ave. — Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, On-Site Relocation, Special Review and Mountain View Plane Review, Public Hearing Jamie disclosed that her office is across the street and if you don't feel it is a conflict of interest I will stay. Sunny Vann stated that he feels there is no conflict of interest. Public notice - Exhibit I Amy stated that this is a 3,000 square foot lot in the very edge of the commercial core historic district. There is an existing house on the site which is probably one of the oldest buildings still standing in Aspen around 1883. It is in a carpenter gothic style. There are no other examples like this 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 in town. There have been minor alterations to it over the years. There is a one story piece of new construction in the back and some basement changes. It went back and forth from residential to commercial. The proposal is to turn it into a restaurant. The non-historic addition in the back will be removed and replaced with a masonry cube. The applicant would like to move the historic shed westward to align in the alley which will allow them to create some trash storage. Right now there is one legal parking space on the site and it will be displaced by the new construction so they are asking for a waiver of that plus the waiver of the small parking created by the new development so it is a total of 1.7 spaces. They are also asking to not pay the cash-in-lieu. Their trash storage is slightly undersized for the requirement. They are also in the main street view plane and they are well under that height. Staff finds that this is a good project and it should be given conceptual approval. The accessibility is needed up on the front porch and there is a challenge doing that without having hand rails. There is also a piece of ventilation equipment that has to sit on the back of the historic building and HPC needs to understand its location. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant. Brian Biel Matthias Lenz Sunny said this particular expansion is very limited and it generates less than four employees. If approved by the HPC the Planning Director will grant an administrative approval for the additional commercial square footage. The only area we are requesting to vary is the size of the trash area. We can justify that because the restaurant will not require a new transformer in the alley. Brian Biel said his company, Hillstone Restaurant Group is a family owned company. Wherever we find a city we are always trying to look for unique sites. The Shepherd house has authenticity as our company and we intend to do a quality restaurant. We have two restaurants in Denver, one the Cherry Creek grill, one in Napa Valley and one in the Hamptons. On the floor plan it is important to have the action of the kitchen visible to the guests. We want that as an integral part of the experience. Another aspect is the size of the addition and we have tried to make that as small as possible. It is about the size of a two car garage. From a business standpoint it is a very small restaurant. We chose a modern structure in order for the Shepherd house to stand on its own. The connector is one transparency in order for the 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 Shepherd house to stand on its own. The side entrance is glass in order to distinguish the two. We brought the storage shed forward. We chose brick for the contrast that it makes. We love the existing structure and we want to preserve it as best possible. The ventilation and exhaust plan needs to be near the food structure and we placed it as close as we could to the adjacent building. We want to push it as far away from Monarch as possible. Jamie asked about the height distances. Matthias said the addition is about 12 to 18 inches lower than the existing building. Aim asked about the distance between the house and the addition and if there is any use for that area. Matthias said it is two feet and will be accessible for maintenance. The connector is five feet wide. Jay said his concerns are the mass and scale of the small garage between two historic resources. This is on a prominent corner in town. I don't understand how it fits into our guidelines. Brian Biel said we did not want to design something that mimics the look that is there and we wanted a modern style. We want to make the addition as small as possible but a workable function. Jay asked staff if the shed was in its original location. Amy said it seems to match the one that is on the Sanborn maps. In the past it has been pointed out that renovations have occurred to the structure so I am not positive it is a 19th century building in its original location. Ann asked about the front entrance. Matthias said we want to keep the front of the house as the front entrance of the restaurant. We are proposing to adjust the grades with a gentle slope and we have been working with engineering and the building department. There would be grass on either side. It is not our intent to use railings. Amy said the downtown guidelines are not prepared for this handful of historic structures that we have. The Conner cabins have two story blocks set behind the miner's cottage. This proposal is about 1/4 of the allowed square footage. The Conner cabins were allowed to remove their sheds. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Niklaus Kuhn said he is the owner of 303E. Main, the Matsuhisa building. We had one parking space and two single garages. Over the years I had to give up the garages because every restaurant has more garbage than they really think they are generating. My concern is the garbage and it should be inside not spilling out into the alley. The second issue is the equipment on top of the roof. The only problem is my pent house living room window would look at the equipment so maybe it can be shielded. I think the restaurant will be great. Todd Clark, general manager of Matsuhisa. My only concern is that the alley is busy and we have had problems with bears. It would be very functional if the trash could be as tight as possible. The only other concern is the initial impact from the dust and keeping it as sanitary as possible. Tommy Tollessen, managing partner of Elevations This restaurant will be a good fit. This project will keep restaurant row busy and the only concern I have is the construction. It doesn't seem like anything will occur on the front and I lived through the construction on the other side. I'm here to educate myself what we are up for during construction. John Olson said the applicant runs a great product and good restaurant. We have good communications and this is a much easier project than the one on the other side. Bob Langley said he is working with the group and has worked with these guys for over 20 years. The amount of square footage that they are not developing should be noted. They want to do something that will respect the property and integrate themselves into the community. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public hearing. Ann thanked the neighbors and businesses commenting on the project. Ann asked for clarification on the trash and the staging area. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 Brian Biel thanked the neighbors for their comments and concerns. The trash can be enclosed and we are proposing a roll down door on the back. With the shed it backs up to a wall and possibly we can open up a portion of the trash room that faces the shed so it is not just pushed up against a wall. Sunny said the city requires a submission of a construction management plan as part of the building permit and it is far more sophisticated than in the past. As part of that I am guessing it will be on Monarch Street because most of the excavation is on the alley side. Brian Biel said regarding the trash we are a small restaurant with only 51 seats so we don't anticipate generating a lot of refuse. We would also have a daily trash pickup. Matthias said we can handle a four cubic yard trash container similar to our other restaurants. Brian said this project will be fantastic as it will energize Monarch Street. I'm struggling with the parking. Usually there is a trade off when we waive parking and we are already dealing with a designated property. Amy said since the 80's the city has offered benefits and incentives. We have always offered relief from the dimensional requirements. Sunny said what is being proposed is so substantially below what could be done on this site. I was involved when it went from residential to commercial use. I did the approvals for the shed and skylights. Most people have looked at this site with much more development as a solution. In this case we are under the height and we are 1/4 of the allowable floor area. It is so much less and the trade off to the public is you get a responsible solution on a very difficult site. They are requesting waivers that were granted with the approval that is currently in place for a much larger building and they waived the parking and they also reduced the size of the trash area. Brian said this is a good and viable project. My comments are pointed toward the relocation of the historic structure in the back. I'm not excited about lifting the shed up but I can see some benefits. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 Sunny said he feels this is a better solution because it gives a presence on the street itself and it allows more interest along that façade. It looks like a small infill between two structures which is basically the kitchen. Brian said overall the benefits out weight the negatives. Aim said the accessibility ramp looks good and it is a good solution. I am in favor of granting the parking waiver as I would rather see tables out on the sidewalk. The location of the building and the brick cube design works well. • The brick building is bookending the structure and it will all be along the sidewalk. We appreciate that you aren't building the lot out to the max. Jay said this is a great project and it can only get better. On the parking you have a residential unit in the building. The person in that building will probably have a vehicle and will park in that neighborhood. I am having a hard time giving you two spaces. If you change the program to commercial I wouldn't have a problem with the variance. On the grade changes this is difficult. The guidelines say the front door should be the front door. I don't think it is appropriate to change the grade and change the grass to a concrete aggregate. One more concern is the area around the shed. Maybe restudy the northwest corner of the new building to give a nod to the historic shed in the back. I do feel the five foot connector is successful. I also appreciate that this is much smaller than what the code allows. Jamie said she is in complete support of the design. The design accentuates the historic resource because you are doing something that is so monolithic that it will showcase the historic resource. I am OK with the trash and utility area as long as it is only reducing the size of the transformer which you represented. I am also in favor of the parking waivers. On the ramp I am in favor of it. At final I would like to see a landscape plan and what materials will be used and how the materials will work with all our different seasons. You talked about opening up the back wall of the trash area and we need to see how the snow is addressed at final. Ann said more study needs done on the two feet between the buildings because it will become a trash area. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #4 for 302 E. Hopkins. We are granting the parking waiver, the ramp as shown and the trash and utility area as shown. The minor setback is also OK. The landscape plan will be 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012 addressed at final. We talked about the historic shed and how the building surrounds it. Motion second by Jamie. Discussion: Amy said the one parking space on the site is not for the residential unit and there is no parking requirement downtown for residences. The parking generated is for commercial space. Ann said the parking spaces should be waived without the cash-in-lieu. Ann said they are giving up a lot of square footage and she wants to support this project and what they are proposing is going to be very successful and add to downtown. Jamie agreed not to pay the cash-in-lieu. Brian said asking for cash-in-lieu for a space isn't going to make it any less successful. Ann said we are talking about benefits for historic preservation and that would be one that we can waive the parking spaces without cash-in-lieu. They are not utilizing all the square footage they can. These buildings will be much more show cased. Jay asked what 1.7 spaces are worth. Sunny said around $60,000. Amy said the idea of the incentives is to incentivize people to do the things that you would most like to happen. They can put 1.7 spaces on the site and what that means is that the new construction will be two stories tall. Sunny said to incentivize a more sensitive solution to the site. I-IPC has historically waived parking requirements even on non historic projects. Roll call vote: Jamie yes, Brian, yes; Ann, yes; Jay, yes; Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Jamie moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. eadi - K.thleen J. `e ickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12